Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point, but the point I am making is that we will need not only starter homes, but other types of homes, particularly those for social rent. That is why the numbers should be subject to local determination and not central diktat.

To everyone except the Government, it appears eminently sensible that the need for starter homes should be assessed locally and then delivered, rather than ordered from on high, most likely to the exclusion of genuinely affordable housing for rent or equity share. This amendment is not a block on starter homes, but a requirement that they are part of a local housing mix.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

The hon. Lady needs to concede that Conservative Members have suspicions that her opposition to starter homes is ideological. Leaving that aside, she would be in a much stronger position were she to concede that a significant number of local planning authorities have not brought forward local district plans or county structure plans in a timely and appropriate fashion, and so the Government are forced to take action to tackle the housing crisis to which she refers.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jackson]

It was longer than one of Britney Spears’s marriages—that is what I wanted to say, Mr Deputy Speaker.

What was depressing about our Committee sittings was the conservative nature of the debate and the stasis of what we got from the Labour party, which did not move on. If there is a housing crisis, we need to find radical ways forward to deal with it. It is not as if we are leaving it simply to the private sector. This week’s announcement of the building of 13,000 units on public sector land provides an example of where we are using the might of Government to work with the private sector to deliver. To appreciate that, one needs to look only at Help to Buy, Help to Buy ISAs and other Government initiatives to help small and medium-sized builders, for instance.

The fact is that we have a mandate for starter homes. The hon. Member for City of Durham asked what changed between March and May. With all due respect, let me tell her that we won the general election and her party lost it. We have a mandate to deliver starter homes, and the hon. Lady does not do justice to the wider issues in housing, planning and development. She fails to take into account some pertinent issues. When in power, her Government failed to deliver infrastructure planning properly. We had housing information packs and we had eco-cities. All those things failed. We had density targets. We had regional spatial strategies, which were a disaster and did not deliver homes. Under that Government, the smallest number of homes were built since 1923, there was the largest increase in young people in temporary accommodation and housing waiting lists increased massively.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

The hon. Gentleman needs to accept that we built 2 million more homes.

[Mr Jackson]

It says something about their priorities that, in five years, the previous Government built more local authority houses than the hon. Lady’s Government did in 13 years, with a much more benign financial regime. She fails to take into account how difficult brownfield remediation is and that about a third of local planning authorities do not have a local plan in place, despite the Government’s encouragement—the local plans have not gone through the inspection process. It is not either/or. Starter homes are a radical boost to ensure that more young people in work who need homes and are languishing in band 4 and band 5 council housing and housing association lists get the opportunity.

If a local authority has produced a decent plan—a structure plan or a deposited local plan—it will, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter), be in a position to effectively put in place intermediate housing and social rent provision working with registered providers. We are not in the business of squeezing that out. It is up to local authorities to do that.

The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy) was right. We are not here to discuss the London housing Bill. This is about the whole of the country. In fact, this is a historic Bill because I think it is the first Bill that is subject to EVEL, so we did not have the dulcet tones of our Caledonian friends helping us on the Committee or on Second Reading.

The starter homes policy is about delivering homes to people who need them. If the hon. Member for City of Durham remembers, when the expert witnesses were challenged in Committee, they could not produce the figures, either on the day or afterwards, that showed definitively, beyond any reasonable doubt, that, from the Bristol channel to the Wash, in Chorley—Mr Deputy Speaker’s seat—in Leyland, in most parts of Lancashire, in Yorkshire and Humberside and in the east and west midlands, for most people on an average income—I accept that there is a difference with the national minimum wage and that the city of Durham is perhaps a different example—the homes would be affordable. Conservative Members on the Committee were not indulging, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) said, in some ideological pursuit. We were looking at the evidence brought before us. The evidence did not demonstrate, with all due respect, the hon. Lady’s position.

This is a radical Bill. I was disappointed by the lack of coherent, cogent alternatives from Her Majesty’s Opposition. May I end on a slightly cheeky note? I listened with interest to the hon. Lady’s plaintive cry that she was badly treated by the programme motion. My understanding is that the usual channels came to an agreement but, because of the incompetence of Her Majesty’s Opposition, they truncated or elongated various new clauses because they had forgotten to table the appropriate amendments. That is why they had to pad it out—which I am obviously not doing.

This is an excellent, radical Bill. It will deliver. It will complement other forms of tenure. We won the election. We have a mandate. I look forward to many more starter homes in my constituency and others throughout the country to give young people in particular the start in life that they deserve in the property-owning democracy that we should be building.

Housing and Planning Bill (Seventeenth sitting)

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

Thursday 10th December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Housing and Planning Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I beg to move amendment 236, in clause 109, page 52, line 24, at end insert—

“(4) Section 136 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 [objects and general powers] is amended as follows.

(5) After subsection (2) insert—

‘(2A) Corporations under this Act must contribute the long-term sustainable development and place making of the new community.

(2B) Under this Act sustainable development and place making means managing the use, development and protection of land and natural resources in a way which enables people and communities to provide for their legitimate social, economic and cultural wellbeing while sustaining the potential of future generations to meet their own needs and in achieving sustainable development and place making, development corporations should—

(a) positively identify suitable land for development in line with the economic, social and environmental objectives so as to improve the quality of life, wellbeing and health of people and the community;

(b) contribute to the sustainable economic development of the community;

(c) contribute to the vibrant cultural and artistic development of the community;

(d) protect and enhance the natural and historic environment;

(e) contribute to mitigation and adaptation to climate change in line with the objectives of the Climate Change Act 2008;

(f) positively promote high quality and inclusive design;

(g) ensure that decision-making is open, transparent, participative and accountable; and

(h) ensure that assets are managed for long-term interest of the community.’

(6) Section 4 of the New Towns Act 1981 [The objects and general powers of Development Corporations] is amended as follows.

(7) For subsection (1) substitute—

‘(1) The objects of a development corporation established for the purpose of a new town or Garden City shall be to secure the physical laying out of infrastructure and the long-term sustainable development and place making of the new community.

(1A) Under this Act sustainable development and place making means managing the use, development and protection of land and natural resources in a way which enables people and communities to provide for their legitimate social, economic and cultural wellbeing while sustaining the potential of future generations to meet their own needs and in achieving sustainable development, development corporations should—

(a) positively identify suitable land for development in line with the economic, social and environmental objectives so as to improve the quality of life, wellbeing and health of people and the community;

(b) contribute to the sustainable economic development of the community;

(c) contribute to the vibrant cultural and artistic development of the community;

(d) protect and enhance the natural and historic environment;

(e) contribute to mitigation and adaptation to climate change in line with the objectives of the Climate Change Act 2008;

(f) positively promote high quality and inclusive design;

(g) ensure that decision-making is open, transparent, participative and accountable; and

(h) ensure that assets are managed for long-term interest of the community.’”

This amendment would insert place-making objectives for both UDC’s in Local Government Act 1980 and for New Town Development Corporations in the New Towns Act 1981 and sets out a high quality purpose for making the development of scale growth.

The clause relates to the procedure for establishing urban development corporations. The purpose of amendment 236 is to try to ensure that if new developments are established under this regime, they conform, at least to a degree, to garden city principles. I am sure that I do not need to remind Committee members about this. I am sure that they all follow matters to do with setting up new towns and garden cities with as much fascination as I do. The Government put through a new garden city under an urban development corporation last year.

Opposition Members’ concern about the procedure relates to the fact that although urban development corporations can deliver new housing and even some associated infrastructure, in their current form they most certainly do not deliver garden cities, because they are not underpinned by garden city principles. The purpose of the amendment is to try to ensure that they are—that they contribute in that way. In particular, the amendment, as opposed to some of the measures that we discussed earlier in our proceedings, focuses on sustainable development and ensuring that the new housing developments are sustainable for the future. They would have built into them, for example, provision to ensure that they contributed to

“the vibrant cultural and artistic development of the community”.

They would

“protect and enhance the natural and historic environment”.

They would also—I am quite concerned that this is missing from the Bill at present—have to

“contribute to mitigation and adaptation to climate change in line with the objectives of the Climate Change Act 2008”.

They would have to

“promote high quality and inclusive design”.

They would have to ensure that decision making was

“open, transparent, participative and accountable”

and that assets were managed for the

“long-term interest of the community.”

The amendment is also designed to ensure that local people are very much involved in the setting up of a new town or garden city and with the infrastructure and the area’s long-term development.

This approach has been helpfully outlined for the whole Committee by the Town and Country Planning Association. In fact, the manifesto that it recently launched in Parliament directly addresses this clause and the amendment to it. Basically, it argues that planning in this country needs to be much more people centred and to get back to some of its roots. It points out that Planning4People is a coalition of organisations and individuals who share a common belief in the value of place making to achieve a just and sustainable future. Together, they are determined to ensure that planning shapes the kind of places that this nation deserves. Planning must change so that it is genuinely focused on people’s needs. Our objective is to bring about the rebirth of the creative, social town planning, which did so much to lay the foundations of a civilised Britain—

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

For the record, can the hon. Lady dissociate herself from the comments of the witness from the Town and Country Planning Association? The TCPA compared the Government’s very sensible legislation to racially motivated zoning, which was struck down by the US Supreme Court. That was effectively nonsense on stilts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

The point I remember the TCPA representative making—which is an issue that perhaps the Minister will want to deal with today—was that the Government appeared to be trying to put together the American zonal system of planning with our local plan-making system and that those two things do not sit very well together, and perhaps we should have one system or the other. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I have missed something else, because I was focusing on the difficulties that would be caused by having the two systems together.

[Mr Jackson]

I do not want to try your patience, Mr Gray, but the hon. Lady is praying in aid the evidence of the TCPA. I raised the point that that evidence was very contentious. It made a number of assertions about the Bill from which I invited the hon. Lady to distance herself.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Perhaps I should clarify for the hon. Gentleman that the evidence to which I am referring at the moment was put together by a whole range of different organisations, which go under the umbrella of Planning4People. This group said that they are trying to get back to an idea of town planning that did so much to lay the foundation of a civilised Britain, using democratic planning to put people at the heart of the process. This is relevant to the amendment because this group of planners are guided by a very powerful definition of sustainable development, which emphasises social justice as a key outcome. They also say that they want a real concentration on building places that are sustainable for future generations, not only to live in but to live decent lives in. They go on, very helpfully, to outline for us what some of those places would look like.

This means that there would be a concern to reduce inequalities of income and of access to education and health, and to promote places where individuals and communities can achieve lasting levels of happiness and wellbeing. I thought that Conservative Members could get behind this particular idea underpinning planning and, indeed, that they would relish getting behind a planning system that seeks to put the achievement of happiness and wellbeing at its heart. I am sure that we would all like our planning system to deliver that.

Planning4People is asking for a new legal duty in planning legislation that would ensure that planning is based on outcomes. It stresses in particular how sustainable development will be achieved, with the requirement to reduce social inequality, give councils back powers over permitted development and so on. That is what this amendment would do. I draw that particular publication to the attention of hon. Members, because I think that it sets out very clearly for us a context in which perhaps I can persuade the Minister that, in introducing urban development corporations, he will ensure that they are underpinned by some of the garden city principles that we want to see.

Housing and Planning Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that permission in principle should be given without adequate testing of those sites being carried out? We heard from the Minister on Thursday that it does not seem to be possible to remove permission in principle if subsequently a technical detail means that the development should not go ahead.

[Mr Jackson]

We already have a vast array of assessments and objective criteria by which we measure developments. We have the local plans, structure plans, site location plans and viability assessments. We have vacant building credit, for instance, which is now in court as the result of a legal case. We have plenty of opportunities for engagement, even without talking about neighbourhood plans. The idea that the first base of the Secretary of State is to intervene straightaway is nonsense.

Finally, it ill behoves being lectured on localism by a party responsible for home information packs, eco-towns and the disaster of regional special strategy with Prescott’s density and parking targets, which gave rise to some of the worst-quality housing we have seen in this country since the war.

[Brandon Lewis]

It has been enlightening to have effectively a second clause stand part debate on clause 102. The amendments clearly relate to clause 102, so I will respond to them in that context.

I was particularly taken by my hon. Friend’s comments about the Roman forts. I would encourage his father to visit the Caister Roman fort to see how we do it in Great Yarmouth and give us some views on how to get some development around that.

I was amused by the comments of the hon. Member for Bootle about a centralist approach, which I assume were tongue-in-cheek. In his opening remarks, my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough perfectly summed up what the amendments do. Having been a councillor for 11 years under a Labour Government, I know what centralism in local authority planning terms feels like.

With the best will in the world, the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood miss a key point, which is that permission in principle is driven locally—planning permission in principle will come through decisions made by local people in their local communities. That is a fundamental fact. I know the hon. Lady was not here when we touched on that at the end of last week.

Amendment 285 would require the Secretary of State to set out in regulations that sufficient testing of a site must take place before permission in principle is granted. The regulations also set out that adequate funding is provided to carry that out. I will come back to that in detail in a moment.

I have two fundamental concerns about amendment 285. First, prescribing the particulars to be addressed when granting permission in principle builds unhelpful rigidity into the process. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South made the point very well. We have been clear that we consider the particulars to be granted permission in principle should be use, location and amount of development. The approach taken in the Bill is a prudent, balanced one that allows for the particulars to be set out in secondary legislation. It gives us the flexibility to ensure that permission in principle works as intended.

My second concern is the detailed nature of the issues that amendment 284 requires to be fully addressed at the permission in principle stage. We have been clear from the very beginning that, in order for the measures to deliver real change in unlocking sites and avoiding unnecessary costs, permission in principle should give up-front certainty on the core matters underpinning the basic suitability of a site, namely its use, location and amount of development, and allow matters of detail to be agreed subsequently, as we have outlined before.

Amendment 284 proposes that matters of detail, such as density, affordable housing provision, community and social infrastructure requirements, be settled at the permission in principle stage. Let me be clear that those are matters that should be addressed before development is allowed to proceed, and the local planning authority may well consider them when deciding whether to grant permission in principle. However, if we were to require those to be covered by permission in principle, far more detailed information and analysis would be required, which would entirely negate the value of the Government’s measures and effectively duplicate the existing outline planning application process. Matters such as affordable housing contribution and community infrastructure provision will be agreed and negotiated at the technical detail stage, in line with local and national policy.

On amendment 285, clause 102 will enable permission in principle to be granted when a site is allocated in qualifying documents. The Secretary of State will prescribe a qualifying document only if it has been through a suitably robust process, including public consultation and a site assessment. We intend to set out in secondary legislation that the qualifying documents will be local plans, neighbourhood plans and the brownfield register. Before allocating a site in a local plan, as I am sure Members will appreciate, local authorities already go through a detailed site investigation and assessment process as part of their strategic housing land availability assessment.

In the neighbourhood planning context, the neighbourhood planning qualifying body should carry out an appraisal of options and an assessment of individual sites if it intends to allocate sites for development. Any such appraisals carried out by qualifying bodies are subject to scrutiny by both the local planning authority and an independent examiner. Neighbourhood plans also go through a full referendum of the local community. That is absolute local power in the hands of local people—true localism.

Therefore, extremely robust testing already exists in plan-making processes, and the whole purpose of the permission in principle model is to draw on that and make the best use of all the local effort, detailed work and resource at the plan-making stage, so that we get back to what we should be aiming for, which is a plan-led system. As the Government’s measures propose to utilise existing plan-making processes, we do not anticipate additional burdens on local authorities.

Housing and Planning Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

Thursday 3rd December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

No—I am not going down that route.

I would have thought that local authorities and housing associations should be allowed to manage their own affairs in respect of how they collect information about income so that it suits their tenants. The Secretary of State could decide that all information should be supplied and obtained electronically, but a lot of tenants might get weekly payslips, so that would be extremely difficult for them. He might decide that the timeframe should be three months, which could be extremely difficult for those with fluctuating earnings.

This subsection is nonsense, because to make the scheme operate all the Secretary of State has to say is that housing associations and local authorities must determine the income of their tenants and apply higher rents, rather than telling them what kind of information or evidence will be required and the time and form in which they must get it.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

In my reasonably short time on the Public Accounts Committee—I have not been on it as long as my hon. Friend and esteemed colleague the Member for South Norfolk—one lesson I have learnt is that if data are not collected properly, the efficacy of a proposed policy can never be worked out. My reading of the clause is simply that it will be a template for consistency across housing associations, which will allow each to measure the same thing.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

That is an interesting point of view, but it is rather at odds with what we often hear from the Government about localism, letting a thousand flowers bloom and letting local authorities get on with the job of managing things. In fact, it probably runs counter to the whole devolution agenda, so the next time the Secretary of State gets up to expound the many benefits of devolution—I totally concur: all of us want to see more devolution—I might be tempted to remind him that subsection (3) is at odds with the devolution ethos. It is incredibly prescriptive, because not only does it require particular information from local authorities or housing associations, but it requires that in a particular way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jackson]

I am puzzled by the hon. Lady’s comments. Incidentally, sustainability is at the heart of the national planning policy framework, which she will know has been in place for three years. On the one hand, she says she is in favour of localism, local choices and value judgments made by local planning authorities and local people, but on the other hand, she tells us that we have to put in the Bill variety, diversity and all the rest of it. Surely it is up to local planning authorities to work on things such as joint ventures and regeneration; we cannot legislate for that in the Bill.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

It is perfectly legitimate for a Government to consider what framework they need to put in place to help local communities plan for their future, and their children’s and grandchildren’s futures. After all, I am trying to ensure that we have a planning system that is plan-led, totally inclusive, encourages local authorities to plan for the needs of everyone in their area, and focuses on place making, so that we do not have a planning system that only looks at housing, for example—although it could just as easily look at only transport.

We need a planning system that looks right across the board at place making. How local authorities do that will be a matter for them, within the framework, and what they seek to prioritise will be a matter for them locally. The system needs to do specific things, outlined in new clause 16, in order for development to be sustainable for the future. I do not want to test the Chair.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The problem that we want to address is the lack of vision for a planning system. Too often the Conservative party has characterised planning as a block to development, whereas we argue that if planning is done in the right way, and if the approach is fully inclusive, that brings communities along in the planning system. They help to plan neighbourhoods and that can speed up planning further down the line.

Perhaps something else happens as well—something that is even more important. We need a system that designs the communities that people want to live in, which should be fully sustainable. We have tried in new clause 16 to outline changes and improvements, and what the planning system should encompass to make that objective achievable, so that it can take root. We want a planning system based on principles of sustainable development that would positively identify land suitable for development in line with economic, social and environmental objectives, so as to improve the quality of life, wellbeing and health of people and the community.

[Mr Jackson]

The hon. Lady is most kind in giving way. I have a straightforward question. How is the new clause any different from the existing regime of a national planning policy framework, a robust system of checks and balances through the Planning Inspectorate and supplementary planning documents? For instance, in Peterborough there is the Peterborough city centre area action plan, a supplementary planning document for Peterborough district hospital, and so on. We all have those things in our local authorities. How would the new clause add any commitment to sustainability or effective planning that is not already in place?

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

We are trying to take some of the principles in the NPPF and give them life in local planning documents, so that local authorities will make very positive identifications of land.

What we propose would not be a system in which local authorities would be required just to find a certain amount of land on which to build a certain number of houses. It is important that they should do that, and we are not for a moment suggesting that they should not. We are suggesting that, in addition to thinking about land needed for housing, they should think about what the wider environment will be like if those houses are built. Will there be adequate transport and access to health facilities? Will the development contribute positively to the wellbeing of the community? How will that happen? Where are those objectives reflected in the land use plan? Those things are extremely important if we are to build resilience into communities for the future.

We also say that the plan should contribute to the sustainable economic development of the community. That is an important thing to ask of it. To give an example from my constituency, about putting a land use plan together, I happened to notice when our local plan was before the inspector that although a great many aspects of it related to economic development, and although sites were set aside here and there across the county for economic development, which was very welcome, something was missing. The bit that was missing was setting aside land for start-up units, in particular ones for new businesses that could be easily accessed by students from the university. Some of the start-up units were in an area that students would never be able to access, but that is important for sustainability and to ensure that jobs are there for the future and that we are developing jobs based on knowledge transfer and high-technology skills—we often hear about those exact things from the Conservatives, because that is the high-value and high-skilled economy that they want us to move to. Simply not enough was reflected in the local plan, which was also changed. That is the sort of difference that we think having those principles embedded in local planning would deliver.

The plan should also consider the cultural and artistic development of the community. That can often be missed out in the development of local plans, in which there is a concentration on land use for housing, the economy or transport, forgetting that, in order to ensure that a community develops holistically and is a good quality place to live, adequate notice should be taken of the need for space for new features that can be accessed by the whole community. Those features, whether for sport or leisure, should be inclusive, but they would need to be facilities that create opportunities for the whole community. That is why new clause 14 is so important and why the new clauses in this group must be seen as linked, because we want the principles to be totally inclusive, with planning for the needs of the whole community.

More needs to be done with the plans in areas such as mine, because they must protect and enhance the natural and the historic environment. The Woodland Trust and others gave written evidence to the Committee, and they were most concerned about how interventions could be made under clause 96 that might seek in some way to downplay the attention given in a local area to the planting of trees, for example. We can talk in more detail about garden cities when we reach later amendments, but one of the amazing things that Milton Keynes did when it was being developed under the positive planning agenda that I am outlining was to plant thousands and thousands of trees. Having enough trees was considered important to people’s quality of life and the ambience of the new city. It is extraordinary that that could be left out of new developments if it were not an underpinning principle of the local plan or reflected in neighbourhood and local plans.

In my own area I am working alongside a neighbourhood planning forum, and I often say—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jackson]

The hon. Lady must have a short memory. I remember that in the good old days when we were both in Parliament under the Labour Government, her party downgraded code 6 for eco-homes in eco-towns to code 3, which was opposed by significant numbers of people in the sustainable energy sector. In that respect, we all make mistakes. She should understand, within the context of planning, that that was done for a good reason.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

The hon. Gentleman can correct me if I am wrong, but my recollection is that we put in place a timeframe, which the industry said it needed in order to be able to move to zero-carbon homes. That timeframe was 2016. In the last Parliament, under the coalition Government, the requirement to produce zero-carbon homes by 2016 was removed. The hon. Gentleman must forgive me, but I am not sure I want to take lessons about building climate change-resilient homes from the Conservative party.

Moving swiftly on, we also want an underpinning principle that will promote high-quality and inclusive design. To return for a moment to the charrette system, one positive thing about it is that it involves people in design. I have seen it work by asking quite young children what sort of community they want. [Interruption.] That can be easily dismissed, but it is important that we encourage children from an early age to understand the importance of planning and what planning can contribute to improving our whole society if the right system is in place. We have lost that somewhere. That is what underpins the new clauses: if we go back to the intra-war and post-war periods, Britain was at the forefront of improving planning for everyone. Amazing new towns legislation and the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 set a plan-making system in place, but we are falling down the international ranks in planning because we are not ensuring that those sorts of principles are fully incorporated into local planning at all levels. We also want to ensure that decision making is open, transparent, participative and accountable.

The reason we are so concerned about clause 96 is because the whole basis of our local plan-making system is that it should be not only transparent and participative, but accountable. Local councillors should be putting schemes forward with participation from their neighbourhoods. People should be able to go along to a public inquiry and say, “I do not like this bit of the plan. I think it should be changed.” We tamper with that system at our peril. Perhaps we can discuss that more when considering later clauses.

Finally, I want stress the importance of paragraph (h) in new clause 16, which says that the planning authority should

“ensure that assets are managed for long-term interest of the community.”

That is something we must do, but that element of our plan making has almost, if not completely, disappeared from the Government’s thinking. We should use the uplift in land values that development brings for the long-term benefit of the community. Unfortunately, over several years—first under the coalition Government and now this Government—planning gain has been watered down, either through non-application of section 106 or the community infrastructure levy, removing the uplift money that could go towards communities’ long-term stability.

Some Government Members are looking at me quizzically, so I will give an example of how uplift planning gain can be invested for the long term in, for example, Letchworth or Milton Keynes. Milton Keynes has existed for 50 years and its roads now need to be improved. The authorities have been able to call on the levy that was attached to new development to fund infrastructure improvement on an ongoing basis. That is the sort of thing we would like to see, especially as so many people have suggested to us that there was no money for infrastructure.

I hope that helps members of the Committee to understand why the new clauses are so important. They would help to put in place a planning system that delivered places that all the people in our communities, as well as future generations, would want to live in—places that provided not only a good quality built environment, but a good quality natural environment, and that gave people access to the jobs and facilities they needed to be able to live comfortably and harmoniously not only in their own neighbourhoods, but with surrounding areas.

I hope the Minister’s response will positively welcome such principles and how they could be used to counter some of clause 96’s possible negative impacts.

Housing and Planning Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

Thursday 3rd December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 200, in clause 74, page 30, line 6, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State must not make regulations under subsection (1) which apply—

(a) to people aged over 65,

(b) to people who have a registered disability,

(c) to people on zero hours contracts,

(d) to people with seasonal contracts of employment,

(e) to households where one or more members is in receipt of Employment and Support Allowance,

(f) where a household member is in receipt of care,

(g) where a member of the household is a carer for another household member,

(h) to those living in supported housing, or

(i) to households in receipt of housing benefit.”

The amendment would establish exemptions from the application of high income rents system.

Welcome back to the Chair, Mr Gray. Amendments 199 and 200 bring us to one of the most contentious and difficult parts of the Bill. The Minister will be well aware of how contentious it is because he has had a 38 Degrees campaign against it directed at him. Chapter 4 is rather euphemistically entitled “High income social tenants: mandatory rents”, but the rest of us, using everyday parlance, would understand it as “pay to stay”.

The concept has been with us for quite some time. Interestingly, the coalition Government carried out a consultation exercise in 2012 on whether housing associations and other social landlords in England should be given discretion to charge market or near-market rents to tenants with an income of £60,000 or more a year, arguing that high-income families should not pay social rents, which are typically half the market rent, when they could afford to pay more. The discretionary scheme was subsequently introduced, but there was not a huge response from housing associations. Given the results of that consultation, which I just happen to have in front of me, it is quite extraordinary that the Government went ahead and introduced the discretionary scheme. Only a quarter of respondents actually agreed with the principle of pay to stay; in fact, those who responded thought the policy would create administrative burdens, be excessively costly for landlords, involve difficulties in identifying tenants with high incomes and be difficult for tenants, particularly if they had fluctuating incomes.

People had a lot of sensible, well thought through reasons for saying that there could be an element of discretion somewhere, but that the thresholds should be high and that the existing system of setting rents within a national framework, albeit with some degree of flexibility, was the right approach, while mandatory higher rents at certain thresholds were perhaps not.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

For the record and for greater clarity, will the hon. Lady confirm the position of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition on the principle of a £60,000 cap, which was consulted on? That is twice the average income in my constituency. Is she in favour of directing scarce public resources at people on low incomes, or at those who can clearly afford to pay market rent?

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I already almost answered the hon. Gentleman in my previous statement, but I will reiterate it in a moment. I remind him that the purpose of the Committee—I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong, Mr Gray—is to scrutinise the Government’s legislation and the consultation document in front of me, not to scrutinise the Opposition’s position. As I outlined a moment ago, our position is very much that the system in place at the moment, with a national framework for rent setting that gives discretion to housing associations and local authorities to charge higher rents should they wish to, and to set rents at a level that makes sense for them, including for tenants with an income of more than £60,000, is the right approach. I hope that answers his point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Perhaps I will say it again. A discretionary scheme is already in operation, and local authorities and housing associations are able to reflect local circumstances and apply high rents where they deem it appropriate. That is a sensible way forward.

[Mr Jackson]

I have listened to the hon. Lady’s dulcet Ulster tones all morning, but we have not made much progress. To reach a consensus in our scrutiny of the Bill, we must understand Her Majesty’s Opposition’s benchmark. She prayed in aid evidence from housing associations and said that only a quarter of them backed the proposal, but what is her policy? In principle, would she have supported a cap of £60,000? With all due respect, she has failed to answer that straightforward question for the past 25 minutes.

[Mr Thomas]

Say it even more slowly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I hope to discuss that later in our deliberations.

Before I finish talking about amendment 200, it might help the Committee to focus on the real issues if I briefly quote from a letter to a housing association:

“The person for whom I care is now severely disabled and chronically sick. He was diagnosed with a crippling, degenerative illness at the age of 17, but worked all his life…He now requires two carers, so that we can look after him virtually 24/7…He worked very hard despite his medical problems and finished his career as a business unit manager with 204 staff spread over seven locations…He chose to stay in his flat in central London as it was close to his job and, through his hard work, built up a pension, which, in normal circumstances would be adequate. Now, however, because, at his income level, he does not receive help from the council, his pension is mostly spent on his carers and supplies which the NHS is unable to provide. Pay to Stay takes no account of these personal circumstances and does not recognise that, though his gross income will be just about £40k in 2017, more than half of that goes on his carers. I deal with all aspects of his life now, including his finances, and I know that, even though he is no longer able to pay to his carers the ‘going rate’, he is left, after tax, on a four figure income which is at poverty level. This is a problem that is bound to be faced by hundreds of disabled people at this income level.”

This part of the Bill will make people with real difficulties face that set of circumstances. Why does the Minister think that is appropriate? Many other examples have been provided, but I will not go through them—that one case sums up exactly the difficulties posed.

[Mr Jackson]

I rise to speak against amendments 199 and 200. I am unsure whether the hon. Lady did herself many favours by referencing 38 Degrees in her opening comments. Thankfully, we make decisions about legislation based on the merits of the debate rather than on what cyber-warriors on 38 Degrees might decide is a good campaign.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Mr Jackson]

That was quick. I will give way to the hon. Lady.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that I did not make any comment at all about the nature of the campaign. I merely pointed out to the Committee that the measures in this section of the Bill are so contentious that there is a 38 Degrees campaign against them.

[Mr Jackson]

I thank the hon. Lady for clarifying that. While we are on the subject of harassment and cyber-bullying, I want to put on the record my admiration for those Labour MPs who did the right thing for their country yesterday, including the hon. Member for Harrow West, although it clearly will not have done his career a lot of good.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Thank you, Mr Gray. I will try to keep in order, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.

The purpose of amendment 202 is to try to find out from the Minister whether future rents will be set totally based income, or whether he sees a role for them being based on the condition of the property as well or instead. That could include the state of repair, the age of the property, the degree of modernisation or refurbishment, and the locality—clearly some areas of the country have higher housing costs than others. We also want to know whether attention will be given to what affordable rent levels are locally. Some housing associations have written to us with real concern about what the new rent charging regime will mean for them and their tenants. We need to understand that level of detail about what the Bill will mean for local authorities, housing associations and the people who will have to live with the new charging regime.

[Mr Jackson]

The hon. Lady is being overly pessimistic and negative about the clause. The corollary of what she is saying is that good housing associations will take the opportunity to work with the people affected and to tell them about starter homes and Help to Buy, including Help to Buy ISAs. In time, guidance may be issued stating that they have a duty to do that, and the result will be that people will move to such tenures and release housing for people who perhaps need it more.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. One of the aims underpinning these clauses is to try to push people into owner-occupation or equity share. That seems appropriate and sensible for people who can afford it, perhaps with the right support and the right mortgage product. The problem is that the Government have produced no evidence of how many people will be pushed into that, and they have certainly not produced evidence to indicate that households with an income of £30,000 will be able to afford a property. I would be happy if the Minister returned to the Committee with detailed evidence to underpin some of what the Government seek to do in this part of the Bill. We have not seen that evidence, so we do not know what the full impact will be. We have people coming forward saying, “This is how it will impact on me”, and they say that the impact will be very negative. If Government Members reject that evidence, they must come forward with counter-evidence, but none has been brought forward to date.

If I can move swiftly on to amendment 203—

Housing and Planning Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I beg to move amendment 149, in clause 56, page 24, line 13, at end insert—

‘(4) Grants must not be payable on properties bought and turned into buy to let dwellings within ten years’.

This amendment would prevent property sold under Right to Buy from being converted into buy to let dwellings for a period of ten years.

We have just dealt with a whole set of concerns expressed by housing associations and others on replacement. Housing associations and commentators have also raised other issues, and the amendment seeks to address some of the concerns about houses subject to the right to buy soon being turned into private rented properties.

It will be interesting to see what level of discretion housing associations might operate in the area, but it is worth hearing from the Minister again on whether he intends to put anything in guidance or regulation to suggest a period of time after a house has been sold under the right to buy before it can be bought up to be let out as part of the private rented stock.

The issue was considered to a degree by the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, which is undertaking an inquiry into the right to buy. I have brought with me a copy of its review of evidence report so that I might convince Government Members that there is such a report and that it was commissioned by the Select Committee. Many of the issues that we have sought to address in amendments are covered in the evidence base. Given that, it is important that we test the Minister on what he intends to do about the grave questions people have asked about the right to buy and how it might operate in practice.

The Communities and Local Government Committee review of evidence report commented:

“A considerable proportion of RTB stock has now been ‘recycled’ into the private rented sector, especially in recent years. The pace of growth of private renting in the RTB resale sector may affect the demographics, dynamics and stability of some neighbourhoods.”

It also noted that

“resale of RTB property into private renting results in higher Housing Benefit expenditure”,

and that it was calculated

“that the higher cost of accommodation in the private rented sector”

has a direct impact on costs to local authorities, leading to

“an additional cost of £3.2 million per annum compared to the equivalent in social renting”

had the stock remained in the social rented sector. It is not an insignificant issue. Research by Inside Housing in 2015 estimated that nearly 40% of ex-council leasehold properties sold under the right to buy were now in the private rented sector. Average weekly awards of housing benefit in the private rented sector in 2015 were over £20 higher than in the social rented sector, which is more than £1,000 extra for each claim.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

The hon. Lady will obviously concede that the Chancellor took fiscal measures to disincentivise buy to let in the autumn statement, and she obviously supports owner occupation. To press her on the amendment, given that it is about the power of Secretary of State to make an in-year grant under clause 56 to a housing association, what are the mechanics of clawing back over that 10-year period? Would it not be overly bureaucratic given that she says that housing associations do not currently have the capacity to collect data on their own tenants?

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

That is a really helpful intervention. One would hope that the threat of grant clawback when a property is converted to buy to let or private renting would be enough of a disincentive to prevent people from doing so.

I appreciate that fiscal measures were taken in the autumn statement, but the amendment seeks to tease out from the Minister, in the absence of any information about the operation of the scheme, whether he intends to give any guidance to housing associations that would help them put together a scheme to ensure not only that people are moved into home ownership, which, as I keep stressing, we all want, but that there would be a time delay before the property could be transferred into the private rented sector. We want to restrict that, not because we have anything against private renting, but because it tends to lead to a higher housing benefit bill and can lead to a clustering of private rented sector properties in a given area, which can have ongoing management costs.

As I was saying, there can be an effect on the demographics, dynamics and stability of some neighbourhoods, which is not necessarily helpful. I am sure that anyone with a university seat such as mine will know exactly what that means in practice. The centre of Durham used to have two absolutely wonderful council housing estates that were built to high standards in the post-war era. They provided much-needed social rented housing in the city centre, which is normally quite expensive. Under right to buy, however, that good-quality housing was bought up over the years by student landlords and properties have been extended. So, instead of having social rented housing available in the city centre, we have huge clusterings of student housing, which takes a fair degree of management by the university, the students themselves and the local authority. We have to make it clear that there should be a tenure mix in an area, if at all possible, which is why we are very keen to see the Government engage with this issue at some level.

[Mr Jackson]

The hon. Lady is most generous in giving way and I concur that Durham is a beautiful city, having spent my birthday there this year, in the chaplain’s quarters in the castle—[Interruption.] I am not a Tory toff, as the hon. Member for Harrow West might imagine.

To deal with the issues that the hon. Lady has raised, her own Government brought in the selective licensing regime under the Housing Act 2004 which deals specifically with the issue that she raised about social and demographic change, and the deterioration of residential neighbourhoods. We do not need any more legislation primarily looking at that particular issue.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I only wish it was that easy to get selective licensing in place; alas, it is not that easy. Quite a high bar has been set. If it worked effectively, that might say something about the dynamics that can occur with that amount of private rented sector housing, particularly for students in an area. However, it does not deal with the wider points I am making about the impact that conversions to the private rented sector have on the housing benefit bill. Again, that is a matter on which we want to press the Minister.

The amendment is particularly important for London and other high-value housing shortage areas, because enabling the right to buy to convert quickly to a private rented sector tenancy simply means that it becomes unaffordable for many people. The statutory right to buy requires the repayment of the discount if the property is disposed of, with some exemptions, within five years of purchase. However, there are no restrictions on tenants who exercise the right to buy and subsequently let the property to private tenants. We think that that is an omission that should be rectified. Previous criticisms of the policy noted that it is particularly important that measures restricting the practice of sub-letting right-to-buy properties, except perhaps in cases where the purchaser has died, should be included in the Bill.

As I said earlier, it is important that we address this issue, because—unfortunately—37.6% of ex-council flats are now in the buy-to-let and private rented sector. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, the public sector accountants, have highlighted the negative impact of funding the right to buy, which simply means a property ends up as a private rent with further strains on the public purse, not only from the discount—obviously—but from higher housing benefit payments.

It would not appear to be a particularly economically competent measure to put a great deal of public subsidy into the right to buy itself, then have to give even further public subsidy because those houses have quickly been converted into buy-to-let properties or private rented properties. London boroughs are able to provide evidence that illustrates this point. In Barking and Dagenham, 41% of properties purchased under right to buy are now privately let. Average eligible private rented sector rents for housing benefit increased by 45% in real terms between 2000-01 and 2010-11, which is a truly extraordinary figure. An estimated £2.9 billion, or 33%, of private sector housing benefit expenditure can be attributed directly to the conversion of properties bought through right to buy to the private rented sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I simply reiterate my point that housing associations want to ensure that they can carry out due diligence and are seeking, as are we, some guidance from the Minister about what might be appropriate. In passing, I should say that the amendment is largely probing to test whether the Government have thought about how the scheme will work in practice, and whether the concerns of the housing associations that will have to operate it are being taken on board.

[Mr Jackson]

It is incumbent on the hon. Lady to table an amendment that makes sense. She cannot simply say that it is a probing amendment, because she will have heard at the evidence session that virtually all the housing associations said that they did not have the organisational capacity to collect robust data on their own tenants’ financial circumstances. Yet she is now asking us to believe that they can put time, effort and resources aside to become, effectively, a Financial Conduct Authority for their own tenants.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I am not sure why the hon. Gentleman does not think the amendment makes sense. It says:

“A dwelling must not be sold under the Right to Buy without the Housing Association having the ability to—

(a) verify the source of funding for purchase,

(b) establish who is occupying the property,

(c) check that the person/s seeking to purchase the property under Right to Buy has no interest in another property,

(d) have sufficient time to carry out checks for fraudulent activity, and

(e) be able to prepare reports on (a) – (d) for the Housing Association Board of Trustees to consider.”

I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman’s problem is. The amendment makes perfect sense to me. The hon. Gentleman might disagree with it, but that is a different issue from the amendment not making sense.

In addition to the concerns in the amendment, housing associations also wonder whether eligibility for right-to-buy discounts should exclude those tenants who are in arrears with their rent and those who receive housing benefit. Personally, I am not sure about that, but the housing associations have raised those issues.

In relation to tenants with an assured shorthold tenancy, the housing associations want to be sure that family members who wish to take part in right to buy have been occupying the property as their only and principal home for the qualifying period and that no applicant has an interest in another property. Those are sensible measures because of the discounts that apply under right to buy. As the discounts are now substantial, it is important that we encourage housing associations to account properly for how money is spent and that due diligence is allowed to happen. That seems sensible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jackson]

There is a modern trend called “virtue signalling,” and we have a version of it here. This is either an amendment that should be taken seriously and could be added to the Bill, or it is not. It is not a probing amendment so much as a wrecking amendment that is virtue signalling to our friends at the other end of the corridor—the unelected panjandrums in the House of Lords—who will be looking at this Committee’s decisions and debates.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

If this is a wrecking amendment, does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is a wrecking amendment that has come from the housing associations themselves? If they have genuinely signed up to a voluntary agreement, one can only ponder why they would want to wreck this legislation.

[Mr Jackson]

It is apposite at yuletide to say that turkeys do not vote for Christmas. Anything that puts a burden on the housing associations would not be in the best interests of their tenants. Taking issue with the hon. Lady is like wandering down memory lane. Twenty-five years ago, when I had the honour to serve as a London borough councillor, the Labour party was going through a hard-left spasm, and it was then finding it difficult to contain its antagonism towards the first iteration of right to buy. The Labour party had to pay lip service to it, but it was all about putting bureaucratic barriers in the way of tenants exercising their proper, due right to buy. Although the Labour party pays lip service to the desire for more people to own their own homes—again, I cite the figure that 86% of people say that they want to own their own home and support right to buy—I get the feeling that somehow it has not caught up with that trend.

I say that because the hon. Lady knows that the housing associations specifically made it very clear at the evidence session that we attended a week or so ago that, in respect of pay to stay, they did not have this capacity to check. It seems—bizarre as it may appear—that housing associations do not routinely check the financial bona fides of their own tenants: their incomes, their expenditure, and the basis on which they were being housed by that private entity, for the time being, or by that social entity in the form of a housing association. It seems to me that the hon. Lady has disregarded that evidence by tabling an amendment that is onerous and bureaucratic, and would have a direct cost on front-line services in terms of the provision of social housing and specialist housing.

Given the very sensible points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Thirsk and Malton and for Wimbledon, the amendment is superfluous simply because it disregards the fact that there are already regulatory and statutory obligations and duties on several bodies to ensure that money laundering does not take place. The checks and balances that the hon. Member for City of Durham thinks that we should put into legislation by means of this amendment are simply not needed, and would put an extra bureaucratic burden on housing associations. Indeed, this amendment is not good enough and, in my humble opinion, it is a wrecking amendment. Even though the hon. Lady does not suggest it, I decry the fact that housing associations, which said that they are too busy to check their own tenants’ financial bona fides for pay to stay, would still be expected under the amendment—indeed, they suggested it through the National Housing Federation—to put in place an onerous and difficult bureaucratic regime.

Housing and Planning Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Thank you, Sir Alan.

Whatever point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, and I am not completely sure what it is, it is absolutely clear that independent assessment shows that the coalition had a less than impressive record on delivering replacement housing under the right to buy.

The House of Commons Library emphasises that the

“single most contentious aspect of the statutory”

right to buy

“has been the failure to replace the sold stock since the scheme’s inception.”

That was echoed strongly in evidence to the Committee. For example, PlaceShapers said that, although it supports the right to buy in principle, its greatest concern is to ensure that sold social housing stock is replaced on a like-for-like basis in the same location wherever possible. It adds that that will be a challenge for the sector, particularly where the replacement costs are higher than the market value of sold units—exactly the point I made to the Minister on the last group of amendments.

That is a critical issue because of the policy’s legacy in the social housing sector. Some 1.8 million properties in England were purchased under the right to buy between 1980-81 and 2013-14. The number of dwellings owned by local authorities declined from 5.1 million in 1980 to 1.7 million in 2014. Some £45 billion was raised through the right to buy but, sadly, very little of it was reinvested in replacements, which is the point. The figures speak for themselves, regardless of what the hon. Gentleman says.

[Mr Jackson]

The hon. Lady’s complaints would have a lot more credibility if, during a 13-year period of benign economic growth, the Labour Government had deregulated the housing revenue account, released capital and allowed local government to build new municipal housing. It is a fact that more council homes, rather than housing association homes, have been built since 2010 than were built during the 13 years of Labour government. Let us bear that in mind if we are looking to apportion blame for the lack of social housing as a consequence of the right to buy.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

The hon. Gentleman obviously was not listening to my earlier point. It is clear that no Government built enough housing, particularly social rented stock. It is important that we do not keep going down the party line: “Everything you did was bad, and everything we did was good.” As I made clear to the hon. Member for Croydon South, of the £45 billion that was raised, the Labour Government put at least £32 billion into ensuring that the remaining stock was of a sufficient quality for people to live in, which is not an unimportant or irrelevant point. After 18 years of Conservative government, the stock was in an absolutely deplorable condition and often was not fit to be occupied. Necessarily, the Labour Government concentrated on ensuring that people could actually live in the social-rented stock that was available.

Housing and Planning Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Jackson]

I am interested in probing the hon. Lady’s argument. Perhaps this is a supposition, but is she saying that if, for instance, housing associations were reclassified by the Office for National Statistics as public bodies, she would therefore support the extension of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to tenants vis-à-vis housing associations? Is that Labour party policy?

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, as always. We were making a slightly different point, which was that the Government and Ministers do not seem to have made it very clear that the information on the database may not be available through a freedom of information request. Unless that is made absolutely clear, we run the risk of some tenants, future tenants, possible tenants or their advocates getting access to the database, whereas other people who do not go down the route of making a freedom of information request will not have access. To us, that seems to be rather a ridiculous and unfair situation.

We need to hear very clearly from Ministers why access to the database is being restricted to local authorities. What is it specifically in the Data Protection Act that would prevent Members of Parliament or other approved agencies—I am sure we could all come up with list of them—from having access to that information in the database? What are the reasons? Potential use of that information could be prescribed to a large extent by Ministers. During our consideration of the Bill, the Committee has heard a lot about how much information will be put into regulations. I am sure it would be possible for Ministers to come up with regulations that set out who could have access to the database and in what circumstances, what the information could be used for, how it could be passed on to third parties and what caveats would be attached to it. If the information were to be used only in prescribed circumstances, that would protect the people it concerned under data protection law.

Housing and Planning Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

Thursday 19th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Alan? The amendment seeks to probe the Minister on why a discount of 20% below market value is to be set to encourage people to buy starter homes, instead of a sensible multiplier of median household income in the area concerned, which would allow affordability to be determined on a regional or local basis, set by the local authority. As well as being localist, surely that would be a more effective way to get people on to the housing ladder. The national threshold in the Bill will mean that starter homes, unless they are priced significantly below that, will in many areas be out of reach for too many families.

I know that Government Members got a bit hot and bothered about the research presented to us by Shelter in oral evidence, but it is important to go through its argument in detail, because its position was backed up by others who gave evidence. It stressed that for many first-time buyers the current thresholds set by the Government are too high and that many people would not be able to afford a property priced at £250,000 outside London or £450,000 in London.

Shelter made the powerful point that the reforms will oblige local authorities to ensure that starter homes are built, with funding diverted from existing affordable housing within the planning system. That harks back to our discussion this morning: as starter homes are not currently affordable to most families on low and middle incomes, they should be built in addition to, not in place of, existing affordable housing. Local authorities should not be compelled to accept such homes if they are not affordable to their local community.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Just to correct the hon. Lady, the figures before us show that it is wrong to assert that starter homes are not affordable to the majority of low and middle-income families. They may not be affordable for a minority in specific geographical areas, but the figures do not show that they are unaffordable for the majority.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

The picture is quite complicated, but Shelter has been helpful in the evidence it provided. I am not sure whether I have its document in front of me to show the hon. Gentleman, but in its detailed analysis in “Starter Homes: will they be affordable?” it gives a detailed breakdown for each local authority area. I found that helpful, so he might like to look at it. In that we can see that, across the country, there are a number of areas in which the pricing regime will make the homes unaffordable for many people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jackson]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. Is not the practical consequence of amendment 63 a prescriptive restriction of starter homes, via the local planning authority, to more unviable sites with larger remediation costs? That would effectively restrict the supply to a much smaller number of sites, rather than the more permissive regime the Bill allows for.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

The point I am making is that it was the hon. Gentleman’s party’s Government who consulted on a starter homes policy for exception sites only. By the way, I should point out in passing that the policy of putting starter homes on brownfield sites that would, in all other respects, be unviable was largely welcomed, because it was seen as a fairly sensible approach and a way of bringing forward land for development that might, in all other circumstances, not be used. My point is that that is what the Government consulted on. People said in response to the consultation document, “In general, we think this is a good policy. There are some issues with it”—I will talk about those in a moment— “but broadly speaking, it is to be welcomed.” This is my question to the Minister: given that we now have a starter home policy that not only applies to almost any site, but prioritises the development of starter homes on those sites, what brought about that massive change in policy?

[Mr Jackson]

I might have an answer.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Oh, excellent! An answer!

[Mr Jackson]

The hon. Lady is unusually perplexed, but maybe I can help her. It is very evident that this was a reaction to, effectively, a fait accompli, where starter homes were being zoned on suburban exception sites. It was a stopgap. Ministers could not ignore what was happening. They had to respond and very many people wanted them so to do. This is primary legislation to deliver a manifesto commitment to deliver more homes for our constituents. There is a difference and I am sure that the hon. Lady can see that.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

The hon. Gentleman has brought great clarity to the debate. We do understand—in fact, that is where we were some hours ago—that this was a manifesto commitment. What I am trying to tease out, if at all possible, is what factually led to the change in the policy between March and May this year. If the Government, presumably with the same information available to them in March as they had in May, thought that it was a good policy to have starter homes on exception sites in March, why did they not think that in May? We need to understand better the basis on which that policy change was brought about.

It is true that although most people—78% of respondents during the consultation process—answered yes to the question,

“Do you agree in principle with the idea of a new national Starter Homes exception site planning policy to deliver more new low cost homes for first time buyers?”

they were agreeing to an exception site planning policy to deliver the homes, not a priority on all sites. A number of people gave their reason for agreeing: it was because they considered that it would be bringing back into use land that might not be used.

Some other issues were raised about the exception site policy. Some people were concerned that if only starter homes were placed on brownfield sites, that could lead to a lack of a mix of housing in the community. There was also concern about where these particular plots of land could be available. In other words, if they were not really desirable plots of land generally to be developed, is that somewhere that we would want to place people who are getting on the housing ladder for the first time? It could be that the sites were not adequately serviced and therefore it might be difficult, again, to have first-time homeowners placed in the area. There is a whole range of reasons that might have led the Government to change their policy, and one can understand that. However, no mention was made of that policy or taking on board any of those issues that people raised in response to the consultation paper. There was a note that the issues had been raised and that a greater mix might be needed, and that was a good thing, but there was no indication in March that there would be a wholescale dropping of the exception site policy and that instead of having that policy, we would go to the other end of the scale—to the opposite extreme—which is where we have ended up, with a complete prioritisation for starter homes on almost all other developments. I am not sure that we have yet got an answer on that and I am not sure that we will get an answer, but it is an issue that the Minister needs to address.

Amendments 64, 68 and 69 raise questions about the Government’s approach to the general issue of providing enough affordable housing. Hon. Members know already that it is a major contention of the Opposition that there is too narrow a focus on starter homes as the way to increase affordability in housing. There should be consideration of a range of housing products.

Amendment 64 says that a reference to,

“any other type of property considered appropriate by the local authority to provide housing on a first time basis”

is needed. There should be a duty not only to provide starter homes. There should also be a duty on local authorities to support any other type of property considered appropriate to provide housing on a first-time basis. That could involve a number of ways of increasing home ownership: equity sharing, rent to buy and so on.

With amendment 68, we again think it is important that local authorities consider providing starter homes in addition to other types of affordable housing, and that they should be required to do that. In doing so, they should carry out an assessment of need, which I will come to in a moment.

As I mentioned previously, the Prime Minister specifically stated that he wanted to move away from affordable homes meaning only homes that are for rent, but of course “affordable homes” has never meant only homes for rent. Affordable homes can also be affordable homes to buy. We just need to be clear about what affordability means. We might table an amendment in due course to try to find out what the Government mean by affordability. It would be extremely helpful to all of us, in terms of knowing what we are talking about, to have affordability defined in the Bill, because over the years affordability has come to mean many different things. Indeed, a number of people in the housing sector are now telling us that it is hardly worth talking about affordable housing because nobody really knows what it means and, because it means different things in different contexts, it is pretty useless as a concept. I am not sure that I totally agree, but it is very important that at some stage the Minister clarifies what he means by affordable in terms of starter homes, low-cost home ownership and rented accommodation. We try to distinguish what is genuinely affordable to people by talking about social rents, because at least people understand what that means.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

We are all in favour of more co-op housing—I am sure that we will debate amendments on that later. The hon. Gentleman has in a way made my point for me. What we will see through the operation of the starter home policy is a lack of resources going to the local authority because CIL will not apply to them. Many local authorities across the country will not struggle to purchase land in the current climate, but even if land is available there might not be co-ops locally with the sort of money to invest in those sites that would ensure that they can cover both the infrastructure and the new build costs.

The hon. Gentleman described a situation that might exist in some areas, but it does not exist in all areas across the country. Nevertheless, it is exactly the type of example that could be given in support of the amendment, because if a local authority thinks that it would be much better to have co-op housing rather than starter homes on a particular site, why should the Government prevent them from providing that housing? As currently drafted, this legislation would require local authorities to provide co-op housing in addition to starter homes, even though there may be no money available for that co-op housing.

It is the practicality that matters. One of the responsibilities that we have, as the Members scrutinising this legislation, is to see whether it could work in practice. My concern is that without an amendment such as amendment 68, which would allow local authorities to consider providing other sorts of affordable housing, we might get to a situation in which starter homes simply crowd out every other form of development. I look forward, in five years’ time, to seeing figures that might demonstrate that we have been overly concerned. That would be a good thing, showing that we were too concerned and that starter homes do not crowd out other forms of affordable housing. Nevertheless, I am expressing the concern, which was put to the Committee by many organisations, that starter homes will do precisely that.

Indeed, that is the specific point addressed by amendment 69. As with previous amendments, it would enable councils to ask for planning gain measures that would provide a range of affordable homes other than starter homes. If we accept the evidence, which was put forward by Shelter, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and other organisations, that starter homes are not an option for many people on average incomes, surely local authorities must be able to provide other forms of affordable housing if starter homes are not going to be available to most people in their area, and particularly if they are going to be put on the market at too high a price.

We know that a lack of social and affordable housing will have huge consequences for homelessness, which we will no doubt discuss later, because it is a serious point. Under this Government we have seen a 33% increase —that is huge—in homelessness and a 58% increase in rough sleeping. We can all see that with our own eyes. That points to a need to have lots of different forms of genuinely affordable housing, and not just starter homes.

[Mr Jackson]

Judging from her amendments, I think the hon. Lady is inviting us to conclude that she believes that it is inappropriate for the Government to be prescriptive in legislation by suggesting a minimum number of starter homes on a site, but she wants to put in the Bill a centralised diktat to local authorities to develop other types of affordable housing. Does she not see that there is some discrepancy in her logic and thinking?

Housing and Planning Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

Thursday 19th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

The hon. Gentleman does not have to look very hard, because the front page of Inside Housing of either this week or last week has comments from the deputy Mayor about how concerned he is. Perhaps that is contrary to some evidence that was given to the Committee, but there is some concern in the Mayor’s office about how starter homes might negatively affect what I think is the rent-to-buy scheme.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I have a soft spot for the hon. Lady, who is playing a sticky wicket particularly well. We should be basing our scrutiny on facts and demonstrable evidence. Surely she would concede that the expert witnesses we heard, notwithstanding the fact that Build to Rent is quite a new regime, did not come forward with anything other than anecdote. They did not provide any evidence whatever Build to Rent would be “killed off” by starter homes. Surely she would concede that. Perhaps in a year we will find evidence, but at the moment that is not the case.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

That is actually a very helpful suggestion. Maybe we should suggest during the Bill’s progress through Committee that monitoring arrangements should extend to reviewing whether the Bill is working in its intent of getting more people into home ownership, particularly people who would not be able to get on the housing ladder in the open market. Perhaps I will take on board the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion and introduce an amendment later in the Bill’s progress.

[Mr Jackson]

The hon. Lady can take her own amendment; she does not have to pinch mine.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Indeed, but I could be supportive if the hon. Gentleman wanted to introduce one on that basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, not least because over the lunch break I will look out the comments from the Mayor’s office. My hon. Friend highlights clearly the point I was making. He used a good example. I could have given many examples from the evidence to the Committee about people’s concerns about starter homes crowding out other sorts of housing delivery, but I thought in my naivety that Conservative Members might listen to a Conservative Mayor and the comments made by his office, but apparently not. Those comments crystallised for the Committee people’s concern that starter homes could crowd out other forms of low-cost home ownership. We would not particularly welcome that and we would like to hear from the Minister how he will ensure that starter homes will be in addition to other forms of low-cost home ownership and help people to get on the housing ladder, which we all want to see.

[Mr Jackson]

I shall be brief because I am getting looks of admonition from my Whip and perhaps also from you, Mr Gray. For the record, was it not the case that, when pressed, every expert witness said cumulatively that the starter homes policy would deliver more homes for people in our country and our constituencies?

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Well, on the basis of the point made by my hon. Friend, let us wait and see whether that proves to be the case.

In conclusion, I am looking forward to hearing what the Minister says about ensuring that starter homes are an addition to all other types of homes to encourage people into home ownership and across all other tenures, and his answers to our question about why the Bill does not include measures to ensure that that is the case.

Housing and Planning Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Q 148 Have you thought of any exemptions there might be applied to the policy?

Campbell Robb: More discretion is absolutely key. I suspect, as the Committee has shown, that as starter homes come in, which they obviously will, we need to monitor who is actually getting them. Are they genuinely reaching the people you want them to, so that constituencies do benefit? Is the level of debt being accrued and the ability to repay being positively looked at, to ensure that people genuinely can afford the home and that it is giving them the leg up that they want rather than a burden they do not want? Those two things would certainly be helpful. The point about section 106 and the consideration of how mandatory it is would be a very important thing to look at.

[Mr Jackson]

Q 149 Without labouring the point, my impression of the map you produced was a line from the Bristol channel to the Wash. I am mindful of the fact that one in three of the Committee are from London, but this analysis is rather centred on London and the south-east. Surely it depends very much on factors such as the differentials between the market prices of homes and affordable homes. My constituency is quite competitive in that respect, not least because until recently Peterborough had the second worst increase in house prices. There are lots of factors.

Would you concede that, in respect of your specific areas of expertise, starter homes have never been designed to tackle the housing difficulties of your client group in particular: very challenged vulnerable younger people from dysfunctional families and so on? Given the totality of the Bill, and the extra funding that would be released from some of its measures, it does not circumscribe the capacity of the local association to provide specialist supported housing for people with mental health problems, extra care for older people or moving-on accommodation for young people. That can still be done, which is obviously something you would welcome.

Jon Sparkes: You are correct, in that it is not a policy which is designed to support people at the lower end. We can argue about the level of discount as much as we like, but it does benefit the people that it is designed to benefit.

While you say that it does not stop anybody from doing anything? I think it is pretty clear that where there is going to be development investment in housing, it will follow this policy. This will give a level of priority and will take away from the incentive and willingness to do precisely those things that you describe.