Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-05-10
Topic: Housing
John Warren Shipley (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, in speaking in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I support two principles: first, that councils should be able to keep sufficient funds to replace each home they have to sell; and secondly, that negotiations between central and local government must allow councils to take into account the housing needs in their area. If there is demand for social homes for rent, councils should be enabled by the Government to replace those higher-value homes sold with another home for rent. This is what the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, seeks to do, which seems to me entirely reasonable The Minister reminded us of what was said in the other place last night. The Minister in the Commons said that these proposals, "would also significantly reduce the funding available for the voluntary right to buy".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/5/16; col. 461.] This suggests that the Government are refusing to accept what, on the face of it, is a very reasonable amendment because the priority for the money released by the forced sale of higher-value council homes is not replacement council homes for rent. This amendment remains vital for that reason We now have one-for-one replacement in the Bill, although not like for like, and I acknowledge the Government’s limited movement on the former. However, certainty that the funding will be available for that one-for-one replacement is now needed, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, pointed out. Can the Minister make a clear statement that the funding will indeed be available for the replacement home, and that where that replacement home is a social home for rent, it will be funded from the sum realised by the sale of the higher-value council home before the residue goes to the Government to fund the voluntary right to buy When we last debated this matter a few days ago, the noble Lord, Lord Porter, quoted the Conservative Party’s manifesto and the accompanying press release. The press release said that sold council homes would be, "replaced in the same area with normal affordable housing". I asked the Minister in that debate if a definition could be supplied of what a normal affordable home actually was. The press release went on: "After funding replacement affordable housing on a one for one basis, the surplus proceeds will be used to fund the extension of right to buy" In other words, the Conservative Party made a commitment, in the press release accompanying its manifesto, that a replacement home would come first. There is a clear implication in the wording of that statement— "After funding replacement affordable housing"— that the home will be of the same type. That is what a lot of people believed to be the case. However, it becomes clearer that this is not the Government’s intention. Instead, a voluntary right to buy has to be funded first, and the resource available to supply a replacement council home will in practice be extremely limited The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, gave one or two facts and figures. A rising number of people are homeless and a large number of people are now living in temporary accommodation, a figure that also seems to be rising We have more than 1 million people on council waiting lists. It is anticipated that under the existing right to buy, by 2020, 66,000 council homes will have been sold to tenants. The Government’s introduction of a 1% rent reduction each year for the next four years for social housing will reduce the number of replacements that can be built, because the revenue stream matters in paying the bills. Finally, the forced sale of higher-value council homes will reduce the number of social rented homes available, unless the amendment is accepted In my view, what the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, has now proposed is entirely reasonable. I very much hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the amendment and the need for it, because in so doing, the Government would remove the all too transparent doubt that surrounds this debate.