For the most part, those buying new starter homes will not have that structural health check because it is a new house, a glossy, shiny, perfect new show home that the salespeople are promising them. They therefore think, “Surely there’s no need for a quality check. There are quality checks built into the processes, aren’t there? There are building regulations set out in law, building

5 Jan 2016 : Column 129

control performance standards, independent approved inspectors whose only reason to be is to safeguard quality—in essence to safeguard the buyer in this imperfect market.” Yet those who experience problems with new homes quickly discover that too many of those quality checks are not as watertight as they might at first appear. Independent oversight of the building process may not be working in practice as the rules and regulations might imply.

Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con): I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has given way, first because it is a pleasure to hear her speak. Every moment she speaks is a moment we do not have to hear from the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), whom so many of us in the Committee heard droning on like an out-of-tune bagpipe for hours on end. Just by standing and speaking, my right hon. Friend is preventing the House having to listen to him again, so I thank her for that.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the experience of many constituency MPs as they go about their work and listen to constituency complaints is that the existing process through the National House Building Council does not always provide the reassurance that people are entitled to expect? While it might a bit strong to say that the NHBC is the lackey of the large house builders, it is preciously close to being that.

Mrs Miller: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and pay tribute to him for the work he has done in helping more of my constituents have the opportunity to build their own homes. I did not have the pleasure of sitting across from the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), although I am sure we will hear his dulcet tones later.

Many people who buy a new home will have problems with the house they purchase; they will have a snagging list—chipped paint, ill-fitting doors and so on. I do not deny the importance of getting such matters resolved, and the Minister may well want to address some of the difficulties people can experience in getting those small-scale problems fixed, but, as valid as those concerns are, that is not the point of this amendment. New clause 1 would ensure that every home was checked for significant defects while it was being built and at the end of the building process.

Over recent months, I have received evidence from people up and down the country who have purchased new properties with significant defects from major house builders. Some of those properties have damp-proof courses that are below ground level; some have been built off their foundations; and some have roofs sitting on walls that are not structural. There are also reports of inadequate fire insulation and an absence of cavity-wall or loft insulation. Those are real-life examples of defects in houses that are subject to the current regime. Every one of those building errors should have been picked up during the construction of the house, as part of the building control process. That process exists to ensure that houses are built properly. The approved inspector is responsible for building control performance standards and is, to all intents and purposes, the professional who acts as the eyes and ears of the future buyer.

As matters stand, however, there is no legal requirement for even one visit to be made to a new-build home during the build in order physically to check the building

5 Jan 2016 : Column 130

standards. On a new estate, a random selection of houses might be monitored and the results extrapolated as though every house were the same. This is called a risk-based approach, but in reality it feels like a lottery. The fact is that every house could be different. The subsoil across a 300-house estate can change dramatically, for example, and changes in the weather throughout the build can significantly affect materials and the way they work. The current risk based-approach creates an unnecessary lottery for the home buyer, rather than certainty. There is a calculated risk, which is not something that most buyers appreciate, and not something that most buyers would expect to accompany the purchase of a £200,000 or £300,000 house.

Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con): Does my hon. Friend not agree that people should get a survey done before buying a new-build house?

Mrs Miller: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. This is something that we discussed in the evidence sessions held by the all-party parliamentary group on excellence in the built environment. Some of my constituents have indeed been forced to get surveys done as a result of the problems they have experienced after purchasing new houses. That might be the route that the Minister would favour, but I would favour getting it right first time and ensuring that we have a system of compliance that is overseen effectively.

The present guidance is comprehensive, and I believe that it is among the best in the world. It is pretty exhaustive, but it is just that: guidance. The Minister’s Department makes it clear that it is advisable to make four to six visits, even to low-risk new-build houses, but that is not a requirement. New clause 1 would provide certainty that every home would be visited at key points in the construction process. The evidence indicates that building control does not always work as the Government intended it to. Buyers are under the impression that their new home has been physically inspected at each key stage and on completion by a building control inspector, but that is not necessarily the case. On a big estate of several hundred houses, only a handful might be checked. The current risk-based approach adopted by many house builders means that hundreds of houses could have no checks at all, and the current skills shortfall has led to heartache for many new homeowners.

Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con): My right hon. Friend’s new clause seems to deal only with starter homes. She is making a powerful case for the protection of all those who wish to buy a new home, so the new clause should surely apply to all new homes and not just to starter homes.

Mrs Miller: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but I am sure that I would incur the wrath of Madam Deputy Speaker if the new clause did not deal with starter homes, as it needs to be read in the context of the Bill. I am glad that my hon. Friend has made that point, however, because this is a problem for every new homeowner.

As I said, the shortfall of skilled tradesmen and women means that too many new homeowners are experiencing the problems that I have set out, with inadequate work not apparent for months or even years, and not caught at a time when things could be put right.

5 Jan 2016 : Column 131

Some more unscrupulous builders could even play the system for short-term gain, using substandard contractors, perhaps poorly supervised, knowing that problems would not reveal themselves until after their sales targets for the year are reached, or indeed their liability ends and the new house build 10-year warranty kicks in and they are long gone.

The new clause would remove perverse incentives and this apparent quality control lottery, and would increase consistency and transparency in the house building process. It would simply enforce the existing regime for all new homes, rather than some. It would ensure that every new starter home was checked for correct construction. I am not talking about a higher standard or a new standard, but about the same standard for every house, thus removing the lottery that is currently in place. The new clause would simply put building control performance standards on a statutory basis and require the records already kept to be made available to the new buyer, so that they could satisfy themselves that proper checks had been made.

Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con): In the new regulatory regime that my right hon. Friend seeks to advocate, whom does she envisage funding, managing and employing this new army of new-build inspectors? Local authorities up and down the country are seeing their budgets under pressure, so this is not going to come from that side of the equation.

Mrs Miller: My hon. Friend is right, which is why independent approved inspectors were set up when they were, to take pressure off local authorities. The problem we have seen is that because we are not working within a defined statutory scheme, those approved inspectors can vary the way in which they work. Indeed, some could argue that there are pressures on approved inspectors to come in at a lower price or to offer to do fewer inspections because it would cost the house builders less. What I am advocating here is a level playing field where all approved inspectors would be acting in the same way, and this is firmly something that would be a cost covered by the house builders. After all, we are dealing with properties worth many hundreds of thousands of pounds, and we would want to make sure that they were going to last for the long term and not simply be subject to inappropriate and inadequate quality checks.

I urge the Minister, on behalf of the homeowners from many different constituencies around the country who have contacted me, to listen to the arguments being made today and to respond positively to what is being suggested. With a nationwide shortage of skilled tradespeople, ever-growing demand for housing and home builders looking to keep costs low, buyers need protection afforded by the building control performance standards regime, and the work of approved inspectors is more important than ever before.

As I have just said, we need to remove the pressure that could exist on approved inspectors to reduce the number of inspections that are made in order to cut costs. We need a robust system to safeguard the quality of what is being built, particularly given the taxpayer investment in schemes such as the starter home initiative. Of course these concerns go far wider than starter homes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) mentioned in his intervention. I hope

5 Jan 2016 : Column 132

that the Government will look to further extend the requirements in this new clause to all new-build homes. I have spoken to the Minister about this issue in recent months and I know that he has a clear understanding of the problem. I look forward to his response and an indication as to whether the objectives set out in new clause 1 could be achieved for all new builds, perhaps through further regulations. With that, I shall draw my comments to a close.

Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab): I rise to speak to new clause 2, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). It would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State and local authorities to secure and promote the resilience of housing and other developments, giving consideration to the impact that new developments will have on resources and biodiversity.

9.30 pm

During the passage of the Bill, Members have addressed the need for many new homes, the record of past Administrations and the failures of the current Government that have led to rising homelessness, falling home ownership, escalating rents and deep cuts in investment. We all know that we need the houses, and efforts to help more people into a position of home ownership are to be welcomed. New clause 2, rather than seeking to undermine the essence of that ambition, attempts to improve the proposals by building into the Bill a recognition of the important environmental context, which is to ensure that new homes and developments are not only better to live in, but place a lighter burden on the environment. If the Government are serious about ramping up house building—I sincerely hope that they are—such considerations will be crucial. Simply put, the objective of the new clause is to promote the long-term sustainability of homes and communities, requiring that consideration be given to future-proofing new developments against mounting pressures from climate change and the burgeoning demands being placed on already stretched infrastructure.

A range of policies, including the climate change risk assessment and the national planning policy framework, already support such an approach through schemes such as sustainable drainage systems that could significantly enhance resilience. Despite the supporting evidence for the utility, very few new developments are implementing those strategies. Indeed, in a letter to Baroness Trafford over Christmas, the chair of the Adaptation Sub-Committee wrote that

“the uptake of sustainable drainage systems in new development is lamentable and the new proposals introduced in April repeat the same mistakes of the past.”

We must also be clear that the Bill in its current form would promote a profusion of rapid cheap building at the expense of proper planning and with no real requirement to consider any potential environmental impact. It is important that the chair of the Adaptation Sub-Committee also suggested that there is no evidence that resilience measures will affect the speed of development. I take this opportunity to echo calls for the Government to respond on that matter today.

Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con): Given that the definition of resilience appears to be based on the existing planning law regarding sustainable development, will the hon. Gentleman explain the difference between the two and how it would be enforced?

5 Jan 2016 : Column 133

Alex Cunningham: It is relatively straightforward. Currently, the measures are not necessarily imposed. The legislation is not strong enough to compel various changes, and I will come on to that as I go through my speech.

It is worthy of note that the new National Infrastructure Commission has been established without a mandate for sustainability or resilience and without any commissioners with expertise in the environment. Thousands of homes could therefore be given the green light in areas of flood risk or water stress and without proper provision for resource resilience or protection of urban diversity. There is a very real risk that new infrastructure will be built without proper regard for its impact on natural systems such as the water cycle or habitat connectivity. That is precisely what the campaign for flood-free homes led by the Association of British Insurers is attempting to halt, with calls for better planning, greater investment in flood defences and a stop to inappropriate development. Indeed during Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions in December, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) suggested that we needed to end house building on floodplains. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether there will be a change of policy in that area.

The statutory duty that new clause 2 seeks to introduce would address those shortcomings by securing a resilience objective, promoting measures by developers and those responsible for utilities infrastructure to further that goal in building homes in communities that are sustainable in the longer term. This is an important point. By promoting action to respond to pressures on the environment—be it from climate change, population growth or changes in behaviour—a statutory duty of resilience would encourage long-term planning and investment, and support measures to manage development sustainability and reduce demand on resources. That would represent a positive movement towards securing the continued viability of the infrastructure, on which new developments rely. I am clear that the proposals to speed up the planning system must not come at the expense of sensible design.

Let us not forget that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has already recognised the advantages that building resilient homes can deliver relative to efforts aimed at adding resilience at some future date. Those folk who have suffered the effects of flooding in recent weeks will be only too familiar with the need for adding resilience by default. The concept of resilience in this context encompasses a broad spectrum of issues that range from waste disposal to water supply management and flood-risk mitigation.

Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab): We heard earlier a number of colleagues from both sides of the House talking about the impact that the flooding that communities have experienced in recent weeks has had on their constituents’ properties and belongings. It has to be accepted that such flooding is not the exception and is becoming the norm. It would be extraordinarily remiss of the Government not to accept the new clause.

Alex Cunningham: Indeed. The events of recent weeks highlight the need for the inclusion of the new clause in the Bill. The extensive flooding that devastated both large and small communities across swathes of Cumbria,

5 Jan 2016 : Column 134

Lancashire and Yorkshire throughout December underlines the need for in-built resilience, so much so that the Environment Secretary has committed to revisiting the modelling used by the Environment Agency to ensure its fitness for purpose following repeated unprecedented weather events, as well as committed to a national flood resilience review which will see worst-case scenario planning updated.

These are certainly steps to be welcomed, and I hope the Minister will build on those commitments from his colleagues and agree to grasp the opportunity to legislate for a longer-term resilience objective in the Bill. Doing so would be of great significance at a time when cuts to the resource budget of the Department responsible for dealing with flooding are fresh in the memory and doubts remain about the equally vital issue of spending on flood defence maintenance to ensure its continued integrity.

Although the Government must commit to long-term investment in maintaining flood defences to provide stability and certainty, it is high time that Ministers dropped their complacency about the need for climate change adaptation and actively put measures in place to increase resilience. David Rooke, deputy chief executive of the Environment Agency, recently echoed this thinking, saying that we need a “complete rethink” in our approach and suggesting that

“we will need to move from not just providing better defences…but looking at increasing resilience”.

Building higher walls will not, on its own, provide the protection that our towns and cities need. Such an approach has been well and truly debunked in the past month alone. Instead, we need measures aimed at prevention as well as at defence. Achieving this, as the floods Minister acknowledged only a few weeks ago, means more trees and woodland in the hills, functioning ponds and bogs, allowing rivers to meander, and constructing buffer zones around their banks. The Government’s own climate change risk assessment lists the various risks resulting from climate change to which our homes and communities need to be resilient, including damage to property due to flooding and coastal erosion, and energy infrastructure at significant risk of flooding.

However, although new developments are to be prepared for all the eventualities identified in the risk assessment, the Government’s plans for infrastructure development pay little attention to the need to manage resource risks or the need for so-called green and blue infrastructure to support development by better bringing together water management and green infrastructure. That is worrying when continued urbanisation is drastically reducing the amount of rainfall that can soak away into the ground, meaning that water has to be actively managed to prevent flooding.

Although national planning policy was strengthened from April 2015, making clear the expectation that sustainable drainage systems will be provided in all major developments unless demonstrably inappropriate, that was a blatant watering down of previous commitments. The Government originally said that sustainable drainage systems would become compulsory in all new developments from April 2014, as mandated by the flood and water management legislation, but they delayed implementation before choosing to ignore completely the findings of the 2007 Pitt review and cancelling plans for the approval

5 Jan 2016 : Column 135

bodies that would have been established by local authorities. Will the Minister tell the House what proportion of new developments now include sustainable drainage systems?

Exemptions and opt-outs currently apply to smaller developments, allowing many to go ahead without sustainable drainage. The Government stopped short of implementing the Pitt review recommendation to remove developers’ automatic right to connect new homes to the public sewer system, which provides an incentive for them to include sustainable drainage.

The provisions in new clause 2 would ensure that local authorities and the Secretary of State take the positive steps necessary to promote resilience and protect against such damage in future. A failure to address the issue, however, and choosing to push ahead with non-resilient development is likely to increase costs in the economy, not to mention ruining people’s homes and livelihoods at the same time as threatening critical national infrastructure. It is therefore vital that as the area of urban development grows, sufficient green space and wetland must be incorporated to support nature and to manage flood risk both in any new developments and downstream. With the failure of the existing framework to encourage developers to pursue such strategies freely, it is right that mechanisms should be put in place to compel developers to create more places for trees, shrubs and grass to flourish—to create what engineers in the field term “hydraulic roughness.”

Today the Government have a chance to add a vital part of the system: the management of water in our communities. Many hon. Members will have seen the story of the north Yorkshire town of Pickering, which used natural flood defences to protect itself when traditional concrete options were too expensive. At a tenth of the cost, the people of Pickering were protected by investing in natural resilience. We should incorporate that objective in all our new developments. Although added resilience is certainly no guarantee that such flooding will not occur, there is popular concurrence that the absence of such features compounds and intensifies these events.

Ministers will recognise what new clause 2 would achieve. I hope that it will be accepted, or that we will hear alternative proposals from Ministers on how to address the specific issues I have raised today. We owe it to the country and, in particular, to every individual and family who have suffered in recent weeks.

Oliver Colvile: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this debate on new clause 1, which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), whom I thank for her generous and heartfelt words. Before going any further, I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I have an interest in that I still give advice to developers.

I am also chairman of the all-party group for excellence in the built environment, which, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, is currently conducting an inquiry into the quality of new build. Although I have no wish to prejudge or predict the report’s recommendations, I want to explain a little about why we have launched the inquiry. I remind the House that I am also probably one of the only Conservative

5 Jan 2016 : Column 136

Members who represents a totally inner-city seat—the only thing I have that resembles a field is a muddy meadow called the Ponderosa pony sanctuary.

I am keen to pay tribute to the previous Labour Government for embarking upon a great deal of regeneration in the Devonport part of my constituency. Like most of Plymouth, Devonport was badly bombed by the Luftwaffe during the Blitz. The city fathers quickly put up new housing to accommodate the many homeless in the city but, as Members can imagine, its quality was not fantastic. After all, it was erected after the war, so with very little money.

I am delighted that the coalition and Conservative Governments have continued with the previous Government’s housing initiative. The Government ensured that there would be a mix of both municipal and private market housing, which is important as it has changed the demographic profile of the ward. I am delighted that the Government have set themselves a target of building 200,000 new homes by 2020. Oddly enough, that is the year when we will celebrate the anniversary of the Mayflower leaving the great city of Plymouth in order to found the American colonies.

I am very keen that we should have good-quality design in any new housing. The vast majority of the new builds are perfectly acceptable. However, I am surprised at the number of new builds in my constituency that are already showing mould after just five years. I am also surprised by the number of constituents who have beaten a path to my constituency surgery because they have problems with the quality of their housing. In the main, the developers have agreed to take up those cases, but they are very aware that they have to be careful; they want to ensure that they do not find themselves legally liable.

There has been some confusion as to who is responsible for sorting out those problems. Is it the council? Should it have signed off on the development before it was sold? Where do the insurers fit in? What happens if the consumer, who has paid good money for the property, cannot get a satisfactory answer? Who should consumers go to if they cannot get redress? We need to remember that this is probably the biggest investment that individuals—our constituents, and probably ourselves—will make in their lifetime. I hope that our report on the built environment will deal with those issues and suggest some recommendations on how the inspection regime can be improved and strengthened.

9.45 pm

Finally Madam Deputy Speaker, you cannot expect me to give up an opportunity to raise how development can be environmentally friendly. Developers need to play a part in helping to save—you’ve got it—the hedgehog. We need to make sure that hedgehogs can move between gardens. I ask the Government to give advice to local authorities on how to develop a hedgehog superhighway. Members should remember that my hedgehog campaign is not just for Christmas, and nor should quality new builds be. We need to make sure that we avoid building the slums of tomorrow. I support the spirit of new clause 1, but I am keen to wait until the all-party group has produced its report before the changes are enacted.

Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD): The Bill comes at the right time—in the midst of a national housing crisis—but unfortunately it does not provide

5 Jan 2016 : Column 137

the right solution. It is clear that Britain needs more affordable homes, both to rent and buy, and a huge increase in the supply of homes. Yet the Bill gives billions of pounds to a relatively small number of people through the extension of right to buy while prioritising a relatively small number of better-off renters through so-called starter homes, rather than supporting the much larger number of people for whom saving for a deposit, even for a starter home, seems like a pipe dream.

The purpose of my amendment 110 is to ensure that new homes built under the starter homes initiative are genuinely affordable and include social rented homes. Unamended, this Bill threatens an even worse crisis for those in need of an affordable home to rent or buy in the years to come.

As it stands, the starter homes initiative will merely allow a few people to access those homes at the cost of losing about 300,000 new genuinely affordable homes that would have been secured through planning gain. The policy is bad and based on the wrong priorities. In addition, the sale of social rented homes will further exacerbate the situation. It is expensive. The National Housing Federation estimates the cost at £11.6 billion. It is unfair for private renters, who have been paying market rents for many years and do not have the luxury of a £100,000 discount on buying a home. Given the Bill’s current lack of safeguards for replacements and the funding mechanism through the sale of council homes, the policy will lead to a reduction in affordable homes. I would like the provision to be removed from the Bill when we discuss the matter later.

On amendment 110, we should ensure that new starter homes are genuinely affordable and meet the needs of the community in which they are built. They should be mixed-tenure, including shared ownership and social rented homes. In rural communities such as mine in south Cumbria, we should ensure that there are planning controls for newly built properties to prevent them from slipping into the second-home market, undermining the sustainability of our communities and pushing up house prices for local people.

The Government must recognise the differential impact of their proposals across the country. In places such as London, the west country, Northumberland and Cumbria, the forced selling off of high-value council homes will reduce the supply of affordable homes in the very places where they are needed most: where high rental prices push out those who work locally on low incomes, often causing them to travel long distances with unaffordably high travel costs to reach work or forcing them to give up work altogether. It is absolutely the wrong thing to do and puts a crippling financial burden on councils already struggling to cope with reduced budgets.

My amendment relates to the Bill’s impact on the supply of affordable homes through the inaccurately titled starter homes proposal—in particular, the fact that the starter homes will replace a larger number of other forms of affordable homes to rent and buy, including shared ownership, resulting again in a squeezing of the availability of homes for lower-income renters. A policy similar to the starter homes proposal would be deserving of support as long as those homes were kept below market value in perpetuity, which is essential so that the benefits of starter homes are passed on to future buyers. However, they should be in addition to, not instead of, other forms of affordable homes that meet different

5 Jan 2016 : Column 138

needs. Consequently, councils should have a duty to promote all forms of affordable tenures in new developments and not exclusively the Government’s narrow, mostly unaffordable definition of a starter home.

Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con): The hon. Gentleman talks about the affordability of starter homes, and I refer to a development in my constituency, in Penwortham—a place that he knows very well, because it is where he grew up. Much of this debate has been London-centric. In the vast majority of the country, starter homes are affordable to working people, and that is why this initiative is very popular with all our constituents.

Tim Farron: I am particularly grateful to have given way to my dad’s MP. On affordability, we all started somewhere. We might be fortunate enough to be homeowners, but people who are only just a bit younger than me belong to a generation where the average earner cannot afford to buy a home of any kind, so a starter home is a great blessing wherever it may be. I am not arguing against starter homes, but against a narrow definition whereby they are built at the cost of a larger number of genuinely affordable homes across the country. That is what my amendment seeks to address.

Mr Bacon: There is a fallacy that the hon. Gentleman adumbrated again when he said “at the cost of”. Why “at the cost of”? Why cannot local councils establish, grow and promote mutual housing co-operatives?

Tim Farron: I am in favour of those things too, but our understanding is that the starter homes initiative comes at the expense of—displaces—a larger number of homes built under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 through other forms of planning gain. That is what the Government have stated since the election and since this Bill became a subject of discussion.

I am not somebody who ideologically takes a view in favour of private or publicly provided housing; in fact, my great problem is that too many people in this debate do take an ideological view one way or the other. I want to solve the crippling housing crisis in this country. That means building 3 million homes over the next 10 years, and to achieve that, the majority will have to be what we would refer to as affordable homes—social rented homes, shared ownership homes, and other homes with some form of restriction that allows them to be affordable to people on average incomes.

Mr Bacon: Why?

Tim Farron: Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman understood what the average earner earns and what the average home costs in the average place, he would not need to ask why.

Mr Bacon: Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that the word “affordable” is deeply tendentious—deeply laden? The reason things are not affordable is that there is not enough supply. Fix the supply, and we fix the affordability. It is perfectly possible to have exception sites for mutual housing co-operatives, or for self-build, which could be done on a large scale. Some 50% or 60% of housing is done that way in big countries such as Germany and France, and it could be done here. All it needs is a bit of imagination.

5 Jan 2016 : Column 139

Tim Farron: The hon. Gentleman preaches to the converted. It is about supply and demand, but it is not as simple as that. House prices have tripled or quadrupled over the past generations while incomes have not, so it cannot be merely about supply and demand: we need to do something else as well. That is why it is wise to be involved in the marketplace in a way that does not just allow the market to rule. If we are to go through a process of setting up new starter homes, which the Government may build themselves according to the Chancellor’s statement earlier this week—I would welcome that—we have to recognise that unless we put restrictions on the value of those homes we will simply kick the problem five years down the road.

Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab): Has the hon. Gentleman considered the possibility that, if housing and planning policy is ideologically left to developers, they will have a natural tendency to build more expensive properties, for which they will get more money? I do not blame the developers for that, but that would be the consequence of leaving it to be determined by their needs.

Tim Farron: The hon. Gentleman makes a fine and correct point. I do not blame the developers, either. In a market situation, they sell what they can at the price they can get. In my community, one in seven homes are not lived in. I am talking not about holiday lets, but about second homes bought by people away from the area who earn significant incomes and can afford to buy several properties as investments or boltholes, and good luck to them. In such a marketplace, it is blindingly obvious that there needs to be intervention. That is why there is a role for social rented housing and why our amendment to improve the Government’s starter homes proposals is completely wise.

Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con): I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that it was regrettable that the Liberal Democrats did not provide anyone to sit on the Bill Committee. He may need to review that. He probably views policy through the prism of South Lakeland, which I would have thought is a unique place in the north-west of England. The information we were given by expert witnesses was that the cumulative impact of the Bill would be to deliver a larger number of affordable homes. We received no evidence whatsoever that the new starter homes would not be affordable to people on average incomes on the line between the Bristol channel and the Wash

Tim Farron: If I thought there was no merit whatsoever in the proposal, I would have tabled an amendment to scrap it altogether. The point, however, is that in different parts of the country, including in the north of England—not just Cumbria, but Northumberland and parts of the Yorkshire dales—in the west country and in London, which are significant proportions of the country, the homes are unlikely to be affordable to anybody on anything like an average wage. They may be affordable in other parts of the country, in which case the Government have nothing to fear from accepting my amendment.

In moving towards a conclusion, I am genuinely deeply concerned about the effect this Bill will have not just on those areas I have mentioned, but on others as well, particularly with regard to right to buy.

5 Jan 2016 : Column 140

Oliver Colvile rose—

Tim Farron: I would like to move on for other people’s sake, but I am happy to give way.

Oliver Colvile: Surely this is about making sure that we fulfil aspiration, because what a large number of people actually want to do is to own their own homes.

Tim Farron: Indeed, and I have a great aspiration for the 1.6 million people in this country who are rotting on a social housing waiting list, and that number will grow larger as the years go on. I want to bring down house prices so that they are affordable to people, but this is a displacement proposal that will help better-off private renters and will not help a much larger number of people who are in a much worse situation.

Simon Hoare: Conservative Members would be very interested to hear the hon. Gentleman answer his own question. He told the House a moment ago that it is not solely—I think that was the phrase he used—supply and demand that affects the price of a house. What other things does he think add to it?

Tim Farron: I have already given my view on that—it is blindingly obvious, really. Supply and demand plays a significant and critical part, which is one of the reasons I am very proud that my council in South Lakeland has already built 1,000 affordable homes and has plans to build another 5,000. Why do things other than supply and demand have an impact? The answer is that property is a clear investment and people with enough money will buy more than one. Indeed, my constituency is strewn with such properties.

In conclusion, my worry is that in 10 years’ time, the housing crisis will be even worse, with thousands of affordable homes having been sold off, some converted to buy-to-let properties and very few replaced, at the same time as waiting lists for homes soar and homelessness rises. Poor housing is a barrier to success in life, and that impacts not only on individuals, but on communities and wider society. That is why it is essential for families across Britain—and, indeed, for our economic ambitions as a country—that we ensure that everyone has a decent and affordable place to live.

It is often said in polite society that the most stressful thing in life is moving home, because of the insecurity, the uncertainty and the cost. Well, welcome to the reality of everyday life for millions of people in Britain who do not, and cannot aspire to, own their own home. Millions of families live with the financial, psychological and emotional burdens that inadequate, insecure and unaffordable housing brings. The Bill deliberately misses the opportunity to help those people in order to settle old ideological scores and ride some pretty ropey old hobby horses. Doing nothing in the face of this housing crisis would be bad enough, but by actively promoting a Bill that will make the crisis worse, the Government are ensuring that their legacy will be scorned by the future generations that the Bill betrays.

10 pm

Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con): I shall be mercifully brief. I have great respect for the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), but I do not agree with his analysis of the Bill.

5 Jan 2016 : Column 141

Clause 3(1) states:

“An English planning authority must carry out its relevant planning functions with a view to promoting the supply of starter homes in England.”

I rise to support amendment 1, which I tabled and which has support throughout the House. After the words “starter homes”, it would add

“or alternative affordable home ownership products, such as rent to buy”.

I have been involved in social housing since 1989, when I was the chairman of Plymouth City Council’s housing committee. Even then we had policies on hedgehogs in Plymouth. The harsh reality is that under any colour Government and any kind of council, there has always been more demand for social affordable housing to rent than there has been supply. That continues today and will probably always be with us. It is our obligation, in every generation, to do our best to meet that demand and provide good quality social affordable housing to rent for the many people who require it.

We face a new crisis in this country today that is completely different from what we faced when I was involved in housing back in the 1980s. It is the crisis of home ownership and the inability of many younger people to own their own homes. We know that 85% of people still aspire to do so. I bought my first house when I was 23. The average age of a first-time buyer is now 38. This is a genuine crisis—generation rent—and the Government have my support in seeking to tackle it by supplying more affordable homes to buy.

I strongly support the big push by the Government to build more homes, especially starter homes with a 20% discount. I also support the challenging targets the Government have set themselves to meet that need throughout the Parliament. I agree that planning authorities should promote the supply of starter homes, although I argue strongly—this is the thrust of my amendment—that the Bill should refer to starter homes and other rent to buy products as well. That would help us to move towards the goal that we all want to reach: more young people owning their own homes.

Mr Prisk: I strongly support my hon. Friend’s two amendments, which relate to the same point. Does he agree that the crucial point is that his amendments would not only help the Government to deliver the additional homes we all want to see, but widen the pathways towards that end?

Mr Streeter: My hon. Friend puts the case much more eloquently than I ever could. Indeed, he used the favourite word of the moment: pathway. We heard it a lot earlier this afternoon and it is a very commendable word. I agree entirely with him.

The point of the schemes that I am promoting is not that they give an option to buy, nor that that there is a wish or aspiration that the incoming tenant will perhaps buy one day. The whole basis on which the schemes are set up is that the incoming tenant or occupant of the property will buy it and, within five, 10, 15 or 20 years, will be a homeowner. These products help to fulfil the aspirations of people who cannot get there right now and help the Government to meet their targets over a period of time. As far as I am concerned, they are a win-win.

5 Jan 2016 : Column 142

There are new rent to buy products on the market. Rentplus has its headquarters in Plymouth, which is why my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) and I support it so strongly. It has brought forward a product that has attracted a lot of private investment. It is interested in setting up schemes that attract people in bands C and D on the housing needs register. We know from our constituency surgeries that people in bands C or D do not often get the house that they go for. This product is helping people who are on the homeless register to rent their property to begin with, but to agree at the outset—here is the beauty of the scheme—that within five, 10, 15 or 20 years—whatever they think they can manage—they will buy that property. They are gifted a 10% deposit by the scheme to make that purchase possible. It is a very innovative scheme and the kind of product I am sure the Government would want to promote.

Mr Jackson: Like me, my hon. Friend will support localism. However, it is currently within the gift of a local planning authority to introduce a local plan or county structure plan, or the capacity to develop staircasing or intermediate tenure. With all due respect, the amendment is slightly onerous.

Mr Streeter: I do not agree because it is important that these schemes are given the kind of Government backing that the amendment would ensure. Developers will not need to negotiate and explain their case to every individual planning authority, because they will know that they have the backing of someone as significant as the Housing Minister. If that wording is included in the Bill it will give those schemes a flying start and help us to meet the Government’s challenging targets.

In conclusion, I believe that this amendment is a win-win, and I hope the Minister will think seriously about adding it to the Bill. If that cannot be done on Report, I hope that serious thought will be given to including it in another place. I do not see a downside to this; I see only more young people meeting their aspirations to own their own homes in our country in years to come.

Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab): I rise to speak to amendments 31 to 35, 37 to 39, 40 to 45 and 46, although given the time available, it is most unlikely that I will get to speak to them all. I start by welcoming new clauses 1 and 2. They seem to be sensible measures and I hope the Minister will take them on board.

Amendment 31 would

“change the purpose of the Bill to one that would enable the supply of more housing across all tenures rather than just starter homes.”

As we argued continually and strongly in Committee, the Bill is a huge waste of an opportunity to get the housing that we so desperately need across all tenures to solve our housing crisis. The Government have so far dismissed evidence from charities such as Shelter, which has said that these measures are unwise, but perhaps they will take note of The Economist, which argued that this policy would have “unhappy distributional consequences”, and fewer homes to rent for low-income families—the same families who cannot afford the deposit on so-called starter homes. As a result,

“poor households may find it even harder to find a place in Britain’s affordable housing market.”

5 Jan 2016 : Column 143

Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con): Does the hon. Lady agree that the starter home discount, combined with Help to Buy, which requires only a 5% deposit, makes starter homes extremely affordable to almost everybody?

Dr Blackman-Woods: As the hon. Gentleman will know because he sat through the Committee stage, evidence from Shelter suggests that starter homes will be unaffordable to people on low incomes in 98% of the country, and unaffordable to those on middle incomes in 58% of the country. For that reason we think that local authorities should have more flexibility to deliver other forms of affordable housing alongside starter homes.

Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab): On affordability, does my hon. Friend agree that in places such as London where starter homes will be priced at £450,000 if the market value before discount is £560,000—[Hon. Members: “Up to £450,000!] In central London it is inconceivable that many, if any, of those properties will cost under £450,000. Someone would need a household income higher than that of a Member of Parliament to afford one.

Dr Blackman-Woods: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point that we reiterated again and again in Committee, but alas the Minister took no notice.

These concerns are spread across all parties and are reflected in the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). We broadly support those amendments, as they very much back up the arguments we made in Committee.

In Committee, we attempted to point out very clearly to the Government that we need to build houses across all tenures if we are to address the housing crisis. The largest number of houses we built recently was the 214,000 houses built in 2006-07, but that compared unfavourably with 1969 when 357,000 houses were built. What that demonstrates is that if we are to get something like the 250,000 homes we need, about half of them should be delivered by the public sector. However, there are simply no measures in the Bill to produce those much needed public sector homes. That is why we have tabled amendment 31 on Report.

Amendment 32 seeks to ensure that additional housing is supported with adequate infrastructure. This is a really important amendment.

Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op): Before my hon. Friend moves on to the substance of her remarks on amendment 32, she will remember that on amendment 31 one of the few chinks of light in Ministers’ otherwise disappointing responses to our amendments was on housing co-operatives. Does she not think that tonight, in the Minister’s wind-up to this group of amendments, there might be an opportunity for him to update us on the progress he has made on offering local authorities useful guidance on how more mutual co-operative housing stock can be built?

Dr Blackman-Woods: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, one I hope that the Minister listens to and responds to this evening.

5 Jan 2016 : Column 144

Mr Bacon: Does the hon. Lady not think that the Labour and Co-operative party ought to be able to furnish advice without help from Her Majesty’s Government? Why has it not been doing that?

Dr Blackman-Woods: The hon. Gentleman is being uncharacteristically unfair. Many Labour Members argued strongly for more co-operative housing. In fact, I am sure the hon. Gentleman is very well aware that we had a whole section on the Lyons review that addressed this very topic. I think we are doing our bit.

Amendment 32 is really important. Indeed, the Minister himself acknowledged on a number of occasions that not only do we need homes as places to live in, but that they need to be built in communities that people want to live in. New homes have to be supported with the right infrastructure so that those who rent or purchase them have access to good quality healthcare, schools, further and higher education, transport links, employment and so on. It would be very useful to hear from the Minister this evening what he intends to do to address the concerns raised by a number of local authorities, including Milton Keynes, which pointed out that, because of the lack of community infrastructure levy applied to starter homes, there is a very real risk there will not be enough money available to support the infrastructure that is needed.

Amendment 33 would ensure that starter homes are affordable at locally determined rates of income and on a multiple of median incomes within the local area, rather than set centrally, which puts the homes out of the reach of many people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) said. Homes that are priced at £250,000 outside London or £450,000 in London are simply unaffordable for too many people.

Amendment 34 seeks to exclude buy to let property from the definition of a starter home. In Committee, we thought this was a really, really important issue to address. We assumed the Government’s intention is for these to be starter homes for people and not starter homes for landlords. In Committee, we did not get the assurances we sought from the Minister. This is a straightforward amendment, and we would like to hear how he intends to give us the reassurances he indicated in Committee he would. At the moment, nothing has come forward.

10.15 pm

Amendment 35 would limit the provision of starter homes to exception sites, as previously announced by the Government. In Committee, we sought to elicit from them an explanation of why their policy on starter homes changed so drastically between March and May last year, but we did not get a satisfactory response about why they had gone from being available only on exception sites to being available on almost all sites. It would be good to have an update from the Minister on that point.

Amendment 37 would ensure that a proportion of starter homes are available to local people, which, in Committee, we thought was a really important issue. We all know that one reason local people sometimes object to new housing is that they think it is not for people like them and their families. We would like some priority given to helping people get on the housing ladder locally. Amendment 38 asks that the price cap,

5 Jan 2016 : Column 145

currently set at £250,000 and £450,000, could be amended only after consultation with relevant local authorities and the Mayor of London. We were terribly concerned, at several points in Committee, that the Bill transferred huge powers to the Secretary of State and contained exceptionally centralising measures. There are a number of them, but we thought his having the ability to alter the price cap without consulting anybody was totally unreasonable. The amendment simply asks that the price cap can be altered only if the relevant local authorities and—in London—the Mayor of London are consulted.

Amendment 39, another extremely important amendment, asks that the discount on starter homes remain in perpetuity. In Committee, we asked the Minister why he had rejected the outcome of his own consultation exercise on starter homes and why the discounts were not being applied in perpetuity. The Government’s plan for starter homes is that they could be resold or let at open market value after the initial sale. The majority of respondents to the consultation elected for an in-perpetuity discount: 75% of local authorities, 100% of lenders and 50% of developers thought for all sorts of reasons—not least because it is hard to price a product that is going to change like this one will under the current provisions—that there should be an in-perpetuity discount. It would be good to hear why he does not accept that. We feel very strongly about this, so, depending on his response, we might press the amendment to a Division.

Mr Prisk: What estimate has the hon. Lady made of the loss in the number of homes built? If the price is capped and the discount extended into perpetuity, it will almost certainly increase the unit cost, which will mean fewer homes. How many fewer homes would she be happy to see built?

Dr Blackman-Woods: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s logic. The new starter homes would be coming up for resale, as well as the additional starter homes still being built, so I am not quite sure of his logic.

Amendment 40 would ensure that local authorities can ask for planning gain measures providing for a range of affordable homes, rather than just starter homes.

Amendment 41 suggests that the Government should really ask local authorities to provide a full assessment of housing need in the area and then to deliver the number of homes that meet that housing need, rather than prioritising starter homes above all other types of affordable housing. It does not seem to us that the Government are proposing a sensible measure here, and again we need to hear from the Minister why he is moving away from the NPPS requirement to ensure a full assessment of housing need locally and subsequently that local authorities plan to meet it rather than go off at a particular tangent.

Amendment 42 is designed to secure an exemption from the requirement “to promote starter homes” where a site has a scheme that is either a “build to rent” scheme or one that contains some other sort of

“supported housing for younger people, older people, people with special needs and people with disabilities”,

for example—or otherwise one that contains a “homeless hostel”, “refuge accommodation” or “specialist housing”. This is another very important amendment because we

5 Jan 2016 : Column 146

feel these sites could be exempted from the requirement to promote starter homes on the grounds that they already delivering a scheme that brings about enormous community benefits.

Amendment 43 asks for information about starter homes to be displayed on a local authority’s website and updated annually. It should also be put in the context of all other types of housing being built in an area. To provide an example, there might be 640 starter homes produced in an area, but how many affordable homes that are social homes for rent might actually have been built? We think that people need a full range of information about the type of housing and the applicable tenure in order to make sense of starter home information.

Amendment 44 is designed to ensure that the land set aside for starter homes

“is not needed for employment, retail, leisure, industrial or distribution use.”

It is important for ensuring that starter homes do not crowd out other forms of development.

Amendment 45 would remove clause 6 from the Bill, as we think it is an imposition on local authorities, which takes away important community rights to have a say about what is happening in an area, while amendment 46 would ensure that in moving to promote self-build, the cost of servicing plots is not unreasonable for local authorities.

Several hon. Members rose—

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. I need to bring in another four speakers before bringing in the Minister at 10.37 pm.

Mr Jackson: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) and lovely to hear her dulcet tones, which brought back flashbacks of 17 sittings looking in detail at the 145 clauses and 11 schedules of the Bill. As I say, it is lovely to see her in her place and not having been subject to the night of the long knives as a result of the Labour reshuffle, if indeed the reshuffle is concluded, as someone suggested on Twitter, by 4 o’clock tomorrow—

Mr Deputy Speaker: I am sure you do, Mr Jackson, but I can assure you that I do not want to hear the history of the reshuffle. Come on, we could be here all night!

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

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

5 Jan 2016 : Column 147

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

Dr Blackman-Woods: The hon. Gentleman needs to accept that we built 2 million more homes.

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

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

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

The starter homes policy is about delivering homes to people who need them. If the hon. Member for City of Durham remembers, when the expert witnesses were challenged in Committee, they could not produce the figures, either on the day or afterwards, that showed definitively, beyond any reasonable doubt, that, from the Bristol channel to the Wash, in Chorley—Mr Deputy Speaker’s seat—in Leyland, in most parts of Lancashire, in Yorkshire and Humberside and in the east and west midlands, for most people on an average income—I accept that there is a difference with the national minimum wage and that the city of Durham is perhaps a different example—the homes would be affordable. Conservative Members on the Committee were not indulging, as the

5 Jan 2016 : Column 148

hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) said, in some ideological pursuit. We were looking at the evidence brought before us. The evidence did not demonstrate, with all due respect, the hon. Lady’s position.

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

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

Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab): I want to raise three concerns about the Government’s proposals on starter homes. Obviously it is right, given the aspirations of many people to own their own home who currently cannot afford to, that we should look seriously at measures that enable that to happen. What we should be concerned about is whether those measures are good value for the taxpayer and have any unintended consequences. If it is such a good idea to help people on to the housing ladder, why do we not help the next group of people on to it by ensuring that the discount, or assistance, continues in perpetuity?

10.30 pm

I visited a Pocket development the other day. Pocket is an organisation that provides homes for people who could not afford to buy them at market prices. It insists that when the homes are resold, they are bought by people on certain income levels, so that the reduced price is passed on to the next generation of home buyers. That means that there is extra value for the taxpayer’s money, because the people who purchase the properties the second time around benefit as well. Why do the Government not consider introducing what strikes me as a very sensible, and radical, arrangement?

Conservative Members suggest that starter homes will be additional, but in fact they will replace homes that would otherwise have been built under section 106. A quarter of a million section 106 homes have been built in the last 10 years, mainly for housing associations: affordable housing, and social housing to rent. Developers will not build starter homes in addition to the rented homes that would have been built under section 106. If Ministers disagree with that, let them come forward and say so. I believe that local authorities should be allowed to assess the housing need in their areas and reach an agreement with developers about the sort of houses that should be built under section 106, whether they be starter homes, homes for shared ownership, homes to rent or co-operatives.

I agree with what Members have said about supply and demand. If no more homes are built than would have been built under section 106 but extra money goes

5 Jan 2016 : Column 149

into house purchasing, as is demanded by this starter home measure, the amount of money available to purchase homes will increase and the supply of homes will not. There is only one conclusion to be reached: house prices could eventually be driven up further. Members must seriously consider that conclusion. It would be helpful to know what the Government really think, but they have not produced an impact assessment.

Mr Bacon: I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Gentleman, who talks a lot of sense a lot of the time, but he is now suggesting that only a small number of developers can affect the situation. Does he not understand the central problem, which is that most ordinary people cannot make the decision to bring forward their own projects? If that changed, developers would find that people had other genuine choices. There is a reason why 75% of people do not want to buy the products of volume house builders.

Mr Betts: I agree, but I do not think that that is the issue in this instance, because by and large starter homes will be produced by volume house builders.

These homes will be built instead of other housing, and the Government are almost ignoring the right of local authorities to have an influence on the assessment of housing need. When the Minister appeared before the Select Committee, he said that it would be up to developers and local authorities to negotiate deals, including deals on starter homes, on the basis of individual sites and planning applications. How can that fit into a framework in which the Government have a target—I think it is a target rather than aspiration; no doubt the Minister will tell us whether that is the case—of 200,000 starter homes? If the Government have a target, they will have to use their powers of direction to ensure that local authorities deliver starter homes on each site that will add up to the 200,000 total. In other words, they will override the rights of local authorities to assess housing need in their areas and arrive at the best deal on each site, so that the best possible balance of housing is available. Starter homes will simply push out the other houses for rent that local people really need.

Chris Philp: Thank you for calling me at this late hour, Mr Deputy Speaker. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I support the Bill’s emphasis on starter homes, and the corollary of that is that I oppose some of the amendments that dilute that emphasis, particularly amendments 40, 110 and 33. I believe that owner-occupiers on low incomes need all the help that they can get to get on to the housing ladder, and the starter home provisions will provide exactly that.

I was alarmed to note that between 2007 and 2013, the most recent period for which figures are available, the number of owner-occupiers in the country fell by half a million, and the proportion fell from 68% to 63%. The provisions in this Bill are designed to arrest that decline, and it is right that they do that. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) referred in his closing remarks to the merits of a property-owning democracy, and we know that 86% of the public aspire to own their own home. There is no greater

5 Jan 2016 : Column 150

service we in this House can do tonight than help those 86% of our constituents realise their dream of owning their own home, and this Bill does that.

On the questions raised by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) about affordability, I would make the following observations. First, starter homes by definition are 20% more affordable than current homes for sale, and that is a welcome step in the right direction; it is clearly an improvement on where we are today. She referred to deposits, too. The Government’s Help to Buy scheme allows people to borrow up to 95% of a property’s value. Even in London, even if the price is the maximum the deposit is only £22,500, and outside London it is only a £12,500 deposit. These are maximum figures; I expect many starter homes will be below these maximum figures and will be extremely affordable.

Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab): Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in certain constituencies, including mine, Help to Buy has helped as few as one household? When I last looked, one household in Hornsey and Wood Green had been assisted in May this year.

Chris Philp: Most first-time buyer households have two people’s incomes contributing, which improves the affordability.

On the specific question raised by the hon. Member for City of Durham on amendment 34 about preventing buy-to-let investors, clause 2(1)(b) says starter homes will apply only to “qualifying first-time buyers”, which is very clear.

In summary, I strongly support the starter homes concept and the concept of a property-owning democracy, and I support the 86% of our constituents who want to buy their own home.

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis): We have had an extensive discussion both in Committee and tonight, and I look forward to rest of tonight’s debate, not least as it might allow us to see if the current shadow Front Bench is still the shadow Front Bench by the time we finish.

We have had extensive discussion on the Opposition amendments on starter homes, particularly in relation to clause 1, and the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) has returned to that today, repeating points made in some of our previous debates. Since we discussed these clauses in Committee, our spending review has doubled our investment in affordable housing. The Prime Minister announced just yesterday that £1.2 billion of our starter homes funding will in the first instance support further brownfield site preparation, and that builds on the £36 million made available late last year.

Clause 1 sets out our position clearly—our manifesto commitment being delivered to build out 200,000 starter homes. Clause 1 includes a clear definition to be applied nationally, and I hope the House will agree that we should not water it down through the proposed amendments. We strongly believe that new housing developments need to be supported by improvements in local infrastructure—this particularly covers amendment 32. Starter homes reforms do not change this. Starter home developments will still be required to have section 106 agreements to provide necessary site-specific infrastructure.

5 Jan 2016 : Column 151

Turning to amendments 33, 34, 35, 37, 38 and 39, we need to be clear that these would remove the real benefits starter homes offer to young people—the very people we are looking to help. So I maintain that our model, as defined in clause 2, should stand to define our product clearly and support national delivery.

The hon. Member for City of Durham referred to amendment 39. I made it clear in Committee—Members can read what was said in Committee—that the regulations will specify that post-sale restrictions on sale and letting will exist and they are likely to be a period of five years before a starter home can be sold or let at open market value. I defend the right of any homeowner to have the same rights as any other homeowner to treat their home properly. If someone can never realise more than 80% of the value of their property, they lose the ability to move upwards in the housing market. This risks stagnation, rather than mobility. I want to incentivise young people and families to move onwards and upwards, and our model will enable families to do just that.

Turning to amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter), the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), I want to be absolutely clear that the Government strongly support the need for a range of products to improve access to homeownership, and other products can perform a valuable function, too. It is for councils to consider whether these products should form part of their affordable housing ask on any given housing site. The clause will not prevent such developments from coming forward; nor will it prevent councils from securing other forms of affordable housing.

We are also introducing flexibilities in the Bill to encourage councils to build their own affordable housing. Let us be clear: 2014 saw the highest level of council housing starts for 23 years. However, we make no apology for prioritising support for low-cost home ownership and for making sure that we do what we can get young people on to the housing ladder, rewarding their hard work and ambition.

I note the support for rent to buy, which is a product that we in the Government have supported as well. We will continue to focus on it, but at this stage I do not want to dilute our clear focus on delivering starter homes for first-time buyers. I accept that the need will vary across the country, which brings me to amendment 41. We need to be able to provide more starter homes across the country, and the outcome of our consultation will involve setting different requirements in different areas. However, I want to wait for the outcome of the consultation before I make any final decisions.

As I said in Committee, amendment 42 is unnecessary. Again, our consultation will seek views on the type of site that should be exempt from the duty, and I believe that it is right to await the outcome of that consultation. We will then publish a full range of exemptions. On Amendment 43, much of the information that the amendment proposes to have included is already reported. I want to reassure Members that we will consult on the proposed regulations relating to clause 5, and this will include details of the proposed monitoring reports.

On amendments 44 and 46, we are now in a position in which we can no longer afford to hold on to employment land indefinitely if it is not in productive use. I expect

5 Jan 2016 : Column 152

local authorities to continue to examine applications relating to exemption sites with the same rigour with which they examine other applications. I am therefore not persuaded that either of the amendments is required. If land is in active use, or if there is robust evidence that it could soon be in productive use for employment uses, a council will be free to consider it as part of the planning process.

Turning to amendment 45, I want to reassure Members that it is our firm intention that any compliance direction should be a backstop provision. We expect that provision to be used only rarely, but it will be an incentive to ensure that we do our bit to deliver these new starter homes for first-time buyers.

Mr Betts: On that point about direction, will the Minister tell me what freedom local authorities will have to assess housing need in their areas if they decide that, on balance, the need to provide more rented or shared ownership homes as part of a package relating to a section 106 agreement on a particular site?

Brandon Lewis: Obviously, local authorities can build more council houses. I would encourage them to use the headroom that they already have to build more social housing themselves, but they will continue to have the ability to negotiate with developers in relation to section 106, just as they do now.

On new clause 2, it is clearly important that we build new developments that can stand the test of time, just as our Victorian and other predecessors did before us. I do not believe that the new clause is necessary, however. We already have strong, clear policies on resilience, sustainability and design in the national planning policy framework, supported by building regulations. The new clause would impose additional and unnecessary burdens. I say this in the light of the fact that in more than 96% of the cases in which the Environment Agency has raised objections, those objections have been fully heeded in the final planning decisions. It is absolutely right that local authorities should take good account of the advice given by the agency on developments in flood risk areas.

John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab): Would the Minister consider a new classification of flood plains within the development framework, to allow an additional specification for local authorities? I am prepared to reshuffle to the Tea Room to discuss this matter further if he would like to join me.

Brandon Lewis: I am always happy to discuss all things with the hon. Gentleman, but I am not going to be tempted into making changes like that here tonight. He is right, however, to suggest that councils listen to the advice given by the Environment Agency, and it is good to know that 99% of proposed new homes involved in planning outcomes have been in line with the agency’s advice.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) opened the debate with a discussion on new clause 1. I am pleased to be the first to say that it is already a requirement that starter homes should be subject to compliance with the relevant requirements of the building regulations, as are all new buildings and all major alterations to existing ones. I note that she and other Members have been raising issues to make it clear that they want to ensure that these regulations are

5 Jan 2016 : Column 153

strong enough and are abided by. I believe that her proposed subsection 2(b) is not needed, because of the codes already in place. However, she and others have raised the issue of the availability of site inspection records, which is also an important issue. As a result of her representations, we have asked the Building Control Performance Standards Advisory Group to look at making inspection records available on request to building owners and prospective owners. It will report back to us with suggested amendments in February, and I of course look forward to hearing her contribute on that.

Work is also being done by the all-party group for excellence in the built environment, which I know is looking at a range of issues in this area. I look forward to receiving its report, as we will be able to review what comes out of it in order to consider whether any strengthening of the guidance is needed going forward.

We have had an interesting debate on this group but, for the reasons given, I hope that my right hon. Friend and others who have tabled proposals will not feel the need to press them to a Division.

10.45 pm

Mrs Miller: Getting rid of the current house building quality lottery is absolutely non-negotiable, but I can hear that the Minister has listened to the argument and am delighted with his announcement that he will be looking at ways in which those quality records can be made available to house buyers, so that they can see at first hand exactly how their house has been built. That is real progressm and with that, although I shall be watching carefully for the details of what he is proposing, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

What is a starter home?

Amendment proposed: 39, page 2, line 25, at end insert—

‘(8A) The restrictions on resales and letting at open market value relating to first time buyer starter homes must be in perpetuity.”—(Dr Blackman-Woods.)

The amendment would require the discount to remain in

perpetuity

.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House divided:

Ayes 194, Noes 301.

Division No. 154]

[

10.46 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Abrahams, Debbie

Alexander, Heidi

Ali, Rushanara

Anderson, Mr David

Ashworth, Jonathan

Austin, Ian

Bailey, Mr Adrian

Barron, rh Kevin

Beckett, rh Margaret

Benn, rh Hilary

Berger, Luciana

Betts, Mr Clive

Blackman-Woods, Dr Roberta

Blenkinsop, Tom

Blomfield, Paul

Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben

Brake, rh Tom

Brennan, Kevin

Bryant, Chris

Buck, Ms Karen

Burden, Richard

Burgon, Richard

Burnham, rh Andy

Butler, Dawn

Byrne, rh Liam

Cadbury, Ruth

Campbell, rh Mr Alan

Campbell, Mr Ronnie

Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair

Chapman, Jenny

Clegg, rh Mr Nick

Corbyn, rh Jeremy

Coyle, Neil

Crausby, Mr David

Creasy, Stella

Cummins, Judith

Cunningham, Alex

Cunningham, Mr Jim

Dakin, Nic

Danczuk, Simon

David, Wayne

Davies, Geraint

Donaldson, rh Mr Jeffrey M.

Doughty, Stephen

Dowd, Jim

Dowd, Peter

Durkan, Mark

Edwards, Jonathan

Efford, Clive

Elliott, Julie

Elliott, Tom

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Esterson, Bill

Evans, Chris

Farrelly, Paul

Farron, Tim

Field, rh Frank

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Flello, Robert

Fletcher, Colleen

Flynn, Paul

Fovargue, Yvonne

Gardiner, Barry

Glindon, Mary

Goodman, Helen

Green, Kate

Greenwood, Lilian

Griffith, Nia

Gwynne, Andrew

Haigh, Louise

Hamilton, Fabian

Hanson, rh Mr David

Harpham, Harry

Harris, Carolyn

Hayes, Helen

Healey, rh John

Hendrick, Mr Mark

Hepburn, Mr Stephen

Hermon, Lady

Hillier, Meg

Hodgson, Mrs Sharon

Hoey, Kate

Hollern, Kate

Hopkins, Kelvin

Hunt, Tristram

Hussain, Imran

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Jarvis, Dan

Johnson, rh Alan

Johnson, Diana

Jones, Gerald

Jones, Graham

Jones, Mr Kevan

Jones, Susan Elan

Kane, Mike

Keeley, Barbara

Kendall, Liz

Kinahan, Danny

Kinnock, Stephen

Kyle, Peter

Lamb, rh Norman

Lavery, Ian

Leslie, Chris

Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma

Lewis, Clive

Lewis, Mr Ivan

Long Bailey, Rebecca

Lucas, Caroline

Lucas, Ian C.

Lynch, Holly

Mactaggart, rh Fiona

Madders, Justin

Mahmood, Mr Khalid

Mahmood, Shabana

Malhotra, Seema

Mann, John

Marris, Rob

Marsden, Mr Gordon

Maskell, Rachael

Matheson, Christian

McCabe, Steve

McDonagh, Siobhain

McDonald, Andy

McDonnell, John

McFadden, rh Mr Pat

McGinn, Conor

McGovern, Alison

McInnes, Liz

McKinnell, Catherine

McMahon, Jim

Moon, Mrs Madeleine

Morden, Jessica

Morris, Grahame M.

Mulholland, Greg

Murray, Ian

Onn, Melanie

Osamor, Kate

Owen, Albert

Pearce, Teresa

Pennycook, Matthew

Perkins, Toby

Phillips, Jess

Pound, Stephen

Powell, Lucy

Pugh, John

Qureshi, Yasmin

Rayner, Angela

Reed, Mr Jamie

Reed, Mr Steve

Rees, Christina

Reynolds, Emma

Reynolds, Jonathan

Rimmer, Marie

Robinson, Mr Geoffrey

Rotheram, Steve

Saville Roberts, Liz

Shah, Naz

Shannon, Jim

Sharma, Mr Virendra

Shuker, Mr Gavin

Siddiq, Tulip

Skinner, Mr Dennis

Smeeth, Ruth

Smith, Angela

Smith, Cat

Smith, Nick

Smith, Owen

Smyth, Karin

Spellar, rh Mr John

Starmer, Keir

Stevens, Jo

Streeting, Wes

Stringer, Graham

Stuart, rh Ms Gisela

Tami, Mark

Thomas, Mr Gareth

Thomas-Symonds, Nick

Thornberry, Emily

Timms, rh Stephen

Trickett, Jon

Turley, Anna

Turner, Karl

Twigg, Stephen

Vaz, Valerie

West, Catherine

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Williams, Mr Mark

Wilson, Phil

Winnick, Mr David

Winterton, rh Dame Rosie

Woodcock, John

Wright, Mr Iain

Zeichner, Daniel

Tellers for the Ayes:

Sue Hayman

and

Jeff Smith

NOES

Adams, Nigel

Afriyie, Adam

Allan, Lucy

Allen, Heidi

Amess, Sir David

Andrew, Stuart

Ansell, Caroline

Argar, Edward

Bacon, Mr Richard

Baldwin, Harriett

Barclay, Stephen

Barwell, Gavin

Bebb, Guto

Bellingham, Sir Henry

Benyon, Richard

Beresford, Sir Paul

Berry, Jake

Berry, James

Bingham, Andrew

Blackman, Bob

Blackwood, Nicola

Blunt, Crispin

Boles, Nick

Bone, Mr Peter

Borwick, Victoria

Bottomley, Sir Peter

Bradley, Karen

Brady, Mr Graham

Brazier, Mr Julian

Bridgen, Andrew

Brine, Steve

Brokenshire, rh James

Bruce, Fiona

Buckland, Robert

Burns, Conor

Burns, rh Sir Simon

Burrowes, Mr David

Burt, rh Alistair

Cairns, Alun

Carmichael, Neil

Cartlidge, James

Cash, Sir William

Caulfield, Maria

Chalk, Alex

Chishti, Rehman

Chope, Mr Christopher

Churchill, Jo

Clark, rh Greg

Cleverly, James

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Coffey, Dr Thérèse

Collins, Damian

Colvile, Oliver

Costa, Alberto

Cox, Mr Geoffrey

Crabb, rh Stephen

Crouch, Tracey

Davies, Byron

Davies, Chris

Davies, David T. C.

Davies, Glyn

Davies, Dr James

Davies, Mims

Davies, Philip

Djanogly, Mr Jonathan

Donelan, Michelle

Double, Steve

Dowden, Oliver

Doyle-Price, Jackie

Drummond, Mrs Flick

Duddridge, James

Duncan, rh Sir Alan

Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain

Dunne, Mr Philip

Ellis, Michael

Ellison, Jane

Ellwood, Mr Tobias

Elphicke, Charlie

Eustice, George

Evans, Graham

Evans, Mr Nigel

Evennett, rh Mr David

Fabricant, Michael

Fallon, rh Michael

Fernandes, Suella

Field, rh Mark

Foster, Kevin

Fox, rh Dr Liam

Frazer, Lucy

Freeman, George

Freer, Mike

Fuller, Richard

Fysh, Marcus

Gale, Sir Roger

Garnier, rh Sir Edward

Ghani, Nusrat

Gibb, Mr Nick

Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl

Glen, John

Goodwill, Mr Robert

Gove, rh Michael

Graham, Richard

Grant, Mrs Helen

Grayling, rh Chris

Green, Chris

Green, rh Damian

Greening, rh Justine

Grieve, rh Mr Dominic

Griffiths, Andrew

Gummer, Ben

Gyimah, Mr Sam

Hall, Luke

Hammond, Stephen

Hancock, rh Matthew

Hands, rh Greg

Harper, rh Mr Mark

Harrington, Richard

Harris, Rebecca

Hart, Simon

Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan

Hayes, rh Mr John

Heald, Sir Oliver

Heappey, James

Heaton-Harris, Chris

Heaton-Jones, Peter

Henderson, Gordon

Herbert, rh Nick

Hinds, Damian

Hoare, Simon

Hollingbery, George

Hollinrake, Kevin

Hollobone, Mr Philip

Hopkins, Kris

Howarth, Sir Gerald

Howell, John

Howlett, Ben

Huddleston, Nigel

Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy

Hurd, Mr Nick

Jackson, Mr Stewart

James, Margot

Javid, rh Sajid

Jayawardena, Mr Ranil

Jenkin, Mr Bernard

Jenkyns, Andrea

Jenrick, Robert

Johnson, Boris

Johnson, Gareth

Johnson, Joseph

Jones, Andrew

Jones, rh Mr David

Jones, Mr Marcus

Kawczynski, Daniel

Kennedy, Seema

Knight, rh Sir Greg

Knight, Julian

Kwarteng, Kwasi

Lancaster, Mark

Latham, Pauline

Leadsom, Andrea

Lee, Dr Phillip

Lefroy, Jeremy

Leigh, Sir Edward

Leslie, Charlotte

Letwin, rh Mr Oliver

Lewis, Brandon

Lewis, rh Dr Julian

Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian

Lidington, rh Mr David

Lilley, rh Mr Peter

Lopresti, Jack

Lord, Jonathan

Loughton, Tim

Lumley, Karen

Mackinlay, Craig

Mackintosh, David

Main, Mrs Anne

Mak, Mr Alan

Malthouse, Kit

Mann, Scott

Mathias, Dr Tania

Maynard, Paul

McCartney, Jason

McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick

McPartland, Stephen

Menzies, Mark

Mercer, Johnny

Merriman, Huw

Metcalfe, Stephen

Miller, rh Mrs Maria

Milling, Amanda

Mills, Nigel

Milton, rh Anne

Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew

Mordaunt, Penny

Morgan, rh Nicky

Morris, Anne Marie

Morris, David

Morris, James

Morton, Wendy

Mowat, David

Mundell, rh David

Murray, Mrs Sheryll

Murrison, Dr Andrew

Neill, Robert

Nokes, Caroline

Norman, Jesse

Nuttall, Mr David

Offord, Dr Matthew

Opperman, Guy

Parish, Neil

Paterson, rh Mr Owen

Pawsey, Mark

Penning, rh Mike

Penrose, John

Percy, Andrew

Phillips, Stephen

Philp, Chris

Pickles, rh Sir Eric

Pincher, Christopher

Poulter, Dr Daniel

Pow, Rebecca

Prentis, Victoria

Prisk, Mr Mark

Pritchard, Mark

Pursglove, Tom

Quin, Jeremy

Quince, Will

Raab, Mr Dominic

Redwood, rh John

Rees-Mogg, Mr Jacob

Robertson, Mr Laurence

Robinson, Mary

Rosindell, Andrew

Rudd, rh Amber

Rutley, David

Sandbach, Antoinette

Scully, Paul

Selous, Andrew

Shapps, rh Grant

Sharma, Alok

Shelbrooke, Alec

Skidmore, Chris

Smith, Chloe

Smith, Henry

Smith, Julian

Smith, Royston

Soames, rh Sir Nicholas

Solloway, Amanda

Soubry, rh Anna

Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline

Spencer, Mark

Stephenson, Andrew

Stevenson, John

Stewart, Bob

Stewart, Iain

Stewart, Rory

Streeter, Mr Gary

Stride, Mel

Stuart, Graham

Sturdy, Julian

Sunak, Rishi

Swayne, rh Mr Desmond

Swire, rh Mr Hugo

Syms, Mr Robert

Thomas, Derek

Throup, Maggie

Tolhurst, Kelly

Tomlinson, Justin

Tomlinson, Michael

Tracey, Craig

Tredinnick, David

Trevelyan, Mrs Anne-Marie

Tugendhat, Tom

Turner, Mr Andrew

Tyrie, rh Mr Andrew

Vaizey, Mr Edward

Vara, Mr Shailesh

Vickers, Martin

Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa

Walker, Mr Charles

Walker, Mr Robin

Wallace, Mr Ben

Warburton, David

Warman, Matt

Watkinson, Dame Angela

Wharton, James

Whately, Helen

Wheeler, Heather

White, Chris

Whittaker, Craig

Whittingdale, rh Mr John

Wiggin, Bill

Williams, Craig

Williamson, rh Gavin

Wilson, Mr Rob

Wollaston, Dr Sarah

Wood, Mike

Wragg, William

Wright, rh Jeremy

Zahawi, Nadhim

Tellers for the Noes:

Simon Kirby

and

Sarah Newton

Question accordingly negatived.

5 Jan 2016 : Column 154

5 Jan 2016 : Column 155

5 Jan 2016 : Column 156

5 Jan 2016 : Column 157

10.58 pm

More than two hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

Clause 3

General duty to promote supply of starter homes

Amendment proposed: 110, page 2, line 28, after “starter homes” insert

“and other types of affordable housing”.—

(Tim Farron.)

This amendment would ensure that new developments include a range of affordable housing options, to rent and buy.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House divided:

Ayes 190, Noes 304.

Division No. 155]

[

10.59 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Abrahams, Debbie

Alexander, Heidi

Ali, Rushanara

Anderson, Mr David

Ashworth, Jonathan

Austin, Ian

Bailey, Mr Adrian

Barron, rh Kevin

Beckett, rh Margaret

Benn, rh Hilary

Berger, Luciana

Betts, Mr Clive

Blackman-Woods, Dr Roberta

Blenkinsop, Tom

Blomfield, Paul

Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben

Brennan, Kevin

Bryant, Chris

Buck, Ms Karen

Burden, Richard

Burgon, Richard

Burnham, rh Andy

Butler, Dawn

Byrne, rh Liam

Cadbury, Ruth

Campbell, rh Mr Alan

Campbell, Mr Ronnie

Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair

Chapman, Jenny

Clegg, rh Mr Nick

Coyle, Neil

Crausby, Mr David

Creasy, Stella

Cummins, Judith

Cunningham, Alex

Cunningham, Mr Jim

Dakin, Nic

Danczuk, Simon

David, Wayne

Davies, Geraint

Doughty, Stephen

Dowd, Jim

Dowd, Peter

Durkan, Mark

Edwards, Jonathan

Efford, Clive

Elliott, Julie

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Esterson, Bill

Evans, Chris

Farrelly, Paul

Farron, Tim

Field, rh Frank

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Flello, Robert

Fletcher, Colleen

Flynn, Paul

Fovargue, Yvonne

Gardiner, Barry

Glindon, Mary

Goodman, Helen

Green, Kate

Greenwood, Lilian

Griffith, Nia

Gwynne, Andrew

Haigh, Louise

Hamilton, Fabian

Hanson, rh Mr David

Harpham, Harry

Harris, Carolyn

Hayes, Helen

Healey, rh John

Hepburn, Mr Stephen

Hermon, Lady

Hillier, Meg

Hodgson, Mrs Sharon

Hoey, Kate

Hollern, Kate

Hopkins, Kelvin

Hunt, Tristram

Huq, Dr Rupa

Hussain, Imran

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Jarvis, Dan

Johnson, rh Alan

Johnson, Diana

Jones, Gerald

Jones, Graham

Jones, Mr Kevan

Jones, Susan Elan

Kane, Mike

Keeley, Barbara

Kendall, Liz

Khan, rh Sadiq

Kinnock, Stephen

Kyle, Peter

Lamb, rh Norman

Lavery, Ian

Leslie, Chris

Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma

Lewis, Clive

Lewis, Mr Ivan

Long Bailey, Rebecca

Lucas, Caroline

Lucas, Ian C.

Lynch, Holly

Mactaggart, rh Fiona

Madders, Justin

Mahmood, Mr Khalid

Mahmood, Shabana

Malhotra, Seema

Mann, John

Marris, Rob

Marsden, Mr Gordon

Maskell, Rachael

Matheson, Christian

McCabe, Steve

McDonagh, Siobhain

McDonald, Andy

McDonnell, John

McFadden, rh Mr Pat

McGinn, Conor

McGovern, Alison

McInnes, Liz

McKinnell, Catherine

McMahon, Jim

Moon, Mrs Madeleine

Morden, Jessica

Morris, Grahame M.

Mulholland, Greg

Murray, Ian

Onn, Melanie

Osamor, Kate

Owen, Albert

Pearce, Teresa

Pennycook, Matthew

Perkins, Toby

Phillips, Jess

Pound, Stephen

Powell, Lucy

Pugh, John

Qureshi, Yasmin

Rayner, Angela

Reed, Mr Jamie

Reed, Mr Steve

Rees, Christina

Reynolds, Emma

Reynolds, Jonathan

Rimmer, Marie

Robinson, Mr Geoffrey

Rotheram, Steve

Saville Roberts, Liz

Shah, Naz

Shannon, Jim

Shuker, Mr Gavin

Siddiq, Tulip

Skinner, Mr Dennis

Smeeth, Ruth

Smith, Angela

Smith, Cat

Smith, Jeff

Smith, Nick

Smith, Owen

Smyth, Karin

Spellar, rh Mr John

Starmer, Keir

Stevens, Jo

Streeting, Wes

Stringer, Graham

Stuart, rh Ms Gisela

Tami, Mark

Thomas, Mr Gareth

Thomas-Symonds, Nick

Thornberry, Emily

Timms, rh Stephen

Trickett, Jon

Turley, Anna

Turner, Karl

Twigg, Stephen

Vaz, Valerie

West, Catherine

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Williams, Mr Mark

Wilson, Phil

Winnick, Mr David

Winterton, rh Dame Rosie

Woodcock, John

Wright, Mr Iain

Zeichner, Daniel

Tellers for the Ayes:

Tom Brake

and

Sue Hayman

NOES

Adams, Nigel

Afriyie, Adam

Allan, Lucy

Allen, Heidi

Amess, Sir David

Andrew, Stuart

Ansell, Caroline

Argar, Edward

Bacon, Mr Richard

Baldwin, Harriett

Barclay, Stephen

Barwell, Gavin

Bebb, Guto

Bellingham, Sir Henry

Benyon, Richard

Beresford, Sir Paul

Berry, Jake

Berry, James

Bingham, Andrew

Blackman, Bob

Blackwood, Nicola

Blunt, Crispin

Boles, Nick

Bone, Mr Peter

Borwick, Victoria

Bottomley, Sir Peter

Bradley, Karen

Brady, Mr Graham

Brazier, Mr Julian

Bridgen, Andrew

Brine, Steve

Brokenshire, rh James

Bruce, Fiona

Buckland, Robert

Burns, Conor

Burns, rh Sir Simon

Burrowes, Mr David

Burt, rh Alistair

Cairns, Alun

Carmichael, Neil

Cartlidge, James

Cash, Sir William

Caulfield, Maria

Chalk, Alex

Chishti, Rehman

Chope, Mr Christopher

Churchill, Jo

Clark, rh Greg

Cleverly, James

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Coffey, Dr Thérèse

Collins, Damian

Colvile, Oliver

Costa, Alberto

Cox, Mr Geoffrey

Crabb, rh Stephen

Crouch, Tracey

Davies, Byron

Davies, Chris

Davies, David T. C.

Davies, Glyn

Davies, Dr James

Davies, Mims

Davies, Philip

Djanogly, Mr Jonathan

Donaldson, rh Mr Jeffrey M.

Donelan, Michelle

Double, Steve

Dowden, Oliver

Doyle-Price, Jackie

Drummond, Mrs Flick

Duddridge, James

Duncan, rh Sir Alan

Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain

Dunne, Mr Philip

Elliott, Tom

Ellis, Michael

Ellison, Jane

Ellwood, Mr Tobias

Elphicke, Charlie

Eustice, George

Evans, Graham

Evans, Mr Nigel

Evennett, rh Mr David

Fabricant, Michael

Fallon, rh Michael

Fernandes, Suella

Field, rh Mark

Foster, Kevin

Fox, rh Dr Liam

Frazer, Lucy

Freeman, George

Freer, Mike

Fuller, Richard

Fysh, Marcus

Gale, Sir Roger

Garnier, rh Sir Edward

Ghani, Nusrat

Gibb, Mr Nick

Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl

Glen, John

Goodwill, Mr Robert

Gove, rh Michael

Graham, Richard

Grant, Mrs Helen

Grayling, rh Chris

Green, Chris

Green, rh Damian

Greening, rh Justine

Grieve, rh Mr Dominic

Griffiths, Andrew

Gummer, Ben

Gyimah, Mr Sam

Hall, Luke

Hammond, Stephen

Hancock, rh Matthew

Hands, rh Greg

Harper, rh Mr Mark

Harrington, Richard

Harris, Rebecca

Hart, Simon

Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan

Hayes, rh Mr John

Heald, Sir Oliver

Heappey, James

Heaton-Harris, Chris

Heaton-Jones, Peter

Henderson, Gordon

Herbert, rh Nick

Hinds, Damian

Hoare, Simon

Hollingbery, George

Hollinrake, Kevin

Hollobone, Mr Philip

Hopkins, Kris

Howarth, Sir Gerald

Howell, John

Howlett, Ben

Huddleston, Nigel

Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy

Hurd, Mr Nick

Jackson, Mr Stewart

James, Margot

Javid, rh Sajid

Jayawardena, Mr Ranil

Jenkin, Mr Bernard

Jenkyns, Andrea

Jenrick, Robert

Johnson, Boris

Johnson, Gareth

Johnson, Joseph

Jones, Andrew

Jones, rh Mr David

Jones, Mr Marcus

Kawczynski, Daniel

Kennedy, Seema

Kinahan, Danny

Knight, rh Sir Greg

Knight, Julian

Kwarteng, Kwasi

Lancaster, Mark

Latham, Pauline

Leadsom, Andrea

Lee, Dr Phillip

Lefroy, Jeremy

Leigh, Sir Edward

Leslie, Charlotte

Letwin, rh Mr Oliver

Lewis, Brandon

Lewis, rh Dr Julian

Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian

Lidington, rh Mr David

Lilley, rh Mr Peter

Lopresti, Jack

Lord, Jonathan

Loughton, Tim

Lumley, Karen

Mackinlay, Craig

Mackintosh, David

Main, Mrs Anne

Mak, Mr Alan

Malthouse, Kit

Mann, Scott

Mathias, Dr Tania

Maynard, Paul

McCartney, Jason

McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick

McPartland, Stephen

Menzies, Mark

Mercer, Johnny

Merriman, Huw

Metcalfe, Stephen

Miller, rh Mrs Maria

Milling, Amanda

Mills, Nigel

Milton, rh Anne

Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew

Mordaunt, Penny

Morgan, rh Nicky

Morris, Anne Marie

Morris, David

Morris, James

Morton, Wendy

Mowat, David

Mundell, rh David

Murray, Mrs Sheryll

Murrison, Dr Andrew

Neill, Robert

Nokes, Caroline

Norman, Jesse

Nuttall, Mr David

Offord, Dr Matthew

Opperman, Guy

Parish, Neil

Paterson, rh Mr Owen

Pawsey, Mark

Penning, rh Mike

Penrose, John

Percy, Andrew

Phillips, Stephen

Philp, Chris

Pickles, rh Sir Eric

Pincher, Christopher

Poulter, Dr Daniel

Pow, Rebecca

Prentis, Victoria

Prisk, Mr Mark

Pritchard, Mark

Pursglove, Tom

Quin, Jeremy

Quince, Will

Raab, Mr Dominic

Redwood, rh John

Rees-Mogg, Mr Jacob

Robertson, Mr Laurence

Robinson, Mary

Rosindell, Andrew

Rudd, rh Amber

Rutley, David

Sandbach, Antoinette

Scully, Paul

Selous, Andrew

Shapps, rh Grant

Sharma, Alok

Shelbrooke, Alec

Skidmore, Chris

Smith, Chloe

Smith, Henry

Smith, Julian

Smith, Royston

Soames, rh Sir Nicholas

Solloway, Amanda

Soubry, rh Anna

Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline

Spencer, Mark

Stephenson, Andrew

Stevenson, John

Stewart, Bob

Stewart, Iain

Stewart, Rory

Streeter, Mr Gary

Stride, Mel

Stuart, Graham

Sturdy, Julian

Sunak, Rishi

Swayne, rh Mr Desmond

Swire, rh Mr Hugo

Syms, Mr Robert

Thomas, Derek

Throup, Maggie

Tolhurst, Kelly

Tomlinson, Justin

Tomlinson, Michael

Tracey, Craig

Tredinnick, David

Trevelyan, Mrs Anne-Marie

Tugendhat, Tom

Turner, Mr Andrew

Tyrie, rh Mr Andrew

Vaizey, Mr Edward

Vara, Mr Shailesh

Vickers, Martin

Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa

Walker, Mr Charles

Walker, Mr Robin

Wallace, Mr Ben

Warburton, David

Warman, Matt

Watkinson, Dame Angela

Wharton, James

Whately, Helen

Wheeler, Heather

White, Chris

Whittaker, Craig

Whittingdale, rh Mr John

Wiggin, Bill

Williams, Craig

Williamson, rh Gavin

Wilson, Mr Rob

Wollaston, Dr Sarah

Wood, Mike

Wragg, William

Wright, rh Jeremy

Zahawi, Nadhim

Tellers for the Noes:

Simon Kirby

and

Sarah Newton

Question accordingly negatived.

5 Jan 2016 : Column 158

5 Jan 2016 : Column 159

5 Jan 2016 : Column 160

5 Jan 2016 : Column 161

New Clause 6

Reducing social housing regulation

‘Schedule (Reducing social housing regulation) contains amendments to reduce the regulation of social housing.’—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

This new Clause and NS1 make various amendments to reduce the regulation of social housing

.

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new schedule 1—Reducing social housing regulation.

Government amendments 4, 6 and 5.

Government new clause 7—Recovery of social housing assistance: successors in title.

Government new clause 8—Housing administration order: providers of social housing in England.

Government new clause 9—Objective of housing administration.

Government new clause 10—Applications for housing administration orders.

Government new clause 11—Powers of court.

Government new clause 12—Housing administrators.

Government new clause 13—Conduct of administration etc.

Government new clause 14—Winding-up orders.

Government new clause 15—Voluntary winding up.

Government new clause 16—Making of ordinary administration orders.

Government new clause 17—Administrator appointments by creditors.

Government new clause 18—Enforcement of security.

Government new clause 19—Grants and loans where housing administration order is made.

Government new clause 20—Indemnities where housing administration order is made.

5 Jan 2016 : Column 162

Government new clause 21—Indemnities: repayment by registered provider etc.

Government new clause 22—Guarantees where housing administration order is made.

Government new clause 23—Guarantees: repayment by registered provider etc.

Government new clause 24—Modification of this Chapter under the Enterprise Act 2002.

Government new clause 25—Registered societies: ordinary administration procedure etc.

Government new clause 26—Amendment to housing moratorium and consequential amendment.

Government new clause 27—Interpretation of Chapter.

Government new clause 28—Application of Part to Northern Ireland.

Government new schedule 2—Conduct of housing administration: companies.

Government new schedule 3—Amendments to housing moratorium and consequential amendments.

Government amendment 7.

Government new clause 37.

New clause 5—Provision of tenure information when collecting council tax information—

‘(1) The Local Government Finance Act 1992 (LGFA 1992) is amended as follows—

(2) After Section 27 [Information about properties] of the LGFA 1992 insert—

“27A Information about tenure

(1) Whenever a billing authority requests council tax information from the resident, owner or managing agent of any dwelling, the authority must request the provision by that person of tenure information in respect of the dwelling unless—

(a) that person has already given that information to the authority, or

(b) the authority already holds that information.

(2) “Tenure information” means current information regarding—

(a) the category into which the dwelling falls; and

(b) if the dwelling is privately rented (but not otherwise), the name and address of the owner of the dwelling or, if this is not known, the name and address of—

(i) the managing agent, if any, or

(ii) recipient of the rent payable.

(3) A person who is subject to a request under subsection (1) must provide the information to the billing authority in such manner as the authority may request as soon as is practicable and in any event within 21 days of the making of the request, but only insofar as the information is in his possession or under his control.

(4) A request to a person to provide tenure information may be made by the billing authority by such means as the authority considers appropriate including a verbal request made by or on behalf of the authority.

(5) The billing authority must retain any tenure information which they hold in relation to any dwelling, however it was obtained, but the authority may destroy or delete that information after the expiry of 12 months from the date when that information is known to have ceased to be current.

(6) A request under subsection (1) must be accompanied by a warning that failure to comply may result in the imposition of a financial penalty.

(7) A request for the provision of tenure information may be made, and must be complied with, even though the authority requests the provision of that information for other purposes, including but not limited to housing purposes.

5 Jan 2016 : Column 163

(8) A local authority may use tenure information supplied under this Act for any reasonable and lawful purpose within its duties and responsibilities.

(9) A person may be requested by a billing authority to supply information under any provision included in regulations under paragraphs 2, 3, 9 or 10(2) of Schedule 2 even though such a request is made for housing purposes.

(10) The LGFA 1992 is further amended as follows—

(a) in paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 3 [penalties], after the words “any provisions”, insert the words “in section 27A or”;

(b) in paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 3 [penalties], after the words “any provisions”, insert the words “in section 27A or”; and

(c) in paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 4 [enforcement], after the words “any provision”, insert the words “in section 27A or”.

(11) The Housing Act 2004 is amended as follows, in paragraph (a) of section 237(1), after the word “premises”, insert the words “or for any other function which is exercisable by a housing authority”.

(12) No duty of confidentiality, contractual obligation, nor any provision of the Data Protection Act 1998 shall prevent the supply of tenure information under this section.””

This new Clause would require existing powers to collect information to be deployed consistently thus enabling local authorities to enforce regulations relating to the private rented sector more effectively to tackle a rogue minority of private landlords. It would also enable the size and shape of the private rented sector and property ownership to be assessed accurately for the first time for housing policy-making purposes.

New clause 55—Accreditation and licensing for private landlords—

Local authorities shall be required to operate an accreditation and licensing scheme for private landlords.”

This new Clause would require local authorities in England and Wales to put in place a scheme to license and provide for the accreditation of private sector landlords in their area.

New clause 56—Extension of the Housing Ombudsman to cover the Private Rented Sector—

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations introduce a scheme to extend the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, as set out in section 5 of and Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1996, to cover disputes between tenants and to private landlords in the Greater London Authority.

(2) The scheme under subsection (1) shall—

(a) last at least one year and no longer than two years; and

(b) come into effect within 6 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent.

(3) The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a report of the scheme under subsection (1) alongside any statement he thinks appropriate, within 3 months of the closing date of the scheme.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations extend the powers of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme as set out in section 5 of and Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1996, to cover disputes between tenants and private landlords nationwide.”

The new clause would give the Secretary of State the power to introduce a pilot scheme which would see the Housing Ombudsman extend its cover in London to private sector housing and disputes between tenants and private landlords, to require that the Secretary of State reports on the pilot scheme, and to give the Secretary of State power through regulations to extend the Housing Ombudsman to cover private sector housing and disputes between tenants and private landlords nationwide.

Government amendments 12 to 26.

5 Jan 2016 : Column 164

Amendment 49, in clause 54, page 25, line 10, at end insert—

“(e) the local housing authority responds to a request by the landlord confirming that they suspect the property to be abandoned.”

The amendment would require the local housing authority to confirm that they also suspect that the property is abandoned before a landlord can recover the abandoned premises.

Amendment 47, in clause 56, page 25, line 37, at end insert—

‘( ) the date specified under subsection (4)(b) must be after the end of the period of 12 weeks beginning with the day on which the first warning notice is given to the tenant.”

The amendment would extend the time periods between the two letters needed to evict a tenant suspected of abandoning the premises and to extend the minimum amount of time before the eviction.

Amendment 48, page 26, line 1, leave out subsection (6) and insert—

‘(6) The second warning notice must be given at least 4 weeks, and no more than 8 weeks, after the first warning notice.”

The amendment would extend the time periods between the two letters needed to evict a tenant suspected of abandoning the premises and to extend the minimum amount of time before the eviction.

Mr Jones: I am proud to bring forward a package of amendments to deregulate the housing association sector. In doing so, we are addressing concerns raised by the Office for National Statistics while maintaining a robust regulatory system that protects tenants and lenders alike. New clause 6 and new schedule 1 meet our commitment to help moving housing associations back into the private sector. They remove the social housing regulator’s disposals and constitutional consents regimes and clarify when we can appoint officers and managers to housing associations. Housing associations will no longer need permission from the regulator to sell or change the ownership of their stock or charge their stock for security, nor will they need permission from the regulator before they merge, change their status, restructure and wind up. These changes will free housing associations to efficiently manage their stock and how their businesses are structured.

Despite the new freedoms for the sector, the regulator still has to be on top of what it is regulating. Therefore, housing associations will still need to notify the regulator of any changes made. However, the regulator will no longer be able to prevent stock transfer deals. The amendments tighten the powers of the regulator to make it clear that the appointments of officers and managers to housing associations can be made only where they significantly breach legal requirements. As now, in exercising these powers the regulator has to do so within its statutory and legal framework. Under the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, it already has a duty to act in a way that minimises interference. As a public body, the regulator also has to act rationally, and any action has to be proportionate as its decisions are open to challenge through judicial review.

The amendments also give housing associations greater freedom as to how they manage their finances by abolishing the disposal proceeds fund. In future, the historical grant in a property that is sold will be required to be recycled to ensure that grant continues to be spent as it was intended. Housing associations will be able to use this money in the most efficient way possible and reinvest

5 Jan 2016 : Column 165

in building more houses and helping more of their tenants into home ownership. I believe that the amendments address the concerns highlighted by the ONS while protecting tenants and maintaining associations’ ability to access private finance at low rates so that they continue to build new homes. As a result, amendment 4 removes clause 78, as it is no longer needed.

New clauses 8 to 28 and new schedules 2 and 3 introduce a special administration regime for the social housing sector and the option to extend ordinary administration to housing associations. In introducing these changes, we are responding to concerns that the existing moratorium provisions are not suitable for modern, large, developing and complex housing associations. The provisions could be used in the unlikely event of a housing association becoming insolvent, thus retaining confidence in the sector’s lenders.

11.15 pm

Under the special administration regime, the Secretary of State or the regulator of social housing can apply to the court to appoint a housing administrator, who would have the objective of ensuring that the housing association’s social housing in England remained in the regulated sector. The moratorium provisions would still be available in suitable cases.

The amendments cover the UK. We want the regime to cover social housing stock in England, including any such stock held by organisations registered with the social housing regulator for England but that, as legal entities, are registered in devolved Administrations. The intention is not to impact on the devolved Administrations’ existing arrangements for dealing with insolvent housing associations’ social housing in their jurisdiction.

Government new clause 7 removes the Government’s ability to reclaim any outstanding financial assistance provided by the state if social housing is sold out of the regulated sector in the extremely unlikely event of an insolvency or a lender enforcing their security. That will reassure lenders that they can continue to value social housing stock on the basis that, should a housing association become insolvent or should they need to enforce their security, they will be able to self-stock out of the regulated sector if absolutely necessary.

Turning to the private rented sector, new clause 37 and the consequential amendments 12, 13 and 15 provide that where a first-tier tribunal makes a banning order against a person, that banning order may also prohibit the person from acting as a director, company secretary or similar officer of a company that carries out activities from which the person is banned. Its purpose is to close a potential loophole by providing that a person who is banned in a personal capacity from being a residential landlord or property agent cannot circumvent the ban by setting up or joining a company to continue acting in that capacity.

Amendment 14 increases the minimum period a person may be banned from being a residential landlord or property agent from six months to a year. We consider that minimum length more appropriate because having a banning order made against a person reflects serious misconduct on that person’s part.

Amendment 16 amends clause 21. Civil penalties for breaching a banning order are an alternative to prosecution. There was strong feeling across the House that we

5 Jan 2016 : Column 166

should clamp down on rogue landlords, so we have increased the civil penalty from £5,000 as currently drafted up to a maximum of £30,000. I am glad that the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) on the Opposition Front Bench likes the Government’s amendment.

Mr Prisk: On Second Reading, I and a number of other Members raised the issue of clause 21 penalties. I am delighted that the Government have responded to that. Does the Minister agree that the penalties need that level of fine in order to make the bans effective?

Mr Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is absolutely right. It is important that we raise the level of civil penalty to £30,000, because a smaller fine may not be significant enough for landlords who own numerous properties and who flout the law to think seriously about their behaviour and provide good quality, private sector rented accommodation for their tenants.

Amendments 17 and 18 provide that a person who has had two or more relevant civil penalties imposed on them in the previous 12 months may be entered on the database of rogue landlords and property agents. Amendment 26 would amend clause 53, consequential to Government amendment 17. As the Bill is drafted, it is possible for a person to be entered on the database only if they have been convicted of a banning order offence. Consequently, any person who has had a number of civil penalties imposed on them as an alternative to prosecution in relation to such offences may not be entered on the database. We seek to remove that anomaly with these amendments. We recognise that a civil penalty is likely to be imposed rather than a prosecution in a court for less serious offences. That is why two or more civil penalties have to be imposed, as opposed to a single criminal conviction.

Amendment 19 provides that regulations made about information to be included on the database may include the details of the civil penalties a person has incurred. Amendment 20 makes provision for an entry on the database to be removed or reduced by the local housing authority when the entry was made because the person had incurred civil penalties. That mirrors the existing provisions that deal with the removal or variation of database entries for people who have been convicted of criminal offences. Amendment 21 provides that the duration of an entry on the database may be reduced to less than two years by the local housing authority in certain circumstances.

Amendment 22 provides that the Secretary of State may provide information held on the database in an anonymised form to any person with an interest in private sector housing for statistical and research purposes.

In Committee, the Bill was amended to make it a criminal offence to breach a banning order imposed under chapter 2 of part 2. Changes were also made to ensure that chapter 4 applies to the offence of breach of a banning order in the same way as it applies to other offences. Amendments 23, 24 and 25 are minor and consequential on the introduction of the banning order offence.

Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab): I will speak to new clauses 55 and 56 and amendments 49, 47 and 48.

5 Jan 2016 : Column 167

New clause 55 would require local authorities to put in place a scheme to license and provide for the accreditation of private sector landlords in their area. Private rented housing is an important part of the housing sector. Nine million people rent privately and the sector is growing. In the past, the private rented sector was often a place for young people to find short-term solutions to their housing needs, perhaps while studying or establishing their careers. Now, almost half of those who rent are over 35 and they need security and stability. Many people are stuck in the private sector, unable to secure any of the declining amount of affordable social housing or to save for a deposit to buy their own home owing to the ever-rising rents.

Most landlords are effective and efficient in letting their property. They provide good properties and support their tenants. Many landlords are already accredited through independent or local authority schemes and some are licensed as they provide houses in multiple occupation. However, there are a few rogue landlords, as we call them, who bring down the name of the private rented sector and the reputation of all landlords. Such rogue landlords often provide substandard accommodation at extortionate prices, sometimes intimidate tenants and often cannot be reached until the rent is due.

The accreditation of landlords has been a feature of the private rented sector for more than 15 years. A local authority-led accreditation and licensing scheme would allow all private landlords to meet set standards. As it would be administered locally, it would give councils the power to establish the scheme that best suited their local housing need. Some local authorities might have particular difficulties with private landlords in respect of housing standards and want to address those through the scheme. Others might have no real problem, but might want to better understand the housing need in the local area and to monitor standards. An accreditation and licensing scheme would also support other measures in the Bill, such as the database of rogue landlords and banning orders. A local authority-led accreditation and licensing scheme would undoubtedly drive up standards across the private rented sector—something we all want—and bring the select few rogue landlords up to the standards of the many good landlords across the country.

Ms Buck: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that although it is estimated that 700,000 properties in the private rented sector have a category 1 hazard under the housing health and safety rating system, just 2,000 landlords have been prosecuted in the past eight years? In addition to the measures she is supporting, does she agree that we should make it possible for tenants to take action when their properties are not fit for human habitation, and update the legislation, as she sought to do in Committee and I did in my private Member’s Bill?

Teresa Pearce: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The rogue landlord proposals in the Bill and the banning orders are responses after the fact. We want to improve standards so that people do not end up needing banning orders, and do not have to go through the trauma of living in substandard accommodation. Such

5 Jan 2016 : Column 168

accommodation often makes people unwell and unfit to work; it lowers their productivity and hampers their children’s education.

Catherine West: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is also terrible when housing benefit is paid on such properties so that in some cases it is almost state-sponsored squalor?

Teresa Pearce: I could not agree more. In Committee we tabled an amendment that asked local authorities to report quarterly to HMRC on all housing benefit paid, so that some of the landlords who are literally putting money in their back pocket and not providing a decent service could be caught. Unfortunately, that amendment was not accepted.

Mr Prisk: All Members of the House want to ensure that we crack down on rogue landlords, and that is why many measures in this Bill are good. My problem with the new clause is that it seems to replicate the failed experiment in Scotland, where a register has been on the books for more than five years, yet less than half of 1% of those landlords have been removed or had their licence revoked. The ombudsman scheme, together with measures in the Bill, is more effective. How would the hon. Lady’s scheme differ from the one in Scotland?

Teresa Pearce: I am aware of the Scottish scheme, but this measure applies to England and it is perfectly possible that we could do it better. We will discuss our amendment on the ombudsman later, so I hope the hon. Gentleman will bear with me.

Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con): We all accept that substandard rental accommodation should not be offered to tenants. Does the hon. Lady agree that local authorities currently have plenty of powers to deal with substandard accommodation, but the problem is that often they do not exercise them? Should we be putting pressure on local authorities to make use of powers they already have?

Teresa Pearce: Local authorities have the powers but they do not have the resources. Many local authorities have very few officers who are able to police the system, but resourcing that is an argument for a different day. We discussed in Committee whether the fines that were brought in should be ring-fenced for that purpose, but that measure was not accepted.

Mr Marcus Jones: Does the hon. Lady accept that the civil penalties that local authorities can impose on rogue landlords will be received by the local authority that takes action against the landlord? Does she also accept that things such as housing benefit payments can be reclaimed by local authorities where rogue landlords have not fulfilled their duties under the new rent repayment order regime in the Bill?

Teresa Pearce: I do accept those facts, and in Committee there was much in this section of the Bill that we agreed on. Amendments were tabled that the Minister took away and has now agreed to, which I welcome. New clause 55 is just to ask whether accreditation and licensing by local authorities would create a more professional private rented sector.

5 Jan 2016 : Column 169

New clause 56 would give the Secretary of State the power to introduce a pilot scheme that would see the housing ombudsman extend its cover in London to the private sector. It would require a report from the Secretary of State following the pilot scheme and give the Secretary of State the power to extend the powers of the housing ombudsman to the private sector nationwide after that pilot.

11.30 pm

Private rented housing is a fundamental part of the housing sector and the number of people in the sector has risen. There are now 1.5 million families with children in such properties. They can be evicted with as little as two months’ notice. Overall, 9 million people are now renting. In London, the private rented sector makes up a large proportion of the housing market. We proposed introducing a pilot scheme in London to establish whether extending the housing ombudsman scheme to the private rented sector would be advisable. Most landlords offer a good property with good support for their tenants, but disputes can occur. These disputes occur across all forms of housing, but currently the private sector is not covered by the housing ombudsman. It could be a concern that part of a property is dangerous, or that part of the tenancy agreement or the lease is not being upheld. There could be a delay in responding to a situation in the flat, perhaps a problem with electrics, gas or heating. The housing ombudsman is a fantastic independent service which helps to resolve many of these complaints and concerns.

The housing ombudsman considers complaints about how a landlord has responded to reports of the problem, rather than the actual problem itself, and considers what is fair in the circumstances. Some 87% of cases referred to the housing ombudsman were resolved by landlords and tenants with its support and by using the landlords complaints procedure. Many of these have gone on to build and keep good relations, and continue to rent from and let to each other.

It is important that we look at extending the housing ombudsman. The Bill may see a decline in social housing, both local authority managed and housing association managed. While all local authorities and housing associations must be a member of the ombudsman scheme, at present private sector landlords can join the scheme only on a voluntary basis. Not nearly enough of them do, however, leaving many tenants in a position where, when things go wrong, they have nowhere left to turn. Indeed, the type of landlord whom tenants are likely to want to contact the housing ombudsman about are the least likely to sign up voluntarily to the scheme. The private rented sector will increase its share of the housing market as a result of the measures in the Bill. Surely it is right to ensure that tenants are afforded the same protections and dispute resolution service across all sectors.

Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend agree that private landlords being subject to the ombudsman scheme, and subject to the scrutiny that comes with being a part of the scheme, would also help to drive up standards more generally in the private rented sector in a way that is very badly needed?