Council and Social Housing
Debate between Heidi Alexander and Lord StunellWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to a very important topic in a timely debate. It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton. I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), who is a long-standing and passionate campaigner for council housing. In fact, I think he has got more passionate every year that I have heard him, which is from 1997 onwards. I think his passion increased as his despair with his Government’s performance grew. Of course, he is not simply an advocate of social housing. I hope that he will not take this amiss, but he is a fundamentalist who is in favour of council housing.
Several temptations have been offered to me in this debate—for instance, to trespass on the work of my right hon. Friends in the Department for Work and Pensions in relating to housing benefit. I will not go there. I have been tempted to trespass on the toes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in relation to the Government’s approach to stabilising the finances of this country and writing a new Budget. I will not go there. In the limited time that I have, I will focus on the key points relating to council and social housing. I want to make it clear that we accept the analysis that it would be a good thing to have more investment in housing. That is why we are investing more in housing. We think that it is a good idea to have more social and affordable homes. That is why we are investing in social and affordable homes.
I want to put very clearly on the record the statistics for social rented homes—local authority and housing associations combined. They show that in the 18 years between 1979 and 1997—dates chosen not entirely arbitrarily—the number of social rented homes fell by 1,122,000. Between 1997 and 2010—13 years—the number of social rented homes fell by 420,000. The average loss per year under the Conservatives’ 18 years was 62,000 a year, and the average loss per year during Labour’s 13 years was 32,385—a net loss of local authority and housing association homes.
As a result of our investment programme, in the five years from 2010 to 2015, for the first time since 1979 there will be a net increase in social and local authority homes. Although I am ready to concede that it would be good if we could do more, it is important to recognise that this Government are outperforming their predecessors by a margin. The problem is large. We currently have 1,840,000 families on local authority waiting lists in England. As several hon. Members have noted, the Localism Act 2011 gives back to local authorities the flexibility to manage their housing stock without reference to national diktats.
One thing to emerge from this debate is that there are many different housing markets and many different social housing markets. As an example, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) contrasted the situation in his constituency with the problems facing the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander). It is surely right that local housing authorities should have the right and the duty to determine for themselves what their social housing strategy should be, and the Localism Act gives them that additional flexibility.
The hon. Member for Lewisham East made a point about the national planning policy framework perhaps dictating to councils what land they should allocate for social housing. That is surely a matter for them to carry out a proper study of the circumstances in their area and to make appropriate provision.
Andrew Stunell
No, I have only two or three minutes left. I want to make a point regarding the reduced investment in housing alleged by the hon. Member for Lewisham East and by the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson). It is true that the amount of money that we are investing is lower, but of course the amount of subsidy needed is lower as well. Under the formula that we inherited, every social home built required a subsidy of £85,000 to be built. Under the affordable rents model, it requires a subsidy, on average, of £37,000. We produced a scheme that would invest £4.5 billion in social and affordable homes, and we told the House that we were confident it would deliver 150,000 new homes over the period to 2015.
We were mocked and scorned by the Opposition, who said that the model would not work; it could not possibly deliver. I have not yet received an apology now that we know that not 150,000, but 170,000 homes will be provided with the £4.5 billion injection. Contracts are being signed up all over the country by the Homes and Communities Agency. Indicative rent levels are in a range to fit local circumstances. The average affordable rents range from 65% in London to 79.5% in the north-west. In London, only 5% of the affordable rent homes are being offered at the 80% level. Those are in areas of comparatively low rental values in London.
I want to make a point about decent homes. If I can put it this way, Labour hoped that it had got a “get out of jail free” card for reducing the social housing stock. Of course, the Labour Government improved much of it. We are also improving 170,000 existing social homes to bring the remainder up to the decent homes standard. We are continuing that investment as rapidly as we can in all circumstances.
I will address points made by the hon. Gentlemen from the northern part of Lincolnshire: my hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and, of course, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. The new homes bonus does not simply apply to new homes, but to the reoccupation of empty homes. Indeed, the conversion of shops to homes would generate the new homes bonus via the empty homes route. I hope that those hon. Gentlemen will talk to their local authorities to see how best they can make sure that that is dealt with appropriately.
In my final moments, I will talk about right to buy. It seems to be generally agreed—certainly by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and a number of others—that the problem with right to buy in the past was that there was no replacement policy. When the Prime Minister announced last September that the Government were reintroducing the right to buy policy, he made it explicitly clear that that was on a one-for-one replacement basis. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Derby North disbelieves it. He disbelieved the 150,000, and we produced 170,000. No aspect of this Government’s policy has been taken at face value on Labour’s side of the road, and yet, every time, we have not simply delivered, we have exceeded. I ask the hon. Gentleman, just for once, to accept that the intentions of this Government are clear: to increase the social housing stock and to make sure that we maintain and deliver on the promises that we have made to the House.
Local Government Finance Bill
Debate between Heidi Alexander and Lord Stunell(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Andrew Stunell
Unfortunately, the hon. Lady has partly misread the scheme. Paragraph 2(8) of schedule 4 provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations in relation to the requirements of schemes, and he intends to use this power to require authorities to provide support for pensioners. The purpose of that provision is precisely to safeguard pensioners—a point on which, it would appear, there is cross-party support. It does not require the Secretary of State to approve schemes, and it is not a power to intervene in schemes. I think that I have made that point clear to the House, and if I have not, I repeat it now to make it so.
Several rather whacky points have been made. The hon. Gentleman for Stockport North said—[Hon. Members: “Stockton North”] Sorry, I should know better. The hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) said that Labour had worked hard to close the gap between the rich and poor. Well, I do not know how hard it worked, but it certainly did not work, because the gap between the rich and the poor widened in that time. It did not narrow. He seemed extremely sceptical about whether it was possible for authorities such as Stockton to generate the additional income from discounts and exemptions to compensate them for the loss of council tax benefit grant.
By my count, 18 local authorities have been drawn into the debate in one way or another—all of them by Opposition Members praying in aid councils that they believed would be at a disadvantage. Of those 18, 14 could in fact generate from the discounts and exemptions in their areas more money than they would lose from the loss of council tax benefit grant. Among those authorities is Stockton, which would have a surplus, if it extinguished all the discounts. The hon. Member for Stockton North referred to second homes, but an important part of the new flexibility—and part of the reason Stockton could have a surplus—relates to empty homes. Empty homes discounts provide another potential source of revenue.
When one considers the generality of local authorities, one discovers that were all those discounts and exemptions to be extinguished—as I said in the previous debate, I am not arguing that they should be, but I want the House to understand that the flexibility is there—it would result in an additional income to local authorities in England of £420 million. By what my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) called a fluke, that happens to be the same amount as the 10% reduction. The Government are not arguing that every local authority should simply extinguish those discounts and exemptions. We are simply pointing out that that provides for a significant flexibility, and I would be surprised if a large majority of councils did not choose to make that flexibility a part of the mix when devising a scheme.
Local authorities need to plan carefully to ensure that they can meet demand through the funding that they make available to local schemes. As the hon. Member for Warrington North acknowledged, however, funding for the first two years of localised schemes is derived from the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast for spending on council tax benefit, which reflects existing spending and, therefore, assumptions about underlying demographic changes, including growth in the pensioner population, and council tax increases. Thereafter, of course, the spending review process will provide further opportunities to consider cost pressures.
Local authorities are already well accustomed to using these powers to determine in what circumstances council tax liability should be reduced, whether in individual cases or a class of cases. Local authorities are best placed to understand local needs, including those of low-income families. Paragraph 2(5) of proposed new schedule 1A to the Local Government Finance Act 1992, which is inserted by schedule 4, already requires local authorities to set out the procedures for making an application for a reduction under the scheme.
Amendments 56 and 70 would require local authorities to take into account the impact of their schemes on the living standards and work incentives of taxpayers, and on poverty levels when designing or revising their schemes. However, local authorities already have clearly defined responsibilities in relation to, and for their awareness of, the most vulnerable groups and individuals in their areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) made the point that there are statutory responsibilities on local government when drawing up such schemes, or indeed taking any of its functions forward. An important example is the public sector equality duty in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which requires authorities in the exercise of their functions to have due regard to the promotion of equality between persons who share a protected characteristic, while the Child Poverty Act 2010 imposes a duty on local authorities to have regard to, and to address, child poverty. She referred, quite properly, to the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 and the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, both of which include a range of duties relating to the welfare needs of disabled people. She also referred to the Housing Act 1996, which gives local authorities a duty to prevent homelessness.
Putting all that together, it is quite clear that every local authority is familiar with the need to ensure that any scheme it draws up complies with existing statutory guidelines. That is a continuous process that requires all the relevant decision makers to consider equality, disability and other issues, in forming policy and making decisions. We expect to continue with that sensible approach. There is no reason for unnecessary additional bureaucracy to be imposed on local authorities.
Heidi Alexander
With the best will in the world, is not the problem that, with £490 million less to administer in council tax benefit—a reduction that will come about as a result of the proposals in the Bill—councils will be simply unable to meet the needs of the rising numbers of people who will be unemployed in future?
Andrew Stunell
If I can correct just one small point, the figure is £420 million for England, although the sum for the United Kingdom as a whole is larger. The hon. Lady is quite right that there is to be a reduction in the funding of council tax benefit support. That is not in dispute. My point—and the point the Government are making—is that local authorities have additional income streams open to them in later parts of the Bill. They also have the opportunity to tailor their schemes to suit their local circumstances, and if they choose to draw resources from other parts of their income streams, it is open to them to do that.
Let me turn to amendments 49 and 56. It is unclear how a local authority could take into account the impact of claimants who were receiving council tax benefit before the introduction of a local scheme. For example, that would require a local authority to know, several years after the implementation of the reform, whether a person would have been entitled to claim council tax benefit under the old system and whether a change in circumstances meant that a person would no longer be eligible at all. The Bill already provides for local authorities to make transitional provision as they see fit, following changes to their schemes or the introduction of a new scheme. That seems a far better way of proceeding.
Amendment 67 would require authorities to publish, as part of the scheme, the steps that they would take to ensure that people were informed of their entitlement and what assistance they would be offered. That is a sensible requirement, but paragraphs 2(1) and 2(5) of new schedule 1A to the Local Government Finance Act 1992, inserted by schedule 4 to the Bill, already require the authority to set out the classes of persons who are entitled to a reduction, and the procedure for making an application. The provision that the amendment seeks to introduce is therefore already part of the legislation.
Localism Bill
Debate between Heidi Alexander and Lord Stunell
Andrew Stunell
I take note of that, and I will return to it in two or three minutes’ time, if I may.
The hon. Lady is of course right that there was not agreement on everything. I recognise, in particular, that there were different views on mayors, not only between Government and Opposition Front-Bench teams but among some of my hon. Friends. I will listen carefully to the points made today on the mayoral proposals in the Bill, particularly on such issues as shadow mayors and mayoral management arrangements. Overall, however, I was struck by how much we had in common and how much consensus there is about the need to change the power balance in this country in line with the direction that the Bill takes. I hope that the House will recognise that, through the range of new clauses and amendments that we have tabled, we have tried genuinely and thoroughly to address the points that have been raised.
Let me turn in more detail to new clause 12 and some of the other Government amendments. I appreciate that I have to strike a difficult balance between using up the available time for debate and giving the House a reasonable explanation of the measures before it. I will steer as good a course as I can, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am sure you will let me know if I go astray. New clause 12 and its related amendments impose conditions on the use of the delegated powers in clause 5(1) in relation to the general power of competence. Clause 5(1) sets out a power for the Secretary of State to remove or to change statutory provisions that prevent or restrict the use of the general power of competence. We have termed this the barrier-buster power.
Amendment 64 is the equivalent provision for the general power of competence for fire and rescue authorities in England and Wales. The amendment imposes conditions on the use of the delegated powers in new section 5C(1) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, which is inserted by clause 8. New section 5C(1) sets out a power for the appropriate national authority—Welsh Ministers for the devolved matters relating to Wales, but otherwise the Secretary of State—to remove or to change statutory provisions that prevent or restrict the use of the general power for fire and rescue authorities.
Concerns were expressed about the scope of the delegated power at clause 5(1)—the barrier buster—and the equivalent powers in relation to fire and rescue authorities. The Government reflected on those concerns and decided to introduce specific preconditions as to the use of the barrier-buster power and the limitations on its scope. These include a proportionality test and a requirement to achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person adversely affected by an order. In addition to the current requirements that the Secretary of State has to satisfy—in particular, that he must think that a provision prevents or restricts the use of the general power and must consult on his proposals—subsection (1) now provides that he must also consider the conditions set out in subsection (2), in relation to the general power, and in section 5C(1) in relation to the fire provision to have been satisfied in relation to the proposals.
The new conditions that the clause introduces ensure that the use of the provision is proportionate to the policy objective intended, that there is a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person adversely affected, that there is no removal of any necessary protection, that no person will be prevented from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that they might reasonably expect to exercise, and that any provision is not of constitutional significance. In the light of Opposition amendments 36 and 37, it is perhaps worth explaining the effect of these conditions in a little more detail. The first condition is that the effect of the provision made by the order is proportionate to its policy objective. It might be possible to achieve a policy objective in several different ways, some of which might be more onerous than others and could represent a disproportionate means of securing the desired outcome, so the Secretary of State must satisfy himself that that is not the case and that there is an appropriate relationship between the policy aim and the means chosen to deliver it.
The second condition is that the provision made by the order, taken as a whole, strikes a fair balance between the public interest, on the one hand, and the interests of the person adversely affected by the order, on the other. While it may be possible to make an order that will have an adverse effect on the interests of one or more persons, the Secretary of State must first be satisfied that this is outweighed by beneficial effects in the public interest. The third condition is that the provision made by the order does not remove any necessary protection. The notion of necessary protection can extend to economic protection, to health and safety protection, and to the protection of civil liberties, the environment and national heritage.
The fourth condition is that the provision made by the order will not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he might reasonably expect to continue to exercise. To take a leading example, any right conferred or protected by the European convention on human rights is a right that a person might reasonably expect to keep. The fifth and final condition is that the provision made by the order is not constitutionally significant. That condition will allow orders to amend enactments that are themselves constitutionally significant, but only if the amendments are not constitutionally significant. The condition puts it beyond doubt that repeal of legislation such as the Human Rights Act 1998 or the European Communities Act 1972 is outside this power.
In addition to these preconditions, we are seeking to amend the Bill so that an order under clause 5(1) or section 5C(1) of the 2004 Act may not make provision in relation to certain specified limitation. Subsection (3) prevents orders from being used to delegate or transfer a function of legislating, ensuring that a power to make legislation given by Parliament to the Secretary of State or to another body cannot be transferred to a local authority in the interests of barrier busting. It is right that those decisions should remain with Parliament. Subsection (4) gives a definition of the function of legislating—that is, legislating by order, by rules, by regulation or by subordinate instruments. Subsection (5) prohibits an order from abolishing or varying any tax. It could be argued that removing a tax payable by a local authority would be the removal of a barrier, but it is not our intention that clause 5(1) should be used in that way, so the new clause will prevent an order to vary tax from being made.
Taken as a whole, the Government’s proposals will provide the protections that the Opposition seek in amendments 36 and 37, but without the inflexible and heavy-handed mechanism that they propose. Amendment 36 would amend the definition of a statutory provision by excluding from that definition a long list of statutes, which is set out in amendment 37. That appears to have been prompted by various strands of work that are being undertaken to gather information about local authority duties. This appears to be an attempt to make a point about front-line duties and the desirability of many things that local authorities have to do. Indeed, that is what the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) set out on her website as being her intention. She has fairly given me notice that she
“will be pressing ministers in the Commons debate…to be clear about which other vital council services can be protected.”
I am happy to tell the hon. Lady that the general power is not designed as a means to do away with duties that Parliament has imposed on local authorities. The general power does not oblige local authorities to act in a particular way; it is not the same thing as a duty imposed by legislation. It will give local authorities real freedom to innovate and act in the interests of their communities. The Opposition seem to have developed a misunderstanding about the scope of clause 5(1). It provides the Secretary of State with powers to remove or change statutory provisions that prevent or restrict the use of the general power. That restriction or limitation is one that bites on the general power by virtue of clause 2. The provision is about removing barriers to the legal capacity of authorities to act innovatively and in the best interests of their communities. It is not aimed at removing duties, nor is it, nor could it be, a general-purpose tool to remove any legislation that places a burden on local authorities.
New clause 12 and the connected Government amendments will increase the safeguards on the use of the power in clause 5(1). In addition, the Secretary of State must consult before exercising the power and the appropriate parliamentary procedure for scrutinising any proposed order will be determined by Parliament.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that clause 5, when taken in conjunction with the review that his Department is carrying out into burdensome regulations, might lead to the fear, which many of my constituents have expressed to me, that important protections and duties that exist within local authorities might disappear?
Andrew Stunell
The review of statutory duties is a separate exercise. We have made it clear several times that the review of statutory duties will not remove duties to provide vital services, and that any changes to statutory duties that come about as a result of that review will subsequently be properly considered and consulted on. There is no connection between the two processes.
I urge the House, when the time comes, to support new clause 12 and to reject amendments 36 and 37.
I will turn to the other proposals in this group, on which I hope I can be helpful. When the Committee discussed the standards of behaviour required of councillors, we discussed whether a local authority should have to publicise that it has a code of conduct. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) made a powerful speech on the difference between may and must. I think that was one of the Committee’s high spots. Although we consider it right that a local authority can choose whether to adopt a code of conduct for its members, it must be under a duty to disclose whether it has done so and whether it has revised or abolished its code. That duty will ensure that local people are made aware when their local authority adopts, changes or withdraws its code, while leaving it for authorities to decide how best to publicise and deal with these matters.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Heidi Alexander and Lord Stunell(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
17. How many new social home builds he expects to be started in each year of the comprehensive spending review period.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)
In the spending review we announced almost £4.5 billion investment in new affordable housing to deliver up to 150,000 affordable homes. We are giving housing associations more flexibility on rents and use of assets, thus increasing their financial capacity, and our aim is to deliver as many homes as possible through our investment and reforms. The actual number of homes started and delivered in each year is dependent on agreements between housing associations and the Homes and Communities Agency in consultation with local authorities.
Heidi Alexander
I congratulate the Minister on his optimism, but I am afraid that I do not share it. In my constituency, the former Catford dog track has lain derelict for the past seven years. It is a site owned by the Homes and Communities Agency and has planning permission for a scheme that includes 313 affordable homes. Given the Minister’s stated commitment to affordable housing, will he agree to meet me to discuss options for how we can get appropriate development on this site?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Heidi Alexander and Lord Stunell(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)
I think that is the third invitation to Ministers to visit Members’ constituencies in this set of topical questions. The hon. Gentleman has referred to an excellent project. It is an exemplar that we are keen to see replicated elsewhere, and I look forward to visiting it.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Yesterday we heard about the supposedly extra money that councils will get to meet the care needs of the elderly and disabled. How much is that sum of money compared with the total overall cuts faced by local government? I am concerned that what is being given with one hand is being taken away with the other.