Housing and Planning Bill (Fourth sitting)

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Thursday 19th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

At a later stage of the Bill. Unfortunately, the hon. Lady’s sentiments are not shared, particularly by some of the larger housing associations. They have already said publicly that the combined measures of the Bill and the Welfare Reform and Work Bill mean that they are so unsure about their future income and their future ability to borrow to invest in that sector that they are pulling out of building social rented housing completely. We also know that many local authorities are already borrowing to the maximum against their housing revenue account. Because they are facing cuts and because of loss of income, they are simply saying that they do not have the resources to invest in new housing.

Is it the Minister’s expectation that all the 245,000 houses that we need each year will be built by the private sector? If that is not the assumption underpinning the Bill, how does he expect homes to be built for social rent? Who does he expect to build them? Those are the questions underpinning the amendment, and I would like to hear what he and other Members have to say.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

Reference was made by the hon. Member for Peterborough to anecdote, but I do not see—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham can comment on this—how housing associations, such as Riverside in my area, which has 59,000 houses, are coming along with anecdotes, because they have to base things on facts. Riverside said to the Committee that the Bill will not do enough to stimulate new housing development and urged the Government to introduce a national housing supply strategy by 2016. It went on to talk about how that could be financed and so on. The reality is that the Bill does not do enough. Would you agree?

[The Chair]

I would not agree, but the shadow Minister might or might not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

May I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the Mayor of London’s submission that under the Bill,

“there is a risk that Starter Homes in London could displace much of the capital’s supply of shared ownership properties”

and that he would like starter homes to be an additional supply to increase

“the overall proportion and choice of low cost home ownership products in London”

to

“ensure that Starter Homes work alongside existing intermediate products”?

Do you agree that that seems to put paid to the argument—

[The Chair]

I would not agree, but Roberta Blackman-Woods might.