02/11/2015 House of Commons

not, that is what I have to say. That is what I have to say on the

matter. The clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day. I

must inform the House I have selected the amendment in the name

of the Leader of the Opposition to move the second reading, I call the

Secretary of State for communities Doctor Greg Clark. Thank you very

much Mr Speaker. Every parliament that is elected has a responsibility

to the future. A responsibility to do all that we can to ensure that

the lives of the next generation are better than those of past

generations. Nowhere is this more important than in ensuring that the

next generation had their homes that they need. Indeed it is not just the

next generation, the impact of much public policy that we debate is on

the here and now of the next few years had. But if you look back to

the background, any city, town or village in Britain, it is obvious

that housing in Tours for many decades and in some cases for

hundreds of years. Everyone that is built is much more than a pile of

bricks and mortar or concrete and glass. The homes that we build,

shape the lives for better or for worse for Jenner generation of after

generation for people who live in them. As Churchill said, we shape

our buildings thereafter they shape us. Providing the homes that we need

is there is possibility that unites us all in this house. For many years

now, we have not built enough homes in this country. Is true of

successive governments and it is true for many decades. New

households have been forming in Britain at the rate of about 200,000

a year. Yet the last year in which we built 200,000 homes was in 1988.

I will give way to the honourable ladies. Is he aware that over 4800

children in Anfield live in temporary accommodation and I fear

that that 7% of children in Anfield and I fear his bill which damages

the number of affordable homes available will make this problem

immeasurably worse. I say to the honourable laid and she will see

this during my remarks is that our buildings and intent in this bill is

to increase the number of homes. That is our absolute objective so

that those children have the prospect of a home over there had in

the years to come. I was reflecting Mr Speaker on how it has been many

years, more than a generation since this country built a number of homes

in which we need. During the financial crash, house building in

Britain suffered what might be called a cardiac arrest, because in

the third quarter of 2008, we were less than 20,000 homes away from

stop in building altogether. The lowest rates of peacetime

house-building since the 1920s. It was not just that banks would not

win, though they would not. It was a reckoning for a decade in which a

top-down planning system which the right honourable gentleman opposite

was magnanimous enough to concede had a few friends when he was the

planning minister, one that was imposed and it built bureaucracy and

presentment but not many homes. It followed a decade when the number of

affordable homes fell by nearly half a million. It followed a decade in

which less than 200,000 council houses a year were built in the

whole of England. A lost decade in which the rising double of

homeownership fell into reverse in 2003, for the first time since the

1960s. The secretary explained how housing positions and properties,

subsidizing that sale by selling housing properties, reducing local

incomes to build properties by reducing rent and allowing

developers to get away without building any social homes. How does

that help the thousands of people in housing need in my constituency? I

will adjust the point the honourable Jim to imagine what may but I will

say that the reason a lot to like it else is get requiring a new home

built for every home that is sold to their attorneys and that will

improve the housing stock in London. We had, Mr Speaker, a decade when

the housing markets almost ground to a complete halt. We had this fall in

homeownership for the first time since the 1960s. It was a period in

which the chairman of the select committee who I see in its place,

again I think reflecting a shared view of this, that the government he

supported for 13 years did not build enough homes. Other members of the

front bench, the shadow home secretary concluded that labour did

not do enough when we were in government as he said. We agree and

it is obvious from what I said that governments of different parties did

not do enough over the years as well. Airing the last Parliament,

home-building revived and we got ready building again. We scrapped

those regional spatial strategies, reformed planning policy, fiercely

resisted at the time and some of us, the honourable Lady I think is

winding up will member those debates that were very critical of the

proposals that we made. But now, three years on, we now have nearly

250,000 homes a year receiving planning commission up nearly 60%

since 2010. I give way to my right all both rent and then the

honourable gentleman. Will the Secretary of State sent a clear

message to counsel today that there is a huge demand for affordable

homes to purchase from people who do want to be homeowners and the

councils can hit their affordable targets by bringing those forward

was white it is absolutely right. I think if we reflect on years past,

we know when 83% of people aspire to become homeowners, it is not just

homes for rent, it is affordable homes for purchase as well and we

are correcting what I think has been an anomaly historically. I give way

to the chairwoman of the select committee. He quoted what I said in

the last Parliament where I did except the government I supported

for 30 years did not build enough homes, but if you look to remainder

of the quotation is that the problem was not the Coalition but that's the

problem was that the Coalition government built even fewer. The

honourable gentleman knows very well that since the last government, the

number of homes being built has increased very substantially, in

fact it has increased by over 50% since the time that we inherited

planning commission. As I mentioned, now running at almost 250,000 a

year. For the first time in many years, getting at the level that we

need to provide homes for the population as it is rising. I give

way to the honourable laid. Very serious questions. Given that the

bill fails to include any legal commitment to replace social homes

that are sold under right to buy on a one-to-one basis, will he accept

that setting off valuable counsel homes to find the extension of right

to buy means we're losing to social homes to rent in the term of just

one social homes to buy. That of an overall loss. You'll find that rate

of additional stock that is being provided in most bonds to the

reinvigorated counsel right to buy is running at over 141. The

agreement that we have been able to reach with the housing associations

and makes it very clear, and if the honourable Lady have not had a copy

I will make sure she does, that these funds will be replaced or at

least a 1 41 basis copy I should not be replaced because these homes

continue to be occupied and trigger additional home that is being told.

I'm going to make some progress and I will give way and a second. I'm

going to talk about London and the honourable gentleman I think we'll

have something to say then. We scrapped the regional spatial

strategies and style planning commission increased as a result of

those reforms. We have allowed local communities to have more of a say

through now neighbourhood planning and now have over 1600 neighbourhood

plans adopted or in production. We built 260,000 affordable homes

nearly a third of them in London, and in the next five years we have

built 275,000 more, the most for 20 years. We have helped hundreds of

thousands of people achieve their dream of homeownership with

government schemes like Help to Buy, doubling the number of first-time

buyers in the last Parliament. I will give way. On the question of

affordable homes, when the council insist on a certain percentage of

any project having to be affordable, the consequence of this is that the

developer has to pay for them in cross subsidy by building an extra

number of larger homes. The effect then is to squeeze out the smaller

two bedroom and the smaller three bedroom desk cutting away the middle

of the housing lender. Can the right honourable member assured me that he

has considered this consequence and has adjusted in this policy and in

the bill? What I say to my right honourable friend is that when we

wrote the national planning policy framework, one of the things

reflected is that a local council or community should reflect the

entirety of the planning needs in their area of all types of

accommodation. That is reinforced in this bill. I will give way to the

honourable gentleman and I will carry on. On the issue of affordable

homes in London, does he accept his apartment's own figures that say

over the last three years 9025 homes have been sold in London under right

to buy and there have been 1310 starts on the placement. That is

seven homes sold everyone home started. If that is their record why

should we believe things will be different going forward was? I will

go on to say that in London during the first year of the reinvigorated

right to buy there were 632 homes sold and already a year before the

deadline for councils, there have been 1115 starts made. In fact, the

replacement of additional homes in London is running at a rate of

nearly two for one and that is something I hope he will celebrate.

When we reinvigorated the right to buy for counsel tenant, we ensured

that for every homes sold to residents and allows another home to

be built. It is as much a policy for expanding the housing stock as it is

for extending homeownership desirable though that is.

Nationally, of the 3000 and 54 additional sales made in the first

year, 3337 new properties have been started within two years. Councils

had three years to be able to build a more than one for one great. As

they said to the honourable gentleman, in London and the

additional housing rates of progression of additional housing is

running at around two for one. It is worth saying, Mr Speaker, that under

Labour during the time when so few counsel homes were sold, that the

rates of new bills for every house sold under the right to buy was one

in 170. Which is something I would have thought they might have more

humility on. I will give way to the honourable gentleman. With my right

on the front agree with me that the barriers are bound building new

council houses as someone with some experiences in that are not around

replacement for right to buy but actually in the planning process as

dealt with during this bill? My friend is right and I stayed in our

conversation with authorities across the country is one of the things

they're looking to do in order to to able to what I think we want and all

sides of the House is to provide more mums really next-generation and

make sure the planning situation is speedier and more accommodating of

the needs for more homes especially on Brownfield sites which this bill

provides a major used for. Mr Speaker, if our task in the last

Parliament was to rescue the housing market, now we must renew it.

Welding even at the current rate is not enough. The lost years of

housing deficit, building fewer homes than the rate at which new

also performed has led to a chronic shortage of homes compared to what

this country needs. That means getting back to building homes at

the rate that we did last in the 1980s and before. It means getting

help to the 86% of people in this country who want to become

homeowners and it means taking steps to ensure that properties available

for rent are propped early managed with no place for rope landlords. Is

properly managed. Tuber by these homes requires working together.

Parliament central government and local government, house builders and

housing associations, to find the land and grant many commissioners,

to finance development, build homes and to give people a chance to own

or to read them. This bill helps us do that. I will give way. What he

accept that the failure of the government to deal with the housing

crisis has meant that private rents have reached an all-time high of

?803 per month and more in London. And continue to rise, an increase of

20% since 2010. Yet rages have failed to keep up with that increase

-- wages. The honourable Lady makes my case for the. The consequence of

a large period of feelings of items we need to flex itself in the price.

This is why the purpose of the Government and this house is to

build more homes so that we can make sure they are available in quantity

to the next generation. I will give way. Will the honourable friend a

group meet that surely is not the fact that with house prices going up

3-4 fold in the time of the Labour government that is why young people

find it so hard to own a house that has house prices have soared way

beyond the price of salaries and at worst that was allegedly labour's

economic miracle. I could not agree more with my old boyfriend. Is

economics weight and simple. I do not know if it is the laws of

economics that say if you do not bold enough homes of the meat prices

will go up and get beyond the reach of ordinary people. And recognising

aspirations of these bills for those who own their own homes, does he

also recognised hopes of Londoners were homeless once a roof over their

shoulders. Can you recognise a case made that some agree with the

housing association agreement to write to buy but also recognise that

those who remain in London's cross subsidize the vital work to help the

vulnerable Londoners? I have said it is important we provide more homes

across the country but particularly in London where we will know that

the demand for homes from people of all types, families and single

people is very acute and the purpose of this bill will allow us to

provide more homes in London as I shall go on to say. I am most

grateful to my right honourable friend for getting way. Can I just

say I extend a warm welcome to this piece of legislation long overdue.

Can I point out, in my local authority area telephone District

Council we have some of the highest average property prices in the

country and therefore even with the 20% discount applied to properties

and barter homes it is difficult for our young people to afford those

homes soppy in addition, I wonder if the Minister could tell us how my

local council is going to be able to prioritise those homes were local

people. What I would say to my right mobile friend is that we need

provide homes of also works and it is important tuber continue to

provide homes for rent and to provide homes for purchase. She will

have constituents who have grown up in her constituency whose family

connections have been there for many years, whose friends and relations

are there. And who are having to leave her area, not because they

want to but because they have too. It is important to provide more

homes in areas such as hers as well as across the country. I will give

way to the honourable gentleman before I go on. In areas like

Brighton where land for development as extremely constrained, it is

likely that money that is raised from the right to buy will be spent

elsewhere outside of the city. Will you confirm now that money raised

through right to buy will be spent in the city? That is not the

experience across the country including in Brighton where the

councils overwhelmingly are able to build extra properties coming from

the sale of the homes that are there. I am not aware that Brighton

proposed to return the money to the government which means that they

have confidence that they're going to be able to provide those extra

homes. What I was saying Mr Speaker before I took some interventions is

that if we are to find the land and grant the planning commission to

finance Dell to build and build homes, it is essential that the

various layers in the housing market them together to do that. It cannot

be done individually. This bill precisely helps that. Let me take

the example of the right to buy. On homeownership, and aspiration that

86% of people in this country have, this bill makes it possible for the

agreement that the housing associations that Eric has made with

the government to extend the right to buy two all 1.3 million tenants

who currently do not have the right to become homeowners. Mr Speaker, it

is an agreement that is good for residents, but for housing

associations and good for the nation housing supply. Residents will get

the opportunity to realise their dreams of homeownership and housing

associations will be able to replace the homes sold, boosting the

nation's housing supply. Mr Speaker, these were the words of the head of

the housing association's collective body. The national housing

Federation. It has been a dirty year -- just -- and justice that counsel

Kenneth have the right to buy their homes but housing association

tenants have not. I strongly believe that when they signed a tenancy

agreement, housing association tenants did not find a way their

aspirations to become homeowners. Housing association tenants share

the same hopes and dreams as everyone else. They live on the same

streets, shop at the same stores, their children go to the same

schools. It is only right that they should have the same opportunity as

our counsel Kenneth. I will give way to the honourable gentleman. But he

confirmed that the national housing Federation does not support the sale

of housing Council property to fund this policy and will he confirmed

that the purchase of housing association properties will be also

available to EU nationals just paying taxes for three years? The

previous government actually reduced the residence qualification for

overseas nationals and what we have done is to propose to extend that so

the combination of the resident's requirement or social housing was

the requirement to be a resident for three years before the right to buy

comes in means there'll be seven years before there is any

entitlement for an overseas national.

When we announced in our manifesto the right to buy, I was pleased to

hear that. Some communities in my constituency wanted to know whether

the current exemptions around world exception sites will continue into

the Right-to-Die. Can the Secretary of State reassure me and my

constituents? What I would say to the House, this is a benefit of

having a conversation and a dialogue with everyone did in this.

Colleagues across the House want to be reassured that in those areas

where it simply is not possible to provide a new home, that a solution

can be found to allow the housing stock to be maintained their, while

at the same time allowing those in rural communities have the same

aspirations as others to own a home of their own. What we have agreed

with housing associations sector to their proposal is that through those

areas it will be possible for the Association, here's the really

opportunity for our constituents across the country. He will be

entitled to take their discount to a new home that the housing

Association will build in the nearest area where it is possible to

build. That is a real resort for every rural area and the country.

That is the issue I wanted to raise. Will the Secretary of State confirm

that where they do decide to sell off higher value property is not

properties, and like for like has to happen in those communities or we

will continue to see a demographic loss of young people in smaller

communities. An advantage of reaching an agreement is who is

locally based, they are positively enthusiastic as the head of the

National Housing Federation made clear to the Select Committee the

other day. That is the advantage of this agreement. I will give way to

the former housing Minister. I commend him on securing a agreement.

This is better than legislation. Can I say to him given that 90% of the

housing stock in this sector has agreed to this, is in our deeply

disappointing to watch the party opposite stuck in the past with? It

is disappointing. The approach that the party opposite take, not just in

this area, but if we look at our devolution proposal where I have

found them might tell you -- and my colleagues have filed a background,

it is entirely possible to talk income to a consensual agreement

with people who have the same interest as we do. That is possible

to do, the party opposite weather in devolution or in this matter, seem

to set their face against that kind of dialogue. End of the kind of

approach we take to establishing a consensus consents is. Does he not

find a perverse and incredible that the opposition to extend the right

to buy, to people on the link comes in this country should be managed

not just by that party, but people who are overwhelmingly... By

honourable friend makes an important point. If I can just illustrate, if

anyone has any doubt about the personal impact of this policy, I

will like to read from an e-mail that I received from a young mother

on the day that our right to buy a agreement with the housing

Association was announced last month. This woman says in her

e-mail. In the middle of the economic crisis in 2009, I was made

redundant from a job I had been in for 12 years of. I was left with a 6

euros, a 3 -year-old in a newborn baby. Life was pretty much as grim

as they could get. For the last five years I have lived in the housing

Association... It was a lifeline, I am enormously grateful for the

safety, security and peace of mind that it brought me. Up until April

of this year, I simply accepted this was my life now and would always be.

I would be forever more just about comfortable, just about paying the

bills, just about paying for Christmas, just about living. In

late April that completely changed. I heard somewhere that the

Conservatives were going to allow housing association tenants the

right to buy their home. I had completely written off ever being

able to achieve that goal. I voted conservative in May because of that

hope. I watched and read intently all about the conservatives crazy,

ridiculous policy. I read all of the negative allow from housing

association, Labour and literally everywhere. And of course all of

these associations, politicians and the media have bigger voices and

people like me. By September I had resigned myself to the fact that

this looked like a lost cause. I am totally grateful to everyone in the

conservative government who has helped to push this forward. I

absolutely cannot wait until the point, hopefully in 2016I can be

holding the keys to the House that I own, a house that will be my savings

for the future and allow me to pass something on to my three girls.

Please pass on my very heartfelt gratitude to everyone involved in

shoring this is made a reality. For me it is life changing -- ensuring.

These are the people up and down the country at this policy agreed with

the housing association is giving new chances to. As this lady made

clear, it is giving her the chance to fulfil a dream she thought was

beyond her. It is disappointing to go back to my honourable friend

said, that the opposition are turning their backs on the

aspiration of people like that. Were from them the hope of homeownership

to have nurtured under this bill. He will know that housing

associations have a long history of independent bodies and that the main

reason for many signing up for this voluntary deal was to avoid the

reclassification of them as public bodies. It has done just that. When

did the Secretary of State know that this reclassification was on the

cards, before or after he may be agreement with those housing

associations? Mr Speaker, I am astonished we have that intervention

from the right honourable gentleman opposite. The Office of National

Statistics, completely independent of the government, have made it

clear that the reclassification that we intend to be temporary has

nothing to do with any action of this government. The reason it has

been reclassified was because of the clumsy provisions of a 2008 act of

Parliament. Take into the House would be right honourable gentleman

was in that department. He should be apologising for the predicament he

has put housing of so stations into. One of the benefits of the agreement

we have with the housing associations, reflected in this

bill, is that honourable members across the House have noticed there

is a Clause that allows us to deregulate the housing Association

said there. To correct the damage that he did when he was a minister

in the department. He gives the House partial information because

people know that the Office of National Statistics has made this

decision in light of government accounting changes brought in 2011.

Not just the provisions of the 2008 at. I ask again, what he say to

those housing associations that believed has acted in bad faith,

knowing that this classification was on the cards, but still going to do

that deal with them? It shows the benefits of a voluntary agreement.

If we intend, as we do, to recognise the historic voluntary nature of

housing associations, we're not going to use legislation to thrust

them into the public sector. As he did when he was minister. We are

going to use our legislation tour move those regulations that have put

them temporarily into the public sector. Ever there was a vindication

from the voluntary approach rather than the reaching for legislation

that the party opposite favour, it is an this agreement. I have been

speaking for over half an hour, I will make some progress I may give

away a little later on. I would pay tribute to the housing Association

to had the vision and force to extend home ownership in C it is

completely consistent. And that the lazy assumption that is a

contradiction between supporting the dreams of home buyers and ensuring

new homes are built, that must and. I look forward to, indeed, an

equally positive engagement with councils during the passage of this

bill. Their objectives are the same as mine. To ensure that as they

release the Apple II of the high-value properties they can

ensure that more homes are built. -- equities. Adding to the housing

supply as well as extending homeownership. At the request of

councils we have included in the bill a lexical approach that does

not require the immediate cell of properties. Gives us the chance, if

they wish to take it, to an agreed approach that will meet our mutual

objectives. Let me say word about London that has come out in

debates. Building homes in the capital is a priority not only for

my honourable friend over there, but for me to. Benjamin is really once

described it as a roof for every birth. It has turned out to be a

prophecy. 150 years later, the birds are still flocking. New housing

stock in the capital were a quarter higher than when we came to power. A

third of all affordable homes were in London and. After we reinvigorate

at the right to buy for tenants and Monday and, nearly twice as many

homes were built as were sold to the tenant, if I want to do more the

mayor has set up the most ambitious plan for house building in the

capital since the 1930s. I want to go further, so that a quarter of all

homes to be built are built in London during the years ahead. A

quarter of a million new homes over the next five years. I want the

right to buy scheme to be a major part of that and I will talk to

anyone in London local government to ensure that that happens. Just as it

was possible to have a meeting of mind with the housing associations.

There are other measures in this bill that will help. The Mayor has

the power to establish development corporations, to speed-up the

development of new housing across the city. Have absolutely determined

to make sure that the Mayor has the ability to deliver the homes that

London needs to maintain its position as London's from your world

city. I will give way to the member,. I very much welcome the

idea from the Minister that he recognises the exceptionalism of our

capital city in this regard. This bill made important progress

nationally, will he accept that this applies to London members on the

side of the House and on the other side of the House, there is a

recognition to tailor this bill for particular things in the city. Of

October have made it clear that the approach we found easy to

accommodate with the housing Association has absolutely been open

to local representatives. We're having very productive conversation

already. I want to turn to starter homes. During the 20 years the

proportion of homeowners under the age of 40 has followed by a third. I

will make some progress I know lots of members want to speak. What our

generation has taken for granted has been slipping out of reach. They

have long recognised the need for counsel to provide affordable

housing. Paragraph 50 set out this requirement. Housing for affordable

rent always be imported, until recently public policy has had too

little to say to those who would like to own their own homes and

struggle to do so. During the last three years be held to buy scheme

has helped the hundred 20,000 people with a deposit to buy a home, 80% of

whom our first home-buyers. We need to go further, the bill introduces a

requirement for councils to their planning functions to provide

starter homes available for first Time buyers. During the next five

years we want to ensure that public policy recognises, as it always

should have, that providing more affordable homes is an important

objective. If we are not sure about the next generation from the

opportunities that our generation has enjoyed. I give way to my

honourable friend. I welcome any of the measures in this bill. Following

on from his comments regarding the exceptionalism of London stop the

Oxford has the most expensive housing compared to income in the

country. Get the local area delivery zero affordable homes in 2013-14. It

must be accepted there is significant local problems existing.

I wise him to consider during progress of this bill how the

problem in high-cost areas can be addressed by the bills progress? I

have been clear in the constructive approach it that we intend to take.

It has been exemplified with housing associations, it is incumbent on all

accounts, including Labour councils to play their hearts. It is

imperative for all of us in positions of political leadership to

do what is needed to supply homes for the next-generation. I will give

way to the honourable gentleman and I will give way in a few moments to

colleagues on the other side. Talk about aspiration, does he recall as

well be housing minister ran father said in 1945, at his Labour

government will only go up by trying to build the Tories out of London

that. Our approach is to make sure that our government is associated

with the successes that every successful conservative government

achieves which is to house the people of our country for

generations to come. During the last Parliament, I will give way in a few

minutes to other members, I have been generous in giving way to

London members already in. Mr Speaker, during the last permit we

were formed and streamlined the system. I hope it is a genuine point

of order. I say much of that in expectation. The honourable

gentleman speaks again and again about the importance of this in

relation to London but will not take any interventions from London

members on the side. BR Bull Hammer has advertised the claims of London

members and I am sure there will be at the forefront of his mind. The

record has shown I have been generous in giving way to London

members. Including to the mayoral candidate of the party opposite.

That is not illustrate a fairness of approach, I do not know what is. I

will not, I have to make some progress. Mr Speaker, the honourable

gentleman that Mac during the last Parliament we were formed and

streamlined the planning system, we abolished over a thousand pages of

central policy and revoked the regional spatial strategy. Local

council have responded well as we knew they would to the devolution of

power. 82% of counsel with published plans, compared to 32% in May 20

ten, since we introduced the MP Pierre, the number of new homes

planned for locally has increased by 23% copy 1600 neighbourhood plans

are in production or have been adopted. It is right to continue in

this direction of reform. That is why the bill takes step to simplify

and speed up the process to adopt a neighbourhood plan. And to give it a

legal forced early. Has assisted councils whether it is through

establishing valve too operations. And returned it says to the 80% of

councils have not yet reduced a local plan that five years after the

MPP Apple was published, that is long enough for them to have done

something. If plans are not being produced by them the government will

have the power to intervene. -- MPPF. And help bring that to

fruition. All members of the hospital to see it for right for

development. The Morland brought back into use tomorrow countrysides

can be safeguarded. That is why the bill establishes a new strategy

register for Brent the lands of the councils can have an up-to-date and

public accessible source of information from lands suitable for

housing. I will give way, my honourable friend has been the

patient. Then I will give way to the honourable Lady. I will like to take

them back to starter homes. Was are a good idea, I am concerned that are

proposed price cap of ?150,000 in London could be interpreted as a

prize of God. -- for hundred What reassurance can you give me on

that point? It is a cap and not a guided. Would want to seem homes of

prices well below that. He is right to set that. I give way to the

honourable Lady. Has the Secretary of State will like to listen to what

e-mail I received from a single mother that is worried about the

threshold. That means that families like her own lower incomes will be

pushed to the high levels of poverty. I'm very happy to see the

e-mail to which she refers that she would like to see me after the

debate, of course I will take that up. It is only fair to expect that

those who are fortunate enough to be earning a decent salary are not

going to continue to have the subsidy that would otherwise be

available to housing associations because of course, the revenues that

are raised from that stay with housing associations so they can

build more poverty. -- properties. Cannot applaud the advent of

neighbourhood plans, that have been adopted with enthusiasm for many in

my constituency. Katie Baird mine that one organisation that has the

power to develop too destroy his policy, would he urged them were

never the plan is in place to respect the wishes of the local

community and stay well away? I will take my honourable friend's

suggestion seriously. The part of the bill entrenches the rights of

neighbourhood is to produce a neighbourhood plans. Against what is

the case, and less than enthusiastic to strict. I hope we will see less

of that, the measures in the bill will help. He may know that there

are some concerns amongst general aviation users and indeed rural

communities that they may lose small and medium-sized airfields if there

would be redesignated as building sites. It was hoped that the opening

around it would not constitute a site. I hope he can reassure me and

those who share my interest in this that airfields will not be

classified as Brandon filled sites. Particular concern about this and

has been expressed well. There are reviews of the status of that. I

rule reassure that his views are strongly communicated to my

colleagues, who are overtaking our review. Mr Speaker, all members want

to see brandfield prioritise for development. That is why it got mad

so that councils can have an up-to-date and publicly acceptable

source of information and land for housing. We want to see planning

commission given for 90% of those sites by 2020 which would be of

particular benefit, this is important. Krhin in particular,

often cannot afford to enjoy the costa Lays and uncertainty of... Mr

Speaker as we build, more homes and support home-buyers we want to

ensure that existing housing is managed fairly. This bill will do

something that many tenants and indeed landlords have been calling

for for many years. To take action to crack down on the world landlords

who can make tenet lives a misery and the reputation of the great who

are responsible. We will establish a database of them and help councils

tackle problems in their area to extend finds to series preachers of

the law and offenders who put the lives of the tenants in danger. Mr

Speaker, Pridgen has come a long way over the last five years, halfway

through what the Prime Minister has called this turnaround decade. We

have gone from having the biggest deficit to the prospect of a budget

surplus. We have more people working than ever before in our history and

we have put the housing market crash behind Haas and Britain is building

again. We have further to go, providing homes for our country

needs is a defining challenge for all of us in this house. The bill

that we have before us today advances us towards that Bill. Is a

plan for more homes and more homeowners. A plan that the country

voted for six months ago and the general election. A plan that we are

now putting into effect. A plan that offers the next generation what

previous generations have been able to look forward to, a home of their

own. I commend it to be house. Hear! Hear! The lesson is that the ill be

read a second time. After five years of failure on the

housing from the conservative ministers, we desperately needed a

bill to get people hit by the cost of housing prices in this country

some hope that things will change. This is not that Bill. There are

some parts of the bill that we walk on, but I have to say they are few

and far between. We do welcome steps to control the worst private

landlords, steps to help young people that their foot in the

housing market, steps to speed up the purchase of. We aim to make

these much stronger as the bill goes through Parliament. If you are a

young person or a family earning an ordinary income in trying to get on

then this is a bad deal for you. If you want to buy your own home, the

so-called starter homes are a nonstarter for you. Unaffordable to

most people on average incomes. If you're a working family on modest

wages in the Council or housing association, you face or read being

hyped as a result of this bill. If you're worried about rising rents,

insecurity in your private renting home, one of four England's families

with kids bring these kids up in private renting accommodations, this

bill does nothing for you. Average rents now consumes some 46% of

average weekly income. This is unsustainable for families, we need

an increase in the affordable homes, would he agree with me that this

bill will lead to a decrease in affordable homes and do nothing to

help these families unless it is significantly amended? My honourable

friend is right. This is a bill that would only lead to a decrease in

affordable renting and buying. This is a bill that will lead to a huge

loss and those numbers, particularly in areas like hers. She is right to

point to the problems that they faced with ever rising rents. Of

course, and she looks at the conservative manifesto there is not

a single word about the millions of people who now live in phase their

whole lives in private renting accommodations. The this is why this

bill does so little for them and if such a big missed opportunity. I was

intrigued when I listen to the e-mail being read earlier. I heard a

young woman who came to see me cool, doesn't she have the same

aspirations. Why is it the case that we can only sell off counsel and

private housing. Waisea private renting sector completely protected

in this bill? Barilla problem into the row weakness in the private

renting spectrum is that people who rent their homes from private

landlords have so little protection, so little rates and so little basic

blue dress on their landlord does not do what they should do as part

of the obligation. I will give way. I wanted to respond to the point he

made about affordability, the fundamental fact is that of rental

prices and house prizes will be made more affordable by an increase in

supply. That is the one thing that will decrease prices and that is up

a heart of this bill. He is right, he should suggest his remarks with

the Secretary of State there. In the last year the Tories build the last

government built the fewest number of affordable homes in over two

decades in this country. In case he wants to know the number, 10,920

affordable homes to social rents. 10,000 compared to three times that

number in the last year of the last Labour government which

incidentally, when I was labourers housing minister. Surely he will

concede that this time five years ago he was making the same arguments

against the affordable homes regime, in fact that has given more

financial autonomy and authority to register providers which has

delivered 260,000 affordable homes. Quite the contrary, I was a strong

supporter of that. In fact, I negotiated with the rest of the

government and unprecedented switch, ?1.5 billion, so we could

build more affordable, genuinely affordable renting homes to build

the country and get it through the recession. At the honourable

gentleman wants to know and look at his own governments record, it is

true that almost eight out of ten of the affordable rented homes for

social rent that they claim are the... Were actually started and

funded under the decisions I made as the last housing minister. Given his

ownership he claims on this issue, if you regret the loss of form

hundred 40,000 affordable homes under the last Labour government?

Iver Gratz that -- I will grant that we did not do enough just like the

last five years of this government to make sure that were homes were

sold, there was a enough funding to make sure they could be fully

replaced, one for one. Like for like in the area they were lost. That is

a big flaw in the bill before us this afternoon. That is a big flaw

that will become more and more exposed in every one of our areas

and every one of the areas of the constituencies of members opposite

in each of the Will you be subject of regret, and

constituency between 1997 and 2007, house prices increased by 200%. On

eight fee of badly regulated mortgages which led to an inevitable

crash and a very deeper session. Does he regret the credit crunch and

the excess lending... That caused the affordability crisis that we

have today? There were failings in the ways that tanks and the

financial services were regulated in this country and every other

developed country. What I do regret is that our ministers with and too

hard to the party opposite that were urging us to cut the regulation of

the banking sector. What I am proud of is that when that deep economic

recession hit, driven by the global ranking crisis, that ours was a

government prepared to step in to try and help the country through

that deeper session. To help people stay in jobs, to help businesses

keep going and to help people stay in their own homes. I was proud to

play a part in not with a ?4 billion affordable housing programme,

building the affordable homes to rent and buy that people needed

across the country. ?4 billion, Madam Deputy begin in 2009-10. Cut

under this government to less than two thirds of the billion pound. I

give way to my honourable friend. I'm grateful to my honourable friend

because one of the first acts of this conservative liberal volition

when it came into power but to scrap the home starts key which was aimed

at keeping homes being built and rather than stalled because of lack

of backing from the banks. Fewer homes were repossessed during the

deepest recession we have had in nearly a century than under any

recession we saw under the Tories. My honourable friend and I were very

close on this and he is right. Betwixt our programme of putting

public money into starting building on sites that were stalled because

of the deep global banking crisis and recession was part of building

the homes we needed, creating the jobs we needed and because we

insisted on apprenticeships in return for that support we got more

partnerships across the country and in terms of the mortgage rescue

scheme he will remember back in 1991 under the last for a recession, they

put nothing in place, they were not concerned about homeowners who are

faced with repossession of their own homes soppy despite a much deeper

recession, much more serious economic programmes, our mortgage

rescue scheme meant that war than a third fewer people than in the 1991

ever had to move out of their homes and at this the basis on which they

were building their wives. -- lives. The so-called starter homes

programme means in the words of shelter that it will help only those

who can afford homes in the open market. 450,000 pounds is not an

affordable home. My honourable friend anticipates one of my main

concerns and consider citizens about the provisions of this. He

anticipates one of the major criticisms I think many people take

at face value at first what conservative ministers say because

the more they look the less they will like it. The more they look at

the less they will see is support for them and their aspirations and

future. I think my honourable friend for giving way. According to the

government's on figures with 200 right to buy being sold and replaced

it starts at zero, we are already in a deficit of 200 homes with ?450,000

being 20 times the average salary in print, does my honourable friend not

agree with me that we need to start building genuine affordable homes in

less than 450,000 as soon as possible. Batting deputies become my

honourable friend is right. Interest, the scale of the cost of

housing crisis that we face in this country requires every part of the

housing sector from private house builders to housing associations to

councils to do a great deal more and we need more homes of all types

including social rented homes. The fundamental flaw with this bill and

this government's plans is that they have put all the chips on starter

homes and they put all the chips on homeownership. I will come onto the

reason why this is such a mistake for the homes we need in the

future. I give way. I think that my horrible friend for giving way. Is

the concern like IM that smaller housing situations are already

beginning to streamline their programmes. For example 150 housing

world holds have been told by East and housing that that they are on

intermediate market rent schemes. Many key workers were either have to

express an interest to buy homes within a week or be edited within

two weeks. Isn't that an unforeseen consequence and what plans does the

government have to do something about those families? I would say to

my honourable friend this is not an unforeseen consequence, this is a

laudable conflict and what they see in the policies of this bill and

government. The danger with this gung ho freedom for housing

associations and -- to build means that housing associations, many that

are not in the stems case will see this as the green light to become

almost indistinguishable from private developers. The big risk for

some is they lose sight of their social mission and their boards and

trustees and directors will simply not be strong enough to represent

the tenets long-term interest and ensure we get the homes we need for

the future. I give way to my honourable friend. Does my

honourable friend agree that far from the consensual approach that

the secretary of state talks about housing associations have been

suffering uncertainty about their assets and have heard their tenure

agreement on rent disrupted and therefore because they rely heavily

on borrowing from the markets, actually some of them have said they

will not build any more affordable homes and some are advising down the

numbers they were going to build as a result of this bill? My honourable

friend in her characteristic way because she knows as much about this

as anyone in this house pointer finger to a really fundamental

problem Secretary of State and his ministers now have. That is one of

trust. How can councils and housing associations that just three years

ago were giving a ten year guarantee about the rent that work in place

for them and the properties they managed so that they can plan their

business and the development and their maintenance. How can they

trust this Secretary of State and his ministers? To keep their word in

the future? This is a really serious problem with housing associations as

well. How can they trust a monetary deal, the terms of which are not in

this bill, give them no guarantee for this Secretary of State or his

successor will welsh on those or that the Chancellor of the Exchequer

will march in with his big boot and override the Secretary of state

unless the guarantees that they seek as the basis of the steel are in

this legislation, I feared the worst for them. I wondered if he had any

idea where if the Secretary of State has yet told us what will happen to

the tenets of the 261 national housing Federation members not

represented in this deal? I find this a problematic if you grin that

we are not given the details of the so-called vote that was taken by

housing associations to enter this voluntary deal. Is a deal that does

not therefore reflect the majority were certainly a large number who

did not respond or were not consulted. There is some serious

question for the Secretary of State because in this bill, despite these

housing associations saying they do not want to wear have not said they

will find up to this deal there is legislation that gives the

regulators power. Never the less compliance on homeownership on this

housing associations. Points to the point my honourable friend made

earlier. How can you really take at face value the words of ministers

about this being a voluntary deal when behind it lies regulation that

is going to enforce the compliance? If they do not have that in place,

think of the point of view of the tenants that the honourable

gentleman hardly mentioned in his speech. How can this be a right to

buy without the legislation behind it to give those rights? Without

that legislation, without that ability to challenge the landlord if

a landlord says no, this is not a right to buy. This is a right to beg

to buy. I give way. I thank the honourable gentleman for giving way.

As a former housing minister he would be aware that housing

association tenants whether on it affordable went have significant

budgetary protection from eviction. I just hope you'll take the

opportunity in response to the intervention made by the number

Tuesday that housing associations cannot be evicted on two weeks

notice. I am surprised because the honourable gentleman has had

experience on the local government select committee, if he had listened

harder to the point by honourable friend made here she was talking

about those tenants who were on intermediate rents without resort of

protections and rights that he claims they should have. This is a

real problem and this is a straw in the winter. This is a sign

potentially of problems to come. Now Madam Deputy be figure I'll make

some cash Madam Deputy the guy will make some progress because ministers

has bent the last moment waving labour. They have their own track

record now soppy the inescapable background to this bill is that that

record is one of five years failure on every front, on homeownership of

which the Secretary of State devoted most of his speech. Homeownership

they'll each and every year -- well each and every year under the last

Parliament. Each and every year since 2010. Is the lowest of the

generation, homeowning households are down by 200,000 under that

government, up by over a million under the Labour government that

preceded them. Does he still takes the view that the fall in

homeownership is not a bad thing which is what he said when he was

housing minister? Oh dear Madam Deputy Gert is that really the best

the Secretary of State can do? In 2009, as labour's housing minister

we were struggling with the deepest recession following the global

financial crisis. I was putting in place programmes to help lift the

economy and warned board and to put in place the mortgage rescue scheme

that helped homeowners struggling with the finances to stay in place.

Honestly, it will not wash to have the Secretary of State and ministers

continually coming back to what happened under labour. They have

five years, it is their record and on homeownership that has been young

people hit hardest. The number of young people owning their own homes

now has fallen by not doing that more than a fifth since 2020. I have

given plenty of trance and I will later on. I had to make progress. On

private rent while family incomes have admitted ever rising private

rents are up by one fifth. By ?1600 a year since 2020. On homelessness,

which Madam deputies began have the under labour it is up by over a

third under the Tories and rising rapidly. Housing benefits and the

cost to the taxpayer have been risen by almost ?4.5 billion during the

last five years despite some punishing cuts like the bedroom tax

and at the same time as housing investment was flashed. On house

building, the Secretary of State, the House of Commons confirmed to me

that the last government built fewer homes than in any peacetime

government since Lloyd George's in 1920s. The housing minister if he

does not take the House of Commons let me take him to his own

statistics from the live table 213. This shows him, Madam that the, that

the lowest number of homes built under labour was in 2009. Following

the deepest economic crisis and recession were 100 years. Below list

in 2009, built under labour -- the lowest. Still higher than the year

with the highest number of homes built under the Tories in 2014 which

was 117,000 720 -- 100 17,720. Five years of failure on all fronts and

this bill does nothing to correct the causes of that failure and in

many areas will make things much worse. Let me turn now to the

context of this bill -- content. I can certainly stop taking

interventions, that is what has helped me up. -- held. Is clear your

colleagues want me to carry on. Young people and families in the

country on ordinary income face a cost of housing prices, the need for

affordable homes has never been greater. But this bill don't like a

death note for the ability to build affordable homes to rent and buy

better so badly needed in urban and rural areas alike. It strangles the

ability and obligation of the public and the private sector to build

affordable homes. Does my right friend agree that shared ownership

is one of the most affordable options for middle income and

leave? 95% of these families will be able to afford a 3 bedroom homes

shared ownership and does he agree that this bill is a huge missed

opportunity for a big shape up in this area? It is a big shape up in

this area? On if we want more people to be able to own affordable homes

in the future. My honourable friend A's exactly right. -- is exactly

right. When I talk about right to buy I talk about shared ownership

homes often build their obligations of development, often managed by

housing associations that will get choked out under this bill. I will

come to that point in a moment. Clauses 56 - 72, Madam Deputy Gert

required the forest sell-off of affordable counsel homes to fund an

extension of the Dubai to the housing association homes. A power

for the chancellor to impose an annual levy on councils. Honestly,

this is like some pre-Magna Carta monarch running short of cash for

his exploits and there is no prospect and no plan for the

replacement of these homes. No one or one like for like replacement

with new homes and certainly not in the area where they are lost. This

is unworkable and wrong and we will oppose it. I am really grateful for

you having way. In York we have over 3000 people who have the aspiration

to rent homes from the Council and yet a city like York a high-value

area will have to sell about 1500 of those homes. Is not preferred for

national incentives in this bill? My honourable friend is absolutely

right. She just heard the described these provisions as unworkable and

here heard me say we will oppose it and we will challenge it at each

stage of this bill through parliament and I hope she will help

me and my colleagues on the front bench do just that because the truth

is that in deputies the Gert many areas of the country both rural and

urban especially in London, these counsel homes will not go to

families struggling to buy for the first time, they'll go to

speculators and available to buy-to-let land organizations. The

greater the demand for affordable housing in an area the higher the

value of houses on the more the Chancellor will take an annual levy

up. Does he not find it remarkable that at a time when new homes being

built are being bought by investors overseas this government is now

forcing councils to sell off family homes for those very same warned

investors at a time when the need for this to have homes that are

affordable has never been greater? Indeed and my right horrible friend

makes a very powerful point and beaks powerfully for the capital. He

speaks for a capital and those councils in that area led by labour

and led by conservatives happy it is exactly in London and place of like

York where the high-value homes will be forced to be sold. In Westminster

almost three quarters of their counsel homes about the high-value

threshold nearly 9000 homes first to be sold in order to pay for this

policy soppy not in Westminster, not in London, but across the country to

pay for the Chancellor and the conservative party's manifesto

place. In Kensington and Chelsea it is 97% of the stock. These are the

areas of London which are most expensive which the need for

affordable housing is greatest. My guess is that the conservative

leader of Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster have had an influence on

the conservative leadership of the local Government Association because

they made clear they oppose this plan and they have warned of the

consequences in particular on counsel waiting list, homelessness

and housing benefit. Alongside this clauses 3-6 of the bill overturned

25 years of planning soppy established in 1990 with cross party

support by the conservatives which requires developers to help provide

affordable homes. The very system of planning obligations that has

delivered nearly a quarter of a million generally lead affordable

homes to rent and buy in the last decade will be satisfied by

ministers and opposing starter home obligations only. It is a field day

for developers and a dark day for families wanting to rent or buy

affordable home. Isn't the legislative proposal on starter

homes worrying for two reasons? The reality is this cause will not add a

single property being built over the next course of this Parliament.

Every property being built as a starter home will be replacing a

home that would have been built under one .6 obligations on an

affordable basic. Secondly, it is an incredibly centralising measure

where central government will dictate the details of planning

commissions on each side of local authority and sees a planning

application form upright my honourable friend is right on both

counts. Is committee is currently conducting an inquiry into how

associations soppy I look forward to the report he produces because this

will have great authority on the cross party basis and help the House

and the other place get to grips with what this housing and planning

bill really means for the future. The chartered Institute for housing,

the independent professional experts say this means for the future is a

fire sale of affordable counsel homes to fund the pension of right

to buy could mean the loss of 195,000 genuinely affordable social

rented homes in the next five years. While housing associations may well

build more homes as they sell on the right to buy, many will increasingly

build for open market sale and rent. Indeed a third now say already they

will no longer build any affordable homes. For organizations with a

social mission who have played a big part in providing publicly funded

homes for decades, this is almost as shocking as one third of the NHS

hospitals think they're only prepared to take private patients.

This bill is a milestone movement for affordable housing in this

country and is a massive step that words. Madam Deputy Gert let me turn

to starter homes. We welcome the government wanting to make a home

ownership more accessible to people on ordinary incomes and the people

in particular. The job and home ownership over the last five years

to its lowest level for a generation means that it now essential element

to meeting the country's housing needs and aspirations. But what is

being done is not working and these plans will do too little to help. We

need fresh thinking radical ideas and a much writer public debate for

the future and that is why I have commissioned the chief executive of

the country's largest house builder. One of the largest house builders to

undertake an independent review into the decline in home ownership

aborted by an panel of major figures in housing and economic. The

secondary estate must face the fact that the government starter homes

was amply not be avoidable and will be a nonstarter for families on

ordinary incomes. Sheltered calculate across the country you

would need an income of ?50,000 a year and a deposit of 40,000 to

afford a starter home and in London you would need an income of 77,008

deposit at nearly 98,000. This is simply out of reach for most of the

middle income working families who need help buying a home the most.

Madame Deputy Speaker there is no control in this bill to stop those

who can't afford to buy without help from the government taking advantage

of this game. There is a big risk that the people who benefit most are

those who need the help least and as shelter says with a starter almost

programme the only group it appears to help on a significant scale will

be those already earning high salaries who should be able to

afford on the open market without assistance. Let me make this point,

Madame Deputy Speaker, when this was first put forward prior to the

election it was clearly intended to be focused on using that land that

had not already been designated for housing. The aim for it was to be a

Brownfield exceptions policy which will be a welcome addition to

existing affordable and other housing. In the policy now

proposed, starter homes are clearly to be instead of not additional to

affordable homes to rent. Not my words, Madame Deputy Speaker, but

the words of the previous permanent Secretary of the Communities and

Local Government department Lord Kerslake. Is the government's on

impact that confirms starter homes will not be additional to housing

supply. The point my horrible friend chair of the select committee made

in his intervention. Before this bill goes through the House, the

government must as a minimum change the bill to do two things. First,

make any starter homes to develop lower obligations additional to

affordable homes not a substitute. Second, to put in place be

guaranteed and guard against any of the scheme. Let me touch on

planning, part six and seven before moving towards a conclusion. In a

political panic about falling so far short of the new bill numbers they

have pledged, this bill gives ministers wide range to impose new

house building and override both local community concerns and local

plans. With a total of 32 new housing and planning powers for the

centre, this is legislation that signalled the end of localism. We

welcome the measures to speed up the planning process where there is a

clear case for doing so and whereby the local decision-making is not

ignored. But there are serious concerns and I said to the housing

minister there are serious concerns and you might want to a Japanese

when he winds up in the House this afternoon. There are serious

concerns about some aspect of this bill which will be shared on all

sides of the House. These concerns are heightened burst by the fact

there have been no consultation at all on the most radical of these

planning proposals and second that so much is left as open ended powers

for the Secretary of State. August three, four, 97, 102, 107, these are

very far-reaching changes and instead of laughing I suggest the

honourable gentleman looks at the bill and looks at those five clauses

soppy these are far-reaching changes which must be clarified and

justified by the Secretary of State which should be restricted as this

bill goes through Parliament if they cannot be justified. To do so, I say

to the separate area of state and the Minister was about to intervene

will he guarantee because he should do this, will he guarantee that the

draft regulations are available to the House when these clauses are

debated in the Public Bill Committee? I will give way to the

housing minister on that point. I think that the right honourable

gentleman for generously giving away this afternoon. What you just

clarify he is going to acknowledge the fact that some of what this bill

is looking to do and we'll deliver is actually moving on from the

atrocious legacy he left at the housing minister when he had just

88,000 home-building starts followed by 95,000 over the last two years of

the labour government. Below a levels of the 1920s and that is the

legacy he left us with. No wonder they look so concerned beef behind

them because that's bluster, this promise of big housing numbers from

which they are falling so far short will not wash. He has his own track

record, never mind blaming labour or the last Labour Parliament, five

years of failing in housing under conservative ministers. That is what

he has to answer for. Madame Deputy Speaker, by the way he did not

answer the important point that house and the proper scrutiny of

this bill on behalf of the public whether the strapped regulations for

these sweeping new bank hours will be available to the Public Bill

Committee when they come to deliver. He is nodding his head, I

am not a sure if that is a yes or no. If he will give us a agenda he

will give us ASAP can intervene. I was just like to know if you'll

answer the question I intervened to ask if he recognise he left a legacy

of 88,000 starts, the lowest since the 1920s. Madame Deputy Speaker,

eight out of ten of the genuinely affordable homes he claims credit

for what started under a, commissioned under us, paid for with

a commitment of investment undressed up yellow I give way. This is a

straightforward and honest question if I may put to him. Without direct

intervention of the Secretary of State, how does he deal with a

situation where 35% of local planning authorities had not taken

their plans to the whole system and one in five have now is land in

future? That is a major supply-side issue. How would his party deal with

that? I will send the honourable gentleman a copy of the lion's

report with exactly the answer to that problem. The problem for him

now is that, even where councils and local communities have local plans

in place there are powers the Secretary of State is taking under

this bill to override those even when they have been consulted upon,

agreed, even when they are in place soppy that should worry the

honourable gentleman. I will not take more interventions because I

want to finish on this note. This is an extraordinary personal and

political retreat for the Secretary of State. He was Mr localism, the

Minister for seeking deals, the Minister who signed off the radical

devolution of housing finances of the Council in 2012. Now he is the

Minister fronting this bill with 32 new centralising powers and a

legalized has to grab for the chancellor from counsel. He was Mr

conservative minister with political roots in the old FTP and the

Minister who managed to strike a widely welcome balance in the

national planning policy framework in 2012 between the rights of local

residents and the requirements to build more homes. Now he is the

Minister explain the extreme plans that would all but into a new

affordable housing for social rent and overturned 25 years of planning

law to let house boulders completely off the hook over new affordable

homes and mixed development. He was Mr decency, Madame Deputy Speaker.

The well-meaning minister, that people felt they could deal with and

trust. Now he is the Minister that would have known the OS as

reclassification of housing associations was on the cards who

ducked the questions I put to him earlier but never the last anchorage

housing associations to the voluntary deal soppy he is the

Minister that the House have seen this afternoon who has to duck and

dive to abate the truth that counsel and housing association homes sold

off under this bill will not be replaced 141 like for like, let

alone in the local areas in which they are lost. I do have some

sympathy for the Secretary of State. At the risk of disagreeing with my

honourable friend I do have some sympathy for the Secretary of State.

It is a bill driven by the politics of the Conservative Party, not the

leads of the country. The reality is that it is not his bill. That cuts

to tax credits, this is the chancellors work. Of his political

fingerprints all over it. It is a bill that makes the same mistakes as

tax credit, dividing politics, overriding good policies. Above all,

it fails the same low and middle income working families that the

Tories claim they will represent. It will lead to a huge loss of

affordable homes to rent and buy and be let downs of those who believe

the Tories election. Is a bill that will prove to be bad policy and

politics. It will be a slow burn problem all the way to 2020, we will

oppose it in the voting lobbies tonight. The original question was

that the bill be read a second time. When an amendment is proposed on the

order paper, the question is that the amendment be made. There are 55

members wishing to speak in this debate. I am going to starve a time

limit on five minutes. That does not include the spokesperson. As members

could keep interventions to a minimum, then we may get through the

list. The more interventions that are the less likely we are to get

through the list. I shall speak quickly. This bill has

many excellent provisions that will improve the availability of housing.

I should concentrate my remarks on a narrow aspect of its provisions as

set out in Clause 22. This call and chapter that relates to world

landlords who break the law, treat their tenants badly and do not

maintain their properties in habitable condition. The bill

states, the Secretary of State will establish that landlords and local

housing authorities have responsibility to maintain the

content of the database. There is no doubt that this information is

necessary for the protection of tenants and the and everyone in

general. It will be a useful tool for everyone and carrying out there

options. Local authorities do not know which properties and their

areas are rented privately or who were were the landlords are, it will

be difficult to compile such a register. It is after the event will

be landlord has been brought to their attention. A simple look at

cost method of acquiring the necessary information will be to add

a question to the registration forms seeking information about the owner

of the property as proposed in my private members bill will come the

local government financed tenure information bill. This will

facilitate the implementation of Clause 22 of the housing and

planning bill while providing a database of privately rented

properties and landlords from which to root out the unscrupulous ones.

The information will be readily available for the affected of those

affecting the private renting sect and taxation of landlords. It will

help with housing related issues such as investigating illegal

subletting and unregulated houses and loss of occupation and benefit

fraud. Also planning enforcement and public health issues. Will help the

police were criminal offences are being committed in HMRC war rental

intercom is not clear taxation purposes. Councils may do this

already but they're not required to do so. In past the registry has been

considered, but not work as suggested, only the good landlords

would comply even with sanctions for not registration. A registered of

good landlords will lead us no further or forward in finding the

minority of landlords operating under the radar in causing misery to

their tenets. Registration costs would inevitably be passed on to

tenants. In 2009, an influx of assessment of the scheme for

landlords was found difficult. Were licenses were used the results for

Apache. The private renting sect increasing in size, it is important

to see a workable solution to offer tenant greater protection against

rogue landlords, over 4 million households are rented privately in

2013-14. Of the majority of private sector tenants are satisfied,

driving up standards may only progress if privately rented homes

amid landlords are identified. An estimated one third of privately

rented homes do not meet decent home criteria. And one in six preventing

threat to health or safety. Condition such as damp, unstable

electrical appliances, lack of insulation, leaky plumbing, faulty

fire alarms are all examples that some properties do not meet decent

home criteria. Local authorities will act in the capacity or the

resources to effectively inspect and enforce issues in the private

renting sector on a widescale. Readily available information on the

owners of privately rented our parties in the area would enable

local authorities to targeted finite resources on trouble some tentative

addresses via the land Registry. Deregister requires, by Clause 22,

it is welcomed by citizens of my bureau and the residential landlord

assumes two Association which is... The simplest of collecting this

information about the tenure of properties and identified rogue

landlords will be by putting an additional question on council tax

registration forms and I shall be tabling an amendment to the housing

and planning bill to these affect which will find favour I hope as the

bill progresses. Think you for allowing me to participate in this

debate. It has been classified, following up on points she defends.

I will read what he said, ... It is clear it could be someone that has

consequences over the last... They are not challenging the

classification, but there is no luck. This classification does have

complications. In terms of my contribution, I will look a definite

aspects and approaches, I hope I will benefit both sides of members.

At a bird is accepted as one of the leading registration, since 2012

Scotland has been classes made unintentionally as homeless. Have

also seen over the years the number of people have been under that

registration reform. I want them to think about what is in front of

them. Lastly,... Stickers on the opposite suggest, Scotland

at the same time we have still been finding social housing, I think the

debate comes to political allies, it is against home ownership and that

is not how it should be. He has given us a list of director,

Agassi explained under eight years of the government, more than 150,000

people are still on council waiting list in half of those homes in

Scotland still fall short of the official quota. All houses meet the

standards in Scotland. It is incomparable.

There are many affordable houses being built in Scotland. We are

doing our best. In terms of right to buy, it has legislated to take that

forward. I should point out, some of the

members on the opposite house, not as our point of interest... I do

know people benefit from that, I see what happens people by their homes

that happens over the years. It is a policy that was right at the time.

We now see the problems from that. That has led to the problems of

today. Many areas previous have all disappeared from the stock.

That drives up the housing benefit costs... It was estimated ...

Another unintended consequence is that in some cases people that

bought houses many years ago, people get trapped in houses because there

are not enough houses available for them to move into. For example

counsel houses, they prioritise... You do not always have houses

available for people who need them. Another unintended consequence, I

have seen this as a counsellor, people buy the properties that all

seems fine when you sign the dotted line,...

You are left with that affected some housing schemes because they were

not paid for the upgrades. I am asking why they will want to repeat

that. He speaks about the one for one replacement, I think that is as

fraught as the previous policy. -- fraud. At the same time, it is to

polarize. It the government is proposing to cut, but we are looking

at a subsidy for people to buy the homes they are already in the.

Building more homes will drive down the cost of rent and of course

create more jobs. Instead there is going to be a

target for and that, so family homes will be sold off. That does not do

anything for long-term housing needs. On that point, the council

next to his favourite borough, it has a very wise leader who states

that right to buy could wipe out swathes of social housing and it

would not be able to house people who need housing because of this

bill. I agree with that intervention. In terms of the

government, we have Artie seemed that it has not worked. The number

of right to buy sales. Another experience I have seen, I

have seen the benefits of targeted counsel homes. Special need housing

and housing design for the older community it is life changing for

those tenants. It is heart-warming to hear those stories. We can talk

about the statistics and targets, hi Matt our role people and families

and that is the most important thing. Another consequence about

housing staff of the health benefits. If homes are more

energy-efficient that leads to healthier families. As stated

earlier on social housing will reduce... One thing I asked the

housing Minister to consider I will appreciate if... That is something

that maybe he can bring up. I am going to finish by highlighting

the housing Association is seeming as a highly effective mechanism for

keeping debt off of the balance sheet. The benches opposite have

argued that in order to save future generations it has to happen and

that is one of their arguments. Therefore, I will conclude by saying

some economics had up and some do not.

As mayor my right honourable friend has overseen 100,000 affordable

homes built in his time in London. Which is 25,000 more than his

predecessor. I am not going to give way. We have little time. As he will

lead knowledge when he speaks later on, the gap between supply and

demand remains very wide. With this action it will grow wider. Few

people doubt that London is the greatest city on earth. Is why so

many people want to come here, with that success down to much of the

success of my honourable friend. I feel obliged to take an intervention

for my honourable friend. The big boot current Mayor of London has

made any errors when it comes to housing. -- does he think. He has

25,000 more than his predecessor. And he has laid the framework for

even more progress. Because of the success of London, the population is

expected to grow by 1.5 million. Already the average first-time home

cost for hundred 12,000... Closing that gap between supply and demand

is absolutely a priority. We can, we have the tools, finance and land.

There are vast swathes of public-sector Brownfield land we can

unlock. We are going to have to unlock that land to build the homes

we need to. We have an opportunity to redevelop. Such as 1950 states at

the end of their life, for which the opportunities are vast as long as he

had the consent of the residents who live there. This housing bill today

is part of the story, no one here pretends that this is the solution

to London's housing prices. But it will give large numbers of people a

chance to own their own homes, for hundred 40,000 units in London will

gain the rights abide. More blended families will not have the right to

purchase their home at the discount funded through the sale of

high-value counsel homes. In principle, I strongly support this.

There is no doubt, my honourable friend is on the front bench, we

know this bill needs amending. Lending counsel homes are far more

valuable than also were. Without this change were able to see a

disproportional flow of resources out of London. We should extend the

right to buy, but at the same time we also must have a significant

number of low-cost tenant. It is possible, the amendment I would

table will ask for a binding guarantee that London will see a net

gain in affordable housing as a consequence of this policy. I

guarantee that in addition to the replacement of homes, London will

see at least two low-cost homes built for every one sold. What is

the intent of the amendment being tabled today. I have to say with the

support of every single bench conservative colleague represented

in the London constituency and I strongly urge the government to work

with us to help us to deliver what we need to. Alongside this binding

commitment, I do want to pay tribute to my right honourable friend for

securing a bill with the housing Association, the right to buy his

way to channel eight ten of the amount of cash into London's housing

Association. They said their credit ratings are likely to improve. I

wanted David Montague, and I asked him how we can work together to turn

that cash into new low-cost homes. It is clear from his response that

they are well up for that challenge. They have committed to more than

doubling their investment programmes as long as the next mayor works with

the current government and shows that that land which I mentioned

earlier is freed up. And I have made that commitment as a mayor who may

be successful in the next election. If we get this right London will see

a significant net gain in affordable homes from this policy, two low-cost

homes built for everyone Council house sold. Up with a commitment

from London's housing Association. That if a bill that opposition can

support if could just resist the temptation briefly to wave their

flags during this debate. I am conscious of the time limits I will

be brief on the further measures. I strongly welcome the governments

commitment to start her homes, no doubt that will help a lot of people

but he needs to work for London. The 20% discount on the home and London

is out of reach for many people. The bottom line is that we are going to

need to use everything was available resource to deliver affordable homes

at all incomes. Finally, the aspiration of homeownership must not

blind us to the difficulties of the millions of people who are renting.

I wore warmly welcomed plans to crack down on rogue landlords.

I begin with those aspects of the bill that I agree with. There are

some measures and the primary renting sector which I can support,

because the proposals on fixed... The readme payment orders or

recommendations of the Select Committee in its report in the last

Parliament. I am sorry the government has not gone further to

do with the problems of the short tenure is that most people have in

the private renting your. Or the problem of lack of resources for

local orgies. -- local of Ortiz. -- authorities. I hope the government

would consider putting them into this and ensure that there are five

yearly checks on the electoral safety in homes. This is something

the government could do easily which would help greatly. In terms of

affordable housing, if we are going to achieve the 200,000 homes a year

the government expires or the 250 homes we need to. We can only do

that with a serious long-term plan to build social housing for rent in

this country. That is why it has been a long-term decline in house

building because that whole site to has diminished. My concern is that

the measures and this bill will actually lead to fewer houses being

built at friends people cannot afford and that by the end of this

Parliament means fewer homes to rent in 2020 and then there were in 2015.

Take the right that some housing associations if they choose good was

placed properties on it like for like basis in the same locality. It

will depend on the circumstances. I have not seen any information from

ministers or anyone else that has persuaded me that local authority

has any chance of replacing the properties they have to sell off on

a like for like aces. Not any chance at all. I will be interested if he

has evidence to give to the Select Committee that he will provided. The

problem with the Libra by dashed rights abide. There is not a new

home proposed by these legislations, every starter home

that is built will be built instead of an affordable home under current

arrangements. That is the case. In the last ten years, they have been

built by that agreement. They will not be built in this Parliament.

There will be starter homes instead. Here is a whole range of

problems for affordable rents that one now will not be billed according

to these puzzles. I will give way wants to this member.

What does he make of the comments of the chief executive of the national

housing Federation who said that our government will see an increase in

the numbers of houses being built and ease the pressure in all parts

of the market? He gave evidence the other day he has said he believes

that more homes of the built under the right to buy proposals, he is

actually said that they don't support the proposals to force the

sell-off of council homes to pay for it. He has made it very clear about

that. On top of that, the national housing Federation came out very

strongly indeed against the changes in rent levels which the charts

server brought in his budget which will cause significant reductions in

the number of homes built by both local authorities and housing

associations. The city council would lose ?27 million of revenue, the

other housing Association, ?7 million of revenue because of these

measures in the course of this Parliament. You have a key problem

with the legislation, having congratulate the Secretary of State

for the decentralization proposals the other day in debate of the

chambers, there are very centuries indeed. The starter homes programme

micromanaged section one 06 agreements where local authorities

do a deal on each individual site. There'll be an imposition of how it

should be done, what homes should be built, on each individual site from

the centre. You add to that the permission that has been given

automatically on Brownfield sites where local authorities would have

the rights to understand it to dissociate infrastructure deals as

part of the planning permissions. You have got the major

infrastructure projects, housing can be approved with no local consent

whatsoever. The RTP I have described these measures were the increasing

powers do these measures as extraordinary. Extraordinary in

terms of their control. Depends on the housing revenue account,

controlled of total rents, control of rents of several high-income

families, individuals focusing local to sell off properties mean that the

housing revenue account, a stand-alone accounts is introduced

by the Secretary of State when he was the Minister a few years ago is

now in account which is very firmly in the Chancellor's pocket.

Finally, I will say many deputies beaker, two measures in these

proposals. Affordable homes of ?450,000, can anyone seriously

believe that? Or, a company with two members of the family working hard,

earning the living wage, describing having their income, their family

income described in this legislation as high. Hi family incomes, Madam

Deputy Speaker does of my things alone she'll call out of touch this

government is, and how irrelevant these measures are to the real

problems facing the majority of people in this country. Hear, hear!

But added the Speaker is a huge budget to follow my friends for

Richmond who I dearly hope will be the next mayor of London. Hear,

hear! My friend in parliament or neighbour, the Honorable member for

Oxbridge to seek reassurance on one central point. I support the

principle of this bill, it is designed to make it easier for

people to own their home, to build their home, and to get better

protection from rogue landlords. You will have my support, I do have a

concern which I would like the front bench to respond. That is around the

question of whether this bill will see an increase in the supply of

affordable homes in London across all tenant. That if the number one

political challenge we face in London as my Honorable friend has

said. I am in London MP, Ira present an area where it is almost

impossible for someone to rent a one-bedroom flat for less than ?1000

a month, or by aid for less than ?250,000. One-bedroom flat. Despite

the best efforts, most of what we see being built in this area is what

the market can pay rather than what the community needs which is homes

young people can afford, and which key walkers can afford. It is to

increase the stock of affordable housing across all tenant, the

schools to the heart of the kind of London who want to see and hang onto

future generations, must be a city in which people of all ages and

incomes can live together in neighbourhoods that are not