 House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Housing and Regeneration Bill |
Housing and Regeneration Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Hannah Weston, Committee
Clerk
† attended the
Committee
Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 22 January 2008(Afternoon)[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]Housing and Regeneration BillNew Clause 24Shared
ownership leases: protection for certain limited equity
leases
‘In paragraph 3(2)(f)
of Schedule 4A to the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (c. 88)
(exclusion from enfranchisement for certain shared ownership leases
granted by housing associations: condition that lease provides for the
tenant to acquire the landlord’s
interest)—
(a) after
“acquire” insert “all of”,
and
(b) after
“prescribed” insert “or provides for the tenant to
acquire some of the landlord’s interest on terms specified in
the lease and complying with such requirements as may be
prescribed”.’.—[Mr.
Wright.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government (Mr. Iain Wright):
I beg to move,
That the clause be read a Second
time.
4
pm
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government new clause 25—Shared ownership leases: protection
for hard to replace
houses.
Mr.
Wright:
Good afternoon, Mr. Benton. In this
morning’s sitting, I touched on the concerns expressed by the
hon. Member for St. Ives about which providers will be covered by new
clause 25, and I hope that I provided reassurance that the new clause
will apply to all providers in a protected
area.
The hon.
Gentleman also mentioned concerns about the new clauses being a
top-down approach, with the Secretary of State being in the front seat
on any designation order. I hope that the Committee will not mind my
reiterating what I said in moving new clauses 24 and 25: the local
authority will be able to designate specific sites in a particular
area, and the Secretary of State will then make the order.
This brings
me to the fundamental theme of the line of questioning this morning. My
right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich wisely queried
the definition of a rural area. He mentioned the current definition of,
I believe, 3,000 inhabitants. I am in the same place as my right hon.
Friend and do not want to indicate that the area should be drawn too
tightly. The area should be appropriate, and I have an open mind on the
point. My right hon. Friend’s point about 3,000 inhabitants is
valid, and it is a good starting point. As I mentioned this morning, I
am keen to look at the matter in the context of consultation and
discussion
with stakeholders. The question whether the rural definition can be
applied to an urban setting—obviously, with regard to different
concerns and considerations—is a good starting point. I hope
that that reassures
him.
The hon. Member
for St. Ives has mentioned concerns about section 106 agreements. The
new clauses will not affect any existing agreements, such as planning
or nomination rights. I hope that that reassures
him.
I hope that I
have addressed all concerns raised by hon.
Members.
Andrew
George (St. Ives) (LD): As someone who is keen to ensure
that local communities drive the process as far as possible with the
Secretary of State taking a back seat in endorsing and ensuring that
they operate within the purpose of the regulation, I want to be clear
on how the Minister envisages a local authority drawing up or making
recommendations on drawing up the boundaries of the protected area. In
many rural areas, it is difficult to define whether the parish boundary
should be drawn around the 3,000 population or whether the boundary
should be drawn around a clear community within that parish, as many
parishes have a large number of communities within their boundaries.
Such issues need to be resolved. I know that many local authorities
will be keen, quite rightly, to draw these protected areas as widely as
possible.
Mr.
Wright:
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the process
should be driven locally, as a lot of housing developments should be. I
do not want to pre-empt the consultation on criteria, but it is
important that this is a locally driven process where local authorities
take the leading role and then apply to the Secretary of State for the
order. Local circumstances will demand what local authorities will do.
I am a big fan of that approach, and I hope that reassures him. We can
see this as another powerful tool to make sure that affordable housing
remains affordable in
perpetuity.
Question
put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time,
and added to the
Bill.
New Clause 25Shared
ownership leases: protection for hard to replace
houses
‘After paragraph 4 of
Schedule 4A to the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (c. 88) (exclusion from
enfranchisement for certain shared ownership leases for the elderly)
insert—
“Certain
leases in protected
areas
4A (1) A lease which
does not fall within paragraph 3 is excluded from the operation of this
Part of this Act if—
(a)
the lease meets the conditions mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) of that
paragraph; and
(b) the house is
in a protected area.
(2) The
appropriate national authority may by order made by statutory
instrument designate an area as a protected area if it considers it
appropriate to do so to support the provision in the area of houses, or
descriptions of houses, which are available for occupation in
accordance with shared ownership
arrangements.
(3) The
appropriate national authority must publish the criteria for the time
being in force which are to be taken into account by it in deciding
whether to designate an area as a protected area.
(4) Before making an order under sub-paragraph (2)
the appropriate national authority must take such steps as it considers
to be reasonable to consult those likely to be affected by the
order.
(5) In any proceedings
the court may, if it considers that it is just and equitable to do so,
treat a lease as meeting the conditions mentioned in paragraph 3(2)
despite the fact that the condition mentioned in paragraph 3(2)(g) is
not met.
(6) An order under
this paragraph may contain such incidental, supplementary, transitory,
transitional or saving provisions as the appropriate national authority
considers appropriate.
(7) In
this
paragraph—
“appropriate
national authority” means—
(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State;
and
(b) in relation to Wales,
the Welsh Ministers;
and
“shared
ownership arrangements” has the same meaning as in section 69 of
the Housing and Regeneration Act
2008.
(8) An instrument
containing—
(a) an order
of the Secretary of State under this paragraph is subject to annulment
in pursuance of a resolution of either House of
Parliament;
(b) an order of the
Welsh Ministers under this paragraph is subject to annulment in
pursuance of a resolution of the National Assembly for
Wales.”’.—[Mr.
Wright.]
Brought
up, read the First and Second time, and added to the
Bill.
New Clause 26Exclusion
of the right to buy: demolition
notices
‘Schedule (Demolition
notices) (which makes provision about demolition notices) has
effect.’.—[Mr.
Wright.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Government
new schedule 1—Demolition
notices.
Government
amendments Nos. 124, 129 and
130.
Mr.
Wright:
New clause 26 and new schedule 1 will add a new
schedule to the Housing Act 1985. They build on a measure introduced in
the Housing Act 2004 to tackle exploitation of the right to buy and
compulsory purchase compensation rules by some tenants. The 2004 Act
added properties that are to be demolished during the next two years to
the exceptions that apply to the right to buy under schedule 5 to the
Housing Act 1985. In practical terms, the right to buy is no longer
available on properties where the landlord has followed the approved
and prescribed notification process by serving a final demolition
notice. The 2004 Act also gave landlords the power to serve an initial
demolition notice, which suspends the right to buy—again,
landlords must follow a prescribed notification
process.
Initial or
final demolition notices must set out the reasons and the intended date
for demolition, and landlords must also publicise that information
locally.
Notices may be extended or revoked by the Secretary of State. The aim of
allowing landlords to suspend or end the right to buy was to address a
loophole in previous legislation. Before the 2004 Act, when a tenant
knew that demolition was likely, they were able to buy their home under
the right to buy at a discount provided by the taxpayer knowing that
when it was repurchased under compulsory powers, they would be entitled
to full market value plus home-loss compensation—in other words,
they would make a profit, sometimes a sizeable profit, at
taxpayers’ expense. That affected the financial viability of
regeneration schemes, because landlords had to find the money to buy
out such right-to-buy owners. The demolition notice procedure means
that landlords will be able to prevent tenants from taking advantage of
the time that it takes to plan and implement a regeneration
scheme.
Of
course, there are safeguards for tenants. Landlords must notify tenants
when and why they intend to demolish. An initial demolition notice
expires after five years, and another cannot be served in respect of
the same property for five years, unless the Secretary of State agrees.
An initial demolition notice can be extended, but, again, only if the
Secretary of State agrees. If a tenant has incurred conveyancing costs
before a demolition notice is served, he is entitled to compensation. A
final demolition notice cannot be served unless arrangements are in
place to acquire any neighbouring properties that also need to be
demolished.
These
provisions are also available if the landlord employs another
body—for example, an arm’s length management
organisation—to manage the demolition scheme on their behalf
while retaining ownership of the property, but they are not available
if the landlord sells or transfers the property to another landlord.
The new clause and new schedule will enable initial or final demolition
notices to remain in effect, if a landlord sells or transfers a
property to another landlord who intends to continue with the
demolition plans. However, I should make it clear to the Committee that
all the safeguards for tenants that I have mentioned will
remain.
The
power to issue initial and final demolition notices will be available
if demolition is to be carried out by another landlord to whom the
social landlord has transferred the property, but only if the second
landlord also intends to demolish the property. That will work as
follows: the second landlord will have to revoke any demolition notice
served by the first landlord, unless the second landlord serves a
continuation notice confirming that they intend to continue with the
demolition plans. The continuation notice must be justified on one of
the same grounds as the original demolition notice, and it must be
served and publicised in the same way. It may not vary the planned
demolition date or the date on which the original notice will expire.
The intention is to enable social landlords to manage demolition and
regeneration schemes as flexibly as possible.
Amendment No.
124 is purely technical. It adds a repeal to schedule 10—the
removal of “and”—and amendment No. 130 ensures
that the repeal is commenced automatically. Amendment No. 129 ensures
that new clause 26 and new schedule 1 are commenced automatically two
months after Royal Assent, which will allow social landlords to make
use of the new provision on demolition
notices without delay. I hope that I have explained the intention of the
amendments
clearly.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause read
a Second time, and added to the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 24 January 2008 |