Deregulation Bill

Public Bill Committee, 6 March 2014.

Clause 11 - Auditors ceasing to hold office

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Clause 11, in combination with schedule 4, removes unnecessary administrative burdens and regulatory requirements from chapter 4 of part 16 of the Companies Act 2006, some of which duplicate other requirements in the chapter unnecessarily. Chapter 4 of the 2006 Act makes provision for actions that companies and auditors must take as part of removing an auditor from office or where an auditor leaves office, and for relevant notices.

Clause 11 introduces new exemptions to the operation of chapter 4. They are focused on all UK companies, apart from a newly-defined category of public interest companies, which, because of their economic significance, are subject to more onerous requirements. The intention is to focus regulation on the cases where the administrative burden involved is needed and likely to be of benefit. The terms “public interest company” and “non-public interest company” are both defined in new section 519A, which clause 11 inserts into chapter 4 of the 2006 Act.

The new exemptions apply where an auditor has left office for exempt reasons, which are also defined in new section 519A. Experience has shown that while departures that happen for innocuous reasons are of no interest to regulatory authorities, they give rise to a large number of notices of auditors leaving office. The production and processing of those notices is an unnecessary regulatory burden.

Clause 12 - Insolvency and company law: miscellaneous

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Clause 12 introduces schedule 5, which provides for some deregulatory measures about insolvency, which have been widely welcomed, as we heard in evidence from R3.

The insolvency measures in parts 1 to 8 of schedule 5 repeal redundant legislation about deeds of arrangement, which have not been used since 2004; the authorisation of insolvency practitioners; the power of the court to order direct payment of funds due to companies in liquidation into the Bank of England, which has not happened for many years; and the treatment of certain liabilities relating to contracts of employment.

The measures also improve the efficiency of insolvency procedures relating to the appointment of administrators and the release of administrators and liquidators. They improve choice about who can be appointed an interim receiver and continuity if a bankruptcy order is made. They remove unnecessary information burdens on people who are made bankrupt and facilitate the provision of basic bank accounts to bankrupts. They improve the investigation and enforcement regime by allowing the Secretary of State and official receivers to request relevant information about insolvency cases directly from third parties rather than the office-holder. That is important in proceedings for the disqualification of directors, which must take place within two years of the insolvency. The changes are deregulatory and designed to remove barriers. They are expected to result in savings of £8 million a year.

Two uncommenced technical sections of the Companies Act 2006 will also be repealed by these provisions. They relate to proxy voting and have proved to be unworkable.

Toby Perkins (Labour, Chesterfield)

Clause 12 is a welcome deregulatory measure. Unlike clause 10, which we debated at some length on Tuesday, it enjoys the confidence and support of people who work in the relevant field within the industry. I draw the Committee’s attention once again to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the work done on behalf of my office, as a donation in kind, by R3.

The changes are likely to improve efficiency and remove unnecessary burdens on the insolvency profession and on Government. We hope that that will in turn save the industry costs. The clause will introduce several changes to insolvency law, including the abolition of deeds of arrangement—a rarely used alternative to insolvency—and will allow companies to appoint an administrator in the interim moratorium before a winding up is complete.

The clause will also repeal a provision that allows a court to order money to be moved to the Bank of England from a business in administration. It will also change how some employees are paid when the business they work for goes insolvent, taking into account the different types of contract in the sector.

The Labour party is pleased that the Government are moving in our direction by simplifying the regulatory regime on insolvency. A number of ideas proposed by the Labour party’s small business taskforce would have made the clause even more efficient, and we may well debate them later in Committee. In particular, we would criticise how only 21% of D1 reports submitted by insolvency practitioners under this Government have resulted in a disqualification, which is down from 45% 10 years ago. It ought to be easier for insolvency practitioners to expose delinquent directors. We all recognise that the small minority of bad directors can cause significant problems to our economy and to law-abiding and respectable businesses, their suppliers and their staff. There should be a greater drive by the Government to ensure that people in that minority of cases are brought to book. This clause is a welcome move in deregulation. It shows a more positive approach from the Government.

Before I sit down, I want to reflect on the Minister’s comments about the industry in Tuesday’s sitting, because I thought they were quite revealing. I appreciate that sometimes things are said in the heat of the moment that we would not have considered saying with more reflection. However, it would be of interest to the Committee to know whether this really was the Minister’s view. He appeared to allege that R3 and the industry were involved in restrictive practices. I will remind the Minister exactly what he said. In defence of his Bill, which had so little external support, he said that he considered the Labour party

“to be on the side of insolvency practitioners”,

and that it is

“not surprising that established practitioners do not want competition…established practitioners often want restraint, restriction and protectionism.”

That is quite a serious allegation to make against the industry and its representative body. Is that the Government’s position? The Minister further said that arguing against clause 4 was to argue

“the case of the insolvency practitioner on issues like protectionism, restraint of trade and restriction.”––[Official Report, Deregulation Public Bill Committee, 4 March 2014; c. 226.]

If it is the Government’s position that the industry is guilty of restraining trade, of protectionism and of restricting new entrants to the market—when the industry itself is saying that clause 10 will restrict the capacity of small organisations to enter the market—it would be good for the Minister to confirm that. However, if it was one of those things that gets said in the heat of battle and does not reflect the Government’s view of the industry, it would be useful if the Minister put the record straight.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

May I begin by applauding the constructive attitude of the hon. Gentleman, and indeed of R3, which I understand has been helping him, and certainly the Committee, with clauses 11 and 12? Speeding up the process of disqualification proceedings, which the hon. Gentleman was asking for, will happen as a result of the changes. We can be conciliatory today on clauses 11 and 12.

On clause 10, the Government’s case is that competition lowers costs. For example, reducing practitioners’ training costs will help their customers who desperately need to become bankrupt and to have voluntary arrangements and respite from their creditors. I do not apologise for making that point forcefully; I want to illustrate the difference between the Labour party, which is arguing for the status quo, and the Conservative members of the coalition, who are making the point that economic freedom, competition and lower fees and costs for training are good things.

I have nothing against the world and industry of insolvency practitioners; they provide relief for many people, and I pay tribute to their good work. However, as Members on both sides of the Committee know, established practitioners in any profession are not always keen for there to be competition and lower costs, which can hit their bottom line.

Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife)

A couple of moments ago the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to be suggesting that only Conservative members of the coalition were in favour of lowering costs. Will he clarify what he meant by that?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

There is a difference between “and” and “or”, and I said “and”. My point is that we are a coalition, and the Conservative members of it support the point that I was making.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

And the Liberal Democrats.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Indeed, the Liberal Democrats do as well.

Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife)

Stop digging.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I always like to wave the flag for Conservative views on economic freedom, competition and the like. I have said enough; we are not arguing over the clause, so I commend it to the Committee.

Clause 13 - Recorded rights of way: additional protection

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

The clause is an element of a balanced package of reforms agreed by consensus at the stakeholder working group, whose members come from a cross-section of interested parties. It might help Members to know precisely what the range of the group’s membership is. As we heard in the evidence session, it includes the Country Landowners Association, the Ramblers, the Open Spaces Society and local authorities. Members will agree that that is a good representation from the organisations that have an interest in these issues.

The clause will remove the burden from local authorities of re-examining the historical documentary evidence about long-established rights of way and protect those rights for the public. The clause will remove those burdens by ensuring that, after the cut-off date of January 2026, just as under the existing provisions, it will not be possible to add any public rights of way to the legal record or upgrade them on the basis of evidence of their existence before 1949; nor will it be possible to remove rights of way or downgrade them on the basis of pre-1949 evidence that the rights in question did not exist.

Under the current law, it is possible for a person to apply to a surveying authority to have the legal record of rights of way modified if they have evidence that a modification is needed. The modification could add a right of way to the legal record or upgrade the status of a right of way shown on it. Equally, the modification could remove a right of way from the record or downgrade the status of a right of way. Such an application would trigger not only a change in the legal record, but an investigation of the evidence underpinning the application. That investigation, which is based largely on historical documents, can be very time-consuming and impose a significant administrative burden on local authorities. The clause will relieve local authorities of the burden of having to re-examine cases decided long ago by painstakingly investigating and examining often complex and obscure legal documents, where routes have been on the legal record and been used and enjoyed by the public for many years.

By reducing administrative burdens on local authorities—I know from talking to a number of Members that that is a concern for them—we can help to ensure that the 2026 cut-off date can be met. The closure of the definitive map to historical rights of way will give certainty to landowners that public rights of way over their land will not be recorded after that date and provide certainty to the users of rights of way that they retain their rights.

Landowners and farmers have had more than 50 years since the relevant 1949 Act to make applications to the relevant surveying authority where an error may have been made. Just as it is time to provide more certainty to landowners about rights of way across their land, it is right to provide certainty to the public about the routes that they can use. We also want to save local authorities the significant burden of having to re-examine old rights of way cases. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. With your permission, I shall briefly make a few broader points about clauses 13 to 19 as a whole to aid our progress. I begin by paying tribute to the former Secretary of State for Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). The process has cross-party support, because it began under the previous Government and the small matter of a general election impeded the progress that was being made on the implementation of the clauses.

We support clauses 13 to 19. I want to pay tribute to the stakeholder working group, because bringing together a diverse range of interests in a common cause was a difficult and contentious process. I am sure that other Committee members have had representations made to them about additional clauses that could have been inserted. We all note the comments in the working group’s evidence session, when they said that there was perhaps still work that they would want to do going forward. Our view is that we really have to wait and see what the working group comes up with before we make any further amendments.

In that spirit, having put those broad remarks on the record, we very much support clause 13, as we do the rest of the clauses. It would be an understatement to say that they are simply tidying things up, but they are fairly logical steps. It is probably a good example of deregulation, because as the Parliamentary Secretary indicated, this is about reducing the bureaucracy and burden where it is appropriate to delete a right of way. With that, I shall bring my remarks to a close.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Chope. I obviously do not wish to take a different view to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, but I have one or two questions. The working group agreed the changes, as I understand it, or accepted them. Will the Minister say whether there was enthusiastic support for the changes, or an uneasy acquiescence, especially from the Ramblers and those who want to secure public access to the countryside? Were they reluctant and uneasy in their support, and did they go along with things in a spirit of acquiescence rather than enthusiasm? That is one concern.

There is also a concern as rights of way across large tracts of land often provide strips of land for wildlife and environmental benefits—hedges, for example. Has sufficient regard been paid to the environmental impact of abandoning rights of way? If landowners and farmers can strip away hedges and strips of land, it will no doubt make their farming a more profitable business, but it will not necessarily improve the local environment.

Those are just a few thoughts and concerns. I recently went on a ramble with our local Ramblers group. Indeed, I featured in a photograph in one of its recent journals, which was a great pleasure. I want to ensure that ramblers’ rights and views and people’s right of access to land will not suffer in any away because of the clause, which tidies up the current provisions.

The one other point on access is that there is a strong view among ramblers, landowners and others that motorised vehicles should not have access to unmetalled roads. That is perhaps not addressed by the clause, but it is something that we ought to support.

John Cryer (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I have one brief question for the Minister. I do not want to delay the Committee, but the question is a bit too long for an intervention.

Possibly as with other members of the Committee, the general secretary of the Open Spaces Society, Kate Ashbrook, has written to me. I met her a number of years ago, and she said that there was an agreement at the working group, which the Minister has mentioned, that a stakeholder review panel would be constituted to monitor the Bill’s implementation after Royal Assent. Will the Minister confirm that the stakeholder review panel will be constituted after Royal Assent?

Chris Williamson (Labour, Derby North)

I will take a small moment of the Committee’s time this morning to endorse most of what my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North said. Access to the open countryside is clearly important. There is a strong Labour movement tradition of securing those rights, not least of which, in my home county of Derbyshire, was the mass trespass in the 1930s to gain access to the Peak district, although more can be done to open up the Peak district and other wilderness areas of the country to an even greater extent.

I endorse nearly everything that my hon. Friend said, but I have a word of caution on the access of motorised vehicles to unmetalled roads. I understand that there are concerns, but I have been contacted by a constituent who is a member of a vintage motorcycle group that uses unmetalled roads across the country. The group assures me that it uses the roads responsibly, although I know that, in certain circumstances, there is tension between walkers and people who want to access rights of way with motorised vehicles. As my hon. Friend points out, there is no reference to that in the Bill. If there is a move to introduce restrictions on motorised vehicles, it should be done responsibly and not prevent responsible people, such as my constituent and the members of his group, from enjoying the countryside in the way that they choose.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

All the contributions have been helpful in clarifying the clause’s intent. I am happy to underline the point, made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, there was activity in this area under the previous Government, but it was fortunately interrupted by the general election. The coalition Government have continued the process. I echo his thanks to the stakeholder working group for putting together a package. Members are probably surprised that the group was able to reconcile the views of organisations as disparate as the Ramblers and the Country Land and Business Association in producing that package. It is worth underlining, however—this responds to other points made—that the package should be taken in its entirety. As the Opposition have not tabled any amendments to the clause, that package will henceforth proceed, and I hope that, when it arrives in the House of Lords, it will also be seen as a package. That, however, is for it to deal with.

Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife)

Just for avoidance if doubt, I was trying to make it clear that we do not see the need for amendments at this stage, but I cannot make any guarantees for Report or the Lords. I do not have your wisdom and foresight, Mr Chope, so I will have to reserve judgment on what we may choose to do.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Nor do I have Mr Chope’s wisdom and foresight. We will leave it to the Opposition to decide what they want to do on Report, but the fact that no amendments have been tabled to the rights of way clauses is a good indication.

David Rutley (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I would also like to applaud the way in which the group has worked together: it is unprecedented, and should definitely be welcomed. Despite the points made by the Opposition, will the Minister confirm that there are no dissenting voices and that the group is continuing to work together in a spirit of unity?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I can certainly confirm that the group has worked hard and that, as part of that process, compromises have been made. So far, I am aware of no concerns from the group in relation to the package. However, a number of those involved have expressed concerns that should amendments come in from one or other of the organisations represented on the stakeholder working group, they would want to discuss that matter to ensure that the amendments represented the view of the whole group. However, we are not at that stage, and we are not currently considering any amendments, albeit that the Opposition have indicated that they may table some on Report.

Andrew Bridgen (Conservative, North West Leicestershire)

Will the stakeholder working group continue its work, perhaps to resolve other issues of conflict between landowners and users of the countryside such as the Ramblers, or, having done this work, will it be disbanded?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

We will seek its advice on the review panel, so that will require it to continue. That is my understanding of how things stand. The hon. Member for Luton North asked whether the organisations had an uneasy acquiescence. I have indicated that getting a package together on which they could all agree required compromise. I am not sure whether that was uneasy acquiescence. He also flagged up environmental concerns. I am confident that there are no implications from that point of view. Perhaps the only area in which that might be flagged up is the clause on gates that we will come on to later. My understanding, however, is that there will be no risk to the environment, and I would not want there to be any such risk.

The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead asked about the review process. The Government’s first objective is to put in place the primary legislation needed to give effect to the rights of way reforms package. We will then prepare the secondary legislation and guidance needed to implement the stakeholder working group’s remaining proposals.

With the stakeholders’ consensus in mind, and to ensure that the benefits of the reforms can be realised equitably across the full range of stakeholders, the package as a whole will be brought into effect when all those elements are in place. That will include the commencement order for the 2026 cut-off date, given that the commencement of the provisions was one of the group’s recommendations, and that it agreed that the package should be implemented as a whole. As I mentioned in response to an intervention, the stakeholder working group’s advice will be sought on the constitution of the review panel, as was set out in another of the group’s proposals. The panel will be able to advise on how well the reforms are working and whether any further measures need to be taken before the cut-off date.

The hon. Member for Derby North referred to motorised vehicles and to the Peak district. He may not be aware that I spent some of my childhood in Derby, or in Mickleover, and enjoyed trips to the Peak district. We would often drive up at the weekend in my family’s Austin Princess.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Very smart!

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Well, for those people who know what an Austin Princess is, I must say that our car was not the “smart” version; it was very much the second-hand version that someone wanted to get rid of because it ate petrol like nobody’s business. However, we would go up to the Peak district, walk and inevitably fall in the river, before coming back soaking wet. Nevertheless, I enjoyed those trips and I certainly want to ensure that what the Government propose will facilitate the use of rights of way in beautiful places such as the Peak district.

On the subject of motorised vehicles, we believe that there should be a proper debate about their use on public rights of way. However, to date there has been insufficient consultation on this issue for us to consider introducing measures relating to it in this Bill. I just want to make it clear that there is nothing in this Bill that pertains to that issue.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

The hon. Member for Derby North mentioned the mass trespass in 1932 on Kinder Scout. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the National Trust and the national park authorities do a wonderful job in maintaining the peat and dealing with the footpaths on Kinder Scout, and that that work has been very successful during recent years?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I am indeed happy to confirm that, and I commend the work done by the National Trust. I have to declare an interest as a member of the trust; I suspect that many other Members here are, too. I also commend the national park authorities on the positive work that they do to maintain our environment for all of us to use and enjoy.

I believe that I have responded to all the points made. I am pleased that we have consensus on clause 13, and I commend it to the Committee.

Clause 14 - Unrecorded rights of way: protection from extinguishment

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

The clause is another part of the stakeholder working group’s package of recommendations. It will enable surveying authorities to avoid unnecessarily duplicating the work of the voluntary sector, which carries out research into historical public rights of way. The voluntary sector’s research into rights of way is significant in scope, and its research leads to many applications to have unrecorded rights of way shown on the definitive map and statement. Consequently, there will be a considerable saving of resource to local authorities as a result of this provision.

The clause empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations that enable a surveying authority to designate any right of way, in order to defer its extinguishment for a period of 12 months after the cut-off date of 1 January 2026. Before the 12-month period expires, authorities will have to decide whether to make an order to add the right of way to the legal record, and therefore preserve it, or allow it to be extinguished. This means that surveying authorities will be able to wait until after the 2026 cut-off date to make a full assessment of all the applications made by the voluntary sector to have rights of way recorded. Any right of way covered by an application will be protected from extinguishment, if the evidence on it is persuasive, so authorities can concentrate their effort on protecting useful rights of way that are not already covered by an application.

The 12-month period will also help to deal with the possibility that there will be a large volume of applications to surveying authorities immediately prior to the 2026 cut-off date for modifications to be made to the definitive map and statement, in order to show rights of way that are currently unrecorded. That will enable local authorities to better manage resources ahead of the cut-off date. This provision will also benefit the public at large by enabling authorities to ensure that useful, or potentially useful, rights of way are not lost for ever. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife)

I will be brief. All hon. Members have been struck by the cross-party challenge that we face over the 12 years remaining until the 2026 deadline. As we heard from the witnesses in the evidence session, no one is under any illusions about the fact that a huge amount of work has to be done. We believe that the clause is a sensible back-stop measure that will help us to achieve that common goal.

I have been struck this morning by what a consensual debate we are having. I cannot remember whether you were on your sabbatical, Mr Chope, when the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 was going through Parliament, but it is amazing how we have come on during the 14 years since then, and how we are all pulling together to make the rights of way work.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his brevity and the appropriateness of his comments. He should not read too much into the fact that there is consensus on this matter, because I doubt that it extends to other areas of policy.

Clause 15 - Conversion of public rights of way to private rights of way

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

The clause will ensure that where a public right of way is used by an individual to gain access to their own property, and that right of way will be extinguished at the cut-off date of 1 January 2026, the individual will be granted a private right of way to enable them to continue to access their property. Without such a provision, the extinguishment of a public right of way might cause real difficulties and considerable hardship for the individuals concerned. The Government clearly do not wish an individual who previously gained access to land or property through a public right of way to lose their right of access at the 2026 cut-off date. Clause 15 protects any person who has an interest in land that is affected by the 2026 cut-off date from the burden of any loss of access to it.

This is a common-sense provision, designed simply to maintain the status quo as far as individuals’ right of access is concerned. A similar provision was successfully introduced in the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, which extinguished significant numbers of unrecorded rights of way for motor vehicles, and clause 15 will operate in the same way as that provision.

Clause 16 - Applications by owners etc for public path orders

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

The clause removes a burden on landowners who are prevented from making a formal application for the diversion or extinguishment of a public right of way by a restriction in the “right to apply” provisions on the prescribed types of land use. The clause also gives the Secretary of State the power to determine not to make a diversion or extinguishment order in appeal cases where it is considered that the merits of the appeal do not warrant it. The “right to apply” will enable a landowner to make a formal application to an authority to divert or extinguish a right of way. With that will come a right of appeal to the Secretary of State if the authority refuses or fails to act.

The clause corrects flaws in the original Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 provisions, which have not yet been commenced, and it removes one of the impediments to the “right to apply” being introduced. The “right to apply” is currently limited to those applying for a diversion or extinguishment of a right of way on land that is used for agriculture, forestry, or the breeding or keeping of horses—one might call that “horsiculture”. In many cases, however, there will be good reason for diverting or extinguishing a public right of way over other types of land. For example, a right of way might pass through commercial premises, where there might be health and safety issues, or through the garden of a family home, where privacy and security would be threatened.

That restriction on the types of land for which a landowner can formally apply for a diversion or extinguishment is a significant anomaly in the legislation. The current legal position places an unnecessary constraint on landowners other than those engaged in agriculture, forestry or the keeping of horses. It places a burden on other types of business operations, for example, and on householders through whose garden a right of way passes.

We intend to supplement the clause with guidance agreed by the rights of way stakeholder working group. The guidance will direct local authorities to work on the presumption that, wherever practicable, public rights of way should be removed, on application, from family gardens, working farmyards and commercial premises where privacy, safety or security is a significant concern.

The first part of clause 16 will make the necessary legal amendments to the Highways Act 1980 to allow the Secretary of State to prescribe in regulations other kinds of land in England in respect of which diversion or extinguishment applications may be made.

The second part of clause 16 will remove a potential burden on the Secretary of State where there is an appeal against a local authority’s decision not to make an order. In such cases, the Secretary of State is currently required to prepare a draft order regardless of the quality and merits of the appeal. It seems only right that the Secretary of State should have some discretion to decide whether to make an order.

Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife)

I suspect that this is one of the more contentious debates had within the stakeholder working group over the past few years. Many hon. Members will have had representations on the issue in recent months and years.

We must acknowledge that there is a tension between, on the one hand, the Ramblers and others who, as has been said, have established over a long time the public’s right to roam the countryside and, on the other, understandably, the rights of individuals to privacy in their family environment and the rights of business premises.

When the Scottish Parliament was debating the right to roam, it came down on the issue of curtilages. That is one of the examples where the Scottish Parliament, when it introduced the right of way in 2001, made exemptions. It is therefore pleasing to see the English once again catching up with us Scots.

The key thing that I am sure the Minister will want to put on the record is that when it comes to farm premises, which often have tracks or roads passing through them, the onus will be on the farmer to demonstrate that there is significant adverse impact on their business. As I am sure hon. Members will know, there have been a small number of cases, regrettably, where there were disputes because farmers simply did not want to allow access through their land. I hope that the Minister will reassure us about what emphasis he expects the Secretary of State to place on the word “significant”.

Andrew Bridgen (Conservative, North West Leicestershire)

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that there are health and safety risks to the public? There are few places more dangerous than a farmyard with regard to health and safety. Walking straight through the middle of a busy farm environment can be tremendously dangerous for the public.

Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife)

Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. As someone who represents a rural constituency and talks to farmers, I agree entirely. In 2001, during the foot and mouth crisis, there was cross-party consensus—everyone supported this, the Ramblers included—that we had to suspend the right, not just for the health and safety of the walker, but for the protection of animals from disease, and because of working practices.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but we do not want—I am sure the Minister will be happy to confirm this—that small group of farmers who do not like the rights of access to be able simply to say, “I am going to take away the rights of access because they happen to pass through my property.”

David Rutley (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. As a representative of a rural seat, does he recognise that, in that mix, it will be vital that there is adequate education for walkers to ensure that, for example, when they take dogs with them, they do not scare livestock, which could cause real danger? A balance has to be struck. What does he think about that?

Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife)

I am again slightly confused. We are having a good debate about important issues. The hon. Gentleman is right, and I am sure all colleagues would agree, that there is a need to consider that minority. We are talking about minorities: minorities of farmers and minorities of people who perhaps abuse the rights of access to countryside. That is particularly relevant to the lambing season.

It is a big issue and I know from my constituency that it is a source not just of frustration but of business loss if people do not behave responsibly. Perhaps I could tempt the Minister to say a bit more about that and how the Secretary of State will ensure that the valid point about education is dealt with. The key point is what is judged a significant impact. I support the work of the working group. I hope the Minister will say a few words about how we are to strike the right balance once the measure is implemented.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have produced draft guidance on diversion or extinguishment of rights of way that pass through gardens, farmyards and commercial premises. That draft guidance will take on board the comments that hon. Members are making. That is part of the process of consulting on it.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that when that was circulated there was some information about how the guidance would be used. I would like to draw his attention to it. The draft guidance has been agreed by the rights of way stakeholder working group. The concerns of the Ramblers, for instance, about farmers unilaterally deciding to block a right of way would have been articulated in the working group, and the working group is content with the guidance. It is intended to make local authorities work on a presumption that, wherever practicable, public rights of way should be removed on application from family gardens, working farmyards and commercial premises, where privacy, safety or security is a significant concern.

We could clearly get into an argument about what constitutes a significant concern around safety, security or privacy, but I hope that local authorities will interpret that in the way that both the hon. Gentleman and I would like. If a farmer simply objects because they do not want people walking through their land, that is one thing. If a farmer objects because the route takes walkers through land where there is regularly heavy machinery moving around that could present a threat, I think the local authority would consider that in that circumstance it would be appropriate to take action.

I hope that is adequate clarification for the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife and I commend the clause to the Committee.

Clause 17 - Extension of powers to authorise erection of gates at owner’s request

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Clause 17 gives landowners a new land-management tool, by providing a method by which they can obtain consent to erect gates on restricted byways and byways open to all traffic. They are currently burdened by being unable to gate byways where it is necessary for stock control. Local authorities already have the power to authorise the erection of gates on other types of public rights of way, such as footpaths and bridleways. It is a significant drawback that the statutory provision does not also include byways. The clause seeks to remedy that problem.

Local authorities would now be able to give statutory authorisation to such gates on byways where a landowner makes an application to them. The clause would simplify the law by removing that unnecessary restriction to the way that farmers can manage their land, in particular in relation to the way that they control their livestock. Where byways run through agricultural land it makes sense that a farmer is able effectively to manage his livestock through the use of gates. That provides for the security of the livestock and helps the farmer.

An additional benefit is that, as a consequence of the amendment made by the clause, farmers may be less likely to get embroiled in long and costly disputes, in spite of the evidence, over orders to add a byway to the legal record. Farmers’ principal concerns about byways tend to be that the existence of a byway makes stock management more difficult. By making it easier for farmers to erect the gates that are necessary for their stock management, we are likely to resolve a number of the disputes that we see over the issue of byways.

By limiting the number of disputes, we will see a reduction in the number of applications and appeals to the local authority, and so reduce the burden on them. The move will benefit those farmers who need to manage their stock at the same time as balancing the needs of those who use the byways. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife)

I shall be incredibly brief. Again, we think this is a sensible step and, as the Minister has said, it came out of the working group. As far as I am aware, this was one of the less controversial measures, because it seeks to provide greater support to farmers while protecting, in a common-sense way, the right of access, so we will be supporting the clause today.

Chris Williamson (Labour, Derby North)

I wonder whether the Minister could give me some reassurance. I go back to my constituent who is a member of the Vintage Motor Cycle Club, because although erecting gates will not unduly impede the progress of, say, a rambler walking along a right of way, it would have a significant impact on the enjoyment of rights of way by people who are involved in the Vintage Motor Cycle Club. I wonder whether a more pragmatic and sensible alternative—this would safeguard the rights of farmers, as well as enabling unimpeded access for members of the Vintage Motor Cycle Club and others who want to use motorised vehicles on rights of way—would be to use a cattle grid instead in order to contain livestock, rather than putting up a gate. A cattle grid with a smaller gate alongside it would enable horse riders still to use the rights of way. However, for people who are enjoying the rights of way on a vintage motorcycle, having to get off and on again to open a gate would perhaps be a step too far in terms of tilting the balance in favour of the farmer, at the expense of other members of the community who want to enjoy the rights of way in the manner that I have outlined.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

Unusually, I take a slightly different view to my hon. Friend, because I have had friends and representatives lobbying me over access for motor vehicles, as there is the problem of the land and rights of way being degraded by tyres and of the land being worn away. As a former motorcyclist and vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary historic vehicles group, of which you, Mr Chope, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead are members and officers, I am keen that reasonable access is accorded, but it could be on designated routes, instead of general access to vehicles. Even though my constituency is purely urban, there are fields just on the edge of it where young people in particular ride motorbikes, causing tremendous mayhem.

Chris Williamson (Labour, Derby North)

Maybe my hon. Friend and I are closer than he first thought. He proposes a very sensible compromise about designated rights of way that could be used by motorised vehicles, so our normal agreement on most matters is back on track.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention, and I am sure we can agree on that. I just sound a note of caution to make sure that the views of environmentalists and those who want to preserve the environment and countryside are noted.

Andrew Bridgen (Conservative, North West Leicestershire)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the erosion of land by motor vehicles on rights of way is a concern, especially after adverse weather conditions? When it has been particularly wet, as it has recently, that can have a very severe impact on the land.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

Yes, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is a big difference between big, four-wheel-drive vehicles which go on to land and churn everything up, stripping away the earth from a bridleway or whatever, and a motorcycle, for example, which is much less damaging. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North says, however, perhaps we can compromise by having areas where it is accepted for motorcycles to go, without having general access to the countryside for motorised vehicles of any kind, because of the damage that can be done. That is to speak in favour not of farming interests, but of the environmental interests, which I am sure we all share.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I am happy to respond to those points. I am pleased to see that the split on the socialist flank of the Labour party was resolved during the course of the debate and that those Members have rejoined.

On what the hon. Member for Derby North said, I will have to find out whether cattle grids were considered as an alternative proposal. The stakeholder working group might have had a difficult time reaching a consensus on it, so it could have been part of their deliberations but been ruled out as an option. I will have to get back to the hon. Gentleman.

Andrew Bridgen (Conservative, North West Leicestershire)

Perhaps my right hon. Friend could clarify something that I was at a loss to understand about the Vintage Motor Cycle Club and the inability to open gates. Was he talking about vintage motorcycles or vintage motorcycle riders?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I would not want to cast aspersions on the athletic abilities of the riders of those bikes. I was about to suggest, however, if the hon. Member for Derby North has seen “The Great Escape”, that there is clearly an alternative to opening gates, which is simply to jump over them.

The hon. Member for Luton North suggested that the provision could be restricted to designated routes. I will need to get back to him on that, but it is worth pointing out that gates are already authorised in some cases on ordinary roads. The provision is therefore in line with actions that already happen. The byways are generally used for recreational purposes, so one might assume that the gentleman or woman on the vintage motorbike would not be racing to get from A to B and, therefore, the requirement to stop, enjoy the scenery, open the gate, go through it and close it will not have a great impact on their leisure.

I commend the clause to the Committee.

Clause 18 - Applications for certain orders under Highways Act 1980: cost recovery

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

The clause changes existing legislation to enable both local authorities and the Secretary of State to operate on a full cost recovery basis when dealing with applications by landowners for a diversion or an extinguishment order under the right to apply, as introduced by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and amended by clause 16 of the Bill. The right to apply will enable a landowner to make a formal application to divert or extinguish a right of way, and with it will come a right of appeal to the Secretary of State if the authority refuses or fails to act.

The right-to-apply provisions, however, are framed in such a way as to impose a centrally prescribed fee on local authorities, which means that some local authorities charge too much and some too little. The existing law around cost recovery for the process is therefore unsatisfactory. A local authority might be discouraged from processing an application for a diversion, as it could be burdened with substantial costs by being unable to recover them in full. A landowner might therefore be unfairly treated by not having his right of way diverted.

Under the current law, local authorities may recover part of their costs from a landowner when making a diversion or extinguishment order, but cannot be sure of recovering all of their costs. Local authorities are consequently reluctant to respond to applications to make such orders where they involve public expenditure, but are of benefit wholly or mostly to the landowner.

The first part of the clause will remove the centrally prescribed fee, leaving the way open for local authorities to recover their actual costs through the existing regulations. As part of the rights of way reforms package, we will be amending those regulations to enable full cost recovery, while ensuring that recovery does not exceed the actual cost.

The second part of the clause extends the existing arrangements under which the Secretary of State’s costs of handling an appeal may be recovered. At present, only the costs of an inquiry or a hearing may be recovered. The amendment will enable the costs of appeal conducted by the exchange of written representations also to be recovered. The amount charged may still be less than the actual cost, where the local authority or the Secretary of State judges that a diversion is in the public interest. However, it is right that where diversion or extinguishment is of benefit wholly or mostly to the landowner, it should not be funded through public expenditure. The clause will remove a significant impediment to implementing the right to apply, and I commend it to the Committee.

Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife)

I am grateful to the Minister for sending over the impact assessment for clause 16 yesterday. I am therefore slightly disappointed that we did not receive the economic assessment of the costs for clause 18. I want to press the Minister on this issue. What estimate have the Government made of the costs to the applicant? We all want to reduce the burdens on landowners—for example, farmers—when they make an application. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister provided a figure for the fee that he anticipates will be recovered from the applicant.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I can provide some clarification, but perhaps not in detail that he requires. Clearly, the costs will vary considerably across the country. They will depend on whether there are objections to the order and whether the matter goes to a public inquiry. It is therefore difficult to give him the precise guidelines on the costs that he seeks. The important thing is that there will be full cost recovery, but local authorities will not be allowed to make a return—a profit—when they process the application. As I have said, when there is public interest, the local authority may choose not to pass on the full processing costs.

Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife)

I am slightly disappointed by the Minister’s answer, although I accept that he does not have the figures to hand. In the spirit of co-operation, will he undertake to write to Committee members after today’s sitting to set out the range of figures? If he gives that undertaking, we can proceed in good grace.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I am happy to write to the Committee to set out whether there is additional information that can provide greater precision on the likely costs. The difficulty is that the costs will vary depending on things such as the complexity of the application and whether it goes to appeal. Nevertheless, I will provide more clarity if it can be made available.

Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife)

I am grateful for that intervention, but I am genuinely surprised. The Government—I am not making a political point—say that the Bill is about reducing burdens, and they have obviously done a lot of work on it, so they must have a range of figures. I appreciate that the Minister will need to ask his officials to dig out the relevant paperwork, but it is not beyond the wit of the Government to tell the Committee whether the process will cost £50 or £50,000. I am trying to be helpful by suggesting that they give the Committee the range of costs. I take the Minister’s point that the costs will vary; it is horses for courses. Will he write to us and say, “This is based on experience.”? Clearly, the Government would not have introduced the clause if they did not have an idea of what the burden on businesses will be.

Toby Perkins (Labour, Chesterfield)

My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way, as always. It is not self-evident that the Government would not have introduced the measure without knowing how much it will save. They have introduced it without knowing how much it will save.

Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife)

My hon. Friend is perceptive. I am not sure whether “scooby” is a parliamentary word—it is certainly a word in Scotland—but it appears that the Government do not have a scooby about the cost. I am surprised because we have repeatedly heard, as I am sure the Members who served on the Joint Committee will have done, that the Bill is about reducing burdens.

I am slightly nervous that the Government do not seem to know what the cost to landowners and farmers will be. However, I suspect that while I have been on my feet the Minister may have received some inspiration, so if he wants to intervene on me I shall be happy to give way.

Andrew Bridgen rose—

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I am happy to intervene. Inspiration sometimes comes in a flash in Committee, and I appreciate that. We have some research on the matter, and I am in a position to give a range of figures for the likely cost. I shall happily write to the hon. Gentleman and other members of the Committee setting them out.

Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife)

I am grateful. If the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire still wants to intervene, I am happy to give way.

Andrew Bridgen (Conservative, North West Leicestershire)

Surely, the hon. Gentleman knows from his own experience how contentious, protracted and expensive disputes over rights of way can be and understands that anything that cuts the time will cut the expense.

Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife)

I am conscious that you may pull me up, Mr Chope, for reopening a debate that we have already had, but the clause is really about who pays and the transfer of that, rather than the simplification of overall bureaucracy: I shall try to avoid temptation. Given the generous offer by the Parliamentary Secretary to write to members of the Committee, I am more than happy to express our continued support for the clause.

Clause 19 - Public rights of way: procedure

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I shall be suitably brief. The clause introduces schedule 6.

Schedule 6 - Ascertainment of rights of way

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Schedule 6 introduces modifications to the existing procedures for making and processing applications and legal orders to record and alter public rights of way. Those modifications will either streamline existing procedures or provide simpler alternative procedures to reduce the administrative burden on applicants, local authorities and landowners. The schedule is the meat of how we shall ensure that local authorities can process applications much more quickly than before.

Schedule 6 will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing the transitional arrangements for applications for a definitive map modification order made before the new procedures come into force. It is in five parts. Part 1 contains two new procedures that will make it easier and simpler in England to change the record in certain circumstances. The first procedure provides for regulations to be made setting out a simplified, less burdensome, procedure for making basic factual corrections to obvious administrative errors in the legal record.

The second procedure provides for a simplified, less burdensome, procedure for adding a right of way to the legal record where the landowner acknowledges its existence and consents to its recording. The procedure enables the consent to be conditional on having changes to the right of way agreed with the local authority before it is recorded. The changes may include the route of the right of way, its width, or a limitation on its use, such as a gate.

Part 1 of schedule 6 will raise the threshold for the test that applies when deciding whether to make an order to change the legal record. The test will be the normal civil test of the balance of probabilities, rather than the current weaker test of whether the right of way is “reasonably alleged to subsist”.

Parts 2 and 3 introduce, respectively, proposed new schedules 13A and 14A to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The new schedules will impose a higher quality standard for applications to record rights of way, and streamline and simplify existing procedures. Proposed new schedule 13A has several key features. It will provide for a preliminary assessment of applications, so that a local authority will be able to reject, without further investigation, applications that do not show any reasonable basis for the change that they seek. The Secretary of State will be empowered to give guidance on the standards to be applied in such assessments. That will reduce the administrative burden of investigating and deciding spurious or poorly founded applications and will reduce the impact of such applications on landowners.

There are rights of appeal to the magistrates court both where an authority has failed to carry out a preliminary assessment within three months of receiving the application and, for applications that survive the preliminary assessment, where an authority has not dealt with an application within a prescribed period. The latter will replace an existing right of appeal to the Secretary of State, which is widely regarded as ineffective.

Proposed new schedule 14A sets out a new procedure for dealing with appeals against a local authority’s refusal to make an order following an application. That will reduce duplication and bureaucracy. It will prevent a case from being submitted to the Secretary of State two or more times—as might currently happen—before being resolved.

The new schedule sets out the procedures for making orders to modify the legal record of rights of way, by replacing the current schedule 15, and has the following key features. It will remove the current requirement for the local authority to give notice of an order by publication in a local newspaper. Instead, it is required to give notice by publication on the authority’s website or through the use of other digital communications media. This measure will significantly reduce the cost to the local authority of making an order.

The new schedule will enable a local authority to disregard objections that are not relevant to the decision to make an order, instead of having to submit them to the Secretary of State for a decision, as has to happen at present. That will reduce the number of cases in which the Secretary of State has to review authorities’ decisions.

The new schedule will increase the scope for the local authority and the Secretary of State to sever orders, so that only the part that is disputed need be submitted to the Secretary of State for consideration.

If an order is decided by the Secretary of State but the decision is found by the High Court to be flawed, the new schedule will enable the Court to quash the Secretary of State’s decision rather than the order. That will reduce the number of cases in which the order-making process has to start all over again from scratch.

Part 4 of schedule 6 will apply the same deregulatory measures as part 3 to the distinct context of orders that divert and extinguish rights of way under the Highways Act 1980. These measures will remove the requirement for the local authority to give notice of an order by publication in a local newspaper; enable a local authority to disregard irrelevant objections to orders; increase the scope for the local authority and the Secretary of State to sever orders; and enable the High Court to quash the Secretary of State’s decision rather than the order itself.

Part 5 makes minor amendments to the 1981 Act, in consequence of the changes introduced in parts 1 to 3.

The measures in schedule 6 will significantly reduce the burden of processing applications and orders to record and alter public rights of way, and I commend the schedule to the Committee.

Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife)

As the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated, this is the meat of these clauses. The hon. Member for North West Leicestershire made a point a few moments ago about the cost. This, of course, will be part of the point that he was rightly making about reducing the burden.

Again, we fully support these proposals. As I said at the start of my remarks this morning, they are an outcome of the stakeholder working group. I again pay tribute to it. I suspect that a fair amount of hard bargaining took place among the various interest groups. Probably the only observation that I would make is that I was slightly surprised not to have been lobbied by the association of newspapers, because of course these measures will reduce a revenue stream, but we understand entirely the logic behind them. I am told by my much younger researcher that we are in an era of new media and that people receive information in different ways.

We very much support this sensible set of measures, which will streamline the bureaucracy. As I said at the start of my remarks, we are all, across the Committee, aware of the great challenge that we face over the next 12 years to get this process done, and we will therefore support these measures today.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support and commend the schedule to the Committee.

Clause 20 - Erection of public statues (London): removal of consent requirement

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

We move on to a new matter, not related to rights of way—the erection of public statues. Clause 20 will remove the requirement on persons seeking to erect statues in public places in Greater London to obtain consent from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport before doing so. They will, however, still have to seek planning permission from the relevant local planning authority. This change does not extend to the City of London and the Inner and Middle Temples, where permission from the Secretary of State will still be required.

The clause will amend the Public Statues (Metropolis) Act 1854 by removing section 5. The section is rarely used and is of little practical benefit. The Act predates the introduction of the planning system. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides similar controls, not just in London but nationally. The change will remove double-handling of applications to erect statues. In real terms, it is expected to have low impact and only modest benefits, since on average only one case per year is referred to the Secretary of State for approval under the 1854 Act, because, in practice, people simply ignore the requirement. The clause should therefore help to simplify and streamline the planning process, without permitting a proliferation of public statues in Greater London.

Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife)

The Parliamentary Secretary has referred to the Secretary of State on a number of occasions. For the benefit of the Committee, will he clarify which of the Secretaries of State has the power at the moment?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I think I said in my opening remarks that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has the responsibility. The clause should help to further strengthen the role of local planning authorities in guiding the shape of London’s townscape. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife)

I shall be brief. As the Parliamentary Secretary says, the clause is straightforward. I understand that the hon. Member for Croydon Central is already beginning a campaign for Mr Tony Pulis to get a statue on Whitehorse lane, if Crystal Palace stay up at the end of the season. I am sure that he will support anything that makes that campaign a little easier. We will support the clause today.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

The Parliamentary Secretary said that he did not expect the change to lead to a rash of inappropriate statues across London. Not being a London Member, I defer to my London colleagues on that matter, but is it not useful to have a backstop? A local authority might want to put up a lot of statues to aldermen bigwigs, particularly in those boroughs where one party has a permanent dominance. With such rare examples of dispute, it might be useful to have the backstop of the Secretary of State. Obviously, I will not oppose the clause. My hon. Friends are supporting it and I go a long with that. Will the Minister reassure us that the change will not lead to a rash of statues to Alderman Bigwig?

James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

I merely ask for a technical clarification of the extent of the measure. Will it apply only to statues, or will it apply to other items? I am particularly thinking of big busts and other erections.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I am not sure whether it would be in order for me to respond to that last point. I shall start with the point made by the hon. Member for Luton North. The proliferation of statues to Alderman Bigwig would already have happened, because the application process is not one that tends to hit the Secretary of State in the first place. We would have to rely, and I am sure we can, on local authorities. For instance, if a proliferation of statues of Boris Johnson was thought appropriate, we would have to rely on the local authorities maintaining control to ensure that the number across London was limited.

On the point made by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East, the clause simply relates to statues. I will struggle to work out whether a bust does or does not constitute a statue or whether a statue must be full-length and include arms and legs. I will look for inspiration and if I do not get it in the next few minutes, I will respond in writing to the hon. Gentleman, so that he can have the clarity that he seeks on the subject of erections in London. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Clause 21 - Reduction of qualifying period for right to buy

James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 21, page 17, line 28, leave out ‘three’ and insert ‘two’.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 8, in clause 21, page 17, line 31, at end add—

‘(5) Within one year of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a report setting out the effect of the Government’s policy of reducing the qualification period for right to buy on the number of council houses which have been replaced on a like for like basis.’.

Clause stand part.

James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope, on an issue about which I know you care deeply. You are obviously in a different role today, and when chairing sittings, you do so impartially.

I shall start by disagreeing with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and end by complimenting him. At the outset, I should tell the Government Whip that amendment 5 is a probing amendment, rather than something I intend to push to the vote. Since tabling the amendment, however, I have received a number of pieces of correspondence that suggest that it is supported more widely than I had thought. I am not really suggesting that the period should be exactly two years but trying to probe why the right-to-buy discount period is being reduced to three years. I could easily have put 18 months or 26 months in the amendment. I half expected Opposition Members to table an amendment with a number larger than three or a different number.

A clause stand part debate is helpful because it will allow me to talk a little more about the background to the right to buy and contextualise why I tabled amendment 5. The right to buy has been a tremendous success. The changes to the right to buy that we in the coalition Government are making will further that success, but we are being too modest in our ambitions and could go a lot further.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

Would the hon. Gentleman like to mention the 8,000 people on the waiting list in Luton who cannot get a decent home? Would he like to come and tell them what a great success the right to buy has been?

James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

It is always a delight to visit Luton. The hon. Gentleman and I share an interest in airports, so perhaps if I was invited, I could come and talk about more than the advantages of the right to buy. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) is not a million miles away, so perhaps I could visit him on the way. Harlow has similar demographics, but my hon. Friend is more of my persuasion on the right to buy than the hon. Gentleman’s. I am more that happy to visit Luton if he promises a trip to the airport. I am not sure whether it is exactly within his constituency, but it is there or thereabouts.

Since the introduction of the right to buy in 1980, millions of council houses have been bought by their tenants. The scheme was one of the outstanding successes of that Government. It helped improve social mobility. It has helped people develop a sense of pride, not only in their homes, but in their whole communities. They are taking ownership of their houses, as well as their communities. They are transforming not only their front doors and inside their houses, but their streets and their neighbourhoods. For legitimate reasons, previous Governments felt that we took things in the wrong direction, so right-to-buy discounts and qualifying periods were constantly reduced, making the right to buy across parts of the country almost meaningless. In fact, in the final years of the Labour Government, there were fewer than 3,700 sales, compared with a peak of 84,000 only 10 years before.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

Decades of disastrous housing policies have seen house prices rocket to levels that in many areas mean that tenants who want to buy cannot because prices are incredibly high even with discounts.

James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

I agree that housing policy has been disastrous for decades. The root of the problem was not the right to buy, but failing to get a grip on planning and shortages overall in the private and public sectors.

Chris Williamson (Labour, Derby North)

Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the report in Inside Housing magazine in January that said that some 52,200 homes in London alone sold under the right to buy are now in the private rented sector? Obviously, the rents charged for those will be considerably higher than previously. As many of those tenants will be on housing benefit, does he think that that is a good use of the public purse?

James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

I cannot admit to having read Inside Housing magazine ever, let alone that specific article. Perhaps I can, however, deal with the general point. The rent may be more expensive, but someone will still be living in those houses, so people are still being accommodated. To look at the amendment, it would provide a one-for-one replacement strategy—we can discuss this in detail later in the debate—that is not quite as exact as building the same type of property in the same neighbourhood straightaway.

The underlying problem with the shortage of supply of cheap housing is that successive Governments have not built enough housing across the board. That is not specifically related to failures of the right to buy from the 1980s. To support that argument, if the right to buy had been the source of the problem, logically we would have seen alleviation when the previous Labour Government started to erode that right. In fact, house prices continued to rocket up, and it is still incredibly difficult for young people in my constituency and most others to get on the housing ladder, whether in private or public provision.

Chris Williamson (Labour, Derby North)

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that the right to buy might have operated better if, instead of borrowing and perverting Labour’s right-to-buy policy—it was contained in the 1959 general election manifesto—Margaret Thatcher had implemented Labour’s version of that policy. If so, we might have had a more sustainable housing market that would have accommodated people on low incomes in affordable homes and enabled people to access home ownership.

James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

I must admit that I am flabbergasted by that intervention. I have never heard a Labour Member claim before—perhaps this has been raised in the House—that their party was the forefather of the successful right to buy. [ Interruption.]

Chris Williamson (Labour, Derby North)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I was saying from a sedentary position that a right to buy council houses was contained in the Labour party’s 1959 general election manifesto. I urge the hon. Gentleman to check that document—he can google it to find it. If the Thatcher Government had pursued that policy, we would have a more sustainable housing market that would accommodate people on low incomes and give people access to home ownership as well.

James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

I do not have the advantage of having the Labour party’s 1959 manifesto in front of me. In fact, in my rush to drop the children off, I left without my iPad, which would have helped greatly. I concede that that manifesto might have contained a right to buy, but we agree that the underlying policy was fundamentally different. In discussing the clause, I will not compare the ’59 version of the right to buy with the enhanced 1980s version that was so successful electorally and socially for people in buying their houses. I will, however, compare the clause as drafted with it if amended by my amendment, which would further enhance the proposition to people across the country and particularly in Rochford and Southend East.

The Government have already invigorated the right to buy by increasing the maximum discount from £70,000 to £75,000—or £100,000 in London—and I am pleased that they are now increasing the maximum discount from 60% to 70% and allowing the £75,000 figure to increase in line with the consumer prices index. In addition, a £100 million fund will improve access to mortgage finance and new right-to-buy agents will guide people through the process. Furthermore, revenues from the additional sales will be ploughed back into delivering affordable homes, which will drive up the rate of house building across the country.

Since its introduction in 1980, more than 4,000 people in the patch that I represent in the corner of the east of England and Essex have exercised the right to buy in Rochford and Southend district. Reducing the qualifying period on the right to buy has helped them in the past. There has been a correlation in making it easier and increasing the discounts and the number of people buying. It is reasonable to expect a similar discount and qualifying period to prompt the same behaviour.

For example, in the final years of the previous Labour Government, 2008-09, only two council homes were bought in Southend-on-Sea. The following year and the first of the coalition Government, there were only five. We are reaching those figures and getting into double figures each quarter, rather than annually. There is already a change. I would encourage people in Rochford and Southend, where they can, to buy their own homes and take a stake. That is right for them and the communities they live in.

Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife)

I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. There is the danger, as he has alluded to, of arguing that if people do not own their homes, they have no stake in their community. Would he clarify that that is not what he meant to say in his last sentence?

James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

No, I do not think there is an inverse correlation to the positive correlation that I advocated. When people have a long-term residential status in an area, they have greater ownership of their streets. I use the word “streets” rather than “community” because community or neighbourhood mean something much broader. Most people who live in Southend, if they move from rented property in one part of Shoeburyness to another, have less stake in what goes on in that street; what Mrs Miggins is doing next door or in the cut through. By buying a house, someone is establishing a family in that area potentially for a longer period. They have bought into what goes on in that street. That has enormous ramifications for individuals who have purchased under the right to buy.

Going back to 1980, Lord Heseltine—not someone I would normally quote—said:

“There is in this country a deeply ingrained desire for home ownership. The Government believe that this spirit should be fostered. It reflects the wishes of the people, ensures the wide spread of wealth through society, encourages a personal desire to improve and modernise one’s own home, enables parents to accrue wealth for their children and stimulates the attitudes of independence and self-reliance that are the bedrock of a free society.”—[Official Report, 15 January 1980; Vol. 976, c. 1443.]

I believe that statement to be as true today, if not more so, than 34 years ago. In fact, that statement is so good that I almost did not attribute it to Lord Heseltine and stole it myself, but I thought more eagle-eyed members of the Committee would notice and bring me up.

I should like to talk about the two-year period. As I said in my introductory remarks, I have suggested an arbitrary period as a debating point to consider why three years was chosen. The impact assessment is slightly disingenuous. On page 1, in the section headed, “What policy options have been considered, including alternatives”, it says:

“The chosen approach (to reduce the qualifying period to three years) is in line with the original Right to Buy policy”.

Although that is absolutely true—indeed, page 6 points out that there was originally a three-year qualifying period for the right to buy—buried elsewhere in the assessment is information about what happened in 1984: the qualifying period was decreased to two years. Although we are going back to the right to buy 1980 version, rather than the 1959 version, I am arguing that the 1984 version—the third, improved version—of the right to buy was perhaps the right way.

Andrew Bridgen (Conservative, North West Leicestershire)

In going back to the 1980s, is my hon. Friend inferring that we should fire up the Quattro once again?

James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

I was a great fan of that programme and was greatly indebted to the Labour party for bringing it up during the election campaign. It was both slightly frivolous and humorous, and it went down very well in Essex. The two brothers actually came to Basildon to launch the campaign, which is not a million miles away from my patch of Southend, so firing up the Quattro and the 1984 spirit and bringing back right to buy would go down incredibly well in Rochford and Southend. It would also go down incredibly well in a number of working-class constituencies where there are council houses and people want to get on the ladder and would really appreciate it. I can see my hon. Friend sharing a visit and maybe a tour of marginals in the Quattro to debate not only right to buy but clause 21 specifically. We can explain that we were there the moment the Government conceded on amendment 5 and went for the Mk84 version of the car, rather than the earlier 1980 version.

In the impact assessment, the two-year period comes up again. I was unable to find out more details and I would appreciate a little more information from the Minister. Where I was quoting from the impact assessment and saying it was in line with the original right to buy policy, that is, for three years, it goes on to say that it helps avoid conflict with two-year flexible tenancies. In all candour, I am not a housing specialist and was unable to see what the conflict was. I would appreciate being told if that makes the two years, rather than perhaps 25 months, flawed.

I started by challenging the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar—a fellow Essex MP—to go further. However, I want to end on a quote from my right hon. Friend, in which he talked about how many people had bought into the idea of right to buy. When one’s opponents start claiming successes as harking back to 1959—but it is not just the 1959 manifesto. Right to buy has a lot of support from the unions. I illustrate this point with the case of one of Margaret Thatcher’s chief and vocal opponents, Arthur Scargill. In January this year, the BBC “Inside Out” programme uncovered that in 1993 the trade union leader himself applied under right to buy on the Barbican estate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government said:

“The revolution is complete if even comrades like Arthur Scargill want to take up the right to buy”.

I want to help comrades like Arthur Scargill. They should be able to buy their council house after two years, not three years, and I hope to debate this probing amendment in more detail.

Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife)

I suspect that you must be having a sense of the 1980s, Mr Chope, given your leading role in your days as a council leader and an early pioneer of the right to buy in your council area. The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East made a good speech and chose to use “Ashes to Ashes” as a metaphor for this. He will probably know that it turns out that it is a sense of purgatory and a limbo for dead police officers. I am not sure that is how this Committee is best described.

James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

I hate to correct the hon. Gentleman twice, but it was not I who brought up the issue; it was my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire. He did not bring it up out of chance; he brought it up because the Labour party, during the last election, took the Quattro to Basildon. That was perhaps more “Life on Mars” than “Ashes to Ashes”.

Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife)

You would probably call me out of order, Mr Chope, if I were to speculate which of the hon. Gentlemen on the Government side was Chris and which was Ray—and which one was Shaz. To return to the central issue, there is some confusion here. The Labour party supports the right to buy. In the interests of transparency, so that there is no danger that I fall foul of the rules—[ Interruption. ] Will the Government Whip calm down? I know he is excited about the game against Southampton on Saturday, but in the interests of transparency, I declare that several years ago my parents bought the house in which they lived. I spent most of my formative days in that house.

I am surprised that the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East, in an interesting opening speech, talked about trying to keep people in their community, whether they own their home or are renting, because that is one of the big arguments against the bedroom tax. The reason why the bedroom tax is such a dreadful policy is that it uproots families and communities and undermines the social fabric that Opposition Members think is so important. We believe that there is such a thing as society. Although I do not agree with him that the right to buy is necessary to establish a sense of social cohesion, the Labour party position is clear: we support the right to buy. We support the right of tenants, who have contributed to the cost of the property through their rent, to buy that property over a suitable period of time. Historically, the problem with the right-to-buy scheme is that it has not led to like-for-like replacements.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake) indicated assent.

Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife)

I am grateful to see the Parliamentary Secretary nodding along because that is what the Government told us yesterday.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

If it is true that Labour supports the right to buy, why, after the 1959 manifesto, was nothing done during the Wilson years? After the Conservatives lost office in 1997, rather than leaving the discounts in place, the Labour party cut them twice and reduced the qualifying period.

Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife)

I do not want to spend too long discussing 1959, although it was an interesting exchange, but I remember that in 1959 the Labour party was against going into the European Economic Community, which is a policy that the Law Officer now supports. It is interesting how party policies change in 50 or 60 years.

I will happily address the Law Officer’s point on what the Labour Government did after the 1997 landslide, as

“the Right to Buy policy has not involved the replacement of sales with new social or affordable homes.”

Those are not my words but the Government’s words in the document they were gracious enough to circulate yesterday. They go on to say, and it must be true because the Government say so:

“Without one for one replacement of Right to Buy sales with affordable rented homes, the social and affordable housing stock has fallen.”

We agree with the Government. We think that has always been a criticism, and it has always been my personal concern, about the right-to-buy policy that was so eloquently espoused by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East.

James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the “Reinvigorating Right to Buy and One for One Replacement” impact assessment. Interestingly, page 32 states that one-for-one replacements will sometimes not be possible. Indeed, in London, where houses are being sold, the receipts might be greater. It may be possible to build more than one-for-one replacements so that more people can be housed.

Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife)

I am grateful because, as ever, the hon. Gentleman anticipates where I will shortly be going. If he bears with me, I will address that point. If I do not address it, I am sure he will catch my eye and gently chide me to do so.

The Government themselves say:

“Without one for one replacement of Right to Buy sales with affordable rented homes, the social and affordable housing stock has fallen. This is a problem because of the prevalence of housing need. It has been estimated that there are around 1.9m households in housing need in England. Increasing the affordable housing supply remains an important way of meeting housing need and alleviating housing pressure, especially for the most vulnerable households.”

That is why we will continue to press for the one-for-one replacement policy. We think that is entirely sensible. Demonstrating that we are replacing on a broadly like-for-like basis is the way to do it. That goes back to the evidence from the Local Government Association during the afternoon sitting of our first day of evidence. We think that is a sensible way of doing it. Our concern is that we do not have the evidence that says that is what will happen.

Andrew Bridgen (Conservative, North West Leicestershire)

The hon. Gentleman is making a very good point. We have seen from the implementation of the spare room subsidy, certainly in my seat, that we need more one and two-bedroom units. I would not want the Bill to limit replacement to one-for-one, when you might be able to get a larger council house and build two single-bedroom units for the same money. I would not want the Bill to do that. Does the hon. Gentleman share that concern?

Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife)

I suspect we could have a silly debate about bedroom tax versus spare room subsidy. During your time as a Minister, you were taking through what we call the poll tax and I think you called it something else, Mr Chope. Sometimes you can get obsessed about the name of the iniquitous legislation rather than the substance of the policy. We are very clear on the substance that we want an evidence-based process. That is why we were pressing the LGA so hard on that Tuesday afternoon, Mr Chope.

I think all Opposition Members have concerns that we are making a series of assumptions about what will happen. That is why amendment 8 is about seeking the evidence. It is a simple request. I do not think it is particularly costly. Forgive me if I do not have the exact quote to hand, but as the impact assessment says—I am sure the Law Officer will have inspiration on this point when he speaks to it later on—the Government already intend to do their own internal review of the success of the policy. We are simply calling for that to be published and laid before Parliament so that we can judge the success of the policy.

The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East asked why three and not two is the right approach. We think that is a very good question. We hope that the report would let us see the impact of the policy after 12 months.

Turning to the point made by the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire: has the policy led to an appropriate replenishment of stocks? I am sure he was interested in the comments from the LGA. The Government have not answered the question why there is an arbitrary figure of three years if they believe in localism. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Secretary of State for Community and Local Government, a big champion of localism. I was slightly surprised that the Government were not suggesting that we should give local authorities the greater flexibility.

I am not sure whether we are going to get a Conservative or Liberal Democrat reply to this debate. [Interruption.] Inspiration has arrived: apparently it will be a Conservative reply. When the Law Officer replies, I would be grateful if he set out why three was chosen for a fixed period, not an arbitrary one. Why did not the Government say, in the spirit of localism, “We will give local authorities the power”? Perhaps in Wandsworth, for example, Mr Chope, they might want to do it after two years, but in Christchurch they might want to do it after four years. If you believe in localism in the way that the Government say they do, that would be a fairly logical progression.

Andrew Bridgen (Conservative, North West Leicestershire)

Is not the problem with the hon. Gentleman’s idea that in Labour-controlled areas they might never want to sell any council houses?

Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife)

The hon. Gentleman has asked me speculate without any great foundation. There is no evidence whatever that Labour areas are any less keen on right to buy than Conservative local authorities are today. I suspect that if you asked many of the Conservative leaders in the LGA, they would tell you exactly what they think of the right to buy in the current climate.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

It is not just in urban areas that there is a housing shortage. Indeed, the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) has spoken up in favour of council housing in his constituency, because farm labourers and poorer workers in rural constituencies have nowhere to live and they are increasingly being populated by wealthier people who buy up property as second homes. Even ex-council houses have been bought up as second homes for holidays by people from richer urban areas, no doubt in the south-east. So even some Government Members have some common sense about the need for more council housing.

Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife)

That is absolutely right and my hon. Friend makes the extremely valuable point that perhaps sometimes we see this issue in terms of traditional council estates and projecting urban ideas, but he is right to say that there is a particular challenge in rural areas, not least because of the funding issue.

There is another concern that Labour Members have expressed repeatedly and I just want to challenge the parties in government about it. During Labour’s glorious 13 years in government, we did not seek to abolish the right to buy; we sought, successfully, to modify the requirements and the regulation. That was not because we are against the right to buy but because we believe it has to be applied in a sensible manner.

The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East made the point about the number of right-to-buys that have taken place in his own constituency. I suspect that there are probably two reasons for that. One is that—as we all know from our constituencies—many of our constituents are struggling to get a mortgage in the first place because of the current economic climate.

Toby Perkins (Labour, Chesterfield)

I wonder whether I could encourage my hon. Friend to spell out something for the benefit of colleagues on the Government side of the Committee. Although he is absolutely right to reflect positively on many of the achievements of the last Labour Government, he will also want to put it on the record that my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) has made it clear that he thinks more housing should have been built during the last Labour Government and that he has a plan to make sure that more houses are built under the next Labour Government, which will never happen under this lot.

Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife)

Absolutely—my hon. Friend is, as ever, entirely correct. My right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party has clearly said that we have an ambition, and crucially a plan, to build 200,000 new homes if we are lucky enough to be given the chance by the electorate to serve them again.

Andrew Bridgen rose—

Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife)

I will give way and then I will make a little more progress.

Andrew Bridgen (Conservative, North West Leicestershire)

The hon. Gentleman is very generous in giving way. We have talked about rural housing. In my constituency we have a rural housing association, which goes to a village, approaches a parish council, carries out a survey of the village to assess its housing needs, and then gains planning permission through an exemption site to build one, two or three-bedroom affordable units to meet the local need. That is how we are addressing our rural housing need.

Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife)

Surely, that is a very good example of localism. Therefore, I go back to my earlier point: why are the Government not giving more scope for localism in this Bill, rather than having a one-size-fits-all approach? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wish to take that point up with the Ministers if he chooses to contribute more fully to this debate.

I will come back to the issue that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield. It is not enough for someone just to say that they will build more homes. Mr Chope, you will recall during your own distinguished career in Parliament that we have had a succession of Housing Ministers of both colours who have made grand promises, but—as my hon. Friend said—they have then failed to follow through on them. For example, I am thinking of the current Conservative party chairman—the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps)—who was, of course, previously a Housing Minister. During his tenure in office as a Housing Minister, we saw social house building fall to its lowest level for, I think, about 20 years. That was not just because of his own incompetence; it was also because of the wider economic global world that we are working in. However, building homes is a critical requirement in the coming years.

Once again, Mr Chope, because of your own distinguished service I do not need to tell you any of this; you, of course, know all this. Nevertheless, building homes is important because we have a shortage of affordable homes. I am sure that every MP across the House has an inbox full of communications from people who are waiting to find appropriately sized accommodation, and it is an absolute problem.

Andrew Bridgen (Conservative, North West Leicestershire)

The hon. Gentleman is being most generous in giving way. My constituency has a huge vested interest in the housing market; two of the largest brick companies in the country are based within my constituency, and there are also many developers in my area. New housing starts in my constituency are up 70% on last year, so we are turning the corner.

Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife)

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s observation, but we are starting from a phenomenally low base at the moment. To go from no house building to a 70% increase is a bit like Leicester City’s fortunes: they started from a low base this season and it can only get better for the Tigers. That is a good analogy. Starting from a low base, of course there will be an improvement.

The reality is that we have horrific figures about the number of people waiting not even to get on the housing ladder, but to move into affordable accommodation in which they can settle in the long term. Even the Government’s own figures show that, for every seven houses sold under the right to buy, only one home is currently under construction. That says to me that we have a serious, genuine crisis in housing. Rather than tinkering at the edges, we need to have a genuine, sustained plan. To bring my remarks back to the substantive debate—I am probably testing your patience a little bit, Mr Chope—that is why we think it is so important that we follow the evidence.

It is sensible to have a report laid before Parliament. It is not enough for the Government simply to say, “We are going to do an internal review anyway”. Events today in the main Chamber, and in recent days, have shown that the Government do not have a proper policy of reporting back to Parliament. I am sure that it was a Freudian slip by the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House when he said that Ministers were accountable to Government. I am sure that he meant to say that they are accountable to Parliament and that it was just a slip of the tongue.

In the interests of transparency and following the evidence, after 12 months there should be a report saying, “This number of properties have been sold in each area”, and “This is how they have been replaced.” Again, I take the point made by the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire; a local authority or a housing association might not have built a three-bedroom property to replace a three-bedroom property somewhere else. However, that can be contained in the report. If the Government felt that there was a good, compelling reason why it was not a straight like for like, the report could explain that.

The LGA is genuinely concerned about its business plans. I will not test your patience by quoting at length, Mr Chope, from evidence that all Committee members have at their fingertips. Although every sensible local authority and housing association will have made some contingency for the right to buy, in its evidence the LGA said that it was concerned, with the goalposts being moved in this manner—no badgers are involved in moving the goalposts—about what that would do to forward business plans. I should be grateful if the Minister set out what discussions the Department has had with the LGA about the impact on forward business plans and whether additional revenues will be made available to the LGA’s members to compensate them if there is to be a problem in the short term.

It has been a good, lively debate. The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East raised some important issues. We look forward to the Minister’s response.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

I will not get started, but I could speak for two hours unaided about housing policy. I have felt passionately about it for a long time, since I was vice-chair of the housing committee on Luton borough council 40 years ago, when we built enough council houses to house everybody on the waiting list, because we could do so at that time. It was decent housing as well.

I have to say good luck to anybody who bought their council house, because they were an absolute bargain, with massive subsidies. Who would not do it if they had half a mind? It is quite obvious; it was such an advantage. However, if buying a council house was so attractive, and one wanted to buy one’s particular house, why not pay the market price for it? It would save all the bother of moving for a start. All the capital would go to the local authority, and it could use that money to build more houses. That is not what happened. Instead, a massive subsidy was given to all the council house owners from the housing authorities’ stored equity, built up over generations of people paying their rents. The subsidy was taken out of the housing account, and that was clearly a deliberate attempt to wind down and diminish local authority housing.

Andrew Bridgen (Conservative, North West Leicestershire)

Am I correct to infer from what the hon. Gentleman is saying that he would not support a transfer of wealth from the state to the people?

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

I am happy for state wealth to be transferred to the people, but in this situation it is the other way around. Wealth is taken out of the local authority and given to the private sector. The approach was not that council houses should be sold at market value, with the profit going back into the local authority to build another house for the same price or less, if possible; it was about diminishing the local authority housing sector. One reason for that was that many Conservatives thought—I think the leader of the Conservative party at the time actually said this—“People in council houses tend to vote Labour. If we reduce the number of council houses, fewer people will vote Labour.” It was a political move and a political ploy. Of course, it worked for a generation.

Toby Perkins (Labour, Chesterfield)

My hon. Friend hits on something that is important, relevant and timely. He might be aware that the briefing from the Conservative party after the recent Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election was, “How on earth can we be expected to win that seat? It has one of the biggest council estates in Europe.” That is absolutely where the Conservatives are now.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

Indeed. The reality was that we saw forced council house sales, with forced subsidies from local authorities, diminishing not just the stock of housing, but the ability of housing authorities to build more houses. When I was on the housing committee in Luton, we got to a point where we had housed everyone on the waiting list. We thought we had a crisis when we had 4,000 on the waiting list. We now have 8,000 on the waiting list and we can do nothing about it, because so many houses have been sold.

Another point is that the houses that were sold were the most valuable, the most attractive and the best-built. They were built to high standards in the 1950s and 1960s, and they still look like new now. They are pristine, superb houses. It is the hard-to-let stuff that has been kept with the local authority, and we have more and more people in desperation trying to get a council house. They do not want to be in private rented accommodation or housing association accommodation. They want local authority housing, because the quality is better, the rents are lower and there is public accountability directly through the local authority. People know that and they tell me that. All this talk about council house sales being a wonderful thing for society as a whole is nonsense. It is beneficial to those people who bought their houses.

David Rutley (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I respect the hon. Gentleman’s strongly held views about the importance of housing. However, to be clear, is he saying that he does not appreciate the work that housing associations do across the whole country and that council houses are the only way forward? The record of the previous Government on new housing starts and council housing was pretty appalling.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

As a member of Defend Council Housing, I fought throughout that Government—I was a Member for all that period—for more local authority housing and not for local authority housing to be moved to arm’s length management organisations, housing associations or even private companies. I wanted housing to stay with the local authority and for local authorities to have the powers and resources to build more, as they did in the past.

Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife)

Just to pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield, I am not sure how he can think that our record was appalling, given that 2 million more homes were built under the previous Labour Government, of which half a million were affordable homes.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

Some houses were built, but clearly, then and now, too few have been built. We now have the worst housing stock in western Europe. We have the most densely occupied housing space in western Europe—that is, smaller floor space per person—and the situation is particularly acute in towns such as Luton, where many families with large numbers of children are living in small houses. Those housing conditions are simply not acceptable in a modern, civilised society.

Andrew Bridgen (Conservative, North West Leicestershire)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I want to attack his argument that council housing is the wonderful paradise we are all looking for. When the Conservatives wrested control of North West Leicestershire district council from Labour in 2007, after 33 years of Labour control, we had the worst council housing stock in the whole country. Indeed, it was 70% non-compliant with the decent homes standard. One of my first jobs when I became the MP was to get £21 million to bring those houses up to a decent standard. Now that those homes have been improved, I hope that people in North West Leicestershire take the opportunity under this scheme to buy them.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

No doubt some local authorities were not doing the job that they should have been doing, but that is when Government should step in and say, “You’re not doing your job. We want minimum standards.” I have always argued that local authorities, in all services, should have minimum standards applied to them. That has not been the case in recent years; I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

That was not the case in Luton. Our council has had tremendous housing officers and members who have worked hard to ensure that our housing is decent. Over time, however, because of sales, most of the nicer houses have been sold and we now have more and more desperate people squeezed into a smaller and smaller quantity of harder-to-let properties. The only solution is to build more houses. The Labour leader has now committed our party to building hundreds of thousands more houses as soon as we get into office. That is the way forward. We need 300,000 houses a year, but we are building 100,000, so we are falling further and further behind.

As I was saying, the quality of housing in Britain is lower than anywhere else in western Europe, as is the people density inside the housing. It is interesting that just this week an opinion poll was published showing that housing has become the No. 1 issue. Forcing or encouraging sales to get rid of the last few remaining decent council houses by reducing the time in which one has to live in them before buying will simply make the situation worse—infinitely worse. I want to see my party rebuild and revive the local authority housing sector, as I hope it will. Indeed, I would go further, because I want to see a fairly widespread municipalisation of, in particular, the poorer-quality private rented sector, which could then be improved and rented out as local authority homes, with public accountability and the quality that one would expect.

I could speak at greater length, as I am sure you are aware, Mr Chope, but I will leave it there for now. I oppose the amendment of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East and support that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, but the best option would be to oppose the clause standing part of the Bill.

Chris Williamson (Labour, Derby North)

If I were the metaphorical alien to whom I referred earlier in the Committee and I were sitting in the Public Gallery listening to Government Members, I could be forgiven for thinking that we did not have a housing crisis in this country today. We are living through the worst housing crisis since the second world war, but that seems to have escaped the notice of Government Members. I support the entirely reasonable amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, which Government Members, if they were interested in evidence-based legislation rather than ideologically-driven legislation, would agree to unanimously.

We are in a housing crisis. The other day, following a contribution I made about another part of the Bill, I was chided for apparently having looked at some mythical “class war” website, but it has to be said that the genesis of the crisis can certainly be traced back to Margaret Thatcher’s Government and, indeed, somewhat before that. Ted Heath’s Government said—[Laughter.] The hon. Member for Croydon Central laughs and scoffs, but he needs to listen to this. It was Ted Heath’s Government who said that housing supply had been tackled and that we therefore needed to look at a different way of subsidising housing in this country. That gave birth to the drive towards housing benefit and the inflated rents that flowed from it, rather than putting public investment into bricks and mortar. We could have built homes at affordable rents that people on low incomes could afford to live in without going cap in hand to the benefit authorities to get an additional subsidy to help them to keep a roof over their heads.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. All this started with the infamous Housing Finance Act 1972. I became a councillor at that time. It was precisely what my hon. Friend is talking about: rising rents and massive subsidies to help people to pay for them, derived directly from the philosophy enshrined in that Act.

Chris Williamson (Labour, Derby North)

That is absolutely right; I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Of course, a laudable campaign was waged in my home county of Derbyshire, by the Clay Cross rent rebels, who refused to implement that pernicious Government legislation and paid a heavy price as a consequence. It is absolutely the case that the housing crisis we are currently confronted with can be traced back to that period.

David Rutley (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I am grateful for this history lesson, going back to 1959, 1972 and all the rest of it, but we are now 40 years on. I want to look back at something a lot more recent: what happened in the 13 years when the hon. Gentleman’s party was in government. There were 400,000 fewer social houses at the end of his Government’s time in office. How does that square with his ambitions?

Chris Williamson (Labour, Derby North)

I am not going to defend our record on housing in government. We did some good things. The decent homes standard was an excellent initiative. After 18 years of utter neglect by the previous Conservative Government, it brought council houses up to a reasonable standard. That was good. We also put some investment into affordable housing, but we did not do enough, and I think we would acknowledge that. There is no point me standing here trying to defend something which, frankly, cannot be defended. We did not do enough, but the genesis of this goes back somewhat further, and that is where we need to learn those lessons.

The hon. Gentleman talks about a history lesson—[Interruption.] He says, “Come on!” from a sedentary position. If we do not learn the lessons of history, we are destined to make the same mistakes again. We need to learn those lessons and invest in housing. If we had done that during the 13 years we were in government and if Margaret Thatcher and John Major had done the right thing in housing—perhaps by adopting the 1959 Labour manifesto commitment to the right to buy and a more sustainable approach to selling council homes—we would not be in the parlous situation we are in today.

Andrew Bridgen (Conservative, North West Leicestershire)

The hon. Gentleman talks about admitting mistakes that were made. What is his personal view of the open-door immigration policy under 13 years of Labour? What impact does he think that has had on housing demand in this country?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Order. We are not getting into that area. We have enough on our plate without going into immigration.

Chris Williamson (Labour, Derby North)

Thank you, Mr Chope. I will not be tempted to stray down there, but the hon. Gentleman is misguided in his intervention, not least by straying off the point, but also on the factual basis of what he was alluding to. The issue is supply of affordable homes. There is a desperate shortage of affordable homes in our country, and of council houses. The supply of decent, affordable homes—council homes, housing association homes; indeed, affordable homes to buy—is fundamental to a cohesive and decent society.

Labour has always sold council houses—we had a manifesto commitment in 1959, but Labour authorities have always sold council houses. I am a localist. I thought that Government Members were localists; indeed, they introduced the Localism Bill 2011—although curiously enough it included 125 centralising powers for the Secretary of State. As a localist, I think it should be a matter for each local authority to determine whether to sell their houses and what the discount should be, rather than that being a centrally imposed proposition. That is why I think amendment 8, which is very clear and calls for an evidence-based approach, is so apposite.

Andrew Bridgen (Conservative, North West Leicestershire)

Does the hon. Gentleman think that if amendment 8 was adopted, there would be a disparity between different political parties’ control of areas and the policies they might pursue? Will he hazard a guess at what he thinks might happen under a Labour council?

Chris Williamson (Labour, Derby North)

I do not think it would necessarily differ. I place my trust in local government. Local government is closer to the issues at hand on the ground where it represents people. It is not a matter for us to determine what goes on in North West Leicestershire or Derby, or in any other area that we represent, such as High Peak and the rest. Surely it is a matter for the local authority to determine that.

If there is a massive housing shortage and a real problem of people not being able to access the housing they need, local authorities ought to have the discretion to build more houses, perhaps have a moratorium on selling houses or perhaps have a higher or lower level of discount, but that should be a matter for each local authority area. It is not for the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire to try and second-guess what a Labour authority, a Tory authority or a local authority controlled by a different political persuasion would do. It would make its decision based on the circumstances in the local area.

If the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire—who I understand voted for the Localism Act 2011—believes that localism means anything, surely it ought to mean giving local authorities the ability to determine housing needs and how to respond to them in the areas they represent.

Andrew Bridgen rose—

Chris Williamson (Labour, Derby North)

Does he disagree with that?

Andrew Bridgen (Conservative, North West Leicestershire)

The hon. Gentleman claims that he does not want central control or guidance on housing needs, yet he supports setting the minimum wage nationally. Does he trust councils to pay a decent wage? That has to be directed from the centre, but he does not want control on housing policy.

Chris Williamson (Labour, Derby North)

I do not think there is any question of local authorities underpaying people. They have a collective agreement with trade unions, and they reach a conclusion on the appropriate remuneration package. We are seeing interference from central Government—we are straying off the point—but the minimum wage is more about exploitation in the private sector, not in the public sector.

We are concerned about the impact on people’s ability to have a decent roof over their head, and to own their own home. I wonder what Government Members think about that. I intervened on the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East about the fact that in the capital, more than 52,000 former council homes are now in the private rented sector, and the rent charged is considerably greater than it was when they were under the local authority. That seems a curious state of affairs. It is not only in the case of former council houses that exorbitant rents are charged by profiteering landlords. It was the previous Conservative Government who deregulated private sector rents, forcing them through the roof. The Housing Minister of the day said that if people could not afford to pay market rents, housing benefit would take the strain. It certainly did take the strain; taxpayers’ money has been shovelled into the back pockets of private landlords, year on year, and housing benefit amounts to £9.5 billion every year.

This Government are spending only £1.1 billion on council homes and affordable homes for purchase. We know from Government figures that that nets 55,000 homes for rent and 12,000 affordable homes to buy, so there are 67,000 affordable homes as a consequence of investing £1.1 billion in the affordable homes programme. What if we were to switch that around, and instead of subsidising the Government’s friends in the private rented sector and private landlords, built 600,000 council houses and affordable homes? That could put people back to work, put roofs over people’s heads and stop people living rough on the streets of our capital and all our cities up and down our land.

What is happening in our country today is an absolute scandal. We are one of the richest nations on the planet—we have agreement on that, do we not? How can it possibly be right that people in this country—British citizens—are sleeping rough because they cannot get a roof over their head? Surely what we need to do is invest in decent homes to put people back to work.

Talk about rearranging the deckchairs while the Titanic sinks and missing the point. We are building fewer houses than we have done since the 1920s. We have a homelessness crisis and people who cannot afford to get a foot on the home ownership ladder because house prices have gone through the roof. People cannot even afford to live in private rented accommodation, so they are stuck in their parents’ homes. I know that from personal experience. I cannot get rid of my kids, because they cannot afford to buy. My son is a civil engineer: he ought to be able to afford a home, for goodness’ sake, but he cannot. God knows what he would do if he was working in London.

It is not working. We are not building enough council houses. So what do this Administration come up with? They do not say, “Well, we’re going to build a load more houses.” Oh, no! They say, “We’re going to get that fiddle out, and while the capital’s burning, we are going to fiddle away.” As the ship is going down, they say, “Get those deckchairs rearranged.” They are told, “But we are going down, captain. The waves will engulf us in a moment,” but they say, “It doesn’t matter; the deckchairs must be rearranged—get on with it.” [Interruption.] That is effectively what the clause—[Interruption.]

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Order. Is the hon. Gentleman giving way? He can give way only to one person at a time.

Chris Williamson (Labour, Derby North)

I thought that someone was trying to intervene. I beg your pardon, Mr Chope.

David Rutley (Conservative, Macclesfield)

It is important to give the hon. Gentleman time to breathe. I can only assume that his children do not want to leave home because of the entertainment available. We have certainly been enjoying his speech and I am sure that there are other outlets for his enthusiasm. I cannot even remember my point.

Andrew Bridgen rose—

David Rutley (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Anyway, I have served my purpose, so I will hand over to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Order. The hon. Member for Derby North must respond before he can take another intervention.

Chris Williamson (Labour, Derby North)

All I can say is that I am glad that I entertained the hon. Gentleman.

Andrew Bridgen (Conservative, North West Leicestershire)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for generously giving way. Like many Government Members, I enjoy his speeches; he reminds me why I am a Conservative. In an earlier debate, he said that he knew about the building trade because he spent four years as a bricklaying apprentice. The best thing Government Members can do is ensure that, at the next election, he can return to that trade and do his bit for the housing market.

Chris Williamson (Labour, Derby North)

If I have the misfortune of losing my seat at the next election and I have to take up tools again to start building homes, I only hope that that comes about because we have a Labour Government—I am pretty certain that we will—because we are certainly not building the homes that we need under this Administration.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

My hon. Friend made a serious point about young people having to stay at home, often into their 30s, because they cannot find housing elsewhere. That crisis has been driven by housing policy failures over decades. He will obviously be re-elected with a massively increased majority, and I am sure that part of the reason his children stay at home is that their dad is a great guy.

Chris Williamson (Labour, Derby North)

I am grateful for that vote of confidence. My hon. Friend makes a serious point that I made in a more light-hearted way. The average age for a first-time buyer who does not have the bank of mum and dad to fall back on is 37. Surely neither side of the Committee thinks that that is acceptable; it is ridiculous. I was 19 when I first bought my house as an apprentice bricklayer. We clearly need a bit more imagination and innovation from the Government.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North, I was the chair of a housing committee, in Derby. It was at a time of a Conservative Government. They came forward with a plan that we took on board and utilised. I do not know whether my hon. Friend was in the House at the time, in the mid-1990s, or whether he was chair of the housing committee in Luton. I think it was called the home release scheme; I cannot remember its precise name. This was essentially how it worked: if a local authority participated in the scheme, tenants could ask it for a cash lump sum, so that they could release the council housing in which they were living in order to buy a house on the private, open market. They could use a grant of, I think, £10,000 to put down a deposit.

If we are looking at how we deploy valuable public money, that seems a more sensible way of deploying limited public resources. It would enable an individual to fulfil their ambition of owning their own home, something that a lot of English people aspire to. There is nothing wrong with that, and we should support it. However, it would also help to ensure that we retained valuable housing stock, so that other people in housing need could be allocated a home. That is currently denied to many people because of the shortage of council housing.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

My hon. Friend is making an absolutely splendid point—one, I have to say, that I have made many times. It reinforces the accusation I made earlier that under Mrs Thatcher, the Conservative Government wanted to destroy council housing and not help people into owner-occupation. If they had given subsidies to people to buy in the existing owner-occupied sector, more houses would have come forth, because builders would no doubt have built them. That would have freed up council housing. It would not have destroyed the housing stock, and we would have had a much better housing situation now. A deliberate policy of diminishing the council housing sector drove Conservative policy at that time.

Chris Williamson (Labour, Derby North)

I think my hon. Friend is absolutely right; it was a political calculation. I think that the Conservatives believed—they were misguided—that people who owned their own home were more likely to vote Conservative than people living in a council house. Having a housing policy driven by that kind of ideological approach is really unforgivable. There should be an evidence-based approach, based on the needs of the country, not a political party’s thirst for power.

There are innovative alternatives, and there is an absolute crying need, as I have said, for more council houses to be built. That would be beneficial in a range of different ways: it would meet a social need, create jobs, create demand in the economy, and create good economic growth that would be shared by many more people, whereas simply putting lots of eggs in the financial services basket benefits the richest people in society, by and large.

A cap on private rents might be a way forward. Look at the ridiculous rents charged in the capital—but it is not just London; rents are far too expensive in the private rented sector wherever one goes in this country. We could also look at other innovative ways of helping people to get a foot on the home ownership ladder, such as revisiting some of the policies pursued by the previous Conservative Government. We could look at schemes such as the mortgage option scheme, which I benefited from, because I was not earning enough to benefit from the old mortgage interest relief at source. I was able to get a subsidised mortgage through that route; that was how I got a foot on the housing ladder.

In conclusion, the Government have got their approach to housing completely wrong. They are just fiddling while the country burns, when it comes to the need for housing and reducing the age at which people can buy their home. We need to build more homes and to find innovative ways of helping people to get a foot on the housing ladder. If we can get agreement on this reasonable amendment and go forward with an evidence-based approach to legislation, the country will be the winner, which is surely a goal that all of us, whatever side of the Committee we sit on, wish to achieve.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East started his remarks by explaining his commitment to the right to buy and what it had achieved. It is worth recalling the evidence, which has not changed over years: 80% of the people in this country aspire to be a home owner. Of course, many of them are. Sometimes—I have made this point before—Labour Members ought to think: on whose side are they? Are they really saying that they want to go back to the days when there were all those statues of the aldermen, and the poor council tenants had to wander by, doffing their caps because they lived in council accommodation and did not have the hope that home ownership brings, and the thing that having a property-owning democracy does for our country?

All of us remember that the first thing that right-to-buy tenants who bought their own homes did was improve their homes. They would buy a new front door and have the windows done. They would invest in their properties, because they were so proud to have achieved their aspiration and to have something that was theirs, and that they could invest in.

Economic freedom of that sort is just as important as other freedoms. Instead of firing up the DeLorean and going back to the future—it was a nice-looking car, but its firm went broke—is it not time that Labour smelled the coffee beans and realised that, all these years later, we live in a world where people accept that home ownership is a good thing and want to own property? They do not want to be in thrall to the aldermen.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

People aspire to things, but the question is whether it is realistic for them ever to be able to achieve them. Owner-occupation is now in decline. House prices have now risen to such a level that, for many people, it is an impossibility. For many millions of people, the only chance of having a decent home is having a local authority council house at a reasonable rent. That is their only realistic option. We would all love to be millionaires—

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Order. May we have short interventions?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

The hon. Member for Derby North pointed to the 1959 Labour manifesto, which said that every tenant would have the chance to own their own home; Labour would give them the right to buy. Like oh-so-many Labour promises, it was not kept. [ Interruption. ] No, Labour won the election in 1964—[ Interruption. ] And in 1966. There were those dreadful six years when the country was driven into the ground economically by Labour—not for the last time—[ Interruption. ] No, 1964 to 1970 was a dreadful economic period for this country, just as the later years were, from 1974 to 1979, and just as those promising years that started in 1997 were, when Labour said that it would follow Conservative economic plans. After it stopped doing that, the economy went downhill, and where did it end up? In the worst recession that this country has seen this century.

Chris Williamson (Labour, Derby North)

Will the Minister give way?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

No; I want to make a bit of progress now.

The policy is about aspiration and helping people. Interestingly, what did Labour do following the 1997 election? As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East pointed out, it tried to turn the tap off with the right to buy. It cut the discounts twice, and then it cut the qualifying period. The purchases went down to a trickle. However, it was not as though it was meeting people’s aspirations in any way at all, because it was not building council houses or significant numbers of social properties for rent.

Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife)

Will the Minister give way?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

No, I will finish this. Labour was not doing any of those things. It stopped the right to buy—

Chris Williamson (Labour, Derby North)

We never stopped the right to buy.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Well, it cut it back. I have explained what happened. Discounts were cut twice, and the qualifying period was reduced. What was the hope for people of a home? The situation that we have ended up with now, desperately needing housing and trying to meet people’s aspirations to own their home, was created during the Labour years. Every housing charity and organisation will admit that not enough homes were built in all those years.

Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife)

Could the Minister clarify whether more affordable homes were built in the last year of the Labour Government or in the past 12 months under this Government?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Well, in terms of housing starts we are at record levels, and that is a step in the right direction following the Government’s change of policy. We are now working with the grain of the current system—with housing associations as well as councils.

Chris Williamson (Labour, Derby North)

Will the Minister give way?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I will just talk about the current policy, if I may, rather than policies from 1959.

With clause 21, by reducing the qualifying period from five years to three years we are trying to help more than 250,000 people, who have the right to buy and could afford to exercise it, to do so more quickly. It is estimated that, between 2014-15 and 2016-17, 10,500 people will have that opportunity. That is a key priority for the Government.

Thanks to the reinvigoration of the right to buy scheme, which my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East described, 13,400 tenants have taken their first step on to the property ladder. However, I am concerned that being forced to wait for five years is unfair on tenants; it is contrary to the requirements in force when the policy first came into effect.

It is true that in 1984 the qualifying period was reduced from three to two years, and I am certainly not saying that three years is the answer for ever, but three years was where the right to buy policy originally started, and it was proven to have the desired effect of enabling a lot of people to buy their own home. We believe that it will make a solid difference if the qualifying period is three years rather than five.

Councils are now offering flexible tenancies for two years. If we wanted, in due course, to take the step from three to two years, it would be necessary to consult and look carefully at how a two-year qualifying period would fit in with such innovative new tenancies. I am not, therefore, saying never; I would say to my hon. Friend that the measure in clause 21 is a significant step forward. Based on that, I hope that he will be prepared to go with what the Government are proposing for now and perhaps renew his plea in future. The measure will help to encourage home ownership.

I thank Members for amendment 8, and I would like to assure them that the Government are committed to keeping the reinvigorated right to buy scheme, including the effect of the change to the qualifying period, under review. When the Government reinvigorated the right to buy, we included an important measure that guaranteed, for the first time ever, that receipts from additional local authority sales—that is, sales above the level forecast prior to the change—would be used to help to fund new homes for affordable rent, on a one-for-one basis nationally.

Andrew Bridgen (Conservative, North West Leicestershire)

Returning to the point I made earlier, will that measure preclude a council that sells a large property from building two smaller units to replace it?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

No. My hon. Friend makes a good point—the replacements must be one-for-one, not like-for-like. It would be possible to achieve one-for-one replacements nationally with a different make-up of properties. For example, if it was necessary to have more two-beds than one-beds, or more two-beds rather than three-beds, nobody is saying that a council would have to build three-beds if it already had too many. It is one-for-one replacement, rather than like-for-like.

Chris Williamson (Labour, Derby North)

Will the Minister give way?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I will make a bit of progress before coming to the hon. Gentleman in due course.

Since the reinvigoration, there have been additional local authority right to buy sales, and councils have already reported more than 2,000 starts on site and acquisitions of replacement homes for affordable rent. That is a good start given how recently the reinvigoration occurred. Councils have three years from the date of receiving the additional receipts in which to use them, giving them adequate time to leverage in additional funds and to build up enough receipts to produce robust economies of scale. It would be premature to require the Government to report back within a year of Royal Assent as that would not capture the full effect of the policy change.

There is no current requirement on landlords to provide data returns to the Department on how many social tenants purchase their homes after a specific length of public sector tenancy, which would be required to fulfil the terms of the amendment on like-for-like values, costs and investments. Any such requirement would place an additional administrative burden on landlords and would need to be funded by the Government.

The Government are committed to reducing burdens on landlords, and we therefore do not intend to impose any additional reporting requirements on them. We believe that the current arrangements will enable officials to monitor the impact of the change to the qualifying period for the right to buy.

Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife)

Will the Minister give way?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I shall make one more point first.

The information about right-to-buy sales is not secret. It is published, and it is in the public domain. The hon. Gentleman asked about the discussions that the Government have had with the LGA. There were a series of discussions between April and September 2013 with local authorities, housing associations, the LGA, London Councils, the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Financial Conduct Authority, building societies and others, and the LGA and the housing associations provided information about the effect on councils. The Government’s view is that it is possible to pursue the policy on a one-for-one basis without putting undue pressure on budgets.

Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife)

I am grateful to the Minister for eventually giving way. I will take him back several moments to when I first tried to intervene. The Minister said that he does not think one year is an appropriate period to measure the success of the policy. He is a Law Officer, so I have every reason to take him at his word. What period does he think is appropriate to measure the success of the policy?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

The policy needs to be kept under review as it is implemented. We said at the time of the reinvigoration that we recognise that a significant increase in the number of sales could put a strain on some housing associations’ business plans. We are aware of that. Our view at the moment, based on the evidence that the federation has submitted and the feedback that we have received from the regulator and others, is that the impact should be manageable for the vast majority of housing associations. A small number may face risks over the longer term, particularly if they have recently undergone a stock transfer, with large amounts of stock eligible for preserved right to buy. That is a long-term, rather than a short-term, risk, and is manageable. Clearly, the policy needs to be kept under review, and it will be. However, it would be premature to say within a year that one knows what the long-term risks are.

Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife)

I am sure that is an answer to someone’s question, but what does the Minister think is an appropriate period? Is it two years, four years, five years or after he is out of office? When does he think we can judge the success or failure of the policy?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Of course, we have a traditional way of judging the success or failure of a policy: a general election. [ Interruption. ] That is true. The hon. Member for Derby North is having a chuckle, but the policy was successfully backed by the people in general election after general election when it was introduced and improved by the Conservative Governments of the time. I will not put a time limit on it. Information will be published, as it is at the moment, and it is always possible to launch debates in this place. The Government will keep it under review. I invite the hon. Gentlemen to withdraw the amendment, and I commend the clause to the Committee.

Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife)

I will briefly respond to the Minister’s points. I am disappointed that the Minister did not elaborate on how the Government will measure success, beyond whether the Conservatives and their cohorts are re-elected at the general election. This is a genuine issue.

I think the hon. and learned Gentleman was slightly confused about the Labour party’s position. The Labour party supports the right to buy. However, it believes that there are genuine concerns about the replacement of social stock. I am not sure whether all hon. Members heard this point being made. I was fascinated to hear that it will be a replacement on a national scale. For example, if all the housing stock in Leicestershire is sold off, the Government are quite content with that, as I understand it, provided it is replaced somewhere else. It does not have to be in the same area. It has to be in the same local authority, for example, but not necessarily a replacement in the area affected.

We are genuinely concerned, at a time when the number of affordable homes being built is decreasing. We are clear that we must take some responsibility as well for the fact that there is a national shortage of housing. Right to buy should not be a mechanism for undermining the amount of affordable housing available to people in real need.

I am disappointed that the Government claim that asking them to do a report is imposing a new burden. In his next confident breath, the Law Officer said that, of course, they already review and monitor the situation. He did not explain how they will monitor it if they do not require information to be collected.

This has been a lively debate although it has perhaps gone on longer than some of us envisaged. That is probably a sign of a good, robust debate.

James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.