Draft Client Money Protection Schemes for Property Agents (Approval and Designation of Schemes) Regulations 2018 Draft Client Money Protection Schemes for Property Agents (Requirement to Belong to a Scheme etc.) Regulations 2018

Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and John Healey

Tuesday 12th June 2018 General Committees

[John Healey]

We do. I have been known to describe some parts of the private rented sector as the wild west, to pick up on her analogy. The draft regulations are narrow; they are a welcome but small step in a market that may leave the majority of renters satisfied at the moment, but that contains some significant rough or rogue practice. The measures will, in a small way, help to make the market fairer and better for landlords and tenants. One of the important secondary arguments in favour of these regulations is that they will clearly benefit landlords as well as tenants.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I want to reinforce the point just made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green. It is good news that the Government are bringing forward the draft regulations. They are overdue. Good agents in the industry are given a bad name by the cowboys out there, and these measures will reinforce the efforts of local authorities that introduce licensing schemes to tidy up the whole sector.

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right. He knows—although I do not wish to try your patience, Mr Gray—that I am a strong advocate of licensing schemes for landlords, but those are for landlords and the measure we are discussing is for regulated property agents.

The real question is to what extent the draft regulations will work. Will the regulations do the job, and will they work well enough? I have a number of questions for the Minister—[Interruption.] She sighs, but I am afraid that is her job, as it is my job and that of the Committee to ensure that regulations we may accept or approve are up to the job that she says she wants done.

The Minister said in her opening remarks that the draft regulations must provide robust and effective enforcement. On the question of enforcement, how was the figure of £5,000 as the maximum fine for failing to display the details of scheme membership decided, and is it sufficient? How was the figure of £30,000 as the maximum fine for failing to register in a scheme decided, and is it sufficient?

As I said to the hon. Member for Lichfield, the Government’s consultation document makes clear the scale of funds held by agents that are not their money but are held on behalf of landlords and renters in different ways—£2.7 billion. Set that alongside some of the big companies in the field, such as Foxtons, which expects lettings income in 2017-18 of about £66 million—Countrywide expects total earnings of 10 times more than that—and that puts into some perspective the question of maximum, not automatic, fines of £30,000 and £5,000. There are real questions about whether that will be sufficient sanction, or deterrent, for companies in the field. After all, two out of five of them could already be doing something through voluntary schemes, but are not doing so. Is the level of fine sufficient to do the robust, effective enforcement job that the Minister talks about?

The Minister may say that landlords can be fined, for example, for overcrowding their houses up to a similar maximum level, but landlords can also be banned from being landlords in the worst cases. Those worst rogues may be the cowboys talked about by my hon. Friends. Why is there no similar provision in these regulations, and what consideration did the Minister give to a similar—let us use what seems to be the term of the moment this week—backstop power? Finally on fines, why write the figure into the draft order? That clearly means that it is then fixed, unless and until the House decides to legislate again to alter, and perhaps necessarily to raise, those fees.

On enforcement, who will enforce the draft regulations? I encourage the Minister to turn to regulation 5(1) in the requirement regulations—in her terminology—which says:

“It is the duty of every local authority in England…to enforce the requirements of regulations”.

Paragraph 7.18 of the draft explanatory memorandum says:

“Local authorities will be responsible for enforcing these requirements.”

Which part of local authorities will do the enforcement? Will it be trading standards? That is my assumption, because the transparency provisions in place at present under the voluntary CMP schemes are enforced by trading standards. If that is the case, not every local authority has a trading standards department. As the Minister will know from representing South Derbyshire, which is a two-tier area, not every authority has the powers of a weights and measures authority. What will be the enforcement capacity and role of, for instance, district councils in two-tier areas?

On enforcement, I will mention the costs. I looked carefully at the draft impact assessment—I do not know if the Minister signed it off—but I could not see any estimate of costs to the local authorities responsible for enforcement. Will she tell the Committee how much the Department has calculated that this will cost the local authorities that have effective and robust enforcement? Clearly, the draft regulations contain a provision for local authorities to retain any fines levied. Has she calculated how much she expects local authorities to be able to levy through these provisions on a stable annual basis? Finally, has the Department applied the new burdens principle to this new duty of enforcement, which, if the draft regulations are written correctly, will apply to every local authority? That seems clearly appropriate to me.

Finally, the experience of implementation—particularly of important measures over the last eight years—has reinforced the case that the Government are often very bad at doubling back and assessing whether what they have done has actually worked. I encourage the Minister to give the Committee an undertaking that, say, 12 months after the draft regulations come into effect, she will review the way they are working and will report to the House, so that we can see whether the case she put to the Committee in support of the draft regulations has been realised and the regulations are working as intended.

Leasehold and Commonhold Reform

Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and John Healey

Thursday 21st December 2017 Westminster Hall

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

I was delighted that Sir David was in the Chair at the start of the debate—he has a particular personal interest in many of these issues because he chairs the all-party fire safety rescue group—but I was even more pleased to see him hand on the baton for the final lap to you, Mr Bone. We are all grateful to you.

This may be one of the final events this parliamentary term, but I have found it one of the most encouraging. The Government’s announcement is certainly welcome as far as it goes, but as the Minister has heard from every contribution, they need to go further. In many ways, I see the debate as a reflection of Parliament and Ministers coming to terms with the first minority Government for 38 years. I see it as a reflection of the Government recognising that they do not have a domestic policy programme, because it is not covered by their deal with the Democratic Unionist party. I also see it as a reflection of the Prime Minister admitting that policy and market failures in housing over the past seven years were a big part of why her party did so badly at the last election.

Importantly, the debate has shown that Parliament now has a bigger influence on Government decisions and policy than it did at the beginning of 1997—sorry, 1917. [Interruption.] Sorry—it really is getting too close to Christmas to make much sense. Parliament now has much greater influence over Government decisions and policy than it did at the beginning of this year, especially when there is cross-party concern or agreement about what needs to be done.

There are three factors behind the strength of the speeches we have heard and the strong momentum for substantial leasehold reform. The first is the all-party group on leasehold and commonhold reform. I cannot pay strong enough tribute to the combined work of the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). They were pursuing these issues when they were not popular issues and when the all-party group did not have 130 members, as it does now. It is one of the largest and most active groups in Parliament, as the hon. Gentleman said, and it is reinforced by outstanding individual campaigns, not least by my hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and for High Peak (Ruth George).

I like to think that Labour Front Benchers have done their bit, too, in the past couple of years. We went into the election in June with a commitment to legislate for a cap on the ground rent that leaseholders pay, to ban the use of leasehold for new homes as a matter of course, and to carry out an urgent review to try to ensure that we could deal with many of the problems for existing leaseholders that we have heard about. I say to my hon. Friends that, to some extent, this is unfinished business for Labour. We introduced the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 because we wanted to end leasehold for good and provide commonhold as an alternative. That did not work in that decade; we must ensure that it works in this decade.

The second factor is the fact that the industry has stepped up its use of leasehold for newly built homes. The Secretary of State says in his written statement that the proportion of new homes built on a leasehold basis has more than doubled in the past 20 years. He puts the figure at around one in six, although many experts—not least the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership—put it a great deal higher, and Members suggested that that is particularly the case in the north-west. In any event, the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership confirms that at least 260,000 new homes have been built on a leasehold basis since 2010.

The third factor is that greed has clearly got the better of many of the people involved in these arrangements. My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (David Hanson) said that he sometimes feels that this debate takes place in an echo chamber. We all have constituents who have been ripped off—fleeced—by such leasehold arrangements. In my area, there are regular reports about people who bought their homes on new developments using the solicitor that the builders put great pressure on them to use, who claim and feel that they never realised that they were buying on a leasehold basis, who were not made aware when the freehold was sold on, and who do not know who their ultimate landlord is or how to contact them. A change in the freeholder’s management company often leads to price hikes. People have been billed four times a year instead of twice, charged £9 for every letter, and charged an administration fee when they have rung up to ask for information or an analysis of the cost of purchasing the freehold.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Developers have rightly got a hammering this afternoon, but notwithstanding that, does my right hon. Friend accept that there are abuses in the social sector too? Some councils and housing associations used service charges and refurbishment charges as a blank cheque. The Government had to bring in a cap because that was getting out of control. It is not just the private sector that needs to be reformed; the social sector does too.

[John Healey]

That certainly applies in some cases and it is a good point, but it remains the case that the worst examples that have been cited in the debate resulted from big developers’ greed. For some developers, leasehold has become a golden cash cow. For many freeholders, it has become a licence to print money. We have found that freeholders have often moved offshore, beyond the reach of any tax system that the UK can bring to bear.

The sale of homes on a leasehold basis may well have started in the north-west, as the hon. Member for Worthing West indicated, but it is clear that the practice has spread widely across the country. Members from the north-west are strongly represented in the Chamber, but we have also heard from Members from the south-east, the south-west, Yorkshire, London, the north-east, the east midlands and even north Wales. [Interruption.] North Wales rather than the north-west, despite the proximity of the national boundary.

As I said, the Secretary of State’s statement is welcome as far as it goes, but I would like to tempt the Minister to go a little further. The Secretary of State published a summary of consultation responses alongside his press release and written statement, but we have not yet had the Government’s policy response to the consultation. When can we expect that? He plans to introduce

“legislation to prohibit the development of new build leasehold houses”.

When will we get that? He plans to restrict the

“ground rents in newly established leases of houses and flats to a peppercorn”

level. How will he do that, and when? He talks about

“addressing loopholes in the law to improve transparency and fairness”.

What loopholes, and when?

The Secretary of State is also asking big developers to stop using Help to Buy to purchase leasehold homes and encouraging them

“to take early steps to limit ground rents”

and to provide a redress scheme for people who are badly affected. What commitment has he got from the big developers to taking those steps, and when will other big developers follow the lead that Taylor Wimpey took on many of these fronts in the summer? As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse said, the key point is that 5 million current leaseholders will not be covered by future legislation, so what specifically does the Minister plan to do to help those who are trapped in legal leasehold terms, which range from unfair to a total rip-off?

It is a rotten system, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said. The written ministerial statement says that the Government will be working with the Law Commission on existing leaseholders. Although I welcome last week’s announcement by the Law Commission that the unfair terms of residential leasehold will be one of its areas of review, it is one among 14, in what is the 13th programme of law reform. To quote what the commission said in announcing it:

“This is a substantial body of law reform work on which the Commission hopes to start work over the next three years…As such, inclusion in the 13th Programme is not a guarantee that the Commission will be able to take forward work immediately across all areas.”

Will the Government help to fund the work that the Law Commission needs to do? Will they, with the Law Commission, be early in setting a firm timetable for the work to be completed? My fear is that we will not see legislation via this route this side of a general election.

I cannot let the debate pass without making some observations on the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Poplar and Limehouse, for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) and for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) about concerns in this area post the terrible tragedy of Grenfell Tower. The consequences of Grenfell for residents and owners in other high-rise residential tower blocks are becoming clearer, and the wider weaknesses in the leasehold system are thrown into sharp and urgent relief by the challenges that come from Grenfell: the immediate fire safety measures that need to be put in place, the substantial remedial work required in many cases, and the question of who really is responsible and who really should be paying for that.

There is also the question of whether some freeholders will abuse or misuse the first-tier tribunal system to try to proof themselves against any challenge for passing on these very heavy costs to leaseholders. There is a concern among some social landlords that such practices will be followed and certainly a concern about privately-owned residential blocks.

The Grenfell Tower fire was a national disaster. People expect national leadership and a national response from Government. It exposed—we had only really had warnings from coroners’ reports on earlier fatal fires—the complete collapse of the national system of building control and regulation. Therefore, the national Government must take some responsibility by putting in place measures immediately to ensure that it does not happen again.

If the Government were willing, for instance, to reconsider their point-blank refusal to help fund some of the costs that social landlords face in completing essential remedial fire safety work, they could make it a condition of any funding help they give that leaseholders are protected from bearing any of that cost. They could consider, for instance, a Government-backed loans scheme for private landlords who genuinely struggle to cover the costs themselves. The Government could also consider a similar condition that might help to address the concerns the Minister has heard from some of my hon. Friends about the position of leaseholders in private high-rise blocks. In any case, I ask the Minister to reflect carefully on the points that have emerged in the debate, linked to the work required after Grenfell Tower, and early in the new year to make a clear statement on what the Government will do to try to deal with the concerns for leaseholders with both private landlords and social landlords.

I end where the hon. Member for Worthing West ended. He rightly said that, together, the Government, Parliament and outside experts can at this point make some really important changes for the good, for the future. He made a particular proposal to the Minister, which I think has backing from everyone in the Chamber. Will the Minister undertake to consider having a debate on these concerns in Government time in the Chamber in the new year? As the hon. Gentleman said, that would be a very useful next step, especially if it were not left until the last day of the parliamentary term, just before Easter.

Transport and Local Infrastructure

Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and John Healey

Thursday 19th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

What an extraordinary waste of time! I counted 42 announcements in the Queen’s Speech and only four had not been announced before yesterday. This is a Queen’s Speech that risks being a waste of the Queen’s time, the people’s time and Parliament’s time. I cannot recall in 19 years in this House seeing a Queen’s Speech debate in which the speeches from the Government Back Benches numbered two and ran out before we got a third of the way into the debate, and those Benches were entirely empty for the rest of the debate.

Headline measures in legislation for this year are little more than a middle manager’s task list for the next month: more control over budgets for prison governors; stop radical preachers from taking jobs in elderly care homes; longer school days; more NHS charging for non-EU citizens; money for school sport from a levy on fizzy drinks. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker! This is the “So what?” Queen’s Speech—minimal, managerial, marking time; minor policy changes hugely overblown and hugely over-briefed to the Minister.

What was not a waste of time was the speech from the shadow Transport Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), and many of the speeches made this afternoon by hon. Members on both sides. My hon. Friend warned the Secretary of State for Transport, who is again not in his place on the Treasury Bench, about the gap between what this Government do and what this Government say. She welcomed the buses Bill, which has received wide support in the House this afternoon, including from the hon. Member for Bath (Ben Howlett), my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—who also referred to this as the sci-fi Queen’s Speech.

My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) also talked about how valuable the buses Bill is, and I think the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg), who is no longer here, might have said that, too. Although they welcomed the Bill, my hon. Friends the Member for Nottingham South and for Denton and Reddish both questioned why it was only for areas with elected mayors. We want other mayors to get the same powers in the same way as the Bill goes through this House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South took the Government to task for the lack of response to the Law Commission’s report and the lack of a taxi licensing Bill. We want the system to be tightened up so that drivers who are rightly and properly rejected for a licence in their own area cannot sidestep the bar by getting a licence in another area. Above all, my hon. Friend took the Secretary of State to task for the continuing delay regarding any decision on airport expansion, particularly on the runway at Heathrow.

My hon. Friend was strongly backed by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), with the authority that she brings as the Chair of the Transport Committee, by the hon. Members for Bath, for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) and for Strangford, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), who said that the big absence from the Queen’s Speech was any announcement on airports and on Heathrow. He described such an announcement as long overdue and rightly reminded the Government of all the groundwork done by the Labour Government—a White Paper on aviation in 2003 and the decision in 2008 on the expansion of Heathrow, but nothing since.

My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse went on to talk about housing and the damage that the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which has just reached the statute book, will bring—

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[John Healey]

Let me finish my comments on my hon. Friend’s speech, then I will give way to him.

My hon. Friend went on to speak about leasehold reform. He is one of the champions of leasehold reform in the House. I was glad to hear that the Minister for Housing and Planning is now taking an interest. For too long, under Governments of both parties, leasehold reform has been put in the “too difficult to do” box. To the extent that the Minister is willing to act on leasehold reform, we are willing to support him where we can.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Because of time constraints, I was not able to point out our belief that the Government’s housing record is not very good. Notwithstanding the claim that they have a better house building record than we had when we were in power, they are taking credit for things that we paid for and put in the planning process before they even came to office.

[John Healey]

It will not surprise my hon. Friend to know that I will come on to that. He is right. We sometimes hear the Government say that they have built more social homes than we did, but 90% of the social homes built by this Government were commissioned by the Labour Government and largely funded by the Labour Government. I should know—I was the Minister who did it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) made a strong case for lower tolls on the Humber bridge. Existing tolls, she said, were a barrier not just to work and to trade, but to leisure. I am pleased to see the Secretary of State for Transport on the Front Bench. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby asked whether he would be prepared to meet her and other MPs from the area to discuss how the barriers that transport creates—especially barriers to leisure for young and older people, as well as to their work and trade—could be overcome. The Secretary of State is nodding, which is a good sign. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend that that meeting will go ahead shortly.

One thing that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish always brings to debate is passion and principle. I love the way he speaks. He rightly said that intentions were well and good, but it is on actions that people will judge this Government. It is fine to talk of social justice, increased life chances and reducing inequality, but we look to the actions for proof that the Government mean what they say and do as they say. As my hon. Friend said, when we look at the scrapping of the education maintenance allowance, the introduction of the bedroom tax, and the cutting of benefit support to disabled people and to people working hard on low incomes, all the signs from the past six years point in the opposite direction.

My hon. Friend described this Queen’s Speech as a missed opportunity. I thought he made an interesting argument, which he could perhaps take up with the Procedure Committee, about whether, as one of the consistent systematic checks that this House applies to any new legislation, we could assess its impact on national health and wellbeing.

Over the years that I have known her there has been no more consistent, forceful or better champion of older people than my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley). She gave the House the extraordinary statistic that one in three carers now has to wait six months to get an assessment of their needs, never mind get those needs met. As she rightly said, the £4.6 billion cuts to adult social care since 2010 are a big part of that story, and there is nothing in this Queen’s Speech to reassure people concerned about this that the essential funding is in place. She also noted that there is no pensions Bill to deal with the problems of the 2.6 million older women who have been hit so hard by the recent pension changes.

The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin), who has left the Chamber, argued that it might be helpful to adopt the Scottish model—or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South pointed out, the London model—for concessionary travel.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) rightly reminded the House that business demands better infrastructure. A city as big as Bradford, as rich in business history and business innovation, as it now is, is being badly let down by the quality of the investment and transport infrastructure to support it. As she said, grand rhetoric is what we get from Government while real change, real investment and real improvement falls so far short of that, and people in her city, businesses and residents alike, will find little comfort in the Queen’s Speech announcements.

I liked the argument that my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) made when he reminded the House and Ministers that we require intellectual infrastructure as well as hard building and capital projects. He urged a training and certification programme for, for instance, engineers involved in the development of electric vehicles and in the electric infrastructure to support those vehicles. He expressed a fear shared by me and many colleagues in Yorkshire and Humber that HS2 will simply mean faster rail journeys between London and Birmingham, and the north-west will be left out. The Secretary of State said nothing to reassure the House about the plans or promises on HS2 being delivered in full.

The Secretary of State talked about UK infrastructure and, with a flourish, picked two dates, he said, at random—1997 and 2010. In 2010, Labour’s last year in government, public sector net investment—or infrastructure investment from Government—was 3.4% of GDP. One year later, in the first year of the previous Parliament, after the Chancellor made his cuts, it was down to 2.8%. By the end of that Parliament, it was 1.9% of GDP. This year, it is 1.9%. By the end of this Parliament, it will be 1.5%. That is the reality between the great rhetoric that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South talked about and the actions, investment and long-term commitments we see from this Government. Housing investment—part of the picture—was slashed by 60% in 2010, the first year of the previous Government. In the same year, roads investment was slashed by £4 billion. The renewables obligation—Labour’s renewables obligation, which was creating the funding to invest in green energy—was removed entirely. That is the reality of what happens when the Government do, rather than talk about, infrastructure.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) spoke about why this sort of investment is so important—why it is more than simply figures and argy-bargy in this House. He talked about Hitachi in his constituency, and the huge number of jobs and a big boost to growth in that region because of the investment in our rail system and in the rolling stock required to upgrade it.

It is that sort of impact, on all parts of the country, that makes infrastructure investment more than simply a matter of political and policy debate. It has a real impact when we get it right in areas all across the country. Instead of that investment in Britain’s future, the Chancellor and Conservative Ministers have, from 2010 onwards, cut investment that would secure our place in the world, stronger long-term growth and the future welfare of our citizens.

The Transport Secretary told us at the beginning of the debate—I have checked this—that yesterday’s Queen’s Speech was “all about building a stronger, more resilient, more modern economy”. I have to say, however, that after six years of failure, it is clear that the Government are doing no such thing. It is clear that the Chancellor did not fix our economic foundations after the global crash. Any right wing, hard-line Finance Minister can cut public spending, but he is dodging the really tough decisions that he himself promised to take in 2010.

Rather than helping British businesses to sell to the world, our UK trade gap was a record £96 billion in the red last year, which is the biggest ever deficit since records began in 1948. Rather than reforming the finance sector and rebuilding our production base, the number of manufacturing jobs in this country is still almost 10% below that before the global crisis and crash. Rather than rebalancing the economy away from borrowing, debt and household consumption, it is now forecast that household debt will top pre-crash levels and reach 160% of income by the end of this Parliament.

The six years of failure on the economy will be unaffected by many of the measures in the Queen’s Speech. There have also been six years of failure on housing. After 2 million more homes were built and 1 million more households became homeowners under Labour, we have seen failure on all fronts since 2010. When this Queen’s Speech needed direction on housing and planning, we got more of the same.

The effects of six years of failure include 200,000 fewer homeowners in this country. A third of a million fewer under-35s—young people—are able to own their own home than when the Prime Minister took over in 2010. The number of families accepted as homeless has risen by a third in the past six years. Rough sleeping has doubled and is up by a third in the past year alone. Last year, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse said, fewer affordable homes were built than at any time in more than two decades, and the housing benefit bill rose by £2 billion in real terms over the course of the last Parliament.

My hon. Friend the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee took the Housing and Planning Minister to task over his target of 1 million homes. He made the strong argument—this was echoed by the hon. Member for Strangford—that social housing, new social housing and affordable housing to rent as well as to buy must be part of the picture. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown)—he is not in the Chamber, so I will not mention him again—made a similar point.

Yesterday the sovereign said in the other place:

“My Government will support aspiration and promote home ownership through its commitment to build a million new homes.”

The Housing and Planning Minister sometimes plays fast and loose with the figures. It is not possible to house people in planning permissions or to live in a start. It is building new homes that counts, and if he is to build 1 million new homes in this Parliament, he will have to do a great deal better than what we have seen over the past six years.

There were fewer new homes built in the last Parliament than under any peacetime Government since the 1920s. Even in the latest full year, 2015, the number of new homes built was still far below where it needs to be—a total of just 143,000. By the way, that is still 24% below the peak during Labour’s 13 years in office. Because growth in new house building has been so sluggish under this Government—astonishingly, it has been only 2% on average since 2010—if they do not improve that run rate, they will not hit their target until 2033.

Some of the best policies are bigger than party politics and capable of commanding a broad consensus, such as Bank of England independence, the national planning Act for major infrastructure projects and the localisation of council housing finance. Under the neighbourhood planning and infrastructure Bill, there is a welcome commitment to put the National Infrastructure Commission on a statutory footing. Like the commission itself, that was a recommendation made in Labour’s Armitt review in the previous Parliament, so we are pleased that the Government have taken it up. We look forward to seeing what further compulsory purchase powers the Government introduce in that Bill. Labour’s Lyons review in the previous Parliament recommended updating legislation on compulsory purchase orders to streamline and simplify the relevant powers and to enable CPOs to be secured at closer to existing use value. I hope that those suggestions will be in the Bill, because they will be among the tests that we use in considering it.

We will, however, oppose the privatisation of the public Land Registry, which will undermine the trust of homeowners, mortgage lenders and solicitors, and put at risk the essential neutrality, quality and transparency that the Land Registry offers. It will be a gift to tax evaders and avoiders. I remind the House that the Land Registry returned a profit of £100 million to the taxpayer in 2012-13 and has delivered a surplus to the taxpayer and the Treasury in 19 of the past 20 years. It is a public asset that makes money for the public purse, and we should keep it that way.

The deeper truth about this Queen’s Speech is a Conservative party riven over Europe and too divided to prepare a serious legislative programme that even tries to get to grips with the country’s problems. It is a Queen’s Speech for a quiet life in No. 10 Downing Street. It confirms a Prime Minister past his sell-by date. As the former Work and Pensions Secretary said when he walked out of the Government, policies are

“distinctly political rather than in the national economic interest.”

This is a Government who worry more about political message than policy substance, and who are more concerned to fix headlines than the housing crisis, the elderly care crisis, the crisis in wages for working people, or the crisis of low investment, productivity, skills and exports. Never mind one nation; this is a Government and a Queen’s Speech that are failing the nation.