Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Simon Hughes and Lord Stunell

Monday 31st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

16. What steps he is taking to encourage local authorities to develop landlord accreditation schemes for the private rented sector; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)]

Good accreditation schemes can play an important role in developing a local authority’s relationship with its local landlords. Experience shows that accreditation works much better when it reflects local circumstances at local government level.

[Simon Hughes]

Given that it is only seven weeks until the official beginning of winter and that one of the great failures of the private sector for tenants is that it often provides badly insulated homes, what can the Government do to make sure not only that tenants stay warm but that they do not have ridiculously high fuel bills?

[Andrew Stunell]

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. Both fuel poverty and carbon emissions are major targets of the Government’s policy. That is why we are introducing the green deal next year, which is available to landlords for the private rented sector, and that is also why we have the energy company obligation. My right hon. Friend will know that the Energy Act 2011 provides the opportunity to introduce minimum standards in the private rented sector from 2018 if we need to go further.

National Planning Policy Framework

Debate between Simon Hughes and Lord Stunell

Thursday 20th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Stunell]

I hope to cover that point more fully in a few minutes. The hon. Lady and I, surprisingly enough, are on the same page. It is not a question of whether to have sustainable development. In fact, the emphasis is on “sustainable” not “development”. I shall come to that in a moment.

The current system is unworkably complex and has been criticised soundly by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. There are more than 1,000 pages of national planning policy and at least 6,000 pages of guidance. I challenge any Member, even if they have 26 years of professional background, to say, in all honestly, that they have read all 7,000 pages—nobody has. It is a long-running accident. The complexity of the system not only slows down decision making and frustrates the sustainable growth of the country, but alienates and frustrates local people. It does not allow for the rapid creation of the new homes that we desperately need for young families who are already struggling to scrape together a deposit or stuck on an endless waiting list, and it hinders the creation of the new jobs that will breathe fresh life into local economies.

That is bad enough, but on top of that, as all hon. Members have experienced, the planning system too often reduces people, at a local level, to impotent rage and denies them any real engagement in shaping the future of their communities. That cannot be a good system. A streamlined system focusing on key priorities will be more accessible and transparent. In the future, anyone who wants to understand the principles informing how decisions are made will be able to do so. That does not suit many of the professionals, but it should suit our constituents and the House.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I agree completely with my hon. Friend. In constituencies such as mine, where there is pressure for much more affordable housing, it is exactly the sort of thing that my constituents would want to participate in. Does he share my view that, for it to work, the viability of development proposals needs to be open to full scrutiny? Often developers say, “We can only do 10% affordable property, because otherwise the figures do not add up.” In reality, they could do more, but are never forced to reveal their hand and so sometimes get away with doing far too little.

[Andrew Stunell]

My right hon. Friend makes a very interesting point. I hope that he has encapsulated it in the representation that I know he has submitted to the consultation, and that if he has not, he will make a second submission.

The Government are keen to put matters right. The new planning architecture of the national planning policy framework and the local development framework—the core strategies that have been referred to so frequently today—and the neighbourhood and parish plans must be taken together and seen in context.

Localism Bill

Debate between Simon Hughes and Lord Stunell

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Stunell]

The Bill brings forward a package of reforms to social housing. Taken together, they strengthen localism, giving greater flexibility to local authorities and to social landlords in providing the needed housing and the right basic safeguards for tenants. The provisions will allow landlords to make better use of resources, allocating existing homes more sensibly, making sure that support is better focused and providing the right basic safeguards for tenants.

The Bill’s provisions include: giving back to local authorities the freedom to determine who should qualify to go on the housing waiting list; new flexible tenancies in addition to, rather than replacing, secure and assured tenancies for council and registered social landlord tenants; flexibility to meet the homelessness duty with an offer of accommodation in the private rented sector; and, perhaps most popular of all, replacing the unpopular housing revenue account subsidy with a devolved system of self-financing.

New clause 19 relates to that, ensuring that the Secretary of State may continue to enter into agreements with local authorities to determine that specified new homes be exempt from the requirement that most of the receipts from any sale under the right to buy should be surrendered to central Government. This will help remove obstacles to local authorities investing their own resources in new homes. To be clear, new clause 19 preserves an existing relaxation in the rule that requires 75% of receipts to be paid to the Treasury in certain circumstances.

The Government are also taking the opportunity at this stage to make technical improvements with regard to flexible tenure and succession, which I would like briefly to outline. Amendments 202 and 203 exclude shared ownership leases from the landlord repairing obligation, in line with established practice and policy.

Amendments 191 to 201 are needed to rectify drafting errors in clauses 134 and 135, which deal with succession rights. They clarify the original intention that where there has not already been a succession, someone who is not a spouse or partner can succeed where there is an express term in the tenancy agreement to allow it.

The Opposition have tabled a number of amendments. Proposals for social housing reform proved to be one of the more contentious areas of the Bill in Committee, with strongly held views often reflecting points of principle. That is reflected in Opposition amendments 13 and 14 as well as in amendments 271 and 272, which would remove flexible tenure in the one case or, frankly, make it unworkable in the other. There have been some misunderstandings over points of detail, so it would be good for me to address them.

[Simon Hughes]

Before my hon. Friend deals with that, will he put it on the record that nothing in the Bill changes the status of any person who is a tenant in a local authority home or a housing association social home in England in respect of security of tenure? Will he also confirm that nothing in the Bill will require any local authority or any social landlord to change that policy in future—in other words, that the Bill is enabling, not prescriptive, in that respect?

[Andrew Stunell]

My right hon. Friend is right on both counts.

Let me begin by saying that, as I ended up summing up a two-hour debate in 16 seconds yesterday, I hope the House will forgive me if I do my summing up at the start of today’s debate.

There are some concerns that I think any sensible observer of the social housing market understands and shares. The current market does not work as well as it could. The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), the shadow Secretary of State, made that point herself when her party was in government, and the facts speak for themselves. There are about 5 million people on the social housing waiting list, and a quarter of a million overcrowded households already in social housing. At the same time, there are 400,000 homes in the social housing sector in which more than one bedroom is under-occupied.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Stunell]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which he made in Committee. As he knows, there are a number of local accreditation schemes and in some boroughs it is a requirement that the landlords of tenants who receive housing benefit in their area are members of an accreditation scheme of one sort or another. I will take stock of his point. The Government are not minded to introduce a national scheme, but there may be aspects that he is rightly drawing to our attention for further consideration.

[Simon Hughes]

I was reassured by my hon. Friend’s words about the Government’s intention that people should not have to move outside the district or community. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has given a similar reassurance. There is particular concern in Greater London because of the acute pressure on property, property prices and so on. I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that his right hon. Friend has agreed, together with, I hope, the responsible Minister at the Department for Work and Pensions, Lord Freud, to meet to see whether, across parties and with the Mayor of London, the housing associations and local authorities, the remaining concerns can be alleviated. I hope my hon. Friend and his colleagues will give full assistance to that measure as the Bill proceeds from this place to the other end of the building.

[Andrew Stunell]

Yes. Perhaps my words were a little too opaque a little while ago when I said that we are prepared to consider the need for additional protections for homeless households. Clearly, what my right hon. Friend has just set out forms part of that process.

Irish Communities in Britain

Debate between Simon Hughes and Lord Stunell

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Stunell]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to use my remaining six minutes on an issue that is not at the core of this debate. Of course, I would be happy to meet the group to discuss matters of mutual interest, whenever it is appropriate.

I spoke about the educational disadvantages facing Irish Travellers. Health indicators are also bad: 22% of Gypsies and 34% of Travellers report asthma or chest pain, compared to 5% and 22% of the general population. There is a national health inclusion programme designed to reach those people. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) made the point about accommodation. Of course, there is a statutory requirement for local authorities to assess Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs. The Government have secured £60 million of funding, for the comprehensive spending review period, for the provision of new Traveller pitches and the refurbishment of existing ones. Under the new homes bonus scheme, local authorities will be given cash incentives to deliver new homes, which does include new Traveller sites.

I could elaborate on other matters, but I should press on. The Secretary of State has set up a cross-Government ministerial working group to address the inequalities faced by Gypsies and Travellers. I am a member of that group, which has met a number of times. We are looking at addressing the range of issues: educational attainment, health outcomes, employment, access to financial products, and unlawful denial of access to commercial premises. The group’s agenda has been set in consultation with members of the Gypsy and Traveller community. We are moving ahead with that, and further information and progress will be reported to the House in due course.

Turning to data collection, I heard the plea from the chairman and the deputy chairman of the all-party group for the census forms to be filled in, with the Irish tickbox used. I am not sure that describing it as the Irish tickbox does it justice. I understand the plea, but I ask the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd—bearing in mind his introductory remarks—whether he ticked the Irish box, the Welsh box or the British box. The alleged or stated under-recording of the Irish is part of the much broader question of what it means to be British and to be a member of society here. How people self-identify is surely the way to go. The hon. Gentleman can perhaps tell me later whether he ticked the Irish box.

[Simon Hughes]

The Minister is well known for his support for minority communities and for the disadvantaged. Following the invitation from the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), is the Minister willing some time in the summer to meet not just the all-party group, but the Irish ambassador, if willing, and the Federation of Irish Societies? It would be very significant for the communities Minister to have a meeting with representatives of the Irish community in Britain.

[Andrew Stunell]

I am strongly inclined to say yes. However, the Foreign Secretary might have a point of view about that. The Government are willing to meet at the appropriate level; if that is me, I am happy to be that person. I do not want to pre-empt the whole of Government on to my shoulders.

I would like to squeeze one point into my last 90 seconds. In introducing the debate, the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd raised fears that the Government were not focusing properly on ensuring that discrimination was eliminated in our society. I remind him that the public sector equality duty came into force on 5 April. That places a duty on public bodies to consider the needs of all the individuals they serve when they are developing policy, in delivering services and in relation to their employees. The Government believe that local providers are best placed to decide which data are needed to inform their local priorities and monitoring. If they choose to do so, they are in a good position.

With regard to the centre in Hammersmith, the Government hope that the parties involved can work together to achieve a satisfactory outcome. However, it is not the job of the Government to intervene in that discussion.