Universal Credit
Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kerslake(7 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kerslake (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as chair of Peabody and president of the Local Government Association. My other interests are as listed in the register.
Universal credit stands as an almost perfect example of what the French call “the politics of the stiff neck”—a stubborn, haughty refusal to change one’s mind in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. The consequence of this stubbornness is to cause quite unnecessary misery for a large number of very vulnerable people.
I hope that today’s debate, which I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on organising, will go some way to persuading the Government to change their minds. There can be few—there are none in this Chamber—who disagree with the aims of universal credit: to simplify the benefits system and make work pay. The key problem lies not in the aims but the execution.
It is a complex project that has to take account of a lot of different individual circumstances. If you are really going to make work pay, there is a cost, which goes against the relentless reduction in welfare spending. No one expected this project to be easy. Indeed, when it ran into trouble during the coalition Government, there were big issues to resolve. They were largely internal problems, however, and the pain, such as it was, was confined to Ministers and officials responsible for that implementation. The crucial difference between then and the current crisis is that the pain now will be felt by thousands of claimants and that number will grow dramatically to some 7 million people as the project is rolled out.
If anybody doubts the malign impact that universal credit in its current form is having, I would refer them to the Smith Institute Report Safe as Houses: The impact of Universal Credit on Tenants and Their Rent Payment Behaviour, commissioned by the London Boroughs of Croydon and Southwark, and Peabody. Seven hundred and seventy-five rent payment accounts of tenants starting universal credit in August and October 2016 were analysed and compared with 249 tenants starting on housing benefits at the same time—a control sample. In addition, 36 in-depth interviews and four focus groups were held. The results are absolutely clear cut: growing rent arrears, with high arrears at the start that are never fully recovered; delayed payments and consequential financial hardship; a one-size-fits-all approach that does not take account of the individual circumstances of tenants; and severe impacts on those tenants who are the most vulnerable. The statistics tell a story but the individual cases, as we have heard today, are heart-rending. What is particularly sad is that the feelings claimants now have about universal credit—which was intended to help them—are generally, if not universally, negative.
Claimants really do not want to be in debt. They do not want to rely on friends or, even worse, on loan sharks. Our research at Peabody has calculated that without change, 41,000 children in the UK are at risk of being in penniless homes over this Christmas due to the wait for universal credit. I think Members on all sides of the House will see this as utterly intolerable.
What can be done? Some good practical steps can be taken now: remove the seven-day wait at the start of a new claim; reduce the waiting period to two weeks, as with housing benefit; offer everyone alternative payment arrangements—let the claimant make the decision on whether they want their rent paid direct, not have the state decide what is good for them; inform everyone moving on to universal credit that advance payments arrangements exist; and put in place a comprehensive support package to help with the application process. These measures will not deal with all the deep issues with universal credit at the moment, but they would be an incredibly good start. I add that the Government, if they are serious, should also establish an independent body to review the progress and impact of universal credit at each stage of the rollout. I say to Ministers that these are not big asks; they do not threaten the future of the project. Why on earth do the Government not agree them now?
Good government is not easy. We make mistakes; we learn from them. But to press on with this project without amendment when there is such clear evidence of the distress and hardship it will cause is not just bad government—it is cruel. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, the situation is becoming critical. More and more questions are being asked of the Minister but she has less and less time in which to answer them. I urge noble Lords to make sure that their speeches end by the time the clock hits five minutes.
Housing and Planning Bill
Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kerslake
Lord Kerslake (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as chair of Peabody and president of the Local Government Association. I stand before you as a reluctant amender. As the Bill has moved towards its final stages, I have been very open to conversation and compromise. This has been possible on a wide range of difficult issues and was close to being achieved on the second amendment that I shall move later today.
However, on this part of the Bill—on housing—there remain two vital issues where I feel strongly that the debate needs to continue. The first, and the subject of Motion A1, is the so-called starter homes requirement. Under this, local authorities will not be able to give approval to individual planning applications unless they have included a specified number of starter homes. This figure is currently set to be 20%—one in five—of the houses approved.
The issues with this have been previously rehearsed, and there are three major concerns. First, it imposes a single, top-down requirement regardless of local circumstances. Secondly, it does so with a product that is still in design and is not tried and tested. Thirdly, the percentage proposed will squeeze out other kinds of affordable housing that are desperately needed. My amendment is not intended to be, nor is it, a wrecking amendment to the manifesto. It seeks only to give greater local flexibility where a need can be demonstrated and to allow other types of low-cost home ownership products to be counted within the starter homes requirement. It will be for individual local authorities to take a view on this within their overall duty to promote starter homes. There need be no delay in getting starter homes going.
Indeed, I think that local planning decisions will be quicker as a result of this flexibility. The low-cost home ownership delivered could quite reasonably count against the Government’s 200,000 target. They can, as new low-cost home ownership products, be targeted at the same group of people—young first-time buyers— whom the Government are seeking to help. From the point of view of the buyer, what matters is the opportunity to own their own home.
Before we lock ourselves into a rigid, inflexible, national solution that risks setting local authorities up to fail, I ask Ministers and this House, even at this very late stage, to consider a more localist, market-responsive approach. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, having sat through most of the proceedings on this Bill I recognise that it is probably the most controversial one from last year’s Queen’s Speech, and I quite understand the very strong feelings that have been aroused. I want to give three brief reasons why I think at this stage we should allow the Bill to go forward.
First, the Government have already made very substantial concessions on this Bill, principally in response to arguments put forward by Cross-Benchers and opposition Members in this House. There have been amendments on high-value assets, exceptions to secure tenancies, pay to stay, starter homes and rural exception sites. Where a case has been made that does not conflict with the manifesto, my noble friend has listened to the arguments and made the necessary changes. No one can accuse the Government of inflexibility.
Secondly, the vote in another place last night was by 80 to 100, without one single dissenting voice on the government Benches. Roughly two-thirds of English MPs rejected the amendments that came from this House. We should think carefully before we seek to second-guess them. Finally, the further Motion A1 seems to me to be against the spirit of the Joint Committee on Conventions. I quote:
“If the Commons have disagreed to Lords amendments on grounds of financial privilege, it is contrary to convention for the Lords to send back amendments in lieu which clearly invite the same response”.
I put it to noble Lords that Motion A1 does exactly that.
On reflection, it seems to me that this House has performed its traditional role of scrutinising, amending, revising and asking the other place to think again. We now risk moving to the more controversial territory of challenging the other place. In the debate yesterday, the Minister expressed surprise that your Lordships’ House,
“have chosen again to oppose one of our most important manifesto commitments”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/5/16; col. 458.]
He went on to describe one of the other amendments as a “wrecking amendment”. I urge the noble Lord who moved Motion A1 to reflect on the changes that have already been made to avoid the risk of pressing this further, and to think of the tenants of Peabody, some of whom have written to me, who want the statute book to include this measure so that they can exercise their right to buy.
Housing and Planning Bill
Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kerslake
Lord Kerslake
My Lords, I speak in support of this group, and specifically speak to my own amendment 82BA. It is a great shame that we reached this very important issue at this stage of the evening—an issue that will have a profound impact on the future of social rented housing. Why do I say that? At the core of the offer to a new tenant is that this becomes their own home. They do not own the home but it becomes the place they regard as home. The reason they feel that way is that they have a secure tenancy for an indeterminate period. Moving to this model of tenancies will change that experience. It will make it feel not like their own home but—however we wish to dress it up; however much we issue guidance on renewal after two or five years—a temporary home. That is the reality of this. We will overnight have changed the nature of the social contract, if you like, with social tenants.
This is not a small issue. It is a very profound issue, and it has to be seen alongside the other changes that we are making to social rented housing, as I have said in previous debates. Because of the forced sale of high-value assets, the opportunity to move to a bigger home is constrained. Pay to stay will mean, as we have just debated, significantly higher rents for tenants on relatively modest incomes, in reality. We will move to the end of the affordable rented programme by 2018. Then we add this final amendment, which essentially removes mandatorily the right to secure tenancies. How do the Government think that council tenants will see this combination of changes? Will they regard it as a commitment to their future or will they regard it as seeing the end to the form of council tenancy that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, spoke about earlier? This is a very profound change going on around us.
We have a provision now for the issuing of flexible tenancies. It exists and has existed for a number of years now—three or four years. What is again a dangerous precedent is that, having had a voluntary policy for a relatively short period of time, the Government conclude that the voluntary policy has not been sufficiently actively exercised, so we make it mandatory. Is that now the way we do things? It is voluntary if you do it the way we want you to do it—otherwise we make it mandatory.
Voluntary is the right way to see this issue of tenancy, because I can see that there are circumstances in which individual local authorities will want some flexibility around tenure. There is a perfectly good case for that. I cannot see why we should have a single mandatory policy imposed on every local authority, which then requires a set of regulations and guidance to tell it how to do it. Where in any possible sense does this sit with localism?
Why should there be a variation here? In some low-demand estates, which we have heard about—and there are still some—it makes absolute sense to give people secure tenancies. In other situations there may be a need for choice, because of the nature of the demand and of what is happening. What is absolutely certain is that, whatever guidance and policy the Government produce, it will not be adequate for the different situations up and down the country. We will be creating another layer of bureaucracy and central government control. It is a very retrograde step and something that was not part of the manifesto, to go back to some of our previous debates. Indeed, it came in at a very late stage in the process.
I absolutely get the point about efficient use of stock, but that has to be done in consultation with persuasion of the individual tenants. The Minister spoke about older people, but do we seriously think that an older person who has been in their property on a renewable tenancy for 30 years—that might be the case, in 30 years’ time—is then going to be told, “You’ve finished your five years, off you go”? Do we think that is the position we are going to reach in relation to tenancies? Of course not. It has to be through persuasion and through making an offer to that older person that meets their needs.
The case for removing this provision is strong. As I say, there is already legislation that gives the flexibility to local authorities. But, if the issue is that local authorities are not actively using their potential discretion, I have put an alternative amendment in front of the Committee this evening that would encourage them to do so. It would remain discretionary but they would actively need to exercise that discretion. This should not be needed—I shall be clear about that—but if it is an alternative to a mandatory model, which I think is wrong in how it would operate and completely contrary to the direction of localism, I would hope that the Government would seriously consider it.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, quarter to 11 is not the right time to have this serious debate about the role of social housing. This set of amendments and the previous debate go to the heart of what social housing is for. Is it, as we heard in the previous debate, to provide stable and balanced communities or is it to provide housing for those in greatest need for—to use the words of my noble friend—as long as they need it? Over the last 30 or 40 years the role of social housing in this country has gradually changed from the first towards the second. It is now much more focused on those in greatest need than it was 30 or 40 years ago, when young couples would put their names on the waiting list and gradually get to the top and no one at that point would ever have asked whether it was right to question their entitlement to a lifetime tenancy.
Now, one really has to balance the legitimate expectations of council tenants for a lifetime tenancy with the needs of those on the waiting list—the two are directly related. I think the time has come to question the lifetime entitlement to a secure tenancy because people are in need of social housing. If one takes the view that the role of social housing has changed it makes sense to have fixed tenancies and a conversation when that tenancy comes to an end to see whether there are other options for that tenant. At that point it will be entirely up to the local authority whether it renews the tenancy or has guidance from the Government.
Lord Kerslake
Does the noble Lord not agree that if this is the change that is happening—I say we should be aiming for both secure communities and flexibility—why not leave that to the discretion of the local authority? Why impose it from central government?
Housing and Planning Bill
Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kerslake
Lord Young of Cookham
Consultation is going on at the moment to discover at what rate local authority properties become vacant and the levy will be based on the normal turnover of local authority stock, so I think that it is perfectly defensible to come to an arrangement that fixes a levy. I think that there is a provision in the Bill that enables the Secretary of State, in certain circumstances, to refund the levy to the local authority. Therefore, I do not think that what the noble Lord says undermines the principle of requiring local authorities to recycle assets via the Government in order to increase the total supply of the nation’s housing stock.
Lord Kerslake
Before the noble Lord sits down, I just want to make a few points. The first is that of course the party that wins in the election will seek to deliver its manifesto commitments. That is absolutely right and it is part of the democratic process, but my point is that there has already been a variation from what was in the manifesto. We are not extending right to buy to housing associations like for like; we are putting in a different, voluntary policy for the perfectly sensible reason that it allows flexibility and addresses some of the issues such as the one affecting Peabody where properties receive no public subsidy. So there has already been flexibility.
The second point is that the intent here is to give people the opportunity to buy their property, so the end is clear: so far as possible we want to give people who live in housing association properties access to purchase their property in the way described. The question I am raising concerns the commitment to the mechanism by which that is delivered. I do not think that the electorate would feel that the Government had reneged on their commitment if they said that the mechanism they thought could deliver this was based on a set of false assumptions: an assumption of turnover of properties that was twice the actual level and an assumption about the value of those vacant properties that was way over the actual figure. In those circumstances, is it not reasonable for any Government to say, “We have to look again at the means while still being committed to the ends”?
Lord Young of Cookham
I understand the point that the noble Lord is making but he may recall an intervention that I made on Tuesday: the trouble with the alternative means of funding the commitment is that it increases the PSBR. There, you hit another real constraint from the Treasury in delivering the Government’s overall macroeconomic policy.
Housing and Planning Bill
Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kerslake
Lord Kerslake
As has been said by a number of people, there are real issues about what we mean by a portable discount. In my eyes, if we are unable or unwilling to offer a property or take a policy decision not to do so, the alternative discount may be offered on another housing association property, potentially one of Peabody’s newbuild properties—we build some 1,000 properties a year. I have real difficulty with an open-ended portable discount, particularly those into the private sector, which the noble Lord, Lord Young, is very keen on. That is for one very simple reason: it will be extraordinarily expensive—I do not know whether anybody has done the maths on this. There are major issues about the financing of this policy already, which we will come on to. In my view, it should not be an open-ended offer: it should involve a reasonable effort—as per the original wording—to find a suitable alternative if the property you live in is not currently on offer.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I shall make a brief contribution to what I suspect is the most controversial part of a fairly controversial Bill. The background is two sentences in my party’s election manifesto:
“We will extend the Right to Buy to tenants in Housing Associations to enable more people to buy a home of their own. It is unfair that they should miss out on a right enjoyed by tenants in local authority homes”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Best, explained, that is being delivered not by legislation but by a voluntary agreement. This clause allows the Government to honour their side of that voluntary agreement by enabling them to pay grants to housing associations for the discount they give to their tenants. The amendments would not stop the housing associations selling anything to anyone, but they would stop the Government giving a grant to the housing associations if they do.
Lord Kerslake
The point I was making was that the wider the choice of opportunities to buy you give tenants of housing associations, the more likely it is they take up the offer of a portable discount, and the cost will therefore be higher. We will return to how this is financed, but I have a real problem—as I will say later—about a policy that effectively controls the spend by having to say no to people whom you previously promised you might say yes to.
Lord Young of Cookham
Whichever route one goes down, whether the discount is available in the open market or restricted to housing association properties, it comes out of a pot of money which is going to be restricted in any event, so I am not sure that the noble Lord’s point is entirely valid.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, started his remarks with a prediction that this voluntary agreement would not survive a change of Administration.
Housing and Planning Bill
Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kerslake
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
Could the noble Lord explain the theology of the public financing of his proposal? I think he said at the start that this would not add to the deficit, but it would add to the PSBR. If that is right, is it the case that if the Government wanted to stay at the current level of PSBR in order to fund his ingenious proposal, something else would have to give?
Lord Kerslake
The noble Lord’s interpretation is correct. Because there is a third-party asset against the expenditure, it shows as debt on the Government’s balance sheet, but it does not show as deficit spending. That was the means by which the Government were able to rapidly expand the Help to Buy initiative; it does not score as expenditure in the traditional way. If the Government were to fund this initiative, they could either take a view about how much they are likely to spend on Help to Buy—and as I said last time, something like £3.8 billion of the £10 billion has already been committed in terms of Help to Buy, so there is still some headroom there—or, alternatively, they could look at whether they would take additional debt on to the balance sheet. Those are the two choices. We are between a rock and a hard place here. We are tying together two policies which, on the face of it, at best, it is a struggle to add up. The alternative is to go straight on to deficit. That is a third option which allows the Government to deliver the opportunity in a way that does not destroy the Chancellor’s intentions in relation to the deficit.