Public Health: County Durham

Debate between Seema Kennedy and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Wednesday 12th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Seema Kennedy]

No, I was repeating what the shadow Minister had said.

The recommended formula, which would create winners and losers in terms of overall levels of funding because of the disparity in historical spend compared with current need, has not been implemented because of the Government’s intention to extend the system of retained business rates. We continue to review the position, and future spending levels will be decided as part of the spending review, where we will review all available evidence.

I commend all local authorities on the efforts they are making to improve population health, as well as third-sector groups such as the children in Cleves Cross with their edible walkways. We continue to believe that local authorities are best placed to make decisions about the services that best meet the needs of their populations.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I am sure the Minister would accept that any formula that moves services from areas of relatively high need to areas of low need cannot be working properly. Does she also accept that it is simply not fair to push the onus to provide more services on to local authorities? As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) made clear, Durham County Council’s budget has been cut by 60% since 2010.

[Seema Kennedy]

I believe that local authorities and local communities are the right place for public health to be situated, because they best understand the needs of their communities.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Seema Kennedy and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

As the hon. Lady knows, many people in this country and, I am sure, in her constituency, are on council waiting lists. What we should be thinking about is how to build more council houses to meet that need.

Lords amendment 57 would increase the thresholds for pay to stay to £50,000 in London and £40,000 outside London in order to limit the damage that this dreadful policy will cause. Similarly, Lords amendment 58 would ensure that income thresholds would increase in line with the consumer prices index, not at the whim of the Secretary of State. We note that the Government will vote against those amendments, but we could do with more explanation of the basis on which they will increase the thresholds.

There are too many Government Lords amendments to comment on, given the time available, although that again demonstrates a problem with this Bill. I will highlight a few of the other amendments in the group, however. We are pleased that the Government adopted Lords amendments 26 to 36, which were tabled by Lord Kennedy and Baroness Grender. The amendments will enable information to be given to third parties when the recovery of abandoned premises is sought and provide a definition of a “tenancy deposit”. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) and colleagues in the Lords worked hard to ensure that such measures were included in the Bill.

Government Lords amendments 38 to 43 replace the requirement for local authorities to sell off vacant high-value council housing with a requirement to sell off “higher value” vacant council housing. If selling off high-value housing was bad, selling off higher-value housing is much, much worse. Although the approach might help London a little, it will lead to more sell-offs in other areas. As the Public Accounts Committee noted, there is not enough information available on the impact of the policy or its scope to allow Parliament to vote sensibly on it. Shelter’s analysis found that to raise the £4.5 billion a year needed, each local authority could be asked to raise on average a massive £26 million. That corresponds to the sale of 23,503 council homes a year, which is six times more than it was estimated would be sold under the previous high-value regime.

Government Lords amendment 56 supports the exemption of some categories of persons—as yet unknown —from pay to stay provisions. Labour Members argued strongly for such a measure in Public Bill Committee. The amendment states that

“regulations may create exceptions for high income tenants of social housing of a specified description.”

Do such tenants include people aged over 65, people with a registered disability, people with seasonal contracts of employment, or people who have a household member in receipt of care? We have no idea what the Minister intends, and that is not satisfactory.

Government Lords amendments 215, 217 to 221 and 233 amend proposals on ending security of tenure. Although we recognise that allowing 10-year tenancies, and longer tenancies if there is a child in the home, is a step forward, we still think that the whole policy is dreadful. Many people are commenting that what is really important about social housing, and council housing in particular, is that it provides security of tenure, and enables communities to be stable and to thrive. One can only wonder what will happen to parents when their children reach the age of 19, and what will happen if a young person wants to live at home beyond that age. The policy fails to acknowledge that we are talking about people’s homes. The Government should bring forward proposals to extend security of tenure in the private rented sector, rather than reducing that security for council housing tenants, with all the social upheaval and personal anxiety that that brings with it.

Lords amendments 90 and 91 deal with electrical safety checks. I am pleased that the Government were forced by the action that we took in the Commons, and by their lordships, to adopt the amendments, which would put a duty on private landlords to ensure that electrical safety standards are met, and that checks are carried out at a reasonable frequency and by people with the proper expertise. We should thank Baroness Hayter and others for tabling those amendments and arguing for them in the Lords.

Finally, I am pleased that their lordships have insisted that the regulations that we are still to receive—there are many—that will set out much of the detail of the Bill must, in the main, be subject to the affirmative procedure. This includes measures on banning order offences, and determinations and regulations relating to vacant higher-value housing, high-income social tenants, electrical safety, client money protection and planning freedoms. I thank the Lords for ensuring that the Government’s nasty habit of putting through important regulations under the negative procedure ceases.

As the whole housing world has acknowledged, the Bill does little to solve our housing crisis, yet will make things a whole lot worse for the supply of genuinely affordable housing. According to Inside Housing, the Bill has been producing headaches for the Prime Minister, but I am sure he will be pleased to know that he will not need a junior doctor to cure his headaches—all he needs to do is to drop this dreadful Bill.

[Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)]

I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I am pleased to support the Bill. The passions raised in Committee and now in the Chamber are testament to the fact that we know that we need to build more homes. Many of our constituents want to get on the housing ladder and the Bill does great service for that cause. There is no doubt that house building took a hit following the recession that began in 2008, but I am pleased to note that as our Committee stage was winding up in December last year, housing building completions were at their highest level since 2008, with 143,000 completions in that calendar year. That is to be applauded, but there is still much more work to be done to fulfil the aspirations of the 86% of our fellow Britons who want to own their own home.

Starter homes are an essential part of that offering, to allow young people to own their homes, rather than renting for years on end or perhaps for ever.

Housing and Planning Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Seema Kennedy and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Thursday 19th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I know that the Mayor’s office has made positive comments about encouraging starter homes. However, the Mayor has also said that he is—or at least people in his office have said that they are—concerned about how the Bill will be implemented, and about powers that will be given to the Mayor to prevent damage to other products that he already makes available. The Opposition have been explaining that there is considerable concern about the possibility that the clauses will crowd out other useful products that exist to support people into home ownership.

[Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)]

The hon. Lady has made much reference to the building of social housing, and how she would like that to be incorporated into the clause. Will she explain why fewer council houses were built between 1997 and 2010 than between 2010 and 2015?

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Yes, I can do that easily and am happy to refer the hon. Lady to the figures I gave a moment ago. The last Labour Government supported housing associations to build social homes for rent. That is why the figures for social rented homes—[Interruption]. If Conservative Members want to look at the figures, they are on the DCLG website and they break down how affordable homes are delivered, and under what tenure. They make it clear that in 2003-04 about 20,000 homes for social rent were being built. By the time the recession hit, that had increased to about 37,000 or 38,000 homes a year.

That was not enough, but it was more than when we came to office. Last year, in that same category the number was 10,000. Perhaps we did not build enough homes for social rent, but the situation was a lot better than now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

My hon. Friend makes a simply excellent point. The housing associations that I have spoken to have been careful in the comments they have made. The point that again needs emphasising is that no one is saying that there should not be an initiative to support starter homes, because that would clearly be ridiculous. Of course we want measures to stimulate starter homes and increase the ability of people who can to enter the housing market. What seems really strange to us is why starter homes are being prioritised in this way, even when there is a significant danger—this was expressed by many who gave evidence to the Committee—that they could crowd out other ways of entering the housing market, such as rent-to-buy schemes, or other types of affordable housing.

A manifesto commitment was made by the Conservative party to deliver 200,000 starter homes. It might be that the whole policy we are discussing has been decided upon because of that manifesto commitment. If that is the rationale, let us be clear about that—

[Seema Kennedy]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I want to finish my point first.

I am not suggesting for a minute that the Government should not be delivering on a manifesto commitment if they wish to do so. I am suggesting that if that is the only rationale it explains a lot, because it means that there is no rationale behind housing delivery across all sectors; the rationale is simply to address that one commitment, to the exclusion of meeting housing need, and doing so across all other sectors.

[Seema Kennedy]

Will the hon. Lady accept that 86% of Britons aspire to home ownership, so our manifesto commitment is important? Also, on what basis should a Government legislate other than what was in their manifesto?

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Had the hon. Lady been listening to me earlier, I said that if the only rationale for the particular clauses that we are discussing was a manifesto commitment, that is perfectly understandable. My point was about whether that is the only rationale. What one would expect to hear from her, or what I hope I will hear from the Minister in a moment, is why a manifesto commitment was made to deliver 200,000 starter homes to the exclusion of meeting housing need across all other tenures and sectors. That is the question I was asking.

As we all know, we are the party of aspiration, we want people to be homeowners and we are not against measures that improve access to home ownership. The point I was making was that a lot of people have given evidence to the Committee suggesting that prioritising starter home development in quite the way that the Bill does could crowd out other forms of access to home ownership, most notably other models of low-cost home ownership, such as rent to buy or equity share, and that is not entirely sensible. That is our contention, and it is a reasonable one given the evidence received.

Housing and Planning Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Seema Kennedy and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Q 14 Nevertheless there is not a requirement to do that. Would it be more helpful if there was a requirement that the houses are replaced in the same area that they are sold from?

Richard Blakeway: There are a number of statements relating to reprovision which are very clear about that being done within the local area. We have an established role for the Greater London Authority as well as the London Government more widely around housing provision. The Localism Act gave the Mayor of London the same functions as the Homes and Communities Agency. We would expect the reprovision to be done within the capital. Government have been very clear that that is their intention and their aspiration. The issue is whether we are doing one for one replacement or whether we are seeking to exceed that, and we would like to see two for one replacement.

[Seema Kennedy]

Q 15 In relation to clauses 22 to 31 on rogue landlords, do you think the provisions in the Bill will raise the standard of property available in the rental sector in London?

Richard Blakeway: We very warmly welcome Government’s measures on tackling rogue—often criminal—landlords, not just the measures in the Bill but more widely. We very strongly welcome that. One of the key changes which we would like to see is for us to have access to the data which will be collected around bad landlords. One of those clauses pertains to that. We would like the GLA to have access to that because it would enable us to build on existing programmes which are seeking to improve the quality of the rented sector in the capital, not least the London rental standard. We have something like 140,000 private rented properties already managed under that standard and the higher expectations which that demands. So we think it will make a significant impact, we welcome the changes, but we would like access to the bad landlord database.

Housing and Planning Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Seema Kennedy and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Q 176 In areas of low-value housing, do you accept that it might not be possible to do a one-for-one replacement in the area because it would cost perhaps two or three times as much to replace the home that has been sold than the value of the home itself?

Mark Patchitt: It is going to be a challenge. We expect the average sale price of our right-to-buy properties to be about £82,000 or £84,000. That is probably less than it will cost to replace it, like for like, with a rented property. On your previous point about like-for-like properties and where you build them, it is important that there is some flexibility about where we build so that we can get the maximum efficiency in how we are building so that we can do the deals on the land now and try to get the land to replace these properties. We will have to look at whether we can replace exactly for all the affordable rented sales, but certainly we would expect to be able to replace affordable accommodation one for one.

[Seema Kennedy]

Q 177 Mr Patchitt, you said that when your housing association took the decision to vote for the voluntary agreement, you consulted your tenants and your customers.

Mark Patchitt: We did, yes.