I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision to strengthen penalties related to serious criminal driving offences that lead to serious injury or death; to redefine such offences and amend bail conditions for those charged with them; to enhance the standards of investigation, both by the police and in the Courts, into such offences; to improve the treatment of victims of such offences and their families within the justice system; and for connected purposes.

In 2014-15, 389 people were killed in England and Wales alone due to dangerous driving. In too many of those cases—and in even more in which lesser charges have been brought—victims of those serious crimes and their families have been badly let down. We therefore need a number of changes to ensure that proper justice can be delivered in the future.

I was pleased to meet the Justice Secretary yesterday, along with 22 other colleagues. I also thank the Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), for his personal interest in this matter. However, my colleagues and I were somewhat surprised and disappointed to be told that there is to be a further consultation which will not produce a document until later this year, given that the Minister had suggested in a previous answer that the consultation would be completed by spring 2015. The message today is to encourage them to continue to work with us to ensure that we get comprehensive legislation by 2017 at the latest.

I am today speaking on behalf of many families across the country. I have had two awful cases in my constituency: that of 16-year-old Jamie Still, who was killed by a reckless criminal driver on new year’s eve in 2010, and that of David and Dorothy Metcalf from Cookridge, who were killed in January 2012. I dedicate this Bill to the memories of Jamie, David and Dorothy, and all who have lost their lives as a result of these serious crimes. It is 18 years ago today that Livia Galli-Atkinson was killed in Enfield, and I wish to pay tribute to the tireless campaigning by her parents, George and Giulietta, as well as by Karen and Rebecca Strong, and Clive Metcalf and his family.

I also wish briefly to mention a number of hon. Members and cases that they have been involved in. Livia’s family have been supported by the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) and for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg). In the awful case of what happened to Sean Morley, support has been given by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) and his predecessor. The case of John Morland and Kris Jarvis has been supported by the hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma). The case of Ross and Clare Simons has been supported by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore). The case of Jamie Butcher has been supported by the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay). The case of Joseph Brown-Lartey has been supported by the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) and Manchester’s Key 103 radio station. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) has supported the family of Alex Jeffery. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) has supported the family of Evey Staley. There have been many other cases, including that of the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), whose own father was killed by a careless driver in 1991. I pay tribute to all the families who are campaigning tirelessly to try to get justice, and we will support them here until we get a change in the system.

The changes being proposed today come from a meeting of those families and fellow Members back in December 2014 and the manifesto we produced as a result, which has been backed by Brake, the road safety charity—I pay tribute to its amazing work. Our manifesto “Better Justice for Victims of Criminal Driving and Their Families” suggested a number of changes, which I will briefly list. First, the distinction between “careless” and “dangerous” driving is false and unhelpful, often coming down to the slight and subjective difference between someone’s driving falling below or well below what is expected of a careful and competent driver. The problem is that in too many cases people are simply given the lesser charge of causing death or injury by careless driving rather than by dangerous driving because it is easier for prosecutors to seek a conviction. The difference in penalties between these charges is huge: it is a maximum of a five years for causing death by careless driving, compared with up to 14 years for causing death by dangerous driving.

The simple reality is that “careless” is an inappropriate and offensive term to use for criminally bad driving, particularly where it has resulted in horrendous suffering. Even driving that falls only slightly below the standards—a momentary lapse of concentration—may be careless, but it is still dangerous. Careless driving, a charge that was opposed by Brake in the first place, has institutionalised dishonesty in our justice system, and that needs to be rectified. The use of the term “careless” makes a value judgment about the intention of the perpetrator—it is not factual. Calling driving that falls below any standard “dangerous” is factual, because such driving is dangerous. The Bill is not calling for us to get rid of a lesser sentence only for a higher one; it is calling for us to scrap both charges for a system where all dangerous driving is regarded as a category of offence that can have the minimum or the maximum sentence. That would give judges the discretion; at the moment, their hands are tied once a lesser charge has been brought to the courts, and families are being failed up and down the country.

We also need to examine sentencing and the fact that too few high sentences are given out. Last year, the Government rightly introduced a new offence of causing serious injury while dangerous driving—in the past, that had been missed out—but this new charge should carry a maximum penalty of 14 years. The cost of care as well as the devastation for people who are seriously injured and can never work again, and in some cases can never speak or operate normally again, needs to be taken just as seriously as causing death by dangerous driving.

Drivers who kill while under the influence of drugs or drink can face up to 14 years in jail. However, there is a perversity, which is that if the driver flees a scene to sober up, that crime can be impossible to prove, leaving only a hit-and-run offence. That has the absurdity of incentivising drink and drug drivers to flee the scene and obstruct justice. Hit-and-run drivers should face the same maximum penalties as other drivers who kill and seriously injure, with an assumption that if they flee the scene they must have a reason to do so, which suggests guilt.

We also need to look at the automatic suspension of a driving licence—or, at the very least, a presumption of suspension of a driving licence—as a condition of bail in cases of dangerous and careless drivers who seriously injure or kill. In the case of Jamie Still, the perpetrator of that crime was driving for nine months in the very town in which he killed the 16-year-old. What must it have felt like for the family to see him driving along the same road on which Jamie was killed? That is happening in too many cases.

In cases where charges of criminal driving are brought, the victims must be treated by all parts of the judicial system as victims of crime. Currently, that is not the case, and they are often not given the same support as victims of other crimes, even though the devastation is exactly the same as that of any case of manslaughter.

More work needs to be done in a number of areas. I understand that this can be complicated, and I ask the Minister to work with his former colleagues in the Department for Transport to improve the system. For example, we need to have more appropriate investigation of collisions, better guidance and better advice in terms of releasing evidence to victims’ families. That has not happened adequately in a number of cases that I have mentioned. Victims and their families are not always given access to all the evidence and end up having to trust the Crown Prosecution Service to do its job properly, but I am afraid that too many cases show that they cannot always do so.

The Department for Transport must, in all cases, stop describing as “accidents” incidents of criminal driving where someone has been killed or seriously injured. The CPS and traffic police already do not use the word “accident” to refer to criminal driving offences, but the Department for Transport continues to do so. That is yet another way of exacerbating the suffering of victims and their families. There is a sense that somehow these are not real or serious crimes, despite the devastation that they have caused.

We need changes throughout the system—from investigations through to prosecutions, sentencing and to the very charges themselves—to give justice to families who suffer from these awful crimes, and to deter people from behaving so recklessly behind the wheel of a vehicle. I welcome the attention of the Secretary of State. I will work with him and his Department on this matter. If they wish to support this Bill, we can talk about its content. In the end, we must see, by next year, a change across the board so that we can at last deliver justice for victims and their families.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Greg Mulholland, John Pugh, Ian C. Lucas, Jason McCartney, Susan Elan Jones, Liz Mclnnes, Heidi Allen, Hywel Williams, Mr Andrew Turner, Ms Margaret Ritchie, Dr Sarah Wollaston and Sammy Wilson present the Bill.

Greg Mulholland accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 March, and to be printed (Bill 117).

I beg to move amendment 131, page 29, line 14, leave out clause 67.

This amendment, together with other amendments leaving out all the clauses in this chapter, would prevent vacant high value housing from being compulsory sold.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 92, page 29, line 21, at end insert

‘that shall include—

(i) the repayment of capital debt on any high value properties sold

(ii) the cost of replacing any high value properties sold on a one for one basis within the same local authority.’

The amendment would ensure the replacement of property locally and it would also ensure appropriate deductions are included in legislation.

Amendment 51, page 29, line 21, at end insert—

‘(2A) The total payment required from all affected local authorities in any financial year shall not exceed the total grant paid in that year to private registered providers in respect of right to buy discounts.’

The amendment would avoid powers being used a general means of taxing councils and tenants for the benefit of the Exchequer.

Amendment 93, page 29, line 32, leave out from ‘regulations’ to ‘for’ and insert

‘require a local housing authority in England to define “high value” in its area’.

The amendment would enable local housing authorities to define high value property in line with local housing market conditions.

Amendment 94, page 29, line 33, at end insert

‘that will not apply to more than 10% of the total authority properties in the local housing authority area’.

The amendment would safeguard a proportion of local authority housing stock in high value areas.

Amendment 53, page 29, line 35, at end insert—

‘(10) Regulations under subsection (8) may not define a dwelling as “high value” if its sale value is less than the cost of rebuilding it and providing a replacement dwelling with the same number of bedrooms in the same local authority area.’

The amendment would ensure that the cost of replacement dwellings is not specified as one of the costs and deductions to be made as required by sub-section 67(2) and would allow for one-for-one local replacement.

Amendment 132, page 29, line 36, leave out clause 68.

See explanatory statement for amendment 131.

Amendment 55, in clause 68, page 30, line 11, at end insert—

‘(5) Regulations under subsection (2)(b) shall specify that housing shall be excluded where it forms part of a housing regeneration scheme or consists of specialist housing or recently improved housing.

(6) In this section—

“housing regeneration scheme” means a programme of regeneration or development of an area which includes the provision or improvement of housing and for which finance may be available under section 126 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996;

“specialist housing” means any housing designed for or intended for occupation by older persons or persons needing care or support or persons with mental health problems or learning disabilities, or which has features which are designed to make it suitable for occupation by a physically disabled person, or which it is the practice of the landlord to let for occupation by persons with special needs;

“recently improved housing” means housing where there has been substantial works of repair or improvement carried out on the relevant dwelling or group of dwellings within the previous two years.’

The amendment would exclude certain types of property from inclusion in the high value homes determination.

Amendment 133, page 30, line 12, leave out clause 69.

See explanatory statement for amendment 131.

Amendment 134, page 30, line 28, leave out clause 70.

See explanatory statement for amendment 131.

Amendment 135, page 31, line 2, leave out clause 71.

See explanatory statement for amendment 131.

Amendment 136, page 31, line 12, leave out clause 72.

See explanatory statement for amendment 131.

Government amendment 112.

Amendment 137, page 31, line 20, leave out clause 73.

See explanatory statement for amendment 131.

Amendment 138, page 31, line 28, leave out clause 74.

See explanatory statement for amendment 131.

Amendment 139, page 32, line 2, leave out clause 75.

See explanatory statement for amendment 131.

Amendment 140, page 32, line 16, leave out clause 76.

See explanatory statement for amendment 131.

Amendment 141, page 32, line 28, leave out clause 77.

See explanatory statement for amendment 131.

Government amendments 130, 9 and 11.

Government new clause 59—Reverting to original rent levels.

Government new clause 60—Private providers: policies for high income social tenants.

Government new clause 61—HMRC information for private registered providers.

New clause 39—Living Rent Commission—

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a body, to be known as “the Living Rent Commission”, to discharge the functions conferred under this section.

(2) The Secretary of State shall refer to the Living Rent Commission to determine a definition of “affordability”, based on which it shall make recommendations on rent levels for all housing provided by local authorities and private registered providers in England, at a level of locality considered appropriate and practicable by the Commission.

(3) Before arriving at the recommendations to be included in the report produced under subsection (4), the Living Rent Commission shall consult—

(a) such organisations representative of providers of affordable housing as they think fit;

(b) such organisations representative of affordable housing occupants as they think fit; and

(c) if they think fit, any other body or person.

(4) The Living Rent Commission shall, after considering the matter referred to it under subsection (2), make a report to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State which shall contain the Commission’s recommendations regarding affordable rents.

(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations implement the Commission’s recommendations on affordable rents for private registered providers and local authority provided housing.

(6) If, following the report of the Living Rent Commission under subsection (4) above, the Secretary of State decides—

(a) not to make any regulations implementing the Commission’s recommendation, or

(b) to make regulations which do not relate to a recommendation of the Commission,

the Secretary of State shall lay a report before each House of Parliament containing a statement of the reasons for the decision.

(7) The definitions determined and recommendations made under subsection (2) shall be reviewed annually by the Living Rent Commission.’

This new clause would set up a Living Rent Commission to define and determine affordable rents.

Amendment 144, page 33, line 12, leave out clause 79.

This amendment, together with amendments 145 to 153, would leave out Chapter 4 of Part 4.

Government amendment 113.

Amendment 95, in clause 79, page 33, line 15, at end insert—

‘(1A) Any regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section will not apply—

(a) to people aged over 65;

(b) to people who have a registered disability;

(c) to people on zero hours contracts;

(d) to people with seasonal contracts of employment;

(e) to households where one or more members is in receipt of ESA;

(f) where a household member is in receipt of care

(g) where a member of the household is a carer for another household member;

(h) to those living in supported housing; and

(i) to households in receipt of housing benefit.’

The amendment would establish exemptions from the application of high income rents system.

Amendment 57, page 33, line 19, at end insert—

‘(d) to be increased on a tapered system relating to income and level of rent charged.’

The amendment would introduce a taper scheme into the application of high income rents to prevent huge jumps in the rent level being charged with only modest increases in income.

Amendment 58, page 33, line 19, at end insert—

‘(d) to take into account the need to promote socially cohesive and mixed communities.’

The amendment would enable local authorities and social housing providers to take into account the need to promote and encourage a degree of diversity in their communities.

Amendment 59, page 33, line 19, at end insert—

‘(d) take into account local affordability.’

The amendment would establish that rent levels should reflect local affordability.

Amendment 60, page 33, line 22, at end insert—

‘(3A) The Secretary of State must make regulations to provide for the external valuation of high income rents.’

The amendment would establish that the application of a higher income rent should be subject to external valuation.

Amendment 96, page 33, line 22, at end insert—

‘(3A) Any regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section must include provisions for—

(a) a notice period of one year before the new rent becomes payable; and

(b) transitional protection and arrangements as the tenant moves to the higher rent.’

The amendment would make it appropriate for tenants deemed to have a high income to be given time and a degree of transitional protection to enable them to relocate to another property or increase their income further

Government amendment 114.

Amendment 61, page 33, line 27, at end insert—

‘(6) All provisions in this section shall only apply—

(a) for new tenancies commenced after 30 April 2017; and

(b) where the tenant has been provided with a new tenancy agreement.’

The amendment would establish that the high income rent regime would only apply to new tenants from April 2017 and where they have been given a new tenancy agreement.

Amendment 145, page 33, line 29, leave out clause 80.

See statement for amendment 144.

Amendment 97, in clause 80, page 33, line 30, at beginning insert ‘subject to subsection (1A)’.

See amendment 98.

Amendment 98, page 33, line 32, at end insert—

‘(1A) High income” must be set with reference to average incomes in the area with high incomes being defined by income falling in the top quartile of incomes in the area.’

The amendment would establish that high incomes will reflect the top quartile of income levels.

Amendment 62, page 33, line 32, at end insert—

‘(1A) For the purposes of this Chapter high income cannot be set at a level lower than median income.’

The amendment would establish that the high income level cannot be set a level lower than average/median salaries.

Government amendment 115.

Amendment 146, page 34, line 6, leave out clause 81.

See statement for amendment 144.

Government amendments 116 to 120.

Amendment 147, page 34, line 19, leave out clause 82.

See statement for amendment 144.

Government amendments 121 to 123.

Amendment 63, in clause 82, page 34, line 27, leave out subsection (c).

The amendment would establish that the creation of a public body to transfer information from the HMRC to a local authority or registered provider of social housing is not necessary.

Government amendments 124 to 126.

Amendment 148, page 35, line 15, leave out clause 83.

See statement for amendment 144.

Government amendments 127 and 128.

Amendment 149, page 35, line 28, leave out clause 84.

See statement for amendment 144.

Amendment 64, in clause 84. page 35, line 30, leave out ‘estimated’.

The amendment would establish that payments to the Secretary of State would not be made on an estimation of income receipts.

Amendment 65, page 35, line 38, leave out subsection (5).

The amendment would establish that it will not be possible for payments to be made to the Secretary of State based on assumptions that are not borne out by reality.

Amendment 150, page 36, line 1, leave out clause 85.

See statement for amendment 144.

Government amendment 129.

Amendment 152, page 36, line 31, leave out clause 87.

See statement for amendment 144.

Amendment 153, page 37, line 7, leave out clause 88.

See statement for amendment 144.

Amendment 142, page 37, line 20, leave out clause 89.

This amendment, together with amendment 143, would enable councils to be free to manage flexibly tenancies in a way that drives best value from stock whilst supporting strong local communities.

Amendment 143, page 37, line 32, leave out clause 90.

See statement for amendment 142.

Amendment 105, page 86, line 1, leave out schedule 4.

To remove this schedule from the Bill.

Amendment 106, page 99, line 20, leave out schedule 5.

To remove this schedule from the Bill.

Amendment 107, page 27, line 21, leave out clause 61.

This amendment would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to make grants with respect to Right to Buy discounts to private registered providers including housing associations.

Amendment 88, in clause 61, page 27, line 23, at end insert

‘with the exclusion of—

(a) supported housing for older people;

(b) supported housing units (including self-contained homes where floating support is provided for vulnerable people);

(c) key worker housing (which includes self-contained flats subject to nomination agreements with third parties);

(d) units that form part of major regeneration schemes planned or already under way;

(e) rural settlements;

(f) homes built for charitable purposes without Government grant and homes provided through S.106 agreements requiring stock to be kept as social housing in perpetuity;

(g) cooperative housing;

(h) ALMOS (arm’s length management organisations); and

(i) Alms houses.’

The amendment would exclude the listed categories of specialised housing from being subject to the Right to Buy provisions of the Bill.

Amendment 89, page 27, line 25, at end insert—

‘(2A) The conditions at subsection (2) must include a condition that money equivalent to the market value (disregarding any discount) of a dwelling sold under right to buy and to which the grant applies is spent by the private registered provider on the provision of affordable housing in the same local authority area or London, including at least one new home replacing that sold which is—

(a) of the same tenure,

(b) located in the same local authority area or London borough, and

(c) in accordance with assessed local housing need.’

The amendment would require housing associations offering the Right to Buy to their tenants in London and elsewhere to re-invest all the money received as a result of the sale in replacement affordable housing, including a guaranteed like-for-like home in the same local authority area or London borough.

Amendment 50, page 27, line 28, at end insert—

‘(4) Grants must not be payable on properties bought and turned into buy-to-let dwellings within ten years.”

The amendment would prevent property sold under Right to Buy from being converted into buy to let dwellings for a period of ten years.

Amendment 108, page 27, line 29, leave out clause 62.

This amendment would remove the ability of the Greater London Authority to make grants with respect to Right to Buy discounts to private registered providers including housing associations in London.

Government amendment 111.

Amendment 90, in clause 64, page 28, line 24, at end insert—

‘( ) The discount should remain in perpetuity’

The amendment would ensure that homes sold under the Right to Buy remain as discounted housing in perpetuity.

Amendment 91, page 28, line 24, at end insert—

‘( ) A dwelling must not be sold under the Right to Buy without the Housing Association having the ability to—

(a) verify the source of funding for purchase,

(b) establish who is occupying the property,

(c) check that the person/s seeking to purchase the property under Right to Buy has no interest in another property,

(d) has sufficient time to carry out checks for fraudulent activity, and

(e) be able to prepare reports on (a)-(d) for the Housing Association Board of Trustees to consider.’

The amendment would ensure that housing associations are able to carry out proper checks before proceeding with the Right to Buy offer.

Amendment 109, page 28, line 24, at end insert—

‘( ) A dwelling must not be sold under the Right to Buy without the Housing Association having first—

(a) identified the dwelling that will become the replacement for the dwelling sold, where—

(i) the replacement dwelling may be an existing dwelling or a planned new-build,

(ii) the tenure of the replacement property is presumed to be the same as that of the dwelling sold under Right to Buy, unless a different tenure can be justified on the basis of local needs, and

(iii) the replacement dwelling is located in the same local authority area as the dwelling sold; and

(b) communicated the replacement plan to the Regulator.’

This amendment would ensure that a home cannot be sold under Right to Buy until a suitable replacement home has first been found or planned.

It is a pity that we are dealing with the four most contentious aspects of the Bill in one two-hour session, and that the Government did not accept our alterations to the programme motion, which would have made it a bit more sensible.

I shall begin by considering the forced sale of high-value social housing, covered in chapter 2 of part 4 of the Bill. As the Government will be aware, we tabled a number of amendments to chapter 2 on a range of issues relating to the forced sale of such housing. Amendment 92 would ensure that the replacement of property locally with appropriate resourcing was included in legislation. Amendments 93 and 94 would give local authorities more agency over defining “high value” and would limit the number of houses sold in a particular area to 10% of the stock.

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way so early. I wanted gently to challenge her comments about today’s debate bearing in mind that the programme motion was agreed with the Opposition and that we agreed to the changes they asked for.

I remind the Minister that we voted against the programme motion.

Amendment 53 safeguards the replacement of like-for-like housing; homes cannot be sold if their sale value is less than the cost of replacing the original property. Amendment 55 seeks to exempt certain types of specialist housing from “high value” determination. Owing to the extremely limited time available today, I will not speak in detail on those amendments. I will focus instead on amendments 131 to 141, which leave out all the clauses in chapter 2 of part 4, effectively removing the chapter from the Bill.

Labour Members are not against local authorities making sensible decisions about their assets, but that is not what the clauses in this chapter of the Bill would enable. They will force local authorities to sell off much-needed council housing, even when they have huge waiting lists. Glyn Robbins, estate manager of Quaker Court, stated that many council homes in London in places such as Quaker Court are likely to be deemed high value, and that is where the Government’s legislation will have the most severe impact.

Of course, this is not just about the loss of council properties in high-value areas. The impact of the policy would surely be that those properties would move into the privately rented sector, meaning that the housing benefit bill is likely to increase to enable the same properties to be rented out.

My hon. Friend makes an additional point about how truly appalling and nonsensical the policy is. I hope to come to that a bit later.

Glyn Robbins said:

“This is about as high-value an area as you’re going to find. So every time we get an empty council flat, instead of that home going to the next person on a waiting list in Islington that has 18,000 people on it, it’s going to be sold into the private market.”

The Chartered Institute of Housing, among others, has also expressed concern that the Government’s expectation of the number of houses to be built as a result of forcing the selling off of so-called high-value housing is much, much too high. It says that the Government appear to have vastly overestimated the number of homes that will become vacant in the category of high value that might be defined within any local authority area, which in turn will have a negative impact on the replacement of sold-off homes by housing associations. The chief executive of the Chartered Institute of Housing stressed that more funding needs to be made available for affordable housing and that

“full compensation for housing associations will be absolutely vital if they are going to be able to build more affordable homes for people who can’t afford to buy”.

As far as commentators are concerned, the provisions of this chapter of the Bill are likely to lead to less council housing being available and to any replacement housing that does materialise being out of the financial reach of many people. We know that housing waiting lists will become longer and people will be forced to stay in temporary accommodation for longer, which of course will mean a greater cost to local taxpayers. Councils will have less of an incentive to invest in stock, as it might push the value above the arbitrary thresholds for forced sale. Moreover, the reduction in the number of social rented homes available will intensify competition for private rented sector homes at the bottom of the market, driving up rents.

Is not the concern that we should see this in the overall context of Government policy? Not only will these council homes be sold off, with the opportunity to replace them on a like-for-like basis almost certainly not being available, but it will be very difficult for most housing associations to replace their sold properties on a like-for-like basis. As was confirmed in the Select Committee yesterday, there is no new money at all in the comprehensive spending review for any new social rented housing. At the end of this Parliament, there will almost certainly be fewer council homes to rent than there are now.

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and one that we want to emphasise this afternoon. Most commentators are now saying that there is no additional money to provide the replacement affordable housing and there are no provisions in the Bill to allow a like-for-like replacement in the same local authority for homes that are sold off.

This chapter of the Bill is not only damaging to social housing but will have a negative knock-on effect in the private sector that will mean there is simply no respite for low income families and no housing that they will be able to rent at a level that they can afford. The Government must reconsider this part of the Bill and must take this chapter out of it.

My hon. Friend talks about the impact on homelessness. Across the country, there are probably millions of families in housing need who are waiting for appropriate accommodation in the social sector. A constituent I met last week has two children and lives in a one-bedroom flat. One of the children has skin cancer and they are waiting desperately for a two-bedroom home. Who should get a property—a family with that housing need or someone who can buy on the open market for £500,000 or more?

My hon. Friend makes a truly brilliant point that we should reflect on in the Chamber this afternoon. Many councils are telling us that they have thousands of people on their waiting lists, yet this measure will reduce further the number of homes that will be available.

Again, as the Minister is aware, we have tabled a number of amendments to try to make the pay-to-stay provisions more palatable. Amendment 95 would establish exemptions from the application of the high income rents system, while amendment 57 would ensure that the system was tapered to avoid a sudden jump in rents when an increase would apply. Amendment 58 looks to ensure that local authorities and housing associations take into account the need to promote and encourage a degree of diversity and social cohesion in their communities, and amendment 59 makes sure that rents reflect affordability on a local basis.

Amendment 60 would establish that the application of a higher income rent should be subject to external valuation and not the whim of the Secretary of State. Amendments 96 and 61 both look to give some notice and protection should tenants be moved on to higher rents, with amendment 96 giving tenants who have been determined to have a high income transitional protection and time to enable them to relocate to another property if that is at all possible. Amendment 61 would establish that the high income rent regime would apply only to new tenants and that they would be given a new tenancy agreement.

Amendments 97, 98 and 62 are designed to ensure that what is considered to be a high income is based on local realities and a multiple of median income, but again the lack of time that the Bill has been afforded together with the incredibly unfair nature of these clauses means that I will be focusing on amendments 144 to 150 and 152 to 153, which seek to remove all the clauses, and therefore the complete chapter, from the Bill.

We are not necessarily against a gradation in rent paid, but we do not think the pay-to-stay proposals that remain in the Bill are in any way acceptable. The proposals will hit people on modest incomes hardest, and this section of the Bill is seemingly a continuation of the Government’s assault on council tenants and a cash grab by the Chancellor, and it is entirely anti-localist as local authorities, and indeed housing associations, already have the discretion to charge high income tenants higher rents.

Did not Westminster council let the cat out of the bag on pay to stay with a leaflet that it distributed last week, “A guide to the Right to Buy Social Mobility Fund”, which stated:

“Under Government proposals, households with an income greater than £40,000 will pay a substantially increased rent. This is an opportunity to avoid this and become a home owner”?

Is not pay to stay about driving home ownership, rather than reflecting income in rent policy?

My hon. Friend makes a relevant point about the proposals.

So why are the Government now imposing this scheme on councils, if not to punish council tenants? What have they done to deserve this unique vitriol from the Minister? I remind the House that the threshold for high income, as it stands, is £40,000 per household in London and £30,000 outside London. This would hit people who earn the Chancellor’s new minimum wage. Most people would think that is disgraceful. The policy will hit hardest those who are working in low paid jobs, and that is where it is going to have the most devastating effect.

One of the examples that has been given to me is that of a tenant who has been offered a promotion at work but has decided to turn it down because of the consequential increase in rent under the proposals. Is that not an attack on aspiration?

I could not agree more. The proposals are an attack on aspiration, leaving some families with impossible choices.

As Tony Stacey, chair of PlaceShapers, which represents 100 housing associations, said, this policy conflicts with the Government’s desire to get people into better paid work. He said that it was a bit perverse, compared with the Government’s other policies to make work pay. If the policy goes ahead, it seems that people who are paid more for additional work undertaken or for promotion could face a sudden increase in rent or eviction.

It is interesting to see that the Government caved into pressure from housing associations and removed the element of compulsion from them, but that only means that council tenants are now being singled out for the application of these extraordinary measures. As councils say that the provisions are unworkable in any case, will the Minister explain to us why he has insisted that they should remain for council tenants?

Is the hon. Lady seriously suggesting that people should receive heavily subsidised housing even if they earn very high incomes?

As we did our best to explain to the hon. Gentleman in Committee, such housing is often not subsidised. The point that we are making is that councils already have the discretion to set higher rents for people with higher incomes if they choose to do so. What we are querying this afternoon is why the Government are introducing an element of compulsion and why this will apply to council tenants only.

We should kill the myth of subsidised council housing. Under the rules that this Government changed following the proposals from the previous Government, housing revenue accounts are self-funding. There is no subsidy. The only subsidies that I can see are right to buy discounts and starter home discounts that the Government are proposing.

My hon. Friend has won that round of the debate.

So shocking is chapter 5 of part 4 that we have tabled amendments to remove all of it from the Bill. We have tabled amendments to leave out clauses 89 and 90 and the schedules relating to them. We saw no value in amending these elements of the Bill as the ending of security of tenure for council tenants would be one of the greatest travesties for the future of affordable housing in this country. The only position we can adopt is to ask for it to be removed from the Bill entirely.

Three decades from now, when our grandchildren look back on the decisions of our generation concerning housing, their social mobility will have declined compared with that of previous generations, despite what David Cameron may think, as a result of the instability that this Government’s policy creates. Having a stable home to grow up in is crucial for working families whose income barely affords them an adequate standard of living. Children should not be faced with the threat of having to change schools every two to five years when the council is forced to review the tenancy contracts of their parents. This could have disastrous effects on their education. Like a number of colleagues, I was brought up in a council house and thus was able to acquire better educational opportunities than my parents as a result of growing up in a stable home with security of tenure. We want to ensure that that option exists for families who need it today.

However, the Government are removing the most basic protection for tenants that has existed in our country for decades—that council housing would be provided by local authorities to secure rented homes for people on low incomes, and that those homes would be of good quality. The Government need to stop attacking council tenants. I thought that we had cross-party agreement not only that the council housing sector should be valued, but that measures should be put in place to enhance its attractiveness and availability, rather than it being attacked in the way that it is in this Bill.

In 1979, 42% of Britons lived in council houses. Now, that figure is less than 8%. Government investment in social rented housing was cut by two-thirds when the coalition Government came to power. While the Government pledged a one-to-one replacement for every home that was sold under the right to buy, the latest figures show that for every nine homes sold, only one is being replaced.

The Government are wrong in their assumption that council tenants with security of tenure can afford to buy a home or live elsewhere. A recent study found that 91% of homes in England and Wales were unaffordable to homebuyers even in some areas where they had the national average income of £26,500. Local authorities, under the Localism Act 2011, already have the ability to offer flexible tenancies if they so choose. Why are the Government introducing this degree of compulsion and why do they attack council housing tenants in this way?

Recently a woman living in a council house in London told The Guardian:

“In the long run, London needs us service workers more than we need London. Most of us will not be able to survive with the current rental prices. We are no longer children, to be able to share a flat with 10 other people. This is a shift of the goalposts and will leave people in desperate conditions.”

My hon. Friend mentions a lady working in London who was concerned about people like her for economic reasons. Is my hon. Friend aware of the concerns about the housing crisis as iterated by the London chamber of commerce and industry? It said that the housing crisis in London is affecting London’s economy, as well having a human cost, as we all know.

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We have pointed that out to the Minister on a number of occasions and provided evidence to him in Committee.

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. She rightly mentions London, as do a number of colleagues, because it is an acute issue, but is she not concerned that the issue exists throughout the country and that the Government’s approach makes a sham of their promise to support localism, as they are riding roughshod over the ability of local councils to use discretion in this important area?

I totally agree; I am really pleased that my hon. Friend has reminded me that we need to consider how this area of the Bill affects council tenants and local authorities up and down the country.

Labour has tabled amendments to chapter 1 of part 4 to try to limit the negative impact of the right-to-buy provisions. Amendment 88 seeks to protect certain types of specialised housing and amendment 89 would require housing associations offering the right to buy to their tenants in London and elsewhere to reinvest all the money in replacement affordable housing, including a guaranteed like-for-like home in the same local authority area or London borough. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) was among those who tabled that amendment.

We have also tabled amendments that would prevent property sold under the right to buy from being converted into buy-to-let dwellings for a period of 10 years; amendments that would ensure that the discount for homes sold under the right to buy remained in perpetuity; and amendments that would ensure that housing associations were able to carry out proper checks before proceeding with the right-to-buy offer. Yet again, we find ourselves stretched for time. We are facing a chapter that has the potential to decimate the social housing sector, so I will speak to the amendments as one group.

Shelter has estimated that about 113,000 homes could be lost immediately through the provisions in the Bill. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that owing to the scheme’s current vagueness and the

“coalition’s less-than-impressive record in delivering replacement housing under the existing right-to-buy…There is a risk that these policies would lead to a further depletion of the social housing stock”.

What seems to have complete consensus across the housing sector is that there is no guarantee of like-for-like replacement for homes sold under the right to buy. Of course, the Minister will tell me that the Government are guaranteeing a two-for-one replacement of affordable housing, but that measure needs closer inspection. The Government’s new definition of “affordable” housing in new clause 31 includes starter homes, which can be up to £250,000 outside London and up to £450,000 in the capital. That means that a housing association home sold under the right to buy can be considered to have been replaced by another house or even another two houses that will be for sale at up to a quarter of a million pounds or almost half a million in London. That is not a replacement of like for like by any stretch of the imagination.

The definition of “affordable homes” has been described by one hon. Member of this House as “elastic and misleading”. Does my hon. Friend agree with that characterisation from the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), whom I congratulate, by the way, on becoming a dad again this week?

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. What we are trying to say in this debate is that the Government’s right-to-buy proposals do not bring about like-for-like replacements. To have two very expensive homes replacing one home for social rent does not add up to a sensible policy for most people. The Government want to push up the rates of home ownership and we agree that there should be measures to promote that. However, we do not think that those should come at the expense of the social rented or local authority sectors.

My hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) are making exactly the right point. The idea that £450,000 homes for sale can replace socially rented homes, and when they are not in the same area, is what I understand the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) told the Camden New Journal last week; if he is here, he may wish to clarify. Getting rid of council homes in inner London and replacing them with homes for sale at vastly inflated prices in outer London and beyond is not acceptable.

I totally agree. We are attempting to show how unappealing the measures put forward by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) are and how they simply will not tackle the problem for Londoners.

Part 4 of the Bill is nothing but an attack on council housing and council tenants, who have already suffered under the Government’s bedroom tax and cuts to council services. Adding the pay-to-stay provisions and reducing the stock available for rent amounts to a full blown attack on the council housing sector. Housing associations do not fare much better, as the right to buy could deplete their stock without adequate replacement. This is a further attack on people on low incomes and, most worryingly of all, will do almost nothing to tackle the housing crisis that so many people are facing.

We would like to remove most of part 4 of the Bill but simply do not have the time for the necessary votes. As an indicator of our great displeasure, we are going to press clause 142 to a vote, when appropriate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting will press amendment 89. We call on the whole House to reject this awful Bill later today.

I shall not detain the House for long, as I am not sure that anyone would hear me. However, my constituents would expect me to raise the exceptional challenges of the central Oxfordshire housing market. Many of the Bill’s measures will be welcomed locally: more stringent measures to tackle rogue landlords, the brownfield register and measures such as Help to Buy, starter homes and the Prime Minister’s commitment to commission thousands more affordable homes directly.

Although commendable, the raft of policies to build more affordable houses is not in itself enough. Houses need to be built in areas that need them most. High-cost areas are either where growth is the highest or where markets are sclerotic because sites are hard to come by, infrastructure is at capacity and planning authorities are weak. In some areas such as Oxford, both those factors apply. High growth is becoming constrained by failing local housing markets. Many colleagues have local difficulties with housing, and I wish to explain briefly what our challenges are.

Median full-time earnings in Oxford are now £26,500; median house prices are £427,210. That means that house prices are 16 times the earnings of the average worker. The Centre for Cities analysis has found Oxford to be the least affordable city in England when prices are set against local incomes. The number of people owning their own home in the city is well below the national average, and median private rent for a three-bedroom house is £300 a week, more than half of median earnings. Some 30% of residents rent compared with 25% in London. The House of Commons Library has found that Oxford City Council delivered zero affordable homes in 2013-14 and only 20 in 2014-15; it is ranked as the fourth worst in the country for delivering housing of any tenure. Yet Oxford requires 1,400 homes to be delivered each year until 2031.

There are lots of specific local problems. To give the council its due, I should say that we have relatively few brownfield sites and all sorts of challenges, given that two thirds of land is in private ownership. That complicates active public management. The city has a relatively low density and development is highly restricted due to the amount of protected and listed buildings. It also has 400 hectares of green-belt land within its local authority. Nevertheless, if we compare Oxford with Cambridge—a reasonable comparison—we see that Cambridge provided 550 affordable homes in 2013-14 and 320 in 2014-15.

It is reasonable for us to call for more to be done because the issue is obviously causing significant problems for our local private and public sectors. One in two senior academic appointments fails because of house prices. Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust spends more than £100,000 a week on agency staff: it cannot recruit permanent staff because of local housing affordability. Some 30% of local businesses cite housing costs as their top barrier to recruitment. The failure to build homes where they are needed in cities constrains growth. The issue matters to the national economy as well, as such cities are the most productive and have the most jobs. If people cannot afford to live in these cities, they cannot access those jobs and businesses cannot sell to them. The economy suffers.

We are not yet getting this issue right. Between 2008 and 2013, in respect of local incomes, relatively more homes were built in Barnsley—the second most affordable city in Great Britain—than were built in London or Oxford, which are the least affordable cities. More of these homes need to be built in our most successful cities, where affordability is lowest and demand is highest.

In justifying Government amendment 112, and acknowledging the exceptionalism of the London housing market, the Minister has accepted that housing in Britain’s most economically successful cities is the least affordable and that we need policies that target our affordable house building efforts towards our least affordable areas. That is little more than common sense, but we have all known too many occasions when common sense has fallen by the wayside in our legislative process.

Amendment 112 will ensure that enough receipts from the sale of high-value homes go to the Greater London Authority for it to build two affordable homes for every one sold. Obviously, the receipts left with the GLA would have to be sufficiently high to allow that. I am of course very pleased for Londoners that this important measure has been secured for them, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on the efforts that he has gone through to do so. This is possible for Londoners largely because house prices are so high that huge amounts of money are generated from sales, so it is reasonably easy to fund two for one without putting too big a dent in the revenue stream going to central Government.

In my view, unsurprisingly given my bias towards Oxford, this should also apply to other high-value areas such as Oxford, Bath and St Albans. I will set out how it might work in practice in our case. About 12% of council homes in Oxford would be deemed to be of high value and so the council would be under a duty to consider selling them when they become vacant. Given vacancy rates, this works out at 29 homes a year being sold rather than going to the next person on the waiting list. Our estimates suggest that 29 council homes sold on the open market in Oxford each year would generate about £8.6 million in receipts, so a similar two-for-one provision would ensure that £8.6 million stays with the council for it to provide two extra units of affordable homes for every one sold. If, say, each high-value council home sold for £293,385 each—£8.9 million divided by 29—that would ensure that enough was still going to central Government for them to do as they plan, but we would be able to provide two for one for Oxford.

Amendment 112 gives the Secretary of State the power to create exceptions to subsection (4) for other local authorities along the lines of the two-for-one provision that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park has so valiantly provided for London, so that is written explicitly into the Bill. Such an exception would be essential for Oxford to ensure that we have sufficient social and affordable housing. However, I remain to be convinced that the power will be sufficient to ensure that this is delivered, following the challenges that we have faced.

My hon. Friend is making a valiant charge on behalf of all of us who have very expensive houses in our constituencies. The median house price in St Albans is £392,000, and we are ringed by green belt. I share her concern about how deliverable this is, but we are right to push for it in areas that suffer similarly with high prices, such as London. I hope that the Minister takes that into account.

I thank my hon. Friend, and I agree with her.

The Minister has been very generous in the time that he has taken to discuss this with us. I am grateful to him for offering to have meetings with us about how we can implement the measures in amendment 112 to deliver for Oxford and other high-cost areas. We need to ensure that this commitment will be implemented as a matter of urgency and works in practice for areas such as mine where residents face a genuine housing crisis and genuine hardship on a daily basis. My colleagues from high-cost areas such as Bath, Cambridge and St Albans and I will, if necessary, look to the Lords to ensure that these measures deliver for our constituents, because affordable housing needs to be targeted towards high-cost areas where we face the biggest challenges in the country.

I rise to speak in favour of amendment 89, tabled in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and other hon. Friends. I hope that colleagues will understand and forgive me if I focus my comments on London.

The Bill before us will do nothing to help solve the housing crisis facing London.

Rubbish!

The Member who has heckled describes the Bill as I would—rubbish.

In fact, on balance, the likelihood is that the Bill will make the crisis even worse. As a result, London’s famed social mix is under threat. Many parts of inner London could be hollowed out, with the city becoming the preserve of the very rich. Do not just take my word for it. When the Government published this Bill, the heading on an Evening Standard editorial was “Don’t lose social houses to fund right-to-buy”. I kept a copy of the newspaper from that day. The editorial said:

“The most serious objection to the Government’s proposal to allow housing association tenants to buy their homes at a discount is that its effect would actually be to diminish the amount of social housing in London at a time when demand is increasing. To fund the discount, councils would be obliged to sell off higher-priced council homes—and given the level of property prices in London, this could, potentially, be disastrous in its effects.”

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

I will give way once and then I want to make some progress.

My right hon. Friend is right to quote the Evening Standard saying that this will be disastrous. For many inner-London authorities, it means that the majority of their council stock will be sold. It is, in effect, the end of security of tenure of council housing in inner London. That is what the Government intend.

My hon. Friend will know that I spend a lot of time visiting all 32 London boroughs. This morning I was in Camden, where people think that more than 40% of their family homes could be sold off as a consequence of this Government’s Bill.

Nobody is against the aspiration of home ownership, but changes to the Bill are required, even at this late stage, to minimise the impact on London. That is why I have tabled and supported amendments all of which, to date, the Government have opposed. I hope, for the sake of Londoners, that that changes today. Amendment 89 is the “like-for-like replacement” amendment. It would say to housing associations across the country, “If you’re going to go ahead with right to buy, you have to spend the money raised from the sale locally on replacement affordable housing.” It has been estimated that the sell-off could lead to over £800 million a year being lost from London unless there are proper guarantees put in place to keep these receipts in the city.

The House should be wary of imitations, because other hon. Members are trying to fool Londoners by saying that their amendment will protect the city’s affordable homes. I refer, of course, to amendment 112, which is in the name of the Secretary of State, but which, rather cosily, the Prime Minister and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) announced last week. Let me pause to congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park on, as I said, becoming a father again this week. I am sure that the whole House sends him and his family our very best wishes.

I say this to hon. Members and to Londoners outside this Chamber: do not be tricked by the spin and hot air coming from the hon. Member for Richmond Park and the Government; do not allow the wool to be pulled over your eyes, because all is not as the Tories would have you believe. It is a con. For a start, amendment 112 tries to make palatable the Government’s plan to sell off council homes in London. The editorial in the Evening Standard set out three useful tests to judge the impact of this Bill. Let us look at how both amendments measure up to those tests. Under the first test,

“it is absolutely necessary to keep money raised by the sale of London council houses in London.”

The amendment announced with great fanfare last week clearly fails on this front. It fails to ring-fence the money for London, which means that money raised by selling off London’s council homes will still flood out of the capital to subsidise the Government’s national right to buy scheme. This contrasts with my amendment 89, which would ring-fence all the money from London housing association homes sold under right to buy for new affordable homes.

On the second test, the Evening Standard stated:

“It could be a mixed blessing if some central London boroughs lost most of their housing-association stock even if it meant more council houses being built in outer London.”

Again, amendment 112 fails on that front. It opens the door for homes to be replaced outside the borough where they are sold off. If there is any doubt that that is the case, the hon. Member for Richmond Park admitted to the Camden New Journal just last week the truth about the Government’s and his own amendment. He owned up to the fact that inner London would be hollowed out under his amendment. He said that, under his proposals, it was a “mathematical obstacle” to replace social housing in Camden and other inner London boroughs such as Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea. There we have it: an admission that the hon. Gentleman’s amendment will let London be hollowed out.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has been heckling me loudly and rather rudely from a sedentary position.

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would never heckle from a sedentary position. The starter home provisions give a 20% price cut to every first-time buyer, which is very welcome. In my borough of Croydon, the average 20% discount means that a starter home would be only about £220,000 or £250,000, which I am sure even he would agree is extremely affordable.

It usually takes a parliamentarian years to become out of touch, but the hon. Gentleman has done it in six months. Shelter says that for someone to be able to afford a £450,000 starter home, they will have to earn an annual salary of £77,000 and have a deposit of £98,000. Let us put aside for the moment the nurse, the junior doctor and the bus driver—people who get a starter job in a top FTSE 100 company in the City of London will not be able afford one of the Government’s starter homes. That is how out of touch the Conservative mayoral candidate and the Government are.

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good case. I understand entirely why he is focusing on London, but we must not allow the Government to pretend that London is a specific and solitary special case. There are many parts of the country, particularly the Lake district, the Yorkshire dales and many rural parts of the United Kingdom, where house prices are incredibly expensive, wages are low and the availability of social rented housing is essential to the social mix of those communities. Does he agree that that is not just a problem in London?

I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman, but I would go a step further. I do not think that the Government are making a special case for London; I think that the combined effect of the Chancellor’s autumn statement and this Bill shows that the Government have it in for London.

As I have said, I visited Camden today, where the average cost of a property to rent is 73% of the average income there. So much for the Conservative mayoral candidate being in touch with Londoners. We also discovered last week that the Government are watering down the definition of what is affordable to include starter homes that cost 17 times the average British salary. By comparison, my amendment 89 would guarantee a new home for social rent to replace one that has been sold.

In short, amendment 112 is, to quote once more the hon. Member for Richmond Park, “elastic and misleading”. My amendment is clear and firm. It meets the tests that Londoners expect and I urge Members, especially anyone who claims to understand the housing crisis in London and who wants to help fix it, to ignore the overblown claims about amendment 112 and instead support my amendment 89.

I will be brief, because we do not have a lot of time. Clearly, we are discussing a national issue and concern, but there can be no doubt that housing is the No. 1 issue for London. Last year, prices rose by about 10% on average. The average price for a first-time buyer in London is now more than £400,000. No one can argue that Londoners today are not being priced out of their own city. It is no longer just a social problem—that point has already been made in relation to another city—because it jeopardises London’s economy as well.

The bottom line is that we need to build more and we need to build for people across the entire income spectrum. It is no good taking a polarised approach with a zero-subsidy option on the one hand and social housing on the other. We need to ensure that the market can accommodate young professionals, key workers and the like—people who perhaps do not qualify for social housing.

I was pleased with the Government’s interventions last week, with an emphasis on shared ownership, which will work around the country and have a particular impact in London. There is also going to be a London version of Help to Buy, which has been a very successful scheme nationally, but less successful in London, because we live in a different world here. The prices are so out of kilter with the rest of the country that that bespoke offer will have an impact. Finally, we have the two-for-one amendment under discussion.

I have a few questions for my hon. Friend the Minister. Amendment 112 requires that two new affordable homes be built for every single high-value council home sold as a consequence of the extension of the right to buy. That is based on my amendment, as has been acknowledged, and I sincerely thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his diligence in making it work.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Just give me a moment, please.

When my hon. Friend the Minister wraps up on this group of amendments, will he update the House on his discussions with London’s local authorities about how they will be able to work together to deliver the homes that London needs? I know that he has been having discussions with council leaders from all the different parties in both inner and outer London. It would be good to have an update.

May I ask my hon. Friend about housing associations? They are absolutely essential to the delivery of the next generation of homes. I believe that the G15, the group of 15 London housing associations, has already committed to delivering a one-for-one replacement of any home that is sold, but it has also said—it has told me this—that it could deliver a great deal more.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?