12/01/2016

:00:00. > :00:00.is promoted. I would like to see that spread across the Maghreb and

:00:00. > :00:11.elsewhere, this is a great lodel from Rockwood Excel and for other

:00:12. > :00:20.countries to Berlin. -- for Morocco to XL. I beg to move that ldvy given

:00:21. > :00:23.from Mike -- for me to bring in a bill to strengthen penalties related

:00:24. > :00:28.to serious criminal driving offences that leads to serious injurx or

:00:29. > :00:31.death. To redefine such offdnces and amend bail conditions for those

:00:32. > :00:36.charged with them and enhance the standards of investigation by the

:00:37. > :00:40.police in the courts into stch offences to prove of victims of such

:00:41. > :00:47.offences and their families with injustice and connected purposes.

:00:48. > :00:54.2014-15 so 289 people killed in England and Wales alone due to

:00:55. > :01:00.dangerous driving. But in too many of these cases and even mord so

:01:01. > :01:04.where lesser charges have bden brought instead, victims of the

:01:05. > :01:07.serious crimes and their falilies have been badly let down and we need

:01:08. > :01:13.in number of changes to enstre proper justice is lived in the

:01:14. > :01:18.future. I was pleased with 22 of the colleagues to meet the secrdtary of

:01:19. > :01:22.state yesterday and I thank the Minister for his personal interest

:01:23. > :01:26.in this matter. I was surprhsed and disappointed, as were colle`gues,

:01:27. > :01:28.were being told there is a further consultation which will not produce

:01:29. > :01:33.a document until later this year having had an answer from the

:01:34. > :01:41.minister suggesting that because of these in itself would be colpleted

:01:42. > :01:46.in spring 2015. The message today is to encourage them to continte to

:01:47. > :01:52.work with as and ensure that in 2017 and not later we get conferdnce of

:01:53. > :01:58.legislation. I today speak of the half of many families from `cross

:01:59. > :02:05.the country. I had to offer cases, the case of 16-year-old Jimly still

:02:06. > :02:09.killed by a reckless crimin`l driver on new year's even 2010 and then

:02:10. > :02:17.David and Dorothy met, from Oak Ridge killed in January 2012 and I

:02:18. > :02:25.dedicate this bill to the mdmories of Jamie, David and Dorothy and all

:02:26. > :02:30.who have lost their lives from these serious crimes. Today it is 18 years

:02:31. > :02:35.ago that Livia Galli Atkinson was killed in Enfield and I want to pay

:02:36. > :02:41.tribute for the tireless calpaigning by her parents, George as Jtliet, as

:02:42. > :02:45.well as Karen and Rebecca Strong and Kai -- Clive Metcalfe and hhs

:02:46. > :02:49.family. I also wish to menthon a number of honourable members and

:02:50. > :02:54.cases they've been involved in. The family of Olivia have been supported

:02:55. > :02:57.by the Thames of Southgate, Liverpool and West Derby. John

:02:58. > :03:02.Morley supported by the current and previous MPs from other works are,

:03:03. > :03:06.the case of Jon Holland and Chris Jarvis supported by the member of

:03:07. > :03:11.Reading West, the case of Ross Sinclair Symons and supportdd by the

:03:12. > :03:15.member of Kingswood, Genie butchers supported by the member of North

:03:16. > :03:19.East Cambridgeshire at the case of Joseph Brown latte is abortdd by the

:03:20. > :03:28.member of Heywood and Middldton and support from Manchester's Kdy 1 3

:03:29. > :03:32.with -- radio station. Also the sporting of the family of Alex

:03:33. > :03:35.Jeffrey, the member of the Hsle of Wight supporting the family of EV

:03:36. > :03:39.Stanley and many other cases, including the member for East Ham,

:03:40. > :03:44.whose own father was killed by a careless driver in 1992 and I pay

:03:45. > :03:47.tribute to all the families who are campaigning tirelessly trying to get

:03:48. > :03:52.justice and we will support them here until we get a change hn the

:03:53. > :03:57.system. The changes today come from a meeting of those families and

:03:58. > :04:02.fellow members back in Decelber 2014 and the manifesto we producdd as a

:04:03. > :04:08.result backed by Break, the Road safety charity and I pay trhbute to

:04:09. > :04:13.their amazing work. There is a number of changes that I will

:04:14. > :04:16.briefly list as part of my bill today. Firstly, the distinction

:04:17. > :04:21.between careless and dangerous driving is a false and unhelpful

:04:22. > :04:26.one. Often coming to slight and subjective difference betwedn

:04:27. > :04:32.someone's driving following below are well below what is expected of a

:04:33. > :04:37.careful and competent driver. The problem is into many cases people

:04:38. > :04:42.are simply given charges of the lesser charge of careless driving or

:04:43. > :04:47.causing injury or death by careless driving rather than dangerots

:04:48. > :04:50.driving because it's easier for prosecutors to see the convhction of

:04:51. > :04:57.those of the difference in penalties is huge, five years maximum for

:04:58. > :05:02.death by careless driving whereas up to 40 by causing death by d`ngerous

:05:03. > :05:08.driving. Kilis is an open -, inappropriate and offensive term to

:05:09. > :05:11.use the criminally bad drivhng the -- careless. Particularly where it's

:05:12. > :05:14.resulted in horrendous suffdring and driving that only fault slightly

:05:15. > :05:23.below the standards, a moment to lapse of concentration, it light be

:05:24. > :05:25.careless but it is still dangerous. The reality is that careless

:05:26. > :05:31.driving, which is the chargd that was opposed in the first pl`ce, has

:05:32. > :05:35.institutionalised dishonestx into Arab justice system and that needs

:05:36. > :05:41.to be rectified. Careless m`kes a value judgment about the intention

:05:42. > :05:48.of the perpetrator. Are justice are stem -- system. Any killers driving

:05:49. > :05:53.causing an accident is facttally dangerous. We should scrap both

:05:54. > :05:59.charges and have a system where all dangerous driving is regarddd as a

:06:00. > :06:03.category of offence, which can have the minimum or maximum as it gives

:06:04. > :06:07.judges discretion because jtst know their hands are tied once a lesser

:06:08. > :06:12.charge has been brought to the court and families are being filldd up and

:06:13. > :06:16.down the country. We also nded to look at sentencing and the fact that

:06:17. > :06:24.too few higher sentences ard given out. The Government last ye`r

:06:25. > :06:27.roughly introduced a new offence of causing serious injury whilst

:06:28. > :06:32.dangerous driving, something that in the past had been missed out. This

:06:33. > :06:37.new charge should carry a m`ximum mayoralty of 14 years, the cost of

:06:38. > :06:41.care as well as the devastation of people or seriously injured and can

:06:42. > :06:45.never work again, possibly hn some cases can never speak or opdrate

:06:46. > :06:51.normally again. That has got to be taken as seriously as causing death

:06:52. > :06:55.by dangerous driving. Drivers who kill or are under the infludnce of

:06:56. > :06:59.drugs or drink can face up to 1 years in jail but there is `

:07:00. > :07:04.perversity in that if a driver flees the scene to sober up, that can be

:07:05. > :07:08.impossible to prove, leaving only a hit and run offence, which has the

:07:09. > :07:12.insert -- absurdity of encotraging people to flee the scene of

:07:13. > :07:17.obstructed justice. It and run drivers should face the samd maximum

:07:18. > :07:21.penalties a lot -- as other drivers who kill and series Injera, with the

:07:22. > :07:28.assumption if we a scene th`t they must have a reason to do so and that

:07:29. > :07:33.would suggest guilt. We also need to look at the suspension, the

:07:34. > :07:38.automatic or resumption of suspension of a driving licdnce as a

:07:39. > :07:45.condition of bail in cases of dangerous drivers who seriotsly

:07:46. > :07:49.injure or kill. In the case of Jimmy still, the practice of that crime

:07:50. > :07:55.was driving for nine months in the very area, the very town prdtty

:07:56. > :07:59.killed 16-year-old Jimmy. C`n you imagine how that felt for the family

:08:00. > :08:02.to see him driving? Including along the same road where Jenny w`s

:08:03. > :08:10.killed? That is happening m`ny cases. -- Jamie. Victims of criminal

:08:11. > :08:14.driving her charges have bedn brought should be treated bx all

:08:15. > :08:21.parts of the judicial systel as victims of crime. They are currently

:08:22. > :08:25.not set as doing so and oftdn, therefore, are not given thd same

:08:26. > :08:29.support as victims of other crime when the devastation is exactly the

:08:30. > :08:34.same as any case, for example, of manslaughter. There needs to be

:08:35. > :08:37.worked on and this is more completed and I ask the Minister to work with

:08:38. > :08:42.his former colleagues and the Department for Transport to have

:08:43. > :08:45.more appropriate investigathon of collisions, better guidance and

:08:46. > :08:49.better advice in terms of rdleasing evidence to victims' familids, which

:08:50. > :08:55.in a number of cases we havd looked at have simply not happened

:08:56. > :08:58.adequately. Victims and famhlies are not always given access to dvidence

:08:59. > :09:00.and have to trust the CPS to do its job properly, and too many of these

:09:01. > :09:11.cases show they cannot. The Department for Transport must in

:09:12. > :09:18.all cases stop describing incidents of criminal driving or somebody has

:09:19. > :09:22.been harmed as accidents. The CPS already does not use the word

:09:23. > :09:30.accident to refer to crimin`l driving offences but the Department

:09:31. > :09:34.for Transport continues to do so, exacerbating the suffering families

:09:35. > :09:38.by the sense somehow these `re not real cravings despite the

:09:39. > :09:45.devastation because. We need changes throughout the justice systdm, to

:09:46. > :09:50.prosecutions, to sentencing add to the very charges in the first place.

:09:51. > :09:54.To give justice in the future and your families who suffer from these

:09:55. > :10:02.of all crimes and of course to deter people who behave recklesslx behind

:10:03. > :10:08.the wheels of the vehicle. H make the offer to work with them if they

:10:09. > :10:13.wish to talk about this bill, we can discuss the content. But we must see

:10:14. > :10:18.a change across the border to robust deliver justice for victims and

:10:19. > :10:24.their families. The question does our honourable member has ldad to

:10:25. > :10:28.bring in the build? As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the

:10:29. > :10:35.contrary, "no". I think the ayes habits. -- have it. Who will bring

:10:36. > :11:19.in the Bill? Criminal driving justice for victims

:11:20. > :11:27.Bill. Second reading what today Friday the 11th of March. Friday the

:11:28. > :11:32.11th of March. Thank you. Order The clerk will now proceed to rdad the

:11:33. > :11:41.orders of the day. Housing `nd land in Bill is amended in committee to

:11:42. > :11:47.beat further considered. We begin with Emmett 131 which with ht it

:11:48. > :11:51.will be convenient to consider the other amendments and new cl`uses

:11:52. > :11:59.listed on the selection papdr will stop to move amendment 1301H call

:12:00. > :12:06.doctor Roberta Blackman Woods. Thank you very much. I would just say at

:12:07. > :12:15.the beginning to the Ministdr that it is a pity we are dealing with the

:12:16. > :12:20.four most contentious aspects of this bill. I think it is a real pity

:12:21. > :12:23.that the Government did not accept our alterations to the programme

:12:24. > :12:32.motion which would have madd it a bit more sensible. I am going to

:12:33. > :12:37.begin by looking at the valte of social housing. We tabled a number

:12:38. > :12:42.of amendments to chapter two on a range of issues relating to the for

:12:43. > :12:48.sale. And then the 92 would ensure the replacement of property locally

:12:49. > :12:54.and ensure that that is included in legislation. And then there's 9 and

:12:55. > :13:00.94 would give local authorities more agency over defining high-v`lue and

:13:01. > :13:09.limit the amount of houses sold in a particular area to 10% of their

:13:10. > :13:18.stock. -- amendments 93 and 94. I want you to challenge her gdntly on

:13:19. > :13:25.her comments. -- and wanted to challenge her. And the we agreed to

:13:26. > :13:29.the changes be asked for. Wd voted against the programme motion. An

:13:30. > :13:35.amendment 53 safeguards replacement of like-for-like housing and that it

:13:36. > :13:42.will not exceed... Any homes sold will not exceed the sale value of

:13:43. > :13:44.the original property. Cert`in types of specialist housing from

:13:45. > :13:47.high-value determination. However, due to the extremely limited time

:13:48. > :13:53.today I did not want to spe`k in detail on these particular

:13:54. > :13:59.amendments. I am going to focus on amendments 131 to 141 which would

:14:00. > :14:03.leave out all the clauses in chapter two, effectively removing it from

:14:04. > :14:06.the bill. Labour members ard not against local authorities m`king

:14:07. > :14:10.sensible decisions about thdir assets. However, that is not what

:14:11. > :14:15.the clauses in this chapter of the bill would do. It will forcd local

:14:16. > :14:20.authorities to sell off much-needed council housing even when they have

:14:21. > :14:24.huge waiting list. The estate manager of Quaker Court stated that

:14:25. > :14:27.many council halls of London in places like Quaker court ard likely

:14:28. > :14:34.to be deemed high-value bec`use this is where -- and this is where

:14:35. > :14:40.governmental legislation will have the most severe impact. Of course it

:14:41. > :14:44.is not just the loss of council properties in high-value ardas. The

:14:45. > :14:50.impact of this policy would surely be for those properties to love into

:14:51. > :14:54.the privately rented sector, meaning that the housing benefit bill is

:14:55. > :15:01.likely to increase for the same properties to be rented out. Indeed.

:15:02. > :15:08.My honourable friend makes `n additional point about how truly

:15:09. > :15:12.appalling and indeed nonsensical this particular policy is. The point

:15:13. > :15:16.he makes is what I hope to come to later. He says this is about as

:15:17. > :15:21.high-value and area as you're going to find. Every time we get `n empty

:15:22. > :15:27.council flat, instead of th`t going to the next person on a council

:15:28. > :15:30.waiting list, and particularly in Islington which has 18,000 people on

:15:31. > :15:38.it, it is going to be sold hn the private market. There has bden real

:15:39. > :15:44.concern expressed that the Government's expectation of the

:15:45. > :15:48.number of houses to be built as a result of selling off high-value

:15:49. > :15:51.housing is much too high. It says the Government appears to h`ve

:15:52. > :15:56.vastly overestimated the nulber of homes that have become vacant that

:15:57. > :15:59.might be defined within the local authority area and that intdrval

:16:00. > :16:05.have a negative impact on the replacement of sold off homds by

:16:06. > :16:07.housing associations. The Chief Executive the chartered Institute of

:16:08. > :16:14.Housing stressed that more funding needs to be made available for

:16:15. > :16:17.affordable housing. Full compensation for housing

:16:18. > :16:20.associations will be absolutely vital if they are going to be able

:16:21. > :16:25.to build more affordable holes for people who cannot afford to buy the

:16:26. > :16:33.stop and they say that extr` funding is needed. There is concern

:16:34. > :16:37.provisions in this chapter of the Bill will lead to less council

:16:38. > :16:41.housing being available, and with such replacement housing th`t

:16:42. > :16:46.doesn't materialise being ott of the financial reach of many, many

:16:47. > :16:52.people. We know that housing waiting lists will become longer, pdople

:16:53. > :16:56.will be forced to stay in tdmporary accommodation for longer, which of

:16:57. > :17:02.course will mean a greater cost to local taxpayers. Councils whll have

:17:03. > :17:07.less incentive to invest in stock as it may boost the value abovd the

:17:08. > :17:12.arbitrator shall. Moreover the reduction in the number of social

:17:13. > :17:15.homes available will intenshfy competition for private rented

:17:16. > :17:23.sector rose at the bottom of the market, driving up rents. Isn't the

:17:24. > :17:31.concerned is the oral context of Government policy? -- to sed this in

:17:32. > :17:36.the context? It'll be very difficult for most housing associations to

:17:37. > :17:38.replace their sold propertids on a like-for-like basis. I can burn to

:17:39. > :17:44.the select committee yesterday there is no new money at all in the

:17:45. > :17:48.comments said spending revidw for social housing. At the end of this

:17:49. > :17:56.parliament there almost certainly be fewer council homes to rent than

:17:57. > :17:59.there are now. My honourabld friend makes an excellent point and one we

:18:00. > :18:05.want to emphasise this afternoon. There is not additional mondy to

:18:06. > :18:09.provide the replacement affordable housing and as we want to dhscuss,

:18:10. > :18:13.there are no provisions in this bill to allow for a like-for-likd

:18:14. > :18:17.replacement for homes sold off and on the same local authority. So the

:18:18. > :18:22.chapter is damaging not onlx to those who housing, but it whll have

:18:23. > :18:30.a negative knock-on effect hn the private sector, meaning there is

:18:31. > :18:37.simply no respite for a bowling ham -- low income families. The

:18:38. > :18:42.Government must reconsider this section of the bell and takd this

:18:43. > :18:47.chapter out of it. She talkdd about the impact on homelessness. If you

:18:48. > :18:52.think it is also the case that there are probably across the country

:18:53. > :18:57.millions of families in housing need waiting for appropriate

:18:58. > :19:01.accommodation. It constituent I met last week has two children `nd lives

:19:02. > :19:04.in a one-bedroom flat, and one of the children had skin cancer. The

:19:05. > :19:09.waiting desperately for a two-bedroom. You should get a

:19:10. > :19:15.property? A person in that property need or somebody who could H on the

:19:16. > :19:22.open market? My honourable friend makes a truly brilliant point and

:19:23. > :19:26.one that we need to reflect on in the chamber this afternoon. That is

:19:27. > :19:29.what many councils are tellhng us, that they have thousands of people

:19:30. > :19:33.on the waiting list and yet what this measure will do is redtce

:19:34. > :19:39.further the homes that will be available to them. Moving on quickly

:19:40. > :19:45.to the page to state provishons of this bell in chapter four of part

:19:46. > :19:49.four. Again as the minister will be aware we have tabled a numbdr of

:19:50. > :20:03.amendments to chapter for trying to make the EPA to stay provishons more

:20:04. > :20:09.palatable. An amendment 95 ,- we want to ensure the system whll be

:20:10. > :20:15.tapered. Amendment 50 that the insurable laboratories and housing

:20:16. > :20:21.associations take into accotnt a degree of diversity and sochal

:20:22. > :20:32.cohesion in their communitids. Amendment 59 insurers remit --

:20:33. > :20:39.ensures rents remain afford`ble And MS 96 and 61 both look to ghve some

:20:40. > :20:45.notice of protection should tenants be moved on to higher rent, with

:20:46. > :20:49.amendment 96 giving tenants transitional protection and time to

:20:50. > :20:54.enable them to relocate to `nother party if that is at all possible.

:20:55. > :20:58.Amendment 61 would establish the high income rent would only apply to

:20:59. > :21:03.new tenants and that they would be giving a new tenancy agreemdnts

:21:04. > :21:07.Other amendments are designdd to ensure that what is considered to be

:21:08. > :21:12.high income is based on loc`l realities and a multiple of median

:21:13. > :21:16.income. But again, the lack of time the bill has been afforded together

:21:17. > :21:24.with the incredibly unfair nature of these clauses means I will be for

:21:25. > :21:29.her thing on amendments 144 to 50 and 152 to 153. -- I will bd

:21:30. > :21:34.focusing. We are not necess`rily against a gradation in red paint,

:21:35. > :21:40.but we do not think the pagd to stay proposals that remain in thd bill

:21:41. > :21:46.are in anyway acceptable. -, a gradation in rent paid. The

:21:47. > :21:51.proposals will hit people on modest incomes heart is. It is simply a

:21:52. > :22:00.continuation of the Governmdnt's assault on council tenants. Local

:22:01. > :22:03.authorities and housing associations already have the discretion to

:22:04. > :22:11.charge higher income tenants higher rents. I give way. Have Westminster

:22:12. > :22:18.Council not let the cat out of the bag on pay to stay with eight

:22:19. > :22:22.leaflet they distributed last week on a guide to the right to buy

:22:23. > :22:26.social mobility fund which stated, under Government proposals,

:22:27. > :22:30.households with an income greater than ?40,000 will pay subst`ntially

:22:31. > :22:35.increased rent. This is an opportunity to avoid this and become

:22:36. > :22:41.a homeowner. If paid to stax not about driving home ownership rather

:22:42. > :22:46.than actually reflecting income in rents policy? I think my honourable

:22:47. > :22:50.friend makes a really relev`nt point about these particular proposals.

:22:51. > :22:56.Why is the Government now ilposing the scheme on councils if it is not

:22:57. > :22:58.to punish council tenants, `nd what have we done to deserve this unique

:22:59. > :23:09.vitriol The threshold as it stands `s 3 ,000

:23:10. > :23:13.per household in London at ?30, 00 rattled outside London. This would

:23:14. > :23:17.hit people in the Chancellor's new minimum wage, something most people

:23:18. > :23:22.would think is quite disgraceful. The policy will hit those working in

:23:23. > :23:26.low paid jobs the artists and that's where it will have the most

:23:27. > :23:33.devastating effect. I will give way. Thank you. One of the examples that

:23:34. > :23:37.has been given to me is that you can have a tenant who has been offered a

:23:38. > :23:41.promotion at work but has ddcided to turn that down because of the

:23:42. > :23:45.consequential impact on an hnk used read these proposals will ghve. Is

:23:46. > :23:51.this not mean this will put an attack on aspiration? Absolttely. I

:23:52. > :23:59.could not agree with my honourable friend more. I think it is `n attack

:24:00. > :24:05.on aspiration, leaving some families with really impossible choices. As

:24:06. > :24:08.Tony Stacey, chair of shippdrs which represents 100 housing associations

:24:09. > :24:14.said, this policy conflicts with the Government's record on getthng -

:24:15. > :24:19.sorry, the Government's deshre on getting be going to better paid work

:24:20. > :24:23.and said it a bit perverse compared to the Government's other policies

:24:24. > :24:28.of getting to me -- wanted to make work pay. It would seem that if the

:24:29. > :24:33.policy goes ahead in people who are paid more for additional work

:24:34. > :24:39.undertaken off promotion cotld face a sudden increase in rent or

:24:40. > :24:41.eviction. It's interesting to see the Government caved to pressure

:24:42. > :24:45.from housing associations and has removed the degree of compulsion

:24:46. > :24:51.from them, but that only me`ns council talents to tennis are being

:24:52. > :24:57.singled out for the application of these extraordinary measures and as

:24:58. > :25:00.councils are saying these p`rticular provisions are unworkable in any

:25:01. > :25:06.case, could the Minister thhs afternoon explained us why he has

:25:07. > :25:12.insisted that they should rdmain for council tenants. If we move on

:25:13. > :25:18.quickly, Mr Speaker, I will give way. Thank you. Is the honotrable

:25:19. > :25:23.lady seriously suggesting to the house that people should receive

:25:24. > :25:28.heavily soft of eyes that exercise housing even if they are in very

:25:29. > :25:36.high incomes? As I think we did our best to explain to the honotrable

:25:37. > :25:41.gentleman, it's often not stbsidised and the point we are making is that

:25:42. > :25:46.councils already have the dhscretion to apply a higher rents for higher

:25:47. > :25:49.incomes if they choose to do so What we are querying this afternoon

:25:50. > :25:59.is why the Government is introducing an element of compulsion and for

:26:00. > :26:04.council tenants only? Moving on Mr Speaker, I will give way brhefly. We

:26:05. > :26:08.want to kill this myth about the size cattle housing Housing review

:26:09. > :26:11.account under the basis of which this Government change the rules

:26:12. > :26:14.following the proposals frol the previous Government, are self

:26:15. > :26:19.funding. There is no subsidx, the only subsidy around is right to buy

:26:20. > :26:27.goods discount at a starter home discuss the Government is proposing.

:26:28. > :26:34.-- soccer mum discount. I think my honourable friend has won that

:26:35. > :26:37.particular round of the deb`te. So shocking is part five of ch`pter

:26:38. > :26:42.four that we have simply tabled amendments to remove all of it from

:26:43. > :26:50.the bill. We have tabled amdndments to leave out both clauses 88 and 90

:26:51. > :26:54.and the schedules that relates them. We see no value in amending the bill

:26:55. > :26:58.as we can only be of the Met -- ending a security of tenure the

:26:59. > :27:02.council tenants for what it would be, one of the greatest travesties

:27:03. > :27:07.to the future of affordable housing in this country and the onlx

:27:08. > :27:11.position we can adopt is to ask for it to be taken out of the Bhll

:27:12. > :27:14.entirely. Three decades frol now when are grandchildren are looking

:27:15. > :27:20.back on the decisions of Ar`b generation concerning housing, their

:27:21. > :27:24.social mobility will have ddclined a bit with previous generations. - of

:27:25. > :27:29.our generation. Despite what David Cameron might think of the

:27:30. > :27:32.instability of this Governmdnt policy creating. Having a stable

:27:33. > :27:36.home to grow up in is cruci`l for working families whose incole barely

:27:37. > :27:39.affords them an adequate st`ndard of living. Children should not be faced

:27:40. > :27:45.with the threat of having to change schools every two - five ye`rs when

:27:46. > :27:50.the council was forced to rdview the tenancy contracts of their parents.

:27:51. > :27:54.This could have disastrous dffects on their education. Like a number of

:27:55. > :27:58.colleagues, I was brought up in a council house and thus was `ble to

:27:59. > :28:03.acquire better educational opportunities than my parents as a

:28:04. > :28:08.result of growing up in a stable home with security of tenurd. We

:28:09. > :28:13.want to ensure that option dxists for families who needed tod`y. Yet

:28:14. > :28:18.the Government is removing the most basic protection for tenants that

:28:19. > :28:22.has existed in Arab country for decades, that council housing would

:28:23. > :28:26.be provided by local authorhties to secure rented homes for people on

:28:27. > :28:30.low incomes. -- in our country. And that those would be of a good

:28:31. > :28:35.quality. The Government needs to stop a cat -- attacking council

:28:36. > :28:38.tenants. I thought we had cross-party agreement to cotncil

:28:39. > :28:43.housing sector should not only be valued but that measure shotld be

:28:44. > :28:45.put in place to enhance its attractiveness and availability

:28:46. > :28:52.rather than being attacked hn the way in which we see in this bill. In

:28:53. > :28:56.1979, 40 2% of Britain's le`ding council houses, now it is ldss than

:28:57. > :29:00.8%. Government investment in social rented housing was cut by two thirds

:29:01. > :29:05.when the Coalition Government came into power. While the Government

:29:06. > :29:09.pledged a 1-1 placement for every home that was sold under thd right

:29:10. > :29:14.to buy, the latest figures show that for every nine homes being sold all

:29:15. > :29:17.me one is being replaced. The Government is wrong in its

:29:18. > :29:22.assumption that Carizza Ter`n - tenants with security of tenure can

:29:23. > :29:25.afford to buy a home or livd elsewhere. In recent study found

:29:26. > :29:30.that 91% of homes in England and Wales were unaffordable to

:29:31. > :29:36.home-buyers, even in some areas where they are the national average

:29:37. > :29:39.income of 26 and a half thotsand. Local authorities under the localism

:29:40. > :29:47.act of 2011 already have thd ability to offer flexible tendencies if they

:29:48. > :29:57.so choose. Again, I would stress to the Minister and his colleagues on

:29:58. > :30:02.the front bench opposite, why the degree of compulsion and whx attack

:30:03. > :30:06.council housing tenants in this way? Recently a woman living in ` council

:30:07. > :30:10.house in London told the Gu`rdian, in the long run, London needs as

:30:11. > :30:15.service workers as much as we need London. Most of us will not be able

:30:16. > :30:20.to survive the current rent`l prices. We are no longer able to

:30:21. > :30:23.share, no longer of the age, I will give way in a minute. We ard no

:30:24. > :30:28.longer of an age where we c`n share a flat with ten other peopld, this

:30:29. > :30:34.is a shift in the goalposts that believe people like me in a

:30:35. > :30:39.desperate conditions and I give way. My honourable friend mentioned a

:30:40. > :30:46.lady working in London who hs concerned about people like her for

:30:47. > :30:53.the economic reasons. Is my honourable friend aware of the

:30:54. > :30:56.concerns of the housing crisis as it is iterative by the London Gimber of

:30:57. > :30:59.commerce and industry saying that the housing crisis in London is

:31:00. > :31:08.affecting London's economy `s well as, as we know, the human cost of

:31:09. > :31:12.the housing crisis in London? My honourable friend makes an dxcellent

:31:13. > :31:14.point and it is one that we have pointed out to the Minister on a

:31:15. > :31:19.number of occasions and provided some evidence to him at comlittee

:31:20. > :31:25.stage of the bill. If I movd an to the final section on the right to

:31:26. > :31:30.buy. I give way to a honour`ble friend. I thank my honourable friend

:31:31. > :31:35.forgiving way and she is making a powerful case. She rightly lentions

:31:36. > :31:39.London, as do a number of colleagues because this is an acute issue. Is

:31:40. > :31:44.she not also concerned this is an issue up and down the country and

:31:45. > :31:50.the Government's approaches making a sham of their promise to support

:31:51. > :31:53.localism when the riding Russia over the ability of local guides us to

:31:54. > :32:02.use discretion in this important area? Indeed. I think, I totally

:32:03. > :32:06.agree with my honourable frhend and I am really pleased that shd has

:32:07. > :32:09.reminded me that we need to ensure that we look at the provisions of

:32:10. > :32:12.this section of the Bill and how they affect council tenants and

:32:13. > :32:19.local authorities up and down the country. Labour has tabled

:32:20. > :32:23.amendments to chapter one of part four to try and limit the ndgative

:32:24. > :32:27.impact of the rights to buy provisions, amendment 88 wotld look

:32:28. > :32:31.to protect certain types of specialised housing and amendment 89

:32:32. > :32:35.would acquire housing situation is offering the right to buy it to

:32:36. > :32:39.their tenants in London and elsewhere to reinvest all of the

:32:40. > :32:43.money in replacement afford`ble housing, including a guarantee to

:32:44. > :32:47.like-for-like warns in the same local authority area or London

:32:48. > :32:52.borough and that is an amendment that is mixed together with the

:32:53. > :32:54.honourable member for tooting. We have also tabled amendments that

:32:55. > :33:00.would prevent property sold under the right to buy to be convdrted

:33:01. > :33:04.into buy to let dwellings for a period of ten years and to dnsure

:33:05. > :33:08.the discount from homes sold on to the right to buy remains in

:33:09. > :33:13.perpetuity and that housing associations are able to carry out

:33:14. > :33:17.proper checks before proceeding with the right to buy. Yet again we find

:33:18. > :33:23.ourselves stretched for Thahland facing a chapter that has the

:33:24. > :33:30.potential to decimate the housing sector. As Max transfer timd and

:33:31. > :33:32.facing. Shelter has estimatd is a red 113,000 homes could be lost

:33:33. > :33:37.immediately through the provisions in the bill and the IMF has said

:33:38. > :33:41.that due to the schemes's ctrrent vagueness and the coalition's less

:33:42. > :33:45.than impressive record in ddlivering replacement housing under the right

:33:46. > :33:48.to buy, there is a risk that these policies will lead to a further

:33:49. > :33:53.depletion of the social housing stock. What seems to have complete

:33:54. > :33:58.consensus across the housing sector is that there is no guarantde for

:33:59. > :34:02.like-for-like replacement for homes that are sold under the right to

:34:03. > :34:07.buy. Of course, the Minister will tell me they are guaranteeing there

:34:08. > :34:12.will be a 2-1 placement for affordable housing, but that needs

:34:13. > :34:16.closer inspection. The Government's new definition for affordable

:34:17. > :34:23.housing contained in new cl`use 31 include starter homes, which can be

:34:24. > :34:26.up to ?250,000 outside London and 450,000 in the capital. Meaning that

:34:27. > :34:32.a housing association home sold onto the right to buy but can be

:34:33. > :34:37.considered to have been replaced by another house or another to homes

:34:38. > :34:44.that will be for sale at up to a quarter of ?1 million or allost half

:34:45. > :34:47.?1 million in London, this hs not replacing like-for-like in `ny terms

:34:48. > :34:53.of the imagination. I give way to my honourable friend. Can I th`nk my

:34:54. > :34:57.honourable friend forgiving way The definition of affordable holes has

:34:58. > :35:01.been described by one honourable member of this house as elastic and

:35:02. > :35:08.misleading. Would she agree that definition of injuries by the

:35:09. > :35:16.honourable member for Richmond, correctness and being a deldgate

:35:17. > :35:23.this week. My honourable frhend makes an excellent point and I think

:35:24. > :35:29.what we are trying to bring to the debate this afternoon is th`t the

:35:30. > :35:34.Government's proposals do not bring about a like-for-like replacement in

:35:35. > :35:45.terms of the right to buy provisions of this bill and, indeed, h`ving one

:35:46. > :35:48.home for social rent taken `way and two very Spencer for Mr Byers the

:35:49. > :35:57.replacement does not seem to add up to a sensible policy to most people.

:35:58. > :36:00.I think again we know the Government wants to push up the weights of

:36:01. > :36:05.homeownership, we too think there should be measures to promote

:36:06. > :36:12.homeownership but we do not think they should, the expense of the

:36:13. > :36:15.social red to the Merc renddring sector or local authority sdctor

:36:16. > :36:23.either. I will give way to ly honourable friend. -- social renting

:36:24. > :36:27.sector. The idea that a ?450,00 homes for sale can replace socially

:36:28. > :36:31.rented homes and do so not hn the same area, which as I understand

:36:32. > :36:35.from what the honourable melber for Richmond Park told the new Journal

:36:36. > :36:38.last week, he may wish to clarify that point, but getting rid of

:36:39. > :36:42.council homes in inner London to replace them with homes for sale

:36:43. > :36:49.advanced inflated prices in outer London or beyond it is unacceptable.

:36:50. > :36:54.-- at a vastly inflated. I totally agree with my honourable frhend and

:36:55. > :36:57.I agree what we are attempthng to do is show how unappealing the measures

:36:58. > :37:02.are that have been put forw`rd from the honourable gentleman for

:37:03. > :37:08.arrangements but also how the simply will not tackle the problem and

:37:09. > :37:11.Londoners. Mr Speaker, part for this bill is nothing but an attack on

:37:12. > :37:16.council housing on council tenants who have already suffered under the

:37:17. > :37:19.Government's bedroom tax and customs services, adding the biggest day

:37:20. > :37:23.provisions and reducing the stock available for allowing -- for rent

:37:24. > :37:27.amounts to a full-blown att`ck by the council housing sector `nd

:37:28. > :37:30.housing associations do not fare much better as the right to buy

:37:31. > :37:34.could deplete their stock whthout adequate replacement. Is a further

:37:35. > :37:39.attack on people on low incomes and most worryingly of all, will do very

:37:40. > :37:42.little and almost nothing to attack the housing crisis and addrdss the

:37:43. > :37:47.housing crisis that so many people are facing. We would like to remove

:37:48. > :37:51.most of part four of the bill, but simply don't have the time for the

:37:52. > :37:55.votes that would be needed to do so. As an indicator of our great

:37:56. > :38:03.displeasure, we are going to move, when it's appropriate, clause 1 22

:38:04. > :38:07.to a vote. And removing amendment 80 nine. What we are calling on the

:38:08. > :38:09.whole house to do is to rejdct this awful bill later today.

:38:10. > :38:20.The question is that the amdndment be made. Nicola Blackwood. H shan't

:38:21. > :38:24.detain the House long, I'm not sure anyone will hear me. I know that my

:38:25. > :38:29.constituents will expect me to raise the exceptional challenges of the

:38:30. > :38:41.Central Oxfordshire Housing Market. There are many measures in this Bill

:38:42. > :38:45.will be welcomed locally. This raft of policies to build more affordable

:38:46. > :38:50.houses, though commendable, are not enough. These houses do need to be

:38:51. > :39:01.built in areas that need thdm the most. The high cost areas are either

:39:02. > :39:05.where growth is the highest or where markets and sites are hard to come

:39:06. > :39:09.by. In some areas like Oxford, both is happening and high growth is

:39:10. > :39:13.becoming constrained by failing local housing markets. I know many

:39:14. > :39:20.colleagues have local difficulties with housing so I will expl`in our

:39:21. > :39:28.challenges briefly. Median full time earnings are now ?26,500 in Oxford.

:39:29. > :39:34.House prices are 16 times the earnings of the average worker. The

:39:35. > :39:40.Centre for Cities Analysis has found that Oxford to be the least

:39:41. > :39:44.affordable city in England. The number of people who own thdir own

:39:45. > :39:48.home in Oxford is well below the national average. Median prhvate

:39:49. > :39:54.rent is ?300 a week, which hs over half of median earnings. And 30 of

:39:55. > :40:00.residents rent compared to 25% in London. The House of Commons Library

:40:01. > :40:06.has found that Oxford City Council delivered zero affordable homes in

:40:07. > :40:11.2013/14 and only 20 in 2014/15. They rank as the fourth worst in the

:40:12. > :40:17.country for delivering of housing of any tenure. We will require in

:40:18. > :40:22.Oxford 1,400 homes to be delivered each year until 2031. Now, we do

:40:23. > :40:28.have lots of specific local problems. We have relativelx few

:40:29. > :40:33.brownfield sites. And we have all sorts of challenges in terms of

:40:34. > :40:37.two-thirds of land being in private ownership which does complicate

:40:38. > :40:40.active public managership. The city has a relatively low-densitx and

:40:41. > :40:46.to the amount of protected `nd to the amount of protected `nd

:40:47. > :40:50.listed buildings. The city has 00 hectares of greenbelt land within

:40:51. > :40:53.the local authority. Nevertheless, when we compare Oxford with

:40:54. > :40:59.Cambridge, which I think is a reasonable comparison, Cambridge

:41:00. > :41:03.provided 550 affordable homds in 2013/14 and 320 in 2014/15. I think

:41:04. > :41:08.it is reasonable for us to call for more to be done. This is catsing

:41:09. > :41:16.significant problems to our local private and public sector. One in

:41:17. > :41:26.two senior academic appointlents fail due to the housing crisis. 30%

:41:27. > :41:29.of local businesses cite hotsing costs as their top barrier to

:41:30. > :41:33.recruitment. The failure to build homes where they are needed by

:41:34. > :41:36.cities constrains growth. This matters to the national economy as

:41:37. > :41:40.well because these cities are the most productive and have thd most

:41:41. > :41:43.jobs. When people cannot afford to live in them, they cannot access

:41:44. > :41:48.these jobs, businesses cannot sell to them and the economy suffers We

:41:49. > :41:53.aren't getting this right ydt. Between 2008 and 2013 there were

:41:54. > :41:57.more homes built in Barnslex t second most affordable city in Great

:41:58. > :42:01.Britain, in which to buy given local incomes, than in London or Oxford,

:42:02. > :42:05.the least affordable cities. More of these homes need to be built where

:42:06. > :42:10.affordability is lowest and where demand is highest in our most

:42:11. > :42:14.successful cities. In justifying Government Amendment 112, and

:42:15. > :42:17.acknowledging the exception`lism of the London housing market, the

:42:18. > :42:21.Minister has accepted that housing in Britain's most economically

:42:22. > :42:25.successful cities is the le`st affordable and that we need policies

:42:26. > :42:29.which target our affordable housing building efforts to our least

:42:30. > :42:33.affordable areas. It is little more than common-sense but all of us have

:42:34. > :42:37.known too many occasions whdn common-sense has fallen by the

:42:38. > :42:41.wayside in our legislative process. Amendment 112 will ensure that

:42:42. > :42:45.enough receipts from the sale of high value homes go to the GLA for

:42:46. > :42:50.them to build two affordabld homes for every one sold. Obviously, the

:42:51. > :42:55.receipts left with the GLA will have to be of sufficiently high value to

:42:56. > :42:59.ensure that. I'm pleased for Londoners and I congratulatd the

:43:00. > :43:03.honourable Member for Richmond Mark in his efforts to secure thhs very

:43:04. > :43:07.important measure for Londoners This is possible for Londondrs

:43:08. > :43:11.largely because house prices are so high and there are huge amotnts of

:43:12. > :43:14.money generated for sale, so it is easy to fund two for one without

:43:15. > :43:20.putting too big a dent in the revenue stream going to central

:43:21. > :43:25.government. In my view, which is unsurprising, given my bias towards

:43:26. > :43:29.Oxford, this should apply to other high-value areas like Oxford, Bath

:43:30. > :43:33.and St Albans. This is how ht might work in our case. My understanding

:43:34. > :43:37.is that around 12% of counchl homes in Oxford would be deemed as

:43:38. > :43:42.high-value and so the counchl would be under a duty to consider selling

:43:43. > :43:49.them when they become vacant. This works out at 29 homes a year to be

:43:50. > :43:52.sold. Our estimates suggests that 29 council homes sold on the open

:43:53. > :43:58.market each year would generate ?8.6 million in receipts so a sililar two

:43:59. > :44:03.for one provision would provide would ensure that ?8.6 millhon stays

:44:04. > :44:10.with the Council for them to provide two extra units for every one sold.

:44:11. > :44:15.Say each high-value council home for ?293,000 each which means ?8.9

:44:16. > :44:19.million is divided into 21. There would be enough going to central

:44:20. > :44:27.government but we would be `ble to provide two for one for Oxford.

:44:28. > :44:34.Amendment 112 (6) gives the Secretary of State the power, which

:44:35. > :44:39.the honourable Member for Rhchmond Park has so valiantly provided for

:44:40. > :44:44.London. That has been writtdn explicitly into the Bill. Stch an

:44:45. > :44:49.exception would be essential for Oxford to ensure we have affordable

:44:50. > :44:53.housing but I remain to be convinced this power will be sufficient to

:44:54. > :45:05.ensure it is delivered following the challenges we have had. The median

:45:06. > :45:11.house price in St Albans is ?392,000. I share her concerns how

:45:12. > :45:13.deliverable it is. We are rhght in areas that suffer similarly with

:45:14. > :45:19.high prices like London to push for it. I hope the Minister takds that

:45:20. > :45:23.into account today. I thank the honourable lady for her intdrvention

:45:24. > :45:26.and I agree with her that the Minister has been very generous in

:45:27. > :45:29.the time that he has taken to discuss with us, and I'm gr`teful to

:45:30. > :45:36.him for offering to have medtings with us to discuss how we c`n

:45:37. > :45:41.implement the measures in 102 ( ) to ensure these measures will deliver

:45:42. > :45:45.for areas like Oxford and other high-cost areas to ensure this

:45:46. > :45:49.commitment will be implemented as a matter of urgency and will `ctually

:45:50. > :45:54.work in practice for areas like mine where residents do face a gdnuine

:45:55. > :45:59.housing crisis and do face genuine hardship on a daily basis. @long

:46:00. > :46:03.with colleagues from high-cost areas like Bath and Cambridge and St

:46:04. > :46:07.Albans, we are clear if necdssary, we will look to the Lords to ensure

:46:08. > :46:10.that these measures do deliver for our constituents because we are

:46:11. > :46:14.clear that affordable housing does need to be targeted to high,cost

:46:15. > :46:25.areas where we face the highest challenges in the country. Thank

:46:26. > :46:30.you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in favour of Amendment 89 in mx name

:46:31. > :46:34.and in the name of my honourable friend, the Member for Wentworth,

:46:35. > :46:39.and other honourable friends. Colleagues will forgive me `nd I

:46:40. > :46:45.hope understand if I focus ly comments on London. Mr Speaker, the

:46:46. > :46:55.Bill before us will do nothhng to help solve the housing crishs facing

:46:56. > :47:00.London. In fact, on balance - somebody has heckled describing the

:47:01. > :47:05.Bill as "rubbish". In fact, on balance, the likelihood is ht will

:47:06. > :47:10.make the crisis even worse. As a result, London's famed soci`l mix is

:47:11. > :47:14.under threat. Many parts of inner London could be hollowed out with

:47:15. > :47:19.the city becoming the preserve of the very rich. And don't just take

:47:20. > :47:24.my word for it. When the Government published this Bill, the he`ding in

:47:25. > :47:31.the Evening Standard editorhal was "don't lose social homes to fund

:47:32. > :47:36.right to buy". I kept a copx of the newspaper from the day. The

:47:37. > :47:40.editorial said, "The most sdrious objection to the Government's

:47:41. > :47:45.proposal to allow housing association tenants to buy their

:47:46. > :47:50.homes at a discount is that its effect would be to diminish the

:47:51. > :47:55.amount of social housing in London at a time when demand is

:47:56. > :48:00.increasing." To fund the discount, councils would be obliged to sell

:48:01. > :48:07.off higher-priced council homes and given the level of property prices

:48:08. > :48:15.in London, this could potentially be disastrous in its effects. The

:48:16. > :48:25.Evening Standard editorial. I will give way. He is quite right to quote

:48:26. > :48:31.the Evening Standard. For m`ny inner London authorities it means the

:48:32. > :48:39.majority of their council stock would be sold. That is what the

:48:40. > :48:52.Government intends. I have spent a lot of time visiting all 32 boroughs

:48:53. > :48:59.in London this morning. I w`s in Camden this morning. Mr Spe`ker

:49:00. > :49:02.nobody is against the aspir`tion of homeownership, but changes hn this

:49:03. > :49:09.Bill are required even at this late stage in order to minimise the

:49:10. > :49:12.impact on London. That is why I have tabled and supported amendmdnts to

:49:13. > :49:17.the Bill all of which to date the Government have opposed. I `m hoping

:49:18. > :49:23.for the sake of Londoners this changes today. Mr Speaker, @mendment

:49:24. > :49:28.89 is the like-for-like replacement amendment. It would say to housing

:49:29. > :49:33.associations across the country if you are going to go ahead whth right

:49:34. > :49:38.to buy, you have to spend the money raised from the sale locallx on

:49:39. > :49:44.replacement, affordable housing By the way, it's been estimated that

:49:45. > :49:48.the sell-off could lead to over ?800 million a year being lost from

:49:49. > :49:52.London unless there are proper guarantees put in place to keep

:49:53. > :50:00.these receipts in London. At this point, I'd say to the House, be wary

:50:01. > :50:04.of imitations. Other members, other honourable members, are tryhng to

:50:05. > :50:08.fool Londoners by saying thdir amendment to the Bill will protect

:50:09. > :50:13.the city's affordable homes. I refer, of course to Amendment 1 2,

:50:14. > :50:17.in the name of the Secretarx of State, but which cosily the Prime

:50:18. > :50:25.Minister and the honourable Member for Richmond Park announced last

:50:26. > :50:28.week. Whilst we are on, can I pause to congratulate the honourable

:50:29. > :50:33.Member for Richmond Park to becoming a father again this week. I'm sure

:50:34. > :50:37.the whole House which him and his family our very best wishes. I say

:50:38. > :50:41.to honourable members, and to Londoners outside of this chamber,

:50:42. > :50:45.don't be tricked by the spin and hot air coming from the honourable

:50:46. > :50:49.Member for Richmond Park and the Government on this. Don't allow the

:50:50. > :50:56.wool to be pulled over your eyes because all is not as the Tories

:50:57. > :51:01.would have you believe. It hs a con. For a start, Amendment 112 tries to

:51:02. > :51:06.make palatable the Government's plan to sell off council homes in London.

:51:07. > :51:11.The editorial from the Evenhng Standard that I referred to earlier

:51:12. > :51:17.set out three tests to judgd the impact on the Government's Housing

:51:18. > :51:22.Bill. These are a useful test. Let's have a look at how both these

:51:23. > :51:28.amendments measure up to thdir three tests. First, the Evening Standard

:51:29. > :51:34.said it is absolutely necessary to keep money raised by the sale of

:51:35. > :51:42.London council houses in London Test one. Amendment 112 cle`rly

:51:43. > :51:46.fails on this front. The amdndment announced with great fanfard last

:51:47. > :51:52.week fails to ringfence the money for London which means monex raised

:51:53. > :51:57.by selling off London's council homes will still flood out of the

:51:58. > :52:02.capital to subsidise the Government's national right,to-buy

:52:03. > :52:07.scheme. This contrasts with Amendment 89, my amendment, which

:52:08. > :52:12.will ringfence all the monex from London housing association homes

:52:13. > :52:24.being sold under right to bty in London for new affordable homes The

:52:25. > :52:28.second test. The Evening St`ndard said it would be a mixed bldssing if

:52:29. > :52:34.they lost their housing association stock even if it meant more council

:52:35. > :52:40.homes being built in outer London. Amendment 112 fails on this front.

:52:41. > :52:41.It opens the door for homes to be replaced outside the borough where

:52:42. > :52:52.they have been sold off. If there was any doubt this was the

:52:53. > :52:58.case the honourable member of the rich and Park admitted just last

:52:59. > :53:02.week the truth about the Government's on amendment, his own

:53:03. > :53:07.amendment. He owned up that inner London would be hollowed out under

:53:08. > :53:12.his amendment. He said, and I quote, it was a mathematical obstacle to

:53:13. > :53:20.replace social housing in C`mden and other boroughs like Westminster

:53:21. > :53:27.Chelsea, under the money proposals that he has. There you have it. An

:53:28. > :53:33.admission the honourable melber for original part's amendment whll let

:53:34. > :53:39.London be hollowed out and compare that to amendment 89, a replacement

:53:40. > :53:44.like-for-like whole is guar`nteed in the borough where the original home

:53:45. > :53:48.is sold before the rest of the money is sent -- spent on a more

:53:49. > :53:54.affordable housing across the capital. My amendment doing exactly

:53:55. > :53:59.what it says on the 10th. The third test set out in the Evening

:54:00. > :54:02.Standard, it said a healthy housing sector is a mix of private

:54:03. > :54:08.ownership, private rentals `nd social housing. The Governmdnt in

:54:09. > :54:16.its attempt to promote homeownership should not forget the rest. Yet the

:54:17. > :54:18.reality is, and amendment 102, the so-called affordable homes they

:54:19. > :54:27.promise to build could all be homes for sale at nearly half ?1 lillion.

:54:28. > :54:31.Can I tell politely the gentleman for Richmond Park in few people s

:54:32. > :54:39.eyes are homes of ?450,000 affordable. We know just how

:54:40. > :54:41.interested the Prime Ministdr himself is of getting hung tp on

:54:42. > :54:45.what is truly affordable and what what is truly affordable and what

:54:46. > :54:51.isn't. The response of the Prime Minister last week to those who

:54:52. > :54:57.dared suggest that ?450,000 was not really affordable was quite

:54:58. > :55:05.remarkable. The Prime Minister said, and I quote, people get too hung up

:55:06. > :55:11.on these definitions. The ddfinition the Prime Minister said, thd

:55:12. > :55:18.definition of affordable hotse is a house that someone can afford to buy

:55:19. > :55:24.or afford to rent. Just think about it for a minute. Affordable housing

:55:25. > :55:30.is a house that someone can afford to buy or afford to rent. On that

:55:31. > :55:39.measure, some of those expensive homes in London, such as thd ?2 .5

:55:40. > :55:47.million Hyde Park mention sold last year or affordable! Because someone

:55:48. > :55:51.has been able to buy them. This shows just how far from reality the

:55:52. > :55:58.honourable member for Richmond Park and this Government are and how out

:55:59. > :56:03.of touch they are with the housing crisis. The honourable membdr for

:56:04. > :56:08.Richmond Park admitted to the Camden new Journal last week that the term

:56:09. > :56:13.affordable was, and I'm putting this literally, the Odjidja-Ofoe -- the

:56:14. > :56:17.term affordable has become dlastic and misleading and at that point we

:56:18. > :56:25.agreed. I would give way to the honourable member who has bden

:56:26. > :56:29.heckling me loudly and rudely. I thank you for giving way. I'm sure

:56:30. > :56:34.he would never heckle from ` sedentary position. Can I point out

:56:35. > :56:39.the starter provisions give a 2 % price cut every first-time buyer,

:56:40. > :56:44.which is welcome, and in Croydon, my borough, the average 20% discount

:56:45. > :56:48.means a starter home surely be about 220 or 20 ?50,000, which I'l sure

:56:49. > :56:57.even the honourable member opposite would agree is extremely affordable.

:56:58. > :57:03.Really? It usually takes a parliamentarian used car out of

:57:04. > :57:11.touch, he has done it in six months. -- years to become. And I dhd say

:57:12. > :57:17.Shelter have said that the starter home of ?450,000, you have to earn

:57:18. > :57:25.an annual salary of ?77,000 and have a deposit of ?98,000. Put aside the

:57:26. > :57:29.nurse, the junior doctor, the bus driver, people who get a st`rter job

:57:30. > :57:33.in the City of London in ond of the top FTSE 100 companies cannot afford

:57:34. > :57:41.one of the Government's starter homes. That is out of touch. Can I

:57:42. > :57:48.just say, I will give way one last time to the leader of the Lhberal

:57:49. > :57:53.Democrats. He makes a good case What I would just ask him to do and

:57:54. > :57:57.and why he's focusing on London we must not allow the Government to

:57:58. > :58:01.pretend that London is its Pacific and solitary special case. There are

:58:02. > :58:04.many parts of the country, particularly the late to strict

:58:05. > :58:08.Yorkshire Dales, many rural areas where house prices are incrddibly

:58:09. > :58:11.expensive, wages are low and the availability of social rentdd

:58:12. > :58:14.housing is essential to sochal makes in those communities. Does he agree

:58:15. > :58:20.this is a problem not just hn London? Let me to say to thd

:58:21. > :58:23.honourable gentleman, I agrde completely with his intervention but

:58:24. > :58:28.I want to go further, I don't think the Government is making a special

:58:29. > :58:34.case for London, if you combined the Chancellor Bosma Autumn Statement

:58:35. > :58:37.with the, I think the Government has it in for London rather than the

:58:38. > :58:44.Government being a special case As I said, I was in Camden tod`y. The

:58:45. > :58:53.average cost of a property to rent in Hamdan is 73% of the average

:58:54. > :58:57.income in Camden, so much for the mayoral candidate being in touch

:58:58. > :59:02.with Londoners from the Conservative Party. We also discovered l`st week

:59:03. > :59:06.that the Government is watering down the definition of what is affordable

:59:07. > :59:14.to include starter homes th`t cost 17 times the average British salary.

:59:15. > :59:19.Compare that to amendment 88 in my name, this would guarantee ` new

:59:20. > :59:24.home for social rented to rdplace that sold, in short, amendmdnt 12

:59:25. > :59:29.honourable member for Richmond Park, honourable member for Richmond Park,

:59:30. > :59:31.elastic and misleading. The amendment I've pitched out hs clear

:59:32. > :59:36.and firm. It meets the tests that and firm. It meets the tests that

:59:37. > :59:40.Londoners expect and I would urge members, especially anyone who

:59:41. > :59:46.claims to understand the hotsing crisis in London, anyone who helps

:59:47. > :59:52.to fix it, who wants to help fix it to ignore the overblown clahms about

:59:53. > :00:04.amendment 112 and instead stpport my amendments, and amendment 80 nine.

:00:05. > :00:08.-- 89. I will be very brief because we don't have much time to discuss

:00:09. > :00:11.this. Clearly we are speaking about a national issue and a national

:00:12. > :00:17.concern but there can be no doubt housing is the number one issue for

:00:18. > :00:21.London, prices last year rose around 10% on average. The average price

:00:22. > :00:27.now every first-time buyer hn London is over ?400,000. I don't think

:00:28. > :00:31.anyone can argue that Londoners today are being priced out of their

:00:32. > :00:34.own city, it is not justice is a problem and the point has bden made

:00:35. > :00:40.in relation to another city, never it is a jeopardy, it jeopardises

:00:41. > :00:45.London's economy, it is no longer is dissociation and the bottom line is

:00:46. > :00:47.we need to build more. We nded to build the people across the entire

:00:48. > :00:50.income spectrum. It's no good having a polarised approach, with dasy

:00:51. > :00:54.results of the optional 100 social results of the optional 100 social

:00:55. > :00:58.housing on the other. We nedd to ensure the market can accomlodate

:00:59. > :01:03.young professionals, key workers and the like, people who perhaps do not

:01:04. > :01:07.qualify for social housing. I'm pleased by the interventions we had

:01:08. > :01:10.last week my emphasis on sh`red ownership that will work around the

:01:11. > :01:14.country, but particularly it will impact here in London. The London

:01:15. > :01:18.version of the helped by, is very successful nationally, less

:01:19. > :01:21.successful in London becausd we live in a different world, prices are so

:01:22. > :01:26.out of kilter with the rest of the country that this person look -

:01:27. > :01:31.that this is book offer will have an impact and the 2-1 amendment, I have

:01:32. > :01:34.some questions for my honourable friend, he has tabled an amdndment

:01:35. > :01:39.that two new affordable homds will be built for every single hhgh-value

:01:40. > :01:44.council warned that is sold as a hot words of the extension of the right

:01:45. > :01:46.to buy. This is an extension of the amendment and I want to sincerely

:01:47. > :01:51.thank my honourable friend for his diligence in making this work. One

:01:52. > :01:55.moment please. Can I ask my honourable friend, will he said --

:01:56. > :01:59.update the house when he wr`ps up at the end of this bundle, can he

:02:00. > :02:02.update the house at this discussion is of London's local authorhties

:02:03. > :02:07.about how they will be able to work together to deliver the homds London

:02:08. > :02:10.is? I know he's taken part hn discussions but council leaders from

:02:11. > :02:14.all the different parties, both in and out of London, it would be good

:02:15. > :02:17.to have an update on that shortly the stockpiles ask my honourable

:02:18. > :02:23.friend about the housing is a that are essential in the delivery of the

:02:24. > :02:28.next generation of homes, that the G 15 have committed already, H

:02:29. > :02:33.believe, delivering a one-for-one replacement of all homes sold. This

:02:34. > :02:37.also told me they could delhver a great deal more, even, potentially,

:02:38. > :02:41.just one moment, they would even be willing and able to replace each

:02:42. > :02:45.home is sold with two new ones, provided the Government givds them

:02:46. > :02:48.the flexibility is they are asking for and, more importantly, `ccess to

:02:49. > :02:53.public sector land. Will my honourable friend commits to looking

:02:54. > :02:57.carefully at those flexibilhties that the houses of users ard asking

:02:58. > :03:00.for and when he looked at the most critical issue, access to that

:03:01. > :03:03.public sector land, as he knows because he can take some crddit for

:03:04. > :03:08.it along with my honourable friend the member for Uxbridge, London land

:03:09. > :03:12.commission is now alive, it is providing an infantry of all

:03:13. > :03:16.publicly horned Brownfield land in London and we will have the figures

:03:17. > :03:20.shortly. We do not have all the details yet but we know there is an

:03:21. > :03:24.enormous amount of public Brownfield land that could be developed, if you

:03:25. > :03:28.give me one moment. We know that to build the homes we need, th`t lad

:03:29. > :03:32.absolutely has to be used so it would be useful to know when he

:03:33. > :03:37.wraps up if we could have some kind of likely timetable, when whll we

:03:38. > :03:41.have to picture and what will be the process of losing that led to the

:03:42. > :03:44.housing such Asians and devdlopers, and finally, I said I would let my

:03:45. > :03:49.honourable friend in and I will let him for me is not before I finish

:03:50. > :03:53.was a Housing associations. Does he agree that the forced sale of Eddie

:03:54. > :03:56.council properties is is a good or bad idea, but if it is to go ahead

:03:57. > :04:00.does he agree that those properties should be replaced with

:04:01. > :04:05.like-for-like in the same local authority area? Is that his

:04:06. > :04:12.position? As my honourable friend knows, I stood, honourable lember,

:04:13. > :04:16.sorry, I stood on a manifesto that extends to a commitment that

:04:17. > :04:20.includes sending right to bty two houses logician tennis, that is the

:04:21. > :04:23.right policy to enable hundreds of thousands of people to achidve

:04:24. > :04:27.co-ownership who would not be unable to achieve so. That would not be

:04:28. > :04:31.possible without the sale of high-value council homes. That it

:04:32. > :04:36.differs up if, as a consequdnce each sale leads to two new portable

:04:37. > :04:42.homes being built I would rdgard that as being good. I will not take

:04:43. > :04:44.another. I took the likely intervention. Final question to my

:04:45. > :04:52.right honourable friend, wotld he commits to ensuring that thd public

:04:53. > :04:57.bodies can take the widest possible and longest term view of best value

:04:58. > :05:01.when releasing land. This is a point raised time and time again by the

:05:02. > :05:05.developers, great and small, and the housing associations and without a

:05:06. > :05:12.redefinition, and expanded definition. To play on that point.

:05:13. > :05:20.The National office study on the disposal of public land showed there

:05:21. > :05:22.is enough land sold off in the last transfer 109,500 potential loans but

:05:23. > :05:25.does he agree that people do not live in potential homes, delivering

:05:26. > :05:31.actual homes and making surd when the sale takes place that there is a

:05:32. > :05:37.plan in the public interest to ensure something happens in a timely

:05:38. > :05:40.manner is essential? This is absolute essential if we ard going

:05:41. > :05:44.to get the best value of thd publicly available and that will not

:05:45. > :05:48.result from simply a rapid-fire sect, it will require much lore good

:05:49. > :05:52.viewing and strategic view by the public bodies and I hope to see more

:05:53. > :05:55.of that as a consequence of this covenant plasma intervention. I

:05:56. > :05:58.thank my honourable friend `gain for the work he has put into delivering

:05:59. > :06:01.the July from one amendment, I'm grateful and I think it does ensure

:06:02. > :06:12.that this bill words from London. Thank you. Firstly, well, -, welcome

:06:13. > :06:17.to the amendments the Government are good and that the select colmittee

:06:18. > :06:21.announced before Christmas leaning the pay to stay scheme was going to

:06:22. > :06:26.voluntary housing associations. I think that was a sensible move. My

:06:27. > :06:31.argument would be that what is good enough housing should be Goodenough

:06:32. > :06:37.for councils as well and thdy should be discretion on the pay to stay

:06:38. > :06:42.scheme for councils to oper`te within their housing revenud

:06:43. > :06:45.accounts, which receive no subsidy at all from the general taxpayer.

:06:46. > :06:49.That is something the Government could easily do without affdcting

:06:50. > :06:52.the general public finances whatsoever. In the spirit of

:06:53. > :06:57.localism, it's something thd Government should do. In terms of

:06:58. > :07:03.the sale of high-value local authority houses, we live in a

:07:04. > :07:08.different world in Sheffield from the prices in London. When we talk

:07:09. > :07:13.about high view and value houses, the Prime Minister got alarled when

:07:14. > :07:17.he saw council houses being valued at ?1 million. Most of the houses in

:07:18. > :07:22.Sheffield sold under this legislation are family homes, good

:07:23. > :07:30.quality family homes, that would get around 100 to ?150,000. The reality

:07:31. > :07:35.of the Government's puzzles is that all the vacant houses in certain

:07:36. > :07:39.parts of Sheffield will be sold off under this legislation becatse the

:07:40. > :07:43.high value of houses will tdnd to be in the high-value areas. And this

:07:44. > :07:48.means that the people on thd council waiting list there will be dntire

:07:49. > :07:51.parts of cities like Sheffidld were, in the future, there will bd no

:07:52. > :07:56.vacant properties at all, for people to rent. You can be on the waiting

:07:57. > :08:00.list for the homes and the wait will be forever because no vacant

:08:01. > :08:05.properties will ever become available. The Chancellor honourable

:08:06. > :08:08.gentleman chances of the property is being replaced on a like-for-like

:08:09. > :08:13.basis in those areas in a chty like Sheffield for the's the chances of.

:08:14. > :08:16.After the discount for the right to buy plasma have been funded they

:08:17. > :08:19.were simply not be enough money left to replace one social rented

:08:20. > :08:24.property with another social rented property. I simply said to the

:08:25. > :08:29.Government, I accept the Government has a mandate to bring in the right

:08:30. > :08:33.to buy the housing associathon tenants. That is the policy they

:08:34. > :08:38.were elected on. What I would say is, it will be much fairer that

:08:39. > :08:44.policy were funded by the gdneral taxpayer as a whole rather than

:08:45. > :08:49.funded solely by respective social housing tenants who, as a rdsult of

:08:50. > :08:53.this policy, the council selling off their high-value properties, will

:08:54. > :08:57.not have a home to rent in the future. It is unfair that only one

:08:58. > :09:01.section of the community, a more deprived section, should have to be

:09:02. > :09:04.the only ones that find and pay for this particular Government policy.

:09:05. > :09:09.It is totally unfair that those councils that have sold off their

:09:10. > :09:14.properties in a stock transfer will have to make no contribution at all

:09:15. > :09:20.towards this policy and that the totality of the policy that funds

:09:21. > :09:26.house association sales all over the country should be only paid for by

:09:27. > :09:32.some councils and not by others Why is that the Government thinks that a

:09:33. > :09:37.policy that is national in nature should only be funded by sole

:09:38. > :09:40.councils that happen to ret`in their council housing stock? Therd is no

:09:41. > :09:44.logic for that. There will be a lot more agreement with the housing

:09:45. > :09:47.association right to buy and its consequences if Government were to

:09:48. > :09:52.change this aspect of how that policy were funded.

:09:53. > :09:57.I want to go on to the security of tenure and this rather nastx

:09:58. > :10:02.mean-spirited Schedule 4 th`t the Government brought in under

:10:03. > :10:07.Committee Stage. Why are cotncil tenants deemed to be second,class?

:10:08. > :10:11.Why has the Government got ht in for council tenants? When the Committee

:10:12. > :10:15.looked at the private rented sector in the last Parliament, it was

:10:16. > :10:18.obvious, one of the biggest problems people have with the privatd sector

:10:19. > :10:23.is the lack of security. Wh`t we should be doing is trying to give

:10:24. > :10:29.greater security for people in the private rented sector. If you are

:10:30. > :10:35.going to remain there, they need greater security. Why has the

:10:36. > :10:40.Government, instead of giving greater security to private sector

:10:41. > :10:44.tenants, doing the opposite and transferring the problems to the

:10:45. > :10:48.council sector and bringing insecurity to council tenants? What

:10:49. > :10:51.is the logic of that? Let's look at what the impact will be. Let's look

:10:52. > :10:56.for families. This is about families, not just moving home, but

:10:57. > :10:59.potentially having to uproot, change their jobs, find another job if they

:11:00. > :11:04.can, and kids moving school. There is nothing more damaging to the

:11:05. > :11:09.prospects for kids for the future lives that they may have th`n having

:11:10. > :11:12.their education constantly disrupted by having to move house and from one

:11:13. > :11:19.school to another. And that is what the Government is moving to do by

:11:20. > :11:23.bringing in this policy. My honourable friend is making a very

:11:24. > :11:28.powerful speech, as he alwaxs does. And of course this issue is not just

:11:29. > :11:33.going to affect individual families, but entire communities becatse if

:11:34. > :11:37.families feel that they may have to move on within very short pdriods of

:11:38. > :11:41.time, what incentive is there to get involved in your local commtnity to

:11:42. > :11:48.put down roots, to build colmunity ties if they have to be cut

:11:49. > :11:52.unnecessarily soon? I'm surd she can't read my handwriting, but it is

:11:53. > :11:56.very difficult at the best of times, but that is my next point. This

:11:57. > :11:59.isn't just about individuals and their own homes, individuals are

:12:00. > :12:03.part of a wider community, they may have joined their wider ten`nts

:12:04. > :12:06.association, and then they `re told your home has gone, so has the

:12:07. > :12:13.community life, and the comlunity as well loses out as well as those

:12:14. > :12:17.individuals. Let's take a pdnsioner who is retired, who decides they

:12:18. > :12:21.want to move on to a bungalow, or flat, which is more suitabld for

:12:22. > :12:25.their immediate needs. That pensioner in a secure counchl

:12:26. > :12:29.property is now faced with the prospect, because I think this

:12:30. > :12:36.legislation applies to people of retirement age, the Minister could

:12:37. > :12:40.confirm that. They face this prospect of moving on to pensioner

:12:41. > :12:44.accommodation. That will not have a secure tenancy attached to ht. We

:12:45. > :12:49.are asking people to take the risk of moving from a secure ten`ncy in a

:12:50. > :12:53.family home, to move to a pdnsioner accommodation without that security.

:12:54. > :12:58.That is going to undermine lobility and mean that less family homes

:12:59. > :13:01.become available and those pensioners can't move on to more

:13:02. > :13:07.suitable accommodation. If they do, they face a prospect of being turfed

:13:08. > :13:11.out of that accommodation at the will and wish of their landlord

:13:12. > :13:17.This can't be right to put pensioners in this position. I just

:13:18. > :13:23.say to the... On that point, one of the arguments put forward in support

:13:24. > :13:27.of the bedroom tax is it will encourage people to move to smaller

:13:28. > :13:31.properties when opportunitids arise. Isn't what you have said

:13:32. > :13:36.inconsistent with the aims of that policy? It is going to discourage

:13:37. > :13:40.people moving from a secure tenancy into an insecure tenancy of a

:13:41. > :13:45.smaller property. I must sax to the Government, if that is their

:13:46. > :13:48.intention, to try and ensurd that people who have more space hn their

:13:49. > :13:53.home than the Government thhnks they need, the answer is to build more

:13:54. > :13:58.properties in the first place, so we have more socially rented properties

:13:59. > :14:05.for people who need them. Ldt's take this down to an individual

:14:06. > :14:08.situation. A family sat arotnd their breakfast table waiting for the

:14:09. > :14:14.postman to come, or a pensioner couple in their home, who are now in

:14:15. > :14:18.one of these fixed-term ten`ncies, waiting for the postman to come

:14:19. > :14:22.bringing a letter from their local council or housing associathon. This

:14:23. > :14:27.might be called the Lewis ldtter when it drops on people's doormats.

:14:28. > :14:33.That letter, when they open it with trembling hands, will tell them

:14:34. > :14:41.without any forewarning, after a period of six to nine months,

:14:42. > :14:45.whether they can stay in thdir home - these are people's homes `t the

:14:46. > :14:57.end of the day - they can stay in their home at the women the whim of

:14:58. > :15:02.the council, or be whether they will have no home at all from thd council

:15:03. > :15:06.in the future. Just feel thd tension in that household when that Lewis

:15:07. > :15:10.letter drops on the doormat and people open it. Even if the answer

:15:11. > :15:13.is, yes, you have been a good tenant, yes, you can stay in your

:15:14. > :15:16.home for another five years, the trauma this is going to put people

:15:17. > :15:21.through is beyond measure. H just hope the Government will thhnk

:15:22. > :15:24.again. This is mean-minded `nd dreadful, this particular schedule

:15:25. > :15:31.of the legislation. I hope the Government will withdraw it. If they

:15:32. > :15:34.won't, I hope the amendment my honourable friend makes will be

:15:35. > :15:41.successful so we can give everyone the security of tenure that they

:15:42. > :15:45.richly deserve. I have kept the House quite up-to-date in rdlation

:15:46. > :15:50.to my own struggles to get on to the property ladder as a 29-year-old. I

:15:51. > :15:54.managed to get myself on to the property ladder with my partner

:15:55. > :15:59.before the Christmas recess. I have to say when listening to thd speech

:16:00. > :16:04.from the right honourable Mdmber for Tooting in relation to lack of house

:16:05. > :16:07.building, I'm afraid I have been struggling to get on the property

:16:08. > :16:10.ladder, like thousands of other young professionals around this

:16:11. > :16:15.country, and he was a member of that Government which built far fewer

:16:16. > :16:19.houses than we are building today. And thousands of my constittents in

:16:20. > :16:24.Bath, in one of the least affordable cities in the UK, are also

:16:25. > :16:31.struggling to get on to the property ladder. We need to be buildhng more

:16:32. > :16:36.houses now. To anyone that has ever visited Bath, Bath is one of the

:16:37. > :16:41.most expensive places to live in relation to local earnings ratios.

:16:42. > :16:50.In fact, in relation to the recent report by Lloyds Bank, and the

:16:51. > :16:56.latest afford -- affordabilhty review, Bath is ranked as the sixth

:16:57. > :17:02.most expensive place to livd in the UK. Furthermore, with much-needed

:17:03. > :17:06.rail electrification, which is under way on the Great Western Mahn Line,

:17:07. > :17:09.improving train journey timds into London will be unsurprising to the

:17:10. > :17:15.Minister that my constituents will fear the cost of buying a home will

:17:16. > :17:18.become more unaffordable and this will force Bath residents to wait

:17:19. > :17:22.even longer before they can get on to the property ladder. The news

:17:23. > :17:25.that this Government is comlitted to increasing the number of affordable

:17:26. > :17:31.homes in London where gener`tion rent seems to have taken hold,

:17:32. > :17:34.changes like this proves thhs is the party of opportunity, helping

:17:35. > :17:37.everyone to reach those important life goals, such as buying their own

:17:38. > :17:40.home. Therefore, I welcome the announcement that the Government

:17:41. > :17:44.will ensure that in London two affordable home also be built for

:17:45. > :17:47.every unit of high value th`t is sold in the city. May I also

:17:48. > :17:54.congratulate my honourable friend for Richmond Park as well for

:17:55. > :18:00.championing this cause. And I am certain he will make a superb Mayor

:18:01. > :18:03.of London. I'm grateful. He is rightly highlighting the ch`llenges

:18:04. > :18:06.in Bath, and I know it's thd case in Oxford and elsewhere. This principle

:18:07. > :18:12.which our honourable friend, the Member for Richmond Park has

:18:13. > :18:16.identified of two for one, does merit consideration in other

:18:17. > :18:20.hotspots. Does he agree with me that the Minister will look at this

:18:21. > :18:25.carefully? I would endorse his comments. I have seen in thd

:18:26. > :18:28.amendments list today that that is being looked at. Obviously, I

:18:29. > :18:34.welcome the assurance that the Government will look at replicating

:18:35. > :18:45.this in Bath, St Albans and Oxford by the amendment in Sub-section 6.

:18:46. > :18:49.Developments are under way hn other brownfield sites. This will help

:18:50. > :18:56.build more homes on brownfidld sites. I am pleased to see the

:18:57. > :19:00.Government is committed to this Further to amendment, I look forward

:19:01. > :19:05.to working with the Minister as do other colleagues in relation to

:19:06. > :19:12.rolling this out in other hhgh-cost areas. I just like to make ` few

:19:13. > :19:16.remarks about the impact of the Government's proposals on Stockport.

:19:17. > :19:20.The impact of the sale of hhgh-value properties will be an issue in

:19:21. > :19:30.Stockport because property prices are high and land is scarce. Even a

:19:31. > :19:34.committed person will find ht a struggle. In order for high,value to

:19:35. > :19:40.operate fairly, it would nedd to operate on a local level to ensure

:19:41. > :19:46.that no one authority bears the brunt of sales. In Greater

:19:47. > :19:49.Manchester, a high-value level could mean Stockport sells the vast

:19:50. > :19:53.majority of the stock because it is higher-property prices than most

:19:54. > :19:57.other areas in the region, depending on the scale this would havd a

:19:58. > :20:01.significant effect on the ability to meet housing need in the borough.

:20:02. > :20:04.Moving to the issue of pay to stay thresholds, I think the new

:20:05. > :20:11.threshold should take into `ccount the cost of private renting in each

:20:12. > :20:17.particular area as well as hncome. The Housing Bill proposes p`y to

:20:18. > :20:24.stay market rents. That thrdshold is very low. A couple both working

:20:25. > :20:36.full-time at the average Stockport wage of ?19,083 would have to pay a

:20:37. > :20:45.higher rent than their neighbours. In August 2015, the rents of private

:20:46. > :20:49.rented accommodation was twhce those of Stockport and there was ` limited

:20:50. > :20:53.supply. So, clearly, moving to the private sector would not be an

:20:54. > :20:58.option. However, the problel is that ?40 a week is still a lot of money

:20:59. > :21:01.to find and may for a familx be unaffordable. Therefore, ond way out

:21:02. > :21:05.would be to earn less money to ensure they do not meet the

:21:06. > :21:09.threshold by cutting the hotrs they work or leaving a job altogdther.

:21:10. > :21:14.Clearly, that cannot be right as it would have the impact of behng a

:21:15. > :21:18.disincentive for people to work for the maximum amount of hours that

:21:19. > :21:23.they could. This is counter to everything the Government espouses.

:21:24. > :21:29.The cost of private renting varies greatly. So it would be better if

:21:30. > :21:32.the pay to stay market rents if introduced took account of the

:21:33. > :21:36.average income of couples in that area and the rents in the private

:21:37. > :21:40.sector so that there were no disincentives to work. I hope the

:21:41. > :21:46.Minister will also consider the situation of care leavers in his

:21:47. > :21:50.proposal. Housing benefits `ccount for single people under 35 xear also

:21:51. > :21:54.be cut to the shared accommodation rate. This proposal could m`ke it

:21:55. > :22:00.more difficult than it alre`dy is for young people to find a home they

:22:01. > :22:03.can afford. Around 18,000 of Stockport homes current ten`nts are

:22:04. > :22:07.under 35 and are receiving some level of housing benefit. The

:22:08. > :22:12.changes would mean that both the social housing and private rented

:22:13. > :22:17.sectors would become increasingly unaffordable and young people will

:22:18. > :22:25.be at a risk of homelessness at a time when homelessness acceptance

:22:26. > :22:29.has risen nationally since 2009 The typical young person under 35 would

:22:30. > :22:34.need to find the difference between the average Stockport homes rent of

:22:35. > :22:41.?74,60 a week and the shared allowance rate of ?62, which means a

:22:42. > :22:42.cut of ?13 a week once the change s come into effect. That will be more

:22:43. > :22:56.in the private sector. Er Manchester. Care levers `re often

:22:57. > :23:00.vulnerable people with complex support needs and problems that can

:23:01. > :23:05.go on all their lives and bdcause I think it's important that c`re

:23:06. > :23:09.leavers should be excluded from the shared accommodation, housing

:23:10. > :23:12.benefit cap beyond 22, they do not have the alternative of movhng in

:23:13. > :23:16.with family members as many other young people do and are likdly to

:23:17. > :23:20.live alone for longer than the average young person. On thhs basis,

:23:21. > :23:25.it is problematic to impose such a low exemption age and I hopd the

:23:26. > :23:28.Government will consider further the circumstances of care leavers when

:23:29. > :23:34.this bill goes to another place for consideration. Mark Field. Thank

:23:35. > :23:39.you, Madam Deputy Speaker. H think all London MPs particularly London

:23:40. > :23:42.MPs, I welcome any efforts to boost semiand tackle what's becomd an

:23:43. > :23:47.emergency situation for the capital. Search by my City of London

:23:48. > :23:50.Corporation found that even the cheapest 10% of London's hotses are

:23:51. > :23:54.only affordable for the highest earning of 25% of workers in

:23:55. > :23:57.businesses who now believe they recognise the housing supplx costs

:23:58. > :24:02.are a significant risk to the capital's economy. It is

:24:03. > :24:05.increasingly apparent I accdpt there have been other contributions from

:24:06. > :24:12.Oxford, Bath, from Sheffield and other cities here, but therd are

:24:13. > :24:15.some - a really - acute need now for some specific London-based solutions

:24:16. > :24:19.to look at the housing costs and I hope we can capitalise on the

:24:20. > :24:22.enthusiasm we have heard in the House today towards devoluthon in

:24:23. > :24:26.that regard. I would like to share briefly with the Minister the

:24:27. > :24:29.thoughts of my two local authorities and also some local housing

:24:30. > :24:32.associations in the hope we can start to carve out a proper London

:24:33. > :24:36.housing policy I think in almost every speech I have given in this

:24:37. > :24:41.House lot last 15 years on the subject of housing I am lamdnted the

:24:42. > :24:46.increasing polarisation of central London to which my honourable friend

:24:47. > :24:50.for Richmond Park referred where even those on medium and evdn

:24:51. > :24:55.increasingly high incomes h`ve been pushed out to cater for a ndw global

:24:56. > :24:59.super-rich and those who qu`lify for precious social housing. Thd real

:25:00. > :25:04.issue to my honourable friend and I think to Tooting as well, wd as

:25:05. > :25:07.Londoners recognise we have an attractive city very largelx because

:25:08. > :25:12.of the social capital that generations of Londoners before us

:25:13. > :25:14.have built up and many of the future generations of Londoners will not

:25:15. > :25:19.have the opportunity of bendfitting from that social capital th`t is in

:25:20. > :25:23.place. Of course I'll give way. I thank the honourable gentlelan. He

:25:24. > :25:27.represents a major part of central London where we have the highest

:25:28. > :25:30.housing values. We answer the question that the member for

:25:31. > :25:34.Richmond Park completely avoided which is does he agree the

:25:35. > :25:38.two-for-one policy is absolttely worthless unless the income from the

:25:39. > :25:43.sale of those houses is reinvested in the same local authority area in

:25:44. > :25:46.central London? Absolutely worthless although I would actually echo the

:25:47. > :25:52.comments that were made earlier on. I do hope the Minister will be able

:25:53. > :25:57.to give some indication as well as accepting Amendment 112 which I was

:25:58. > :26:04.a co-signator to as well, some indication to ensure that wd will

:26:05. > :26:07.have - as far as possible the Government will wisely make sure the

:26:08. > :26:10.legal terms of the wording of the Government amendment doesn't

:26:11. > :26:15.actually guarantee - becausd the worlding doesn't guarantee `ny sales

:26:16. > :26:17.proceeds will be retained in London but simply governs the terms of

:26:18. > :26:21.agreements the Government mhght choose to make to that effect. I

:26:22. > :26:25.think it would be helpful if we can get something on the record about

:26:26. > :26:27.the strength of that commitlent to ensure there is a replacement

:26:28. > :26:30.building here in the capital and that is something I would w`nt to

:26:31. > :26:35.leave to the Minister later on. I think it would be fair to s`y that

:26:36. > :26:42.the plans allowing housing associations the right to bty a home

:26:43. > :26:47.did come as a rabbit in the hat in May's general lock shrub. I agree

:26:48. > :26:51.that the aspiration to roll out home ownership to as many as possible but

:26:52. > :26:56.I do worry the forced sale will actually deplete stock. Oncd a wind

:26:57. > :27:00.fall has been pocketed the property concerned will simply be rented out

:27:01. > :27:03.to a high earner. That's wh`t's happened in many of the housing

:27:04. > :27:08.estates in my constituency where the second or third offer - right to buy

:27:09. > :27:14.has been, dare I say, a well-paid yuppie. I want to speak on this I

:27:15. > :27:17.won't take anymore. I think on a philosophical level I have to

:27:18. > :27:23.confess I have been uneasy `bout the prospect of a forced sale of

:27:24. > :27:26.properties that have been btilt or bought with private philanthropic

:27:27. > :27:37.donation and without Governlent grant. In my constituency it risks

:27:38. > :27:43.disregarding the intention the owner John Peevery had in the latd 18 0s

:27:44. > :27:47.which saw thousands of his homes built without grant in my own

:27:48. > :27:51.constituency and slightly bdyond. I accept we cross the Rubicon with

:27:52. > :27:56.this with leaseholder legislation over the past 30 years but H woi

:27:57. > :28:00.about the precedence it's sdtting. It's already been mooted by

:28:01. > :28:04.opposition benches that buy,to-let landlords should be forced to sell

:28:05. > :28:07.their houses to tenants which would be wrong but it would be an

:28:08. > :28:11.extension of what we're proposing in place. That touched I think on the

:28:12. > :28:15.inherent unfairness of this policy. Had the Secretary of State been here

:28:16. > :28:20.I would have taken him on a walk down memory line. He was a

:28:21. > :28:24.councillor in my constituency of Pimlico. I was walking down that

:28:25. > :28:29.street a matter of two or three weeks before the general eldction

:28:30. > :28:36.canvassing on Cumberland Street in Pimlico. On the one side ard tenants

:28:37. > :28:41.of LMQ who pay perhaps ?100 a week for their flats. On the othdr side,

:28:42. > :28:45.almost identical properties private renters are paying - except in a hot

:28:46. > :28:50.spot of London but they're paying some ?350 a week in rent. Already

:28:51. > :28:55.those tenants in a financially disadvantageous position. The former

:28:56. > :28:58.group will get a discount on the purchase price of these properties

:28:59. > :29:03.then potentially be able to rent them out further down the lhne. I

:29:04. > :29:06.question the fairness of giving huge advantages to those already in

:29:07. > :29:11.secure housing and no advantage to those in the private rented sector

:29:12. > :29:15.whose voice perhaps isn't hdard as loudly particularly on the opposite

:29:16. > :29:19.benches in this debate becatse it is an extremely expensive placd to live

:29:20. > :29:23.in central London. By contr`st I have spoken to a number of housing

:29:24. > :29:28.associations, the Lee Miner Association in the City of London,

:29:29. > :29:34.Nichol Fur of the Seven Dials Housing Association, a coopdrative,

:29:35. > :29:40.I should point out. They pohnt out charging people to stay if they earn

:29:41. > :29:47.more than a certain income, ?30 000 outside of London and at le`st

:29:48. > :29:51.?40,000 a year in London dods bring certain unfairness in place. For a

:29:52. > :29:56.family in my constituency that isn't a large amount of money. I believe

:29:57. > :30:00.the cap should be set higher and should be staircased so people pay

:30:01. > :30:05.according to what they're e`rning. There is a natural worry introducing

:30:06. > :30:09.such a cap at a starting Lev might actually be reduced as time goes by.

:30:10. > :30:13.There is much to discuss in this bill. I would want to end own a

:30:14. > :30:18.slightly positive note but H think there are major worries shared for

:30:19. > :30:20.all of us as MPs - meeting the housing requirements of the capital

:30:21. > :30:27.requires the commitment and action of all local authorities. In order

:30:28. > :30:36.to help address authority shortages I am proud of the commitment to

:30:37. > :30:42.build 3,200 new homes by 2025. Some of the most successful houshng

:30:43. > :30:51.associations outside the sqtare mile many will recognise. I'm sorry item

:30:52. > :30:55.I've concentrated on London. Members will appreciate why I have. All of

:30:56. > :31:00.us as London MPs across this House know only too well our city will

:31:01. > :31:04.only function successfully hf we start thinking creatively in the way

:31:05. > :31:09.I know a number of members , dare I say on both sides of the Hotse are.

:31:10. > :31:12.We do need together to try to address this housing crisis. Once

:31:13. > :31:17.this legislation is on the statute book, and I hope it is rapidly, we

:31:18. > :31:21.stand ready, all of us as London MPs to help this Government and any

:31:22. > :31:25.future Government deliver and also to ensure that we're able to more

:31:26. > :31:30.successfully tailor London's housing policy to ensure the social capital

:31:31. > :31:35.to which I earlier referred is kept intact. Some of these issues I know

:31:36. > :31:38.that have constrained housing supply can - we appreciate - only be

:31:39. > :31:41.addressed at a national levdl. Therefore I look forward to hearing

:31:42. > :31:47.what the Minister has to sax in response to this very timelx debate.

:31:48. > :31:50.Madam Deputy Speaker it's a genuine policy to follow the honour`ble

:31:51. > :31:53.member for Cities of London and Westminster who agrees with me of

:31:54. > :31:58.the concerns that have been raised by members on this side abott this

:31:59. > :32:02.bill. Today we're debating affordable housing. It has been the

:32:03. > :32:05.subject of much deliberate confusion and smoke and mirrors by thd

:32:06. > :32:09.previous coalition Government and current Conservative Governlent The

:32:10. > :32:13.Mayor of London has tried to redefine affordable rent as up to

:32:14. > :32:16.80% of very high private market rent, put simply anything btt

:32:17. > :32:21.affordable to the vast majority of Londoners. Rent now consumes an

:32:22. > :32:26.average of 62% of Londoners' income. Now Government is including a

:32:27. > :32:31.starter home of up to ?450,000 within the definition of affordable

:32:32. > :32:33.housing. This simply won't wash Something doesn't become affordable

:32:34. > :32:37.simply because the Government labels it so. Across the country wd need

:32:38. > :32:43.more social housing at rents directly related to the income of

:32:44. > :32:48.lower income households mord intermediatute housing to rdnt and

:32:49. > :32:52.buy for middle income earners and for those taking the first step on

:32:53. > :32:57.the home ownership ladder. This is what the people of this country

:32:58. > :33:01.aspire to. The clauses todax have been drafted by a blinkered

:33:02. > :33:04.Government which has no intdrest in carefully assessing and responding

:33:05. > :33:10.to housing need as it reallx is in this country and every interest in

:33:11. > :33:14.peddling a myth of accessible home ownership to people, many of whom

:33:15. > :33:17.stand little chance of achidving it. In doing this they're trading off

:33:18. > :33:21.the interests of one section of the community against those of `nother.

:33:22. > :33:25.In my short time as elected member of in House, I have spoken several

:33:26. > :33:29.times in this chamber of thd extent of housing need in my consthtuency.

:33:30. > :33:33.I represent a part of the London boroughs of Lambeth and Suffolk

:33:34. > :33:37.Each borough has more than 20,0 0 people on the weight list for a

:33:38. > :33:41.council home. Each week my surgery is full of people who come to see me

:33:42. > :33:45.because they're in desperatd housing need. I give way. I am gratdful to

:33:46. > :33:48.the honourable lady who is ` fellow member of the Select Committee. She

:33:49. > :33:52.said at the start and I think rightly that the artificial and

:33:53. > :33:56.fixed definition of affordability doesn't work and that actually the

:33:57. > :34:00.move, which I think is central to this bill of relating affordability

:34:01. > :34:06.to an individual's circumst`nces is the right direction, am I rhght in

:34:07. > :34:10.interpreting what she just said I thank the honourable member for his

:34:11. > :34:13.intervention. I am simply s`ying a definition of affordable whhch bears

:34:14. > :34:19.no relation to median incomd which is the key test is a meaningless

:34:20. > :34:23.definition of affordability. I I won't take a further intervdntion

:34:24. > :34:27.from the honourable member for the time being if that's OK. Each week

:34:28. > :34:32.people ask me why they should have to live in damp, overcrowded and

:34:33. > :34:36.extortionately expensive prhvate flats, why their children should be

:34:37. > :34:39.subject to the insecurities which come with short-term tenancx after

:34:40. > :34:43.short-term tenancy and who hs going to help them in their housing need.

:34:44. > :34:46.There will be many more people whose situation will be made much worse as

:34:47. > :34:50.a consequence of this bill than will be helped by this bill. Takd, for

:34:51. > :34:55.example a family who came to my surgery late last year typical of

:34:56. > :34:58.many who contact me - the mother is part-time teaching assistant

:34:59. > :35:02.studying to become a teacher. The father is a pharmacy technician

:35:03. > :35:06.They live in a we have to bddroom housing association propertx with

:35:07. > :35:10.their children. The two olddr girls both at secondary school sh`re a top

:35:11. > :35:14.bunk while the two younger siblings share the bottom bunk. They describe

:35:15. > :35:18.the to tell the situation is take on their relationship and on their

:35:19. > :35:23.older divhuts are model student but often tired and stressed at school.

:35:24. > :35:26.This family works hard and couldn't have more aspiration for a better

:35:27. > :35:30.life but their situation will be made worse by this bill. Thdy will

:35:31. > :35:34.not be able to afford to exdrcise the right to buy their houshng

:35:35. > :35:38.association home and even if they could it would be a pretty big

:35:39. > :35:42.gamble as it's not suitable for their needs. The home they're likely

:35:43. > :35:48.to need is exactly the type of home that will be sold under right-to-buy

:35:49. > :35:53.or that councils will be forced to sell under right-to-buy. Thhs bill

:35:54. > :35:57.delivers nothing for this f`mily nor for many other residents like them

:35:58. > :36:00.who can't raise a mortgage but nevertheless who have a housing need

:36:01. > :36:04.and whose needs shouldn't bd ignored. I sat and went with this

:36:05. > :36:09.family as they described thd sheer unfairness and impossibilitx of

:36:10. > :36:12.their situation to me. I was dismayed yesterday in the

:36:13. > :36:16.communities and local Government Select Committee to hear senior COG

:36:17. > :36:20.officials admit they have not completed any analysis of the likely

:36:21. > :36:24.sums that'll be rised from right right homes and the forced sale of

:36:25. > :36:28.council homes. This means the Government doesn't know whether the

:36:29. > :36:33.funds will be there to repl`ce housing association homes under

:36:34. > :36:39.right right at all still less at a rate of two to one. We heard from an

:36:40. > :36:41.officer from one Conservative-led local authority in Cambridgdshire

:36:42. > :36:45.who says the Government was up to the limit of its cap. When hts

:36:46. > :36:50.high-value homes are sold, the first call on the receipt will be HRA debt

:36:51. > :36:53.repayment. Once the subsidy for right-to-buy has been deducted there

:36:54. > :36:58.will be almost nothing left to deliver new homes. Members of this

:36:59. > :37:04.House are being asked to vote on a major housing reform won't having

:37:05. > :37:08.seen any evidence it can will deliver what the Government promises

:37:09. > :37:13.it will. There are further `ttacks on affordable housing. The pay to

:37:14. > :37:17.stay clause is simply a Conservative tax on hard work and aspiration And

:37:18. > :37:22.there is a deep inconsistency within pay-to-stay. On the one hand, the

:37:23. > :37:26.Government has decided a hotsehold comprising two people earning the

:37:27. > :37:30.new minimum wage outside London or the London living wage by ddfinition

:37:31. > :37:34.the minimum required to livd on to be high earning, on the othdr hand

:37:35. > :37:37.the Government takes a diffdrent view of the high-earning threshold

:37:38. > :37:42.for tax purposes. The two are simply not the same figure. The impact of

:37:43. > :37:46.pay-to-stay will be rents rhse to market levels overnight. I cannot

:37:47. > :37:50.see any justification at all for requiring the rent paid by residents

:37:51. > :37:54.living in social housing and earning the minimum wage or London living

:37:55. > :37:58.wage to be doubled, in some parts of London much more than doubldd. A pay

:37:59. > :38:02.will break up communities, price people out of their homes in

:38:03. > :38:06.situations where there isn't any private sector or affordabld housing

:38:07. > :38:09.for them to move, into incrdase homelessness and act as a

:38:10. > :38:13.disincentive to seek promothon at work or take on more hours, a

:38:14. > :38:42.Conservative tax on aspirathon. The compulsory imposition of the

:38:43. > :38:44.ending of secure tenancies hs yet another anti-localist measure

:38:45. > :38:49.slashing the freedom that councils have to respect and respond to the

:38:50. > :38:51.views of their tenants and residents and to address local housing needs

:38:52. > :38:55.in the best way for their local area. I have received e-mails from

:38:56. > :38:59.constituents who are terrifhed about the possibility that they whll be

:39:00. > :39:02.forced to move home, will h`ve to move their children to a different

:39:03. > :39:05.school, in a strange area, `nd to seek new jobs and childcare

:39:06. > :39:08.arrangements. The solution to the housing crisis is not to engage in a

:39:09. > :39:12.race to the bottom on securhty of tenure. It is not to recognhse only

:39:13. > :39:18.the aspirations of those who are able to raise a mortgage. The

:39:19. > :39:22.solution to the housing crisis is to build more genuinely afford`ble

:39:23. > :39:25.homes across all tenure typds and to regard social housing as an

:39:26. > :39:30.investment which pays for itself many times over, both financially in

:39:31. > :39:37.comparison to private renting and in the social benefits it brings. Very

:39:38. > :39:42.pleased to speak in this debate given I was on the Bill Comlittee

:39:43. > :39:46.and I note your strictures to be short. Had I listened to thhs debate

:39:47. > :39:51.without any knowledge, I might have been persuaded by the opposhtion of

:39:52. > :39:57.142 and their clause on sectrity tenure. Not is all as has bden

:39:58. > :40:01.portrayed. Far from it. Indded, it is a privilege to follow thd

:40:02. > :40:04.honourable lady who I know has been a town planner for many years and

:40:05. > :40:12.served on the Bill Committed with me. Those constituents that she

:40:13. > :40:17.claims are frightened, she should be reassuring for this securitx of

:40:18. > :40:22.tenure does not apply to anxone who currently has a tenure. That point

:40:23. > :40:27.has been conveniently forgotten in much of the scaremongering led by

:40:28. > :40:34.the opposition front bench today. Equally, I cannot be alone hn this

:40:35. > :40:38.House in hearing a number of both housing associations and indeed

:40:39. > :40:43.councils saying that the balance within the housing stock and where

:40:44. > :40:50.need is not matched by currdnt occupation is right. It is only

:40:51. > :40:57.right that as future ten Nan Sis -- tenancies come up, nothing has been

:40:58. > :41:02.said today but for those just to put it on the record, these ten`ncies

:41:03. > :41:05.will be expected to last for five years. It won't then be

:41:06. > :41:09.automatically thrown out after five years. There will be a revidw and

:41:10. > :41:16.the landlord will need to prove why he is removing that tenant. It is a

:41:17. > :41:23.surprise also to hear from the honourable member, or the rhght

:41:24. > :41:28.honourable member who chairs the Select Committee. He clearlx has

:41:29. > :41:33.missed the two important pohnts that would detract from his argulent

:41:34. > :41:37.today. Firstly, the Governmdnt has already said to local authorities

:41:38. > :41:41.there are exceptions when pdople move tenure and they can gr`nt new

:41:42. > :41:45.life tenures, particularly for people moving jobs and for the

:41:46. > :41:49.elderly, as he pointed out. Secondly, he's clearly missdd what

:41:50. > :41:54.the Government have said about what they have said to housing

:41:55. > :42:00.associations in terms of people who are elderly and people who have

:42:01. > :42:04.disability, and the presumption on the housing authority will be to

:42:05. > :42:09.provide a life tenure. All of those cases, I think it is import`nt that

:42:10. > :42:18.we just get those facts and points on the record. I think that clearly

:42:19. > :42:25.negates the argument for Cl`use I 42 and I would urge the Ministdr to...

:42:26. > :42:31.I will give way. On that pohnt about the discretion, if the honotrable

:42:32. > :42:44.member looks at page 86 of the Bill Schedule 4, 81 (b) - where ` tenant

:42:45. > :42:49.has not made an application to move. If a tenant has made an application

:42:50. > :42:54.to move to a smaller property, they can't be given a new secure tenancy.

:42:55. > :43:04.The Minister will clarify this point. I am sure... I think it is

:43:05. > :43:09.key that there is the possibility for new longer tenancies to be given

:43:10. > :43:14.to particularly people who `re elderly - and this is the point the

:43:15. > :43:23.gentleman was raising. I just wanted to rise in support of Clausd I 2.

:43:24. > :43:27.Many members have spoken about hotspots and affordability. Suffice

:43:28. > :43:31.it to say that I think that my honourable friend for Richmond Park,

:43:32. > :43:34.who put down this amendment prior to the Second Reading of this Bill has

:43:35. > :43:38.been leading the debate on this It is right. And the honourabld member,

:43:39. > :43:43.the right honourable Member for Tooting talked about pulling the

:43:44. > :43:47.wool over Londoners' eyes. H think - I won't go in and challenge him on a

:43:48. > :43:54.number of his statistics. Btt some of those were questionable. The key

:43:55. > :44:06.thing lon -- Londoners need to remember is this a two for one and

:44:07. > :44:12.Clause 89 is a one for one. Therefore, I hope the whole House

:44:13. > :44:19.will support Clause 112 when we go to the voting lobby later on. Many

:44:20. > :44:22.of us have spoken repeatedlx about the fact we have a major hotsing

:44:23. > :44:26.crisis and that this Bill is not just a missed opportunity to take

:44:27. > :44:31.the necessary urgent action, but it's a Bill that will make ` bad

:44:32. > :44:37.situation worse. I want to speak specifically to my amendment N C39

:44:38. > :44:41.which I would plan to move to a vote and NC39 would draw on the work done

:44:42. > :44:46.to establish a nationally agreed living wage level, by that H mean

:44:47. > :44:53.the level agreed by the Livhng Wage Foundation.

:44:54. > :44:56.My amendment would establish a living rent commission, which would

:44:57. > :45:00.use the principles behind the living wage commission and link to it in

:45:01. > :45:03.order to calculate what a gdnuinely affordable level of rent in

:45:04. > :45:08.different places would look like, bearing in mind other costs of

:45:09. > :45:11.living and wage levels. It could also incorporate factors like

:45:12. > :45:16.tenancy security, by taking into account the average length of

:45:17. > :45:20.tenancy in a given area. Just as the living wage is good for employers as

:45:21. > :45:24.well as employees, for socidty as a whole, as well as for the local

:45:25. > :45:28.economy, so too could a livhng rent lead to significant benefits for

:45:29. > :45:31.all. And to best understand what those might be I hope the House will

:45:32. > :45:35.bear with me while I remind colleagues of the scale of the

:45:36. > :45:39.crisis we face in Brighton `nd Hove because as others have said, this is

:45:40. > :45:46.by no means a problem limitdd to London. Research released bx Homelet

:45:47. > :45:51.reveals tenants in Brighton Hove along with those in Bristol suffered

:45:52. > :45:56.the worst rent rises of anywhere in Britain last year. Landlords locally

:45:57. > :46:00.raised prices by 18% compardd with 2014, with the result that Brighton

:46:01. > :46:06.Hove has become the second city in the whole country where rents have

:46:07. > :46:11.past the ?1,000 a month barrier These record rent level risds means

:46:12. > :46:17.a typical flat now costs ?1,078 a month. The average earner h`s to put

:46:18. > :46:22.aside 65% of their salary to pay for a typical two-bed flat. That is

:46:23. > :46:26.simply untenable. Given that Brighton Hove has one of the

:46:27. > :46:30.biggest private rented sectors in the UK with 30% of the entire

:46:31. > :46:34.housing stock in the hands of private landlords, the impact of

:46:35. > :46:38.such rent rises are widely `nd very deeply felt. High rents in the

:46:39. > :46:42.private rented sector have `n inevitable knock-on effect on rents

:46:43. > :46:45.in the so-called affordable housing sector, too. The cost of th`t is

:46:46. > :46:49.disproportionately borne by individuals and by the statd. People

:46:50. > :46:54.on low incomes are going without food and heating to pay rents.

:46:55. > :47:01.People who grew up in the chty are having to move away to afford enough

:47:02. > :47:05.space to have children. A 2012 assessment report identified 88 000

:47:06. > :47:10.households, 72%, in Brighton Hove who couldn't afford to buy or rent

:47:11. > :47:13.without some level of subsidy or without spending a disproportionate

:47:14. > :47:17.level of their income on hotsing costs. The Chief Executive of

:47:18. > :47:24.Brighton Housing Trust has warned that by April 2017 when the NHA

:47:25. > :47:28.changes come into effect, 74% of their property will be unaffordable

:47:29. > :47:34.for those under 35s, meaning people will have nowhere to go. NC39 seeks

:47:35. > :47:37.to tackle some of those problems head on. A living rent commhssion

:47:38. > :47:41.would look at the facts and recommend a reliable and fahr way of

:47:42. > :47:48.determining what an affordable level of rent would be. It would consider

:47:49. > :47:51.whether we need two different living rent levels, or whether, as seems

:47:52. > :47:55.more likely, it should be more localised and on what basis. N C39

:47:56. > :47:59.would require the living rent commission to undertake that work in

:48:00. > :48:02.conjunction with providers, landlords and tenants and m`ke a

:48:03. > :48:07.report to the Government. It commits to nothing other than trying to

:48:08. > :48:11.accurately define the much-bandied around term "affordable" a term that

:48:12. > :48:17.has been rendered meaningless when council homes have been sold to

:48:18. > :48:28.housing associations who ard now raising funds by increasing relets.

:48:29. > :48:37.A word of caution - a living rent is not a magic panacea. We need

:48:38. > :48:42.wholesale reform to address insecurity, inequalities between

:48:43. > :48:46.owners and private renters, as well as affordability. No one me`sure

:48:47. > :48:51.will work in isolation and ht must be part of a broader progralme. NC

:48:52. > :48:56.39 seeks to introduce a solttion that could start to have a

:48:57. > :49:00.significant impact on all of those problems. It goes further for

:49:01. > :49:04.example than the so-called smart rent controls that I know some

:49:05. > :49:09.members advocate. Those are controls that would link rent levels to

:49:10. > :49:13.inflation and they are a stdp in the right direction. Capping rents go

:49:14. > :49:18.further and is usually linkdd to local incomes.

:49:19. > :49:22.They can help stop costs sphral more out of control. That would be very

:49:23. > :49:26.welcome by the tenants that I see in my surgeries and who are struggling

:49:27. > :49:32.with the cost of private rented sector housing. When rent ldvels are

:49:33. > :49:36.already so high, capping thdm at those levels would offer tenants a

:49:37. > :49:40.limited amount of protection. For the renters in Brighton Pavhlion

:49:41. > :49:44.forced to set aside 65% of their income for rent, it means things

:49:45. > :49:48.won't get worse, but it doesn't mean they will become affordable or

:49:49. > :49:52.sustainable. They are the rdsult of a market is out of control `nd which

:49:53. > :49:55.needs genuine reform to bring rents in line with wages and the cost of

:49:56. > :50:00.living. And they need to better reflect what people can afford to

:50:01. > :50:02.pay in rent whilst still mahntains a decent quality of life. I

:50:03. > :50:06.acknowledge that capping and controlling rents is seen bx some as

:50:07. > :50:09.controversial and that therd are instances where such policids have

:50:10. > :50:13.had perverse effects. There are also many instances where they h`ve

:50:14. > :50:16.worked and a commission would help us learn the lessons from dhfferent

:50:17. > :50:21.models to develop one that light work here. Regulators of other

:50:22. > :50:26.countries agree rent controls can be part of the solution. In Swdden

:50:27. > :50:33.rents in the private sector aren't allowed to be more than 105$ of

:50:34. > :50:37.rents owned by municipal hotsing companies. There is a stabld private

:50:38. > :50:41.rented sector in which the puality of repairs is good. Tenants and

:50:42. > :50:50.landlords alike benefit frol secure and definite tenancies. Thex are

:50:51. > :50:59.credited for giving Germany the most stable sector in the world.

:51:00. > :51:05.Understandably, there will be concerns about the impact on

:51:06. > :51:12.landlords. What happens if landlords can't afford to take reduce rents? A

:51:13. > :51:16.living rent commission would model all of those possibilities `nd

:51:17. > :51:19.risks, taking them into account when making their rent level

:51:20. > :51:25.recommendations. It is worth noting that a recent survey of landlords

:51:26. > :51:29.found that around 77% of thdm are in employment with 60% of them earning

:51:30. > :51:36.over ?2,000 a month from thdir employment. 79% of all landlords who

:51:37. > :51:39.control 61% of all privatelx rented dwellings earn less than a puarter

:51:40. > :51:42.of their income from that rdnt. Landlords tend to have reli`ble

:51:43. > :51:47.sources of income other than rent. We know large numbers have bought

:51:48. > :51:54.properties as an unvestment and if Ministers or opposition are worried,

:51:55. > :51:58.I suggest they commit to a secure living pension for all. The example

:51:59. > :52:02.from countries such as France suggest that to link such a

:52:03. > :52:07.particular policy to shrink`ge of the private sector is flawed. Rent

:52:08. > :52:11.controls can be part of a growing private rented sector in whhch

:52:12. > :52:15.standards are high. A very final word on landlords. I imagind many

:52:16. > :52:22.will be keen to demonstrate theirethics and many land Lords will

:52:23. > :52:27.adopt a living rent for thehr properties. I will sum up bx saying

:52:28. > :52:30.I appreciate that there will be some colleagues who disagree a lhving

:52:31. > :52:40.rent is a good let alone thd best mechanism to deliver such bdnefits.

:52:41. > :52:45.To them I say this: NC 39 sdts autopsy commission -- sets tp a

:52:46. > :52:48.commission to deliver widelx. It will give renters a benchmark

:52:49. > :52:54.against which to compare thd rent they are being charged and to start

:52:55. > :53:09.a long overdue debate into how best to balance the needs of landlords.

:53:10. > :53:19.Given the time available, I will limit my remarks to amendment 1 9,

:53:20. > :53:22.which I seek to move. I havd made clear that right to buy is puite

:53:23. > :53:27.simply the wrong spending priority at a time of great housing need and

:53:28. > :53:32.resources should be focused on building new homes. In my vhew it is

:53:33. > :53:36.being used as a means to reduce social and affordable housing at the

:53:37. > :53:40.very time those homes are desperately needed, particularly for

:53:41. > :53:45.the 1.6 million people currdntly rotting on a social housing waiting

:53:46. > :53:50.list. Struggling to bring up children in temporary and inadequate

:53:51. > :53:59.accommodation. The way of p`ying for this extension is simply absurd and

:54:00. > :54:04.would have a crippling financial effect, resisting... Restricting

:54:05. > :54:08.council's ability to build new homes. There is far too much wriggle

:54:09. > :54:15.room with no guarantees of replacements for the replacdment for

:54:16. > :54:23.amendment 102. I will not go into further detail but I can sed no good

:54:24. > :54:29.reason other than as athlethcs by the deal cannot be extended to all

:54:30. > :54:33.regions other than just London. The housing crisis is just as rdal as

:54:34. > :54:38.many other places, especially rural parts of Britain, the West Country,

:54:39. > :54:41.Cumbria, Northumberland and North Yorkshire. Furthermore, the

:54:42. > :54:47.expansion of right to buy is quite clearly not generally a voltntary

:54:48. > :54:52.option, as the government h`s attempted to claim. The voltntary

:54:53. > :54:56.aspect was a vote taken by lembers of the housing association last

:54:57. > :54:59.September in which 45% of the associations voted against or

:55:00. > :55:04.abstained, masking the fact that many felt the extension was a done

:55:05. > :55:07.deal, or the choice on the table was essentially between immediate death

:55:08. > :55:13.of social housing or a slightly more drawn affair. To cast this `ssault

:55:14. > :55:16.on social housing, especially the assault on rural communities, as

:55:17. > :55:23.something willed by the housing association is just bogus. The

:55:24. > :55:26.wording of the bill puts many small and specialist housing associations,

:55:27. > :55:30.particularly those in rural areas, such as mine, in a difficult

:55:31. > :55:35.position. Some are worried `bout the impact it will have on maintaining

:55:36. > :55:40.additional services to residents, such as job-seeking advice. I would

:55:41. > :55:43.like to see the right to bux extension taken out of the bill

:55:44. > :55:48.altogether. However, if the extension goes ahead, a comlandment

:55:49. > :55:53.to replacing properties being sold off must be included. This hs what

:55:54. > :55:58.is achieved by my amendment. Let me make it clear, I am not opposed to

:55:59. > :56:01.write to buy in principle. H am a supporter of the aspiration of those

:56:02. > :56:04.who want to own their own home and I want to support housing associations

:56:05. > :56:07.as they seek to build mixed development to give people the

:56:08. > :56:13.opportunity to get onto the housing ladder. But there are two possible

:56:14. > :56:18.reasons for extending right to buy. One is to encourage aspirathon and

:56:19. > :56:22.the second is to get rid of social housing. If it is the first that you

:56:23. > :56:25.care about the most, legisl`tion to extending right to buy should be

:56:26. > :56:29.focused on replacements and you would support my amendment 009 to

:56:30. > :56:33.make sure that this happens. This would mean that you give people the

:56:34. > :56:38.opportunity to buy their own homes but you do not at the same time

:56:39. > :56:42.deplete affordable housing stock for other needy families. If yotr

:56:43. > :56:45.motivation was to reduce social housing, motives that are too

:56:46. > :56:49.depressing to bother discussing at this moment, then you would do

:56:50. > :56:52.exactly what the government is doing. In that case, you wotld

:56:53. > :56:56.extend rights to buy and prdss gang housing associations to go `long

:56:57. > :57:02.with it with verbal expresshons of intentions to replace homes and you

:57:03. > :57:06.would ensure that any replacement must happen. Sadly it is cldar that

:57:07. > :57:10.this government's reasons for press gang housing associations to extend

:57:11. > :57:15.rights to buy are based on ` pretty grubby desire to get rid of social

:57:16. > :57:18.housing. We know what happens when intentions to replace homes are

:57:19. > :57:23.expressed but not enforced by legislation. We have many ddcades of

:57:24. > :57:26.experience of this and we know that 141 replacement does not happen

:57:27. > :57:32.even in recent years, since the pulse was introduced in 2012, only

:57:33. > :57:38.one in nine homes sold has been replaced. -- since the policy was

:57:39. > :57:42.introduced. My amendment sedks to overcome this problem and gtarantee

:57:43. > :57:45.the replacement by insisting that before a home is sold off, `

:57:46. > :57:49.replacement home must first be identified. This could be a home

:57:50. > :57:53.within a new plans develop lint or it could be an existing homd

:57:54. > :57:57.acquired by the housing association with the proceeds of the sale.

:57:58. > :58:01.Housing associations should be required to identify that

:58:02. > :58:07.replacement property and colmunicate the plans before selling thd home. I

:58:08. > :58:10.probably should not give wax, given the time. In addition, the

:58:11. > :58:14.replacement home should be equivalent to the one sold off,

:58:15. > :58:18.located in the same local atthority area, and must be an initial

:58:19. > :58:22.presumption that the replacdment home will have the same unldss there

:58:23. > :58:25.is a strong case for changing it based on local needs, avoidhng

:58:26. > :58:32.social for rents -- social housing for rent being squeezed out, in

:58:33. > :58:35.favour of other, more potentially profitable ten years. My amdndment

:58:36. > :58:39.will provide not only a 141 replacement but also in manx cases,

:58:40. > :58:49.like-for-like. I urge members to support this amendment. Thank you,

:58:50. > :58:52.and I beg to move an amendmdnt in the name of my right honour`ble

:58:53. > :58:56.friend, the Member for Tunbridge Wells. At the outset, I will say

:58:57. > :59:01.that I am proud to move these amendments. I also want to pay

:59:02. > :59:04.tribute to my honourable frhends, the members for Wimbledon and

:59:05. > :59:07.Richmond Park, for not just inspiring these amendments but for

:59:08. > :59:13.working so passionately and diligently to make sure that we get

:59:14. > :59:17.a good result for London, in contrast to the party opposhte,

:59:18. > :59:19.whose members have given me no direct approaches about anything

:59:20. > :59:24.positive to do with increashng housing supply. I would likd to join

:59:25. > :59:27.other members today in congratulating my honourabld friend,

:59:28. > :59:32.the Member for Richmond Park, on the birth of his son. With this, where

:59:33. > :59:36.local authorities -- we will be looking to make sure that local

:59:37. > :59:38.authorities, when they can lake an agreement with local governlent

:59:39. > :59:45.would require two new affordable homes to be acquired for evdry

:59:46. > :59:49.highly valued well and we sde souls. I am grateful to the Ministdr for

:59:50. > :59:52.giving way. Can he explain why the joint duty on the Secretary of

:59:53. > :59:58.State, the Mayor of London `nd local housing authorities to provhde two

:59:59. > :00:03.units of affordable housing for each home sold, set out in clausd 18 ,

:00:04. > :00:09.has failed to make it through to amendment 102? It did not gdt

:00:10. > :00:13.through committee. This is one of the interesting thing is, how few

:00:14. > :00:16.things the party opposite voted against, yet today have found a

:00:17. > :00:20.voice they did not have in committee. I would say that we all

:00:21. > :00:25.know, speaking about this on the floor, that the housing market

:00:26. > :00:29.varies across our country. We have reflected this in the legislation.

:00:30. > :00:34.For example, how we can defhne high-value areas in different areas.

:00:35. > :00:40.The need for housing, we know, is most acute in London. Hence,

:00:41. > :00:43.amendment 112. I tend to usd the flexibility of the agreement process

:00:44. > :00:48.to take account of the diffhculties that other local authorities may

:00:49. > :00:52.have with delivering more housing, for example because they also have

:00:53. > :00:55.high-value areas. My honour`ble friends outspoken about that this

:00:56. > :01:00.afternoon. The legislation hs framed to provide as much flexibilhty as

:01:01. > :01:04.possible so we can consider the circumstances of each local

:01:05. > :01:08.authority and its housing ndeds I am looking forward to working with

:01:09. > :01:12.the members for Oxford West and North East Hertfordshire, altering

:01:13. > :01:17.and South West Bath, Aldershot, St Albans, central Suffolk, Br`cknell,

:01:18. > :01:22.working and Braintree as well as other areas, to make sure that we

:01:23. > :01:30.get those rare legislation hs in the right places. -- that legislation in

:01:31. > :01:41.the right places. And so Calbridge to that list, also. I am very happy

:01:42. > :01:44.to add Cambridge to that list. I would encourage local authorities to

:01:45. > :01:48.join others from across London who have already been speaking to us. In

:01:49. > :01:56.answer to my honourable fridnd, the Member for Richmond Park, wd will be

:01:57. > :02:01.building on the work that the government is delivering, and we

:02:02. > :02:04.have allocated homes for 160,00 . The commission must go further to

:02:05. > :02:07.see what we can do in London. This is an opportunity for a step change

:02:08. > :02:13.in housing supply for London, delivering not just the two for one

:02:14. > :02:18.that has been talked about this afternoon, as important as that is,

:02:19. > :02:22.but the other part of this that has a huge opportunity for London and

:02:23. > :02:25.other places across the country is the flexibility, the added

:02:26. > :02:29.flexibility for councils to work together on innovative new hdeas to

:02:30. > :02:35.deliver more homes across otr country. Actually, unlike the party

:02:36. > :02:41.opposite, driving up supply. I'm grateful to the Minister for giving

:02:42. > :02:46.way. Can he explain how the building of houses in areas other th`n the

:02:47. > :02:50.500 in Brent North are going to be lost, is going to help my

:02:51. > :02:54.constituents who cannot afford to get on the housing ladder at all? I

:02:55. > :03:02.would suggest the honourabld gentleman has a look at Google's on

:03:03. > :03:06.your house scheme, to see the range of schemes that the governmdnt is

:03:07. > :03:10.taking to help people. We h`ve heard from the honourable member from the

:03:11. > :03:14.City of Durham about her opposition to house is building more homes are

:03:15. > :03:20.helping more people into holes. They have also stated their opposition to

:03:21. > :03:23.ensuring social tenants pay a fear rent. I will not stand here today

:03:24. > :03:30.and rehashed arguments from the second reading. Honourable lembers

:03:31. > :03:34.opposite had their chance to vote against the standing part of the

:03:35. > :03:40.bill at committee. That is what the debate is for. They stayed puiet. I

:03:41. > :03:47.will not stay quiet this afternoon. I want to be clear that we `re

:03:48. > :03:50.delivering these clauses because we have elected mandate to do so and we

:03:51. > :03:57.will deliver new homes to those who need them. There is no time to lose.

:03:58. > :04:02.Amendments nine and 11 will enable this part of the build to come into

:04:03. > :04:05.force on Royal assent so funding becomes available as soon as

:04:06. > :04:08.possible. We have discussed amendment 51, and I want to make

:04:09. > :04:13.sure that we have full flexhbility to make sure we use receipts to

:04:14. > :04:16.deliver new homes. These amdndments would result in a reduction of

:04:17. > :04:21.flexibility and we cannot stpport it. As I said in committee, with

:04:22. > :04:25.things like amendments 89 and 1 9, they would be the worst typd of

:04:26. > :04:31.command and control, an approach that Labour seems to like. We have

:04:32. > :04:37.seen this mindset in amendmdnts 94 and 93, doing the same for high

:04:38. > :04:42.income. Once more, putting exclusions on the bill. We will let

:04:43. > :04:46.further engagement in form detailed policy. The members oppositd want

:04:47. > :04:50.the government to tell a holeowner that they have to sell their

:04:51. > :04:53.property at less than a market value, preventing them from renting

:04:54. > :04:57.their home for ten years. I think that is inappropriate and pdople

:04:58. > :05:00.should have the right to do with their own home as any other

:05:01. > :05:06.homeowner would. This government wants a voluntary agreement with

:05:07. > :05:09.housing associations, to work voluntarily, not by imposing

:05:10. > :05:14.unnecessary requirements, as amendments 91 would. I want to take

:05:15. > :05:18.this opportunity to put somdthing clearly, on the record, as ` matter

:05:19. > :05:26.of clarification, with regards to the payment of grants. I am happy to

:05:27. > :05:31.confirm today that clause 60 grants will be paid as compensation for the

:05:32. > :05:36.right to buy discount. This will be made on terms that enable it to be

:05:37. > :05:42.considered a revenue grant. It will be sufficient to classify the ground

:05:43. > :05:47.as income. If the honourabld member had his way, there would be no

:05:48. > :05:55.clause at all. I want to respond to the points made by those who spoke.

:05:56. > :05:59.I trust that the housing associations will take note of these

:06:00. > :06:03.comments and remember them for when they are homeowners at the next

:06:04. > :06:12.election. Is the Minister aware that in the 1980s the late Willid

:06:13. > :06:18.Whitewater expressed concern to the prime minister about the impact an

:06:19. > :06:25.unmitigated rights to buy gdneral -- in rural areas? Will he takd note of

:06:26. > :06:29.this? One of the problems of right to buy, under the Labour

:06:30. > :06:34.administration, every 170 homes that were sold, they built a disgraceful

:06:35. > :06:38.one home. That is why this scheme has 141 replacement and I think it

:06:39. > :06:43.is right that in London, we are looking to see two built in London.

:06:44. > :06:46.The party opposite neglected that for 30 years. And right now, they

:06:47. > :06:54.believe that the public will believe their rhetoric. Turning to chapter

:06:55. > :06:59.four, part four, amendments 109 and 120, and 128, they make surd that

:07:00. > :07:02.tenants cannot have their rdnt raised any higher than the laximum

:07:03. > :07:10.rent chargeable under the policy as a whole. The new courses, 60 and 61,

:07:11. > :07:15.and amendments 101 through 027, and amendment 129, they are part of a

:07:16. > :07:23.wider package for housing associations. Amendment 111 removes

:07:24. > :07:27.clause 64 as it is no longer needed. We have also heard the honotrable

:07:28. > :07:31.lady's thoughts on this part of the bill was amendments 67 throtgh 0.

:07:32. > :07:35.At the risk of repeating myself I want to make something clear. I have

:07:36. > :07:40.made it clear in committee `nd elsewhere that we will be proposing

:07:41. > :07:44.to introduce a table so there always remains an incentive to find work. I

:07:45. > :07:47.appreciate the members opposite on the front bench were not thdre for

:07:48. > :07:52.the committee stage so they might have missed that. I want to make

:07:53. > :07:56.sure that we have a policy that is simple as well as flexible to

:07:57. > :08:01.England. The option to create an essential body to enable thd

:08:02. > :08:02.transfer of data to landlords, which amendments 83 would remove, will be

:08:03. > :08:12.done for the aim of 4623. I have listened carefully to the

:08:13. > :08:17.comments made by the Member for Brighton Pavilion. The Government

:08:18. > :08:21.has take an decision to redtce social rents by 1% a year, so I

:08:22. > :08:26.don't believe the body she talks about is necessary.

:08:27. > :08:31.Turning to the honourable mdmbers of opposition to Chapter 5. Her

:08:32. > :08:36.approach would mean families trapped in overcrowded council homes with

:08:37. > :08:40.older tenants continuing to occupy homes have no opportunity to move or

:08:41. > :08:45.change. I won't give way. I will try to finish getting through these

:08:46. > :08:52.parts. As some lifetime ten`ncies would be passed on to familx members

:08:53. > :08:56.who are able to meet their housing needs themselves. Where somdbody is

:08:57. > :08:59.asked to move who has a sectre tenancy, that would therefore with

:09:00. > :09:05.them and we will be giving local authorities the flexibility to do

:09:06. > :09:10.that for voluntary moves as well. If someone in a secure tenancy

:09:11. > :09:15.applies for a transfer and therefore has a new tenancy created in a new

:09:16. > :09:23.property, will that securitx of tenure pass to the new propdrty and

:09:24. > :09:28.the new tenancy? Yes, we will be making sure secure tenancies are in

:09:29. > :09:31.place and they will continud and councils will have the abilhty to

:09:32. > :09:35.continue them as well. I don't believe this is a good use what the

:09:36. > :09:43.honourable lady is suggesting and I trust this House will agree. The

:09:44. > :09:47.amendments I propose today bring fairness and efficiency to the

:09:48. > :09:53.housing market and I commend them to the house.

:09:54. > :10:03.MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Roberta Blackman-Woods? We would like to

:10:04. > :10:09.have removed the chapters btt we can't. So I wish to withdraw

:10:10. > :10:15.Amendment 131 and we will no doubt return to this in the Lords. I will

:10:16. > :10:19.however move Amendment 142 that seeks to protect security of tenure

:10:20. > :10:24.for council tenants and in due course my honourable friend, my

:10:25. > :10:30.right honourable friend will move Amendment 89. I'm now moving

:10:31. > :10:35.Amendment 142. MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is it your

:10:36. > :10:47.pleasure that Amendment 131 be withdrawn? Amendment 131 by leave

:10:48. > :10:56.withdrawn. MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: The qtestion

:10:57. > :11:05.is that Government Amendments be made. As many of that opinion say

:11:06. > :11:15.aye. Aye. Of the contrary no. The ayes have it. The question hs that

:11:16. > :11:21.Government new clauses 51 to 61 be - 59 to 69 be read a second thme. As

:11:22. > :11:28.many of that opinion say ayd. Aye. Of the contrary, no. The ayds have

:11:29. > :11:34.it. New clauses 51 to 61 be added to the Bill. As many of that opinion

:11:35. > :11:41.say aye. Aye. Of the contrary no. The ayes have it. The Minister to

:11:42. > :11:48.move Amendments 113 to 129. The question is that the amendmdnts be

:11:49. > :11:57.made. As many of that opinion say aye. The ayes have it. Roberta

:11:58. > :12:11.Blackman-Woods to move 142. The question that 142 be made. @s many

:12:12. > :12:15.of that opinion say aye. Ayd. Of the contrary no. No! Division. Clear the

:12:16. > :13:51.lobby. As many of that opinion say aye

:13:52. > :20:07.Aye. Of the contrary, no. No. MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Lock the

:20:08. > :26:51.doors. The ayes to the right, 207, the noes

:26:52. > :27:19.to the left, 296. The eyes matched the right 207, the

:27:20. > :27:27.noes to the left 296, the noes have it, the noes have it, unlock. Sadiq

:27:28. > :27:46.Khan to move amendment 89 formally. The question is, as amended 89 been

:27:47. > :27:55.made? Those in favour say axe. Aye. Those against say no.

:27:56. > :30:16.No. Border! The question is amendment 89

:30:17. > :30:19.be made. Tellers for the ayds. Tellers for the noes. Thank you very

:30:20. > :35:42.much. Order, order. The ayes to the right,

:35:43. > :39:44.212. The noes to the left, 297. Thank you. The ayes to the right,

:39:45. > :39:50.212, the nose to the left, 297. The noes have it. Ministers to love

:39:51. > :39:57.Government amendment 114 formerly. Division? Yes. The question is that

:39:58. > :40:03.the amendment be made. As m`ny as are of that opinion, say "axe". To

:40:04. > :40:11.the contrary, "no". I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Point of

:40:12. > :40:18.order. The exchange I had at the end of the

:40:19. > :40:23.debate about an application to move to a new property. The minister s

:40:24. > :40:29.response may have inadvertently misled the house, or at least

:40:30. > :40:38.confused the house. About whether there is not right, because in H one

:40:39. > :40:41.beat to be... Order, order. Order. The honourable gentleman is aware

:40:42. > :40:49.that that is almost certainly more a point of annoyance than a point of

:40:50. > :40:52.order and I think the minister's has heard what he has said. We pressed

:40:53. > :40:58.for time so I'm going to call minister now. He may or may not wish

:40:59. > :41:04.to respond but I will move straight into the business, which is

:41:05. > :41:08.Government new clause 62, whth which we will consider the other clauses

:41:09. > :41:15.and amendments listed on thd selection paper. Just in response to

:41:16. > :41:18.the point raised by the honourable gentleman, the chairman of the

:41:19. > :41:24.select committee, he has discussed this, I know, with the Houshng and

:41:25. > :41:26.planning minister previouslx, and the Housing and planning minister

:41:27. > :41:30.has just said to me that he will undertake to write to my... To write

:41:31. > :41:38.to the honourable gentleman to clear up the confusion. I will give weight

:41:39. > :41:43.later on in my comments. Madam Deputy Speaker, for the fin`l time

:41:44. > :41:48.before we send the Bill to the Other Place, I beg to move the amdndments

:41:49. > :41:53.in the name of my right honourable friend the member for Tunbrhdge

:41:54. > :41:57.Wells. There are a number of... A small number of landlords and

:41:58. > :42:01.property agents who do not lanage their lettings or properties

:42:02. > :42:08.properly. Sometimes they exploit their tenants and the public purse

:42:09. > :42:14.through renting out over crowded accommodation. New clause 62 deals

:42:15. > :42:18.with the contravention of a crowding notice and at the Housing act 2 04.

:42:19. > :42:24.The maximum fine currently `llowed is set at level four, ?2500. This

:42:25. > :42:29.amendment, which affects prdmises in England only, would remove the

:42:30. > :42:34.restriction on the fine that may be imposed. The landlords and property

:42:35. > :42:40.agents who left overcrowded property will therefore face the samd

:42:41. > :42:44.penalties as those who let out substandard and unsafe propdrties.

:42:45. > :42:51.Amendments 27 to 30, revised schedule six, to increase the amount

:42:52. > :42:55.of civil penalty that can bd imposed as an alternative to prosecttion for

:42:56. > :43:00.the following offences. Failing to comply with an improvement notice.

:43:01. > :43:04.Not obtaining a notice for ` licensable house. Or failing to

:43:05. > :43:09.comply with an HMO licence conditions. Or not obtaining a

:43:10. > :43:15.licence for a property subjdct to selective licensing or failtre to

:43:16. > :43:20.comply with licence conditions. The maximum penalty for these offences

:43:21. > :43:25.will now stand at ?30,000. These amendments also increase thd civil

:43:26. > :43:29.penalty for contravening an overcrowding notice to ?30,000. Once

:43:30. > :43:38.again, this is in-line with the civil penalties for housing offences

:43:39. > :43:43.under the Housing Act 2004. If then sees to fail to comply with

:43:44. > :43:48.management regulations has `lso been added to the list of offencds that

:43:49. > :43:52.can attract civil penalties. As well as an alternative to prosecttion.

:43:53. > :43:57.Madam Deputy Speaker, we have listened to be debate that has taken

:43:58. > :44:01.place as the Bill has progrdssed through the house. During committee,

:44:02. > :44:05.members expressed concern that ?5,000 was not much of a

:44:06. > :44:09.disincentive for a rogue landlord to continue to operate, as thex could

:44:10. > :44:14.easily recoup that some in ` relatively short period of time

:44:15. > :44:17.through unlawfully continuing to rent properties out and we

:44:18. > :44:24.absolutely agree with that. A potential fine of up to ?30,000 will

:44:25. > :44:27.significantly negate any economic advantage a rogue landlord light

:44:28. > :44:31.seek to achieve through bre`ching a banning order. Madam Deputy Speaker,

:44:32. > :44:37.the amendments put forward during this part of our debate will help

:44:38. > :44:40.create a fairer housing market and one which will see unscrupulous

:44:41. > :44:49.landlords driven from the sdctor. I beg to move. The offence of

:44:50. > :44:55.contravening and overcrowding notice, level five. The question is

:44:56. > :45:06.that clause 60 to be read a second time. I rise to speak to new clause

:45:07. > :45:12.is 52, 53, 54, amendments 144, 9 and 60 seven. New clause 52 follows

:45:13. > :45:16.on from my honourable friend the member for Westminster North, the

:45:17. > :45:20.Private Members' Bill which sought a similar aim, and also follows on

:45:21. > :45:27.from discussions on this molent at committee stage. New clause 50 to 60

:45:28. > :45:29.put into legislation a duty for all private sector landlords to ensure

:45:30. > :45:34.their properties are fit for habitation when left. The m`jority

:45:35. > :45:38.of landlords let property which is and remains in a decent standard.

:45:39. > :45:43.Many landlords go out of thdir way to ensure that even the slightest

:45:44. > :45:48.safety hazard is sorted quickly and efficiently. So it is even lore

:45:49. > :45:52.distressing when we see reports of homes unfit for human habit`tion

:45:53. > :45:55.being let, often at obscene prices. A quarter of a million propdrties in

:45:56. > :46:00.the private rented sector are estimated to have a categorx one

:46:01. > :46:06.hazard and according to a m`jor report by Shelter following a YouGov

:46:07. > :46:12.survey, 61% of tenants were found to have experienced mould, damp,

:46:13. > :46:18.leaking windows, hazards, animal infestations or a gas leak hn the

:46:19. > :46:25.last 12 months. I will give way I am sure she would reflect the

:46:26. > :46:32.frustrations of colleagues `cross this house with dealing with these

:46:33. > :46:36.frustrations but they're already significant powers to deal with

:46:37. > :46:40.these problems. Before we ghve these new powers to local authorities

:46:41. > :46:43.could she say what more could be done to encourage local authorities

:46:44. > :46:51.to exercise the powers they already have. This has been raised before.

:46:52. > :46:54.What is happening at the molent is the private rented sector is

:46:55. > :46:57.massively increasing yet thd resources for local councils, I

:46:58. > :47:02.agree they do have the powers, but many local councils have very

:47:03. > :47:06.depleted members of staff able to go out and inspect and that is why we

:47:07. > :47:10.need to show that we take this very seriously and councils should be

:47:11. > :47:14.making sure they have properly staffed departments, and I know that

:47:15. > :47:17.councils will then come back and said we don't have the funds, and

:47:18. > :47:20.that is another issue, but just because there isn't the funds does

:47:21. > :47:27.not mean that we should acttally say that this is... Parliament has for

:47:28. > :47:31.over 100 years considered and legislated for standards in the

:47:32. > :47:37.private rented sector. In 1885, the Housing of the working classes act,

:47:38. > :47:45.along with 200 years later, the landlord act, both placed l`ndlord

:47:46. > :47:49.regulations under regulations.. There were issues such as d`mp,

:47:50. > :47:55.mould and infestation, yet these duties only apply to those

:47:56. > :48:00.fulfilling particular rent criteria, which is well out dated. It was last

:48:01. > :48:07.updated in 1957 and now onlx applies to properties where the anntal rent

:48:08. > :48:11.is less than ?80. So this clause seeks to remove those limits which

:48:12. > :48:15.will allow the previous leghslation passed by this Has to fulfil its

:48:16. > :48:19.purpose, to place a duty on landlords to provide a safe and

:48:20. > :48:22.secure environment. I'm surd all members will have received casework

:48:23. > :48:27.from constituents living in poor conditions. In my own consthtuency

:48:28. > :48:33.it is one of the biggest issues The office phone rings of the book with

:48:34. > :48:36.calls about mould, health, `nd the inaction of some landlords. Where

:48:37. > :48:40.else in modern day life would someone get away with this? It is a

:48:41. > :48:44.consumer issue. If I purchased a mobile phone or computer th`t didn't

:48:45. > :48:47.work, didn't do what it said it would all was unsafe, I would take

:48:48. > :48:55.it back and get a refund. If I purchased food from a shop `nd it

:48:56. > :48:59.was unsafe to eat, there is a high possibility the shopkeeper could be

:49:00. > :49:02.prosecuted, but if I rented from a landlord perhaps the only available

:49:03. > :49:08.property for me and it was tnsafe to live in, I can either put up or shut

:49:09. > :49:12.up. Renters lack basic constmer power to bargain for better

:49:13. > :49:15.conditions. Shelter notes that one in eight renters are not asked for

:49:16. > :49:22.repairs to be carried out or challenged for rent increasd -- have

:49:23. > :49:26.not asked for repairs to be carried out or challenged rent incrdases in

:49:27. > :49:30.the last year for fear of eviction. Because there is no current

:49:31. > :49:34.legislation in place to enforce landlords to ensure their properties

:49:35. > :49:38.are safe to live in, a third of private rented homes fail to meet

:49:39. > :49:41.Government standards. Failure to legislate will see the qualhty of

:49:42. > :49:46.accommodation in the ever-growing private rented sector fall

:49:47. > :49:49.drastically behind. Many in this chamber today will have horror

:49:50. > :49:53.stories from their own casework of poor living conditions. This week I

:49:54. > :49:59.had a family right to me about thick mould covering their walls, a broken

:50:00. > :50:02.heating system, leaking toilet and sewage problem, and the imp`ct that

:50:03. > :50:06.had on their family and health. Their five-year-old son has had a

:50:07. > :50:09.cough his entire life and hd has just finished a course of steroids

:50:10. > :50:13.and yet another course of antibiotics. They daughter suffers

:50:14. > :50:18.from constant migraines and the landlord refuses to do anything and

:50:19. > :50:22.the environmental teams oftdn lack resources to carry out inspdctions

:50:23. > :50:26.and enforcement work. While it is true that the majority of places are

:50:27. > :50:31.safe to live in, it is unacceptable that in 2016 we still have people,

:50:32. > :50:35.our neighbours, our constittents, living in properties and safe for

:50:36. > :50:39.human habitation and down the country. -- unsafe. This cl`use

:50:40. > :50:43.would change the lives of m`ny tenants and provide a more robust,

:50:44. > :50:48.secure and safe private rented sector, something I believe we would

:50:49. > :50:53.all wish. New clause 53 is `lso about safety. It would introduce a

:50:54. > :50:58.requirement for electrical safety checks. Many organisations from

:50:59. > :51:03.across the sector support this measure. The Local Government

:51:04. > :51:08.Association, the Fire brigade, cannot shelter, British Gas, Crisis.

:51:09. > :51:16.They have all given their stpport in the past four mandatory electrical

:51:17. > :51:22.safety checks. It is estimated that electricity causes more than 20 000

:51:23. > :51:28.house fires each year leading to around 350 seriously injured and 750

:51:29. > :51:37.deaths across the UK. Whilst carbon monoxide,... These risks obviously

:51:38. > :51:42.remain serious. It is right we continue to monitor but it does show

:51:43. > :51:45.what is at stake when we discuss electric fires. While landlords have

:51:46. > :51:49.a duty to keep electrical installations in proper working

:51:50. > :51:54.order and ensure any appliances are safe, there remains poorly

:51:55. > :51:58.maintained installations in the sector and there is no exquhsite

:51:59. > :52:03.requirement for landlords to prove to a tenant that a property is

:52:04. > :52:06.electrically safe, yet housds of multiple occupation do have periodic

:52:07. > :52:16.inspections carried out, evdry five years, so if you are in a house of

:52:17. > :52:23.multiple occupancy, you are in safer -- or a B, you are safer than the

:52:24. > :52:26.general renting population. There will be homes and houses th`t are

:52:27. > :52:31.left to six other people th`t may not be related to each other but it

:52:32. > :52:35.is not an HMO and therefore there is not the legislation there. Lany good

:52:36. > :52:40.landlords to bring electric`l safety checks and ensure that all

:52:41. > :52:45.appliances are safe did at the beginning -- safe and tested at the

:52:46. > :52:49.beginning and end of a tenancy. We have seen movement on this hssue in

:52:50. > :52:50.Scotland when his cottage Government have introduced mandatory electrical

:52:51. > :53:01.safety checks. In Wales we have growing cross-party

:53:02. > :53:04.support. Electrical safety first ran a survey with MPs in England in

:53:05. > :53:09.September and there was overwhelming support for this. During thd

:53:10. > :53:13.committee stage the Minister intimated that he was warm towards

:53:14. > :53:18.this suggestion, so I'd be grateful if at some point he could ldt us

:53:19. > :53:25.know how far those conversations have gone and whether there will be

:53:26. > :53:29.movement in the future. She's making a strong case for the government to

:53:30. > :53:33.make electrical safety checks more serious. Can I suggest to hdr that

:53:34. > :53:38.given the pressure on housing and the increasing number of

:53:39. > :53:42.buy-to-lets, HMOs and he and bees, the different ways people are

:53:43. > :53:47.letting properties, this is an issue that will not go away and it could

:53:48. > :53:51.get worse -- B lure. Most decent landlords carry out these checks,

:53:52. > :53:57.this is very much about encouraging those who don't to follow good

:53:58. > :54:00.practice -- B I thank mx honourable friend for the

:54:01. > :54:03.intervention, this is right, across the private rented sector m`ny

:54:04. > :54:06.landlords do the things we wish and it is the minority and for the

:54:07. > :54:11.minority that we really need to legislate. As I was just mentioning

:54:12. > :54:14.the Minister did say during committee that this was somdthing

:54:15. > :54:21.they were looking at. I know there have been conversations with the

:54:22. > :54:23.sector, so I'd be very pleased to hear how far those conversations

:54:24. > :54:28.have gone and whether or not there would be something coming forward in

:54:29. > :54:34.the future. Moving on to thd new clause 54, this is about hotses of

:54:35. > :54:39.multiple occupancy. The new clause 54 would remove the 3-storex

:54:40. > :54:43.condition on HMOs. This would have the effect of seeing mandatory HMO

:54:44. > :54:49.licence is required by all who meet the other requirements but not three

:54:50. > :54:52.stories high. HMOs come in ` variety of forms and the current definition

:54:53. > :54:58.does not get the actuality on the ground. I know the government is

:54:59. > :55:00.consulting on extending mandatory licensing of homes of multiple

:55:01. > :55:05.occupancy and I'd be interested to hear what the Minister has to say

:55:06. > :55:10.about where he thinks that consultation would go. Cars, HMOs do

:55:11. > :55:15.make up one of the main forls of private sector housing for students,

:55:16. > :55:19.young professionals and single people on low incomes. -- bdcause.

:55:20. > :55:24.The threshold of three storhes mean many actual HMOs don't requhre a

:55:25. > :55:28.license. Down my road there is a bungalow that is clearly not three

:55:29. > :55:35.stories, which has over the previous year had as many as ten unrdlated

:55:36. > :55:40.people living in it. -- storeys It would clearly be an HMO in `ny other

:55:41. > :55:43.way apart from the fact it hs not three storeys- stop private rented

:55:44. > :55:47.housing is an important part of the housing sector and with the

:55:48. > :55:51.reduction of housing benefit for the under 35s only having shared

:55:52. > :55:55.occupancy there are more and more properties now which are in all

:55:56. > :56:01.affect HMOs apart from this 3-storey provision. The new clause, `nd wider

:56:02. > :56:06.government consultation provided an opportunity to evaluate the purpose

:56:07. > :56:10.of HMO licensing, simply to provide for a more robust, secure and safe

:56:11. > :56:12.private rented sector through licensing of houses, multiple

:56:13. > :56:21.occupancy which operate with shared facilities. Moving on to amdndment

:56:22. > :56:30.154. Amendment 154 would le`d to the retention of sections 225 and 2 6 of

:56:31. > :56:34.the Housing act 2004. The sdctions require every local authority must,

:56:35. > :56:37.when carrying out a review tnder section eight of the Housing act

:56:38. > :56:41.1985 carry out an assessment of the accommodation needs of Gypshes and

:56:42. > :56:45.Travellers who reside in thd area and provide for the Secretary of

:56:46. > :56:49.State to issue guidance to how local housing authorities can meet those

:56:50. > :56:52.needs. There has clearly bedn, and continues to be a need to rdcognise

:56:53. > :56:57.the differing housing needs of Gypsies and Travellers. Anyone with

:56:58. > :57:00.an understanding of this colmunity would appreciate they do have

:57:01. > :57:03.different housing needs and the government's own impact assdssment

:57:04. > :57:06.of the bill recognises the perception of differential treatment

:57:07. > :57:10.of Gypsies and Travellers. We've seen lots of evidence at colmittee

:57:11. > :57:15.stage in written and oral evidence of the devastating impact that this

:57:16. > :57:18.could have on Gypsy and Traveller communities, the withdrawal of two

:57:19. > :57:27.to five and two to six, so this amendment wishes to see it retains

:57:28. > :57:31.-- 225 and 226. The Joseph Rowntree committee said Gypsies and

:57:32. > :57:34.Travellers are the most excluded group in Britain today and lany are

:57:35. > :57:39.concerned that the additions concerned misunderstand the

:57:40. > :57:48.accommodation needs. As the Department for local communhties

:57:49. > :57:50.guidance states of 2007 in the past the needs of Gypsies and Tr`vellers

:57:51. > :57:54.have not routinely formed p`rt of the process by which local

:57:55. > :57:58.authorities assess people's housing needs. The consequences of this

:57:59. > :58:02.being that the current and projected accommodation needs of Gypshes and

:58:03. > :58:05.Travellers have often not bden well understood. If the requiremdnt to

:58:06. > :58:09.specifically assess the accommodation needs is removed there

:58:10. > :58:13.will be an even higher rate of homelessness and even less sites to

:58:14. > :58:18.meet their needs will be delivered and even less land allocated in

:58:19. > :58:21.local plans to meet their nded. As a result of the shortage of atthorised

:58:22. > :58:27.sites for Gypsies and Travellers will have no alternative but to camp

:58:28. > :58:31.in unauthorised manner which impacts on their community and other settled

:58:32. > :58:36.communities around them. Without authorised sites they will have

:58:37. > :58:42.difficulty accessing water, toilets, refuse collection, schools `nd

:58:43. > :58:46.employment. Local authority spent millions of pounds eg on

:58:47. > :58:51.unauthorised incumbents, evhction costs, clearer costs. This hs a

:58:52. > :58:59.lose, lose situation. Where Gypsies and Travellers' needs are not met

:59:00. > :59:03.and local authorities are ilpacted as a consequence. The community and

:59:04. > :59:07.law partnership are concerndd about the Gypsy and Traveller

:59:08. > :59:10.accommodation needs being btried in the general housing need. They

:59:11. > :59:13.highlight how this communitx are traditionally hard to reach groups

:59:14. > :59:17.and as such require focused guidance from local authorities to assess

:59:18. > :59:21.their needs. Gypsies and Tr`vellers already experienced some of the

:59:22. > :59:24.poorest social outcomes of `ny group in our society and accommod`tion is

:59:25. > :59:28.a key determinant of the wider inequalities. We have also seen

:59:29. > :59:30.written evidence from the showman's Guild of Great Britain, the main

:59:31. > :59:35.representative body for travelling show people who shared extrdme

:59:36. > :59:40.concern with these clauses `nd the impact on their work. I be grateful

:59:41. > :59:42.of the Minister can outline the impact on travelling show pdople and

:59:43. > :59:46.any reassurance he can give the Guild to show people these clauses

:59:47. > :59:49.will not impact them. The policy in this area is different across the

:59:50. > :59:52.nation is forced up the Welsh government takes a different

:59:53. > :59:55.approach to the issue of sight provision on introducing a statutory

:59:56. > :00:00.duty on local authorities to facilitate sight provision. Wide

:00:01. > :00:04.does the Minister think Gypsies and Travellers should face the sort of

:00:05. > :00:07.postcode lottery? We believd the amendment is necessary to continue

:00:08. > :00:12.support for Traveller and Gxpsy communities who are one of the most

:00:13. > :00:19.excluded groups in Britain `nd paralegal concerns. The public

:00:20. > :00:23.sector equality duty recognhses them as an ethnic minority and the UK has

:00:24. > :00:27.another addition to facilit`te the traditional way of life for Gypsies

:00:28. > :00:29.and Travellers. I be grateftl of the Minister could confirm whether the

:00:30. > :00:36.removal of this clause would go against that. Are amendment would

:00:37. > :00:40.ensure the retention of sections 225 and 226 of the Housing Act 2004

:00:41. > :00:43.which would ensure their hotsing needs are assessed by local

:00:44. > :00:47.authorities, to make sure that safe sites can be continued to bd than to

:00:48. > :00:51.fight and avoid the lose-lose situation letter in the bill were

:00:52. > :00:54.under a presented groups face their housing needs being swallowdd up by

:00:55. > :00:59.the general housing need. As the clause stands it would lead to many

:01:00. > :01:03.unintended consequences, shortage of order I sites for juices and

:01:04. > :01:06.Travellers, rise in unauthorised sites, worse safety, greater

:01:07. > :01:11.pressure on local authoritids and to pressure on local communitids -

:01:12. > :01:15.Gypsies and Travellers. I hope the government will consider thhs

:01:16. > :01:20.amendment. Moving onto amendment 99 and amendment to clause 92, this

:01:21. > :01:25.would ensure those with an dntry on the database of rogue landlords

:01:26. > :01:29.would not be granted a licence to run an HMO. Whilst those subject to

:01:30. > :01:32.a banning order would not bd able to receive an HMO licence, as they

:01:33. > :01:35.would be in breach of the b`nning order, there are many others on the

:01:36. > :01:40.road landlords and letting `gents database who could still apply and

:01:41. > :01:42.receive an HMO licence -- rogue landlords. As the House will be

:01:43. > :01:46.aware of local housing the Prydie may include other persons on the

:01:47. > :01:50.database rather than applying for a banning order in a case where a

:01:51. > :01:53.person's offences are slightly less serious and the local authority

:01:54. > :01:56.considers monitoring the person is more appropriate than seeking a

:01:57. > :02:00.banning order. This amendment seeks assurance those people would not be

:02:01. > :02:04.considered for an HMO licence. It would have the added bonus of

:02:05. > :02:08.ensuring the local housing `uthority checks with the rogue landlords and

:02:09. > :02:11.lettings agents had to base to insure the applicant is allowed and

:02:12. > :02:15.nobody subject to a banning order would slip through. And if hn the

:02:16. > :02:19.future the database of rogud landlords and letting agents were to

:02:20. > :02:23.be expanded upon it would provide further protection for tenants

:02:24. > :02:26.against rogue landlords. We are as has been mentioned in earlidr

:02:27. > :02:30.debates at committee stage, supportive of the message to tackle

:02:31. > :02:33.rogue landlords to ensure the security and safety for ten`nts in

:02:34. > :02:38.the sector and penalise crilinal landlords. However, we would like to

:02:39. > :02:42.see added this further meastre to ensure that rogue landlords are not

:02:43. > :02:46.able in any circumstance to be granted an HMO licence. This

:02:47. > :02:51.amendment would help to drive up standards across the sector and

:02:52. > :02:55.protect tenants in HMOs frol rogue landlords. Amendment

:02:56. > :02:59.67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko is an amendment to clause 93 which

:03:00. > :03:08.introduces schedule four, which amends the Housing Act of 2004 -

:03:09. > :03:12.Amendment 67. Prosecution is an alternative to certain offences Are

:03:13. > :03:15.amendment would mean that fhnancial penalties could be sought in

:03:16. > :03:18.addition to prosecution rather than as an alternative. Why we stpport

:03:19. > :03:21.measures in the Bill that t`ckle rogue landlords the bill cotld go

:03:22. > :03:24.further to penalise criminal landlords to make it harder for them

:03:25. > :03:29.to get away with housing related offences, to deter them frol

:03:30. > :03:32.committing the crime and deter them from returning to the sector as well

:03:33. > :03:35.as riding adequate punishment for their offence. At present, the bill

:03:36. > :03:42.would allow for a financial penalty to be sought instead of a criminal

:03:43. > :03:46.prosecution in cases from f`ilure to comply with improvement nothces

:03:47. > :03:50.letting an unlicensed HMO alongst other offences. Clearly there will

:03:51. > :03:54.be cases when a financial pdnalty would be more appropriate, `s well

:03:55. > :04:00.as there may be cases where a prosecution route would be lore

:04:01. > :04:02.appropriate. However, there may be further situations where both routes

:04:03. > :04:07.would be appropriate and thhs amendment would seek to allow this

:04:08. > :04:10.to happen. This would help hn situations where the impact of the

:04:11. > :04:16.offence is unclear. A local authority Madine at financi`l

:04:17. > :04:20.penalty appropriate, -- may deem. But if the impact of the orhginal

:04:21. > :04:24.offence escalates they may `lso wish to add an additional prosecttion

:04:25. > :04:27.route. Making provision for both routes will allow greater

:04:28. > :04:33.flexibility and local authorities could choose to find, prosecute but

:04:34. > :04:35.they could also choose both measures and this amendment would increase

:04:36. > :04:38.the options available to local authorities to make sure thd bill

:04:39. > :04:43.goes further to penalise crhminal landlords, to defer them from

:04:44. > :04:46.committing crimes and deter them from returning to the sector as well

:04:47. > :04:50.as providing adequate punishment for the offence. In doing this we hope

:04:51. > :04:54.we could further ensure the security and safety of tenants in thd sector

:04:55. > :04:58.and help drive up standards. Should the government is not accept new

:04:59. > :05:05.clause 52 we will seek to dhvide the House on that particular amdndment

:05:06. > :05:08.and should amendment is 79, 76 and 77 in the name of the honourable

:05:09. > :05:13.member from Bromley and Chislehurst amongst others seek to test the

:05:14. > :05:17.House will on those amendments on the CPO provisions which we believe

:05:18. > :05:22.water down the provisions of the act this side of the House would oppose

:05:23. > :05:30.those in a vote. Thank you. I rise to speak in favour of new

:05:31. > :05:33.clause 42. It is quite contradictory situation that in a very high value

:05:34. > :05:39.area like St Albans that often people will look to live in mobile

:05:40. > :05:44.home parks because that is the most affordable route to securing their

:05:45. > :05:47.own home. Whilst I have a l`rge number of mobile home sites within

:05:48. > :05:53.my constituency as well as some of the highest house prices and least

:05:54. > :05:55.affordability in the countrx, I was pleased that the last Coalition

:05:56. > :06:01.Government sought to tackle some of the abuses of the rogue sitd owners

:06:02. > :06:07.in the last Parliament. Howdver I do think this problem of behng able

:06:08. > :06:11.to sell your own mobile homd freely without being shackled with enormous

:06:12. > :06:15.costs is actually something that does need tackling. It is worth

:06:16. > :06:20.probing with a new clause 42, and I'd be interested to hear the

:06:21. > :06:23.Minister's views on the matter. I have a particular mobile hole park

:06:24. > :06:28.in my constituency, Newlands Park and residents have told me that when

:06:29. > :06:31.bands become available, the park homes become available, it hs often

:06:32. > :06:36.so difficult to sell that p`rticular Park home, Madame Deputy Spdaker,

:06:37. > :06:43.that what happens in the end is the Park home is bought up by the site

:06:44. > :06:47.owner. And gradually more of the park homes are becoming in ownership

:06:48. > :06:52.of the site owner and then the site owner rents them out at a hhgh

:06:53. > :06:56.rental rate. This is somethhng that is happening because on manx sites

:06:57. > :07:00.throughout the United Kingdom, not only is the cost of selling one s

:07:01. > :07:07.mobile home hugely disproportionate to the value of the actual van on

:07:08. > :07:11.the site but there are restrictions on those selling the mobile homes.

:07:12. > :07:13.For example in Newlands Park there is an insistence on vetting the

:07:14. > :07:20.potential new buyer of the lobile home, done by the site owner. There

:07:21. > :07:23.is also restrictions on the how when and wording associated with

:07:24. > :07:28.displaying advertise meant for selling the mobile home. Thhs can

:07:29. > :07:34.mean that in the sites that are poorly run, or run by owner is

:07:35. > :07:38.landlords that what can happen is that those mobile home, or park home

:07:39. > :07:44.sites can actually start becoming controlled by the site owner. I

:07:45. > :07:49.think one of the tools that can be done within this bill, and hf not in

:07:50. > :07:53.this bill, maybe another look at the mobile homes Park act, we could be

:07:54. > :07:59.looking to restrict the control that unscrupulous owners may choose to

:08:00. > :08:05.try and exercise over those who wish to divest themselves of park home

:08:06. > :08:09.sites. Park home sites are often owned by elderly people, divorced

:08:10. > :08:13.people, single people, people on low incomes, people are not alw`ys very

:08:14. > :08:16.savvy or able to bend themsdlves legally should they find thdmselves

:08:17. > :08:23.being put in a difficult position. -- defend themselves. By putting it

:08:24. > :08:25.into war as this clause six to-do the government would support those

:08:26. > :08:32.owners and it would perhaps be a shot across the bowels of those site

:08:33. > :08:39.owners, who seek to make life so difficult and so expensive to those

:08:40. > :08:43.Park home owners, that in the end they give up and sell it to the site

:08:44. > :08:51.owner and he builds up a lucrative profit -- shot across the bows.

:08:52. > :08:54.Builds up a lucrative private empire and removes those homes frol other

:08:55. > :08:58.people on low incomes being able to buy them in an affordable m`nner. I

:08:59. > :09:03.think adrift kind this parthcular new clause is very welcome, and I

:09:04. > :09:05.hope the Minister can give ts an indication on whether greatdr

:09:06. > :09:09.protections will be given to people who live on Park home sites, because

:09:10. > :09:12.if not now I'd like to know that it was coming down the route at some

:09:13. > :09:18.point in the future, becausd Park home owners have come some of the

:09:19. > :09:21.most disadvantaged grey are`s in housing and it's time they had a

:09:22. > :09:25.much stronger champion. This government in coalition did it last

:09:26. > :09:28.time and I hope this governlent this time will take it a step further and

:09:29. > :09:35.strengthen up the protections for Park homeowners.

:09:36. > :09:42.I am grateful to be called. The honourable lady, apart from her

:09:43. > :09:48.other duties in this place, she also leads the group on Bangladesh. I'm

:09:49. > :09:55.pleased to be following her in this debate. I want to speak on new

:09:56. > :10:00.clauses three and four, which stand in my name, and express my

:10:01. > :10:05.appreciation to Mr Glenn McKee in the Public Bill Office for his

:10:06. > :10:13.expert assistance crafting new clauses three and four. And to thank

:10:14. > :10:17.the Leasehold Partnership for the encouragement in making surd we have

:10:18. > :10:25.new clause three on leasehold reform. My constituency is the

:10:26. > :10:33.second highest number of le`sehold properties in the country. So this

:10:34. > :10:37.is a matter which has great constituents the significance, and

:10:38. > :10:42.Klaus four on tenants' writds, I have 50% of the properties hn my

:10:43. > :10:47.constituency being socially rented, and so this is also a big issue

:10:48. > :10:50.locally. On leasehold reforl, I m pleased that the Government has

:10:51. > :10:56.recognised the scale of the issue. Led by the honourable gentldman who

:10:57. > :10:59.has been campaigning on leasehold reform for many, many years, and

:11:00. > :11:07.whom I'm pleased to be supporting on this issue, and who is backdd up by

:11:08. > :11:16.the leasehold partnership organised by Martin Berry. He and I h`ve

:11:17. > :11:19.arranged a forum here at Westminster for parties interested in ldasehold

:11:20. > :11:23.reform and they have been attended by professional bodies, but

:11:24. > :11:30.individuals, by leaseholders and others. They have been raishng these

:11:31. > :11:33.matters with civil servants, with Government, and I'm grateful the

:11:34. > :11:39.minister has afforded us a number of opportunities to come in and meet

:11:40. > :11:45.civil servants to try to explore these issues and identify a way

:11:46. > :11:51.forward. One of the major stccesses we have had in the past 12 lonths is

:11:52. > :11:58.the Government initially estimated there were twin two and 2.34 million

:11:59. > :12:04.leaseholders in this countrx. - between. The fact that therd is now

:12:05. > :12:09.4.5 million means this is a bigger problem than the Government thought.

:12:10. > :12:13.This does not take into account the nearly 2 million leaseholders of

:12:14. > :12:16.former council properties, who exercised right to buy or h`ve

:12:17. > :12:20.subsequently bought those properties, so we are talking about

:12:21. > :12:27.nearly 6 million households in this country, a significant numbdr of our

:12:28. > :12:33.citizens affected by leaseholders and their relation. My constituents

:12:34. > :12:39.are affected by this. Among them are very wealthy professionals, in very

:12:40. > :12:43.smart properties around Can`ry Wharf, and some of them in very

:12:44. > :12:47.expensive properties, but also a number of pensioners in the east end

:12:48. > :12:51.who exercised right to buy `nd who own former council propertids, who

:12:52. > :12:58.clearly have not got the access to the resources and the assets and the

:12:59. > :13:05.finances available to some of my constituents. It also covers

:13:06. > :13:10.retirement homes and leaseholders are represented in every strata of

:13:11. > :13:17.society. From the bruised rhght the way through to the richest. So

:13:18. > :13:21.nobody is excluded from the vulnerability of living in leasehold

:13:22. > :13:28.properties. -- from the poorest to the richest. A lack of protdction

:13:29. > :13:33.and the informal dispute resolution procedure which is abused bx

:13:34. > :13:38.unscrupulous freeholders employing high powered barristers puts

:13:39. > :13:43.ordinary leaseholders, whether professionals, rich or poor, I see

:13:44. > :13:51.honourable members on the other side smiling because they are in this

:13:52. > :13:55.category, either as vulnerable leaseholders or as freeholddrs, I

:13:56. > :14:01.went say unscrupulous. I know but the honourable gentleman opposite,

:14:02. > :14:07.as if the loan West Ham supporter, we would never fall into thd

:14:08. > :14:15.category of unscrupulous. There are major weaknesses in leasehold

:14:16. > :14:20.regulation. Including issues such as the amount of service chargds, the

:14:21. > :14:24.amount of insurance which is charged, the ground rents which are

:14:25. > :14:29.charged, and forfeiture. All issues for leaseholders, where thex are

:14:30. > :14:33.vulnerable to unscrupulous freeholders. Sadly, there are too

:14:34. > :14:37.many of those even though they are in the minority. Although I do think

:14:38. > :14:45.it is important to recognisd that the sector has been attempthng to

:14:46. > :14:49.improve its performance and to raise its game with the new voluntary

:14:50. > :14:56.codes, and that has been significant progress made. But I do think that

:14:57. > :15:01.leasehold reform is something which should be on the Government's radar,

:15:02. > :15:09.certainly since leasehold h`s been increasingly used over many years.

:15:10. > :15:18.We have had six major statutes, a number of SIs other Acts of

:15:19. > :15:22.Parliament dealing with this issue, Conservative administrations,

:15:23. > :15:30.notably in 1985, 1987 and 18 93 And then the Labour Housing Act of 992,

:15:31. > :15:34.all trying to recognise this collectively as an area which needs

:15:35. > :15:39.attention. We have singularly failed to protect leaseholders and I would

:15:40. > :15:46.be very interested in hearing the minister's comments in response to

:15:47. > :15:55.those points. New clause three and the proposal which is dated within

:15:56. > :16:03.it. I am hoping that this whll galvanise the Government into asking

:16:04. > :16:08.why nothing has happened. I do understand that key discusshons have

:16:09. > :16:12.been taking place within Government in the movement of commonhold

:16:13. > :16:22.legislation, which still falls under M O J. It would seem to makd sense

:16:23. > :16:28.to place those responsibilities for housing within the bond dep`rtment.

:16:29. > :16:32.At the end of the last administration, moving into the

:16:33. > :16:37.General Election, all three main political parties supported moving

:16:38. > :16:40.this issue to DCLG, but there has not been any movement. I wotld be

:16:41. > :16:49.grateful to hear the ministdr's response. In terms of new clause

:16:50. > :16:53.four, this is far less complex. I'm disappointed we have not sedn

:16:54. > :16:57.movement on this because it is very much an issue of localism and

:16:58. > :17:01.community empowerment. If I could refer back to leasehold leghslation

:17:02. > :17:05.for a moment, one of the few protections for his hobbies that

:17:06. > :17:10.does exist, although it is very difficult to implement -- for

:17:11. > :17:13.leaseholders that does exist, is the right to sack management colpanies

:17:14. > :17:19.responsible for the upkeep of residents' homes. There is the

:17:20. > :17:23.provision for ballots to take place and a simple majority would allow

:17:24. > :17:29.residents to look for new property management companies for managing

:17:30. > :17:34.those properties. It happens very seldom. In my constituency, many

:17:35. > :17:42.thousands of tenants voted over recent decades in ballots to move

:17:43. > :17:47.responsibility for the homes from the castle to housing assochations.

:17:48. > :17:54.This was one of the mechanisms we used to deal with the 2 million

:17:55. > :17:58.homes that we inherited that were perceived as being below thd decency

:17:59. > :18:03.threshold, and it led to upgrade of nearly 1.5 million of those

:18:04. > :18:07.properties by 2010, including new kitchens, new bathrooms, dotble

:18:08. > :18:14.glazing, new security and the rest of it. Most of these schemes were

:18:15. > :18:17.successful. However, in a slall majority of transfers, they often

:18:18. > :18:22.provided by the housing associations who sought the support of local

:18:23. > :18:27.tenants and there is no provision for those tenants to express their

:18:28. > :18:32.disappointment and to cite the red -- sack their registered landlord.

:18:33. > :18:38.This is a basic element of consumer protection and any product which one

:18:39. > :18:46.byes on the open market has protections to be able to sdek

:18:47. > :18:52.compensation and redress, btt if it is your home and you are a council

:18:53. > :18:54.tenant and you vote to move to a new registered social landlord, once you

:18:55. > :18:59.are transferred, there is nowhere to go. If you are a leasehold, at least

:19:00. > :19:06.you have the provision, even though as I say it is rarely used. So my

:19:07. > :19:13.question in new clause four is trying to introduce the provision

:19:14. > :19:16.which, I am suggesting a five yearly review, which would at least give

:19:17. > :19:21.council tenants the opportunity to say to the housing associathon, or

:19:22. > :19:25.the registered social landlord who is supposed to be delivering the

:19:26. > :19:28.services which have been pahd for, that they are not doing a good

:19:29. > :19:34.enough job and that if they do not up their game we will have ` lift

:19:35. > :19:39.and sack you and me to a new housing association, or back to the council,

:19:40. > :19:43.or set up a tenant management organisation, but basically give the

:19:44. > :19:47.right to tenants to be able to hold their housing association to

:19:48. > :19:54.account. The protection at the moment is complained through the

:19:55. > :20:01.Housing ombudsman, to the rdgulator, and to get to that length is very

:20:02. > :20:04.difficult. The regulator is very reluctant to move ownership and

:20:05. > :20:10.response ability from one Housing association to another. So new

:20:11. > :20:17.clause four actually suggests that tenants should have the right that

:20:18. > :20:22.when the social landlord or housing association is not delivering, to

:20:23. > :20:29.say, you are not doing a good enough job, we want somebody else to manage

:20:30. > :20:32.the property. These clauses... One very convex, one quite strahght

:20:33. > :20:36.forward. I'm disappointed that the Government has not seen it hn its

:20:37. > :20:40.interest to bring forward these clauses themselves. I'm surd there

:20:41. > :20:43.will be some interest within the other points when the Bill lakes

:20:44. > :20:51.progress. But I would be very interested to hear the response to

:20:52. > :20:59.these points. It is always ` particular pleasure to follow the

:21:00. > :21:07.honourable gentleman as a fdllow officer for the All-party Group For

:21:08. > :21:13.The Advancement Of West Ham United, which is doing well at the loment.

:21:14. > :21:17.It is nice to recognise his very real commitment and expertise in the

:21:18. > :21:21.area of housing in particul`r. I ought to refer to my interest in the

:21:22. > :21:28.register of interests, one of which includes being a leasehold hn the

:21:29. > :21:33.honourable gentleman's constituency. My experience of stock transfer has

:21:34. > :21:35.been rather more positive btt he makes serious and important points

:21:36. > :21:39.which I do think need to be addressed. For any London MP, the

:21:40. > :21:47.issue of dealing with leaseholders is particularly important bdcause

:21:48. > :21:55.that is such a critical part of the housing's -- the capital's housing

:21:56. > :22:00.stock. One former MP, whom lany honourable members will rec`ll was

:22:01. > :22:08.and active advocate of houshng reform, it is timely to pay tribute

:22:09. > :22:17.to that work. I turned to the specific new clause amendments which

:22:18. > :22:23.sit in my name relating to the line of compulsory purchase. My smile in

:22:24. > :22:28.relation to the honourable gentleman was not so much about being a

:22:29. > :22:32.leasehold or otherwise, it was his reference to high-powered

:22:33. > :22:37.barristers. It never quite seemed like that in the County Hall, that

:22:38. > :22:41.is all I can say. This is complex but an important area of law, one

:22:42. > :22:46.where I know ministers are dngaged in the need for reform, bec`use the

:22:47. > :22:57.simple truth is our compulsory purchase law has since about 18 40

:22:58. > :23:02.grown up incrementally. It hs not coherent, and it lags behind the

:23:03. > :23:06.rest of the planning system in terms of updating. The Law Commission have

:23:07. > :23:10.recognised that. They are continuing to do work on that. I hope ht is

:23:11. > :23:13.something they will be able to revisit in the course of thhs

:23:14. > :23:18.Parliament. We need to get ` grip and have a wholesale report on

:23:19. > :23:22.compulsory purchase. That is not possible within this Bill, but I

:23:23. > :23:27.welcome the improvements th`t the Bill does make around compulsory

:23:28. > :23:30.purchase and compensation, which are good steps forward. I will suggest

:23:31. > :23:34.some other steps forward as well. I was sorry that the honourable lady

:23:35. > :23:35.on the opposition front bench thought that these were neg`tive

:23:36. > :23:52.matters. I do not see them that way. I suspect I may not entirelx

:23:53. > :23:57.succeed. But let me at least try. And really, the essence of what we

:23:58. > :24:01.are seeking to do is that there are three aspects of this. It is about

:24:02. > :24:08.fairness of treatment to landowners whose land is compulsorily `cquired.

:24:09. > :24:11.We assume that that somehow relates to landed estates and the

:24:12. > :24:18.aristocracy, but that is not the case. Many people whose land is

:24:19. > :24:21.acquired compulsorily are slall businesses and smallholders, one way

:24:22. > :24:25.or another. People who might struggle to finance the running of

:24:26. > :24:41.their businesses. It can happen in an urban area. So, further treatment

:24:42. > :24:46.is as important for the smallholder, as it is for the public authority.

:24:47. > :24:49.Secondly, to make sure that there is promptness of payment. Whatdver the

:24:50. > :24:55.circumstance, payment of compensation should be done swiftly

:24:56. > :25:03.and at a fair rate of interdst. That is the third point which my set of

:25:04. > :25:07.amendments relate to. Their has been an important step forward bx the

:25:08. > :25:16.government on this, which I welcome. I know that the Country Landowners

:25:17. > :25:20.Association, which represents both landowners and businesses in rural

:25:21. > :25:25.areas, welcomes that. But I am pressing business is to go further.

:25:26. > :25:33.Let me explain why I think these changes are needed. First of all

:25:34. > :25:36.there is the duty of care. We often have duty of care written into

:25:37. > :25:41.statute in relation to a nulber of issues. The acquisition of land can

:25:42. > :25:53.be fundamental to the futurd of a business in an area. . It c`n be

:25:54. > :25:57.fundamental to families, too. Nothing wrong with compulsory

:25:58. > :26:01.acquisition, which is somethmes necessary. But at the end of the

:26:02. > :26:07.day, the fair treatment of those people is important. What the new

:26:08. > :26:10.clause seeks to do is to pl`ce a duty of care upon acquiring

:26:11. > :26:16.authorities to make sure th`t those losing land or property are treated

:26:17. > :26:19.fairly as well as introducing a clear set of guidelines by which the

:26:20. > :26:27.authority have to add here `nd which could be judged if you like

:26:28. > :26:30.objectively against. It may be that the minister will say that xou do

:26:31. > :26:35.not need primary legislation for that. We can't talk about that in

:26:36. > :26:44.due course. But I think the issue needs to be flagged up. There is a

:26:45. > :26:48.concern amongst many practitioners. I am grateful for the support of

:26:49. > :26:57.various people, including those in the Compulsory Purchase Association,

:26:58. > :27:00.who have highlighted the fact that there is a concern about having a

:27:01. > :27:05.transparent mechanism in order to determine what is a fair rate of

:27:06. > :27:17.compensation. At the moment it is a bit a horse trading process. We need

:27:18. > :27:21.a proper benchmark by which to judge whether or not the acquiring

:27:22. > :27:27.authority is behaving reasonably. The state gives considerabld power

:27:28. > :27:32.to acquiring authorities. I do not object to that. But the corollary is

:27:33. > :27:37.that it should be exercised in a genuinely fair fashion. Most times

:27:38. > :27:51.it is, but Azman occasions when it isn't. -- but there are occ`sions

:27:52. > :27:58.when it isn't. I hope that discussions on this will be able to

:27:59. > :28:04.take forward in a constructhve way. But I hope they will concedd that it

:28:05. > :28:10.is an issue that we need to address. The second part of my remarks relate

:28:11. > :28:19.to the amendments which are in my name, amendments 76, 77 and macro

:28:20. > :28:24.79. I do not think it is right to characterise these as weakening the

:28:25. > :28:27.power of compulsory purchasd at all. Compulsory purchase requires

:28:28. > :28:32.fairness to both sides. What we are seeking to do is first of all to

:28:33. > :28:35.make sure that there is prolpt payment, and secondly to make sure

:28:36. > :28:42.that it comes at a fair ratd of interest for those people who are

:28:43. > :28:48.going to be paid. Let me de`l with the question of advanced paxment,

:28:49. > :28:53.amendment 79. Very often yot find that if land is compulsorilx

:28:54. > :28:59.acquired, it may be a farmer, it may be a rural business, but thdy then

:29:00. > :29:03.find it difficult to secure funding to take their business forw`rd. If

:29:04. > :29:10.part of their holding is severed, part of the business is in dffect

:29:11. > :29:17.taken away, it may interrupt their existing financial arrangemdnts with

:29:18. > :29:20.their bank. They may have to go back to the bank if a mortgage, for

:29:21. > :29:27.example, has been borrowed `gainst a certain number of acres. So it is

:29:28. > :29:31.important that they have prompt compensation and a fair ratd of

:29:32. > :29:37.compensation in order to give comfort to the bank. That is what we

:29:38. > :29:44.are is seeking to address. @t a moment, even though it is possible

:29:45. > :29:48.to sort out the acquisition and compensation sum, nonetheless there

:29:49. > :29:50.are frequently quite long ddlays after the authority has takdn

:29:51. > :29:55.possession of the land. And choosing the point. Once the acquiring

:29:56. > :29:58.authority has taken possesshon of the landless and of course these are

:29:59. > :30:06.no longer available for use as part of the business. But they m`y not

:30:07. > :30:09.get the compensation for it any many months and in effect have to make

:30:10. > :30:17.bridging arrangements with their banks. I give way. I have bden

:30:18. > :30:23.involved in a case myself bdfore coming here to Parliament, where the

:30:24. > :30:29.bank required immediate rep`yment of loans facility because of the

:30:30. > :30:33.reduction of its security, `nd of course the business had to close

:30:34. > :30:36.because it did not have accdss to funds immediately. His reasonable

:30:37. > :30:40.amendment that payment should be made promptly, to enable thd

:30:41. > :30:45.business to continue, I would have thought would be very welcole. I am

:30:46. > :30:52.grateful. I know he has professional expertise in this matter. I would

:30:53. > :30:56.say to ministers, of all thd amendments and new clauses hn my

:30:57. > :31:04.name, I would urge them most strongly to pay attention to this,

:31:05. > :31:09.because this is precisely the one thing which actually puts pdople out

:31:10. > :31:17.of business, as the honourable gentleman says. I would urgd people

:31:18. > :31:21.to look swiftly and urgentlx at this. Perhaps it does not rdquire

:31:22. > :31:30.primary legislation far, it does need to be addressed. My honourable

:31:31. > :31:34.friend is absolutely right. Established firms of folding because

:31:35. > :31:38.of this. Unless they are able to go back, sometimes having to increase

:31:39. > :31:42.their exposure, sometimes h`ving to put up the family home to ghve the

:31:43. > :31:45.security, that cannot be just under those circumstances. I am

:31:46. > :31:50.particularly grateful to my honourable friend for that

:31:51. > :31:54.intervention. The end tulips what this amendment is all about. The

:31:55. > :31:59.final point, to reinforce hhs intervention, is that failing to pay

:32:00. > :32:03.compensation in this way actually runs contrary to virtually `ll other

:32:04. > :32:09.commercial transactions. It is an outlier which puts people who are

:32:10. > :32:12.compulsorily acquired in a disadvantage as position, vdry

:32:13. > :32:16.possibly against public wadhs and makes it really difficult for any

:32:17. > :32:21.landowner or business person to run their business efficiently `gainst

:32:22. > :32:26.that background. That is thd purpose of that amendment. I hope it will be

:32:27. > :32:31.looked upon favourably by the government. The route I am not

:32:32. > :32:37.fussed about but it is the outcome of fairness which I think is the

:32:38. > :32:45.most important. Amendment 77 is consequential upon that, Madame

:32:46. > :32:49.Deputy Speaker. Can I now ttrn to amendment 79, the second part of it.

:32:50. > :32:53.First of all it is important that we have prompt payment. The second part

:32:54. > :32:56.is realistic levels of compdnsation. It can be assessed through the

:32:57. > :33:06.current system for great is the question of interest on latd

:33:07. > :33:15.payment. The current governlent has rightly emphasised the importance

:33:16. > :33:19.for businesses of prompt,. ,- prompt payment. It is something whhch

:33:20. > :33:25.weighs heavily upon small to medium-sized businesses, because

:33:26. > :33:30.they are more exposed to thd need for external bank financing the

:33:31. > :33:35.most. They are not likely to be able to drawdown on capital. We recognise

:33:36. > :33:43.and I welcome the governments increase in the rate which hs paid

:33:44. > :33:46.to 4%, as I recall it. That is an important and valuable step forward.

:33:47. > :33:53.By urge them that it should go further. When compulsory purchase

:33:54. > :33:58.goes through, very off on the land holders find it very diffictlt to

:33:59. > :34:02.secure the funding to go forward, and in particular it is important to

:34:03. > :34:11.have that realistic rate of interest paid. Even under the current changes

:34:12. > :34:17.proposed, it will lag behind what is effectively the market-wide. So we

:34:18. > :34:19.have this situation, the nature of compulsory purchase means that the

:34:20. > :34:27.majority of compensation dud is meant to be paid before. Whdn it is

:34:28. > :34:31.not, there ought to be some compensation for those who `re held

:34:32. > :34:35.up by the late payment of that. By and large we are in a situation now

:34:36. > :34:37.where the government has proposed introducing an interest ratd of 2%

:34:38. > :34:43.above the base rate on late payments. That is a step forward.

:34:44. > :34:49.However it is still well below the commercial breaks. And thesd

:34:50. > :34:53.amendments would see an intdrest rate on compensation which was due

:34:54. > :35:02.before entry but not paid on time at 8% above base that. That is in line

:35:03. > :35:06.with the interest which is charged on late payments on commerchal

:35:07. > :35:10.transactions. The truth is, it is no burden on the acquiring authority.

:35:11. > :35:13.All they have to do is pay on time. If they pay on time this and they do

:35:14. > :35:17.not attract the punitive rate of interest. It is actually a spur to

:35:18. > :35:24.good behaviour by acquiring authorities. But 8% would bd closer

:35:25. > :35:30.to the market rate than the 4% which is currently available. We suggest

:35:31. > :35:44.that any compensation on a quantifiable amount should be at 8%.

:35:45. > :35:47.What we are then saying is, in relation to those other paylents,

:35:48. > :35:51.which are not always quantifiable immediately but become apparent

:35:52. > :35:55.there, that should attract `n interest rate of 4% above b`se,

:35:56. > :36:00.which is in line with commercial lending rates. So, we are shmply

:36:01. > :36:05.saying to acquiring authorities behave like any other commercial

:36:06. > :36:12.body would do. That is not seeking to undermine the compulsory purchase

:36:13. > :36:23.regime at all. But it is making sure that it acts fairly. Those `cquiring

:36:24. > :36:29.authorities who are efficient should have nothing to fear. Why should the

:36:30. > :36:33.landowner be in a worse poshtion than they would be if, let's say,

:36:34. > :36:41.the land had been acquired `s a result of a commercial negotiation

:36:42. > :36:46.or, let's say, a judgment of the court in relation to the land. It

:36:47. > :36:54.may sound technical but it hs important to a lot of rural

:36:55. > :36:58.businesses. I think we only have one farm in Bromley in Chislehurst, but

:36:59. > :37:05.it is an important issue for many businesses in rural areas.

:37:06. > :37:13.It is a delight to follow mx colleague. He has expertise in

:37:14. > :37:19.housing and planning. I would like to make some remarks in rel`tion to

:37:20. > :37:25.conditions in the private rdnted sector and also in relation to. . To

:37:26. > :37:41.respond in a way and to agrde, really, with my colleague... I'm not

:37:42. > :37:46.an expert in housing and pl`nning but I do know that I have jtst

:37:47. > :37:53.opened my 1000th constituency case since May the 8th and there was a

:37:54. > :37:58.lot of work to be done. 60% of all people who have come to see me or

:37:59. > :38:01.written to me or phoned me have talked to me about housing `nd

:38:02. > :38:06.whereas I think perhaps 20 xears ago the member for Hornsey and Wood

:38:07. > :38:09.Green would have been dealing mainly with local authorities or housing

:38:10. > :38:13.associations, or home owners, so many more cases now do relate to the

:38:14. > :38:16.private rented sector, and that is why it is a real pleasure that I

:38:17. > :38:22.have been able to speak and get into the speaking order today. As we know

:38:23. > :38:26.from a previous debate which my honourable friend the member for

:38:27. > :38:29.Kensington North lead on in a Private Members' Bill, the

:38:30. > :38:33.conditions of many of our homes in the private rented sector ldave a

:38:34. > :38:38.lot to be desired. We know now that instead of the 10% or 15% of the

:38:39. > :38:43.population in an average London borough, people living in the

:38:44. > :38:47.private rented sector can now constitute up to 45% of reshdents.

:38:48. > :38:53.That is why we need to be mtch more ambitious about the quality of homes

:38:54. > :38:59.that house constituents. In particular, we know now that fewer

:39:00. > :39:03.and fewer people are able to own their own homes and home ownership

:39:04. > :39:10.is at an all-time low, and we know that the Government policy hs to try

:39:11. > :39:14.to assist people. We know that, for example, in my constituency, only

:39:15. > :39:17.one household, and there ard 80 000 electoral was in the constituency,

:39:18. > :39:23.only one household had been helped by the Government incentive scheme

:39:24. > :39:27.called help to buy, and that gives you an indication of how difficult

:39:28. > :39:30.it is to get onto the housing ladder. Therefore, more people are

:39:31. > :39:35.saving up in the hope that one day they may own a home. It is so

:39:36. > :39:39.important we had high quality private rented homes. We know that

:39:40. > :39:44.most landlords are actually very good. Most want to look aftdr their

:39:45. > :39:47.tenants and want to be best practice. However, unfortun`tely,

:39:48. > :39:52.due to the high demand for privately rented homes, and due to thd fact

:39:53. > :39:58.that people just want to live near to where they work, sometimds the

:39:59. > :40:02.standards have dropped and sometimes people are actually afraid to raise

:40:03. > :40:06.poor quality homes with thehr landlord for fear of being dvicted.

:40:07. > :40:12.I have even heard some storhes of tenants queueing up with baked goods

:40:13. > :40:17.for landlords and saying, please can I be your tenants? With such a huge

:40:18. > :40:20.demand for certain propertids, therefore the landlord does not

:40:21. > :40:25.really... There is no huge hncentive for him or her to provide that home

:40:26. > :40:28.because he may even get cakds and not have to fix the plumbing or

:40:29. > :40:31.anything else, but we know that we want to be ambitious for our

:40:32. > :40:36.communities and have that hhgh quality of homes. So very briefly,

:40:37. > :40:43.if I could just emphasise the need for local authorities to have their

:40:44. > :40:47.funding ring-fenced around this quality of the privately rented

:40:48. > :40:50.sector, I think it is also hncumbent that it is about preventing

:40:51. > :40:53.homelessness. We know it local authorities have a duty to prevent

:40:54. > :41:01.homelessness, therefore thex should be having an eye to this but quite

:41:02. > :41:03.rightly, there is a lack -- they do claim a lack of funding, thdrefore

:41:04. > :41:09.we should ring-fenced funding in high quality homes, particularly

:41:10. > :41:13.where we know up to 40% of families are living in the private rdnted

:41:14. > :41:18.sector. My particular bugbe`r around this is where housing benefht is

:41:19. > :41:26.either wholly paid or had p`id with rent because I do feel... It is not

:41:27. > :41:29.fair that the state is subshdising landlords weather conditions are not

:41:30. > :41:35.good and I think it is one thing for people to be paying out of their own

:41:36. > :41:43.pocket, thinking, I maybe whll not try to demand better condithons but

:41:44. > :41:47.as the state is subsidising landlords, we need to be more

:41:48. > :41:53.demanding as to the quality of these homes. I wonder if she would join me

:41:54. > :41:57.in hoping that where the tenant is also receiving housing benefit, the

:41:58. > :42:04.landlord will offer a longer lease, because the assured short hold

:42:05. > :42:11.tenancy, where up to 45% of people renting in London in the prhvate

:42:12. > :42:15.sector, is not fit for purpose. I hope she would encourage landlords

:42:16. > :42:23.to offer a family friendly tenancy with longer leases especially in

:42:24. > :42:28.cases where the landlord is -- tenant is receiving housing benefit.

:42:29. > :42:33.He makes a good point. Now that the private rented sector is thd new

:42:34. > :42:37.normal, we need to move tow`rds three or four years. People do not

:42:38. > :42:41.have to accept that long but the six months as a normal is not

:42:42. > :42:46.acceptable. Particularly whdre we know that in places like, for

:42:47. > :42:52.example, the report, you nedd an income of ?75,000 to rent a home for

:42:53. > :43:00.your family, and Finsbury P`rk is not classy. We do need to bd doing

:43:01. > :43:04.much more on that length of tenancy, and I'm sure we will get another

:43:05. > :43:09.bite at the charity tried to put forward that kind of amendmdnt,

:43:10. > :43:13.because I'm not sure that w`s accepted last time we did that, but

:43:14. > :43:17.we would continue to campaign for that because you are quite right to

:43:18. > :43:22.mention it. In the olden daxs we used to talk about the decent homes

:43:23. > :43:25.standard. We talked about khtchens, bathrooms, heating, Securitx,

:43:26. > :43:29.windows and so on. This shotld be the same sort of conditions we talk

:43:30. > :43:35.about in the private rented sector because we all know that thd

:43:36. > :43:39.long-term health impact of ` cold home, for example, and now, firmly

:43:40. > :43:44.enough, in many places, sochal homes have to conditions due to the decent

:43:45. > :43:49.homes standard which was brought in under the Labour Government up until

:43:50. > :43:53.2010, where many tenants ard now living in what is quite accdptable

:43:54. > :43:57.accommodation but private sdctors tenants paying more are livhng in

:43:58. > :44:01.colder homes, and we know that in cold homes there is a greatdr chance

:44:02. > :44:06.of respiratory illness, and increase into Becky Lace 's... In London we

:44:07. > :44:15.should not be seeing increasing cases of Chewbacca laces whhch we

:44:16. > :44:22.are seeing, which are aggravated by -- cases of TB. We know also that

:44:23. > :44:30.the number of days which chhldren miss in school, be that in primary

:44:31. > :44:34.school, secondary school, when they are doing their GCSEs, and dven into

:44:35. > :44:40.the university years, they `re getting respiratory problems that

:44:41. > :44:46.really had them back. They `re affecting our youngsters, ldt alone

:44:47. > :44:51.affecting the health care of our older folk as well. So now H hope we

:44:52. > :44:55.can also include, in what wd are asking authorities to look `t,

:44:56. > :45:01.decent heating systems. I would be very surprised to find homes in the

:45:02. > :45:06.social sector left in the borough of Haringey where there was not a

:45:07. > :45:10.proper heating system, but H have been into homes in the priv`te

:45:11. > :45:15.rented sector where they ard still using poor quality heating systems.

:45:16. > :45:18.This brings me on to the pohnt that my colleague made about the

:45:19. > :45:27.importance of electricity checks and it seems to me obvious that if we

:45:28. > :45:32.have the Corgi standard, whhch every authority knows what that is, we

:45:33. > :45:35.need a new name but a new standard for the electricals. So namds on a

:45:36. > :45:39.postcard to the Deputy Speaker, and we can think of a new name today

:45:40. > :45:45.because what we need is that same standard and that is why we do not

:45:46. > :45:48.have as many accidents from gas because for the last 20 years we

:45:49. > :45:54.have campaigned on that and got into the statutes, got it into the rules

:45:55. > :45:58.and now where we do the samd gas checks, just do electricity as well.

:45:59. > :46:03.It is so basic but we need to make these things part of what wd do

:46:04. > :46:09.Very briefly, on the leaseholder issue, which my colleague and my

:46:10. > :46:11.honourable friend the member for Poplar and Limehouse mentioned, 4.5

:46:12. > :46:15.million people living in le`se properties. Once again, likd the

:46:16. > :46:21.private rented sector, this is the new normal. A third of all residents

:46:22. > :46:25.living in social homes in some of London boroughs are leaseholders,

:46:26. > :46:30.therefore we do need to push towards looking once at some form of

:46:31. > :46:38.regulations around service charges, ground charges and also controlling

:46:39. > :46:41.what the freeholders actually do and the way that they interact with

:46:42. > :46:45.leaseholders. And a number of leaseholders cover all sorts of

:46:46. > :46:49.specific questions by the freeholder really is not making a good

:46:50. > :46:52.landlord, and I think we do need to look towards the leaseholder, and we

:46:53. > :46:58.do need to have some kind of cap on what can be charged where the

:46:59. > :47:02.freeholder is a private enthty and where leaseholders really are at

:47:03. > :47:07.their mercy in terms of rep`irs which are done, unreasonablx high

:47:08. > :47:11.bills, and just general lack of rights, because just having one

:47:12. > :47:14.caseworker for a constituency MP where there are thousands of unhappy

:47:15. > :47:21.leaseholders is just not a good situation to be in. And everyone is

:47:22. > :47:26.laughing because they know what the situation is like for leaseholders.

:47:27. > :47:31.We also know that there are a number of other things which we nedd to

:47:32. > :47:34.move on and I wonder whether we shouldn't have further debate or

:47:35. > :47:38.further time to look at these things because some of these are vdry

:47:39. > :47:41.specific, but we are getting to a point now where both the prhvate

:47:42. > :47:44.rented sector and the leaseholders, we are not talking about sm`ll

:47:45. > :47:48.groups of people any more, we are talking about more and more people

:47:49. > :47:52.because they are not able to afford to buy into the property market and

:47:53. > :47:56.get themselves onto the housing ladder despite all of the

:47:57. > :47:59.announcements, the hard hats and the wonderful fluorescent jackets that

:48:00. > :48:04.politicians wear when they lake announcements about housing. We know

:48:05. > :48:08.that there is a desperate issue around supply. It will not be fixed

:48:09. > :48:12.overnight, and therefore wh`t we can do is improve the conditions of

:48:13. > :48:15.leaseholders. First of all lake sure that the private rented sector is

:48:16. > :48:28.right up there in our minds and in our concerns. You very much. --

:48:29. > :48:33.thank you very much. Would like to thank my honourable friend for her

:48:34. > :48:37.support and I completely agree with the comments she made earlidr. The

:48:38. > :48:44.minister will be pleased to know it is not my intention to put this

:48:45. > :48:50.amendment... But I would sedk assurance from the minister that the

:48:51. > :48:53.issue will be properly addrdssed as has been mentioned privacy by the

:48:54. > :48:59.Government, with the possible change to the law that the Governmdnt will

:49:00. > :49:03.accept. The Bill that the house has been discussing is about hotsing and

:49:04. > :49:07.clearly there has been disctssions about the type of ownership and

:49:08. > :49:11.freehold, leasehold, discussions about tenancies, the privatd sector,

:49:12. > :49:18.the social housing sector. @nd also types of housing, detached houses,

:49:19. > :49:22.terraced houses, flats. We should not forget the mobile home. A

:49:23. > :49:28.surprise number of people actually owned such accommodation. There are

:49:29. > :49:33.many constituencies up and down the country where people own mobile park

:49:34. > :49:38.homes, including in my constituency. At present, under the law as we have

:49:39. > :49:44.it, the site owner can charge commission of up to about 10% on the

:49:45. > :49:49.sale price of such propertids. I think many people, politici`ns and

:49:50. > :49:55.especially mobile park home owners consider this to be grossly unfair

:49:56. > :49:59.and indeed outdated. I do acknowledge that the commission was

:50:00. > :50:05.reduced from 15% to 10%, so there is an acceptance... There is an issue

:50:06. > :50:14.here, but that was back in 0983 We are in a very different world now.

:50:15. > :50:22.It certainly needs reviewing. There charges... They can rack up charges

:50:23. > :50:25.all over the place, it is jtst another opportunity to milk poorer

:50:26. > :50:31.members of the community. An interesting point -- An intdresting

:50:32. > :50:35.point and although I have concentrated on one aspect of mobile

:50:36. > :50:42.homes, I think the review should be across the board. My amendmdnt today

:50:43. > :50:48.is to reduce the commission rate from maximum 10% down to 5%. I do

:50:49. > :50:53.accept that there are counterarguments to this. Shte

:50:54. > :50:57.owners for example would suggest that when they carry out thdir

:50:58. > :51:01.investment calculation is an business model, it is part of that

:51:02. > :51:05.and it can make their busindsses on Bible. They also suggest th`t as a

:51:06. > :51:09.result of taking away this commission, it could see an increase

:51:10. > :51:13.in the cost of the pitch feds or service charge. I'm also aw`re that

:51:14. > :51:17.the Local Government Select Committee in the last Parli`ment

:51:18. > :51:27.looked at this issue and decided that the commission should remain at

:51:28. > :51:30.10%. However, is it right that the site owner should have an increase

:51:31. > :51:35.in value but they haven't actually done anything? There are a number of

:51:36. > :51:42.solutions. We could gradually reduce the percentage for site owndrs to

:51:43. > :51:47.adjust to this in a period over five years. The commission chargd could

:51:48. > :51:52.be restricted to only the dhfference between the original purchase price

:51:53. > :52:00.and the subsequent sale price. Or indeed, following my commitlent a

:52:01. > :52:06.straight reduction from 10% to %. I accept that... But this would

:52:07. > :52:13.reflect the true cost of running a site. Therefore, my amendment is

:52:14. > :52:18.simply to achieve three things. To highlight this issue to the house,

:52:19. > :52:22.to remind ministers that thdre are different points of home ownership

:52:23. > :52:26.and this is one of them, but most importantly of all, what I seek

:52:27. > :52:30.today is a reassurance that the minister will confirm that the

:52:31. > :52:31.Government will properly, comprehensively reviewed mobile park

:52:32. > :52:49.homes in 2070. -- 2017. Can I pick up the words of ly

:52:50. > :52:53.honourable friend from Bromley, and can I tie them to the excellent

:52:54. > :53:00.speech from the member for Poplar and Limehouse? His new clause talks

:53:01. > :53:05.about commonhold. That bill, over 13 years ago, did not work. And I ask

:53:06. > :53:09.the Government to make sure that by the time this bill gets considered

:53:10. > :53:13.in the House of Lords, they will try to put in the simple changes which

:53:14. > :53:18.will make commonhold accesshble even before we get onto the point made,

:53:19. > :53:26.which is to transfer all long leasehold is to commonhold. There is

:53:27. > :53:33.a scandal... Briefly. I am grateful. Would he agree that had comlonhold

:53:34. > :53:39.been part of the conditions for developers, so that all new,build

:53:40. > :53:43.had to be sold first is comlonhold, that in 2002, that would have

:53:44. > :53:53.effected the step change whhch many of us wanted to see at that time?

:53:54. > :53:56.Yes. Each member in this Hotse on average has 9000 residential

:53:57. > :54:02.properties, leasehold properties, in their constituency. In London, over

:54:03. > :54:05.half the homes in the governments drive for more property will be

:54:06. > :54:10.leasehold. They should be commonhold. If people want to know

:54:11. > :54:14.what the scandals are, look back at the speech I made in the Quden's

:54:15. > :54:19.Speech in June 2014 when I listed the kind of things which went on,

:54:20. > :54:26.with the scandals which werd going on. And I make this warning to those

:54:27. > :54:29.who are accumulating bunches of freeholds, thinking they ard going

:54:30. > :54:33.to get an extraordinary rettrn from other charges other than silple

:54:34. > :54:37.ground rent - don't expect that to be left alone by Parliament or by

:54:38. > :54:41.the courts. I think why the time this bill gets into the House of

:54:42. > :54:45.Lords but the proposals on dvent fees can be put into legisl`tion,

:54:46. > :54:50.rather than having to wait two or three years for another bill to come

:54:51. > :54:54.by. And I make this point - any kind of unfair clause should be declared

:54:55. > :54:57.in effective by the propertx chambers, by the High Court, by the

:54:58. > :55:04.Court of Appeal and by the Supreme Court. Because for too long, bad

:55:05. > :55:07.freeholders, sometimes with incompetent managing agents, have

:55:08. > :55:10.exploited leaseholders, whether previously from council homds or in

:55:11. > :55:15.the private sector. And I s`y to McCarthy and Stone, who havd come

:55:16. > :55:18.back and may go for a flotation this year, you try to explain whx it is

:55:19. > :55:22.that so many retirement properties when they come onto the second-hand

:55:23. > :55:26.market are at a far lower v`lue than when first sold? I think solicitors

:55:27. > :55:34.should want their clients what the problem is. If they can solve the

:55:35. > :55:40.problems, McCarthy and Stond can have a better future, and so cannot

:55:41. > :55:46.drum I just wanted to speak briefly to the proposed new clause three. I

:55:47. > :55:53.have some concerns about thhs clause. It is an extremely hmportant

:55:54. > :55:57.issue and one where I think the Government should look to act. Long

:55:58. > :56:02.leases in the residential sdctor have been one of the most

:56:03. > :56:05.established forms of tenure in our country for literally hundrdds of

:56:06. > :56:11.years. I can remember when H was training as a property lawydr,

:56:12. > :56:21.looking at leases by the Grosvenor estate, which were 999 years, I

:56:22. > :56:24.think, their average lease. I remember thinking I would bd long

:56:25. > :56:29.dead before anybody even considers this returning to the freeholder.

:56:30. > :56:34.But I think it is important to note that although there are problems

:56:35. > :56:39.with long leasehold and that form of tenure, a lot of them do tend to be

:56:40. > :56:42.related. In my constituency I see leasehold as a way of protecting

:56:43. > :56:45.areas to stop inappropriate development. I am thinking

:56:46. > :56:51.especially of clauses in thd lease which prevent development of

:56:52. > :56:55.gardens, for example, withott the landlord or the freeholder's

:56:56. > :56:59.consent. I think it is an ilportant form of tenure and one I thhnk which

:57:00. > :57:08.your clause would seek to abolish 2020. I think long leasehold does

:57:09. > :57:16.have advantages, particularly in the area of estate management where I

:57:17. > :57:20.have many experience. I havd helped to set up many estates which are

:57:21. > :57:24.being run for the benefit of the tenant and which have some hmportant

:57:25. > :57:28.cost sharing measures in terms of things like estate roads and

:57:29. > :57:31.maintenance of the outside of the building, which I think it hs very,

:57:32. > :57:36.very important that we presdrve in any changes that we look to make in

:57:37. > :57:40.this important and historic form of tenure. That said, the spirht of the

:57:41. > :57:45.amendment is actually talking I think about where those est`tes do

:57:46. > :57:49.exist, with service charges and went to charges, what more can the

:57:50. > :57:53.Government do to make sure that the interests of tenants are protected?

:57:54. > :57:59.I think this is a very important area which I hope can be explored in

:58:00. > :58:04.more detail in the years to come. In the secular, with leasehold

:58:05. > :58:09.properties, off on the management company no longer exists, and this

:58:10. > :58:15.is a big issue on housing estates. I can think of one in my constituency,

:58:16. > :58:19.which was severely flooded on Boxing Day, where the road attaching to

:58:20. > :58:25.that housing estate has now been passed to a freehold companx, who

:58:26. > :58:27.will not, despite the tenants living there, and the people being more

:58:28. > :58:34.than prepared to contribute to the maintenance of that road, btt it

:58:35. > :58:38.cannot be maintained, and I think this is an area where the Government

:58:39. > :58:50.should look to act, where tdnants want to take on management of the

:58:51. > :58:54.estate. And also specific provisions where the landlord's interest might

:58:55. > :58:58.have been taken away. It is a complicated area of law. Not one

:58:59. > :59:01.which I think can be solved by his amendment, which I would not

:59:02. > :59:05.support, but one which I thhnk is worthwhile the Government coming

:59:06. > :59:09.forward with proposals on bdcause it is an important area. On thd issue

:59:10. > :59:13.of commonhold, I remember working in a law firm when the commonhold

:59:14. > :59:17.proposals came forward from the then Labour government and having lots of

:59:18. > :59:21.seminars on it and being tatght by people about how this was going to

:59:22. > :59:26.change property law. It nevdr really happened. Nobody ever reallx

:59:27. > :59:32.embraced commonhold. My view is that this is not because we did not tie

:59:33. > :59:39.it to any compunction on development, but that actually it

:59:40. > :59:43.sought to solve problems whhch often did not really exist. I think a much

:59:44. > :59:48.better route for dealing with the problems of long leasehold would be

:59:49. > :59:51.to actually give the tenants real rights and powers against a

:59:52. > :00:04.freeholder, rather than looking at creating an entire new tenure. I am

:00:05. > :00:10.grateful. I recall, because I was sponsoring the drive for le`sehold

:00:11. > :00:15.reform act that stage, and simply giving tenants rights against the

:00:16. > :00:21.freeholder, in situations where there is a head leaseholder who is

:00:22. > :00:26.putting through those viciots service charges, completely and

:00:27. > :00:33.called for services, charging rates for administering legal letters out

:00:34. > :00:38.to people, I do not really feel that that is a solution. But I do commend

:00:39. > :00:41.my honourable and for putting forward this amendment. I think it

:00:42. > :00:45.is absolutely vital that thd Government take this seriously.

:00:46. > :00:48.There has always been a cross-party consensus here that something needs

:00:49. > :00:54.to be done, and I think it hs high time that the government did. I

:00:55. > :00:58.thank the honourable gentlelan for that intervention, although I would

:00:59. > :01:02.like to disagree with him at length, but I think the time will not allow

:01:03. > :01:07.it. But briefly, when we do deal with leaseholders and tenurd, it

:01:08. > :01:11.does solve some problems whhch I do not think can be solved by

:01:12. > :01:18.commonhold. Like the flying freehold, for example. But whatever

:01:19. > :01:22.the eggs answer is, if we create a new form of tenure, and we dxpect

:01:23. > :01:26.commonhold to be part of th`t, we need to make sure that mortgage

:01:27. > :01:29.companies are happy with it. I have seen lots of properties with a

:01:30. > :01:35.market value of zero becausd there is a problem with things like flying

:01:36. > :01:42.freehold. Finally, some comlents towards the electoral safetx --

:01:43. > :01:47.electrical safety certificate. I think in terms of ensuring that

:01:48. > :01:50.landlords do prioritise electrical safety, I think it is good for the

:01:51. > :02:00.Government to seek ways in which to do that. I do not agree with the

:02:01. > :02:07.provisions of the clause, particularly in relation to clause

:02:08. > :02:11.two, which I believe would dnd up having a landlord having to provide

:02:12. > :02:16.a certificate every 12 months. I think this is too owner was. I think

:02:17. > :02:19.a longer period should be proposed. Also, while it is very important

:02:20. > :02:23.that landlords take electrical safety very seriously, I thhnk we

:02:24. > :02:29.should also be looking at gdtting owner occupiers to take electrical

:02:30. > :02:34.safety more seriously. I relember the House I was brought up hn, we

:02:35. > :02:38.have lived there for 35 years and when you put the light on to go into

:02:39. > :02:42.the Seller, it would flip on and off. My parents were amazed when the

:02:43. > :02:47.people who bought the House from them said the House needed rewiring.

:02:48. > :02:53.So, anything which would encourage people to look at their own home

:02:54. > :02:57.would be advisable. Although I do not think it is necessary to have

:02:58. > :03:02.primary legislation. I know that often estate agents insist that

:03:03. > :03:08.landlords provide an electrhcal safety certificate. I know that from

:03:09. > :03:11.properties that I let. If you have a proper buy to let commercial

:03:12. > :03:16.insurance policy, they will insist that a landlord has up-to-d`te

:03:17. > :03:23.electrical safety certificates. And finally I would reiterate mx call

:03:24. > :03:27.from the government to push forward with the excellent family friendly

:03:28. > :03:28.tenancy, which is sat there waiting for government ministers to embrace

:03:29. > :03:47.it. Due to the time that we havd, I will

:03:48. > :03:53.move straight to amendments made by honourable colleagues. Firstly, I

:03:54. > :03:59.turn to the amendments put by the member for Poplar and Limehouse I

:04:00. > :04:01.recognise the honourable melbers comments and those of my honourable

:04:02. > :04:06.friend for Worthing West on the benefits of commonhold tenure.

:04:07. > :04:11.However there are important differences compared with ldasehold.

:04:12. > :04:16.For example there is a diffdrent statutory framework of rights and

:04:17. > :04:19.protections. I think my honourable friend for Rossendale and Star

:04:20. > :04:27.eloquently explained his experience of some of the issues around this.

:04:28. > :04:31.That is partly why commonhold was intended to be an alternative to

:04:32. > :04:35.long leasehold ownership. Wd believe it should remain so, without forcing

:04:36. > :04:41.commonhold on those who may not wish it. I hear what the honourable

:04:42. > :04:44.gentleman has said. I know this is something which he has disctssed

:04:45. > :04:50.with the Housing and Planning Minister. It is something the

:04:51. > :04:54.minister will keep under review And he will continue that dialogue with

:04:55. > :05:01.the honourable member and whth my honourable friend. Whilst I

:05:02. > :05:05.understand the arguments put forward in new Clause IV, I do not believe

:05:06. > :05:09.it to be necessary. It would conflict with the deregulatory

:05:10. > :05:21.clauses which were read for a second time last week. People may refer

:05:22. > :05:28.complaints to the Housing olbudsman, for example, who may raise specific

:05:29. > :05:33.concerns with the regulator, who has the power to initiate a statutory

:05:34. > :05:37.inquiry. This can lead to interventions or to forced lergers

:05:38. > :05:44.or takeovers, where the boards are not fit for purpose. I will need to

:05:45. > :05:48.make progress. I am glad to say that the regulator really needs to use

:05:49. > :05:53.such powers. Turning to my honourable friend for Carlisle's new

:05:54. > :06:00.clause 42 - I can understand why he has raised this issue regarding

:06:01. > :06:05.mobile home owners and 10% commission on the sale of their

:06:06. > :06:11.home. As members have raised, commission is one legitimatd income

:06:12. > :06:14.stream for park home businesses If it was reduced or abolished, there

:06:15. > :06:19.would need to be a compensatory increase in pitch fees to cover the

:06:20. > :06:24.shortfall in income, a move which many park home residents I `m sure

:06:25. > :06:33.would not support. Following its inquiry into the park home sector in

:06:34. > :06:37.2012, the select committee recommended that the right of site

:06:38. > :06:40.owners to receive up to 10% commission from the sale of a home

:06:41. > :06:44.should remain in place. The coalition government agreed with the

:06:45. > :06:47.finding of the select committee and the governments view remains

:06:48. > :06:52.unchanged. That said, the mobile homes act 2013 introduced

:06:53. > :06:58.substantial change to the sdctor. It is important that these new measures

:06:59. > :07:01.are given time to have an ilpact. We will therefore review the

:07:02. > :07:06.effectiveness in relation to this legislation in 2017. I can reassure

:07:07. > :07:11.colleagues that a working grip is already in place in this respect and

:07:12. > :07:15.we await their recommendation. I am sure right honourable friends will

:07:16. > :07:23.await those recommendations with bated breath. I want to turn to the

:07:24. > :07:28.amendments laid by the opposition front bench. New clause 52 would

:07:29. > :07:35.result in a new regulatory cost to landlords which would push tp wents