Truro and Falmouth Liberal Democrats

My Lords, I will keep my remarks brief. I start by declaring an interest: I am a member of the board of South West Water. However, it is not South West Water that is the beneficiary of the first part of the Bill; it is the customers of South West Water.

My interest in this issue dates all the way back to when I was first elected as a Member of Parliament and quickly became involved in debates on the privatisation of water. I raised concerns then about the impact on the south-west. There was a fundamental error in the calculation of the costs of the bathing water directive and how they would impact on customers in the south-west. It took far too long for Governments of various hues to recognise the severity of the impact of far and away the highest water bills on people who are among the lowest earners in the UK. This was driven by the simple geography of having 30 per cent of the beaches and just 3 per cent of the population, and the dispersed geography in which that population lives. That made it extremely expensive to deliver the kind of reliable clean water system and clean beaches that are now, quite rightly, being delivered.

I strongly welcome the Bill, as it finally recognises the need to take action to deliver justice to those individuals. It is hard to over-exaggerate how big those impacts are. Those not on a meter can easily pay bills of £800 or £1,000. These people do not live in large houses and are often elderly, and these bills constitute a huge proportion of their income. Therefore, although I welcome the Government's action, I do not think that it is sufficient in itself. That is why I want to press the Minister on it.

First, the Government's commitment is actually a short-term commitment. There is no real indication of what will happen in the longer term. The decision was taken not to provide a lump-sum dowry which would have created a permanent solution. Therefore, there is considerable uncertainty around this issue. I still hope that Ministers will indicate where they would like the direction of travel to be. I understand that commitments may not be given short of commenting on the spending review and where budgets will be in a few years' time. However, I hope that the Government will indicate that they recognise that this is a long-term issue, not a short-term one.

We need to make it clear to customers that, although prices are regulated, there are continuing upward pressures on them. This measure is a £50 discount off what people would otherwise pay year after year; it is not a permanent reduction in the cash amount that they will pay. People will gain from this measure for as long as it is in place but they cannot look forward to a big cut in bills and then no further rises-that is not the basis on which we work.

The second issue on which I wish to press the Minister concerns the fact that the Government want this £50 to go to every single customer. There are some real issues to be overcome in delivering that, particularly for customers in park homes and mobile homes who may be served by a single meter to the site. The water is then distributed round the site and they are charged individually, but not by the water company. Therefore, the water company has no information on the individual householders. I hope that the Government will work constructively to use all the information that they have at their disposal to ensure that those customers, who are often among the poorest, get the benefit of the £50. I know that it is the Government's intention to do that but it is by no means clear how the measure will be delivered.

Thirdly, I very much regret that the Bill does not put in place a national social tariff. The Government have taken the decision to go down the route of company-specific social tariffs. For those in the highest water bill area-South West Water-that means that there is a higher burden on customers, who will not receive the relevant benefit. The social tariff will not be so low as to take people down to average water bill prices that apply elsewhere in the country, so they cannot gain the same benefit that they would under a national scheme. I understand that the Government think that there are issues with creating a scheme that distributes the costs and benefits nationally but I believe that it is the only fair way of meeting the needs of these very low-income individuals.

Finally, we must remind all customers of South West Water that they will overwhelmingly benefit from going on a meter. Many low-income customers are frightened of metering. However, if they go on a meter, they can very quickly save themselves much of the cost.

I rise to speak very briefly. I suspect that for all sorts of reasons Ministers are going to be reluctant to go down the regulatory route and indeed that, while my memory may fail me on this, I had thought that the previous Government ultimately came to that conclusion as well, although they certainly investigated the possibility of taking it. However, I may be wrong. I just want to throw into the discussion that in the absence of regulation we must recognise the absolutely fundamental role the private sector will have in housing all sorts of vulnerable people because there are not enough houses in the social and affordable sectors. Furthermore, these people are often at the lowest end of the private sector market and, in those circumstances, they are very vulnerable. It seems that an opportunity has been consistently missed over the years to reward those landlords in the private sector who behave best and, indeed, to encourage landlords in the private sector to do some of the things associated with social housing.

For example, there is no recognition in the rents that are available through housing benefit if landlords are willing to give longer tenancies, and there is little likelihood of recognition of relative quality. I have never understood why we would allow payments through the state in terms of housing benefit to the worst landlords offering the meanest opportunities and yet do nothing to reward those who behave better. That reward could involve a voluntary system of signing up to charters. In particular there is an issue for tenants in this sector over lack of security. Tenants in the private sector may be elderly and have lived long periods in a house, or they may be people with young children, and yet they may not have any real security in the tenancy. It would encourage landlords to offer security if we were to reward longer periods of tenancy and if we were not to draw such a sharp line that says a brief tenancy gives the landlord the security of being able to get the property back or the tenants become secure and highly protected. Why cannot we have something in between and why cannot we reward landlords for such behaviour? I think the Minister is going to be averse to regulation but perhaps he will be a little bit more supportive of an approach that uses the carrot rather than the stick.

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend putting forward these amendments, and particularly Amendment 22. I should like to chase the Minister for some clarity about what seems to me a fundamental issue in the Government's reforms. There are two forms of provision in the development of social housing-long-term social housing at low rents for security and an intermediate affordable rented model. There is something of an unanswered question and for clarity it would help if Ministers could explain their long-term intention in how we are approaching these changes.

It seems to me that-this is reflected in Amendment 22-where there is clear, long-term need, it continues to make complete sense to have a model of housing that is secure and has low rents, for which the primary government support system is through a capital subsidy. We should be looking in the long run to ensure that there is adequate provision in terms of numbers of social houses to meet long-term needs. It makes no sense for the state to do this otherwise. That does not provide adequate security to individuals and it comes at high cost to the state if higher levels of rent are paid. In pure value-for-money terms, it makes sense to adopt the traditional social housing model.

I believe that, for people who are transitioning through periods of need, it makes more sense to have a much more flexible model, in which the subsidy may well come in the form of temporary help with rent-that involves a benefit system rather than a huge up-front capital subsidy and then a low rent. Very similar individuals in similar circumstances can either get the gold standard trump card of social housing or they may be in the rented sector. It is not obvious what the distinction is other than the circumstances in which people went into that housing. It is also the case that it makes no sense, when we are short of such housing, for property that has had a huge up-front capital subsidy to be permanently made available to people whose needs may radically change over time and who may not need it.

I can see the argument for two models but I do not see the Government being sufficiently explicit about the path by which the right people will get the right kind of offers and the circumstances in which they will get the security that they need if their needs are long term, in the way described by my noble friend. The definition in Amendment 22 looks perfectly reasonable, but it may be that it can be done better or that the Government think there are other routes for doing it. It is deeply important to define this and debate it properly, understanding not only the transition but where the Government ultimately want to take us. If we understand that, we will have a clearer idea of the long-term social housing need in this country. We can play that against those with such long-term needs. We will understand better the role of intermediate affordable housing and where that plays into the equation in the long term.

It looks to me that, without such a definition, we will be left with deep uncertainty for individuals in long-term need who want security. There will be deep uncertainty in terms of the individuals who get housing-some may get a social housing offer or an affordable housing offer, but there will be no clarity about who gets what. It is more likely that it will depend on what is available at any given time rather than on need. In particular, on the social housing model for those in long-term need, which is the best form of delivery, we will be giving up assets as they transfer over to affordable rent without any clarity on the numbers that we need in this country, the places where we need them or the long-term strategy.

My Lords, I declare an interest since I chair the National Housing Federation. The Government are embarking on some quite fundamental changes to the homelessness legislation, a piece of legislation that dates all the way back to my former colleague, Mr Ross. It has been of immense benefit to have that legislation in place, although it is not always popular. That said, as things stand there are some perverse consequences to the legislation and in how people may respond to its provisions. As a Member of Parliament for a Cornish constituency where homelessness and poverty have been high for many years, I saw some of that taking place. Concerns have been expressed about the use of the private sector, but I think that is wrong; the private sector can be right for individuals and homelessness should not be seen as a trump card in the process of housing allocation. So there are important potential benefits in the changes that the Government are making.

I have great sympathy with the argument that when profound changes are made we should ensure that there is a proper process of review of the consequences that come from those changes. Inevitably, there are unexpected consequences of these things; while it may not be that this particular amendment is the best form for that, I hope that I will hear from the Minister a very clear commitment for a process of review, in particular to look at whether the quality of accommodation provided by the private sector is adequate and, perhaps even more important, what the consequences have been in terms of individuals' ability to pay rent given the changes to the benefit system. I hope that the consequences of these changes will be positive, but I am all too aware that they may not be, so I look to the Minister to give some reassurance on that front.

My Lords, is it not the case that when we hear the Governor of the Bank of England talk about head winds, we need to understand that, although the central projection may still be for growth, there are real risks to that growth? In those circumstances, surely it is possible for the Government to be clear that they will stick by the deficit reduction programme as the target, and that, like any good pilot faced with stormy weather, they will adjust course as necessary? I do not believe that the Opposition are right to say that that needs to be done in some emergency way at the present time, but it is sensible to flag up that that may be necessary if the projections are not met. In those terms, will the Minister endorse the comments by the Deputy Prime Minister that seemed to indicate that the Government would work to stimulate the economy, as and when that proves necessary?

My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the Minister had to say but, although I welcome the Government's commitment to sustainable development, the longer he spoke the less I was convinced of the argument he was making.

I conducted a review of rural planning policy for the previous Government. The first chapter of the review was devoted to sustainable development because there are potential perverse consequences in the way in which it is interpreted by planners at the local level from time to time. Most typically they argue that the community is not sustainable because it lacks public transport and other facilities, or people have to travel into a town to do their shopping, and therefore no development should be allowed because it is unsustainable. This ignores the fact that no development will make the community less sustainable in the long term, and that change can improve the sustainability of a community even if it does not deliver perfection.

With his colleagues, the Minister has committed the Government to the principle that we should favour sustainable development-so much so that there will be a presumption in favour of such development in the absence of other policy. Yet the Minister argues now against these amendments on two grounds. The first argument is that the detail of the amendments is imperfect-and, indeed, most of the comments against have been around that. However, if we are to believe that we should incorporate policies that favour sustainable development as a default option, surely it is incumbent on us to have a clear idea-and, more importantly, that the Government have a clear idea-of what we mean by that. If the Government do not have a clear idea, the principle that we are in favour of sustainable development as a default option cannot possibly stand.

We may have our differences around this-I do not think it is that complex an issue-but if the Minister has doubts about these amendments, he and his government colleagues should come forward with what they believe is the right definition and establish it in the Bill so that we are clear what we are empowering to happen as the default option in planning.

The second argument against is that it will in due course be in the national planning policy framework. That is welcome. I am sure that it will elaborate the detail of it and, of course, those details over time will be able to shift within the framework. However, what is being proposed is not a mere detail but is central to the Bill. In the absence of policy, the Government want it as the default option that we will approve proposals that support sustainable development-yet they will not incorporate the fundamental answer of what that means into the Bill.

I am sympathetic to much of what the Bill is trying to do; I am a proponent of sustainable development. I have argued about the perverse consequences of the misapplication of this-the gold standard. The Minister referred to it in terms of heritage, but it can be reduced to absurdity whereby nothing is allowed because nothing ever meets perfection. It is precisely for those reasons that the Government in due course should come forward with their explanation and proposition in the Bill so that we understand what it is we are being asked to approve in this legislation.

My Lords, I welcome much that the noble Baroness said about the Government's willingness to look at the particular circumstances that may arise, for example, in the sale of going concerns and where the community asset is a small part of a larger concern. These issues have certainly raised great concerns, and I would like to add another.

I am not sure that I need to declare an interest but I shall do so just in case. I chair the eco-town strategic partnership in the St Austell area, a wide area of mining land which was mined formerly by English China Clays and more recently by Imerys. Over many years the policy of past and present mining companies in the china clay area has been to open large areas of land to community access, but always with the proviso that it might be worked in future. That is not a bad example of the concern that I want to put to the Minister about the deterrent effect that this policy-a policy which, broadly, I very much support-could have on landowners of that sort in opening up land to community use, whether for walking, riding, cycling and so on, if it were severely to limit their ability to sell and dispose of the land as part of the operation of their business. My fear is that, as things stand, it will simply freeze in aspic the current position on community access as people would be able to argue that access already exists and to list it. Equally, in terms of new community access, it is in the nature of mining land that the areas which may be accessed by the public will change over time depending on where the workings are and where land restoration has taken place following tipping. I can see this creating a substantial block to opening up land for future community use. The same may well apply to the farmer who very willingly allowed a corner of his land to be used by the cricket club. That usage now exists and a listing could be applied for. It could also create a substantial deterrent to any landowner opening up land for such use in future.

I am very much in favour of the idea that we should register assets of community value-which clearly applies to things like village shops, community halls and so on-but I am concerned about how to ensure that the creation of new community resources is not blocked by the fear that these elements will be applied.

I have one more question; I should already know the answer to it, and no doubt there is an answer. What is the position when the sale of land options-which are usually bought because planning permissions might be granted-in practice trumps these proposals to register community assets? I wonder whether the purchase of an option in any sense triggers this process.

I still find think this is overcomplex. At the point at which an organisation has nominated something within the community for this purpose, is it really worth having an argument about whether it is a community organisation or a part of the community? Would it not be easier to say whether or not it was a suitable asset? That process would surely trump any issues about who is eligible to nominate it provided that they can show they have a community connection.

I declare my interest as both chair of the Rural Coalition and chair of the National Housing Federation. I do not think the latter is particularly relevant, but it might be.

Having listened to the Minister's response, I have a niggling concern that the Government are creating a vastly overcomplicated system for doing something very simple. Individuals and organisations in a local community ought to be able to nominate and there should be a simple process for then deciding whether it is appropriate. I am not clear why there have to be decisions by any bodies about who those nominators are. If they are local individuals or organisations, surely they should be able to put forward a nomination. If we turn it round the other way, I am not clear about who we are trying to rule out. If they are in, or active in, the community, who are we saying should not be able to put a nomination forward? If there is not an obvious group of individuals who should be excluded-and I cannot think of any-why do we have to have a decision-taking process at the local level on who should or should not be able to make such nominations? Complexity is the last thing we need because it does not empower communities. Arguments about whether or not a nomination has been made by a relevant local individual, group of individuals or organisation misses the point; the arguments should be about whether it is a suitable nomination in the first place.

I strongly support my noble friend on this. The issue is not whether the matter is one which lies with the local authority or with the parish-that is readily understood and, if it lies with the parish, the parish poll would suffice-but it may well be a matter which lies for decision with the local authority but only affects a small community. It is the nature of rural local authority wards that they often cover a number of communities, many of which would not be affected by the issue at hand, even though it is the local authority that is the decision taker. That is the issue that was not really responded to earlier.

My Lords, I have a particular interest in this amendment because parishes in many rural communities are far more relevant than local authority or council boundaries. They are not only historic but often relate to particular communities in a way that local authority wards do not, certainly in my part of the country. That is because wards are driven by numbers, not by community. This seems a good and proper issue to raise. There is of course already the power for parishes to call their own referendums, so the query might be whether this is necessary because, if a community wanted it, one might argue that there is provision for it already.

However, the legislation here is making reference to particular issues relating to local authorities. Frankly, I therefore see more relevance to allowing a power in relation to a parish as a community than to having specific reference to the electoral division for the primary local authority. I would hope that the Minister can respond positively to the principle here, whatever the means might be to achieve it.

My Lords, I will speak briefly. I welcome two aspects of what the Minister said. The first is her reiteration of the Government's support for the principles of sustainable development, which is important. The second is the fact-I have listened carefully and will read Hansard later-that she did not rule out setting out these principles in the Bill. We will have to see whether we can convince the Government to do it. Their open-mindedness at this point is very welcome.

I say to those who think that a thousand years of economic development prove that we do not need sustainable development that in that time some civilisations collapsed as a result of the overuse of their resources; I refer to central America, the desertification of the north African coast and, in my own area of Cornwall, the disappearance of the herring trade. Today we see more profound impacts on the environment, such as the destruction of the rainforests, and should not sit content in this country and assume, just because until now we have survived quite well when others have not, that we have greater wisdom than civilisations that collapsed before us.

If I may say so, that is precisely why, if we are to have a Bill that makes the definition of sustainable development the whole basis of our planning system, we should say what we mean. It was precisely the issue mentioned by the noble Lord that led me to start my report by saying that we need to ensure that our approach to sustainable development is properly defined as a balance between economic and social environmental interests, is forward looking and is not an assessment of the countryside as unsustainable.

My Lords, this is an extremely important amendment. Although my noble friend proposes it as a probing amendment, I hope Ministers may come to recognise that incorporating a clear and balanced definition of sustainable development in the Bill is fundamental to the workings of a Bill that is predicated on sustainable development. It is important to set out this definition in statute and not simply in the proposed national planning policy framework.

I declare my interests in this area: I chair the strategic partnership that is delivering an eco-community in Cornwall, which is all about these issues; I chair the National Housing Federation, which takes an interest in these issues; and I chair in a voluntary capacity the Rural Coalition, which brings together some 14 national bodies with a particular interest in the sustainable development of rural communities, including Britain's major planning bodies and organisations such as CPRE and CLA. All these bodies have expressed concern about the absence of a proper and balanced definition.

I have taken an interest in this issue for more than 20 years, but did so most particularly when I was asked by the previous Government to carry out a review of rural planning on a non-partisan basis in relation to economic development and housing-the Living Working Countryside report. The first chapter concentrated on the way in which the term "sustainable development" can lead to perverse consequences when people do not use a balanced definition. Too often, developments have been refused because sustainability is seen in purely environmental terms, not in terms of the sustainability of communities and the rural economy. Exactly the same criticism could be made the other way around, if sustainability is seen too often simply in terms of economic development. I share the concerns expressed about the proposed definition.

This issue is not without consequences. It directly filters down to the way in which decisions that profoundly affect the sustainability of communities are taken at the local level. In the review, I said something else that is important here. The sustainability of communities, when we are looking at how they develop, is not about a judgment on whether that community is sustainable, because one might argue that many communities, if started from scratch, would not be created in the form that they are. The question is always: does change contribute to enhancing the economic, social and environmental sustainability of that community, or does it detract from it? It is a moving target and we should not seek perfection before we allow change. It is perfection that we are striving towards-not that we can achieve it at any given moment.

For all these reasons, it is fundamental that Parliament is clear about what we mean by a presumption in favour of sustainable development, and we cannot have that clarity if we do not set out in statute a proper definition of it. The meaning that we may each take may be different. One reason that I rise to speak is that, the more we put on the record what we mean by these issues, the more likely it is that we will get the right consequences. I simply do not believe that we should empower something so fundamental if it is simply part of the planning guidance, rather than the statute itself, and is easily amendable.

It is fundamentally obvious that if we believe that this sustainable development is important to the legislation, if we believe that it is an important principle in how this country should go forward, and if we believe that it is important to how we develop communities, we should at least be clear about what we mean by it. Having been involved in these debates for 20-odd years, I learnt long ago that if one talks simply about sustainable development, a large part of the audience is unlikely to know what you are talking about at all, and the rest of the audience thinks it knows what you are talking about, but if you do not explain it, you are liable to find out that everyone has a completely different idea of it, depending on their particular vested interest.

I regard it as something of an achievement of the Rural Coalition that we bring together such a diverse range of views, which is perhaps best epitomised by the involvement of the CPRE on the one hand and the CLA on the other. We have always agreed that getting the balance right is fundamental, and that it should be set out at this stage in the legislation. While this may be a probing amendment, I hope that we will get from the Minister a commitment to bring something into statute and agree that the definition should be balanced and forward looking about what we can achieve, not simply an assessment of the status quo.

My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment, because it goes to the heart of the fundamental issue of how our body politic and administrative systems work. The amendment essentially sets out what we want to do in a Bill called the Localism Bill, before we discuss how to do it. That is an important reminder of what we should put in front of those who draft these things, because in this country, unlike many others, when we talk about empowering people, the assumption is that somehow Whitehall has to define every element of it, in particular because it may otherwise be subject to legal challenge. Other countries give a power of competency at a local level and look to those who exercise those powers to defend the manner in which they have done so rather than rely on the crutch of how the national tier has defined what they should do.

By definition, having a Bill of this size that calls itself the Localism Bill illustrates the flaw inherent in our body politic: we do not understand the principle of devolving decision-taking to others or that that decision-taking has to involve devolution of responsibility for the "how", not just the principle of the "what". One does not have to have spent much time talking with the Local Government Association or others to realise the many reservations of powers to Ministers that are inherent in the Bill, which is an inch-and-a-half thick. It cannot be right that a Bill that is about empowering local communities has to be defined in that kind of detail, although I suspect that that is not so much a flaw of the Bill but of the system-let us not forget that the Bill amends many other Acts and, if they were all here, I do not think that I could hold the Bill in my hand.

If the noble Lord was under any illusion about that, let me say that I am unequivocally in favour. That was the thrust of my comments. I am not convinced that we should be overrepresented, but I would not want my comments to be understood in any other way.

In following my noble friend and the noble Lord's comments, I will briefly reflect on a couple of points. First, the noble Lord suggested that the Boundary Commission, in its wisdom, had decided at the last review that Cornwall should get six seats, rather than five. That was certainly not the case. It was a process of mathematics. Indeed, in the previous review we nearly crossed the threshold of five and a half seat entitlement to just above that to get six seats, but we fell just below it and got five. Any arguments in this place that representation has been based on a sense of entitlement or natural community are wrong. It has been a mathematical process, but one defined by one boundary-the county or borough boundary, which should not be crossed.

As somebody who represented two districts for a long time, I find some of the arguments about crossing local government boundaries rather untenable. It is perfectly possible to do that. What I profoundly believe-and always have-is that representation based on natural community is important. I have written about this and I do not like the Bill in its present form in that respect. I understand the belief that reviews should take place quickly and frequently to make sure that no party is disadvantaged by the slowness of the review process. The boundary review process has been too slow. There has been in place a genuine imbalance in the system for the past decade or two. It was clearly the case at the 2010 election that if the Labour Party had received a similar number of votes to those for the Conservative Party, the Labour Party would have been hugely advantaged by the distribution of seats. It is perfectly proper that Parliament is seeking to address that issue.

However, I agree with my noble friend that where communities are willing and able to be a little underrepresented to maintain a natural community of interest in their representation, there should be flexibility to allow for that. I should like this Bill to encompass that flexibility. If the noble Lord, Lord Myners, chose to press the amendment, I would vote in that way. I have written about this issue in that way. However, we should not in any sense present this issue as some special cause of Cornwall. It is about the representation of genuine community. We should not suggest in any way that what went before was right, because it was clearly not right. It was a different mathematical process which did not properly ensure a democratic outcome in elections, although I do not think that it ever affected the outcome of an election. I have consistently believed that the proposals before us, in that respect, should have a greater element of flexibility.

Will the noble Lord give way?

My Lords, as someone who travels regularly between Cornwall and London, I have to say that the Statement inspires rather less warm feelings in me than it may in those from some other parts of the country. Again, we see a decision delayed. Can the Minister give some indication of what a decision in the new year means in practice? How quickly will we see a decision on the replacement of Great Western intercity rolling stock? I express my deep concern that, while it is great that making passengers change train has been ruled out, changing the locomotive does not inspire great confidence. I hope that we will see a new diesel/electric hybrid able to run all the way through to Penzance.

My Lords, I share with others my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for introducing this timely and important debate. I declare an interest as chair of the National Housing Federation.

I shall speak from a slightly different angle to previous speakers because I shall concentrate not on housing benefit in its own right but on the impacts that the proposed changes may have on the Government's ability to deliver their targets for affordable housing. Contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, said, the National Housing Federation's briefing to its members states that it believes that the numbers can be delivered by a shift to a revenue-based system-that is, higher rents-from a capital grant system. Fundamentally, such a shift seems to underlie the Government's decision to move away from the previous practice of a grant-based system to one in which higher rents are paid and more affordable housing is delivered.

However, that moves us immediately to the questions surrounding housing benefit. The truth of the equation is that previous Governments shied away from such a shift because of what they believed about how the long-term revenue support costs through housing benefit weighed against the short-run capital benefits. One reason for that was that the different way in which capital was accounted for made it more attractive for them to go down a capital route for reasons that might not have had a bearing on the real cost to Governments and individuals-not least because of the way in which that limited the likely number of affordable homes that could be delivered.

The core to understanding what is now happening is the conversations that took place-I certainly hope that they took place-between CLG and the Department for Work and Pensions on the underlying guarantee that housing benefit would be available to those who go into these new homes at 80 per cent of market rent. In the review of affordable rural housing that I conducted for the Government a couple of years ago, one of my recommendations was that the Government should examine the opportunities to deliver more intermediate housing because that would come at less cost in grant and meet the needs of many working people in rural communities. Such people cannot afford homes on the open market because of the very high prices but do not necessarily need social housing at low rentals. Intermediate housing to rent or to buy would perfectly address many of those needs and more housing could be delivered for less money. That recommendation received a broad welcome but no action. This Government have taken up the notion but, instead of trialling it or running it alongside a social housing programme, they have put all their eggs in the one basket in deciding to go down that route.

This begs the question whether this is intended for the people that I envisaged it for-working people who need little or no housing benefit support but who would be underpinned by the guarantee of housing benefit if they need it. Do the Government intend to introduce a nominations process that will target these new homes to those who can at least expect to afford them, or will there be an open nominations process in which many people on housing benefit who are likely to struggle to get work, or likely never to get work, will go into housing where they will have to retain access to housing benefit? That would then lead to the question about whether housing benefit will be available. The nominations process is key. Who is this housing intended for?

On the backstop of housing benefit, I would not encourage someone in my part of the world to go into a home on 80 per cent of rent if they are in a low-income job but can just about afford it. Many of those people would be at risk because they are in temporary employment, such as in tourism-based employment or in small businesses, and cannot be sure that in a year or two they will be able to afford such rents. Many of those people-perhaps with young children-could not be sure that housing benefit would protect them.

I chair the rural coalition-the position is unpaid but is another interest-and I have carried out work on the rental position in rural communities, where I hope the Government will conduct rural proofing. We have heard a great deal about London and the known issues around high rents, but what about rural communities? Local housing rental assessments take into account urban communities, where there is quite a lot of relatively cheap rented accommodation. However, rent is much more expensive in rural villages. How will working people be able to find a rented property in rural villages if restricting housing benefit to 30 per cent of median rent levels means 30 per cent or even 40 per cent in urban communities but nothing at all in rural communities where there is work to be done and people need to live close to their work on the farm and so on?

There also appears to have been no proofing of the impact in northern areas, where social rents are already 80 per cent or more of private sector rents. No money will be released to housing associations through this mechanism of higher rental incomes, so no housing is likely to be delivered by housing associations operating in these areas. There appears to have been a move to embrace only an intermediate affordable housing programme-which I always envisaged running alongside a social rented programme-and no work seems to have been done on the specific localised impacts on rural communities, London and the north.

Therein lies my hope that there may be an opportunity for the Government to respond to the concerns expressed today, some which are not about the principle. I believe that the proposed move can deliver the housing numbers. For my review I worked with Shelter, which also shared the point of view that more intermediate housing would reduce pressure on the social housing already in place and would be a good thing to deliver. I hope the Government can respond to the concerns expressed in the debate. If they do not, the high hopes for this housing scheme that they have-even if they are not shared around the Chamber-cannot be delivered.