Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-03-08
Topic: Housing
Matthew Owen John Taylor (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I draw noble Lords’ attention to my list of interests but I declare a couple in particular. One is that I am president of the National Association of Local Councils, which has a particular interest in rural communities. The second is a past but recent interest in that I was chair of the National Housing Federation for six years until September, therefore covering the period during which the voluntary agreement was negotiated with the Government I particularly associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and especially with those of the noble Lord, Lord Best, about some of the background to this issue. I was disappointed when the Conservative Party put forward the right-to-buy policy in the run-up to the general election and was even more disappointed to see it feature in its manifesto. However, I have to accept that it featured in the manifesto and, inevitably, the policy will be delivered. My disappointment stems from the fact that, if the Government feel that they have those kinds of sums to spend—or, more accurately, are going to require local authorities to sell houses in order to have those funds to spend—there are better ways of investing the large sums involved than giving a one-off benefit to a particular tenant who, at a particular time, happens to be in a certain property. There are many others who cannot afford a home and who are not in that privileged position None the less, that was not the context in which the voluntary agreement was negotiated. It was negotiated in the context of a Government with that manifesto commitment and a clear intention to deliver it, and they would always be able to see it through the Commons with their majority. I do not think that this issue would divide Conservative Members of Parliament in principle but they might have concerns about elements of it, and it is a particular element that we need to address today I take the view of the noble Lord, Lord Best, that it is extremely important that this House always defends the principle that the charities that are housing associations —the great majority are charities—are independent organisations. There are many reasons for defending that principle of independence. It is extremely important to the organisations themselves. It bears on their history and on their ability to do what is right for their tenants and their communities. It has produced enormous diversity and, through that diversity, has allowed them to face many different challenges. The negotiations around the voluntary agreement were above all intended to preserve that principle of independence but they also achieved an important series of exceptions in principle. Those were acknowledged and therefore there was no question that housing associations would be able to make decisions about whether, in particular circumstances, a right to buy was appropriate The portable discount is an important element of that. If tenants in general have a right to buy and the discretion to refuse is with the housing association, it seems to me that that discretion cannot lead to a particular tenant being disadvantaged compared with other tenants. Therefore, I accept the principle of the portable discount in the circumstances in which we are now However, I believe that the circumstances of rural communities and villages are exceptional. In 2008, I conducted a review of rural planning for the then Government. One thing that I particularly focused on was the delivery of affordable housing in small rural communities, and the importance of that was clear. Many of these communities had seen affordable housing stock lost—not just council houses which had been sold but old farmers’ cottages. In the past these cottages had often been rented out by landowners but they were gradually sold off at very high values to people who might be retiring to the community or might have a holiday home there. Unlike what had traditionally been the case with those more affordable properties, the people who bought them did not work on the farms or in the school, the shop, the pub or the local businesses. They did not have children who would go to the local school and they did not spend money in the shops and the pubs. Therefore, the risk was that these rural communities would become more and more unsustainable. They were becoming enclaves of wealth and retirement and enclaves of holiday homes, and they no longer supported a living, working countryside I observed that that had become of huge importance to many villages and parishes. We saw a transformation in the willingness to address the problem through the delivery of affordable housing. Increasingly, we saw communities support small numbers of affordable homes on exception sites, often with the support of the landowner, who would get little, or in some cases nothing, for the land. Places that traditionally had always opposed development were willing to support it for the delivery of affordable homes. In the Living Working Countryside report, I argued that we should extend that principle further and empower these communities to take those decisions through the parishes—in effect, neighbourhood planning. We have encouraged that and I very much welcome the fact that the last Government empowered communities in terms of neighbourhood planning I talked about empowering communities because it was evident that when people looked at their own issues, such as keeping the school open, how the children would be able to live and work within the community, and how the pub and the shop would be sustained, they recognised the central importance of people on lower incomes—working people within rural communities —being able to live within those communities. On sustainability grounds, frankly it makes no sense that these communities have become places for retirees—places where the land that gets farmed at all is farmed by people who live in the town because they cannot afford to live in the village. If care is provided at all, it is provided by people who live in the town because they cannot afford to live in the community. Therefore, that principle seemed to me on every ground absolutely fundamental, and local communities supported it However, above all local communities supported one principle, which was that the homes should be affordable for the community in perpetuity. They supported that because the landowner would not make land available if someone was going to make a profit from the sale of a house a few years later and it was going to become just another retirement home or just another done-up cottage to be used as a holiday residence. The community would not extend its support for that sort of planning through neighbourhood plans and, in the past, parish plans. I saw communities go through the process of finding the right site and welcoming the homes that were built, but it was always understood that these would be affordable in perpetuity Some of those homes were guaranteed to be affordable in perpetuity because the landowner was wise enough to put a clause in the contract on the sale of the land. In other cases, the landowner was far-sighted enough to include it as a planning condition. However, in many communities that was not the case. The houses were understood to be affordable in perpetuity, and it was understood that there was no right to buy. There was some discretion but a process with the regulator had to be gone through if the sale of a home was to take place. However, without the discount there was no great incentive for it, and these homes were not sold off We now have a different circumstance in two respects. First, the discount offer makes it infinitely more likely that tenants will come forward, if not with an eye to making money for themselves, very often with an eye to wanting to secure the home for their children—an understandable human response. Secondly, with the rent cuts and the falling away of grants, housing associations will inevitably be aware that if a sale takes place, it is unlikely that it will fund one-to-one replacements; it will actually fund a multiple of that. Therefore, if they sell one house, the truth is that it will, as a result of the rental streams and so on, allow multiple investments in new housing, potentially somewhere else.