Roberta Blackman-Woods
Main Page: Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour - City of Durham)Housing and Planning Bill (Seventeenth sitting)
Roberta Blackman-Woods Excerpts(8 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Chair
Order. When we broke for lunch, I had proposed the question that new clause 9 be read a Second time.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Gray. As you will be aware, this morning it was suggested that the proposals in new clauses 32 and 33 were at some stage being considered as policy by the last Labour Government. Over the lunch break I was able to check, and the Minister at the time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), made it absolutely clear that the proposal for fixed-term contracts was made by the Chartered Institute of Housing as part of a consultation on a housing reform Green Paper. She stated categorically that it was not Government policy. There had been some unhelpful speculation following an inaccurate report that appeared in a national newspaper, but she made it absolutely clear that she was not sympathetic to the notion that council residents should somehow lose their security of tenure—
The Chair
Order. The hon. Lady knows well that that is not a point of order and not a matter for the Chair, but she has by that mechanism made her views known to the Committee.
New Clause 9
Duty to promote lending to small and medium sized house builders
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall have a duty to promote lending by banks to small and medium sized house builders.
(2) A small or medium sized builder in subsection (1) is a builder that has fewer than 250 employees.”—(Mr Gareth Thomas.)
Brought up, read the First time, and Question proposed (this day), That the clause be read a Second time.
Question again proposed.
Mr Thomas
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and his willingness to look at the issue of HCA guidance. A number of contractors and social landlords told the inquiry to which I referred that the framework had worked well, and I gently suggest that that might be another reason for looking at the matter again.
I welcome the Minister’s personal commitment to the area in question. As a last point, I would urge him to consider the point that he ended on—the quality of construction apprenticeships. I worry that, in the past, some apprenticeships on offer have not been of high quality, which might have been a factor in putting some people off going into the construction industry. However, given the Minister’s helpful remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 12
Tenants’ rights to new management in property sold under LSVT
“(1) This section applies to housing which—
(a) was previously owned by a local authority;
(b) was part of a large scale voluntary transfer falling within the definition of section 32(4AB) of the Housing Act 1985; and
(c) the disposal of which was subject to the consent of the Secretary of State under section 32 of the 1985 Act.
(2) Where the transfer took place more than five years before this section comes into operation the current owner of the transferred housing shall consult the current tenants on their satisfaction with the management of that property.
(3) Where the transfer took place less than five years after this section comes into operation the current owner of the transferred housing shall not more than every five years consult the current tenants on their satisfaction with the management of that property.
(4) If more than 50% of tenants responding to the consultation under subsections (2) or (3) are dissatisfied with the management of the property, the owner of the housing must carry out a competitive tender for the management of the property and report the outcome to the tenants.”—(Dr Blackman-Woods.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is intended to ensure that tenants will be consulted about their satisfaction with management arrangements for their properties and tenancies where there has been a large-scale voluntary transfer. If, after five years, more than 50% of tenants are not happy with the arrangements, it provides for a competitive tendering exercise. This is largely a probing amendment to check whether the Government think it important to gauge tenant satisfaction with the LSVT arrangements, and to provide a mechanism to change them if tenants are not happy.
Brandon Lewis
Local authority stock transfer can take place only if the majority of the tenants vote in a ballot, as required by statute. Indeed, the Secretary of State’s consent to the transfer can be given only after he is satisfied of two things: first, that the local authority’s consultation exercise has been adequate; and, secondly, that the majority of tenants voting are in favour of transfer. Furthermore, the Secretary of State will ensure that the acquiring landlord is registered with the regulator, so that he can be satisfied that the organisation is viable and will look after the stock in the long term, to the benefit of the tenants.
Although there are no powers currently available to tenants to sack or fire their housing association, the rights of housing association tenants, including ex-council tenants, are protected through a range of mechanisms. The Localism Act 2011 placed the power to scrutinise landlords’ performance and hold them to account back into the hands of tenants and their elected representatives. That can include referring complaints to the housing ombudsman if issues have not been resolved locally. Many tenant panels already play a key role in scrutinising landlords’ performance, challenging poor service and holding landlords of all types to account for delivery and value for money. The regulator’s tenant involvement and empowering standard requires landlords to offer tenants a wide range of opportunities to play that bigger role locally, including by forming tenant panels.
The regulator does not have powers to mediate or resolve individual cases, but it can and will investigate where there is evidence of serious detriment. The regulator also has the power to institute a statutory inquiry if necessary. Where a merger is proposed, housing associations are already required to consult with all stakeholders. I appreciate, as the hon. Member for City of Durham said, that this is a probing amendment. Hopefully she will accept and acknowledge that it is not necessary, as current tenants already have a number of sufficient and wide-ranging instruments enabling them to scrutinise their landlords and hold them to account, and rightly so, in addition to the HCA’s regulatory standards.
Furthermore, the proposed amendment will affect only some tenants in England: namely, ex-council tenants transferred to new housing association landlords. It does not make sense for that whole group to be treated differently from other housing association tenants. I appreciate that this is a probing amendment, and I hope she will feel able to withdraw it.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I have heard what the Minister has said. It is a particular concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), who was keen to have something on the record about the need for some trigger mechanism in place for tenants unhappy with LSVT arrangements. I have heard what the Minister has said. Perhaps we will come back at a later stage to reconsider the issue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 13
Conversion of leasehold to commonhold for interdependent properties
“(1) On 1 January 2020 long leases of residential property in interdependent properties shall cease to be land tenure capable of conveyance.
(2) On 1 January 2020 long leases as set out in subsection (1) shall become commonholds to which Part 1 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (‘the 2002 Act’) shall apply, subject to the modifications set out in this section.
(3) Leaseholders, freeholders and those with an interest in an interdependent property are required to facilitate the transfer to commonhold, in particular they shall:
(a) by 1 January 2018 draw-up an agreed plan for the transfer;
(b) by 1 October 2018 value any interests to be extinguished by the transfer where the interest is held by a person who after transfer will not be a unit-holder; and
(c) by 1 January 2019 draw up a commonhold community statement for the purposes of—
(i) defining the extent of each commonhold unit;
(ii) defining the extent of the common parts and their respective uses;
(iii) defining the percentage contributions that each unit will contribute to the running costs of the building;
(iv) defining the voting rights of the members of the commonhold association; and
(v) specifying the rights and duties of the commonhold association, the unit-holders and their tenants.
(4) In any case where the parties at subsection (3) cannot or refuse to agree arrangements to facilitate the transfer any of the parties can make an application to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for a determination of the matter.
(5) Section 3 [Consent] of the 2002 Act shall cease to have effect on 1 January 2017.
(6) In subsection (1) ‘long lease’ means—
(a) a lease granted for a term certain exceeding 21 years, whether or not it is (or may become) terminable before the end of that term by notice given by the tenant or by re-entry or forfeiture; or
(b) a lease for a term fixed by law under a grant with a covenant or obligation for perpetual renewal, other than a lease by sub-demise from one which is not a long lease.”—(Dr Blackman-Woods.)
This New Clause would end the tenure of residential leasehold by 1 January 2020 by converting residential leases into commonhold.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I will be extremely brief. New clause 13 seeks greater clarity on how the use of commonhold and leasehold tenancies are mentioned and dealt with in practice by the Department. I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s comments on how the current situation can be improved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
New clause 13 seeks to replace long residential leasehold with commonhold. As hon. Members know, leasehold is a long-established way of owning property, supported by a framework of rights and protections that aims to deliver the appropriate balance between providing leaseholders with the rights and protections that they need and recognising the legitimate interest of landlords.
Commonhold is subject to a different statutory framework of rights and protections. It has its benefits, but there are important differences between commonhold and leasehold. That is partly why commonhold is and was intended to be a voluntary alternative to long leasehold ownership—a choice. There are no plans to abolish residential leasehold.
Dr Blackman-Woods
With this probing new clause, we were seeking greater clarity. Some of that clarity has been provided by the Minister this afternoon. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 21
Planning obligations: local first-time buyers
“After section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (planning obligations) insert—
‘106ZA Planning obligations in respect of local first-time buyers
(1) When granting planning permission under 70(1)(a), or permission in principle under 70(1A)(a), for the construction of new dwellings for sale, the local planning authority may require that a proportion of the dwellings are marketed exclusively to local first-time buyers for a specified period.
(2) The “specified period” in subsection (1) must start no earlier than six months before the new dwellings have achieved, or are likely to, practical completion.
(3) “First-time buyer” in subsection (1) has the meaning given by section 57AA(2) of the Finance Act 2003.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) define the “specified period” in subsection (1);
(b) define “local” in subsection (1), and
(c) the definition “local” may vary according to specified circumstances.
(5) The regulations in subsection (4) so far as they apply to local planning authorities in Greater London will not apply to these authorities unless the Secretary of State has consulted and received the consent of the Greater London Authority.’”— (Dr Blackman-Woods.)
This amendment would empower local planning authorities to impose a planning obligation when giving planning permission for the construction of new housing for sale requiring that a proportion of the housing is marketed exclusively to local first-time buyers.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would apply to all new homes for sale given planning permission by local authorities, as well as those given permission in principle, under provisions in the Housing and Planning Bill. The new clause would give local authorities the power to require a proportion of new homes for sale to be marketed exclusively to local first-time buyers for a specified period. Local authorities could make a judgment call about what proportion was reasonable. The new clause would allow the Secretary of State or, in Greater London, the Mayor of London, to make reasonable definitions of the time period for exclusive local marketing and to make definitions of what “local” means.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I entirely agree with the hon. Lady’s desire to encourage first-time buyers. Does she not agree, though, that the starter home provisions that we agreed some weeks ago will go a very long way towards doing that?
Dr Blackman-Woods
What the new clause is designed to do, which I think the hon. Gentleman has probably realised—I am not totally sure—is to ensure that where new homes are available, they go to local people. There would be a period of time during which they were marketed to local people. This is particularly a London issue, and I will go on to talk about why it is so critical in London.
In many parts of the country, local first-time buyers compete for new homes with second-home buyers and buy-to-let investors. There is wide concern that the problem affecting first-time buyers is growing and that something needs to be done. The director of research at Countrywide was reported in the Daily Express as saying that
“landlords and first-time buyers are now in direct competition because they tend to look for homes that are smaller and cheaper than average.”
The trend has been confirmed by the mortgage search tracker from Mortgage Advice Bureau, whose data in November showed that the number of buy-to-let landlords searching for mortgages on cheaper properties was up 17% on the same quarter last year.
The property website Rightmove was reported in The Guardian in October as saying:
“First-time buyers are facing asking prices almost 10% higher than a year ago because of demand from buy-to-let investors”.
In February 2015, the rural housing policy review, chaired by Lord Richard Best and sponsored by Hastoe housing association, recommended that, in areas of high second-home ownership, the Government should require
“a proportion of new…homes granted planning permission…to be with the condition that they can only be used as principal residences.”
There are, as we know, particular impacts in London from the non-availability of homes for first-time buyers. In London, the problem of first-time buyers being squeezed out is particularly acute, with high proportions of new homes sold to investors, including off-plan overseas investors.
Mr Jackson
The hon. Lady will know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made some fiscal changes in the autumn statement that specifically focused on the difficulties encountered by first-time buyers in London vis-à-vis buy-to-let landlords. I just wonder—I may have missed something—why the new clause does not apply just to London. Is she saying that the problem is nationwide?
Dr Blackman-Woods
I am saying that the problem is particularly acute in London, but housing stress and difficulty getting on the housing ladder not only affect people in London. It happens in a lot of our cities, and it happens in rural areas, too. There is a particularly acute situation in London, which I will talk about in a moment or two.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I thought I would give my hon. Friend a useful illustration from my constituency. Overseas buyers regularly turn up at City airport, get the docklands light railway over to Greenwich and buy off-plan—not buy to let but off-plan, and sometimes in cash—just to hold the property as an asset, rather than seeking to rent it out.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that extremely helpful intervention highlighting some of the difficulties in London, which enables me to respond further to the intervention of the hon. Member for Peterborough. The autumn statement included some measures that might affect buy to let. We do not know what the full outcome of those measures will be, but they do not address the issue of overseas investors buying up properties to keep them empty.
Mr Jackson
Taking on board the comments of the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, surely the issue is wider than that. It is about tax changes and fiscal policy for overseas buyers, rather than adding quite a prescriptive new clause to the Bill in respect of first-time buyers. There is a difference between those who are purchasing properties from overseas and those who are seeking to become first-time buyers.
The Chair
Order. We are straying slightly wide of the new clause. In the context of planning obligations for first-time buyers, I call Roberta Blackman-Woods.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I was going to say to the hon. Member for Peterborough that I would be ruled out of order if I went too far down the fiscal route. The new clause primarily seeks to probe the Minister on what more can be done to ensure that first-time buyers are not priced out of the housing market and to ensure that their needs are considered in order to encourage them into the housing market.
Research by Molior London Ltd for the British Property Federation shows that, in 2013, 61% of new homes in London went to investors and 49% of all new homes in central London were bought by overseas buyers. Londoners are competing with wealthy buyers who are being actively targeted across the world. Housing stock is being sold so many years in advance of being built that cash buyers are favoured over those buying with a mortgage, and a number of us have seen examples in the press of that happening throughout the capital. Councils are powerless to prevent it from happening, even though the phenomenon is widespread and growing. For example, when someone clicks on the “enquire” tab of the website for the new 624-apartment Wardian development on the Isle of Dogs, they are asked to choose their location from London, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Hong Kong, Qatar, Abu Dhabi and Dubai. The scheme is not due for completion until 2019.
In 2014, the Mayor of London announced a mayoral concordat that would commit signatories to marketing new homes to Londoners first or first equal, yet that has failed to offer Londoners any meaningful first choice. Even if homes are technically available to Londoners on a first equal basis, the homes are being marketed across the world many years ahead of being completed. By ensuring that the period of exclusive marketing to local first-time buyers starts no earlier than six months before completion, the new clause would ensure that a proportion of new homes for first-time buyers are held back to be sold as they near completion, which would help people who are trying to buy with a mortgage.
As the Minister will know, the new clause seeks to address the horrible reality, faced by many people in London and other cities, of being priced out of the housing market because of overseas buyers coming in and snapping up the properties. If the Minister does not think that the new clause provides the way forward, it will be interesting to hear what he thinks will tackle the problem.
Brandon Lewis
We clearly need a radical shift in how housing markets support young first-time buyers, otherwise we will condemn a whole generation to further uncertainty and insecurity. On the hon. Lady’s point about buy to let and overseas investment, which my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough touched on, there are two things we need to bear in mind.
First, we need to be cautious about always falling into the trap of attacking overseas investment, because we have to remember that, during the economic crash of 2008, a great deal of building in this country, in London in particular, would not have happened had it not been for overseas money. Projects such as Battersea would not be going ahead where no English money was bidding to come forward. There is a part for overseas investment to play.
Secondly, it is also right to do what we can to deliver the homes that we need for young people in this country. That is why we saw the changes in the Budget this year to the tax relief for buy to lets, as well as the changes announced in the autumn statement only a few weeks ago, which made a substantial statement about where the Government are going and about our determination to deliver for people who want to buy their own home. I am therefore pleased that the Government have already made tremendous strides making mortgage lending available again to first-time buyers through the Help to Buy scheme. The number of first-time buyers has now increased by 68% since 2010.
I also recognise, however, the point made very well by the hon. Member for City of Durham: more needs to be done. We have to be clear and honest with ourselves that young people are struggling to buy their first home as house prices have continued to increase. Over the past 20 years, the proportion of under-40s who own their own home has been on a downward trend, so I fully understand and endorse the underlying policy objective of the new clause.
I believe, however, that promoting starter homes, as part 1 of the Bill does, is a much better way of achieving that objective. Not only will developers be required to build a proportion of starter homes on all suitable, reasonably sized sites in future, but those starter homes will be at least 20% cheaper than the going market price. That will give more prospective first-time buyers the opportunity to buy an affordable home of their own, especially if linked with Help to Buy and the 5% deposit, which the new clause would not necessarily achieve.
That is why we want 200,000 new starter homes built over the Parliament, with a minimum of a 20% discount. The Bill sets the framework for delivering our commitment. In November we debated in Committee the starter homes clauses extensively and the new clause would not add further value given the reforms we are putting in place. With that assurance, I hope the hon. Lady will withdraw the new clause.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I want to make it clear that, in moving the motion, we were not in any way suggesting that we were against a degree of overseas investment. The new clause is clear that the provisions would relate to a proportion of the dwellings that are marketed. It was simply intended to allow local people to have a way in to some of the new developments and to ensure that the new homes were not totally unavailable to them because they had all been bought up by overseas investors.
I have heard the Minister’s comments, however, and I think the Government are seeking to find a way of addressing the issue. We will mull over his comments and decide whether to investigate things at a later stage. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 22
Security of tenure
“After section 19A of the Housing Act 1988 insert—
‘(1) Any assured shorthold tenancy (other than one where the landlord is a private registered provider of social housing) granted on or after April 1, 2018 must be for a fixed term of at least thirty six months. It is an implied term of such a tenancy that the tenant may terminate the tenancy by giving two months’ written notice to the landlord.’
(2) In section 21 Housing Act 1988 insert—
‘(4ZA) In the case of a dwelling-house in England no notice under subsection (4) may be given for thirty six months after the beginning of the tenancy.’”—(Teresa Pearce.)
This amendment would prevent private sector landlords from using the ‘notice only’ grounds for possession for the first three years of a tenancy, without affecting the rights of tenants to give notice and leave the tenancy early.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would have the effect of making longer-term tenancy much more common. Landlords and tenants would both have stability, but with the ability to terminate contracts early with proper notice, if they have to, just as they can now.
The private rented sector is an important and growing part of the housing sector. The number of people living in the private rented sector has increased by 2.5 million since 2010. Now, 1.5 million families with children are renting from a private landlord and could be evicted with as little as two months’ notice. Some 9 million people now rent privately. Almost half of those who rent are over 35. Many of them want the same security and stability that they would have if they owned their own home but the rules on private renting have not caught up with the way people live now.
Chris Philp
Before one could sign up to the new clause, one would want to see the detail, which clearly is not there. I think I have made my point in general terms.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I have been momentarily knocked off track by the hon. Gentleman’s final comments. We have been debating most of the Bill without the detail we need because most of it is coming in regulations, so I hope he will address those comments to his Ministers.
I rise to support new clause 24, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, and to speak briefly to new clause 31. The hon. Member for Croydon South might want to think about why so many planners from local authorities are leaving to join the private sector, because that used not to happen. It is a fairly recent phenomenon that so many local authority planners have been moving on. The reason is that local authority planning departments are in a very, very pressed situation, with reduced resources, greater pressure and increasing insecurity because they do not know when the next round of Government cuts is going to mean that they will lose their job. The only way to address that is to resource local authority planning departments properly—something that developers speak to me about all the time.
If the hon. Member for Peterborough is upset by the Local Government Association backing my hon. Friend’s new clause, he will be even more upset by the fact that the District Councils Network has come out very strongly in favour of the idea that there should be some cost recovery at a local level:
“Having a system where Whitehall dictates to local councils what planning fees they can charge is very unfair for local taxpayers around the country who are left paying the shortfall where fees don’t cover costs. Letting councils set their own fees is a much fairer system for both the applicant and the local taxpayer and will ensure there is flexibility in the system to recover the actual costs of applications.”
In 2010, a major review, which was instigated by the last Labour Government, was carried out of how local planning fees should operate. Instead of bringing forward a plan for the localisation of planning fees, as had been suggested throughout the consultation exercise before 2010, the Government merely revised the fee levels in 2012. That did not carry with it the degree of localism that we all wanted to see. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, London Councils has stressed that point recently, because of the impact of the increasing number of planning applications that local authorities are having to deal with, particularly in the London area:
“We believe the government should localise fee setting and scheduling controls so as to support boroughs that commit to boost the supply of housing. This would produce a more effective, swifter and consistent planning service, and ensure a properly resourced and more efficient planning system in the context of development control in London having seen an estimated net shortfall of around £37-£45 million annually”.
London Councils has stated that,
“if planning fees for large scale housing regeneration projects were charged on a full cost recovery system enabling councils to meet all 13 week planning targets, this would save developers up to £486 million per year in delayed development costs, while adding only £65 million in planning fees. Full cost charging could also be used to fund the kind of pro-active multi-borough teams that supported the work”
of the Olympic Delivery Authority. Developers, the LGA, London Councils and the District Councils Network —more or less everyone involved in the planning and development system—think that local authorities should be able to set planning fees locally, but the Government do not. We can find no rationale for that. The District Councils Network has helpfully set out for the Government some principles that could be applied.
Peter Dowd
Does my hon. Friend agree that there are contradictions all over the place? For example, the Government are quite happy to let local authorities raise 2% for social care, but they do not seem to take the same view on matters such as this.
Dr Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend makes a good point. As we have discussed several times in Committee, the Government’s approach is not necessarily consistent.
The District Councils Network has requested that four common principles be adopted. Principle 1 is the ability to have full cost recovery as a minimum, with full transparency as to method of fee calculation, which could be achieved through an earned autonomy approach. Principle 2 is that council tax payers should not subsidise commercial activities or companies. Principle 3 is that, wherever possible, charges should be determined locally. Principle 4 is that if central Government continue to determine charges at a national level, there should be an agreed annual indexation mechanism. If we do not want to go all the way down the road of local charging, some of those principles could be applied to move us some of the way down that road. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that, particularly as the Government seem to be in an isolated position once again.
Brandon Lewis
Thank you, Mr Gray. I was already looking forward to an early Christmas finish.
Before discussing the new clauses’ merit, I should highlight to hon. Members who may not have noticed that section 303 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 already provides for the Secretary of State to allow, by regulations, local planning authorities to set their own level of fees up to cost recovery. We are therefore already technically in possession of the powers to enable local fee setting.
Authorities have a crucial role to play in providing services, none more so than enabling development to encourage home ownership, building homes people can afford to buy, and supporting economic growth and job creation. An effective and efficient planning system is essential to support that. Authorities have done a lot of work to find savings and efficiencies over the past few years, but fees for making planning applications have been set nationally and make an important contribution to meeting the costs of development management services. As has been outlined, they were last revised in 2012, and that revision was substantial.
I hear the call from professional bodies and developers that action is needed to ensure that local planning departments are resourced properly. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon pointed out that we already have planning performance agreements that developers will take forward in order to have a guaranteed level of service. However, the level of planning application fees is only one side of the resourcing equation. Local government must drive down its costs, too. I am clear that any changes in fees should go hand in hand with the provision of an effective service. Giving local government a completely blank cheque, as the new clauses would do, could bring about unintended risks, as touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough.
Many more local authorities can do much more to transform their planning departments. I actually thank the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood for tabling her new clause as it gives me the chance, as I had on the Floor of the House just a few weeks ago, to reconfirm that, although some authorities have introduced new ways of delivering planning services through outsourcing and shared service arrangements, showing that costs can be saved and services can be improved, more should be following that lead. The research shows that there is a saving of 5% to 20% for competitively tendered or completely shared services. More local authorities need to do that, not just because it brings efficiencies but because it brings better resource, particularly for small districts that will be challenged to find the best players. Coming together gives them a better career opportunity, and there is also an opportunity for planners. Not enough local authorities have moved down that road.
I do not disagree with the hon. Members who spoke in favour of the proper resourcing of planning services, but local government and councils need to understand that their planning department is also their economic regeneration department, and they should focus clearly on it. Going further must go hand in hand with local authorities driving forward those service improvements and cost reductions.
We heard from my hon. Friends in Committee last week interesting ideas about fast-track planning applications and having a more competitive planning process. I made a commitment at the time, and I do so again today, to consider them before the end of this Bill process. That, rather than a focus on raising fees alone, is the type of innovative thinking that needs to be brought to the resourcing debate.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I hear what the Minister is saying about driving efficiency. Nevertheless, we have to ask what the Government can possibly mean by devolution if they do not even trust planning authorities to set their own fee levels.
Brandon Lewis
Finally, I will respond to the many references that hon. Members have made throughout the Committee proceedings, in one form or another, to resourcing—in fact, the hon. Lady just referred to it. The spending review provides a reasonable offer to local government and an increase in resources over this Parliament in cash terms. By the end of this Parliament, local government will be able to retain 100% of local taxes to spend on local services. We have to be honest and clear about this: local authorities have been able to increase their reserves over the past few years from about £13 billion to £22 billion. Although they should retain sensible reserves, they should also look at how to prioritise the funding they have, and they must see planning as a core and important department. As I said at the start of my speech, we already have the powers to allow local planning authorities to set fees locally. I have undertaken to look at some of the suggestions that my hon. Friends made last week. With that, I ask the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood to withdraw the new clause.
Teresa Pearce
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is largely a probing one, but it raises an important issue. In many cases up and down the country, someone making a claim for housing benefit has to send in a copy of their lease or tenancy agreement, on which the landlord is named. I would like local authorities and housing benefit departments to ensure there is quarterly or annual reporting to HMRC of the moneys paid when they pay out housing benefit.
The overwhelming majority of landlords pay their taxes in a timely and correct fashion. However, a few choose not to. I have seen evidence of that myself, where tenants have to pay every Sunday, when the landlord comes round and collects the money in cash. That is public money—housing benefit money—but it goes into the landlord’s pocket, and they do not pay any tax on it.
I was so concerned about this issue that I wrote to Lin Homer at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and to HM Treasury. I got a reply from a Minister and Lin Homer, both of whom estimated that the tax gap for letting income could be as high as £500 million a year. Something needs to be done about that, because housing benefit is public money—it is taxpayers’ money, and we should ensure that where it goes to a landlord, it is treated with the respect it deserves.
If HMRC had quarterly or annual reporting of the moneys paid, it would have more information to allow it to track down certain individuals, ensuring that those who are not being proper landlords and acting as decent citizens are caught up with much sooner. At the moment, we all know that HMRC is running on less resources, but it is clear that it wants to tackle tax evasion wherever that occurs. Where someone evades tax on public money they have received, it is even more important that HMRC does that.
Dr Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. The Government want to set up a whole public body to transfer information about tenants’ incomes from landlords to HMRC. Does she agree that this is another thing the body could do? That would be helpful for recouping much-needed money for the taxpayer.
Teresa Pearce
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We are talking about people who are receiving taxpayers’ money, taking it as income and not paying tax on it. We should do whatever we can to tackle those people, because they are exactly the same group of people who will not be carrying out electrical safety checks on the properties they rent out and who are cramming people into bedrooms that are too small. They are exactly the rogue landlords that this Bill seeks to ban, so we should also be ensuring that they are not profiting from this.
This is a probing new clause to raise the issue for consideration by the Committee. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I hope that something can be done to ensure that every citizen of this country who gets income pays the right amount of tax on that income.
Teresa Pearce
I understand what the Minister says about the roll-out of universal credit but, at present, every local authority has a payroll department and has to make annual reports of payments made outside of the payroll to contractors and people like that. The proposal is not that onerous on councils, but I accept that it might not fix the problem, so I ask the Minister to go away and consider what would fix the problem. There clearly is an issue, and I would like to think that the Government will consider it and try to find some way of ensuring that such people are not avoiding their due taxes. In the spirit of accepting that he may do that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 29
Accreditation and licensing for private landlords
“Local authorities shall be required to operate an accreditation and licensing scheme for private landlords.”—(Dr Blackman-Woods.)
This amendment would require local authorities in England and Wales to put in place a scheme to license and provide for the accreditation of private sector landlords in their area.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 29 would introduce an accreditation and licensing scheme for private landlords. It is possible to argue that we would not have needed to table so many new clauses to improve the quality of much of our private rented sector and to improve the way in which landlords operate if we had followed the excellent example of some of our devolved Administrations by having a proper register of landlords. I will use the scheme set up and operated by the Scottish Government since 2006 as an example. That register is extremely straightforward. Anyone who owns residential property in Scotland that is let must apply to register with the local authority for the area in which the property is located unless the property is covered by one of the exemptions. It is the owner of the property who must register, and in some cases that may not be the landlord who has the letting agreement, but they must declare that information. The scheme is very straightforward, and it is operated online. The exemptions are very clear and it is the property that is exempt from registration: it is the only or main residence of the landlord; there are not more than two lodgers; it is let under an agricultural tenancy; it is let under a crofting tenancy; it is used for holiday lets; it is regulated by the Care Commission; it is owned by a religious organisation; it is occupied only by members of a religious order; or it is let to members of the landlord’s family. We can see that those are very sensible and straightforward exemptions.
Mr Jackson
I do not instinctively have any objection to the hon. Lady’s new clause, but I wonder about the payment regime and who funds the administration and management of the scheme. As she knows, selected licensing under the Housing Act 2004 is in effect self-financing and any money goes back into ameliorating the impacts of antisocial landlords and tenants. The funding is not on the face of her new clause, so how would the scheme be funded? Would the funding fall disproportionately on the taxpayer?
Dr Blackman-Woods
Absolutely not. I will come to the matter of payment in a moment or two.
The scheme is very straightforward. The information is given online and all the council has to do is to check that there is documentation to back up an exemption if a landlord asks for one. Furthermore, the person letting must be fit and proper according to three categories. They are considered not to be a fit and proper person if they have committed an offence involving fraud, dishonesty, violence, drugs, discrimination, firearms or sexual offences; if they have practised unlawful discrimination in connection with any business; or if they have contravened any provision of the law relating to housing or landlord and tenant law.
As the hon. Gentleman said, I was keen to find out how such a straightforward scheme was funded. It is funded by the application of a fee, which is extraordinarily low; it is £55. Often what we hear back from the Conservative party is, “Oh, we couldn’t possibly have a landlord register operating, because it’s so expensive, puts unreasonable charges on to landlords and is much too complicated”, but in Scotland an excellent, straight- forward and reasonably charged scheme is in operation. I can see no landlord who would be unable to pay £55. I would like to hear from the Minister why such a scheme cannot operate in the UK.
Alongside that we could have an accreditation system. We already have the London Landlords Accreditation Scheme, which seeks to enable landlords to register and get accreditation to show that they are fit and proper persons who operate as good landlords. Some other such schemes operate locally—for example, Oxford City Council has a landlord accreditation scheme.
Those are examples of good practice, often carried out by Labour authorities. It would be excellent if such good practice could be rolled out nationally. I look forward to hearing from the Minister why we do not have the ability to operate in this country schemes that operate easily in Scotland and under other devolved Administrations.
Mr Jones
The new clause would require all local authorities to operate an accreditation and licensing scheme for private landlords. The existing licensing arrangements for the private rented sector were introduced to give local authorities the ability to deal with problems that might arise in connection with rented property. Three types of licensing are provided for: mandatory licensing of larger homes in multiple occupation; additional licensing of smaller houses in multiple occupation; and selective licensing of all types of private rented sector housing.
Additional and selective licensing are discretionary powers. Additional licensing may be introduced by a local authority for smaller houses in multiple occupation in all or part of its area where there are significant management issues, or the properties are in poor condition. Selective licensing allows local authorities to license all private rented housing in a designated area that suffers issues such as low housing demand and/or significant antisocial behaviour.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Will the Minister outline what is burdensome about filling in an online form, which takes about 10 minutes, and paying £55 to do so, given that that scheme operates effectively elsewhere in the country?
Mr Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for that question. It was typical of the last Labour Government that more and more bureaucracy was layered on to business. The problem is that the more bureaucracy that is layered on, particularly to decent business people who are doing the right thing, the more it discourages them from investing and running businesses and, in this case, from housing people. It is apparent that where this system has been or is being used—Scotland—the additional required administration has resulted in increased rents for tenants.
Several voluntary landlord accreditation schemes have already been introduced by many local authorities and are promoted by the main landlord associations. We strongly encourage that approach. The aim of voluntary accreditation is to raise standards by providing education and training to landlords, identifying poor practice and generally increasing the levels of professionalism among landlords. However, I do not believe that local authorities should be required to operate an accreditation scheme in their area. Accreditation is only of interest to good landlords who rent out decent accommodation, so it does not help to identify and tackle criminal landlords. Local authorities are in the best position to decide whether there is a need for an accreditation scheme in their area. On that basis and following that explanation, I hope the hon. Lady will withdraw the new clause.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The Minister gave exactly the response that I thought he would and that we have heard a number of times from this Government. The lack of consistency in approach is pretty breathtaking. Earlier in our discussions, we found out that local authorities have been given powers to offer fixed-term tenancies to their tenants. Local authorities do not think that is a good idea and they do not want to do it, so what are the Government doing? They are making them do it through this legislation. Exactly the same situation pertains to the registration of landlords.
It is extremely difficult for local authorities to run selective licensing schemes and, in this instance, any sensible Government would say, “We would want to ensure that we have maximum protection and ease of information for tenants. Therefore, we will set up a very cheap, easy-to-administer national scheme.” I just do not understand the logic, but it is getting late in the deliberation of the Committee. No doubt we can return to the issue at some later stage in our deliberations. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 30
Restrictions to granting permission in principle
“Permission in principle shall apply—
(a) to brownfield sites only for the provision of housing, and
(b) to sites that have already been approved in an adopted local plan for the provision of housing”.—(Dr Blackman-Woods.)
This amendment would restrict the circumstances in which permission in principle can be applied to brownfield sites for housing and to sites that have already been approved in an adopted local plan for the provision of housing.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause was tabled to put on the record—or at least to try again to elicit from the Minister—exactly how wide the permission in principle outlined in clause 102 of the Bill will be applied. Will it be applied to brownfield sites and to sites that have been approved in the adopted local plan for the provision of housing? What we are trying to elicit through this new clause is some clarity from the Minister about what brownfield sites will be used for in terms of getting permission in principle.
Brandon Lewis
I am very happy to put on the record today that the Government obviously have no intention of allowing, for example, planning in principle to be used for some of the things that I know some people may be concerned about, such as fracking or waste development. However, we want to ensure that the local authorities are able to grant permission in principle for mixed-use developments that promote balanced and sustainable places, as I outlined last week.
The hon. Lady did not quite use the phrase “probing amendment”, but she wanted to have another go at making a point, which I appreciate. I am pleased she made that point, because I was somewhat surprised that she had tabled this new clause, bearing in mind that, in effect, we have already debated these issues quite heavily in two previous Committee sittings.
Both parts of this new clause would restrict the granting of permission in principle. As I outlined when we had those lengthy debates in those two Committee sittings, we want to ensure that there is a flexible system that delivers for people. That is where we are, and that is why I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her new clause. If she does not do so, we will oppose it.
Dr Blackman-Woods
As I suggested earlier to the Minister, this new clause is very much about getting further clarity from him about the extent of land, and the purpose, that could be behind permission in principle. It appears that it goes beyond housing and the Minister has helpfully clarified that this afternoon. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 34
Extension of the Housing Ombudsman to cover the Private Rented Sector
“(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations introduce a scheme to extend the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, as set out in section 51 and Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1996, to cover disputes between tenants and private landlords in the Greater London Authority.
(2) The scheme under subsection (1) shall—
(a) last at least one year and no longer than two years; and
(b) come into effect within 6 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent.
(3) The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a report of the scheme under subsection (1) alongside any statement he thinks appropriate, within 3 months of the closing date of the scheme.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations extend the powers of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme as set out in section 51 and Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1996, to cover disputes between tenants and private landlords nationwide.”—(Teresa Pearce.)
This new clause would give the Secretary of State the power to introduce a pilot scheme which would see the Housing Ombudsman extend its cover in London to private sector housing and disputes between tenants and private landlords, to require that the Secretary of State reports on the pilot scheme, and to give the Secretary of State power through regulations to extend the Housing Ombudsman to cover private sector housing and disputes between tenants and private landlords nationwide.
Teresa Pearce
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would give the Secretary of State power to introduce a pilot scheme that would see the housing ombudsman extend its cover in London to the private sector. That would require a report from the Secretary of State following the pilot, and would give the Secretary of State the ability to extend the powers of the housing ombudsman to the private sector nationwide if that pilot is successful.
In London, the private rented sector is growing and is a significant proportion of the housing market. Extending the ombudsman scheme to cover the private rented sector would be a big change. That is why this new clause proposes a pilot to establish whether such an extension would be worth while.
Most landlords are effective and efficient in letting their property, but disputes between landlords and tenants can and do occur. They could be about a delay in responding to a situation in a flat. Perhaps there could be problems with electrics, gas or heating, or there could be a concern that the property is dangerous. A tenant could be concerned that part of the tenancy agreement or lease has not been upheld. The housing ombudsman is a fantastic independent service that helps to resolve many such complaints and concerns.
The ombudsman considers complaints about how a landlord has responded to reports of a problem, and considers what is fair in all circumstances. The ombudsman does not look at the original problem. For example, it does not decide whether or not a property is damp. What they look at is whether or not the landlord has done what he needs to do in line with the tenancy agreement and the ombudsman’s policies. It helps to defuse disputes by having an independent person look at them.
All local authorities and housing associations must be a member of the ombudsman scheme. At present, private sector landlords can join on a voluntary basis, but not nearly enough of them do so, leaving many tenants in a position where they have nowhere left to turn when things go wrong.
In total, 87% of cases referred to the housing ombudsman were resolved by landlords and tenants with the support of the ombudsman. Many of those landlords and tenants have gone on to build and keep good relations, and they continue to rent from and let to each other.
The measures in the Bill will bring about a decline in social housing, whether it is managed by the local authority or a housing association. As a result, the private rented sector, particularly in London, will increase its share of the housing market. Surely, therefore, it is right to ensure that all tenants across the sector are afforded the same protections and dispute resolution service.
That is why I have tabled new clause 34, which would extend the housing ombudsman scheme as a pilot in London. I hope the Minister will look favourably on it and let me know whether he sees any merit in this scheme. If he does, I hope he will accept the new clause.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Is it not another curious inconsistency in the Government’s approach that they are happy to add to the bureaucratic burden of local authorities by making them go through a tortuous article 4 direction application, which may or may not be allowed, to carry out the most basic of planning functions?
Mr Thomas
My hon. Friend makes a good point. The hon. Member for Croydon South may want to seek the help of the hon. Member for Wimbledon in looking in a little more detail at the example of the Willow Lane trading estate and the conversion of business accommodation into flats there. According to the Local Government Association, Merton Council had attempted without success to get the industrial estate exempt from the Government’s rules.
I introduce this new clause in the spirit of concern about the impact on the business community, while still wanting office accommodation to be converted into housing, where appropriate, as long as there is a full discussion involving the local community.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I rise to support my hon. Friend’s new clause and to ask the Minister a very straightforward question. In October, he said that the changes in the policy on permitted development of office blocks from office to residential were to be made permanent. Will he clarify whether there has been any secondary legislation to bring that about?
Brandon Lewis
On a point of order, Mr Gray. If you will indulge me for a few moments, I want to thank Members of all parties for a constructive debate over the past few weeks. This has been a good opportunity, as we head into Christmas, to get to know each other that little bit better, which in almost all cases has been a good thing. Some of us may have moved our views from time to time in order to make the passage of the Bill work. I genuinely appreciate that hon. Members have made some very powerful speeches, and we have seen strong contributions from both sides of the Committee by Members working to ensure that we end up with a Bill of which we can all hopefully be very proud and that delivers more housing across this country. I thank all Members, both Opposition Members and my hon. Friends, for their part in that.
I thank both Whips for helping us all to take the Bill through Committee in a timely manner, and I particularly thank my brilliant Government Whip. I also thank my colleague, the Under-Secretary of State, who has been a fantastic Minister to work with throughout the passage of the Bill. It would be inappropriate not to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burton for keeping us inspired from time to time, and other Members have, too. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions and for the manner in which this debate has been held. I thank the Opposition Front-Bench Members for a constructive and useful debate.
I also want to thank the Clerks, Glenn McKee and the team, for the way in which they have worked with us to make sure that we have had everything we need. Mr Chairman, I thank you and your colleague, Sir Alan, for your work in getting through these sessions, not only on the days we finished early but on the days we finished late, to make sure that we were able to get the Bill through in a good, strong manner. I thank the Chair and the team of Clerks.
I thank the Doorkeepers, who have managed to keep us safe and secure when we vote and more generally, for their perseverance over the past few weeks. I also thank the team from Hansard, who have had the unenviable job of ensuring that all our words look as eloquent as possible on the page when it is published a short while after we finish. I am sure that is less of a challenge in some cases than in others, but I thank them for that.
Penultimately, I thank all my officials and our Department’s team who have worked so closely on the policy and the Bill. I thank the preparation team, the lawyers and parliamentary counsel, my private office and the Under-Secretary of State’s private office. They have all persevered and worked for many months to get the Bill to this stage. I thank everybody who has in any way played a part, large or small, in getting us here—finishing early on our final day.
Finally, I thank everybody who gave evidence, both written and oral, and who took the time to put forward their views and to contribute to the Bill. I am sure we will see each other on Monday for oral questions, which we will all be looking forward to, and excited about, over the weekend. With that in mind, I wish everybody a very happy Christmas and a very exciting 2016. I look forward to taking this debate further on Report.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Further to that point of order, Mr Gray. I wonder whether the Minister is inviting me to speak for another 12 minutes so that we do not finish early. I, too, want to start by thanking you, Mr Gray, and Sir Alan Meale for chairing this Committee fairly and graciously, which is much appreciated. I also thank the Clerks for their excellent service in getting amendments in the right order and in the right place so that we could debate them.
I marvel that the Doorkeepers sit here through hours and hours of deliberation with such good humour to keep us safe and secure, but mostly they prevent us from dying of dehydration, which is much appreciated. I thank Hansard for turning around a great deal of material in such a short space of time. I thank the many organisations that have sent detailed evidence into the Committee or that have turned up to give oral evidence. I assure them that, at least on the Opposition side of the Committee, we have read all their evidence and taken it on board in our comments. It is excellent that they take such time to engage with our democracy in that way.
I thank my fellow shadow Minister for her input into the Bill, and I thank our Whip for always maintaining good humour whatever the circumstances. I thank members of the Committee, on both sides, who gave excellent speeches, with much passion at times. I highlight the interventions by Opposition Members, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West, who challenged Government Members on everything from the nature of their lunch and their lunch arrangements to how to improve their chances of being elected in future. As always in such Committees, Members emerged who keep us entertained, and this time it was the hon. Member for South Norfolk for the Conservative party and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West on the Opposition side. We should commend them for keeping us amused at key points in our debate.
We know that some of the Bills we debate in Committee have a great deal of consensus, but that is not always the case. We have strong differences on this Bill, but I think we have managed to proceed with a great deal of civility on both sides of the Committee at all times, despite—I say this gently, having been in this place for nearly 11 years—now knowing what it is like to experience a hyperactive Whip. I am not sure that I want to experience it ever again, so I hope the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon has a really, really chilled Christmas and comes back with a degree of levity to our proceedings in the main Chamber on Report.
I, too, thank the Ministers for their helpful responses at times and for disagreeing with us so civilly. I wish everyone a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
The Chair
I am most grateful to both hon. Members for their kind remarks. On behalf of Sir Alan Meale, I add our warm thanks to the Clerks. It may appear that we know the finer points of procedure, but we do not; we merely read out what they tell us. We are extremely grateful to you for all your hard work. I thank the Committee for being extremely courteous and largely in order. These proceedings have been very worth while.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.