UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Housing

  • Helen Morgan – 2022 Speech on Unfinished Housing Developments

    Helen Morgan – 2022 Speech on Unfinished Housing Developments

    The speech made by Helen Morgan, the Liberal Democrat MP for North Shropshire, in the House of Commons on 18 October 2022.

    I thank the Minister for his attendance and response this evening. I secured this debate following a number of instances in my constituency in which the buyers of new homes have been left to pick up the pieces when critical infrastructure is not completed by the developer.

    Let me tell the House first about The Brambles in Whitchurch. That is a development of 14 houses, built by developer Sherwood Homes Ltd in 2016 on land that had already been granted planning permission for development by Shropshire Council. It was a condition of the planning permission that the road, footpath and drainage should all be complete before the occupation of any houses occurred. However, despite those things never happening, building completion certificates were issued for all the properties and they were subsequently sold and inhabited. Unfortunately for the residents, the drainage system failed, leading on some days to raw sewage backing up in their gardens. Sherwood Homes Ltd had not taken out the section 104 agreement required in the planning permission, and not only was the arrangement dysfunctional, but the connection to the Welsh Water sewerage network was illegal, and neither were the road, lighting and footpath completed to an acceptable standard.

    In October 2019, a creditor of Sherwood Homes Ltd, which appears to have shared some of the same directors, petitioned for it to be wound up and an order for insolvency was made by the court in December 2019. As a result, Shropshire Council could not take planning enforcement action against Sherwood Homes Ltd, and the residents of The Brambles, who are the successors in title to the private company established to manage the development, have been the subject of the enforcement process. They have been required to accept five-figure charges on their properties in order to rectify the issue of connecting the drainage to Welsh Water’s network. Indeed, the saga has also cost the rest of Shropshire’s taxpayers a considerable amount of time, as council officers have expended time and effort to attempt to rectify the situation.

    Shropshire Council believes that the developer’s failure to complete the necessary works before the first house was occupied should have been established by conveyancing solicitors, and the lessons to be learned from this episode are, “buyer beware.” It may be right, but few residents have been able to establish that principle with their solicitors and would not have the resources to begin legal proceedings against them. I believe that some of the home buyers took up the offer of conveyancing services facilitated by the very developer who left them high and dry, raising serious concerns over a potential conflict of interest.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate. Back home in Northern Ireland—I say this to inform the Minister as well—we have a very clear system whereby each developer must put a bond on the property. Therefore, should there be any difficulty in relation to the footpaths and roads not being finished, or if the streetlights are not done and the sewerage fails, that bond can be used for those repairs. Does the hon. Lady feel that the methodology used in Northern Ireland may settle the problems that she refers to, and that the Government and the Minister should look at that option?

    Helen Morgan

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for that sensible intervention; I will make a very similar suggestion in my speech.

    The leader of the council declined my request to undertake a case review of the sequence of events that led to the situation at The Brambles to understand whether the council could have prevented the situation at any point as it evolved. As the law stands, it would appear that she is right. The Building Safety Act 2022 does not cover issues relating beyond the house itself, and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman declined to consider the case, arguing that:

    “Caselaw has established that where a council issues a completion certificate and the work is later found to be substandard, liability for any defects rests with those who commissioned the work and those who carried it out. We cannot therefore hold the Council responsible for substandard work by the developer and we could not achieve any worthwhile outcome for”—

    my constituent by investigating the complaint.

    This is a very serious case—the most serious case I have seen in North Shropshire—but there are numerous instances in which roads have not been completed to a standard suitable for adoption, streetlights are not installed, shared areas are not landscaped as per planning permission and, in some cases, even the plot sizes vary from the original plan.

    I can provide further examples. A development at Isherwoods Way in Wem has been without streetlights and a surfaced road for 10 years; although the situation is about to be resolved, it is not quite there yet. On the west side of my constituency, a site that I cannot name because legal proceedings are under way features an unadopted sewerage system that has not been completed to the required standard. A development in Ellesmere was left without an adopted road and open space when the developing company collapsed. The situation is only being resolved now that the development has been purchased by a major national house builder. The developer of another site in Wem has applied for insolvency despite the road being unadopted, the open spaces not having been landscaped and concerns having been expressed by residents about the water drainage system.

    The cost to residents of these sites is not only financial. Untold distress and emotional strain have been caused and an enormous amount of precious time has been spent on resolving the situation. At a recent constituency surgery, one resident told me, “I’m a truck driver. I don’t have time to become an expert on planning control.” His neighbour, a construction worker, described the strain of worrying about everything that could go wrong with the drainage system, and about the cost involved in digging up the road to rectify the faults.

    John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)

    I have a similar problem in Cranford Street in Smethwick. I find it utterly deplorable that Severn Trent, which is making hundreds of millions and whose chief executive is paid millions, will not take over any responsibility for the sewage that is backing up into people’s homes. People have bought the home of their dreams and are now finding that it has turned into a nightmare.

    Helen Morgan

    I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. I have had some productive discussions with Severn Trent on the issue and am about to propose a solution that I hope will help to rectify the situation.

    It has become apparent that residents are tied into an impossible situation. They no longer want to live in their homes, but realistically they cannot sell them until the defects are rectified. There are also wider financial ramifications because if any resident defaults on their mortgage, a bank will not be able to sell the property to recover its investment.

    The other common theme emerging from all these developments is that homebuyers will be expected to contribute to the costs of maintaining shared areas via a management company to which the title for the shared areas has passed. These companies typically pass on the management cost to the residents at zero profit. However, the ones that I have investigated then subcontract the work to a profit-making company. I am sure that the House will not be surprised to learn that in many such arrangements the subcontractor is related in some way to the original developer.

    The companies can charge uncapped amounts indefinitely to the homebuyer, in what is known as a fleecehold—I am aware that several hon. Members have raised the plight of fleeceholders on previous occasions. The management company can be used not only to pass on to the homebuyer the financial responsibility for completing the development, but to extort money for years to come, often for substandard management services. I am aware that the Government have indicated that they will legislate to control such management charges. I urge the Minister not only to commit to a date for such legislation, but to ensure that protections are included to cover previously unfinished developments.

    To tackle the issue up front, however, I propose a different course of action. I believe that it is possible for a water company or a local council to obtain a financial bond when a section 104 or section 106 agreement is put in place, such that when critical infrastructure is not completed, funds are still available to complete the work. In addition, there are mechanisms such as section 38 agreements incorporating financial bonds that can be used to ensure that roads are of an adoptable standard. Having spoken to colleagues, I believe that some councils, such as Oxfordshire County Council, use financial bonds for that purpose and to avoid the distressing situations that I have described. I have not been able to establish why that is not standard practice for all councils.

    I urge the Minister to consider using the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill to require councils to take a step involving a financial bond before planning conditions are discharged, so that unsuspecting homebuyers are not left with unmanageable costs if their developer goes bust before the site is completed. The principle has already been established in the Government: National Highways requires a bond from local authorities if they propose works affecting the strategic road network, so that significant disruption is avoided if the works are not completed. I am concerned to learn that the changes proposed to the Bill would reduce councils’ ability to use section 106 agreements for smaller developments and would remove current powers to protect homeowners.

    The rationale for planning deregulation is that it will enable house building targets to be met by removing barriers to completion, but I would argue that, certainly in the case of North Shropshire, it is not necessary. The evidence does not show that planning regulations are behind slow rates of house building. Shropshire’s local plan contains a target of 30,500 new homes by 2038, but there are already 18,000 planning applications on which consideration has not yet commenced. The current build rate of just under 1,900 houses a year does not suggest that planning permission is the issue holding things up.

    I appreciate that requiring a financial bond from new house builders might deter smaller companies from entering the market, but first I question whether homebuyers and council tax payers should be taking on the risk posed by a financially unviable housebuilder; and secondly, it should be possible to find an alternative, such as an investment bond, to combat that risk.

    I am extremely concerned about the fact that councils lack the tools they need to ensure that the buyers of new-build homes do not fall victim to rogue developers, and the fact that the effectiveness of the tools they do have may be reduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. I hope that the Minister will agree to consider making the use of financial bonds as part of section 106 or similar agreements a required practice for councils and water companies, to protect both homebuyers and councils’ own taxpayers from high-risk housing developers.

    If the Minister rejects such a solution, however, will he agree to meet me and other stakeholders, such as the Local Government Association, to formulate a practical mechanism to prevent the distress and financial hardship caused by unfinished housing developments? Homebuyers, councils and the wider community need to be confident that they will not be left to the pick up the pieces when a developer fails to deliver. The owners of The Brambles are victims of a rogue developer, and we should act to ensure that their experience is not repeated elsewhere.

  • Bill Wiggin – 2022 Speech Proposing the Ban of Sealed Bids for Property Purchases

    Bill Wiggin – 2022 Speech Proposing the Ban of Sealed Bids for Property Purchases

    The speech made by Sir Bill Wiggin, the Conservative MP for North Herefordshire, in the House of Commons on 11 October 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the sale of property by sealed bids; and for connected purposes.

    The role of Government is to ensure that markets work and that deals are fair and as transparent as possible. We make rules to ensure that unfair exploitation does not occur. That is clearly more important in land and property transactions, as they are usually the largest deals that most of us will ever do with our own money.

    The purpose of my Bill is therefore to enhance transparency, to reduce costs and opaque behaviour, and to ensure that both buyer and seller are treated fairly by the estate agent. Let me say that, despite the vast number of good agents, there are still some who think that using such opaque techniques to try to extort money is acceptable.

    We know that when one buys a property, one does a search and survey before exchanging contracts. That is sensible and prudent. However, when one is asked to submit a best and final offer or a sealed bid, that is done to try to extract more money without any extra information being given. That is not in the interest of any party except the agent, who has made little or no effort to assist in the deal making, as a broker of any other transaction would expect to do.

    A sealed bid or private treaty sale will be suggested to a seller when multiple potential buyers are interested in purchasing the same property. Prospective buyers are invited to submit bids for the property through a secret ballot or through an invitation to submit a best and final offer. All bids are then supposed to be considered at once. The owner of the property and the estate agent then decide behind closed doors, in an unclear and opaque process, who should be declared the winner.

    Agents are not bound by any legislation setting out appropriate processes for how transparency following bids should be handled, nor is there any later declaration of the price or any other useful information that would help the market. In fact, there are no credible statistics available recording how many sales take place by sealed bid, which demonstrates the overly relaxed nature of the regulations surrounding property buying.

    The system is therefore ripe for abuse and detrimental to the confidence of potential buyers. I hope that this Bill can generate real reform and encourage genuine transparency in the property market.

    It is inefficient that with such a process of sealed bids the prospective buyer has no idea what their competitors have bid. To be eligible to submit a bid, one must go through the cost of searches and surveys—an expensive procedure. The average homebuyer pays between £1,000 and £1,500 for conveyancing before exchange of contract. There are also other tedious undertakings, such as letters from one’s bank or lengthy pieces on one’s suitability to own the property.

    Bidders are required to do so much before even being considered for the property, but what do they get in return? Nothing but confusion, secrecy and unanswered questions. They often find themselves in frustrating and distressing circumstances: either they have not bid enough and are never told what the winner paid, or, if successful, they might be paying well over the asking price, and often far more than that which the agent thought the property was worth.

    All that is great news for the seller and the estate agent —right up until the seller becomes a buyer, of course. It leaves an agent who did not know his market with a larger commission, having done less work. It is not surprising that they do not want more transparency and no wonder that this element to the market needs reform.

    Once a bid is submitted, a buyer cannot really alter their offer. Estate agents will often tell buyers that their offer is legally binding before exchanging contracts. That may or may not be true, as a “subject to survey” clause is possible. Supporters of sealed bids claim that they speed up the buying process and discourage time wasters. However, in many cases, the seller or the buyer attempts to renegotiate after the sealed bid has been accepted, thereby prolonging the process. According to Quick Move Now, in quarter 4 of 2021, 39% of property sales fell through due to the buyer changing their mind or attempting to renegotiate the offer. When a property sale falls through, people lose not only the house or flat, but any money they have spent on applying for a mortgage, conveyancing or a property survey. Government figures suggest that consumers waste £270 million each year because transactions fall through. Failed transactions make moving house—already considered one of life’s most stressful experiences—more frustrating and less practical.

    Research undertaken by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy suggests that consumers are extremely concerned by the weakness of regulation for estate agents. Aggressive tactics that are employed to close a deal quickly include practices such as gazumping. A system of sealed bids only encourages such harmful practices, which waste time, wreck estate agents’ reputations and artificially inflate the housing market.

    Often, estate agents use the sealed bids process to pressure inexperienced sellers into accepting the highest bid, with no regard to the circumstances of the buyer, while buyers are pressured into submitting their very highest offer. I must keep saying that estate agents are, by and large, good, honest people. However, the actions of a few can sully the industry. Processes such as sealed bids and best and final offers only add to that unfortunate perception. That is why reform is long overdue.

    Sealed bids not only affect the housing market. In Herefordshire, the average price for prime arable land is £10,670 an acre. Agricultural land values in England have reached their highest level since 2016. During that time, the use of sealed bids for farmland has also increased. That is concerning, as the price per acre for farmland is being increased artificially, in turn putting pressure on the price of food.

    Due to transport costs, the land next door is always more valuable to a local farmer than land further away, and it is more valuable to them than to someone who lives further away. That means that farmers are much more exploited and much more vulnerable than any other type of property buyer. This has to stop. How can we encourage new and aspiring young farmers to acquire land in such an opaque market environment?

    This Parliament has the ability to do far more for prospective home and farm buyers. Now we must find the will. We were elected on a key manifesto commitment to rebalance the housing market towards more home ownership. Home ownership is a fundamental Conservative value. Sealed bids and best-and-final-offer messages do not rebalance the market; they seek to corrupt it. They are not the way to an open, transparent, competitive market; they seek to stifle competition and transparency. They artificially raise prices and hopes, meaning that thousands of pounds are wasted. Through this Bill, I wish to see better regulation of the housing and property market, fairness for all prospective buyers and sellers, and transparency for an industry that has for far too long operated in murky ways. That all starts with an end to the practice of sealed bids and best and final offers.

    Question put and agreed to.

    Ordered,

    That Sir Bill Wiggin, Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger, James Grundy, Dr James Davies, Andrew Rosindell, Cherilyn Mackrory, Mr Mark Francois, Sally-Ann Hart and Sir Edward Leigh present the Bill.

    Sir Bill Wiggin accordingly presented the Bill.

  • Julie James – 2022 Statement on Building Safety in Wales

    Julie James – 2022 Statement on Building Safety in Wales

    The statement made by Julie James, the Welsh Minister for Climate Change, on 7 October 2022.

    I have always made it clear that I do not expect leaseholders to bear the cost of repairing fire safety issues that are not of their making and that I expect developers to step up to their responsibilities.

    I am very pleased that following our roundtable meeting in July a number of major developers have acknowledged their responsibility by signing up to the Welsh Government’s Developers Pact.  This confirms their intention to address fire safety issues in buildings of 11 metres and over in height that they have developed over the last 30 years.  These developers are Persimmon, Taylor Wimpey, Lovell, McCarthy and Stone, Countryside, Vistry, Redrow, Crest Nicholson and Barratt.

    I met with these developers yesterday to confirm next steps, and their plans and timescales for remediation.  I wish to commend them for their engagement to date and look forward to a productive relationship in the future.  In some cases, developers have started their remediation works, and are making the repairs necessary.  I look forward to this work continuing at pace.

    I remain disappointed that three developers are yet to provide me with assurances that they do not have any medium or high-rise developments in Wales or, if they do, are prepared to meet their responsibilities in respect of these developments.

    The three developers yet to reply are: Laing O’Rourke, Westmark, and Kier (now Tilia).

    I am urging these developers to contact my officials immediately to confirm their position.  I want to make clear I am exploring all options, including legislation, to ensure that those developers will face consequences for their unwillingness to accept their responsibilities.

    I am proud of the commitment we have made in Wales that a holistic approach is necessary to effectively address fire safety issues.  This means that both internal and external factors are considered, rather than a focus on cladding alone.

    I have made £375 million available to tackle building safety and have taken steps to ensure all appropriate routes are being explored to make sure that all medium and high-rise buildings in Wales are as safe as they can be from fire.

    To deliver on this commitment, it is essential that we understand the needs of individual buildings and design bespoke solutions to best address their fire risk.  A comprehensive survey provides this information, and the Welsh Building Safety Fund, which is still open for expressions of interest from responsible persons, is supporting this aim.

    Both the digital and intrusive survey work is paid for by the Welsh Government. By funding and commissioning the surveys, Welsh Government will gain a clear, consistent and comprehensive picture of building safety issues across Wales.

    Where buildings are found to be low risk, our consultants will provide an EWS1 certificate. This will help to reassure leaseholders and remove barriers to them accessing financial products such as mortgages.

    To date, the digital surveys have identified 163 buildings across Wales that require intrusive surveys.  All responsible persons have been contacted to advise them of the need for intrusive surveys, and to arrange for permission to access the building to undertake this work.

    In some cases, our consultants have faced restricted access to buildings, which has delayed our programme of surveys.  I would urge responsible persons to do all they can to facilitate access, so that our surveyors can continue this important work.  I have written to responsible persons / managing agents to press this message.

    I have been made aware that in a number of cases, survey work was undertaken prior to the launch of the Welsh Building Safety Fund, funded by residents, building owners or managing agents.  Where this has happened, and subject to certain eligibility criteria being met, surveys costs will be reimbursed by Welsh Government.  If responsible persons / managing agents are in this position, please contact my officials at buildingsafety@gov.wales.

    While it is right that developers are accountable, building owners and Managing Agents also have accountabilities when it comes to ensuring the safety of buildings and it is important that effective maintenance programmes are in place.   I would encourage all residents to assure themselves that maintenance on their buildings is being carried out in accordance with their lease agreements.

    I am also aware that in some cases, leaseholders are in severe financial difficulties as a result of fire safety issues and to address this I launched the Leaseholder Support Scheme in June.

    As I committed when I launched the scheme, I have instructed officials to review the criteria to ensure that those in greatest need are receiving support.  This review is underway, and I will announce any further changes to the scheme and eligibility criteria shortly.

    Building Safety in Wales must both address our present situation and undertake fundamental reform of the building safety regime to ensure the problems we face now cannot arise again in future.  Alongside investment over the next three years for building safety work, plans are underway for a significant programme of legislative and cultural reform to establish a fit for purpose building safety regime in Wales. Reforming the current system of building safety is a key commitment for this Government and also forms an important part of our Co-operation Agreement with Plaid Cymru. In addition to this, a number of provisions that apply in relation to Wales were included within the UK Building Safety Act 2022.

    The Act received Royal Assent in April 2022. The provisions that apply in relation to Wales focus primarily on the reform of the building control system (Part 3 of the Act) but do extend to other areas, including several provisions intended to add further protection for leaseholders.

    Some of the key provisions which have been commenced include:

    •         Amendment of the Building (Approved Inspectors etc.) Regulations 2010 to make the approved inspector sector more resilient and flexible in the face of insurance market fluctuations, and to create alignment on insurance requirements between approved inspectors and other professions

    •     The extension of the Defective Premises Act 1972 time periods and provision to deal with the lack of redress availability where a development company no longer exists.

    We have completed our design and construction phase transition plan which enables us over the next three years to make the legislative changes necessary to ensure that the problems identified with the current building control regimes are rectified.

    The first of the public consultations on this work was published in September. This consultation is focused on the rules and standards we will expect Building Control Bodies both in the public and private sector to comply with.

    This can be found on the Welsh Government Consultation pages.

    https://gov.wales/operational-standards-rules

    A full understanding of the impacts of any proposed changes is integral to this new regime, as is providing all stakeholders the opportunity to shape future policy.  To this end expect to see further related consultations over the coming months.

    We will be publishing more detail of our transition plan on our webpages shortly.

  • Simon Clarke – 2022 Levelling Up Secretary’s Op-ed for The Telegraph

    Simon Clarke – 2022 Levelling Up Secretary’s Op-ed for The Telegraph

    The article written by Simon Clarke, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on 22 September 2022. The article was released as a press release by the department (mis-spelling the Secretary of State’s name).

    We have a new and reinvigorated government in Westminster.

    A government ready to roll up its sleeves and put in the hard graft so that the future of this country is bright and prosperous.

    We must ensure that everyone in our society – irrespective of where they’re from, what they do, or how much money they earn – lives somewhere warm, decent and safe.

    We’ve already acted on energy bills, so a typical household will pay no more than £2,500, while providing hundreds of pounds in relief for struggling families this winter.

    And we’re acting with that same urgency on building safety.

    What happened at Grenfell Tower was nothing short of a national tragedy. It should not have taken the death of 72 people for us to have woken up to just how ineffective the building safety regime was. It is our duty as a government to fix this, and ensure that it never happens again.

    Just a few weeks into the job I am hearing from leaseholders who are still waiting for remediation works to be carried out, who are unable to sell, and face sky-high building insurance premiums.

    I’m determined to finish the job my predecessors started, fixing the system for good, ensuring that industry rectifies the problems it created, and making sure that the leaseholders who have been so unfairly caught up in this scandal get the relief and protection they deserve.

    In recent months, we’ve already taken some big steps in the right direction.

    The Building Safety Act came into force over the summer.

    It represents the greatest set of reforms in a generation with a tough new regulator and an even tougher regulatory regime to ensure that people’s homes are made safe.

    The Act means that every block of flats must now have someone who is responsible for a building’s safety and the residents who live in it.

    It also provides far-reaching legal protections to leaseholders so that they’re no longer hit with unfair bills to fix cladding issues.

    For the first time government will have powers to force owners to fix dangerous buildings for which they’re responsible and ensure remediation works are both fast and proportionate.

    Forty-nine of the largest housebuilders have now risen to the challenge set by government and signed a public pledge to fix unsafe buildings that they developed or refurbished. Responsible housebuilders are wasting no time in getting on with fixing those buildings and I look forward to working with this group on our ambitious housing agenda to deliver the homes and growth this country deserves. We will shortly turn those pledges into legally binding contracts, which will give residents confidence that their homes will be made safe and that leaseholders will not have to pay.

    Any housebuilders that fail to act responsibly may be blocked from commencing developments and from being granted building control sign-off for their buildings. This month we have taken steps to set up a scheme in law to show which housebuilders are doing the right thing, and which are failing to do so.

    Our Recovery Strategy Unit will expose and pursue firms and individuals involved in the most egregious cases of building safety neglect. Where freeholders are not coming forward and accepting government money to make buildings safe, this unit will be launching legal action. I expect the first cases to be brought very soon. This government is determined to hold the worst actors to account, deliver for leaseholders, and restore confidence in the housing market.

    But this was never about heaping blame on one part of the sector. It’s about making the whole industry, including construction product manufacturers, play its part in fixing the wrongs of the past.

    That’s one of the reasons why my department is also working hand in hand with the Financial Conduct Authority to ensure that appalling practices within the insurance industry, like the sharing of commissions between brokers and managing agents, which can drive up prices for consumers, are brought to a swift end. I wrote to the British Insurers Brokers Association myself this week and I expect this immoral behaviour to stop immediately.

    It is also why we will continue to work relentlessly with the lending industry to ensure leaseholders are no longer trapped by over the top risk aversion and unnecessary paperwork, freeing them to take their next step on the housing ladder. I welcome their commitments so far but now is the time to see tangible changes to unlock the market.

    We will make homes safer. We will protect leaseholders from crippling costs. And we will work to restore the right of everyone in this country to feel safe in the place where they and their loved ones sleep at night.

  • Greg Clark – 2022 Statement on the Government’s Rough Sleeping Strategy

    Greg Clark – 2022 Statement on the Government’s Rough Sleeping Strategy

    The statement made by Greg Clark, the then Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, in the House of Commons on 5 September 2022.

    On 3 September Government published their new strategy to end rough sleeping in England.

    This Government have made the unprecedented pledge to end rough sleeping within this Parliament, and this strategy will help us to deliver that goal. Working with our partners across Government, in local authorities and the sector, we have delivered remarkable progress so far, with rough sleeping levels in the most recent annual rough sleeping snapshot at an eight-year low in England. However, we face significant challenges if we are to end rough sleeping for good, and we must work across Government and with local partners to step up our efforts.

    The strategy will build on that progress and help us end rough sleeping for good by bringing forward a bold new approach backed by £2 billion of funding over the next three years to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping in England.

    For the first time, we are defining what we mean by ending rough sleeping—that rough sleeping will be prevented wherever possible, and when it does occur, it will be rare, brief and non-recurrent. We will bring forward a new data framework, which will enable us to track progress against the definition and ensure all local and central partners are doing their bit.

    We will embed a “prevention first” approach so that rough sleeping is better prevented before people reach the streets. This means ensuring the landmark changes in the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 are fully embedded, to prevent more people from reaching a homelessness crisis, as well as bringing forward investment so that nobody leaves a public institution, such as prison or care, to the streets. As part of this, we will provide new funding over the next three years to expand the accommodation for ex-offenders programme so that people at risk of homelessness, including rough sleeping, in all parts of England are supported into long-term, settled accommodation.

    We will also empower local authorities by extending our flagship rough sleeping initiative to 2025, with up to £500 million of funding so that local areas can provide the tailored support needed to end rough sleeping over the next three years. We will complete delivery of the Housing First pilots in Greater Manchester, Liverpool city region and the west Midlands, providing a further £13.9 million over two years on top of the £28 million already invested, and expand Housing First more widely through £32 million within the rough sleeping initiative.

    This will sit alongside £200 million of new funding for the single homelessness accommodation programme, which will deliver up to 2,400 much-needed homes for vulnerable people at risk of homelessness or rough sleeping, including young people and those with the most complex needs, alongside expanding existing accommodation programmes that we know work.

    We will act across the system to reduce rough sleeping. We will ensure new local integrated care systems in the NHS consider the health and social care needs of those sleeping rough in their area in the development of their strategies. Jobcentres will work closely with local authorities to support people experiencing rough sleeping to access benefits and employment advice. We will be launching a new homelessness employer covenant with Crisis to help employers recruit and support employees who have been homeless or rough sleeping.

    A quarter of people sleeping rough nationally are not from the UK, rising to nearly half in London. Since the pandemic we have seen local authorities looking to exhaust all options to support this group away from the streets; we want to see this continue. For those here legally but with restricted eligibility for public funds, we want to see them get appropriate support to sustain a life away from the streets. For those here illegally, we want to ensure people return to their home country swiftly and receive the appropriate support to do this.

    As part of the strategy we are announcing allocations for areas in England in a range of key initiatives including the rough sleeping initiative, rough sleeping accommodation programme, rough sleeping drug and alcohol treatment grant and Housing First. Full details of allocations can be found on gov.uk.

    While we have taken the significant step of committing to repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824 in full, we must make sure the police, local authorities and other agencies have the powers and tools they need to respond effectively to begging, support vulnerable individuals and help communities feel safer. Government are currently consulting on the need for appropriate replacement legislation to ensure the police and other agencies remain able to protect the public, while also embedding rehabilitation and support at the heart of our approach.

    The whole of Government are united in ending rough sleeping. In order to achieve this, all partners, across central and local Government, voluntary organisations, delivery partners and the public must work together as one.

    We want our ambitious approach to be matched by bold local delivery and expect all those involved in ending rough sleeping to play their part. We want to ensure rough sleeping is ended in a way that is sustainable in the long term, and this strategy lays the foundations for the long-term system change needed to support that.

    This strategy shows that this Government are committed to ending rough sleeping, and we will continue to work with local and national partners to achieve this.

    A copy of the rough sleeping strategy will be deposited in the Library of the House.

  • Sadiq Khan – 2022 Comments on Extending Notice Period for Renters

    Sadiq Khan – 2022 Comments on Extending Notice Period for Renters

    The comments made by Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, on 30 August 2022.

    Nearly a third of Londoners are private renters, the majority of whom are set to be hit by a devastating combination of rent and bill rises in the coming months, with no sign rampant inflation slowing down.

    That’s why I’m calling on the Government to act urgently give Londoners breathing space by extending notice periods for tenants ahead of landlords taking possession of properties. This will allow them to access support and advice and save, if they can, for a move, before their tenancies end.

    Shorter notice periods disproportionately affect vulnerable households, so I urge whoever becomes the new Prime Minister next month to commit to delivering on this as soon as possible, as well as giving me the power to freeze rents in London for two years until the cost of living crisis subsides.

  • Greg Clark – 2022 Comments on the Social Housing Rent Cap

    Greg Clark – 2022 Comments on the Social Housing Rent Cap

    The comments made by Greg Clark, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, on 31 August 2022.

    We must protect the most vulnerable households in these exceptional circumstances during the year ahead. Putting a cap on rent increases for social tenants offers security and stability to families across England.

    We know many people are worried about the months ahead. We want to hear from landlords and social tenants on how we can make this work and support the people that need it most.

    The rent cap would be temporary and would apply from 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024. The consultation also seeks views on whether to set a limit for 2024-25. The government understands this will impact social housing landlords and is engaging fully with the sector.

  • Eric Pickles – 2002 Speech to the Chartered Institute of Housing

    Eric Pickles – 2002 Speech to the Chartered Institute of Housing

    The speech made by Eric Pickles to the Chartered Institute of Housing on 12 June 2002.

    Ten years ago this month, I made my maiden speech to the House of Commons as the newly elected MP for the constituency of Brentwood & Ongar.

    My contribution was made during a housing debate sponsored by the then Conservative Government. The debate was entitled Tenants’ Rights.

    What you have to understand is that a maiden speech is an intensely personal thing to an MP. It sets out what motivates the Member of Parliament, it lays down what he or she wants to achieve, puts markers down to the Party Whips office about areas of interest.

    What you have to understand about the Whips office of all parties is that it is run with the cold efficiency of the armed forces during a period of national conscription. So that professional cooks will find themselves assigned to transport, and painters and decorators to the kitchen.

    So you will understand my emotion in making my second public speech on housing in ten years, and my first speech as the new Shadow Secretary of State for Local Government and the Regions.

    Much as I have enjoyed the past few months chasing Stephen Byers, I am pleased now to be given the opportunity to focus on serious issues such as housing, which concern real people every day.

    Looking back over what I said ten years ago in the House of Commons, I recognise that much of it is just as relevant here today.

    If you will forgive a politician the ultimate vanity of quoting himself, in 1992 I said: ‘Any reasonable housing policy must be based on quality, diversity and choice’. The same is true today.

    But now I am acutely aware – perhaps more than in many other areas – the boundaries and the language of the debate have moved on.

    The old arguments about public versus private provision have largely been won. Today, there is some unity about providing good quality, affordable housing and reversing the migration from our inner cities, and about building stronger communities

    So I hope today, to outline to you my approach to housing policy and to try and explain what we will be considering in our policy review process, which is currently underway.

    In my speech in the House of Commons, I explained how public housing was largely responsible for forming my political views.

    As I looked around me on the council estate in West Riding in Yorkshire where my parents ran a small corner shop, I began to despair at some of the conditions in which my friends and neighbours lived. I realised that the fundamental problem was that they deserved a better landlord than they had.

    Many of them lived in properties owned and managed by the local authority. As a former councillor, I know that even when they are trying their hardest, they do not necessarily make good landlords.

    There never was a golden age of public housing. The fact is that most people wanted to own their own homes. This is what the Conservative Governments of the 80s and 90s recognised – and I’m pleased to say that so successful was the policy, that even most Labour politicians accept today.

    Conservatives believe in home-ownership. The importance of property ownership is marked out throughout the history of political thought. You may even say that it is at the heart of Conservatism.

    We are rightly proud of policies such as right-to-buy which empowered a new range of people.

    We are pleased to have introduced the notion of stock transfer.

    We were right to break down the barriers between the public and the private sectors.

    The principles that drove those policies will drive our future policies also. They are the principles I was elected on in 1992, and I hold true to them today.

    But I also recognise the new challenges and priorities we now face. Too often in the past, we have allowed ourselves to be portrayed as only caring about property and money.

    Conservatives may have been the party of property, but we recognised the obligations to the community that property brought with it.

    The priorities now must be to encourage more people to live in our cities to stop them from becoming lifeless ghettos and to look into ways of providing more affordable housing, particularly to young people.

    And we need too, to give greater focus to the war on homelessness.

    I was David Willetts’ deputy at social security for a couple of years; I have talked to him about his experience of seeing for himself the plight of people living on the streets. Something neglected by politicians for far too long.

    Remember what the Prime Minister promised? He said his Government would: ‘do everything in our power to end the scandal of homelessness’. But as we know, homelessness in England has soared since 1997.

    Worse still, the number of children who are living on the streets is rising. What chance does the child without a home have?

    And the number of people living in bed and breakfast accommodation has risen dramatically under this Government – up by as much as 200 per cent in London.

    I don’t pretend that things were perfect under Conservative Governments. We all need to give much greater thought to how we help these people out of their dire situation to give them a greater chance in life.

    It is not as if we have to look far to see the problem.

    David told me of visiting people sleeping in doorways and people seeking warmth in homeless shelters; he came across one group huddled by the side of Westminster Cathedral – less than a mile from the House of Commons and directly opposite the offices of the Government’s Rough Sleeper Unit.

    From where they lie they can see a sign that should mean something to them, but as often is the way: politicians try to help but it is remote and useless.

    Part of the problem is that we always look at the short-term. We just want to get people off the streets. We don’t think enough about them as individuals and families – we only think about them as statistics.

    And it’s not a problem that can be solved simply by throwing more money at it.

    We need to be more innovative in how we address the problem.

    I am sure you understand better than me why some homeless people reject the offer of a one-bedroom flat. On the streets sometimes the only family you have are those who sleep next to you.

    It may seem hard for us to comprehend, but some people would rather stay where they are instead of being sent off on their own to a flat somewhere.

    There is a social dimension to homelessness, and we cannot ignore it. We must address the street culture that exists, and consider making greater use of things like communal housing, so that groups of homeless people can be housed together.

    Successive governments have failed to grasp this nettle, but we are now in a position to do so because we are listening, learning and taking our time to get our policies right.

    But I also spoke earlier about the need to reverse the migration from our inner cities that is leading to increasing degrees of deprivation in urban areas.

    People are the lifeblood of cities, and encouraging people to live in urban areas is both a social necessity and also common sense.

    It is a social necessity because if we are to build communities in inner city areas we need to provide stability.

    It is common sense because if we are to improve the way we run our public services we need to build communities.

    The teacher, doctor or policeman who lives in the community they serve is naturally better able to deal with the needs of the area. When local residents witness the evening flight of influential people it reduces the sense of community. It signals that success lies elsewhere, and stigmatises those that remain.

    All areas need constancy, commitment and stability. Building communities will be the priority of the next Conservative Government.

    So housing policies, which force people to leave inner city areas, are simply wrong.

    The decrease in the amount of social housing constructed under this Government is a problem of Labour’s own making.

    So there are fewer houses to live in.

    But the houses that do exist are also less affordable.

    The decision to cut the right-to-buy discounts has resulted in many young people being unable to take their first step on the housing ladder.

    Labour has also made home ownership less affordable by increasing taxes on homeowners.

    And of course the huge increases in council tax we have seen under this Government – an additional £212 for a Band D property over four years – are hitting households on lower incomes the most. Particularly those just above entitlement to some form of income support in its general sense

    In my own constituency, I have seen the problems this last issue causes. An example of the law of unintended consequences

    In one area where people are living in social housing they have seen the value of their property rise. What would be a band A or B in West Yorkshire is much higher in the South East. The increased valuation with the higher Council Tax is the margin between being able to afford to live locally or not.

    The result of these policies is that the average deposit needed for a first time buyer in the UK has risen by £6,700 to £13,300 – and the average age of a first time buyer is now 34.

    So the Conservative Party’s policy review is considering how to address these problems. The answers are not easy, but by taking our time and talking to the people who matter – people such as your good selves – we aim to bring forward policies which answer these difficult questions, and which help to build strong communities

    And Conservatives know that good quality, affordable housing is inextricably linked to good public services.

    This is where the title of this session – ‘Is the Government delivering better public services’ – comes in.

    The evidence is clear. There is a clear linkage between the home environment and the reliance on public services.

    But of course there are more basic issues to consider.

    We simply can’t talk about improving the health service if we are not simultaneously considering what to do about housing. If we acknowledge that one of the major problems in the NHS today is the issue of so-called bed-blocking we have to realise that it is also linked to the need to provide good quality, warm and comfortable housing for elderly people.

    And if I may be so bold as to agree with a former Labour Health Minister, ‘anyone with a shred of common sense knows that housing affects people’s health’.

    Housing policy cannot exist in isolation. It is inter-connected with our policies on improving public services. And nowhere more so than when we think about who works in the public services.

    The Government has announced many new targets on teacher, nurse and police recruitment. They hope that throwing more money at the public services will help them to be achieved. But these people all need somewhere to live.

    Labour’s ‘Starter Homes Initiative’, while perhaps laudable in its intention, seems to be having little effect – no matter how many times the department re-announces it. Restricting it to ‘key’ workers hasn’t helped. Who decides what is and isn’t a ‘key’ worker? It seems that if you exist on some whimsical government target then you are ‘key’, but if not, you are on your own.
    And of course, subsidised loans do nothing to tackle the lack of available affordable housing.

    These are the issues I have to consider, and events such as this will help me in my task. But I hope also to be able to discuss them at greater length over the coming years on a more individual basis. No doubt, there will be things I have not mentioned today, but I hope you appreciate that for me and for my Party, the important thing is to develop our policies properly rather than quickly. Don’t be under any doubt that this is a serious undertaking.

    I am quite conscious that housing policy is complex and challenging. I know that you are calling on the Government to provide more money to housing in the forthcoming spending review. I watch with interest as to whether, to quote David Butler ‘John Prescott will add his voice to the increased case for increase housing investment’.

    But more than that, we need to think radically about the social aspects of housing policy – not just the economic aspects.

    I said at the start that the housing debate has moved on since my maiden speech in 1992. Certainly it has. Today we are not arguing about public or private provision. But this unfortunately does not mean that we have answered all the important questions.

    We are faced with new challenges. My Party’s focus is changing. We recognise those challenges and we plan to offer solutions to them.

    But our principles have not changed. In the debate ten years ago, the Minister wound up the exchanges by emphasising the Conservative watchwords: quality, diversity, choice, freedom, opportunity and empowerment.

    Now as we are engaged in our policy review, they continue to be at the forefront of our minds.

    I am grateful to have the opportunity to put them into practice, and I hope in the years ahead to return to you and outline precisely how Conservatives will apply them to today’s problems to make stronger communities.

  • Jack Dromey – 2012 Comments on Subletting Council Houses

    Jack Dromey – 2012 Comments on Subletting Council Houses

    The comments made by Jack Dromey, the Shadow Housing Minister, on 11 January 2012.

    The subletting of council homes for financial gain prevents those in real need from getting a home and should be stopped. Labour is committed to ending this abuse and before the 2010 election we set out plans to make the unlawful subletting of social homes a criminal offence.

    However, Grant Shapps has taken his eye off the ball and is looking for someone to blame for this Government’s failures. Labour councils have been cracking down on sub-letters for years. The vast majority of people living in council houses pay their taxes and play by the rules. The real problem is that this Tory-led Government’s failed economic policies led to a catastrophic 99% collapse in the building of affordable homes in the last six months.

    Since the Government launched its housing strategy in November, we have seen the effects of this out of touch Government’s failing housing and economic policies laid bare. Housebuilding is down, homelessness is up, we have a mortgage market where people can’t get mortgages and rents are soaring in the private rented sector. These are the fundamental issues the Government needs to address.

    With millions in need of a decent home at a price they can afford, the country is gripped by a growing housing crisis. We need an increase in house building now more than ever and the Government is failing to deliver.

  • Sadiq Khan – 2022 Comments on Right to Buy-Back in London

    Sadiq Khan – 2022 Comments on Right to Buy-Back in London

    The comments made by Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, on 9 August 2022.

    For more than 40 years, London’s precious council homes have been disappearing into the private sector, often never to be replaced. As Mayor I have maintained a relentless focus on stemming the tide and replenishing London’s social housing stock.

    I am proud that, thanks to my interventions, we have brought council homebuilding back up to levels not seen since the 1970s and I’m hugely encouraged by the enthusiasm I see from boroughs across London for building new council homes and using my Right to Buy-back scheme to return homes to public ownership.

    These homes were built for the public good and it has been painful to watch them disappear into private portfolios. Returning these homes to public ownership is a key part of my plan to build a better London for everyone – a city that is greener, fairer and more prosperous for all.