:00:08. > :00:12.STUDIO: That at the end of the day in the House of Commons. We will now
:00:13. > :00:15.be going over live to the House of Lords. You can watch recorddd
:00:16. > :00:16.coverage of all of today's business in the Lords after the Dailx
:00:17. > :00:37.Politics later tonight. I might raise a further point of
:00:38. > :00:42.concern about the status of rural exemption sites which provide around
:00:43. > :00:47.20% of rural, affordable hotsing. Will the Minister clarify whether
:00:48. > :00:56.tenants will be able to exercise right to buy, or will there be a
:00:57. > :01:03.guarantee of covenants on the land given by philanthropic landowners,
:01:04. > :01:07.will it hold firm? Will a proportion of starter homes be required on
:01:08. > :01:11.rural exemption sites, or whll regulations exclude rural exemption
:01:12. > :01:16.sites from the provisions of this bill? The second issue I want to
:01:17. > :01:24.raise is the question of fahrness. Is it right to force local
:01:25. > :01:29.authorities to sell off vac`nt council houses to pay for the right
:01:30. > :01:32.to buy deal? I appreciate this proposal takes the form of ` levy on
:01:33. > :01:39.value of vacant properties so there is no for sale, but the effdct would
:01:40. > :01:43.be the same. Councils would be forced to sell off assets they may
:01:44. > :01:48.have held onto prudently to fund a national right to buy progr`mme that
:01:49. > :01:56.they had no guarantee of benefiting from. This means rural council homes
:01:57. > :02:01.being sold off to fund urban right to buy and it means greater London
:02:02. > :02:05.council homes being sold off to find right to buy in areas of lesser
:02:06. > :02:11.need. It has been estimated in St Albans that the council will have to
:02:12. > :02:16.sell off 60% of its council homes, pushing the low paid out of the
:02:17. > :02:20.centre of town on to the frhnges with no guarantee of recompdnse to
:02:21. > :02:25.the local authority. This is wholly inappropriate and goes against the
:02:26. > :02:32.principle of localism that this government has tried to enshrine. At
:02:33. > :02:36.need to be excluded from thd need to be excluded from thd
:02:37. > :02:41.calculation of this levy, btt I would also like to see meastres
:02:42. > :02:45.intended to ensure that St @lbans keeps a hold on the majoritx of the
:02:46. > :02:51.assets for the sake of thosd who would not be able to afford to live
:02:52. > :02:57.there otherwise. Finally, I want to highlight concerns about thd impact
:02:58. > :03:02.of this bill on Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. Clause 1 5
:03:03. > :03:07.removes the requirement for local councils to consider the nedds of
:03:08. > :03:11.the area's traveller communhty specifically. Instead it makes
:03:12. > :03:16.provision to caravan sites `nd inland waterways. It is verx likely
:03:17. > :03:21.that this will result in fewer sites becoming available for Gypshes and
:03:22. > :03:26.Travellers as their specific needs will be buried within the whder
:03:27. > :03:31.housing needs of the communhty. Such a change is likely to only hncrease
:03:32. > :03:37.the number of illegal traveller sites, so in community relations.
:03:38. > :03:41.The failure to provide an ilpact assessment on this measure hs again
:03:42. > :03:45.frustration, but I hope the government will give this and the
:03:46. > :03:51.other matters I have raised due consideration when we get into the
:03:52. > :03:56.committee stages. It is a pleasure to join in this debate which even at
:03:57. > :04:02.this stage is demonstrating it is an extremely well-informed and engaging
:04:03. > :04:07.debate and promises a lot of substantial discussions in committee
:04:08. > :04:13.and beyond and I look forward to listening carefully to thosd. For
:04:14. > :04:18.now time does not permit ond to enter into all of the argumdnts but
:04:19. > :04:26.it seems to me that if the `mbition of this bill and the scope of it, if
:04:27. > :04:29.it can allow us to secure the opportunity for resources to be
:04:30. > :04:36.provided to enable people to meet their aspiration to home ownership,
:04:37. > :04:41.and then as a consequence of that to be able to generate resourcds which
:04:42. > :04:44.are deployed as we need thel to be deployed in the building of
:04:45. > :04:49.additional social housing, hs something which is important for us
:04:50. > :04:55.to be able to pursue through this bill. If I may say, at the heart of
:04:56. > :05:01.this, however, is not a limhted 0-sum debate about the disposition
:05:02. > :05:06.of the existing housing stock. It is about adding to the housing stock
:05:07. > :05:11.and delivering the housing supply we have failed to do over the last
:05:12. > :05:17.decade or so. In fact for a longer period. As a former member of
:05:18. > :05:23.Parliament I saw the housing list continually lengthen, including
:05:24. > :05:26.right through the period of the last Labour government, because of the
:05:27. > :05:30.failure to deliver housing stock in the places where people are needed
:05:31. > :05:36.and wanted to live. I wanted briefly today to illustrate what we have to
:05:37. > :05:40.understand is the nature of the problem we have had in the past and
:05:41. > :05:45.why we have to throw everything at it as my noble friend said `t the
:05:46. > :05:51.outset. We have to do all wd can to deliver the additional supply. In my
:05:52. > :05:58.former constituency, South Cambridgeshire, we had a pl`ce which
:05:59. > :06:08.in early 2000 is, nearly 15 years ago, we were debating where we would
:06:09. > :06:15.build a new town. We are potentially at North Down, which is the name it
:06:16. > :06:23.has been given, with 10,000 homes, but private sector led. The debate
:06:24. > :06:26.led to the structure plan in 20 3 which agreed this new town would be
:06:27. > :06:32.built and that over the subsequent 15 years it would deliver about one
:06:33. > :06:39.third of the additional housing required in South Cambridgeshire,
:06:40. > :06:42.not to the exclusion of housing and villages and to the exclusion of
:06:43. > :06:52.Cambridge itself, but to thd addition to it. This was to be by
:06:53. > :06:57.2016. We are in 2016 and of the intended 6000 homes that were going
:06:58. > :07:03.to be built none have been built. There is no home occupied. @fter
:07:04. > :07:09.2003, virtually little progress was made on planning for far too long.
:07:10. > :07:15.The planning application only went in and started to be presented in
:07:16. > :07:22.2005. In 2007, Gordon Brown designated it as the exempl`r
:07:23. > :07:27.eco-town and this delayed any progress because everybody started
:07:28. > :07:34.to talk about the eco-stand`rds rather than building houses. By
:07:35. > :07:40.2008, as the noble lord said, the market fell off a cliff and it was
:07:41. > :07:47.about a decade ago he and I were on the site discussing it. It fell off
:07:48. > :07:54.a cliff and it was private sector led and there was no progress. It
:07:55. > :08:00.was actually only in 2012 that the planning application was given
:08:01. > :08:07.approval. It was only in 2005 that the second phase was presented for
:08:08. > :08:15.outline planning permission. It is more than a year ago that it was
:08:16. > :08:19.illustrated by the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, as thd first
:08:20. > :08:24.garden city, and we still do not have any progress on that idea. We
:08:25. > :08:30.do not need more initiatives, we need more houses. Frankly, when one
:08:31. > :08:38.looks at this example, the first home is likely to be built `nd
:08:39. > :08:41.occupied in the first part of 2 17, so a decade practically latdr that
:08:42. > :08:46.it was intended to be, we h`ve got to find a better way of delhvering
:08:47. > :08:51.major housing projects. Arotnd Cambridge there are any number of
:08:52. > :08:56.houses being built as urban extensions, village extensions, but
:08:57. > :09:02.we have got to be able to b`lance the housing supply and in p`rticular
:09:03. > :09:07.to deliver on starter homes and key worker housing which we need around
:09:08. > :09:10.the city. We have to be abld to put new settlements in, otherwise we
:09:11. > :09:17.will never get the balance of housing we are looking for. I
:09:18. > :09:22.welcome what is in the bill. As often is the case, it must be seen
:09:23. > :09:29.alongside the other expenditure and administrative measures the
:09:30. > :09:34.government is taking. But for other towns that may come along, we need
:09:35. > :09:40.the permission in principle, we need that kind of upfront certainty from
:09:41. > :09:45.the point at which the plan is determined. That will reinforce the
:09:46. > :09:49.determination of local commtnities and the right of local commtnities
:09:50. > :09:54.through their local plan to say what the structure of their houshng and
:09:55. > :09:59.spatial distribution should be. We need to back that up with a
:10:00. > :10:03.government commitment which we have now received towards direct
:10:04. > :10:07.in place. I think that can be linked in place. I think that can be linked
:10:08. > :10:14.to the supply of starter holes and key housing and it is important that
:10:15. > :10:18.happens. If it happens without direct government involvement, there
:10:19. > :10:23.is too great a risk of loss to the community in the area as a whole
:10:24. > :10:28.which would otherwise be lost if the starter discount has to be funded
:10:29. > :10:34.out of that. There is a test for the bill. Does it do something which
:10:35. > :10:39.enables the lessons of the recent past not to be repeated? Dods it
:10:40. > :10:45.enable us to deliver more housing more quickly? That would be the
:10:46. > :10:50.test. My Lords, six minutes is barely time to scratch the surface
:10:51. > :10:55.of this bill, certainly not time to fully expose the policy failures of
:10:56. > :11:00.this government and its predecessor, which has seen home ownershhp for
:11:01. > :11:05.year on year. Fewer homes btilt and any peacetime government since the
:11:06. > :11:09.1920s. Homelessness and rough sleeping soaring, one in fotr
:11:10. > :11:14.families with children renthng in the private sector with private rent
:11:15. > :11:19.reaching an all-time high. No time either to spell out in detahl while
:11:20. > :11:25.this bill fails to address the housing needs of our countrx. It
:11:26. > :11:30.offers starter homes which `re a nonstarter for most. The loss of
:11:31. > :11:33.genuinely affordable homes to rent or to buy, increasing centr`lisation
:11:34. > :11:40.of our planning system, a flawed right to buy and the removal of
:11:41. > :11:42.security for tenants. We can have no confidence it will fundamentally
:11:43. > :11:50.address the chronic shortagd of housing in this country. Thdre is
:11:51. > :11:55.much for us to do. I would like to concentrate my comments on two
:11:56. > :11:59.areas, planning and the so-called high income social tenants. As far
:12:00. > :12:07.as planning is concerned, the Coalition Government claims a new
:12:08. > :12:10.world with the scrapping of strategies, the duty to cooperate,
:12:11. > :12:15.neighbourhood planning and development orders, all dond under
:12:16. > :12:21.the barrier of localism. Of course the new homes bonus to solvd our
:12:22. > :12:25.housing crisis. If this was all such a success, why does this bill have
:12:26. > :12:31.to include a raft of new, centralising powers for the
:12:32. > :12:34.Secretary of State to intervene including requiring local planning
:12:35. > :12:39.authorities to designate spdcific areas as neighbourhood areas,
:12:40. > :12:44.setting time limit on decishons to hold a referendum on neighbourhood
:12:45. > :12:48.development orders, to direct an authority, to amend its loc`l
:12:49. > :12:52.development scheme, to the instructions to an independdnt
:12:53. > :12:55.examiner to intervene in thd development plan process and to
:12:56. > :13:00.direct the local planning atthority to revise a document and submit it
:13:01. > :13:07.to independent examination. Whatever happened to localism? All of this is
:13:08. > :13:11.moving us inexorably away from a planning system anchored in the
:13:12. > :13:16.democratic processes of the local community. How will all of this
:13:17. > :13:21.encourage local communities to support the new developments which
:13:22. > :13:27.we so desperately need? As hf this were not enough, the powers for the
:13:28. > :13:33.Secretary of State concerning planning obligations and powers to
:13:34. > :13:36.introduce pilots and altern`tive providers for the processing of
:13:37. > :13:44.applications for planning pdrmission is the thin end of the wedgd. Why
:13:45. > :13:46.will the government not properly resourced the depleted planning
:13:47. > :13:52.departments of local authorhties and make sense of the provision for
:13:53. > :13:57.planning fields? My lords, so far as the proposals to charge market rents
:13:58. > :14:00.two, quote, high income sochal tenants is concerned, this `ll has
:14:01. > :14:06.the makings of a bureaucrathc nightmare. Whilst we may not object
:14:07. > :14:10.in principle to the fundamental proposal, as we have heard
:14:11. > :14:16.previously, the level of thd threshold above which tenants will
:14:17. > :14:20.be subject to higher rents, ?30 000, will hit many hundreds of thousands
:14:21. > :14:25.of households, including a couple working full-time and burning just
:14:26. > :14:32.the living wage. There is a disparity between the treatlent of
:14:33. > :14:38.housing associations and local authorities. For the former the
:14:39. > :14:42.policy is Monday three, but for the latter it is voluntary. The
:14:43. > :14:46.additional rents charged by housing associations will be available to
:14:47. > :14:50.them for additional investmdnt, but local authorities will have to hand
:14:51. > :14:55.over their proceeds to the Treasury. Like so many aspects of this bill
:14:56. > :14:59.the details will be left to regulation and perhaps the Linister
:15:00. > :15:04.will tell us how much of thhs we will see before this legisl`tion
:15:05. > :15:09.moves on from this house. Wd know higher income will be deterlined by
:15:10. > :15:12.the income of the two highest earners in the household and the
:15:13. > :15:18.assessment will be based on gross income. The practical challdnges of
:15:19. > :15:23.this are obvious. How will the policy cater for the changing
:15:24. > :15:27.composition of households whth individuals moving in and ott during
:15:28. > :15:32.the course of a year, or during the course of the year for which the
:15:33. > :15:37.income is to be calculated? What will be the basis of assesslent if
:15:38. > :15:43.rent demands have to be processed before the start of a year `nd for
:15:44. > :15:44.the current year, the preceding year of the present's income for tax
:15:45. > :15:56.purposes will not always be known. What will be the position for the
:15:57. > :15:59.self-employed, whose tax can take longer to agree? Generally, what
:16:00. > :16:04.will happen if there are legitimate adjustments to gross income for tax
:16:05. > :16:11.purposes after a rent level has been set? Will there be a refund? Will
:16:12. > :16:16.there be an appeals process? The current guidance contains provisions
:16:17. > :16:21.which exclude the standard `pplying where household income which is
:16:22. > :16:25.60,000. Here, the household is defined as the tenant or tens plus
:16:26. > :16:32.spouses, civil partners or partners. It is envisaged -- is it envisaged
:16:33. > :16:35.that the same definitions whll apply in these circumstances, and can it
:16:36. > :16:41.be confirmed that adult children living at home, and increashng
:16:42. > :16:45.phenomenon given our housing crisis, will be outside of the calctlation?
:16:46. > :16:50.And how does the government respond to concerns that the policy will be
:16:51. > :16:54.a work this incentive and dhscourage individuals from working longer
:16:55. > :17:00.hours? My Lords, the administration of all this will not be without its
:17:01. > :17:09.challenges, but this is just one of the bill's lost opportunitids. It is
:17:10. > :17:14.always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton.
:17:15. > :17:17.I want to speak about plannhng and I associate myself with what he has
:17:18. > :17:28.said about planning in the first part of his speech. I also `ssociate
:17:29. > :17:35.myself with my noble friend the Baroness and her excellent opening
:17:36. > :17:37.speech. And I friend, Barondss Thorn Hill, who I am delighted to see
:17:38. > :17:44.sitting on our benches todax and making such a good speech. @nd my
:17:45. > :17:50.other accolade is to the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who is not
:17:51. > :17:54.in her seat at the moment, who I associate myself with everything she
:17:55. > :17:59.said on planning. I should declare my interest as a deputy leader of
:18:00. > :18:08.Pendle Council and a member of various planning committees, vice
:18:09. > :18:15.president of the LGA. No dotbt as the bill when sits through ,- went
:18:16. > :18:18.its way through, I normally spend my weekends on local political stuff
:18:19. > :18:23.and try to help run the loc`l council. This weekend, I took a few
:18:24. > :18:30.days off and sat down to re`d this bill and its various documents.
:18:31. > :18:39.People in our household thotght I was a bit of a geek. But
:18:40. > :18:45.nevertheless... I recommend that people read it in their spare time.
:18:46. > :18:49.In particular, read the bill and don't believe the spin. The noble
:18:50. > :18:56.lady is back in her seat, ILP is to see. Or perhaps I just missdd her
:18:57. > :19:05.before. The quality of this bill is variable. In the 15 years I have
:19:06. > :19:08.been in your lordships' house, I have been taking an interest in
:19:09. > :19:12.planning and housing bills, and you learn to realise that there are good
:19:13. > :19:17.bills and bad bills. Some of this bill is very well written indeed. It
:19:18. > :19:23.is clear, it is full of admhrable detail on the face of the bhll and
:19:24. > :19:30.in the schedules. I have to say the explanatory notes are good `s well.
:19:31. > :19:34.Parts of this bill are abyslal. We have had debates recently in your
:19:35. > :19:37.lordships' House about secondary legislation, what rights we should
:19:38. > :19:44.or shouldn't have in this House over them, and a lot of noble Lords have
:19:45. > :19:50.complained at the skeletal nature of some of the bills. I think that
:19:51. > :19:54.anybody doing an academic course in the future on skeletal bills can do
:19:55. > :19:59.no better than address themselves to part one of this bill on st`rter
:20:00. > :20:06.homes, in not much more than three pages includes nine ministerial
:20:07. > :20:12.regulation making powers, and over half of those at the moment are to
:20:13. > :20:18.be affirmative. I associate myself with the noble Baroness in what she
:20:19. > :20:22.said. Unless we have details about what these are going to be, we
:20:23. > :20:26.should not be passing this bill in this House while it is going
:20:27. > :20:31.through. As far as the planning system is concerned, the
:20:32. > :20:36.government's fewer beers -- appears to be that the planning system is to
:20:37. > :20:43.blame for not enough houses being built. I have said several times in
:20:44. > :20:47.your lordships' House that H believe the planning system is bust. And I
:20:48. > :20:50.stand by that. But I think ht is wrong that the identification of the
:20:51. > :20:57.problem of not building enotgh houses lies basically in thd
:20:58. > :21:02.planning system. It lies in the lack of finance and lack of abilhty for
:21:03. > :21:05.people to build houses and secondly, I don't believe the proposals in the
:21:06. > :21:08.bill will improve matters. The bill will improve matters. The
:21:09. > :21:15.problem with the planning sxstem is not mainly in development m`nagement
:21:16. > :21:20.on the processing of planning applications, it is with land
:21:21. > :21:27.making. The plan making system is, in my view, in need of a substantial
:21:28. > :21:31.overhaul, and this bill does not do it. Local plan making is supposed to
:21:32. > :21:36.take place within a coherent framework of the National planning
:21:37. > :21:43.policy, of an evidential base of needs and the facts on the ground,
:21:44. > :21:49.and in processes of consult`tion with all affected interests,
:21:50. > :21:54.including local residents. @nd yet national policy is erratic `nd
:21:55. > :21:59.dictatorial and has always been changed. The building of thd
:22:00. > :22:05.evidential base is overelaborate. It is too reliant on evidence based on
:22:06. > :22:10.instructions from on high, `nd the outcomes, when the computers churn
:22:11. > :22:15.them out, are often garbage in, garbage out. As a result, the system
:22:16. > :22:20.is expensive, complex and bureaucratic. It is repetithve. It
:22:21. > :22:25.results in an avalanche of barely comprehensible paper and virtual
:22:26. > :22:31.paper, and it is inaccessible to most people. The consultation system
:22:32. > :22:39.ends up mainly being by consultation with vested interests, landowners,
:22:40. > :22:44.developers, organised bodies, a few powerful people, but mainly the
:22:45. > :22:50.people who are able to pay the experts to understand the sxstem and
:22:51. > :22:55.take part in the continual requirement for more and more input
:22:56. > :22:58.into the consultation, the consultants and people who lake
:22:59. > :23:03.their living is out of this. I have read this bill carefully, and I have
:23:04. > :23:08.read every damned word of it. This bill will make things worse. It will
:23:09. > :23:12.make the planning system more centralised. There will be lore
:23:13. > :23:16.detailed centralised control over everything that happens, less
:23:17. > :23:24.influence for anybody locally, more complicated, less access of all to
:23:25. > :23:32.people even to put their spoke in, and if you don't believe me, read
:23:33. > :23:35.the bill, not the spin. My Lords, I declare an interest as a farmer
:23:36. > :23:41.landowner and a chartered strveyor. I congratulate the government on
:23:42. > :23:45.attempted to grip our housing crisis both through this bill and other
:23:46. > :23:49.measures. We are making progress and this bill is part of that. But it
:23:50. > :23:54.doesn't provide all the answers and I hope we can work on how to improve
:23:55. > :23:58.the situation. The key is to provide adequate housing across all sectors
:23:59. > :24:03.of society and all forms of tenure to suit as many people at as many
:24:04. > :24:08.levels of income as possibld. It is essential that we do not reduce the
:24:09. > :24:12.amount of housing available to the less well off, which I fear we are
:24:13. > :24:15.doing. Government has a mor`l obligation to step in where
:24:16. > :24:20.circumstances upset the norlal supply and demand, and for le, that
:24:21. > :24:24.means rural England, where 80% of the population want to live, at
:24:25. > :24:27.least in southern England, but where society rightly decrees that there
:24:28. > :24:33.should be a limited number of houses built. Supply can never meet demand.
:24:34. > :24:36.Actually, I am struck by how similar the problems are between thd
:24:37. > :24:40.countryside and London. The on affordability of starter holes to
:24:41. > :24:44.the majority of locals, for instance. The almost imposshbility
:24:45. > :24:46.of finding space in the immddiate neighbourhood to replace those
:24:47. > :24:51.affordable homes that are bding forcibly sold off. The despdrate
:24:52. > :24:56.need to find housing for kex workers and impossibility of doing so. And
:24:57. > :24:59.even the tendency for vacant houses to be bought up by outsiders at
:25:00. > :25:04.prices that no local could possibly afford. And then sometimes, they are
:25:05. > :25:09.left empty for large parts of the year by their new owners, foreigners
:25:10. > :25:14.in London, second home in the countryside. Let us start whth the
:25:15. > :25:21.starter homes in this bill. These add to our repertoire of making
:25:22. > :25:24.homes more available to be owned by the young. But we know that these
:25:25. > :25:31.particular young will have to be well above average wage earners in
:25:32. > :25:36.at least 40% of local authority areas. The real problem with starter
:25:37. > :25:42.homes is their transient sed, here today, gone tomorrow. Can wd
:25:43. > :25:47.continue to build more and lore so starter homes ad infinitum to cater
:25:48. > :25:52.for the continuous waves of aspiring young? Can we afford to? In the
:25:53. > :25:56.countryside, you can't keep on building. In the Commons, the
:25:57. > :25:59.minister said, we want to sde rural exception sites being used for
:26:00. > :26:05.starter homes to enable thrhving rural villages to grow. This must
:26:06. > :26:09.not happen. This is a compldte misunderstanding of what exception
:26:10. > :26:13.sites are for. They are put in place for all time. Ackley, it will not
:26:14. > :26:16.happen, because no farmer whll donate land to how is if it can be
:26:17. > :26:22.sold to anyone in five years' time. No village will agree for the same
:26:23. > :26:27.reason, unless the limited planning permission and the discount remain
:26:28. > :26:30.in place for all time. That might help. Moving on to the voluntary
:26:31. > :26:34.right to buy, hopefully, rural Housing associations recognhse the
:26:35. > :26:40.urgent need to protect the lixed nature of rural communities, but it
:26:41. > :26:44.is dangerous to introduce the possibility of the right to buy in
:26:45. > :26:47.rural communities. Farmers `nd communities will have to gr`pple
:26:48. > :26:52.with the new safeguards to protect sites in perpetuity, and will be
:26:53. > :26:56.suspicious, making these much-needed exception sites less likely than
:26:57. > :27:00.ever to come forward. I would like to see a blanket protection in law
:27:01. > :27:05.for communities under 3000 from this right to buy. Let's face it, the
:27:06. > :27:09.government will have troubld funding these right to buy discount anyway,
:27:10. > :27:14.so why not make it clear to rural tenants from the beginning? Moving
:27:15. > :27:20.on to local authority sales of high value stock, do the figures add up?
:27:21. > :27:24.I will leave that to others. More importantly, will the replacement
:27:25. > :27:27.houses to be built in the s`me communities, even built in the same
:27:28. > :27:32.local authority where I comd from, that could mean 20 or 30 miles away,
:27:33. > :27:37.roughly the distance between Hackney in north London and Sevenoaks in
:27:38. > :27:41.Kent. I worry that rural villages will lose their last remainhng
:27:42. > :27:43.public sector affordable hotses on a never to be replaced, and the next
:27:44. > :27:50.generation will have nowherd to live. Moving swiftly on, pax to
:27:51. > :27:57.stay, good idea in principld, but the 40,000 figures are too harsh.
:27:58. > :28:02.Don't forget that rural famhlies below the poverty line often make
:28:03. > :28:07.ends meet by being self-employed, with variable income is etc. Some
:28:08. > :28:12.years, it works well, and in some years, the income is paltry, so over
:28:13. > :28:19.what period of time does thd ?3 ,000 minimum apply? A three-year average
:28:20. > :28:24.would be fair. In conclusion, this is a very bold bill. It is ` huge
:28:25. > :28:30.social experiment. I'm in f`vour of a lot of things in the bill, like
:28:31. > :28:34.starter homes and even pay to stay, providing we can tweak them so that
:28:35. > :28:37.they do not have disastrous consequences. I support
:28:38. > :28:42.homeownership. I can see thd argument that continuous letting
:28:43. > :28:45.from generation to generation holds back the social mobility of the
:28:46. > :28:49.aspiring young, but I do not agree that we should pay for the dream
:28:50. > :28:52.that the noble lady referred to by selling off and reducing thd number
:28:53. > :28:58.of affordable homes which still remain vital for those living at or
:28:59. > :29:04.below the average wage. I hope we can work with government to avoid
:29:05. > :29:07.the dangers inherent in the bill. In the countryside, I hope we can raise
:29:08. > :29:12.the percentage of affordabld homes from its current 12% of housing
:29:13. > :29:17.stock to the nearer urban average of 20%. Finally, the monitoring of this
:29:18. > :29:21.social experiment Busby Rall proved for both religious and markdt towns
:29:22. > :29:27.so that we can adjust and adapt to the inevitable problems that will
:29:28. > :29:37.arise -- the experiment must be proved. I thank the noble Lords for
:29:38. > :29:42.their excellent speeches. Wd are all too aware of the housing crhsis we
:29:43. > :29:47.find ourselves in, which thhs bill is trying to address. Having a home
:29:48. > :29:51.is a fundamental -- is important to us all. It gives long term
:29:52. > :29:56.stability, giving an individual a stake in our society. We nedd to do
:29:57. > :29:59.all we can to help more asphring homeowners realise their drdams
:30:00. > :30:04.Nowhere is the lack of houshng more severe than here in London, as we
:30:05. > :30:09.have heard. The soaring property prices mean it is very diffhcult for
:30:10. > :30:13.young people wanting to comd here to work to find somewhere to lhve they
:30:14. > :30:17.can afford. It is crucial that this is addressed. I wonder if mx noble
:30:18. > :30:20.friend has figures of what percentage of residential property
:30:21. > :30:25.in central London is now earned by foreign nationals. In recent years,
:30:26. > :30:30.it would seem there has been crowding out of settled poptlation.
:30:31. > :30:34.It is important that our own young people should not only be able to
:30:35. > :30:41.come to work in London, but they can also buy a flat or a house.
:30:42. > :30:48.Whilst clearly there is a nded for a quantity of housing, I hope you
:30:49. > :30:54.would also degree that qualhty is important. Winston Churchill once
:30:55. > :30:59.remarked that we shape our buildings and thereafter they shake us.
:31:00. > :31:04.Upholding architectural standard is also essential in all types of
:31:05. > :31:08.housing. Our environment has a dramatic impact upon our lives,
:31:09. > :31:14.affecting our outlook and wdll-being and our health. It can be s`id that
:31:15. > :31:19.of all artists, architects have the greatest responsibility to `nd for
:31:20. > :31:24.the world around them. We already have many beautiful buildings in the
:31:25. > :31:34.UK, but it would seem that this aspect is all too often forgotten in
:31:35. > :31:38.new construction. We need to ask ourselves why the issue of planning
:31:39. > :31:42.causes such tensions among local communities. Many housing
:31:43. > :31:47.developments fail due to opposition from local communities. Usu`lly it
:31:48. > :31:51.is because they are unhappy with the housing proposed. Too often there is
:31:52. > :31:56.development from another. Whilst I development from another. Whilst I
:31:57. > :32:02.believe our localism provishons which empower local authorities to
:32:03. > :32:08.have a greater say should h`ve helped, they are only effective if
:32:09. > :32:10.pricing is comparable. Big developers frequently ignordd the
:32:11. > :32:15.specific and local context hn which they are building and local
:32:16. > :32:22.materials. For example the beautiful stone of The Cotswolds and the dark
:32:23. > :32:27.stone of Yorkshire. I also have concern over planning gain `nd it
:32:28. > :32:33.may sometimes sway planning decisions. Existing residents need
:32:34. > :32:37.to know new housing will enhance, not diminish their environmdnt, and
:32:38. > :32:45.indeed diminish the value of their homes. If we just build an
:32:46. > :32:47.attractive, low quality homds, we will not be achieving sustahnability
:32:48. > :32:53.and it short-changes those who purchase them as well. 50 ydars ago
:32:54. > :32:58.we thought tower blocks werd the answer to housing. How wrong we
:32:59. > :33:01.were. We must avoid the samd mistakes and ensure we do not
:33:02. > :33:06.present our successors with similar challenges. In smaller towns there
:33:07. > :33:11.is much resentment when new development is bolted on in ways
:33:12. > :33:15.that do not reflect or complement the original community. It hs
:33:16. > :33:20.crucial new housing fits in and enhances the local communitx and
:33:21. > :33:25.create cohesion. If we were to ensure new housing is sensitively
:33:26. > :33:31.designed in relation to existing architecture, we could see ` step
:33:32. > :33:36.change in local attitudes. This bill encourages building on brown field
:33:37. > :33:38.sites and it is essential local authorities have sufficiently
:33:39. > :33:44.knowledgeable and expert st`ff to assess potential developments and to
:33:45. > :33:48.designate the sites. The current framework states the constrtction of
:33:49. > :33:53.new buildings should be reg`rded as inappropriate for the green belt.
:33:54. > :33:56.But I understand there are proposals currently under construction to
:33:57. > :34:00.allow some local plans to bdgin allocating green belt land for
:34:01. > :34:04.starter homes and there has been a sharp increase in the number of
:34:05. > :34:09.homes that get full planning approval in the green belt. I
:34:10. > :34:14.applaud the starter home concept. It is an innovative measure to help
:34:15. > :34:20.first-time buyers, but rely upon them to infringe upon our precious
:34:21. > :34:24.green belt cannot be the answer The green belt is sacrosanct and should
:34:25. > :34:28.not be compromised as once concreted over, we will never get it back
:34:29. > :34:34.Conservation officers have ` critical role to play and I hope my
:34:35. > :34:37.noble friend will give issudrs this bill will continue to provide the
:34:38. > :34:43.same level of protection to historic buildings. One of the most hmportant
:34:44. > :34:47.ways we can ensure welcome `nd sustainable housing is built in the
:34:48. > :34:51.right places is to include those affected neighbourhoods in the
:34:52. > :34:55.planning process. Involving residents in the design of new
:34:56. > :35:00.housing delivers a range of social and economic benefits, bettdr
:35:01. > :35:06.meeting the needs of new and existing residents and creating more
:35:07. > :35:09.attractive areas. I commend the measures contained within this bill
:35:10. > :35:15.to extend the designation of neighbourhood areas. I belidve this
:35:16. > :35:18.is crucial to ensure greater consideration is given to the
:35:19. > :35:21.appropriateness of new houshng and will reduce the gridlock of
:35:22. > :35:26.opposition to new developments and everybody wins. I welcome the
:35:27. > :35:32.efforts to address the need for more homes which is so badly needed,
:35:33. > :35:37.however we need to build holes that will last, nurture and enhance the
:35:38. > :35:41.communities for years to cole. I think we are all in agreement about
:35:42. > :35:47.the importance of housing and affordable housing, especially with
:35:48. > :35:50.the new predictions on even greater population growth, and we all want
:35:51. > :35:56.to see houses as secure and affordable homes in which pdople can
:35:57. > :36:00.thrive and they are provided in ways which Foster mixed communithes and
:36:01. > :36:03.are financially sustainable for the future. I do not think this bill
:36:04. > :36:11.contributes much to that and it could make matters worse rather than
:36:12. > :36:15.better. Several provisions have been introduced in haste at the last
:36:16. > :36:20.minute, so we have got a serious job of work in front of us. I do not
:36:21. > :36:28.want to focus in my brief mhnutes on the issue of the rush for starter
:36:29. > :36:33.homes and home ownership, btt I agree with many noble Lords who have
:36:34. > :36:36.already spoken on my concerns about reducing the availability of social,
:36:37. > :36:44.supported housing and affordable housing for rent. I also endorse the
:36:45. > :36:49.view that this bill is a bit of a pig in a poke. It is such a large
:36:50. > :36:55.pig in such a large poke th`t you can hear it squeaking. It's primary
:36:56. > :36:59.legislation is very broad, ht gives wide powers to the Secretarx of
:37:00. > :37:05.State and is highly dependent on legislation. Will we be abld to see
:37:06. > :37:09.the draft secondary legislation during committee stage, othdrwise
:37:10. > :37:15.she is asking us to buy this pig in a poke and seeing? I want to focus
:37:16. > :37:20.on the bill is a serious assault on the planning system and it hs a pity
:37:21. > :37:26.the noble lord Lord Greaves is not in his place because I am a fan of
:37:27. > :37:30.the planning system. It has stood us in good stead and has been one of
:37:31. > :37:36.the jewels in the crown of British democracy and I do not agred with
:37:37. > :37:40.the noble lord Lord Greaves that it is bust. It enables elected local
:37:41. > :37:45.authority members to review evidence from a wide variety of sources and
:37:46. > :37:49.to balance competing economhc, social and environmental nedds in
:37:50. > :37:53.the interests of local commtnities. It has got clear mechanisms for the
:37:54. > :37:59.involvement at all stages for local people and it is not as impdnetrable
:38:00. > :38:03.as he makes it out. I find ht difficult to think that he finds it
:38:04. > :38:10.impenetrable if he likes re`ding bills on his weekends off. H believe
:38:11. > :38:13.the obligations on planning authorities to deliver the
:38:14. > :38:20.government's starter homes policy means the planning system bdcomes
:38:21. > :38:31.starter home lead rather th`n planning lead.
:38:32. > :38:37.There are challenges under the viability system, so I would ask the
:38:38. > :38:42.Minister to show how section 10 agreement and the role they provide
:38:43. > :38:46.in shaping local infrastructure in providing local services and in
:38:47. > :38:53.delivering other social bendfits will not be doubled up under the
:38:54. > :38:58.pressure for starter homes. The second challenge that the bhll
:38:59. > :39:01.introduces is a category of permission in principle for any
:39:02. > :39:06.sites that are identified bx qualifying documents. The bhll
:39:07. > :39:09.itself is very general in its approach to this, though I
:39:10. > :39:17.understand initially this would be for Brown field registers. But it is
:39:18. > :39:21.not clear they may not be other registers and qualifying documents
:39:22. > :39:28.that would allow for this pdrmission in principle process to go `head.
:39:29. > :39:30.Once a Brownfield site is on a list or a qualifying documents the
:39:31. > :39:34.intention seems to be that hn order to give us your astute investors or
:39:35. > :39:41.developers it then cannot bd removed. It has permission hn
:39:42. > :39:45.principle. It is absolutely vital that there is clarity and
:39:46. > :39:48.consultation on the criteri` for what I'm going to constitutd
:39:49. > :39:52.qualifying documents and local people are able to be consulted on
:39:53. > :39:58.and comment on such documents before they are agreed and immutable. If we
:39:59. > :40:02.are talking about speed, I `m not sure we are simply putting `
:40:03. > :40:06.requirement to consult very early on in the process rather than later on,
:40:07. > :40:11.I am not clear that will silply reduce the logjam. The Minister
:40:12. > :40:16.kindly organised the meeting with peers from across the House and I
:40:17. > :40:22.asked the Minister for clarhfication at what stage local people would be
:40:23. > :40:27.consulted. We need a flow chart showing what issues, such as
:40:28. > :40:33.environmental, the importance of wildlife, flood risks, stiff
:40:34. > :40:38.sustainability, open space `nd design, would be considered in this
:40:39. > :40:41.new process. After it is on the register or in a document, the local
:40:42. > :40:47.authority can only consider technical details. I have not had
:40:48. > :40:52.the promised clarification from the Minister. I look forward to seeing
:40:53. > :40:57.that shortly. We need to understand what this process will conshst of
:40:58. > :41:10.before we agree it in this bill I would be very loaf if the process
:41:11. > :41:12.did not ensure that there w`s proper consideration and consultathon on
:41:13. > :41:16.environmental sustainabilitx and quality standards and if thhs
:41:17. > :41:23.process did not involve loc`l people throughout. -- load. There `re a
:41:24. > :41:28.number of other challenges to the planning system in the bill. It is a
:41:29. > :41:34.shame some of them do not t`ckle the issues that really are at the heart
:41:35. > :41:40.of some of the concerns. In my view, the slowness of the houses coming
:41:41. > :41:45.forward on site is not necessarily availability of sites, but the
:41:46. > :41:51.availability of finance for small builders for whom these small sites
:41:52. > :41:54.are best suited. I hope that we can debate further during the p`ssage of
:41:55. > :42:03.the bill other challenges to the planning system. The Secret`ry of
:42:04. > :42:05.State being able to grant consent for housing through the
:42:06. > :42:10.infrastructure process is a gross centralisation, the most am`zing
:42:11. > :42:15.assault, which I do not unddrstand how big words, is the last-linute
:42:16. > :42:17.insertion of scope for alternative providers to process planning
:42:18. > :42:23.applications rather than thd local planning authority, particularly as
:42:24. > :42:28.their advice will be binding on the planning authority. I am confused as
:42:29. > :42:31.to how that will work. Thesd fundamental changes to the planning
:42:32. > :42:38.system risk over focusing on speeding up the planning system when
:42:39. > :42:42.the problem is not planning approvals, but building on
:42:43. > :42:46.applications already granted. Skills, finance, measures to ensure
:42:47. > :42:50.a large developers do not h`ng onto site to keep prices up, thex need to
:42:51. > :42:56.be tackled before we rode the planning system which is a tribute
:42:57. > :43:01.to localism and community involvement and democratic
:43:02. > :43:04.accountability. In the limited time available to speak in this debate I
:43:05. > :43:09.would like to speak from thd perspective of somebody who has been
:43:10. > :43:13.involved for the last 12 ye`rs in challenging the housing associations
:43:14. > :43:20.to improve their performancd and do more for development. I must declare
:43:21. > :43:26.my interest is currently ch`ir of Housing Ok 21. Because of mx
:43:27. > :43:33.experience of wanting to ch`llenge organisations to do better, I accept
:43:34. > :43:37.that one should not take a totally negative view of the governlent s
:43:38. > :43:43.challenges to housing assochations at this time, although I accept at
:43:44. > :43:48.times I have been somewhat tested. Every challenge is an opportunity to
:43:49. > :43:53.improve performance and there is great potential in housing
:43:54. > :43:57.associations to build more homes, if only the government would rdalise
:43:58. > :44:03.that potential. But that potential depends on a stream of rates, using
:44:04. > :44:10.their assets well, creating surpluses so that you can fhnd funds
:44:11. > :44:15.to do more development. There are two general questions I would ask
:44:16. > :44:21.about this bill. The first hs will the bill help us build more homes
:44:22. > :44:25.over the next ten years? Thd ten years is a relevant timescale, not
:44:26. > :44:30.least because of the fact wd do not want to see 1 million homes built by
:44:31. > :44:35.the next general election and then the housing industry going hnto its
:44:36. > :44:37.normal, cyclical downturn and we are back to the average of
:44:38. > :44:42.house-building for the next decade that we have seen in the past
:44:43. > :44:48.decade. The second question I want to ask is, is it the type of housing
:44:49. > :44:53.we want? Is it the quality `nd balance we want to meet gentine
:44:54. > :45:00.need? Let's deal with the b`lance first. I just cannot believd that
:45:01. > :45:04.the whole emphasis of this housing strategy on private ownershhp is
:45:05. > :45:09.right. It cannot be right socially to have all your eggs in ond basket
:45:10. > :45:15.and it is certainly not economically right either.
:45:16. > :45:24.Subtitles will resume on 'Tuesday In Parliament' `t 2 00.