argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Margaret Olivia Hillier (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister cited the PAC report published last Friday. Just to be clear, the Committee does look at issues in advance of their becoming law, to make sure that taxpayers’ money is protected in the process. He makes great play of providing more affordable homes for sale, but it is not clear how he will fund it or that there will be a like-for-like replacement of the homes he is forcing boroughs such as mine to sell in order to pay for them. Will he promise now to protect long-term social housing for the people in London who can afford nothing else, certainly not a starter home?
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Karen Patricia Buck (Labour, Centre-left): We need a policy to fit all parts of the country, including London. In inner London, however, starter homes will come in at £450,000. We have to speak the language of priorities. Is the Minister really telling us that a home that requires an income of £77,000 a year—more than an MP’s salary—is genuinely the best priority for public funds?
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Gareth Thomas (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister will recall that at the end of last year, in Committee, there were a number of exchanges about housing co-operatives. As a result of changes in the Bill, housing co-ops that own properties are largely exempt from many of its provisions, whereas those that manage properties on behalf of local authorities will still be badly hit by many of the provisions. Potentially, housing co-op properties will be among the 100,000-plus properties currently owned by councils that are likely to be lost as a result of the Bill Might the Minister be willing to make a commitment, before the Bill returns to the other place, to look again at the specific impact on co-ops that manage properties on behalf of councils?
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Dawn Petula Butler (Labour, Centre-left): One of the Lords amendments refers to the principle behind the Khan amendment, which is that when a unit of social housing is sold, another must be built in the local area in which the sale took place. Does the Minister agree with that?
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Clive James Charles Betts (Labour, Centre-left): I am trying to understand what the Minister actually does want. I am trying to work out whether starter homes will be built in addition to other homes that would have been built, or instead of them. The Select Committee unanimously agreed the following words: "Starter Homes should not be built at the expense of other forms of tenure; where the need exists, it is vital that homes for affordable rent are built to reflect local needs." Will the Minister tell us whether the Bill as he would like it to be worded would make starter homes the priority and effectively push out and displace affordable homes for rent as part of the section 106 agreements?
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Clive James Charles Betts (Labour, Centre-left): I am still as confused as I was at the beginning of the debate and at the Select Committee hearings. The Minister has just made an entirely reasonable point. I thoroughly agree that it should be for local authorities to determine the composition of homes to be built as part of section 106 agreements in their areas. How does that square with a policy of giving priority to starter homes and building 200,000 of them irrespective of the consequences for the building of other sorts of housing?
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Karen Patricia Buck (Labour, Centre-left): I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that Westminster City Council, which, as usual, is in the vanguard of such things, announced in 2012 that it was extremely keen to introduce a version of pay to stay and to charge its higher-earning tenants additional rent. However, it has never done so because it has never found a way to introduce such a scheme that was not ridiculously bureaucratic and costly and that acted as a severe disincentive to work.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Margaret Olivia Hillier (Labour, Centre-left): I take great offence at the suggestion that two people—two pensioners, for example—on a fixed income of £40,000 a year in my constituency would be considered rich, or that they would have any other housing option. Those of a certain age on a fixed income cannot rent privately because the rent would be more than £1,500, and a lot more for a two-bedroom flat. They cannot buy, because the average property price is £682,000, and they would not qualify for a starter home, even if they wanted something of that size. Does the Minister acknowledge that it is invidious to attack those people who do not have a great deal of money?
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Clive James Charles Betts (Labour, Centre-left): The Communities and Local Government Committee took evidence from housing associations when the Government were planning to introduce this scheme for them, and we heard clear evidence that it would cost them more to administer the scheme than they would get in returns from extra rent. Will the Government present a clear analysis of the administration costs of this scheme, particularly for people on variable incomes whose income, and therefore rent, goes up and down each week? We would need enormous amounts of administration to go with this scheme.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Roberta Carol Blackman-Woods (Labour, Centre-left): I thank their lordships for their amazing work on this Bill. Thirteen defeats and a string of concessions means that some of the sharpest edges have been knocked off a very bad Bill, but it remains an extraordinary and extreme piece of proposed legislation. Concern is being voiced by housing experts, charities, house builders, mortgage lenders, and Conservatives across a range of council leaders, MPs and peers. Doubts about the Bill matter, but even more important are the deeper doubts—on all fronts and with good reason—about whether the Conservative party is competent to fix our housing crisis Since 2010, home ownership has fallen, homelessness and rough sleeping have doubled, private rents have soared, housing benefit costs have ballooned, and during the last Parliament, fewer new homes were built than under any peacetime Government since the 1920s. This Bill does little to tackle the overall housing shortage or produce more housing across all tenures, including housing to rent as well as buy. With the exception of provisions on rogue landlords, it does nothing to improve the private rented sector on which so many people now rely.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Roberta Carol Blackman-Woods (Labour, Centre-left): Absolutely. The question is: will this Bill deliver the homes? We do not think it will Faced with this bad Bill, a ridiculous timetable and long sittings, the other place has not only done an excellent job scrutinising the Bill, but improved it to make it slightly more palatable. If only the Government had had the grace to accept changes on starter homes, pay to stay and the forced sale of council housing that they are resisting today, it could have been improved further I want to deal first with the amendments the Government are voting against. On Lords amendment 1, we do agree with the principle of the Lord Best amendment and think it is important that if starter homes are resold within a given period, a paying back of discount should occur. We accept that the Government have brought forward a compromise which appears to do this to a degree, although we would still have a preference for the discount to remain in perpetuity, as this is a better use of scarce public resources Lords amendment 9, tabled by Lords Beecham, Kerslake and Kennedy, quite reasonably asks that: "() An English planning authority may only grant planning permission for a residential development having had regard to the provision of starter homes based on its own assessment of local housing need and viability." The Minister will know that one of the greatest of the many concerns about the starter homes initiative is that such homes will be imposed, with specified numbers required by central diktat from government, regardless of whether they are needed in the quantities demanded. This amendment is a very localist one, seeking to give a role to local authorities in assessing the need for starter homes and their impact on the viability of local development.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Roberta Carol Blackman-Woods (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point, but the point I am making is that we will need not only starter homes, but other types of homes, particularly those for social rent. That is why the numbers should be subject to local determination and not central diktat To everyone except the Government, it appears eminently sensible that the need for starter homes should be assessed locally and then delivered, rather than ordered from on high, most likely to the exclusion of genuinely affordable housing for rent or equity share. This amendment is not a block on starter homes, but a requirement that they are part of a local housing mix.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Andrew John Gwynne (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend is making an important point about localism. Do we not also need the local authority to determine what is truly affordable for its local housing market? I note that the Minister was not so forthcoming about his definition of "affordability". He said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) that these homes in central London would not be sold at £450,000. What then is the point of a cap at £450,000—why not £150,000?
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Margaret Olivia Hillier (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend raises an important point. My local authority is set to have to sell 700 homes over the next few years. It is building homes as fast as it can for people to buy and it is certainly not against starter homes, but in London this is a pipe dream for many. Does she not agree that we need to get the Government to address particular issues in high-cost areas such as mine that are forcing everybody out of ownership and out of having any realistic prospect of living there, even if they are on a pretty good income?
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Roberta Carol Blackman-Woods (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and I shall come on to deal with that issue when discussing a later amendment Why do the Government not want to provide the information I referred to and to have this scrutiny? The lack of information on this policy is an issue that has been taken up by the Public Accounts Committee, too. The Minister will be aware that it said: "It is not clear how this policy will be funded in practice, or what its financial impacts might be. The Department’s intention is for this policy to be fully funded by local authorities, but it was unable to provide any figures to demonstrate that this would be the case…More widely, an even bigger risk will fall on those local authorities required to sell housing stock to fund the policy, as those assets will in effect be transferred to central government. But the Department did not appear to have a good understanding of the size of these risks" The Committee went on to say: "The commitment to replace homes sold under this policy on at least a one-for-one basis will not ensure that these will be like-for-like replacements as regards size, location or tenure. Experience of the reinvigorated Right to Buy for council tenants, introduced in 2012, shows that meeting such one-for-one replacement targets can be difficult…Moreover, replacement homes can be in different areas, be a different size, and cost more to rent. Neither do they need to be new homes".
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Clive James Charles Betts (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister has said on a number of occasions that the sale of the "higher-value council properties", as this has now become, will pay for the replacement of the right-to-buy property sold by a housing association and this £1 billion remedial brownfield fund. The fact that he has said that with such assurance must imply that he has some figures and some workings out somewhere on which he has based those assertions. Would it not be helpful if he could produce those today?
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Roberta Carol Blackman-Woods (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. If the Minister has those figures, we will give him an opportunity now to share them with us, as that would be extremely helpful in allowing us to know exactly what we are going to be voting on this evening Although more information is important, we need to remind ourselves that the whole policy of selling off higher value council housing to fund the right to buy is considered by almost everyone to be a very bad thing to do, and that replacement is absolutely essential Lords amendment 47, tabled by Lords Beecham, Kerslake and Kennedy, addresses the issue of replacement, and would require the Government to enter into an agreement with a local authority under clause 72 whereby a local authority could show the need for a type of social housing and the Secretary of State would then agree a hold-back sum, so that homes sold could be replaced by houses of the same tenure, type and rent. If the Government do not accept this one-for-one, like-for-like replacement, they need to explain why. The reason this amendment is so important is that few details are in the public domain about how the Government will meet their own commitment for one-for-one or two-for-one replacement in London It appears that Ministers could force the sale of a council house in Camden and count two other new homes built for open market sale in Croydon as meeting the so-called commitment to replace. Therefore, the like-for-like replacement in amendment 47 is vital to ensure that housing need is met across the range and that homes for social rent are not simply replaced by starter homes or homes at higher rents, which, as the Public Accounts Committee outlined in its statement, is a real risk. Furthermore, figures from Shelter this morning outline a truly alarming picture of the impact of the sale of higher value council homes on local authority stock, and I will come on to that in a moment or two.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Dawn Petula Butler (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister was talking about amendment 47. The important principle of the Khan amendment is that if a council sells social housing, it should replace it in the same area. On starter homes, it would be really great if the Minister could confirm that starter homes in my Brent constituency will be no more than £190,000, because that would change the whole tone of this debate.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Roberta Carol Blackman-Woods (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend has asked the Minister to make that confirmation, but I doubt that he will take her up on that offer Let me move on to pay to stay, another pernicious bit of the Bill. As we all know, that is a tax on tenants and a tax on aspiration and will lead to many people having to leave their homes or increase their levels of personal indebtedness. The Minister should have talked to the group of tenants from Hackney whom I met a few weeks ago. They are not high-income families. How could anyone describe as high a household income of £17,000 and £23,000 inside London; or £12,000 and £18,000 outside London?
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Karen Patricia Buck (Labour, Centre-left): Can my hon. Friend help me understand how Government Members are simultaneously arguing that a household income of £40,000 in London is rich when it comes to social rent, but that a household income of £77,000 is poor when it comes to getting a 20% discount on starter homes?
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Roberta Carol Blackman-Woods (Labour, Centre-left): I look forward to the Minister’s answer to my hon. Friend’s question Such people, however, will be faced with a situation in which even a modest rise in income will result in a significant hike in rent. We spoke to a couple with a combined income of just over £40,000—one was a part- time cleaner and the other a sales associate. They want their children to go to university and just do not know how they will manage that in London if their rent moves towards a market one which, in their area, would represent an increase of 400%.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Roberta Carol Blackman-Woods (Labour, Centre-left): As the hon. Gentleman sat on the Bill Committee, he should know that a voluntary scheme is already in place for local authorities and housing associations to do that very thing. The tenants also object to their housing being seen as subsidised. In response to a written question, Baroness Williams said: "Local housing authorities do not receive subsidy from the Exchequer; the Localism Act 2011 abolished Housing Revenue Account Subsidy." This housing is not subsidised, and in any case it is there to meet needs. It is outrageous that the Government are taxing tenants in such a way while claiming to stand up for hard-working people.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Roberta Carol Blackman-Woods (Labour, Centre-left): I have already given way to the hon. Lady Lords amendment 54 would limit the damage of pay to stay by making it voluntary for local authorities, with authorities treated in the same way as housing associations. I do not understand why the Minister wants to treat council tenants differently. All the amendment asks is that council tenants are treated in exactly the same way as housing association tenants so, again, Labour will support the Lords amendment.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Roberta Carol Blackman-Woods (Labour, Centre-left): I do not accept most of what the hon. Gentleman says. What we must do is build lots more council houses in this country Lords amendment 55 would introduce a taper of 10p in every pound of a social tenant’s income above the minimum income threshold. This sensible measure would ensure that tenants would not face the cliff edge of a small rise in income leading to a huge rent increase. We know—the Minister confirmed this earlier—that the Government are planning a higher taper. I am pleased that he will keep the taper and the level at which it is set under review, and that changes will be subject to the affirmative procedure. We will need to look at that very closely indeed.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Margaret Olivia Hillier (Labour, Centre-left): Most of us on the Opposition Benches would agree that a starter home for a young family is a great thing. Does the hon. Lady not regret that over the past eight years, under a Conservative Mayor of London, we have seen a lot of housing built, but it is for private sale at inflated prices—luxury homes sold to overseas developers, and in no way within reach of local people in my constituency or across London?
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Dawn Petula Butler (Labour, Centre-left): I am a London MP. It might be difficult for Members who are not London MPs to understand how difficult and how unaffordable it is to live in London, but that is why London MPs make the points they do. It may be of interest that Londoners will be voting on Thursday in what is almost a referendum on the housing crisis in London.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Other
Andrew John Gwynne (Labour, Centre-left): Earlier the hon. Lady actually made the case for a more localist approach. She said she was not a London Member and that circumstances in her constituency were very different from those in the capital. Surely, if there are different circumstances in different parts of the country, we need a local approach.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Clive James Charles Betts (Labour, Centre-left): We had evidence from various housing associations about how they were going to respond to the proposals. Some made it very clear that they felt they would gain fewer properties to rent under section 106 agreements than under the previous legislative arrangements. They also made it clear that given that there is now no money in the Government’s housing programme for the rest of this Parliament for any houses to rent, in terms of grant assistance, all the resources—the £8 billion—will go either to starter homes or to shared ownership. Many associations believe that they will be building fewer homes to rent on an affordable basis because of the combined effects of policy as a whole. That will vary from association to association Tony Stacey, the chief executive of South Yorkshire Housing Association, told us that in much of the area where his association works it would not be possible to build back with the money that will be given from the sale of housing association property, and it was likely that the association would simply go and buy up another property in the private rented sector. That could happen as well, and it would not act on the housing stock. There will be very different policies in different areas. I would argue strongly, in relation to starter homes, that we should reflect that by enabling local authorities to come to different agreements that suit their local needs. As the hon. Gentleman will recognise, the Select Committee said very clearly: "Starter Homes should not be built at the expense of other forms of tenure…it is vital that homes for affordable rent are built to reflect local needs."
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
James McMahon (Labour, Centre-left): Does my hon. Friend share my concern that research commissioned by the Local Government Association highlights the fact that in 220 local authority areas, people who are in need of affordable housing will not be able to take advantage of the starter homes that are being proposed?
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Mixed Topics
David Lindon Lammy (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on that brilliant point. Does he agree with some commentators that this Bill—this sounds very dramatic but it is very serious—marks the end of mixed communities in a number of London boroughs?
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Clive James Charles Betts (Labour, Centre-left): Potentially it does, because driving out all the people on slightly higher incomes and removing people who are potentially longer-term tenants creates a very different sort of community. We have to be very careful about that.