Consideration of Lords amendments in the Commons
- Speaker
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)Conservative- Quote
- I draw the House’s attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 27, 28, 31, 203, 228, 231, 238, 241, 245 to 250 and 267. If the House agrees to any of these Lords amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal. Clause 2 Objects Lords amendment : No. 1.
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr. Iain Wright)Labour- Quote
- I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
- Time
- 18:23
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. Deputy SpeakerConservative
- Quote
- With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 64, 201, 202, 205, 207, 208, 212, 224 to 244, 264 to 267, 269 to 272, 278, 281, 283 to 287, 289, 291 to 293, 296 to 298, 300 to 303, 305, 308 and 311.
- Time
- 18:23
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. WrightLabour
- Quote
- This group of amendments relates to part 1 of the Bill, which is concerned with the creation of the Homes and Communities Agency. We had some excellent debates in Committee on the role of the agency, its powers and its relations with other bodies. That debate was continued, with knowledge and expertise, in the other place, so I believe that the Bill has been much improved during its passage through Parliament. The world has changed in economic terms in the six months since we debated the Bill in Committee, but I would like the Bill, and the Homes and Communities Agency, to be as future-proof as possible, and the amendments help to establish that. Lords amendment No. 1 adds the term “good design” to clause 2, which concerns the objects of the Homes and Communities Agency. That is a welcome step and puts good design at the heart of what the agency will seek to achieve, and into the context of sustainable development. There was a strong debate in Grand Committee in the other place about the importance of good design. Design costs are a relatively small proportion of overall build costs; however, the costs of poor design are high. It is becoming ever more apparent that good design attracts people, investment and activity to places. Conversely, poor design and poor quality act as a real barrier to prosperity and sustainability. Planning policy statement 1 states: “Good design ensures attractive, usable, durable and adaptable places and is a key element in achieving sustainable development.” The importance of good design, therefore, is already enshrined in national planning guidance. However, I am pleased that design is now in the objects of the agency, acknowledging its importance and allowing the considerable powers and resources of the agency to be used for the purposes of good design. The very first amendment that we discussed in the Public Bill Committee was one tabled by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), whom I am delighted to see in his place, and it was about improving the accessibility of new housing, particularly for the disabled or for the increasingly older population. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the future demographics of this country. He stated that over the next 20 years, the number of disabled and older people will increase by roughly two thirds. About 329,000 disabled people are living in housing that is not suited to their requirements. I remember vividly what the right hon. Gentleman said in Committee. He may not have thought so, but it had a huge impact on my thinking, and I am keen to help. That is why I—as honorary patron of the Access Association for the north-east—and I hope the right hon. Gentleman as well, welcome Lords amendment No. 2, which will clarify that the term “good design” includes design “which has due regard to the needs of elderly persons and disabled persons”. A key theme of the deliberations on part 1 of the Bill throughout its passage has been the relationship between the agency and its key partners, particularly those in local government. Critics of the Bill and the agency have often stated that the HCA will be a large, centrally driven quango, imposing top-down targets and riding roughshod over the needs and wishes of local communities. That is precisely not what we wish to achieve through the agency. It was never our intention. We have always maintained that a key test of the agency’s success will be the manner in which it partners local authorities in the delivery of new housing and the regeneration of communities throughout England.
- Time
- 18:23
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)Liberal Democrat- Quote
- I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for his comments. Let us take a hypothetical situation in which the Government take account of the housing downturn, and the fact that the original target of 3 million homes is now clearly inappropriate. If the HCA were to stick to that target, and the Minister for Housing implied that the Government might want it to, would local authorities have the right to challenge that number?
- Time
- 18:23
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. WrightLabour
- Quote
- I am not entirely certain what the hon. Gentleman is getting at. What is very clear, as I said in my opening remarks, is that economic circumstances throughout the world have changed in the six months since we last looked at this legislation, but that the fundamentals of the housing market in this country have remained the same. There has been a huge imbalance between demand for and supply of housing for something like a generation. One of the things discussed in Committee was the ability of the agency, using skills and expertise at the disposal of local authorities, to allow councils to step up to the plate to provide skills and capacity to ensure that the strategic housing market assessment that local authorities undertake allows them to build the houses that their area requires.
- Time
- 18:23
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD)Liberal Democrat- Quote
- I should like to press the point made my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). Although I agree with what the Under-Secretary says about what we want local authorities to be able to do, the question is one of authority. I ask him the question again: can local authorities effectively challenge edicts from the HCA under the revised form that the Bill will take once we have passed these amendments?
- Time
- 18:23
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. WrightLabour
- Quote
- I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that point. In this group of amendments, we are keen not to have, in his words, an “edict”. We are trying to promote as far as possible, as we have done throughout the Bill’s passage, positive partnership relations between the local authority in question and the agency. On that point, our intention with regards to the partnership working between the agency and local authorities was made clear with the launch of the new Local Government Association protocol at its conference a couple of weeks ago. I hope that it will reassure the hon. Gentleman to learn that it states: “The aim will be to reflect the shared endeavour between councils and central government to secure more and better homes that are both affordable and in places where people want to live, to regenerate and renew our most deprived communities, and to build councils’ strategic capability to achieve these ends.” I suggest that several significant amendments in the other place have reinforced the intention further.
- Time
- 18:23
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Martin HorwoodLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- The Under-Secretary comes out with fine phrases, but the reality on the ground is different. Local authorities find themselves unable to challenge housing allocations, which regional assemblies and regional spatial strategies hand down. It seems likely that the HCA will be capable of issuing the same sort of downward edict, to use the phrase of my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik).
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. WrightLabour
- Quote
- I disagree. As I said, there will be a close, strong partnership and a positive relationship between the agency and local authorities to provide skills, expertise and capacity to ensure that local authorities can ascertain the strategic housing needs in their area. We are not considering something only for London and south-east— every region in the country has huge need of housing, especially affordable housing. The agency will play a key role in working closely with a local authority in an area, regardless of where it is. It will ask what the local authority needs, including skills and expertise, to step up to the plate, and what funding and other things it requires. We had an interesting debate in Committee about infrastructure, and what would be needed to facilitate housing development in a specific area. We have always stated that local authorities are best placed to know the needs of their areas. However, in some—albeit rare—circumstances, the development and regeneration challenges that some local authorities face may mean that they require additional assistance and support to achieve the objectives. To ensure that that is done properly, it is right and proper that a full set of powers is at the Secretary of State's disposal. I said to hon. Members that considerable safeguards were already in place for those powers. However, the Government are keen to address concerns that were expressed in the House and in the other place. So as I said in Committee, each area will be set out in a designation order made by the Secretary of State and, in deciding to exercise that power, she will need to be satisfied that designating an area and conferring local planning authority powers on the agency is justified and reasonable. However, Lords amendment No. 8 makes it clear that the Secretary of State, in determining whether it is appropriate to exercise those powers, also needs to be satisfied that making the order is likely to improve the effectiveness with which local planning authority functions will be discharged. That is an important additional test. I hope that the House is reassured that it is explicit in the Bill that the Secretary of State needs to demonstrate clearly that exercising the powers would provide additional capacity and bring added benefit to an area. We have also addressed concerns about the consultation process in providing a designation order, and the role of the local authority in that order. Under the clauses as originally drafted and debated in Committee, the Secretary of State was required to consult all local authorities that had an interest in the area that it was proposed to designate. In addition, several specific new controls have been established. They should reassure the House about the exercise of those powers. First, Lords amendment No. 10 requires the Secretary of State to publish a draft of the order and her reasons for making it, including, of course, her reasoning as to why the designation order would be more effective. Secondly, Lords amendment No. 12 adds to the list—with bitter regret, I concede defeat on the list principle to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, following weeks in Committee—of persons whom the Secretary of State must consult when considering designating an area. The list will include not only those who reside in an area but those who carry out business there. I therefore suggest that the amendments give the local government community—the local authorities and the people most likely to be affected by a designation order—far greater ability to influence the decision about whether to designate an area and the form and powers that designation may take.
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire) (Con)Conservative- Quote
- Lords amendment No. 8, to which the Under-Secretary referred, states that “the Secretary of State must… be satisfied that making the designation order is likely to improve the effectiveness with which the functions of the local planning authority for the area or part are discharged.” Who will discharge those functions—the local planning authority or the HCA?
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. WrightLabour
- Quote
- It will probably be the HCA in those circumstances. I hope that that reassures the right hon. Gentleman.
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lembit ÖpikLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I think that the Under-Secretary was busking it in his response to the right hon. Gentleman. I am not sure that the Bill provides for what the Under-Secretary claims, but perhaps he will get some inspiration during the debate. I want to ask him about consultation. Although I welcome the improvements constituted by the extended lists of individuals and organisations that must be consulted, how can he be confident that the mere requirement of consultation will result in a potentially obstinate HCA taking the advice? How can he be confident that the consultation will not simply be window dressing that changes nothing?
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. WrightLabour
- Quote
- There are several answers, which, I hope, will reassure the hon. Gentleman. First, he used the term an “obstinate HCA”, and I do not believe that that will happen. As I said, the HCA’s culture will be one of, “How can we help?” and, “What positive aspects can we bring to the table?” That certainly reflects our debate in Committee. Secondly, the amendments that were made in the other place increase transparency and accountability. I shall explain why that is the case.
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con)Conservative- Quote
- I understand from the many amendments that we are considering that the Under-Secretary and his team recognise that the HCA was in danger of taking on powers that could be used, perhaps by a future chief executive, in a way that local authorities might find overpowering. However, does the Under-Secretary believe he has gone far enough to ensure that a future chief executive and a future Secretary of State—of any party—could not use the powers in a way that could fundamentally undermine local democracy?
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. WrightLabour
- Quote
- We are fairly happy with what we have achieved. The Bill already contained significant powers and controls. Clauses 13 and 14, especially the provisions for a designation order and ensuring that the agency is a local planning authority, include considerable safeguards. As a result of concerns that the hon. Gentleman raised in Committee and anxieties that were expressed in the other place, we have gone further. We have strengthened the Bill, and I believe that that was appropriate. Let me deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) about how we ensure appropriate consultation, a matter to which we do not simply pay lip service. Lords amendment No. 21 requires the preparation and publication by the agency of a statement of local involvement, which sets out its policy for involving local authorities and people with special knowledge or relevant experience in the exercise of functions conferred on it by the designation order. The amendment also requires that, when the agency sets up a committee or sub-committee for the purposes of exercising functions that a designation order confers on it, or appoints a member to such a committee or sub-committee, it must inform every local authority for the designated area and invite them to suggest one or more candidates for membership. Those additional strengths improve transparency and accountability.
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) (Lab)Labour- Quote
- Clause 45 allows the HCA to appoint an urban development corporation to act as its agent. Surely that vehicle will be the norm, because if we totally nationalise that function and set up a committee, it will be a million miles from local communities. Is it not likely that clause 45 will be used a lot, so that there is a local urban development corporation within the footprint of the local authority, which will have lost the planning powers?
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. WrightLabour
- Quote
- No, I tend to disagree. What will happen will depend on the local circumstances of the area. It may be that a UDC will not be used, but what I would hope is that what happens comes about as a result of consultation, partnership and negotiation between the local authority, relevant bodies and the agency. The true strength that the provisions in the Bill provide is that flexibility and support, as well as considerable resources, to allow local circumstances to dictate what is needed. The other place also asked whether sufficient parliamentary scrutiny could be afforded to any designation order by the negative resolution procedure, which was modelled on previous drafting of legislation, particularly the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. However, on reflection, the Government believe that it is more appropriate, given the exceptional nature of the case if there were to be a designation order, that each such case should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Therefore, Lords amendments Nos. 202, 207 and 208 require any designation order under clause 13 to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. There was significant debate, both in Committee and in the other place, about the HCA’s powers to fund unregistered providers to provide low-cost home ownership accommodation. I was very much struck by the argument advanced in Committee by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), whom I am delighted to see in his place, namely that the arrangements under the Bill as drafted did not achieve a level playing field with respect to regulatory arrangements for registered and non-registered providers when the agency provides and funds low-cost home ownership. To address my right hon. Friend’s points, Lords amendments Nos. 33 to 36 help to level that playing field. In particular, Lords amendment No. 33 places a requirement on the HCA to consult the regulator when funding such low-cost home ownership accommodation. That should ensure that the burden of complying with the regulator’s standards is not significantly different from the burden of complying with the HCA’s contractual requirements. I hope that that move is welcomed by my right hon. Friend, as it certainly has been by key stakeholders such as the National Housing Federation. This group of amendments also contains a number of minor and technical amendments, to ensure that the Bill works effectively and to provide consistency and clarity of language. They include amendments that add greater protection to common land, in response to concerns raised in the other place, and the deletion of a number of clauses in part 1 relating to private streets. Following the consideration of points raised in the other place, the Government accepted that those clauses were not needed and that removing them would improve the clarity and workability of the Bill. As I mentioned earlier, economic circumstances have changed in a remarkable and dramatic way since the House last considered the Bill in March. The Homes and Communities Agency will provide the flexibility and the strength to cope with changing times, as we aim to increase the supply of housing and to regenerate our communities in a well-planned, well-designed and sustainably responsible way. The amendments improve on what was in the Bill, allowing the agency to work effectively and closely with local government partners and others. I commend them to the House.
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Grant ShappsConservative
- Quote
- I thank the Minister for taking on board some of the concerns that were raised in Committee and on Report. First, the design-and-build concept behind the Homes and Communities Agency is important. We had quite a long discussion about that in Committee. It is absolutely appropriate that the quality of house-build, rather than a simple goal of building X million homes by Y, should be a fundamental principle. Houses have to be built to a quality that is of use to their inhabitants. I remember speaking in Committee about the concerns in my constituency about the 10,000 new houses being built, 2,000 of which have already been delivered, whose design quality sometimes lets the new inhabitants down dramatically. Some of the problems that we have already seen in those new communities have become clear. I am delighted that the Minister has taken on board some of those concerns and designed an entirely new objective for the Homes and Communities Agency—the so-called fourth objective—which turns out to be design and build. I welcome that development.
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. Iain WrightLabour
- Quote
- Seven hundred and seventeen.
- Time
- 18:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Grant ShappsConservative
- Quote
- The Minister has kindly corrected me. That is an extraordinary number. Perhaps a couple of new ones have been added at the last minute, which I was unable to count. It is extraordinary that we should now be in the position of needing to approve 313 amendments—I invite the Minister to correct me if I am out by one or two—coming back from the Lords, many of which are included in this important first group dealing with the powers of the Homes and Communities Agency. Had there been more consensus on this matter at an earlier stage, we might have been able to avoid this late rush of 313 amendments from the other place. I am pleased, however, that the Minister has referred today to giving way on the so-called list principle. Those of us who served on the Committee will remember that the answer to almost any point put to the Minister—no matter how practical or real the problem involved—was met by the simple objection, “We can’t add that to the Bill because there will be a list principle that will be ruined by adding a list of items.” Yet, as has already been mentioned, there is now a fourth objective for the Homes and Communities Agency, which further adds to the list. In fairness to the Minister, I am delighted that he has characteristically given way on that simple principle, and conceded that it is possible to improve a Bill by adding to a so-called list of items. It is a pity, however, that many of those changes could not be made until the Bill reached the other place. I wonder why the Government had their conversion on the road to Damascus in the other place, and not in Committee in this House. Perhaps the Minister will explain why. Good arguments were being put forward from both sides in Committee, from housing experts on the Back Benches. Their arguments seemed perfectly erudite, yet they simply were not accepted by the Minister at the time. However, when they were put forward in the other place and by outside organisations, they suddenly became entirely acceptable. Had we listened to the convincing arguments put forward by hon. Members during the earlier stages of the Bill, we could have improved it much more quickly, but we are now having to consider an enormous number of amendments in a very short time. We should have debated them correctly in the right place and at the right time, and improved the Bill at an earlier stage. I ask the Minister to reflect on that experience.
- Time
- 18:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Mr. Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)Labour- Quote
- I shall perhaps surprise the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) by saying that I agree with him in one important aspect. He referred to the surprising number of amendments to which we have been exposed since the Bill began its parliamentary passage some eight months ago, and I am afraid that this is one illustration of a theme that I have spoken about in other contexts—the increasing tendency for legislation to be produced in too much of a hurry and without sufficient preparation, so that it requires a great deal of amendment during its parliamentary passage. That is not a helpful trend, and I hope that in the years to come we will move away from that practice. I thought it slightly odd, however, that the hon. Gentleman complained about that and then welcomed the fact that a number of changes were being made to the Bill. He cannot have it both ways. We are making a lot of changes to the Bill, and I believe that they have generally made a considerable improvement and are therefore welcome. As he will remember, many of them were introduced on Report in this House, before the Bill went to the Lords, so this is not simply a case of our receiving amendments at this late stage. To return to first principles, I strongly welcome this part of the Bill and the establishment of the Homes and Communities Agency. At a time when there is widespread recognition of the importance of more effective action to achieve sustainable development and mixed developments involving the public, private and voluntary sectors—and of the need to ensure that we meet the very considerable housing needs that remain unmet, to which the Opposition have frequently referred—obviously we should welcome the creation of an agency with significant powers to help to deliver the homes that are needed. It was notable that the interventions from the Liberal Democrats were all about preventing development. That was a telling indication that their instinct is leading them not to meet housing needs but to prevent housing and development that would meet those needs.
- Time
- 18:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lembit ÖpikLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- Let me just say to the right hon. Gentleman that I love appropriate development. Our concern is that there needs to be appropriate devolution of the decision making behind that development. Our questions are therefore not so much about preventing development as about ensuring that local authorities are genuine partners in the process, rather than junior partners subjugated to an all-powerful HCA.
- Time
- 18:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. RaynsfordLabour
- Quote
- I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman’s view that local authorities should be genuine partners, and it is quite clear that that is exactly what the HCA, under the leadership of Sir Bob Kerslake, wishes to achieve. He has been mentioned on several occasions today, and he has impressed almost everyone who has come into contact with him since he was appointed. He is clearly committed to the two goals that we should all share: to take more effective action to meet housing and regeneration needs, and to do so in a way that is inclusive and involves proper partnerships with local authorities, housing associations and the private sector. I wish him every success in his daunting task as chief executive of the new agency. I am pleased that the agency is coming into existence, and that a number of potential defects in the legislation have been addressed. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright) for the specific amendment in response to my concerns about the lack of a level playing field in respect of low-cost home ownership development. With that, I welcome this group of amendments and hope that they will be endorsed by the House.
- Time
- 18:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lembit ÖpikLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- There can be no more heart-warming sight than the admission by a Government Minister of his own human fallibility. In making such an admission, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright) has shown a humble divinity rarely observed at the ballot box—I mean the Dispatch Box. I always refer to it as the ballot box; I shall be in trouble for that. We all know that the Minister does not portray himself as all-powerful, but concern has been consistently expressed on the Opposition Benches that the Homes and Communities Agency could appear all-powerful from below, at local authority level. For that reason, this group of amendments is encouraging in two ways. First, it explicitly increases the responsibility of the HCA to consult in particular ways. Secondly, it requires precise specification by the Secretary of State of the remit in a number of situations. We were calling for those provisions in Committee, but the Minister seemed somewhat resistant to them at the time. Let us not be churlish, however, because he has now taken them on board after some fairly tough negotiating in the other place. A large number of the votes went the way they did despite, rather than because of, the Government’s willingness to accept the proposals put forward at the time. Nevertheless, the fact that this group of amendments has been embraced by the Minister shows that the iterative process—which I think works pretty well if people are genuinely focused on a good outcome—has once again served us well. The fact that there are 770 new amendments—
- Time
- 18:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. WrightLabour
- Quote
- Seven hundred and seventeen.
- Time
- 18:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lembit ÖpikLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- The fact that there are 717 amendments, as the Minister bragged before, means that there is more than one for every day between now and the next general election. We could therefore have a Homes and Communities Agency advent calendar with an amendment behind every door, and on the final day—the day of the election—we could have the jolly face of the Minister to lift our spirits as we go to vote. All kinds of possibilities reside there—[Interruption]—especially if one has a vivid imagination. If the legislation is based on principles, let me deal with a principle that concerns what we do in this Chamber, where we increasingly talk about principles, but insert detail. I realise that a number of amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats—and, indeed, the Conservatives—have been quite detailed, so I make this admonition to us all: perhaps we should be a bit more courageous in approaching the sort of issues that these amendments are designed to clarify and reduce the body of legislation we put forward by increasing our reliance on guidelines rather than on specific edicts. If we did so, the legislative process would be more transparent and we could make the Bill more flexible and avoid unintended consequences, which, with the best will in the world, this extensive piece of legislation is likely to bring.
- Time
- 18:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Andrew MackinlayLabour
- Quote
- I want to deal briefly with some amendments in the group. I particularly welcome the amendments that introduce—for the first time, I believe—the duty on authorities to have regard for “good design”. We have needed that for a very long time. So many housing developments are, at best, bland; and some are the product of obviously lazy initiatives by the developer, whether it be a private company or a statutory body. All too often, the design comes off a shelf—a shelf on which design has not been reviewed for many a year. I believe that it is possible at minimal cost to unlock the talent among people capable of designing quality housing. Housing can be aesthetically pleasing and it is extremely important to be aware of it. Even in hitherto poor, working-class areas, original design can make a great statement of confidence for the future. Local communities are interested in that, as it is one aspect of building a sense of community, which Government Departments are also trying to promote. I do not wish to exaggerate, but this is important. I do not suppose that it will be possible to get judicial review when a bland housing development is produced, but it will henceforth be a duty on the Homes and Communities Agency, as well as on local authorities, to be cognisant of the need for good design. I hope that, gradually, we will be able to build up the quality of design and take heed of aesthetics and the attractiveness of buildings. That will also be a good statement for this generation of planners. In my view, not enough has been done to move on since the 1960s and 1970s. I also want to deal with the amendments that have most preoccupied the House. Over the past four or five years, my local authority area has endured many of the provisions that are proposed as suitable for the HCA. Some years ago, the House passed an order that created the Thurrock urban development corporation, which took away many planning functions from the local authority. As a Member of Parliament, that caused me a dilemma. I believe in local authority and local decision-making on planning issues, planning applications and proposed developments, but on the other hand, I want the Government to achieve their legitimate aspirations to produce a good reservoir of low-cost housing to rent or buy and to create some prestigious housing, too. That attracts remuneration to a local authority area in the form of high council taxes and other incomes derived from quality and high-value residential development. Social mix is another desirable outcome. I was persuaded that we needed this power, which is why I support the amendments this evening. If the Government are determined to drive through their housing construction policy throughout England, where housing supply is desperately needed for our constituents, the amendments are necessary. In the light of my experience over the past few years of planning powers being transferred from the local authority to another body—the urban development corporation in my case, and the HCA under the amendments—I urge the Minister and his new chief executive Kerslake not to use the local authority as the handling agents. It seems to me that all the chemistry in that regard produces frustration of the Government’s objectives, and a dilemma for the local authority officers as to which master they serve. If the planning functions are to be dealt with by a committee of the HCA or an urban development corporation, they should receive and process the applications and send the letter consulting the authority; the local authority should not process those applications, as it is an inevitable cause of frustration and an added level of bureaucracy. I offer that advice to the Minister and through him to the HCA chief executive. If planning powers are to be designated and transferred from the local authority to another body, it should be done not just by use class order or according to the size and scale of the proposed development—the number of hectares or residential units—but by geographical area. Development control and enforcement are indivisible from the wider picture. Although the HCA might not want to get involved in what it might consider nitty-gritty issues, all too often enforcement is the other side of the coin of planning development. If we want to create a good housing development, but an industry is non-conforming or arguably has not got planning permission, enforcement action or relocation by the HCA or its committee and by the local authority go at different speeds. There is a danger that the lines will be blurred and objectives will not be achieved. I am prepared to elaborate on the matter, with the Minister and whomever he likes, following the experience of the Thurrock urban development corporation, which was, and still is, a good idea, but has been frustrated by a lack of clarity as to who has what powers and the division of loyalties among the officials and professional staff between it and the local authority.
- Time
- 19:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Sir George YoungConservative
- Quote
- I hope to make the shortest speech on this group of amendments. When the Minister opened the debate, he was kind enough to say that my speech on one of the first amendments had made a major impact on him. His demeanour at the time concealed that, and the amendment was dismissed. However, I am glad that it had a delayed impact and the point about design was taken on board. The bulk of the debate has been about the so-called nuclear option, when the Secretary of State makes a designation order and the HCA takes over the planning powers of the local authority. Clearly, there is tension between the political imperatives of Ministers and the HCA, who want things done and development achieved, and the legitimate local interests of the local authority. One must make a judgment. When the Conservatives were in power, we set up development corporations, and I took some of the orders through the House. I therefore strongly defend Ministers’ ability to intervene. I want to press the Minister on when he will intervene and the circumstances set out in his helpful letter to those who served on the Committee. He wrote: “However in some, admittedly rare, circumstances the regeneration challenges faced by some local authorities means that they need additional help and support.” I hope that he will confirm that that is the case, and that it will not be a question of money. Intervention should not take place simply because the HCA has resources that the local authority does not have. The issue should be genuinely one of capacity to develop, rather than of access to resources. If resources alone were holding the matter up, one could simply argue that they should be given to the local authority. There should be some reason other than lack of access to resources for the power to be activated. Will the Minister confirm what has been virtually taken for granted—that, as far as he knows, his Secretary of State is not hatching any plans to make a designation order in respect of any part of England in the relatively near future?
- Time
- 19:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. Iain WrightLabour
- Quote
- I shall respond to hon. Members’ comments about the amendments. The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), who seemed to welcome the moves made with regard to the amendments, mentioned three points. First, he made welcome comments about our move with regard to design, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) referred. Secondly, he reiterated what he said in Committee about the relationship between the agency and local authorities. Thirdly, he mentioned the number of amendments—717—tabled by the Government since the Bill was introduced. The whole House would agree that this is an important Bill on a vital topic—housing and regeneration—and it is important that we get it right. I make no apologies for making changes and listening to points made by Members on both sides of the House, and by Members of the other place, to ensure that we get the legislation right. As I have tried to make clear throughout the Bill’s passage, I am in listening mode. I have tried to take on board the points about sustainability made by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods), those about design made in another place and referred to in Committee, and those about accessibility made by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young). I have taken those and other points away for consideration, and tabled amendments. Therefore, I do not agree with the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield because I believe that there has been an element of political consensus to ensure appropriate scrutiny, and the Bill and its provisions have been much improved as a result.
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Mr. Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)Conservative- Quote
- Surely the Minister will concede that it is deeply unsatisfactory that the bulk of the time available to debate the Bill on Report was taken up with relatively arcane discussions of the housing revenue account. In that respect, the vast majority of the amendments were not even debated.
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. WrightLabour
- Quote
- I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, although I understand his comments with regard to the arcane features of the housing revenue account. I do not want to be ruled out or order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is important that the financing of council housing is appropriately debated. It was a major topic of concern, certainly to my hon. Friends.
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lembit ÖpikLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I happen to agree with the specific concern of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson). Will the Minister assure us that if we have inadvertently built in weakness to the Bill as a result of the compression of time and lack of consideration of an enormous number of amendments, he will secure Government time to ensure that we can right those wrongs, either in Statutory Instrument Committees or, ideally, on the Floor of the House? We all want the Bill to work, but there will almost certainly be unintended consequences arising from our inability to test aspects of the Bill on the Floor of the House prior to its implementation.
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. WrightLabour
- Quote
- I understand what the hon. Gentleman has said and I respect his views, but I repeat that a fair proportion of the amendments tabled in the other place were a direct response not only to his good self, but to amendments tabled by Members on both sides of this House. I consider that the Government have listened and responded, and that as a result the Bill is much tighter and displays a real political consensus that was not there before. I said at the end of Third Reading that it was a much better Bill following the scrutiny applied by all Members in Committee, and I stand by that.
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Grant ShappsConservative
- Quote
- May I press the Minister a little further? He has almost congratulated himself on listening, which is, of course, very welcome. The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) made the same point. However, given the number of amendments tabled, would it not have been better to listen at an earlier stage? The amendments could then have been scrutinised properly in Committee, and we would not have had to deal with 274 amendments—I think that is correct; I know that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—on Report.
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. WrightLabour
- Quote
- In many instances, we had to resolve to take amendments away and think about how they could be enacted. The amendment on tolerated trespass is one example. I know that I may be ruled out of order if I refer to other groups of amendments, but the proposals relating to the European Court of Human Rights, homelessness and eligibility for housing involved complicated issues and required time for reflection. I think that the handling of the Bill in both Houses has greatly strengthened its provisions, and has made the HCA sufficiently strong and flexible to deal with concerns about increasing supply and regenerating communities in England.
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Margaret Moran (Luton, South) (Lab)Independent- Quote
- I agree with my hon. Friend. In Committee, when we were discussing the establishment of this important organisation, he repeatedly offered to take the amendments away to consider them, and I am very pleased that they have returned to the House in their current form. Does he agree, however, that it is unfortunate that, largely because of what the Opposition were doing, we devoted almost all our time to this issue and did not spend enough time discussing the Tenant Services Authority? I feel that we could have focused more on the empowerment of tenants, and I hope that we shall move on to the subject swiftly this evening.
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. WrightLabour
- Quote
- I see that you are poised to pounce like a cat, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall be careful to remain in order. The subject of design was raised by the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield and my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, and I agree with both of them. The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield may be surprised to learn that I think local planning authorities should be more robust in rejecting planning applications that do not step up to the plate. My hon. Friend said—I think I quote him correctly—that at best some housing developments are bland, and that some suggest lazy initiatives on the part of developers. I would go further: I consider some developments depressing and demoralising. Throughout the Bill’s passage, I have said that the current system is short-term and expensive for the public purse. If we build boxes or rabbit hutches now, in 20 or 30 years we shall need substantial amounts of public money to deal with the resulting problems. I do not want someone to stand at this Dispatch Box in 2040 saying that we must deal with the design and planning errors of 2010 or 2015.
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Margaret MoranIndependent
- Quote
- Many of us hark back to the good old days of Parker Morris standards. We know that good design has been achieved in the past. Can my hon. Friend assure us that, if the Government purchase existing developments in order to meet our housing targets, those properties will meet high design standards, their quality will be no lower than we would expect of our affordable housing stock, and their design will last for generations, as it will need to?
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. WrightLabour
- Quote
- My hon. Friend has raised an important point. As she will know, we recently announced that £200 million would be given to the Housing Corporation so that it could buy empty homes during the current economic downturn to ensure the continuation of supply and development. I believe that the additional safeguards in the Bill relating to design and accessibility will help to achieve the objectives to which she has referred.
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Andrew MackinlayLabour
- Quote
- Will the Minister give way?
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. WrightLabour
- Quote
- I am keen to proceed to the second group of amendments, but I will give way.
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Andrew MackinlayLabour
- Quote
- I welcome the Minister’s comments. Will he take this opportunity to encourage local authorities to take more advantage of their powers to demand good facing materials, and also not only to use but to enforce their powers relating to landscaping conditions? That is often an area of neglect: after their imposition, such powers are not enforced.
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. WrightLabour
- Quote
- I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. As I said at the outset, the current framework provided by planning policy statement 1 and, in particular, PPS3 makes it clear that local authorities should deal with planning and design. It is true that landscaping is sometimes an afterthought when it ought to be taken into account at the start of the development process. The HCA will ensure that the Academy for Sustainable Communities can provide the necessary expertise, helping to increase skills and capacity in relation to a range of planning, building and landscape functions. I hope my hon. Friend agrees that that is a positive step. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) described the amendments as encouraging, but made the reasonable point that we should not produce legislation based on the personality of the first chief executive. I do not think that we have done that. I think that we have a very strong first chief executive in Sir Bob Kerslake, but I also think that the framework established by the Bill will ensure that that will continue. The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield repeated a point that he had made many times in Committee about the relationship between the HCA and local authorities. I believe that Lords amendment No. 51 goes a long way towards dealing with his concern about local government involvement by ensuring greater transparency and accountability. It sets out a clear framework enabling the agency to consult local government representatives so that they can implement the agenda together. I did not detect any welcome for that provision in his comments, but I am sure that he welcomes it none the less. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire was right to use the phrase “nuclear option” in relation to designation orders and ensuring that the HCA was the local planning authority. We consider that orders would be made in extremely rare circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman also repeated a direct question that he had asked me in Committee: he asked whether we had any immediate plans to ensure that these powers would be exercised. The short answer is no, as it was in Committee. I detected a general welcome for the amendments. I hope that the House will accept them, because I believe that they make it easier for the HCA to improve housing supply and regenerate communities in England in a sustainable and well-designed way. Lords amendment agreed to. Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 64 agreed to [some with Special Entry]. After Clause 68 New Clause Lords Amendment: No. 65.
- Time
- 19:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. Iain WrightLabour
- Quote
- I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. Deputy SpeakerConservative
- Quote
- With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 66 to 168, 203, 204, 209, 211, 245, 263, 268, 276, 282, 294, 295, 299, 304, 306 and 309.
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. WrightLabour
- Quote
- This group of amendments is related to part 2 of the Bill, which establishes the new social housing regulator. Before I come to the amendments, I would like briefly to update the House on important developments to the regulator since the Bill left us to go to another place following the Third Reading debate in March. First, the regulator has a new name. During the Bill’s passage through this House it was known as the office for social tenants and landlords—or Oftenant. Without exception, nobody liked the name. It has now become the Tenant Services Authority—the TSA—which better reflects the organisation’s core regulatory function of protecting tenants. Secondly, the two senior appointments to the regulator have been made. Anthony Mayer is the first chair and will bring a wealth of experience to the role, given his excellent track record in social housing, local government and the financial sector. Peter Marsh is an excellent choice as first chief executive; his background in the fields of registered social landlords and local authorities will mean that he recognises the need to ensure tenants receive a high-quality service. Finally, the House should be aware of our recent announcement that we would like to see at least two of the positions on the TSA board filled by people with direct experience of being a tenant. Any regulatory system that professes to put tenants at its heart has to give tenants a say at the highest level. With these board appointments, that is precisely what we intend to do. I would now like to discuss an issue that has occupied us since the Bill’s introduction: cross-domain regulation. As we have made clear from the start, we are fundamentally committed to expanding the regulator’s remit to cover local authority housing. This would be consistent with the recommendations set out by Professor Cave in his report, “Every Tenant Matters”. I believe this commitment became even clearer when the Government’s draft legislative programme for the fourth Session was published in May, as it included a community empowerment, housing and economic regeneration Bill that would deliver, among other things, cross-domain regulation. However, during the passage of this Bill there has been strong cross-party support in both Houses for taking an enabling power in the current Bill. This would enable us to implement cross-domain regulation through secondary legislation, rather than through the route of a fourth-Session Bill. I am not convinced that this would be a particularly advantageous method of achieving the shared goal we all want. It would not deliver cross-domain regulation any faster, as it will be complicated to draft the provisions whatever legislative route is chosen, and it would limit the opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise what will be an important and complex piece of legislation. However, it is also clear that Parliament has shown its preference. The argument that the regulator’s culture would develop and be defined if it only covered RSLs at the outset and there was no commitment in the Bill to include local authority social housing were strongly advanced in Committee and in the other place. On the basis of that strength of feeling, we brought forward an enabling clause on Third Reading in the other place so that the TSA’s culture and operating approach would be defined by the commitment to regulating both RSL and council house tenants. The power contained in the new clause in Lords amendment No. 75 is unavoidably wide given the range of relevant legislation that will need to be amended. I am somewhat surprised that the other place was content with its broad scope. However, its broad nature is necessary, because it would be counter-productive to Parliament’s wishes if we were to forgo the opportunity to include cross-domain in this Bill only to find that we had drafted an enabling clause too tightly. However, Lords amendment No. 203 requires that the power will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in Parliament, and we intend to conduct a full public consultation on the draft regulations before they are laid before Parliament. This is a significant development, and one that I believe the whole House will welcome. It will mean that council tenants will enjoy the same protections and support from the regulator as housing association tenants without the need for a further Act of Parliament. In a similar vein—I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) is in his place—the Government have always been committed to the development of well-managed and financially viable community land trusts. As I announced in April, we intend to consult later this year on how we can help to develop the community land trust sector further and overcome some of the barriers. We intended to consult at that stage on whether there should be a legal definition of community land trusts, but in view of the cross-party support in both Houses—led most eloquently by my hon. Friend—which strongly urged us to use the opportunities provided in this Bill to help support CLTs still further, we have accelerated this timetable to give a definition of community land trusts. Lords amendments Nos. 66 and 67 define CLTs. In drawing up this definition, we have worked closely with the CLT movement, and I am grateful for its positive and constructive input. Part 2 of the Bill concentrates on raising the standards of housing services for tenants of social housing. A key part of achieving this objective is greater tenant empowerment, with better access to meaningful information to hold their provider of housing to account. Lords amendments Nos. 69, 70, 103 and 124 to 127 are about complaints and guidance. It has never been anticipated that the job of the regulator would be to address the bulk of tenants’ complaints; that is the responsibility of landlords themselves, through their complaints procedure, and of the housing ombudsman. However, we have also always acknowledged that the TSA needs to be responsive to evidence from tenants and others about systematic failures by a provider, and to use that evidence to trigger regulatory intervention where needed to raise tenants’ standards or improve financial viability or governance. Lords amendments Nos. 103 and 124 to 127 amend clauses 190, 212 and 213 to achieve this objective explicitly. They require the TSA to issue guidance specifically relating to complaints about the performance of providers. The guidance must set out the procedure to be followed in making a complaint, the criteria to be used by the regulator in deciding whether to investigate, and the periods within which the regulator will aim to inform complainants of the result of complaints. The TSA will be obliged to consult tenant representatives before issuing this guidance. Lords amendments Nos. 69 and 70 also require it to include in its annual report a general description of the complaints it has received during the year and how it has dealt with them. This would improve transparency and accountability. As part of tenant empowerment, we believe passionately that tenants should have the opportunity to be involved in the regulatory function. This is at the heart of part 2 of the Bill, with such measures as the requirement to consult tenant representatives on standards and guidance. I have already mentioned our wish that at least two of the regulator’s board members should have experience and direct knowledge of being a tenant. However, we are still keen to go further. Lords amendment No. 71 therefore inserts a new clause in the Bill to ensure that there is a statutory duty on the TSA to promote awareness of its functions among tenants and, where appropriate, to consult or involve them in the exercise of its functions. The new clause also requires the regulator to publish a statement describing how it will fulfil these duties. These additional statutory responsibilities have been warmly welcomed by key stakeholders, including the National Consumer Council, the Tenant Participation Advisory Service and the National Federation of ALMOs. Debate in both Houses on part 2 of the Bill rightly concentrated on the appropriate balance to be struck between the wish to increase tenants’ standards, allowing the regulator appropriate powers to raise those standards and the fact that registered social landlords are independent bodies with responsibility for managing their own businesses. I have been aware at all stages of the Bill’s passage of concerns regarding regulatory creep or the passporting of policies from the Secretary of State to registered providers. The regulator must minimise interference and not misuse its powers, and it must act on the basis of evidence and of real need. With these broad aims in mind, we have responded to concerns that the major enforcement powers should be exercised only in the event of serious problems. Accordingly, Lords amendments Nos. 141, 142, 147 and 155 to 162 amend the regulator’s enforcement powers of management transfer, transfer of land, amalgamation, restrictions on dealings and removal or suspension of an officer. These enforcement powers could only ever be used after an inquiry, and their use would also be subject to the various other protections in the Bill against disproportionate regulatory intervention. Nevertheless, these amendments have provided further reassurance by removing so-called “breach of standards” as grounds for use of these enforcement powers. We have also required that the regulator must obtain consent from the Secretary of State before using them. In addition, we have addressed the concerns expressed in Committee by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) that the fees set by the new regulator might be excessive. With Lords amendment No. 76, the Bill now requires the TSA to seek the Secretary of State’s agreement to the principles on which fees are set. That is a move from the original process, whereby the Bill required the regulator to consult the Secretary of State on those principles. Lords amendments Nos. 108 to 119 relate to the inspection of registered providers. The Audit Commission inspects the overall management performance of all large housing associations over a certain period, and that has helped the overall and broad increase in standards, but given the new framework, in which investment and regulatory functions are being split, with the latter concerned with risk-based approaches, things can be done differently. Unlike the somewhat mechanical and cyclical current system, whereby inspections take place in a very similar way regardless of the risk across providers, the regulator will determine when an inspection is needed and what its scope should be. The aim is specifically to allow the regulator to pick up on things such as serious concerns about a provider’s performance as a result of information it collects or concerns raised by tenants and others about a specific estate. Lords amendment No. 108 requires that the TSA must engage the Audit Commission to conduct inspections related to housing management functions—on standards—under clause 191. We do not wish the Bill to give rise to a plethora of different inspectorates, as we believe that would be unhelpful, confusing and counter-productive. However, other bodies, such as a major accountancy firm, for example, may be used to investigate governance or financial concerns, or anything that does not come under clause 191. We have also responded to concerns raised in the Commons Committee stage about the disposal consents regime. Registered social landlords are currently required to seek the Housing Corporation’s consent for the disposal of any land. Lords amendment No. 89 ensures that where a non-profit registered provider wishes to sell a home that is let under a secure tenancy, it can do so only to another non-profit registered provider. Some of the protections of a secure tenancy rely on the status of a landlord as a public sector landlord or registered social landlord—or non-profit registered provider, as they will be known under the Bill. We do not wish to see a home let under a secure tenancy transferred to a non-profit making registered provider, as that would be contrary to this part of the Bill’s philosophy of protecting social housing tenants. The amendment makes that clear by explicitly prohibiting such a disposal. Lords amendments Nos. 90, 95, 96, 101 and 102 would ensure that disposals need only the regulator’s consent for social housing. Disposals of land not including social housing will not require the TSA’s consent. Much like the group of amendments on part 1, this group also contains a number of minor and technical amendments designed to ensure that the Bill’s clauses work properly in practice. For example, the group includes amendments to restrict the TSA’s information-sharing powers, in response to concerns raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Lords amendment No. 78 arises directly from concerns raised in Committee stage by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire that a requirement of the High Court to be the arbiter of an appeal against the decision of the regulator in respect of registration or deregistration would be, “Overkill and extortionately expensive”—I think that that is a direct quote. I agreed in Committee to go away and look at the matter, and we therefore tabled an amendment in the other place to see whether there could be a viable first-tier tribunal route. We see advantages in terms of lower costs and a reduced burden for smaller registered providers. The amendment therefore allows the Secretary of State, by order, to transfer the functions to the first-tier tribunal. I apologise to the House for taking some time in addressing the amendments in part 2 of the Bill. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran), who touched on this in her intervention, I hope that the House will agree that they go a significant way to improving the Bill. They are an important part of the Bill, because they allow us to achieve our objectives: giving all social tenants more choice and a greater say over how their homes are managed; eliminating unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy; protecting public investment; and, crucially, improving standards for tenants. I commend the amendments to the House.
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Grant ShappsConservative
- Quote
- Again, I broadly welcome this group of amendments, despite the fact that they come too thick and fast, and too late in the process for the liking of Conservatives. The Minister will be interested to learn that we did not object to the idea that the office for social tenants and landlords might be known as Oftenant, rather than the Tenant Services Authority, which for some reason does not roll off the tongue so easily. He decided on his own to make an amendment to the name.
- Time
- 19:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. RaynsfordLabour
- Quote
- I welcome the further amendments that we are considering, but I must correct the impression given by the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) that these are the sum total of the amendments to the Bill in respect of the status of housing associations and the risk to their classification as non-public sector bodies. In practice, the main amendments that safeguarded the position of housing associations were carried on Report in this House before the Bill went to the other place, following a detailed debate on these issues in Committee.
- Time
- 19:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Grant ShappsConservative
- Quote
- I understand and appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s comments, but does he agree that even though the amendments were made on Report, the three hours that we had to consider them was completely inadequate?
- Time
- 19:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. RaynsfordLabour
- Quote
- I will not debate the adequacy of Report stage, given the large number of amendments. I have expressed a view elsewhere on that subject and I alluded to it earlier in our proceedings this evening. I was simply correcting the implication that we had the amendments only at this late stage, because much of the work was done at an earlier stage. I welcome that because the Bill as originally drafted had defects, which I outlined on Second Reading and in Committee, and I welcome the positive response of my hon. Friend the Minister who listened and considered carefully, and who introduced amendments. It is important, given that the National Housing Federation has been referred to, to put on the record the comments made by David Orr, chief executive of the federation, who wrote in this week’s Inside Housing: “The fact that ministers were prepared to alter the bill, which is due to become law within the next few days, shows them in a very positive light. It proves they are willing to listen and, where appropriate, change their minds.” I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for showing exactly those characteristics in the way in which the Bill has been improved.
- Time
- 19:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)Liberal Democrat- Quote
- The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) referred to the number of changes that we are seeing later on in the process, and I should apologise for my appearance at this late stage, too. I was present on Report to hear about community land trusts, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, too. I had the honour of serving on the Committee on the Planning Bill, which ran concurrently with the Committee on this Bill, and so I was elsewhere during that stage. However, I have looked at the amendments that we are considering and some of the discussions in another place, and it is clear that the Bill has come on in leaps and bounds and has moved forward. There seems to be a great deal more consensus about the direction of travel. I deal first with the amendments relating to community land trusts. The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield referred to Rock, in my constituency, a number of times. It would perhaps have been nice if he had given me notice of his plans to do so; it would also have been nice if he had told me that he was coming to the constituency. It would have been nice to have seen him there and to have welcomed him, but—[Interruption.] I have always made a point of giving such notice myself, and I understood that that was the practice of the House. None the less, I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman is reaffirming his party’s commitment to community land trusts. My party has been committed to them for some time—indeed, local authorities in Cornwall were working with Cornwall Rural Housing Association to move forward on the issue, which is why the hon. Gentleman had the benefit of seeing something on the ground and in practice. As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, the scheme in Rock is a self-build scheme. I had the honour of introducing my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) to another scheme, one that was being run with Cornwall Rural Housing Association in Blisland, up on Bodmin moor, in my constituency. That scheme involves a mix of more conventional properties for rent through the housing association and the community land trust board. However, that scheme has had to be pushed forward with the help of North Cornwall district council because, as the hon. Gentleman said, despite the fact that the Government have said they favoured the community land trust model, there did not seem to be the confidence that the funding mechanisms were in place to allow it to go forward through the Housing Corporation. Although North Cornwall district council was in the right place at the right time to ensure that that scheme moved forward, I hope the amendments will mean that any other community land trust that faces the same problems will be able to get around those issues and receive funding in the normal way. We will see a big development in this sector, and both sides of the House seem to be in agreement that that is a positive way forward. I pay tribute to the work of Cornwall Rural Housing Association. It is committed to the scheme, and to developing first a Cornwell-wide model and, hopefully, more local models within that. I hope that I have been a vocal advocate of that, in terms of speaking to Members on both sides of the House.
- Time
- 20:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Grant ShappsConservative
- Quote
- I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if the message from my office about the visit did not get through. He certainly represents a very beautiful part of the world. Does he agree that the problems that the rural housing association experienced in trying to assist the community land trust at Rock would have been helped—and will be, I hope—by the inclusion of the vital description of CLTs in the Bill?
- Time
- 20:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Dan RogersonLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- There seems to have been an issue in that community land trusts know what they mean by that title, and many people around seem to know, but when finance is involved financial backers want a definition in legislation. That gives backers the confidence, understandably, to put our collective money where our political mouths are.
- Time
- 20:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Mr. Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)Labour- Quote
- Although I agree in principle that a provision in the Bill will assist us, the hon. Gentleman might consider the experience of the co-operative movement over a long period. The definition of a co-operative was written into law, but it was not much good in assisting the movement in obtaining the finance it wanted.
- Time
- 20:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Dan RogersonLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I bow to the hon. Gentleman’s experience. He makes an important clarification of the situation we face with regard to community land trusts. In the other place, my noble Friends raised issues about qualifying disclosure, which is a welcome change to the Bill, so that we can be confident that information is passed on only when absolutely necessary. Of course, discs have gone astray in transit in other circumstances, but I am sure it will not happen again in future. As the Minister said, there have been clarifications about the disposal of land. The process should not necessarily be subject to the same regulation as social housing and should allow registered social landlords to behave in a way that better furthers their agenda to deliver affordable housing. I welcome the fact that under amendment No. 203, Parliament will have a further chance to look through the affirmative procedure at the enabling powers to which the Minister referred. Having had the chance to look at the Bill only at a late stage, I am in a happy position, because we seem to be moving towards a measure that everybody is a little happier about. The Minister said that we want a regulator who acts in the interests of tenants and not necessarily in the interests of the policy objectives of the Government of the day. If the amendments take us closer to an organisation—what will now be called a TSA—that very much acts in the interests of tenants, the Liberal Democrats will be much happier when that lies at the heart of the Bill.
- Time
- 20:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)Labour- Quote
- I shall speak narrowly to amendments Nos. 66 and 67, which I am delighted will be incorporated into the Bill. I record my thanks to Lord Graham, who tabled them in the other place and who, in his wily and indefatigable way, persuaded all and sundry of the wisdom of including them. I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister and the Ministers in the other place, Baroness Andrews and Lord Bassam—
- Time
- 20:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Linda Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton) (Lab/Co-op)Labour- Quote
- rose—
- Time
- 20:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. DrewLabour
- Quote
- I was about to thank my hon. Friend, but as she wants to intervene she can do her own song and dance act.
- Time
- 20:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Linda GilroyLabour
- Quote
- My hon. Friend, too, should accept some of the thanks for moving the matter forward. My thanks also go to the Minister. Does my hon. Friend agree that the provisions will help to make a difference not only in rural constituencies such as his and those of Opposition Members but in constituencies such as mine? The report that I recently placed before the Minister included a recommendation that we should recognise community land trusts.
- Time
- 20:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. DrewLabour
- Quote
- Of course I agree. It is important that we move on after quite a tortuous process, but it is better to get the legislation right rather than doing things hurriedly and ending up with the wrong legislation. The Opposition laudably tabled the proposals in the first place, but the only problem was that they were in the wrong part of the Bill so they would not have done quite what we wanted. I am glad that the process has worked as it should and has teased out the facts, looked at the information in totality and applied it in the most sensible way possible so that we have a piece of legislation that is fit for purpose. I thank David Rodgers, the chief executive of CDS Co-operatives, who has done much work behind the scenes. He is not completely satisfied, as the Minister knows. We shall live to fight another day, because we want to look at some of the ways land trusts can apply to other aspects of community ownership as well as housing. The wonderful community empowerment Bill is coming up, and we hope to look at the issue then and make use of the wonderful opportunities that are being offered. I will not use the words “social engineering”, which are dangerous in this day and age, but we can consider how communities can engineer opportunities to solve their problems. I make no bones about the fact that the issue is important in rural areas and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) says, it is important in urban areas, too. The main thing, however, is that we see it as important in its own right and not as something that will sit on the shelf gathering dust. The provisions will actually make a difference. A form of ownership was beginning that had no statutory basis whatever. That could not be right; it could have led to all sorts of legal challenges in the future. Quite apart from the issue of finance, there is the simple fact that community governance could have been undermined if there was a legal challenge. It is absolutely right that the provisions are in place.
- Time
- 20:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. Iain WrightLabour
- Quote
- With the leave of the House, I shall comment briefly on some of the issues that have been raised. I thank Members on both sides of the House for their comments and the generally warm sentiments that have been expressed about the amendments. I should like to make a number of points on cross-domain regulation and community land trusts, particularly with regard to the comments made by the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps). I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want inadvertently to mislead the House; I do not want him to rewrite history and make it seem as though I had been fundamentally opposed to cross-domain regulation and community land trusts but suddenly underwent a conversion halfway through the passage of the Bill. I have always said that cross-domain regulation was an objective that we should pursue. I said time and again in Committee that the issue was complex and would require detailed consideration, helped by the work of Professor Ian Cole. Frankly, I also thought that the other place would not like a broad enabling clause—a so-called Henry VIII clause—to allow the provision to come into being, but I was wrong. The will of Parliament was clearly expressed, and that is why the measure was included in the Bill. I have always been a great fan of community land trusts. One of the 14 pilot areas is in my constituency. I think that CLTs are an incredibly important way of ensuring that land, buildings and assets generally are available for the local community in perpetuity. Again, it was always the intention that we would provide some legal definition of community land trusts.
- Time
- 20:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Linda GilroyLabour
- Quote
- Will my hon. Friend give way?
- Time
- 20:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. WrightLabour
- Quote
- May I finish my point? As I have discussed with my hon. Friend, whom I commend for her fantastic report on housing, which she recently gave me, I thought that the scope of the Bill that will be introduced in the fourth Session—the draft Community Empowerment, Housing and Economic Regeneration Bill—ticked all the boxes, with regard to community land trusts. I think that CLTs will be a key part of that Bill, and I thought that a legal definition could be provided in it. However, again, Parliament expressed its will, and the Government listened, and ensured that the definition was provided.
- Time
- 20:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Linda GilroyLabour
- Quote
- I can confirm what the Minister says; he has had a long-standing interest in ensuring that community land trusts can prosper, as has my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and her predecessor, now the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Some of us have discussed the issue not only with the Minister but with his colleagues, and we thank him for that.
- Time
- 20:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. WrightLabour
- Quote
- I thank my hon. Friend for those kind comments. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), I pay tribute to David Rodgers of CDS Co-operatives and my noble Friend Lord Graham of Edmonton, a fellow north-easterner who always describes himself as Lord Ted of Ed. I am not sure whether it is parliamentary to describe my noble Friend as wily, but I think I know what hon. Friend meant. In general, the provisions on cross-domain regulation, community land trusts and tenant empowerment seem to have been warmly welcomed by the House, for which I am grateful. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) made some incredibly pertinent points, as always, with regard to the nature and function of the regulator. Again, I am grateful to him for his kind comments on my involvement in the Bill. He made a good point about ensuring that business models are robust, particularly in the current climate; availability of finance is not what it was even six months ago. He is absolutely right to say that the regulator has a role to play. He also mentioned how important it is to make sure that the implementation procedure is closely considered in the period until the regulator comes into being, and I certainly pledge to do that. As regards regulation, he will know that previously there was only a very low level of intervention and a nuclear option. He knows that we are providing a new range of enforcement powers that essentially make the regulator more flexible and proportionate in what it does to raise standards for tenants. I welcome what has been said in the House tonight, and I hope that the whole House can approve the amendments. Lords amendment agreed to. Lords amendments Nos. 66 to 168 agreed to. Clause 293 Ballots before certain disposals to private landlords Lords amendment: No. 169.
- Time
- 20:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. Iain WrightLabour
- Quote
- I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
- Time
- 20:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. WrightLabour
- Quote
- Lords Amendments Nos. 169 to 171 address the concerns that Members of both Houses raised about the adequacy of tenant ballots on stock transfer. The issue was raised on Report by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who mentioned the potential lack of objectivity in the information provided to tenants when stock transfer was proposed, both in his constituency and in other areas. The issue was also mentioned in the other place by my noble Friend Lord Whitty, who reiterated points about imbalance and the timeliness of information. I resolved to have a closer look at the issue on Report; that was the origin of Lords amendments Nos. 169 to 171. They would require the Secretary of State—or Welsh Ministers in relation to Wales—to publish guidance on the consultation process with tenants and the holding of ballots prior to the possible transfer of council housing stock to registered providers. The amendments also require local authorities to have regard to that guidance. I am keen to put those requirements into the Bill to reflect the Government’s commitment to ensuring that tenants are properly informed about and involved in issues to do with the future ownership of their homes. The amendments will provide a safeguard in circumstances where there is considerable cynicism and scepticism about the willingness to involve tenants effectively or to have due regard to the view of the majority. I hope that the amendments will be welcomed by the whole House. I turn to the amendments relating to family intervention tenancies. The House will recall that such tenancies are a useful tool to allow families showing antisocial behaviour to be offered behaviour support services to tackle directly the root causes of such inappropriate and thoughtless behaviour. In our Committee considerations, the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) moved amendments to tighten up the general reference to the phrase “behaviour support services” and where they might be applied. The other place expressed similar concern with the definition of “behaviour support services”, particularly about whether it might be too vague. It also thought that there was a risk of families giving up secure or assured tenancies to receive light-touch or irrelevant support services that would not give the family the skills to sustain a tenancy. The other place also echoed the anxiety expressed by Shelter over whether further clarification of the circumstances in which family intervention tenancies could be used was needed. I am keen to ensure that such family intervention tenancies and related behaviour support services are relevant and effective. I agree with the other place that additional safeguards should be put in place when they are sensible and do not unduly compromise the flexibility of projects to carry out their activities. Lords amendments Nos. 177 to 180 and 185 to 189 therefore ensure that the behaviour support services provided under the family intervention tenancy—the FIT—be such services as are identified in the behaviour support agreement between the tenant, landlord and local housing authority. Behaviour support agreements set out clearly what support will be offered and by whom, and what in return is expected from those families. Before a FIT is entered into, the tenant must be served with a notice that includes those matters set out in the Bill—for example, the reasons for offering the tenancy, the security of tenure of the new tenancy and a statement that the tenant is not obliged to accept the offer. Clause 296 provides for a regulation-making power that would enable the Secretary of State to change, add to or remove the contents of the FIT notice. In the light of recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the importance of the contents of the FIT notice, the Government tabled Lords amendments Nos. 174, 175, 184 and 185, so that any amendment or repeal of the required contents of the notice would be by affirmative order. I now turn to the issue of tolerated trespassers, which the House will recall occupied the House during all stages of the Bill’s passage. On Report we amended the Bill to ensure that tolerated trespassers would not be created in future so that people would remain tenants until they left the property or were evicted. Part 2 of schedule 10 will restore tenancy status to existing tolerated trespassers by granting a new tenancy from the date that the provisions come into force on the same terms and conditions as the original tenancy. These provisions have been widely welcomed outside the House.
- Time
- 20:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. LoveLabour
- Quote
- I welcome the fact that the Government have responded to this issue, which has been outstanding for some time, but let me press my hon. Friend on two matters relating to the amendments. First, the basis of the decision by the Court of Appeal on this matter was that immigration control had no legitimate bearing on a British citizen, and the question therefore continues to arise as to whether the amendments respond to that decision. Secondly, there is still a form of discrimination relating to people in those circumstances, because they will have recourse only to the private sector and not to the social sector. How does the Minister respond to those concerns?
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. WrightLabour
- Quote
- I understand what my hon. Friend says, and he makes some good points. However, as I am sure he agrees, the amendments are trying to strike the right balance between remedying the incompatibility, maintaining a firm immigration policy and protecting the UK taxpayer. While I accept that British citizens and others with an absolute right to be here must be provided with some form of housing assistance if they become homeless through no fault of their own and are relying on a “restricted person” to convey homelessness or priority need, I do not consider that that assistance should convey priority or entitlement for long-term social housing. The important point that I would make to my hon. Friend is that these people will not be left homeless, as they could be under the current, incompatible, provisions. I hope that he accepts that.
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. RaynsfordLabour
- Quote
- Let me pose to my hon. Friend a problem that may arise as a result of the new arrangement, which I welcome as an improvement on the existing position, which was clearly incompatible. The restriction in such cases to private rented accommodation, where rent levels are generally significantly higher than in the social sector, may well create a problem whereby the lack of entitlement to public funds on the part of a member of the household means that it is not possible for the household to meet the cost of that private rented accommodation. I understand from his letter that the new arrangement will require the local authority “to be satisfied that the accommodation is suitable and that it is reasonable for the applicant to accept the offer.” Is he confident that there will not be problems whereby the authority cannot be satisfied that the accommodation is suitable, because it cannot be afforded, so it is not reasonable for the applicant to accept the offer? I fear that in responding to one problem we may be creating the genesis of another one. I would be grateful for his thoughts on that, either tonight, or at a future stage if he would like to take further soundings on it.
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. WrightLabour
- Quote
- I thank my right hon. Friend for those comments; he makes an important point. If he will allow me, I would like to reflect on what he said about the question of suitability. His point about cost is appropriate, and I will reflect on it. I take on board his point that by trying to resolve the incompatibility on one issue, we could be creating something else. I would like to consider that further.
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. LoveLabour
- Quote
- I thank my hon. Friend for his generosity. I want to follow up the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford). My point relates to the view of the Government on people who are here illegally, and those who do not have recourse to public funds. Although I understand that a balance can be struck for those who are here illegally, it seems somewhat perverse to include those who do not have recourse to public funds, especially since, in most instances, they will be children under 16. Following the comments made by others, will my hon. Friend give some more consideration to the matter, and perhaps, shall we say, review it?
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. WrightLabour
- Quote
- Again, I appreciate what my hon. Friend is saying, and I respect his views on the matter. I reiterate the point that I made earlier: we need to strike the right balance between remedying the incompatibility, providing a fair immigration policy and protecting the UK taxpayer. The important point is that, as a result of the amendments and the attempt to remedy the incompatibility, the people in question will not be left homeless, as they would have been under the current, incompatible, provisions. I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured by that.
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Grant ShappsConservative
- Quote
- Following the interventions that the Under-Secretary has just taken, I wonder whether, in his current reflective state, he might think about what happens to someone from one of the A10 accession countries to the European Union who was here legally and does not have recourse to public funds. I am reminded of a visit to the Upper Room at St. Saviour’s in Hammersmith last week. Its primary concern is a large group of people from the A10 countries who would have no recourse to public funds, and would presumably fall within the consideration that the Under-Secretary is now giving to the subject.
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. WrightLabour
- Quote
- The hon. Gentleman raises an important point in connection with the A10 countries, and I will look into it. To conclude, the amendments remedy the current incompatibility, and to repeat the point I made earlier, they will strike a fair balance between the rights of migrants who come to this country with no claim to public funds and the interests of UK taxpayers.
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Bob Spink (Castle Point) (UKIP)Independent- Quote
- Lords amendments Nos. 169 to 171 allow local authorities to hold a ballot as soon as a notice is served, but also call on them to have regard to guidance given by the appropriate person. Where a local authority has already had a ballot, and tenants have voted against a transfer, would the guidance from the appropriate person allow local authorities to hold ballot after ballot after ballot until they get the answer that they want, or would those authorities’ ability to re-ballot be restricted?
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. WrightLabour
- Quote
- I do not expect that the guidance will prevent a local authority that has had a ballot on stock transfer from having another one at some point. I think that it will say that a reasonable amount of time would have to elapse between a ballot and any subsequent ballot, to allow people to reflect and to consider. It would not be right for us to say that because one ballot had taken place, a local authority area could not have another one. Let me conclude by briefly mentioning Lords amendments on the right to buy. They include several minor and technical amendments to the right-to-buy clauses, and are necessary to ensure that the provisions work effectively. They are important amendments, especially in terms of remedying the incompatibility that I mentioned earlier. I hope that my comments reassure hon. Members, and I commend the amendments to them.
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. Stewart JacksonConservative
- Quote
- I congratulate the Under-Secretary on his epic, marathon handling of the Bill in the past few months. Unfortunately, I was unable to be with him in Committee—I obviously missed something—but he has handled the measure well. We have faced each other on many occasions in Westminster Hall in the past few months. Earlier, family disputes were mentioned. Something of a family dispute occurred in the Labour party on Report. As the Under-Secretary knows, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and several other hon. Members, including Liberal Democrat Members, such as the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes), took issue over the governance of tenancy ballots. I personally believe that the Under-Secretary was right to point out in the letter that he sent to hon. Members last week that changes were unnecessary because there was no evidence, on Report or subsequently, that there is anything wrong with the current guidance on overseeing and governing tenancy ballots. The dispute, and the need to table an amendment on the subject, owes more to internal Labour party politics about housing policy than anything else. I recollect that on Report the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) was on the receiving end of some robust interventions from other Labour Members on this matter, and on the housing revenue account, on that evening in March.
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lembit ÖpikLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- As the hon. Gentleman says, the issue for my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) and others is housing policy. Whatever structures we discuss, if policy is manipulated in a specific way, the Government can ensure a specific outcome—on this occasion, the dogmatic assumption that stock transfer is preferable to local authorities holding on to stock. That vexes my colleagues, and perhaps some Labour Members.
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. JacksonConservative
- Quote
- I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. However, other hon. Members and I previously made the point that none of us had a vested interest in anything but clear, transparent and democratic debate and discussion before large groups of tenants make decisions. I speak largely from my experience, and I know that my predecessor as Member of Parliament for Peterborough supported the tenants’ decisions. A proper debate, discussion and ballot took place, and I believe that the right decision was made to transfer the stock. We therefore have no objection to the Government’s change of heart, other than to be slightly cynical about the reasons for it, especially as in the letter of 17 July the Under-Secretary dismisses the need for it, but states that he was required to take a closer look. There is, therefore, some confusion, and he may wish to comment on that. However, it is important to regularise the procedures for stock transfer ballots. That is the right way to give the process some support and integrity. It is important to support the amendment that deals with family intervention tenancies, because it is about supporting local autonomy, among tenants, landlords and local housing authorities, in respect of support contracts. We certainly believe that on some occasions it is appropriate to go down that avenue, in order to reduce the scourge of antisocial behaviour and the massive impact that a small group of families can have on the quality of life in a local estate. Anything practical and appropriate to prevent that is to be supported.
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lembit ÖpikLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- May I, too, say that we feel some frustration that we cannot really consider the amendments in the group in detail, given the timetable? However, it would be churlish of us not to say that, with this group, the Government have, albeit under duress, taken on board the recommendations made in another place, which were also the subject of extensive conversation in Committee. The Minister has again demonstrated his genuine commitment to trying to make improvements, even when that means humbly taking on board recommendations that originated in opposition parties and organisations outside Parliament. On this specific group of amendments, we support the improvement in tenants’ rights during stock transfer. On the question of ballots, I have said before that anything can be achieved if one uses the financial incentives and disincentives that are abundantly obvious to anyone who looks at the Government’s approach to stock transfer. To be blunt, it is obvious that this Government—for some dogmatic reason—think that transferring stock out of local authority control is something actively to be promoted. It hardly comes as a surprise, therefore, that colleagues in my party—and in the Minister’s party—are unhappy about the fact that there is such a financial disincentive not to transfer stock. Having said that, there have been improvements in the process. While the structural improvements are welcome, we will have to return on another occasion to the policy obstacles that local authorities regularly meet when facing the unenviable dilemma between unwillingly encouraging the transfer of stock or accepting the economic hit of keeping it under local government control. Family intervention tenancies are overdue, and will become even more important in the difficult economic times ahead. Tightening up the definition of behavioural support services is useful, but those services must be properly resourced, and simply putting them into a Bill will not be enough to ensure that the money is available to make them work. Tolerated trespass was a subject that occupied a lot of our time in Committee, and it is good to see some improvements in regard to the restoration of certain rights. This should now work better, but we might have to return to the issue if, in practice, the application of the tolerated trespass legislation is not achieving its goals. People are very inventive, and if they find ways to achieve their goals that go against the spirit of the legislation, this might be a useful subject for a statutory instrument. Let us hope for the best, however. We have inevitably discussed the impact of migration on housing. I still hold the view that immigration provides a net financial benefit to this country. We have almost full employment, and many jobs would not be done if those migrants were not here. There are of course consequences for housing. Notwithstanding this legislation, we still have something of a schizophrenic approach towards the economic benefits of allowing migration into this country, which I support, and the pressures on housing and other social services that unquestionably cause varying levels of strain in local communities. It is beyond our remit to discuss that matter today, but I hope that the Government are cognisant of the fact that the HCA on its own will not be able to resolve some of these issues, as they have profound social consequences that even an effective HCA with an excellent chief executive cannot resolve. Lords amendments Nos. 169 to 171 relate to transfer proposals, in which I am particularly interested. We have already discussed them, and the eminently sensible improvements that have been made reflect the actions of a listening Minister, following an extensive dialogue in this House and another place. Finally, I want to make a policy observation. The right-to-buy proposals that form a substantial part of this legislation—as well as existing legislation—do nothing to help to maintain a social housing stock. They obviously help individuals to move up the housing ladder, but that on its own is not enough to ensure that the 1.67 million people—
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Grant ShappsConservative
- Quote
- It is 1.7 million.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lembit ÖpikLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The 1.7 million people in need of housing—
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Grant ShappsConservative
- Quote
- Families.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lembit ÖpikLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- The right to buy will not help the 1.7 million families in this country who are in need of social housing to get housed. Indeed, it seems to have had the opposite effect, not least due to the policy consequences of the money accrued by local authorities that have participated in many right-to-buy schemes. I do not expect the Minister to reply to this point tonight, as it is beyond the scope of these amendments. I want to put on record, however, that the right to buy, however attractive it might seem, leaves a hole that can be filled only by innovative partnership projects involving local authorities, or by a significant investment of money that is far in excess of anything that the Government have so far offered to achieve that goal.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. Iain WrightLabour
- Quote
- I will comment on some of the points raised by hon. Members. In general, I detect warm acceptance of the amendments. We listened to the concerns expressed in Committee and in the other place; we reflected on them; and we tabled the amendments in response. I will rise to the bait on the point made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) about stock transfer and ballots. He knows that we have strengthened current arrangements and made ballots on transfer of stock mandatory; that part of the Bill has been warmly welcomed. He will remember, as will the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) who is just leaving the Chamber, that my letter of 17 July dealt with evidence—[Interruption.] I apologise to the House; it was not the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield, but the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson). I reiterate what I said on Report—that the vast majority of cases of stock transfer are done fairly, clearly and transparently. In my former life as an auditor when I reviewed large-scale voluntary transfers, I noted that in a small minority of cases there was a question about the objectivity of the information provided to tenants. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) pointed this out in Committee and I made the same point: I want the process to remain as clear, transparent and accountable as possible, with the information being objective in 100 per cent. of stock transfer ballots.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lembit ÖpikLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- Without engaging in a detailed policy debate on the issue, does the Minister accept that whatever the probity of the stock transfer ballot process, there continues to be an as yet unresolved debate between those who believe that the Government have made the finances biased in favour of encouraging stock transfer and those who believe, like him, either that that is a good thing or who deny such bias?
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. WrightLabour
- Quote
- I disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s point. I have to say that on Report and elsewhere, my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) made some excellent points about registered social landlords. I have pointed out on several occasions—from the Dispatch Box and elsewhere—that local authorities have a role to play in their area’s housing. They provide a strategic assessment of what housing is required in the locality. Where it is appropriate and provides value for money for the taxpayer, local authorities have a direct role in delivery. The Bill will help that to happen and will remove some of the disincentives acting on local authorities to provide housing. However, the hon. Gentleman will know what my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich can articulate far more eloquently than I can: registered social landlords can lever in private money that can make a real difference in providing decent homes and much-needed investment for social housing. That investment raises the standard of housing for tenants who are often the most vulnerable, which should be welcomed throughout the House. Since 1997, we have seen considerable—indeed, unprecedented—levels of investment in social housing, largely as a result of the ability of registered social landlords to lever in such investment. I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lembit ÖpikLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- rose—
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. WrightLabour
- Quote
- I will give way in order to allow him to welcome it.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lembit ÖpikLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I welcome the private investment for social housing achieved through the vehicle the Minister describes. However, I firmly believe that the primary reason why the Government are so obsessed with encouraging a shift in social housing from the public to the private sector is the fear that it otherwise shows up in the public sector borrowing requirement. That provides a technical reason to explain why local authorities are being pretty much forced into shifting social housing out into the private sector—however little they may actually want to do that in practice. Does the Minister accept that?
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. WrightLabour
- Quote
- No, I disagree. All local authorities can choose models that are appropriate to their circumstances, whether it be stock transfer, retention of council housing stock or an arm’s length management organisation. We have provided the flexibility to allow authorities to decide locally what is needed in the area. I have ministerial responsibility for ALMOs, which are a fantastic model. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the tremendous work of ALMOs in Newcastle upon Tyne, for example. Various models are in place for various circumstances, and that is appropriate. On remedying the incompatibility of homelessness legislation, I understand the comments of some Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love). Time and again, however, I return to the balance—there is one—between remedying that incompatibility, providing fairness but firmness in immigration policy, and ensuring value for money for the UK taxpayer. We have been discussing social housing—particularly council housing—which is a valuable asset for the country. We need a lot more of it, and we need to ensure that the remedy provides the appropriate balance between the competing and often conflicting concerns.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. Stewart JacksonConservative
- Quote
- Will the Minister liaise with his colleagues who are responsible for community cohesion, for instance, to ascertain the magnitude of the problem? One of the difficulties for the House and others in coming to a settled view on changing policy is that we simply do not know how much the problem is occurring, which parts of the country are affected, and the significance of its impact on resources.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. WrightLabour
- Quote
- The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I have had questions and discussions with officials on the matter, and all the indicators show that the number of people affected by the current incompatibility is extremely small. I cannot quantify that, and I understand his concerns, but I shall liaise, as he suggests, with the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda), who has responsibility for community cohesion, to ensure a coherent strategy. I detect warm acceptance of the amendments, and I hope that the House will approve them. Lords amendment agreed to. Lords amendments Nos. 170 to 205 agreed to [one with Special Entry]. Clause 318 Orders and regulations Lords amendment: No. 206
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. WrightLabour
- Quote
- I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. WrightLabour
- Quote
- We come to the final group, which is made up of technical and minor amendments. I want to draw the House’s attention to several of them, not least because the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) always smiles when I mention the phrase “minor and technical”. Lords amendments Nos. 206, 210, 213 and 214 give effect to a recommendation made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its report on the Housing and Regeneration Bill. The recommendation relates to the power provided by clause 319 to make consequential amendments. Our original intention was that all orders made using the power should be subject to the affirmative procedure. However, the Committee’s view was that that procedure was necessary only when an Act was being amended. We agreed with the Committee’s conclusion and the amendments will implement it. Lords amendments Nos. 216 and 219 make it clear that orders made under part 4 of the Bill can extend to the whole of the United Kingdom. By amending the Bill in that way, the necessary consequential or transitional provisions can be drafted to achieve their intended effect. Lords amendments Nos. 217 and 218 relate to the territorial extent of the Bill. Generally, as the House will be aware, the Bill extends to England and Wales. However, some of the consequential amendments made under the Bill will amend legislation that also extends to Scotland. The amendments will ensure that these consequential amendments apply only in England and Wales. I hope that the House will be content with the amendments. Although they are minor, they are crucial to ensuring that the Bill works in practice. All that is left for me to do now is wish my daughter Hattie a very happy sixth birthday. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am grateful to the House for that reaction.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lembit ÖpikLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- Following the precedent set by the Minister, I should point out that he has now presented the House with more than 1,000 amendments in a breathtakingly short time. While I am dissatisfied with the lack of time allowed for us to debate them properly, I commend him on taking on board more recommendations from Members in all parts of the House than may have been the case in the past. As a result, he has not only exalted himself in the eyes of those of us who are ruthlessly committed to the best legislation, but caused us violently to agree with his points of view from time to time. It has been one of those occasions. In conclusion, let me wish my godfather Kalju Niit a happy birthday as well—and thank you for your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Lords amendment agreed to. Lords amendments 207 to 311 agreed to [Some with Special Entry]. european documents Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Committees), Emissions from Heavy Duty Vehicles That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 5127/08 and Addenda 1 and 2, draft Regulation on type-approval of motor vehicles and engines with respect to emissions from heavy duty vehicles (Euro VI) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information; endorses the Government’s support for a package of measures to reduce vehicle emissions substantially, leading to improvements to health and the environment, whilst allowing appropriate flexibility for industry in the short-term; and notes that the Government will continue to seek the right balance between environmental and other benefits, and burdens on industry.—[Tony Cunningham.] Question agreed to. Petitions
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗