Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Karen Buck

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

My hon. Friend has asked the Minister to make that confirmation, but I doubt that he will take her up on that offer.

Let me move on to pay to stay, another pernicious bit of the Bill. As we all know, that is a tax on tenants and a tax on aspiration and will lead to many people having to leave their homes or increase their levels of personal indebtedness. The Minister should have talked to the group of tenants from Hackney whom I met a few weeks ago. They are not high-income families. How could anyone describe as high a household income of £17,000 and £23,000 inside London; or £12,000 and £18,000 outside London?

[Ms Buck]

Can my hon. Friend help me understand how Government Members are simultaneously arguing that a household income of £40,000 in London is rich when it comes to social rent, but that a household income of £77,000 is poor when it comes to getting a 20% discount on starter homes?

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I look forward to the Minister’s answer to my hon. Friend’s question.

Such people, however, will be faced with a situation in which even a modest rise in income will result in a significant hike in rent. We spoke to a couple with a combined income of just over £40,000—one was a part- time cleaner and the other a sales associate. They want their children to go to university and just do not know how they will manage that in London if their rent moves towards a market one which, in their area, would represent an increase of 400%.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Karen Buck

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and one that we want to emphasise this afternoon. Most commentators are now saying that there is no additional money to provide the replacement affordable housing and there are no provisions in the Bill to allow a like-for-like replacement in the same local authority for homes that are sold off.

This chapter of the Bill is not only damaging to social housing but will have a negative knock-on effect in the private sector that will mean there is simply no respite for low income families and no housing that they will be able to rent at a level that they can afford. The Government must reconsider this part of the Bill and must take this chapter out of it.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend talks about the impact on homelessness. Across the country, there are probably millions of families in housing need who are waiting for appropriate accommodation in the social sector. A constituent I met last week has two children and lives in a one-bedroom flat. One of the children has skin cancer and they are waiting desperately for a two-bedroom home. Who should get a property—a family with that housing need or someone who can buy on the open market for £500,000 or more?

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

My hon. Friend makes a truly brilliant point that we should reflect on in the Chamber this afternoon. Many councils are telling us that they have thousands of people on their waiting lists, yet this measure will reduce further the number of homes that will be available.

Again, as the Minister is aware, we have tabled a number of amendments to try to make the pay-to-stay provisions more palatable. Amendment 95 would establish exemptions from the application of the high income rents system, while amendment 57 would ensure that the system was tapered to avoid a sudden jump in rents when an increase would apply. Amendment 58 looks to ensure that local authorities and housing associations take into account the need to promote and encourage a degree of diversity and social cohesion in their communities, and amendment 59 makes sure that rents reflect affordability on a local basis.

Amendment 60 would establish that the application of a higher income rent should be subject to external valuation and not the whim of the Secretary of State. Amendments 96 and 61 both look to give some notice and protection should tenants be moved on to higher rents, with amendment 96 giving tenants who have been determined to have a high income transitional protection and time to enable them to relocate to another property if that is at all possible. Amendment 61 would establish that the high income rent regime would apply only to new tenants and that they would be given a new tenancy agreement.

Amendments 97, 98 and 62 are designed to ensure that what is considered to be a high income is based on local realities and a multiple of median income, but again the lack of time that the Bill has been afforded together with the incredibly unfair nature of these clauses means that I will be focusing on amendments 144 to 150 and 152 to 153, which seek to remove all the clauses, and therefore the complete chapter, from the Bill.

We are not necessarily against a gradation in rent paid, but we do not think the pay-to-stay proposals that remain in the Bill are in any way acceptable. The proposals will hit people on modest incomes hardest, and this section of the Bill is seemingly a continuation of the Government’s assault on council tenants and a cash grab by the Chancellor, and it is entirely anti-localist as local authorities, and indeed housing associations, already have the discretion to charge high income tenants higher rents.

[Ms Buck]

Did not Westminster council let the cat out of the bag on pay to stay with a leaflet that it distributed last week, “A guide to the Right to Buy Social Mobility Fund”, which stated:

“Under Government proposals, households with an income greater than £40,000 will pay a substantially increased rent. This is an opportunity to avoid this and become a home owner”?

Is not pay to stay about driving home ownership, rather than reflecting income in rent policy?

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

My hon. Friend makes a relevant point about the proposals.

So why are the Government now imposing this scheme on councils, if not to punish council tenants? What have they done to deserve this unique vitriol from the Minister? I remind the House that the threshold for high income, as it stands, is £40,000 per household in London and £30,000 outside London. This would hit people who earn the Chancellor’s new minimum wage. Most people would think that is disgraceful. The policy will hit hardest those who are working in low paid jobs, and that is where it is going to have the most devastating effect.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Karen Buck

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

As the hon. Gentleman will know because he sat through the Committee stage, evidence from Shelter suggests that starter homes will be unaffordable to people on low incomes in 98% of the country, and unaffordable to those on middle incomes in 58% of the country. For that reason we think that local authorities should have more flexibility to deliver other forms of affordable housing alongside starter homes.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

On affordability, does my hon. Friend agree that in places such as London where starter homes will be priced at £450,000 if the market value before discount is £560,000—[Hon. Members: “Up to £450,000!] In central London it is inconceivable that many, if any, of those properties will cost under £450,000. Someone would need a household income higher than that of a Member of Parliament to afford one.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point that we reiterated again and again in Committee, but alas the Minister took no notice.

These concerns are spread across all parties and are reflected in the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). We broadly support those amendments, as they very much back up the arguments we made in Committee.

In Committee, we attempted to point out very clearly to the Government that we need to build houses across all tenures if we are to address the housing crisis. The largest number of houses we built recently was the 214,000 houses built in 2006-07, but that compared unfavourably with 1969 when 357,000 houses were built. What that demonstrates is that if we are to get something like the 250,000 homes we need, about half of them should be delivered by the public sector. However, there are simply no measures in the Bill to produce those much needed public sector homes. That is why we have tabled amendment 31 on Report.

Amendment 32 seeks to ensure that additional housing is supported with adequate infrastructure. This is a really important amendment.