PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - United Kingdom Parliament

1561 Easter Adjournment
26 MARCH 2013 Easter Adjournment
1562
for change of use from commercial to residential. She
will be aware that we are considering a great number of
exemption applications from authorities across the country
and will understand that we need to apply the criteria
that have been set out fairly and objectively to all
authorities. I therefore hope that she will understand
that I cannot give her any specific reassurances about
the result of the application from her local authority. I
can reassure her that the process is happening as quickly
and fairly as possible, with outside expert help to assess
whether the criteria apply.
The hon. Lady also raised the removal of the spare
room subsidy from people in her constituency who are
in receipt of housing benefit. I remind her, as she will
have heard many times from this Dispatch Box from
people who are much more senior than I am, that the
housing benefit bill has doubled to £22 billion a year.
The removal of the spare room subsidy will save half a
billion pounds a year. When she or her colleagues come
up with another way to save that money, the Government
will be delighted to hear it.
The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)
raised similar issues about the housing crisis in London
and spoke of the need to build new council housing. He
will be aware that councils can build new council housing.
Many councils of all stripes are seeking to do so. I
disagree with his idea that rent control would be nirvana
for his constituents and for those who have to manage
the housing benefit bill. The last time that we had rent
control, there was a collapse in the private rented sector
because investors were unwilling to invest in it. Our
approach is very different. We are investing in the
private rented sector through a generous scheme of
guarantees that has been over-subscribed and to which
the Chancellor committed more money in his Budget
last week.
Jeremy Corbyn: What would the Minister say to my
constituents who are faced with a gap, in some cases of
more than £100 a week, between their housing benefit
and their new private rent and who will be forced out of
the community where their children go to school and
their families live, leading to community disruption?
What would he say to them when they are sitting across
the table in an advice bureau?
Nick Boles: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I
have spoken to a number of people in my constituency
who face the same situation and not a great deal more
housing is available. I accept that it will be very difficult
for certain people, and I, as I am sure that he is, am
doing everything that I can to work with councils on
their local housing solutions and with Citizens Advice
to put people in touch with alternative options and to
encourage them to explore the possibility where
appropriate—often, with families, it will not be, but for
single people, it might be—of renting out spare rooms
to offset the reduction. We have to save money from the
housing benefit bill, however, and we have not yet heard
any better or fairer suggestions from the Opposition on
how to do that. When we have heard that, perhaps we
will be able to discuss it.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John
McDonnell) raised a different but important issue about
protecting the green belt and how that is assessed against
the importance of providing new school places. He will
understand that because he has asked that the proposal
about which he is concerned be called in by the Secretary
of State, I cannot comment on it. I can reassure him,
however, that the national planning policy framework is
clear about the protections for the green belt: there can
only be development on the green belt in very special
circumstances, so planning authorities would have to
meet quite a tough test in law, if they wished to approve
such a proposal. That has to be balanced, however,
against the equally explicit commitment that great weight
be given to the need to create and expand schools. I
cannot prejudge how that will be arrived at in that case,
but he has made an eloquent and passionate argument.
Officials in my Department and I, as Planning Minister,
have heard it and will take it into account when we
consider the proposal.
I think that I can now move away from London to my
hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham),
who spoke movingly and effectively on behalf of the
constituents of his who faced the unbearable tragedy of
losing their daughter, Mary Ann. He will be aware that
the Government constantly consider ways to raise awareness
of the risks of carbon monoxide, and I can tell him that
there will now be a label on barbecues to warn people of
the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning. He will also be
aware that building regulations require a carbon monoxide
alarm when a solid fuel appliance is installed in a home.
It is not currently proposed to make it mandatory to
install those alarms in new homes, as he suggests doing,
but he has made a strong argument, and I know that the
Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for
Bath (Mr Foster), will be keen to listen to his concerns
and consider them as he reviews building regulations.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison
Seabeck) told a tale of woe on behalf of her constituents
about what appeared to be the fraudulent issuance of a
safety certificate. I cannot comment in detail, because it
is not my area of expertise; I can only reassure her that
we will write to the Health and Safety Executive and
Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions,
who oversee the HSE, to ensure that she receives an
adequate answer on how her constituents’ interests can
be properly protected.
I turn, finally I think—no doubt, someone will holler
if I have missed them out—to my hon. Friend the
Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless). I
can well understand the dismay of Medway council,
which is seeking to do what all hon. Members across the
House understand is necessary: to make provision to
build more houses. I can well understand their dismay
that such a major scheme should be put at risk by a
declaration that the site is to be viewed as a site of
special scientific interest. I cannot comment on the
merits of the decision or the scheme, but I can reassure
him of two things. First, notification of a site as an
SSSI does not necessarily mean that it cannot be developed,
but it does mean that the developer must make advanced
efforts to mitigate, or, if they cannot do that entirely, to
compensate for any impact on the site. Only last week, I
met the chairman of Natural England, and I would be
happy to explore with him the status of such a notification,
how it came about and whether it can be managed to
ensure that the houses needed for people in my hon.
Friend’s constituency are built. I hope that has answered
all the questions raised by hon. Members.