Live Housing Statement House of Commons

account when we give out funding for private care, but it depends on a

strong economy and this is something that the Government will always do

the NHS. These secretary for state of communities and local Government,

secretary Sajiv Javid. I would like to make a statement with York

permission on the Government's white paper, fixing our broken housing

system. I had hoped this would dominate the headlines this morning,

but it appears that somebody has beaten me to it at!

LAUGHTER I gently sated the honourable

gentleman, I did make my statement to the House first.

LAUGHTER APPLAUSE

I'm glad that the honourable gentleman is in fine fettle and good

humour so do continue with your statement.

Our housing market is broken. House price inflation has outstripped the

OCD. The idea of owning and renting a safe place has become a distant

dream. The Government has done much to help, we've taken action on

supply and demand and the results have been positive. We've seen the

highest level of housing completions since the recession. Between

1997-2010, the ratio of average House prices and average income more

than doubled, from 3.5 to seven. It has crept up to just over 7.5, but

still heading in the wrong direction. Behind the statistics,

are millions of Audrey working people. And talk of talking about

the first-time buyer that won't have a deposit for a quarter of a

century. Or a couple handing half of their combined income in directed

sector straight to their landlord. It is being felt by real people in

their community. It's one of the biggest barriers to social progress

that we face. Root cause is simple. A far too long, we haven't built

enough houses. Britain has had west in your's lowest rate of House

building for three decades. The situation reached a critical point

is under the last Labour Government, when in one year, work began on just

95,000 homes. The lowest peacetime level since the 1920s. Thanks to the

Conservative effort of central and local Government, large jet, 190,000

new homes were completed but it is still not enough. In short, we have

two Biltmore of the right sort of houses in the right places, right

now. Today's White Paper set out how we will go about doing this. But

house-building doesn't just happen. Meeting needs requires coordination

across the public and private sectors. There is no magic bullet,

we need action on many fronts simultaneously. First, we need to

plan properly so we can get the right homes built in the right

places. To make this happen, we are going to look at a new way of

assessing housing need. Many councils work tirelessly to deal

with design and type of housing in their area. But many fail to reduce

plans that meet the housing need. It is important that all authorities

played by the same rules. We need to have a conversation about housing

need and make sure every local area produces a realistic plan which they

reveal every five years. Once we know how many homes are needed, we

need sites on which to build them, so the White Paper will help to

identify appropriate sites for development. Not just empty spaces,

but usable, practical sites where new homes are actually required.

This is to make sure we don't pick up our countryside. We promised the

richest people that the green belt is in safe hands. -- the British

people. We will free up more public sector land more quickly. We will

increase transparency around land ownership so if someone is sitting

unfairly on the site, it could be better used. Everywhere must have a

plan in place to ensure communities are happy with the appearance of the

new homes. We're also interested in speeding up the rate of build-out.

We are simply not quickly enough to stop -- not building quickly enough.

We will make the planning system for open and accessible. We will improve

the court nation of infrastructure and tackle unnecessary delays such

as infrastructure and great crested newts. We will give local

authorities to hold -- the toast to hold local developers to account.

Local authorities also play a part in getting homes built quickly and

I'm looking at how they can use compulsory purchase powers. We will

also provide a delivery test to hold them to account for housing across

their local area. Finally, the White Paper explains how we will diversify

the housing market. At present, the housing market is controlled by a

few builders. New builders cannot enter the market easily. It means a

lack of innovation which means sluggish productivity growth. We

will make it easier for smaller and medium-sized builders to compete. We

will avoid things like off-site factory builds. We will explore

options for local authorities to build again, and we will encourage

things in the private 's rental sector and make it easier to build a

custom home. These measures will make a lasting difference to our

House supply. Ordinary working people need help now. We promised

the band letting agent fees and is White Paper goes further. We will

put safeguards in the private rented sector, help houses who are priced

out of the market. We will tackle the scourge of unfair leasehold

terms which are rest on hard-pressed home buyers. And we will be working

with the rental sectors, giving families security they need to set

down roots in their community. We have seen almost 300,000 affordable

home units built in England. We've seen housing increase sharply and

more people getting onto the property ladder such a scheme such

as help to buy. We need to go much further and meet our obligations to

build houses that people want to living in the places they want to

live. That is exactly what this White Paper delivers. It will help

the tenants of today facing rising rents, in secure tenancies and those

of tomorrow getting homes built in the right places and it will help

our children and our children's children by fixing our broken

housing market. I commend it to the House.

I thank the Secretary of State for the customary copy of his statement

beforehand but is this it? Mr Speaker, when the Housing Minister

himself admits the Government's record on housing is feeble and

embarrassing, we had hoped for better. We needed better. In his

statement this afternoon, it will desperately disappoint millions of

people struggling month to month to cope with the cost of housing

crisis. I have to say, it was feeble beyond belief. After seven years of

a Conservative government, he says, I quote, we need to have a proper

conversation about housing need. His top priority is a new housing

delivery test and how many times before have we heard ministers say

we will free up more public sector land more quickly? It is also clear

today that we do not just have a housing crisis in this country, we

have a crisis in the Conservative Party about what to do. The huge 200

page housing and planning at last year, not even mentioned today --

act. The boast beforehand from the Secretary of State about radical

action on planning, stamped on by the Prime Minister today, and rows

between backbenchers and the Secretary of State over planning

with local councillors resigning as a result of his decisions. This

white paper is not a plan to fix the housing crisis and it will do

nothing to reverse the seven years of failure on housing we have seen

since 2010. Let me turn to some of the areas where we needed a strong

action in the statement today. Home ownership, after seeing 1 million

more homeowners under Labour, home ownership under the Conservatives in

seven years, it is falling and in freefall for young people. Yet this

white paper confirms that the Tory party has given up on home

ownership. It waters down the promise to help with those who need

help to get a first foot in the housing market. Why not reverse the

cuts to investment in new affordable homes to buy that has meant the

number of new low-cost homes built has fallen to 7500? Why not stop

those earning over 100 grand from getting help through help to buy and

make it only available to first-time buyers? Homelessness, after it was

cut to a record low under Labour, the number of people sleeping rough

on our streets has more than doubled, not a single mention of

homelessness this afternoon. Why can he not accept this shames us all in

a country as decent as and well off? Why not adopt the Labour plan to end

homelessness within a parliament? Action on renters, simply, I quote,

working with the rental sector to promote three-year tenancy

agreements to help the country's 11 million current renters? Why won't

he legislate for longer tenancies tied to predictable rent rises and

decent basic standards? Finally, building more homes, this is a

government that has pledged to build 1 million new homes by 2020. Yet the

total newly built last year is still less than 140 3000. -- 140 3000. The

level of affordable house-building has hit a 24 year low. We need all

sectors, private house-builders, housing associations and councils,

to be firing on all cylinders to build the homes we need. Why will he

not drop the deep Tory hostility to councils and let them hold again to

meet the needs of local people? -- build again. It is tragically clear

from the statement that seven years of failure on housing is set now to

stretch to ten. We were promised a white paper, we are presented with a

white flag. This is a government with no plan to fix the country's

deepening housing crisis. Thank you. Today the Housing Minister had a

chance, he had the chance to take a cross-party approach, to behave like

an adult, immature person, and actually help in this difficult

situation facing so many people under many governments for over 30

years -- a mature person. He chose to play cheap party politics. I

could respond in the same way. When I talked about 95,000 homes in one

year, that was when he was the Housing Minister, the lowest level

since the 1920s. That is not what people want to hear. They want the

truth. They want to hear government and politicians more generally

recognising the size of this problem, recognising that there are

young people right now in every one of our constituencies staring into

the windows of estate agents, their faces glued to them, dreaming of

renting or buying a decent home but knowing it is out of reach because

prices have risen so high. That rise in price, the vast majority of it,

it took place when Labour were last in power, more than doubling as a

ratio to income from 3.5 times to seven times. He pulled also want to

know what we are doing about it and that is what is in the white paper

today. He has another of questions. Home ownership, it declined as a

percentage under Labour, sharply, and it happened because enough homes

were not being built. It is time he took responsibility. He asked about

homelessness, just a week ago, in this house, we had the homelessness

reduction Bill and it was Labour Shadow ministers trying to destroy

the Bill with fatal amendments and the only reason they backed off is

that they were backed by the housing charities including Crisis not to do

so. That is where Labour stands on homelessness. He talked about

renters and we have recognised in this document that we should be

having a policy that looks after both the needs of those who want to

own their own homes and those who want to rent decent homes. Lastly,

he talked about councils. Again, it proves he was not listening to the

speech. He came in with a prewritten statement. If he had heard me

carefully, that is exactly what I said. The truth is, the right

honourable gentleman had a chance and he has flunked it. I think that

not many of his colleagues are with him on this. Many of his colleagues,

I sent they want a cross-party approach, they want the government

to work together with politicians across the House to deal with the

issue once and for all and I know that in dealing with many of his

colleagues in local councils, local labour leaders, they are working

with this government because they have given up on this excuse of an

opposition. Mr Speaker, there is much to be welcomed in this white

paper. It is essential that we build new communities and new homes but in

the right place. I am pleased the Government has decided not to relax

the green belt rules further which of course the Secretary of State has

quite rightly described as sacrosanct. Does he understand the

deep anger throughout Sutton Coldfield that the reasonable views

of 100,000 people have been totally ignored by a Labour council in a

deeply flawed process to build 6000 homes unnecessarily on our green

belt? But the frustration that the Government has not been able to stop

it. I know that my honourable friend feels very passionately about this

issue and I am pleased he has highlighted that in this white paper

we have kept in place the protections of the green belt. He

refers to a particular case in his constituency and it is important

that where local authorities are looking at housing need and they are

making a proper assessment and that assessment has been signed off by an

independent planning inspector, we should not get in the way. I thank

the Minister for advanced sight of his statement and for the copy of

the white paper which I must admit is pretty thin. This is the document

and this is the substance and the consultation. It is good to see the

Minister acknowledge however the gap between the rhetoric of the Tory

government and house-building and their record. It is always nice to

see a recognition of failure from this government. It is interesting

that we have another year and another Housing Bill with no

solutions insight. Contrast this with the Scottish Government where

the Housing Minister... The Tories would do well to listen because we

have a record of success. Our Housing Minister has a target of

50,000 in the parliament we are in now in Scotland for affordable

housing in the session ahead. We're ready have local housing strategies

and strategic investment plans which combines the five-year lands that

each local authority has to produce. The Minister might want to look at

the Glasgow plan for years ahead. He mentions brownfield land but it has

to come with a recognition that contaminated land make need

significant investment from government to make it ready for use.

The ?1 billion fund is not enough. It will not go far enough to deal

with the contamination. The statement also mentions the means of

getting progress on land and planning applications, but quality

is also important, as is place making. Looking at the example of

the meddling Glasgow weather community felt what was being

proposed was not good enough and they took to the Scottish Government

banning process -- the meadow. Innovative house-building types,

could he also look at the Commonwealth Games Village in

Glasgow which was built using innovative methods? Great example is

going on in Scotland. I'll glad to see the insurance issues are being

mentioned because it is incredibly important. My final point, Mr

Speaker, would he look at the private housing tenancies act of

Scotland for examples of good practice and acknowledge the

elephant in the room which is the continual idiot logical pursuing of

right to buy which is ruining the opportunities of people to access

affordable housing? -- ideological. I want to see all of the people of

the UK have access to decent homes to rent or to buy and that includes

the people of Scotland. I remit is only for England and that is what

the white paper is focused on. She talked about a number of injured

policies, picking up on the right to buy, we are very proud of that

policy -- English policies. I think it is right we support those people

who want to own their own homes as well as those who want to rent

decent homes. There is one thing both Scottish people and in which

people required to have access to decent homes and that is a decent

income which means having a job. If she had got highway and Scotland had

become independent, I think the situation would be very different

for Scottish people -- her way. I congratulate him on bringing a

Macmillan like sense of urgency to tackling the housing crisis which

causes or aggravates most of the social problems we face. Isn't the

first step recognising and being honest about how many homes we need

and where we need them? I welcome his bringing forward a new standard

methodology for assessing housing need. Can my right honourable friend

reassure me it will include the affordability of housing so that it

deals with the places where the pressure is most acute? He makes a

very poor to appoint. The starting point has to be that every local

authority has a realistic assessment of need and for it to be realistic,

it must look at the market pressures locally which includes

affordability. I welcome the recommendation from

the Government that housing need this country can't be met by people

building homes for sale, they have to be affordable. In terms of

schemes which public money, will the various parties involved be able to

get the right ten year mix for this game as well as funding available

for social housing where appropriate, and secondly, will

councils now be free to negotiate with developers the right types of

housing on this game with the requirement for starter homes being

dropped? I always listen to the chest select committee and he looks

at an important issue. On these two specific questions, in terms of the

ten year mix and public money, we will be making sure that it will

promote those homes available for rent, the H CIA are working with

councils, and we will be requiring the ten year to be thought

through. Would he not agree that many people in my constituency find

it hard to produce neighbourhood plans, that these to come forward

and then be undermined by some ruthless behaviour by very rogue

developers. Well my honourable friend agree with me that if we are

to deliver this imaginative vision outlined today that we need to curb

that sort of behaviour? My honourable friend makes a very

important point, the importance of neighbourhood plans. I'm aware that

he knows of the bill going through the current Parliament, but I think

he will be pleased to see in here further steps to show local

community being taken more seriously through neighbourhood plans.

Communities like mine will be stripped of desperately needed

housing in favour of high priced properties. Can you confirm you will

no longer proceed with that policy? I cannot confirm that because we are

committed to allowing people to live in housing association homes to have

the right to buy, and we started the process of pilots, some 3000 homes

involved with that. Once it's complete we will how to take the

rest of it forward. What lessons can we learn from the Netherlands and

Germany, and how can we encourage land ruling where local authorities

work with land overs to bring out the surplus plots of land so

families can have there own custom House building schemes? Can I thank

my honourable friend the work is done to promote build and custom

build as is promoted in Germany and the Netherlands. He also talks about

land ruling where there are some fantastic examples in the

Netherlands. -- land ruling. This is an and and ambitious and

disappointing paper. It I could respectively ask what planet he is

living on? Average incomes in my constituency and ?26,000 a year and

not ?80,000. The building of a million new council homes, will he

commit to the capital funding for that and lift borrowing cap side

councils can build again? I thank the Honourable Gentleman for turning

up today and the answer is more supply, whether it's council homes,

housing associations, we need more supply is the only way to tackle

affordability. Rocks to council is doing everything it can to defend

our green belt but the Liberal Democrats opposed -- proposed the

building of hundreds of thousands of houses on our green belt. We are

having access to finance. What actions is my honourable friend

taking to make sure smaller builders have access and can build those new

homes? My honourable friend makes a good point here. I've talked about

the importance of having smaller builders. One way we are helping

financially is 3-D home you'll just fund which is ?3 billion of funding,

much of it available to the small and medium-size house-building

sector, but there are a number of other measures as well as financial

to help that and which he sees them she will welcome them. What other

plans to deal with inner-city areas particularly along the river in

Vauxhall, my constituency, where we have owners coming from way outside

this country and leaving flat empty for a very long time? Is the

Government not prepared to buy up some of this land themselves to

build really affordable housing? I think some of this land is public

land, and there is a lot in the white paper our to work on

accelerated construction whereby the Government can work together with

councils and the private sector to develop. When she talks about the

empty homes, the number of those has fallen to the lowest level since

records began. There is still more to do but that's because of some of

the changes we have made, giving incentives to local councils to

bring those homes back into use. My Forest of Dean District Council is

working hard to get its local plan in place. It gives that planning

permission but gets frustrated when developers don't build them and then

the same developers in a speculative application saying there's no land

supply because they are building their own houses. What is in the

White Paper and what more can he do? People can't live in planning

permissions. They need houses. It's right that they get frustrated when

they don't see the houses being built. There's a lot in this paper

to tackle that. When I talk of compulsory purchase in the most

extreme cases, but also councils can put in a time limit when they put in

applications which will expire if they are not built in time. This is

to end banning permission and give somebody else a turn. The House

prices are far removed from the London and the south-east areas, but

many are unable to buy because of low wages. What they require first

and foremost is decent rented accommodation which will come in the

main from the public and voluntary sector. In all the years I've done

this job, not one person has ever asked me to be rehoused in the

private sector. Where I agree with the honourable gentleman is that we

do need decent homes for rent and that comes back to the same problem

with rental and with buying, we need a better supply of homes. With

Brent, we are trying to encourage a bill to rent, so when local

authorities build houses, once think -- get them to build specifically

for rent. I welcome the paper which will allow security, but there is a

lack of infrastructure providing a barrier. Can my right arm rubble

friend confirm that the housing infrastructure front will find vital

new money to overcome these problems in areas such as Wealden. We are

trying to tackle this issue of making sure that when local

authorities make decisions that the infrastructure can be put in place

to support them. Secretary of State, my constituents bill that localism

is all but dead and I wonder if you can expand on how you intend to

strengthen planning laws so that their voices are heard louder than

the average is developers who are trying to thwart this and fight any

tiny amount of localism that remains? We've Whiteley follow a

policy of letting local authorities determine what is right for their

area. There is one very important thing here which is to make sure

that they don't avoid making the tough decisions. There is a housing

shortage in every part of England. There are areas both in the

south-east and the North, and the only way we will tackle that is if

local authorities are honest with their needs and we will tackle that.

The people of Dartmore will welcome this paper and it will make a change

to people's opportunity to buy their own home. Do we need to update the

leasehold act in order to move into a mixed tenure with our housing

stock. The process has already begun. We talk a bit about it in the

White Paper and what I am interested in is possibly the abuse that is

going on our people who are buying their homes on a leasehold basis,

and some of the agreement I have seen about ground rates, I am

looking at them in consultation. House prices in Slough have risen by

39% and our affordability ratio is something like a double the one the

Secretary of State quoted, so what is he going to do for places like

Slough that are built up to the boundaries but are surrounded by

Conservative councils who simply won't provide homes in their areas

so that now we are housing people who are commuting to London and we

can't find homes for street cleaners, nursery nurses, local

people that our constituencies really need. One thing we can do

better across the country is take density more seriously, and take

brown belt land and use it more efficiently. Across Europe, other

countries manage density better than we do, and what we have is for local

authorities to take density seriously. There will be in big step

There will be indicative requirements about what will help.

My ward currently has three public enquiries and possibly abort coming

along regarding the environment. What is in place for the appeals

process so that the developers can use the right of appeal and the

planning legislation? As we know, in all of our constituencies, there are

many cases going to appeal, but some of them are frivolous and they

shouldn't be appealed, but the reason it happens is because there

is no cost to making an appeal so many people do that. In the White

Paper we are introducing a fee. Some councils have fallen short of

meeting the housing need for years because local plans have protected

the green belt limiting the supply of land. If that is also the

Secretary of State's priority, how will he achieve his ambitions on the

scale he has outlined today, particularly for families who do not

want high rise flats? 13% of the land in England is green belt so

there is a huge amount of land that is not and it should be the Verity,

that land, whether brownfield land, increasing density, -- the priority,

and there are cases when a local authority decides that the tests of

using the green belt are met, when it is properly done and inspected by

the planning Inspectorate, the local authority can decide, but it should

not eat the priority, the protein must be brownfield and better use of

density -- should not be the priority. If it is not in the

interests of builders to sufficiently reduce the price by

increasing the supply to the necessary extent to achieve that,

isn't the answer to greater than power the public sector? -- greater

empower. Mr Speaker, there is lots of answers to that question.

Actually, where my honourable friend is right is that there is an

important role for the public sector, whether indirectly through

the housing associations or some of the councils and there are excellent

examples of councils with house-building programmes. A Devon

city of supply is required and the public sector has a role to play. --

a diversity. I am pleased the Government is finally recognising

the housing market is broken but I disagree with his prescription that

supply is the only answer. In Manchester, we have built thousands

of new homes, upgraded all council homes to decent standards, but the

worst quality housing in Manchester is in the private rented sector. It

is unfit for human habitation, damp and dirty and by and large, paid for

by the taxpayer. Through housing benefit. When will the Government

intervened in this broken market? Whether homes are made available for

rent or to buy, there are certain standards that must be met and it is

important... We do not want a race to the bottom. Where I beg to differ

with the honourable lady is that it is ultimately a supply problem. In

Manchester, like so many parts of Britain, they have not built enough

homes. Can he confirmed the white paper in Courage is building up not

out in urban areas? It should reduce pressure on green belt, we generate

urban areas and make renting and mortgaging more affordable. What

assessment has he made of the number of urban sites that could be

released for housing in this way? I can confirm that it is a very

important measure in this white paper and can I also congratulate

him on the work he has done to promote density and he has shared

with me examples of where it has been done around the world properly?

One thing I am interested in and it is in the paper is where we can make

at a use of transport hubs. They can have huge car parks, for example,

and much of that space could be used to create high-density housing that

would be very desirable for people. Maybe the car parks could be

underground. These are good examples and I am glad my honourable friend

is encouraging this too. There are at least 60 colleagues seeking to

catch my eye. It will be almost certainly impossible to accommodate

them. I would be helped if people could confine themselves to one

sentence questions without preamble. Isn't there a big lie at the heart

of the housing policy and that is that you can create new houses on

old land, brownfield land? All of the research shows that if it was

good brownfield land, we have used it already. We have to build on

greenfield land to give people the chance of a decent home. Why doesn't

he have the courage to build on Greenfield? One colourful sentence,

Mr Speaker. I do not agree. If you look at for example Madrid. More

than four times the density of London. I do not know if he has been

there, but he would find it is a perfectly beautiful well-designed

city. It is what you can do with density. Pettiness from a

philosopher, perhaps, so Oliver Letwin. I hugely welcome this but

can invite the Secretary of State to be more optimistic about consensus?

Despite the sound and fury, remarkable sign that the Shadow

Secretary of State did not disagree with anything in the white paper.

What my right honourable friend points out is that the Shadow

Housing Minister has realised what he could have done when he was

Housing Minister. The minister says that people are yearning for honesty

and truth. Travelling around my constituency, I am frequently

shocked at the standard of the private housing stock and English

housing surveys reveals 29% of private rented homes are still not

decent. In the spirit of honesty, why did the Government block

Labour's proposal to require landlords to only rent properties

fit for human habitation? Already within legislation, there are

standards for housing including for rented accommodation. If we start

introducing new regulation that is unnecessary, it will increase the

burden on house-builders and push up the cost even more. Some of the

large developments around Newark have gained a bad name because of

the common practice with large developers like persimmon of selling

freehold properties but ensuring the residents have to pay for many years

to come rip-off prices in terms of management and costs of putting up

satellite dishes, outrageous practice hurting working people in

this country. Would he consider banning this? Yes. Will the

Secretary of State outline how this white paper aligns with industrial

strategy and how the Government will collaborate with the construction

industry on matters like skills, innovation, supply chain to ensure

the house-building challenge can be met? A very important link and one

example is around skills. I mentioned earlier the importance of

factory building and it is a different type of skill set and it

requires the Government to help support that but it also helps more

generally with the skills challenge where we will have a new immigration

policy following our departure from the EU and we have got to think

carefully about that and its links to the construction industry. The

majority of the new homes he has announced will be leasehold. Many

leaseholders are subject to abuse. Can I ask that in his consultation

in dealing with abuse it will include changing commonhold

procedure so they work and those who have unfettered dish and get stopped

by the competition market authority and gain nothing by trying to

exploit leaseholders? I can confirm it is in the white paper as part of

the consultation and it is partly because of the work my honourable

friend has done in this area. Modular housing is not going to be

the panacea to this country's housing crisis. Traditional

house-building will still be the majority of the kind of housing

people want to live in in the immediate future. There is no

mention of the critical shortage of skilled people in the building

industry. How is he going to build and meet his targets without the

people to do it? No one is saying modular homes and the factory built

is the panacea but it has an important contribution to make.

Traditional building remains important and that will stay the

case for many years to come. Part of tried to get more skills into the

sector is the apprenticeship levy which comes into place in April,

something I was proud to introduce as Business Secretary, and already I

have heard from construction companies, the plans they have to

take on more apprentices. Can I welcome the standardisation of

housing supply for local authorities? Could he confirmed that

means that where there is an improved local plan and approved

neighbourhood plan, there should not be permissions granted outside of

that envelope? That is what it means, Mr Speaker. My constituents

are very concerned about proposals to build on green belt but we need

more affordable homes. What will the white paper do to a to valet is sat

on -- what will the white paper Forster valet is sat on brownfield

site to get on with developing? -- force developers. There is no easy

answer. Sometimes there can be a good reason why a developer has

another project to go on when they have finished their current one, but

planning permission into homes. planning permission into homes.

There are measures including changes to completion notices, being able to

attach conditions to planning permissions, and also, one new

measure, which we will consult on, allowing local authorities to take

into account for large developments the track record of a developer.

Will he confirmed that it is still the Government's policy that

London's green belt is a priceless sessional asset and an asset for the

City of London and would he confirm he would not be party were a local

authority has ducked difficult decisions that they could short cut

their way out of it by a ?2.5 billion development where the green

belt is at its narrowest around London, getting a nice billion

pounds for the developer and the landowner? I will not talk about a

particular planning application, but what I can confirm is that the

protections of the green belt are as strong as ever. One thing we have

done in the white paper for the first time is set out much more

clearly the steps we expect a local authority to go through before it

even considers the green belt, it must show it has looked at all

reasonable alternatives. How does the Secretary of State intend to

help local authorities to purchase land under compulsory purchase

orders when he has devastated their budgets by up to 60% and shouldn't

he be holding himself to account and not local authorities for his

failures? What I am specifically consulting on is the possibility of

local authorities having auctions using compulsory purchase orders so

it would not necessarily mean they are buying it themselves. In

high-growth areas like my constituency the key issue is

ensuring we have the infrastructure for schools, health care, transport,

so can he please give us more details of how the infrastructure

fund for housing will work in practice to provide money and ensure

we have housing and infrastructure? I can tell my honourable friend that

the fund which will be launched in April will be run by the DCR G, ?2.3

billion, and it will be a bidding process where local councils and

possibly other parties can bid directly for the infrastructure

necessary. I am conscious many colleagues are eager to get more

details and we will publish those as soon as possible. Isn't the member

right that it is time to take much tougher action against absent

private landlords who rake in the housing benefit but do not reinvest

a penny of that money into the upkeep of properties cost you lot

shouldn't councils be given simpler powers over those properties where

they are below the decent standard to send a clear message to those

landlords, respect our communities or get out of Greater Manchester? Of

course, he will know that we want all landlords, whether in rented

accommodation or for sale, to meet certain standards. But it does come

back to the underlying problem which is one of the reasons that landlords

can sometimes extract higher rent or more difficult terms is because of a

lack of supply of homes and it applies to Manchester as birch as

anywhere else. I am pleased to hear the Secretary of State we tried that

the green belt is safe. -- as much as in Ross. In Stockport, there are

plans to build over 4000 houses on we felt in my constituency. Would he

reassured me, my constituents and the 3600 people who signed my

petition that the green belt is safe in our hands and no plans to remove

any restrictions on it? We have made it clear in this white paper that

the green belt maintains all of the protections it enjoys today and

again, for the first time, we have set out quite clearly what it is we

expect the local authority to go through to demonstrate they have

looked at all other reasonable alternatives. Thank you. Can the

Secretary of State confirm whether he remains committed to a definition

of an affordable home at up to 80% of market rent or ?450,000 to buy in

London? Can he confirm what now counts as a starter home? Will local

authorities still be subject to draconian compliance directives if

they fail to do -- if they fail to deliver them?

Mr Speaker, we do want to see more starter homes being rolled out. The

process has begun and that will include homes sold at a 20% discount

to market, but it will also include other types of home for ownership.

My stitch and C is entirely green belt apart from developed areas and

do provides protection against London urban sprawl. Can you confirm

that it might cancel cannot meet its needs assessments, that plan must be

upheld by planning inspectors? -- my council cannot meet. I can't talk

about take particular plan or application but what I can confirm

is that we have thought very carefully about measures that have

huge amounts of green belt -- for areas that have huge amounts of

green belt, and ask local authorities to do more to help their

neighbours. So we have mentioned a statement of common purpose which we

will discuss. In Brighton and Hove alone there are 26,000 is on the

waiting list, so why won't he lit the borrowing cap. He keeps talking

about supply, building on the green belt has risen five bold. Counsels a

year ago asked for more borrowing powers so they could build homes. We

did that in the budget, the first of last year, and there's still lots of

head room. I still think there's ?300 million of head room. I welcome

the philosophy of the right houses in the right places, but we keep

seeing Kirkley building the wrong houses, no regard for school places,

infrastructure and collection of 106 money. What I can tell my honourable

friend is that weak speced all councils to come up with the right

plans for our areas. We asked the planning inspector to look at those

plans and they cannot be adopted until that process has been gone

through. Nottingham city homes one national recognition for its scheme

for older people in Lenton. If he is serious about providing safe, secure

homes, why doesn't he dropped the proposal of capping. One thing in

the White Paper is a requirement for local authorities to go through

lands to account for everyone in their community, including the

elderly and the disabled. She asks me about supported housing, there's

a consultation going on and we will look at all these issues carefully.

There is a wild West adversarial Lib Dem lazy planning attitude in my

constituency, and I welcome the fact that disabled and elderly people's

needs will be looked at. We have extreme woodland development in a

constituency which I would like to see halted. Lib Dem and lazy does go

well together, and secondly, she is right about ancient woodland. One of

the things we've done in this white Paper is that I didn't feel why

ancient woodland should have less protection than green belt, so that

is why we are updating this. The honourable gentleman for Leeds North

West is not lazy buts hyperactive. To call anyone lazy judging from

these pages is pretty pathetic. He has done nothing in his turn to make

sure that the right houses are being built in the right places? Will he

speak to my council about why they are facing more green belt and

Greenfield development on land which the wrong sort of housing is being

built? I think what many councillors will welcome today is the

requirement for everyone to play by the same rules, and they all

understand the need for homes in their areas and I suggest he does

the same. I welcome the measures to combat homelessness in the white

paper, but part of the solution is direct commissioning for housing.

It's not very good so far. What action can my honourable friend take

to speed up homes for those who desperately need them? Can I take

the opportunity to commend the work my honourable friend has done

non-business with the bill wending its way through Parliament. He is

correct on the importance of commission, it has a role to play

and I'm picking at it carefully. The total Government spending is

estimated at 28 billion, but 9 billion was spent on housing

benefit. Isn't this a demonstration that rent is too high, and even

those in work can't afford it, and has he considered housing benefit in

this White Paper? The honourable lady will know that housing benefit

has been reformed, but she is correct to make the link between

rent and housing. And that is because the too long we haven't been

building enough homes. I welcome today's paper with its balanced

views. Will credence be given to local authorities held to ransom by

developers who refuse to make concessions in the 106 programme and

then frustrate communities by not delivering on infrastructure? It is

often a problem that my honourable friend makes, and in the White Paper

he will see some changes that will come about following a consultation,

following section 106 and the silt payment. We need new houses but

elements not all was popular with the public. The best thing I've seen

so far is putting in infrastructure with garden villages. Schools,

parking. The flexibility provided to places like Milton Keynes which

wishes to expand into the Oxford corridor. What about targets that

could risk undermined in the long-term growth? That's a good

point from my honourable friend and what it requires is that when plans

are put together, it's looking at the long-term, not just five years'

land supply, but beyond that, the need for that, but also more

cooperation with neighbours putting in its plans and that's where I

think this will help. I'm glad the Minister eventually came round to

realising the need to tackle land bank in and developers sitting so

these are very welcome, but when he will -- will he start listening to

councils, despite the answer to Brighton, they need deep orange cap

lifted, the freedom to RM also they can build more houses? We have

increased the borrowing ability of local councils, however, where the

most ambitious councils, where they want to come forward and do a deal

with central Government, we are listening and that imitation is

included in the paper. Can a self-imposed housing targets become

an exceptional circumstance to build on the green belt? The way that we

have tackled the green belt by keeping its existing protections and

highlighting for the first time everything a local authority has to

go through to show its looked at all other reasonable options. Following

on from Nottingham South, surely the Minister has two act sets its his

plans that will lead to reduction in supply of housing the Midlands.

That's a problem he could fix. That's a market he is breaking?

There's a consultation going on regarding supporting housing and

that will appear in due course. Would demand fall if we could reduce

a third of a million people coming into this country each year? I've

looked at this carefully and I'm not sure it makes the kind of difference

that my honourable friend believes. It's got nothing to do with

immigration but natural population growth and people living longer and

that will be something that has to be catered for, regardless. Even if

immigration would fall to zero, we would still have a deficit of two

million and we would still have people living in cramped conditions

and still have two keep building homes. No social housing has been

built in York. How will this help our housing crisis? No plan has been

put forward. It will help in the same way it will help across the

country, every local authority will have an assessment of need and apply

on that basis. My constituents are shocked by the

possibility building on green belt by the Lib Dem controlled council.

So we welcome this paper, but will green belt land only be built on in

exceptional circumstances? Gamma yes. I can confirm that. I note with

some alarm the housing standards. We have

some of the smallest housing in Europe. We do not want to build

rabbit coops for young families. Can the Secretary of State confirm he

will proceed with great caution in this area. That's why there is a

consultation, I can confirm that. At the same time, it's important that

it isn't a race to the bottom. It has been pointed out that the

Government benches that I followed by calling Mr Wragg followed by Mr

Bone. It was in no way intentional! Candour Minister what he's going to

do for key workers trying to access homes in areas with high property

prices? There are two parts to this answer. First of all, our commitment

with more affordable homes boast to rent and buy, providing extra

funding to housing associations. It's been allocated four billion in

the last budget. Thank you, Mr Speaker. In Cheshire, most of the

brown field sites that are available have been built on. There's no green

belt land, pressure on school places and local governments. Can I ask

whether they will meet the needs of constituents there in terms of

housing? I'm sure that the Prime Minister would be happy to meet. We

can't discuss the specific issue but a more general discussion will be

welcome. The white paper talks about

sharpening the tools available to local

authorities we have tried to get the right balance which is to first of

all respect that very legitimate reasons why the supply of any

project would have to have a pipeline, including land, in the

case of a house-builder, but there is evidence were some firms take

advantage of that. There are many tools in the white paper and if

after looking at them more carefully by honourable friend thinks more

needs to be done, I will be listening to him. If we are going to

stop building on the green belt, such as that currently being

proposed in Bury as part of that proposed in Bury as part of that

Greater Manchester freighter -- framework, does he agree the only

homes is to insist on higher density homes is to insist on higher density

develop and on brownfield sites? It develop and on brownfield sites? It

is one of the ways to increase. There is a lot in the white paper on

density. I know when he takes a closer look, he will welcome it. I

welcome the Secretary of State's determination to tackle the housing

shortage, but he will be aware housing need varies between

provincial towns than London and the South East. Can he assure my

constituents that the policies and planning guidance will not be

focused entirely on London and there will be some allowance for local

authorities to vary it in the more all areas? -- rural. I can reassure

him on that point. There is a specific requirement in the white

paper for local authorities to plan for the needs in their area. If the

demographics are different, which they will be, from area to area,

that is what needs to be catered for. As a constituency neighbour of

mine, he will know that people value the amenity of the green belt around

Halesowen. Would he agree with me that when it comes to house-building

in the Black Country, it should be brownfield first? Yes, I very much

agree with my honourable friend. Land availability is in a sense a

side issue because the impediments of expeditious planning consent of

the capacity of the planning department and the fact there is no

fiscal incentive for planners to grant a mission which is what it

takes so long, linked to that, capacity, whether they have the

skills, knowledge and experience to do with large-scale planning

applications, isn't it time we reviewed the capacity of local

authorities to increase planning fees? Mr Speaker, my honourable

friend has talked about this before and he has helped with others to

make a strong case, as have many local leaders. We have listened and

local councils will be able to increase planning fees by at least

20%. Local communities are often keen to support housing if they feel

the housing is for local need. Does he share the frustration that too

often under the 1985 Housing act the homes can then be swapped to someone

who does not have the local connection and the apparent easy

waving of the agreements which make housing for local need after a very

small commission of the market who made down tee turndown people with a

local connection whether or not they can afford it? It is important the

local connection rules are appropriate and working as we have

set out. My honourable friend makes a link to the 106 agreements and we

have not made a final decision yet, separate choice separate -- subject

to a separate consultation. What is he proposing to do to councils who

failed to put in place a local plan? The good news is that the vast

majority of councils do have a valid local plan in place. Of course, some

still have not met the requirement. The biggest incentive on councils

today to do that is while they do not have a local plan, their

presumption in favour of the relevant in -- in favour of the

relevant applies. People want a plan so they can see where development

will take place. Would he confirm that he accepts the neighbourhood

plans are an important part of planning and they deliver more

houses than expected? I can confirm that and I know they do macro speaks

with some experience in this area but the evidence is that so far of

the plans adopted on average they are leading to Tim Visser more

development than was necessary -- I know my honourable friend speaks

with some experience. The excellent white paper, local authorities will

have to consider small windfall sites of plan. Could I make a

suggestion it is often medium sites that will deliver more housing and

community benefits that would get the community to welcome such sites?

Can we change and welcome that number? One thing I can highlight I

think from the same page in the plan is the requirement that helps just

that point, a new requirement, that when local authorities set out their

plan, they have to, from now on, allow for at least 10% of the site,

minimum 10%, for small and medium-sized builders. Small plot

sizes that will particularly appeal to small and medium-sized builders.

I am delighted that in January we heard Edinburgh council will be one

of the first to benefit from the Government's unlocking the land fund

to bring forward homes. The funds. Could he say how the white paper

will further help development in constituencies like mine? What he

will find in the white paper is a requirement for all local

authorities, before they can look at anything other than brownfield, they

need to show they have fully exhausted the brownfield

opportunities in all of the viable areas but also looking at things

like density, for example. Would the Secretary of State agree that when

planning permission is given for homes in places like West

Oxfordshire it is important developers build them and quickly? I

absolutely agree, Mr Speaker, with my honourable friend and that is why

he will find in the white paper a number of measures to help tackle

just that problem, for example, the changes we made to completion

notices. Thank you. Starter homes offer a realistic solution to a

difficult to deliver brownfield sites and low levels of home

ownership among young people. With a possible change of focus. The homes,

is my honourable friend still committed to delivering on the

requirement to deliver 200,000 by 2020? What I can tell my honourable

friend is that we are committed to delivering at least 200,000 homes

for affordable ownership and that 200,000 will include the starter

homes with the 20% discounts. Urban sprawl creates excessive pressure on

local road infrastructure. It necessitates some stations to have

an increased capacity at the car parks. Will he do all he can to

ensure we build up and not out, especially walking and cycling

distances from established public transport routes? What I can tell my

honourable friend is that specifically in the white paper

there are measures to help just that, especially around urban

transport hubs, public transport hubs, to get a greater density and

make much better use of the land. Thank you. I welcome my right

honourable friend's white paper. Can he assure me he will ensure

developers have to pay more attention to the character of that

area around which they are developing because so many are so

ugly? People have to live there and they are less likely to object if

the development is beautiful. My honourable friend is right to make

that point and I think what helps with that is the change we made to

allow local authorities to increase the planning fees. The 20% increase

is worth 75 million and what many local authorities have told me is

that they would like to hire more resources to help with design and

this helps to achieve just that. Thousands of homes have been built

on brownfield in my constituency but thanks to Labour's excess of 70,000

housing target, we are now seeing swathes of green belt under threat.

Does the standardised methodology of housing need offer hope to my

constituents we can have a housing target review that is realistic? Mr

Speaker, I can assure my honourable friend the new methodology, at the

heart of it, there is a requirement to be more realistic about housing

need. Perhaps he will take reassurance with the words in the

white paper around making sure for anyone looks at green belt, that

they have exhausted all other reasonable options. One market that

never seems to be met is that the bungalows. Perhaps the only truly

lifetime property which allows you to free up properties for families.

What role does the Secretary of State the bungalows playing in

future supply? This is a very important point. This comes back to

the new requirement for local authorities to plan for every

demographic in their constituency. I am sure my honourable friend has met

constituents that live in a large home, children have left, they would

love to downsize, but there is not enough choice in the local area.

That is a specific requirement to make sure local authorities plan for

everyone including local people. I am most grateful to the Secretary of

State and colleagues whose saphenous enabled every would-be contributor

to take part -- pickiness. Point of order. I think that the only way we

can work is to respect the authority of the Speaker. Otherwise there will

be complete chaos. It may be that I have my own personal view,

personally, I think that the Queen has issued an invitation to Mr Trump

on the advice of her ministers and he is the president of the free

world and if we