Lord Kerslake
Main Page: Lord Kerslake (Crossbench - Life peer)Housing and Planning Bill
Lord Kerslake Excerpts
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Motion A. First, I thank the Minister for the series of concessions that relate to rural areas, some of which are subject to further negotiations, always knowing that there is an affirmative resolution required, giving this House a chance to do some more work if we do not reach agreement in the discussions that will follow. I am very grateful for a number of concessions that relate to starter homes and rural areas.
I moved the amendment about repayment of discounts for starter homes, which was agreed by a very large majority on Report and has subsequently been rejected by the other place. My concern was that, to cover the cost of discounts for those purchasing starter homes, funding was to be taken from the housing programmes for those on lower incomes for whom affordable renting was the only option. The Government estimate that starter homes 20% discounts will cost on average around £43,000 each. They want to see 200,000 of these homes sold by the end of this Parliament, so the total cost of the discounts will be some £8.6 billion. Since starter homes represent a manifesto commitment, the Lords amendment did not attempt to undermine the Government’s policy but instead to require a proportion of the 20% discount, on a diminishing taper, to be repaid when the lucky buyer sells their starter home. The amendment passed by your Lordships would require a simple repayment of the discount, reduced by one-20th for each year of occupation. So if a first-time buyer stayed there for 20 years, the discount—£43,000 on average—would be retained in full, but if they left after 10 years they would repay half the discount, or £21,500 on average. If they moved after five years, as might be quite typical, they would repay a sum equivalent to three-quarters of the discount—£32,000. My point was that, after giving the first-time buyer a leg up when they sold, a worth-while proportion of the cash would be repaid and available for recycling into genuinely affordable housing.
The Government’s original proposal was an all-or-nothing arrangement whereby the buyer had to repay 100% of the discount if they left within five years but could keep 100% of it if they sold after five years. This could represent a significant windfall for the buyer. In London, for example, discounts could be worth as much as £110,000, contributed by the taxpayer in respect of the buyer’s means. Ministers have been persuaded that this cliff-edge would not work. It would probably mean that the vast majority of buyers would stay for five years and then sell to maximise their gains, creating big distortions in the market. So the principle was accepted during the Lords stages of the Bill that a taper should be introduced to spread the benefits of the discount more gradually over a number of years.
Under the Government’s original scheme, the next buyer would then acquire the home with a tapered discount, which the Government’s consultation paper suggested would be over eight years. So the first-time buyer who left after eight years would keep all the discount, but if they sold after four years the next buyer would get half the discount—that is, they would purchase with a 10% discount. If they left after six years, the discount for the next buyer would be 5%, and so on. A bureaucratic process would have to be put in place to value the property at each subsequent sale and ensure that it was at the correct reduced discount, to ensure that the new purchaser was another first-time buyer under the age of 40, and so on. All this seemed very cumbersome and meant that money from the original discount would never be repaid or returned.
I am grateful to the Minister in the other place, Brandon Lewis, for listening patiently to the arguments against these arrangements and accepting the merits of the alternative concepts embodied in our earlier amendment. He has proved willing to place the taper approach in the Bill and to commit to a system for repayment of the discount so that the funds—hard cash—can be recycled for new affordable housing. Whether the tapering runs in equal instalments over eight years or over a longer period—perhaps even over 20 years, as in the earlier amendment agreed by your Lordships—remains for further negotiation, but the principles here seem to be agreed.
With a taper, and with funds going back into the affordable housing pot, either via the local authority or through the Homes and Communities Agency and the Greater London Authority, there should be a recycling of a serious proportion of the £8.6 billion to be spent on starter homes discounts. If first-time buyers tend to move after an average of five years, and if Ministers are agreeable to the taper being for 10 years, then half the money should come back into affordable housing provision under the new deal. That means restoring £4.3 billion to the affordable housing project. So with appreciation to the Ministers concerned, I for one am very willing to accept the amendments in lieu of the Lords amendment. I look forward to working with Ministers on the details in the negotiations, and I believe that we have much improved the process.
Lord Kerslake (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Motion B1. In doing so, I declare my interests as chair of Peabody and president of the Local Government Association.
I welcome the Government’s movement on the taper, which I believe to be an entirely sensible way to reframe the starter homes product. However, there remains an outstanding issue that needs to be addressed, and I hope the Government will listen again and make changes. The amendment before us does not seek to insist on Amendments 9 and 10, which have previously been considered, but instead adds an additional clause to the Government’s own Amendment 10A. This gives the local authority the opportunity, if it can demonstrate a need, to meet part or all of the so-called starter homes requirement through alternative forms of affordable home ownership. It will do so within the general duty set out in the Bill to promote starter homes as part of its planning functions. This does not go as far as my previous amendment, which gave complete flexibility to local authorities across both affordable home ownership and affordable rents in making their planning decisions. In a genuinely localist world, this remains the right approach. However, in keeping with the spirit that this House does not simply seek to reverse the decisions of the other place at this stage of the Bill, I have proposed an alternative, more restricted amendment, and I shall briefly outline my reasons for doing so.
First, the Bill gives the Secretary of State quite unprecedented power: namely, to prevent a local authority granting permission on an individual planning permission unless that planning application contains a specified proportion of a particular type of housing—starter homes. This is a degree of centralist imposition that has never before been contemplated and its consequences are completely unknown. Moreover, we are imposing a product that is entirely new and indeed, as we have just heard, is still being designed. Not one starter home has yet been sold. It has gone from being an interesting and positive prototype to the main type of provision of sub-market housing without going through any of the essential stages of product development in between. Allowing alternative types of affordable home ownership products, such as shared ownership and rent to buy, within the starter homes requirement would provide vital local flexibility while we learn how the starter homes product works.
My second reason is that, as a result of the starter homes requirement, other forms of affordable housing will be squeezed out of Section 106 planning agreements. There will be far less opportunity to include social or affordable rented housing as part of the planning approval. This will, in turn, reduce the supply of such properties at a time when they are desperately needed, especially as affordable housing grant will largely cease from 2018. To be clear, the issue with starter homes has never been about providing a new offer to young first-time buyers; it has been that we should not do so at the expense of those on lower incomes who are in even greater need. We do not know precisely what the impact of the Government’s proposals will be. However, the draft regulations, which have just been referred to, propose a figure of 20% starter homes in each application.
On the Government’s own assessment, the average cash value of affordable housing in planning agreements is 22%. It does not take a great mathematician to see that, even if the average cost of starter homes is less than that for other types of affordable housing, there will be little or no remaining flexibility left for local authorities. The starter homes requirement will consume almost all the available value. I have no doubt that starter homes will work well in some parts of the country; I am equally clear that in other areas they may not. In London, we know that Shelter has calculated that it will be possible to buy a starter home only with an income of £77,000 and a deposit of £97,000. At best, this applies to no more than 20% of those in London who currently rent. In other higher-value areas, such as the south-east, Shelter has calculated that more than half of those currently renting will be unable to take advantage without parental help. This disparity is why many local authorities are saying to me—and, I suspect, to the Government—that they must have the flexibility to do local deals and develop the low-cost home ownership products that meet their local needs. One size does not fit all, yet this is what the Government are seeking to impose. The amendment would provide local authorities with a greater ability to get the mix right in their area.
My third and final reason is that giving greater local flexibility will work better to deliver what should be our overriding ambition—to build more housing of all types and tenures. It will give a much greater incentive to local authorities to approve planning applications quickly if they can secure the type of affordable housing that they believe will generally meet the needs of their local area. There would be less dependency on straight market sale and more scope to adjust the mix if market conditions should change.
Lord Kerslake
Moved by
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 10B as an amendment to Amendment 10A—
Lord Kerslake
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the debate and I am grateful for the contributions this afternoon. I believe that this amendment does not in any sense challenge the Government’s manifesto commitment but provides the necessary local flexibility for alternative low-cost home ownership. In many ways it will help with the delivery of the Government’s agenda. In these circumstances, regretfully, I will test the opinion of the House.
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, your Lordships’ Amendments 37 and 184 taken together would make the Secretary of State’s determination in respect of vacant high-value housing be introduced by regulations that are subject to the affirmative procedure for matters of principle and the negative procedure for matters relating to a single authority. I do not accept the Minister’s argument that a determination has to be, as it were, a single operation. I believe that it is technically possible to separate the issues and apply a different procedure to each one. Without these amendments, Ministers would have absolute freedom to make decisions in this area subject only to judicial review, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead pointed out on Report.
This is an issue of the level of parliamentary control. Your Lordships wish to see that level raised. It appears that the House of Commons did not. However, I welcome Amendment 184A, which would make the definition of higher-value housing subject to affirmative regulations although, as I said on Report, this is slightly less than half the loaf. I was for a while slightly puzzled by the fact that Amendment 37, relating to the level of parliamentary control, should be designated as one attracting financial privilege. I thought, on reflection, that the judgment must have been made that a delay in achieving the end would mean a delay in receipts and so I accept that judgment. Not least because we have been given the privilege reason, I do not think that on Amendments 37 and 184A there is a case for asking the Commons to think again twice.
Lord Kerslake
My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of Motion D1, in my name. These amendments take on board the debate that we had about the perceived restrictive nature of the previous amendments and are changed in some important and significant ways. The first part of the Motion, Amendment 47B, is new and simply confirms that, where a local authority enters into an agreement with the Secretary of State on the one-for-one replacement of a vacant council property that has been sold off, it will be able to retain the funding needed to build a new affordable home. An affordable home would, under the Government’s definition, encompass social rented, affordable rented, shared ownership and, indeed, starter homes. It would be for the local authority to decide whether it wished to enter into an agreement with the Secretary of State and, under this amendment, for the Secretary of State to agree whether they wish to do this—no restriction on either side. If it does so, the local authority will be required to replace one property sold with one new one, which was a welcome addition during the debate on the Bill. However, it will also be for the local authority to consider whether the new affordable property is for rent or for sale, based on the assessment of local needs. The amendment puts beyond doubt in the Bill that the local authority will be able to retain the funding required to deliver this replacement. As such, it is entirely consistent with the Government’s manifesto and I hope, therefore, that the Minister can readily accept it.
Amendment 47C builds on this issue and seeks to put beyond doubt that, where a local authority can make the case—this is in addition to the Secretary of State—on the basis of its particular needs, it will specifically be able to fund the provision of the new dwelling as social housing on a like-for-like basis. Again, the choice is there for the local authority to make its case to the Secretary of State and it is for the Secretary of State to take a view on that case. If they both conclude that there is already sufficient social rented housing in the area, the local authority can choose to build affordable housing for sale or affordable rented housing at a higher level of rent. However, if they conclude that they want to replace with a social rented property, the local authority can make the case on the grounds of its particular need and this amendment will give it the opportunity to do so.
Why is this amendment needed? First, because the other routes to deliver social rented and affordable rented housing will be severely curtailed by other actions that the Government propose taking, both under this Bill and outside it. The new starter homes requirement that we have just discussed will squeeze new social rented housing out of Section 106 planning agreements. Grant funding for new affordable rented properties by the Homes and Communities Agency will almost entirely cease after the current affordable housing programme ends in 2018. The reduction of rents by 1% per annum over the next four years will make it much harder for housing associations and local authorities to deliver viable schemes with social rented housing in them. Taken together, these changes present a formidable challenge to the continued delivery of affordable and social rented housing. Therefore, the ability to replace the forced sale of vacant council houses represents one of the few routes that will be available to secure new social rented supply.
My second reason for these amendments is to provide some protection for local government against the huge unresolved issues in this policy. Since Third Reading, the Public Accounts Committee has published its report on the extension of right to buy. It makes for sobering reading, to say the least. I will quote a small part of it:
“Despite the implications and complexity of this policy, the Department has not published a detailed impact assessment to inform Parliament’s consideration of its legislative proposals. Many key policy details have not been clarified, with the Department offering only vague assurances as to how this policy will be funded, without producing any figures to demonstrate that additional funding from central or local government will not be required”.
It is worth noting in this context that Shelter has issued research today which suggests that local authorities will need to sell off some 23,500 properties a year— 30% of their vacant stock—if they are to deliver the level of receipts set out in the Conservative Party manifesto. Given the potential scale of the impact and the verdict of the Public Accounts Committee, it is not unreasonable to look to provide some protection for local authorities in the Bill. The risk otherwise is that proper replacement will be the first thing to go.
My third and final reason for these amendments is the desperate need for more housing for those on low incomes. In some low-demand areas, social rents are little different from market rents, but in other areas, particularly London and the south-east, the problems are acute. Average market rents in London are now some £1,400 per month, or £16,800 per year, making it pretty tough for the median earner in London on a salary of £30,000. They are completely beyond the range of those on lower incomes. Rents for social housing are typically one-third of that level, making it accessible to ordinary people. But we are simply not building enough new social rented housing, and just one consequence of that is that some 3,400 families with children in London are living in temporary accommodation. This is a scandal and something that all political parties are committed to ending. The forced sale of higher-value properties—typically bigger family properties—in the highest demand areas without proper like-for-like replacement will make these problems even greater.
I have gone through these issues at length to emphasise just how much is at stake and why these amendments are so important. They confirm the funding of one-for-one replacement and provide the opportunity to deliver new like-for-like social housing where a local authority wishes and where it can make a persuasive case to the Secretary of State on grounds of need. These are not restrictive amendments, they are enabling amendments to address a very serious issue. I hope the Government will recognise this issue and that noble Lords will support Motion D1 when we come to vote on it.
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak against Motion D1. Again, that is very difficult to do given that the sentiment that is supposed to be behind it is something I am trying to support, but it is written in a way that I cannot. I refer noble Lords to my interests in the register, which have not changed since I last referred to them.
I seek the Minister’s confirmation that the Government intend to stick to their manifesto commitment. To avoid any doubts about what the manifesto commitment was, this time I am going to read it, because nobody else has referred to it, just to make sure that we are all talking about the same thing. The intention behind it was that we would retain sufficient high-value asset sale receipts to replace the units sold. That was confirmed by the Prime Minister, who said:
“As the most expensive council properties fall vacant, we are going to require councils to sell them off ”,
which is fine as stock management,
“and we’ll replace them with new affordable housing in the same area”.
That should deal with it being affordable, which just leaves us with the argument about what “affordable” is.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, the form of Motion C is slightly puzzling as compared with the previous Motion put to the House, where it was suggested that:
“If a local authority so wishes, and can demonstrate a need for other kinds of low cost … ownership”,
and so on. There was no reference to anybody having to be satisfied or to whom the demonstration was to be made, whereas the second amendment proposed on this occasion would require that demonstration to be to “the Secretary of State”. It does not say to what extent or with what satisfaction, or anything like that. I do not know what difference there is between this Motion and the words used in Motion B1, which has just been accepted.
The main point I want to make is that the House of Commons has rejected the proposal from here for interfering with the financial arrangements that it has made. We are all aware of the fact that it is the House of Commons which is responsible for the financial arrangements. Those of your Lordships who have been here a little time will know that I have suffered somewhat strongly from this form of answer to an amendment which was passed here with a large majority some years ago, so this is not something which I am particularly keen on having. On the other hand it is some restriction on the powers of this House, which we must respect and understand.
The House of Commons has the right to make these financial arrangements. It is responsible and elected. If its financial arrangements are not satisfactory to people, then in due course they may have a chance to voice that at the polling booth. In the mean time, in my submission to your Lordships, it would be quite wrong for us to seek to overturn the financial arrangements made by the House of Commons. No doubt the House of Commons has considered this matter and I have no reason to suppose that it would be altered on a return there. The situation seems to be that if this Motion were passed, we would be seeking to defy the financial control of the House of Commons.
Lord Kerslake
My Lords, perhaps I may just say a few words on that point. The amendment before you today differs in some significant aspects, which I believe do not cut across the financial prerogative of the House of Commons. In the first instance, it makes it clear that any agreement has to have the agreement of the Secretary of State. That is the additional point that the noble Lord, Lord Porter, objected to, but it makes it quite clear that both parties have to agree to this before money can be retained.
In the second leg of my amendment to the Motion, there has to be a “particular need” and it has to be demonstrated to the Secretary of State. Again, the Secretary of State has the ability—
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but the rules of Report apply at this moment and I think the noble Lord is going a little far.
Lord Kerslake
My apologies. I was simply trying to explain why I do not believe that this amendment cuts across the financial prerogative.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will just briefly add to what my noble friends have said. In the first instance, it is always important to remember that when the Commons sends us its reasons for disagreeing with your Lordships on an amendment, and financial privilege is invoked, as I understand it they are obliged not to add any other reason. That does not mean there is no other reason; it just means they are obliged only to state financial privilege. In truth, I think there were other reasons. Not only is financial privilege involved; there is a strong sense that the original amendment which was sent to the Commons, Amendment 47, considerably fettered the Secretary of State’s discretion in relation to the nature of the agreement that the Secretary of State would enter into with local authorities in terms of reducing the payment to support the replacement of the high-value housing sold with new affordable homes.
What I find very strange now is that what is being suggested to your Lordships in the first limb—that there must be “a new affordable home”—seems to add absolutely nothing new to what was sent to the other place from this House and has already been accepted in Amendment 44. Your Lordships will recall what Amendment 44 said about the agreement with the Secretary of State:
“Where the agreement is with a local housing authority outside Greater London, it must include terms and conditions requiring the authority to ensure that at least one new affordable home is provided for each old dwelling”.
That is therefore already accepted and established, so it seems to me that the first limb of the amendment to the Motion—Amendment 47B—is redundant, as its provisions are already incorporated.
This is really about Amendment 47C, which goes back to the point of fettering the Secretary of State’s discretion and requiring closely linked, like-for-like replacement as opposed to arrangements being made between the Secretary of State and the local authority. This stuff about demonstrating to the Secretary of State does not really change that—if it means anything, it means the Secretary of State may enter into an agreement and may not. That power is in the Bill already, so why would we need to change the Bill to make that happen?
I will also just add to what my noble and learned friend was just saying. This matter relates exclusively to England, and in the other place they voted to reject Amendment 47—this point itself—by 279 to 158, which is a very substantial majority indeed.
“( ) If a local housing authority so wishes, and the Secretary of State agrees, the Secretary of State shall enter into an agreement with that authority whereby it shall retain such part of the payment referred to in section 67(1) as may be required to fund the provision of a new affordable home.”
“( ) If a local housing authority can demonstrate to the Secretary of State, whether by reference to its local housing plan or otherwise, that there is a particular need in its area for social housing, the authority shall retain such part of the payment referred to in section 67(1) as may be required to fund the provision of a new dwelling to be let as social housing on terms (as to tenure, rent or otherwise) which are similar to those on which the old dwelling was let.””
Lord Kerslake
My Lords, I am grateful for all the contributions to this debate. I shall keep my comments short.
The first point to be clear on is that the amendment would in no way restrict either the Government or local government. It is foursquare with bespoke agreements that meet local need, and that is absolutely clear within the text. It is also clear that the Secretary of State would not need to reach agreement with a local authority if he was not persuaded by the arguments.
The amendment would do two crucial things. First, it would make clear that, where an agreement was reached, funding could be retained from the receipt. That is something on which the provisions are silent within the overall Bill at the moment but, given the uncertainties about funding, it seems to be a crucial point. Secondly, it would give a local authority not the right but the opportunity to make its case for social rent replacement. In no sense is that restrictive. In the end, the Secretary of State could decide whether to reach an agreement and whether he concurred with the view of the local authority on social rent. It is hard to see how that would cut across financial privilege or restrict the choices for a Minister, or indeed for a local authority.
I have listened very carefully to the arguments, but I believe that this is such an important issue for local government that, with regret, I wish to test the opinion of the House on this issue.
Lord Best
My Lords, I rise to speak to Motion F1. I was grateful indeed to noble Lords throughout the House who secured a majority of over 100 votes for the pay-to-stay amendment now rejected by the other place. Our amendment would have reduced by half the penalty incurred by council tenants with household incomes of more than £31,000 per annum, or more than £40,000 in London, as a surcharge on their council rent. This levy—this rental hike—for two adults each earning £20,000 in, say, Brighton, would have been set at 20p in the pound for every pound over the £31,000 threshold. It would have meant an extra £2,000 per annum or £40 extra per week for a couple who are not terribly well paid.
The amendment that we passed would have halved this rental surcharge so that the family in Brighton, who barely get the national living wage, would pay an extra £20 per week not £40 per week. This is still a mighty increase, but it is half as much as the Government seemed determined to extract from people who, by definition, are hard working. We might all agree that those like Bob Crow, who earn way over £100,000 per year, could contribute significantly more for a council home. But I really wonder what we would be achieving by seriously penalising those on a third of his income.
The Chancellor has explained that the extra rent raised by councils will go not to the local authority, not towards meeting housing needs, but to the Exchequer, exclusively to reduce the deficit. By my rough calculations, it would take over 100 years for the receipts from the rental surcharge to reduce the nation’s deficit by 0.1%. It does not seem worth upsetting the lives of some 350,000 council tenants to make an infinitesimally modest reduction in the deficit. Of course, extensive administrative costs will be involved in assessing tens of thousands of tenants’ incomes and then collecting the rental surcharge. These costs will absorb a major part of the funds raised from the tenants.
We are where we are: the Government did not accept your Lordships amendment to reduce by half the extra burden on these hard-working council tenants, who, frankly, deserve our respect, not a financial penalty. As a compromise I have tabled in lieu the amendment before us, which proposes retaining the halving of the penalty—10p in the pound, not 20p—but just for those in the band of £10,000 above the threshold: that is, those earning from £31,000 up to £40,000, or in London from £40,000 up to £50,000. However, as of this afternoon the Secretary of State has proved willing to change the arrangements, as the Minister has explained. This is a helpful intervention. At this stage of the Bill, in the middle of ping-pong and with a substantial government majority in the other place voting against our amendments last night, I am realistic enough to know that if the Government offer any concessions, they should be accepted. They have offered a double-headed compromise of a rental surcharge of 15p in the pound for everyone with household earnings over the threshold, with no limit, and an annual uprating of the £31,000 threshold—£41,000 in London—that is in line with the appropriate index, CPI. Therefore, we have a levy of 15p in the pound, which is not as helpful as 10p but better than 20p, plus helpful indexation of the threshold. Of course, this pay-to-stay rental surcharge remains an entirely unwelcome imposition on hard-working council tenants, and I do not like it one bit. However, we have come a long way from the original proposal whereby any household over the threshold would immediately have had to pay a full market rent, meaning a ridiculously penal increase of £100 a week, sometimes £200. We are in a better place today.
On the basis of the progress that has been made, for which I am indeed grateful to Ministers, I shall not move this amendment.
Lord Kerslake
My Lords, I will speak briefly. I welcome the movement by the Minister on this issue, and there has been significant movement during the Bill’s passage through this House, which is entirely to be accepted gratefully. However, I remain fundamentally concerned about the pay-to-stay policy, which is effectively a form of tax collection but done by people who are not tax collectors. The income comes back to the Chancellor and is not reinvested in housing.
It is important to be clear that that the people in question are not on high incomes. Given where the thresholds are, we are talking, in London, about people such as teaching assistants and caretakers, and household incomes, not individual incomes. We will catch a lot of ordinary people on fairly ordinary incomes through this change. That is why I moved the amendment—to get the threshold up—and why I would have supported the amendment to keep the taper at 10p in the pound for those at the lower rate. It is important to be aware that the bulk of the people who will be caught by pay to stay are in the £10,000 bracket. Those who earn over £60,000 number fewer than 40,000.
Therefore, through this measure we are effectively taxing households on slightly higher incomes. I believe strongly that it will be very difficult to implement and that it will cost more than it raises in income in many places. That said, I want to finish on a positive note: there has been movement, so I entirely support my noble friend Lord Best’s decision not to move his amendment.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville
My Lords, I was going to speak passionately in favour of Motions F1 and H1. There is now no need to do so and I am delighted about that. I very much welcome the taper of 15%, which my colleague and I discussed yesterday with the Minister, but at that stage she was unable to commit to it. I am really pleased that there has been some movement on that. I also very much welcome the move towards accepting that the income limits will be raised in line with the consumer prices index. That is only right, given that everything else in life increases, such as pensions and the minimum and living wages. Therefore this should also increase.
However, I am still somewhat concerned about the costs of administering the so-called pay-to-stay policy. There are costs involved in assessing when tenants have reached the threshold, in assessing how much the tenant should pay in additional rent as they move towards the full market rent, and in collecting this rent. During our discussions with the Minister and her officials this week on the amendment on carbon-compliant homes there was much reference on their part to the cost-effectiveness of carbon compliance and the cost-benefit of such a policy. So we are somewhat surprised to find that there has been no such cost-benefit analysis of the implementation of the high-income tenant policy. There is some concern that the amount collected by the increased rents is likely to be outweighed by the costs involved in implementing the policy. I believe that this House should be concerned about this. Having said that, I welcome the movement by the Minister and the Government on these amendments.