Housing Supply

Debate between Alison Seabeck and Nick Raynsford

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Raynsford]

I did indeed. I say to the hon. Gentleman that given that output is currently averaging just 112,000 homes a year, a target of 200,000 represents a very substantial increase. We can have an academic debate about whether that is enough, but the harsh reality, which his party should not have ignored, is the total failure of this Government to deliver anything near the level required. The output number has to be doubled, and I hope he will support a Labour Government when they are in power—if he is still around—and are delivering to that target.

The Minister, like his predecessor bar one, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), loves to project future increases in numbers, so we hear about 170,000 affordable homes, for example. The right hon. Gentleman used to quote that figure, and we heard it from the Minister today. Let me just give the actual figures on affordable homes started by this Government: in 2010—the third and fourth quarters—they started 10,990; in 2011, they started 25,000; in 2012, they started 20,000; in 2013, they started 24,000; and in 2014—

[Alison Seabeck]

rose—

[Mr Raynsford]

And in the first quarter of 2014, the Government have started 5,900. Their own records show that, in the 15 quarters for which they have been in power, they have started 86,810 affordable homes. So let us hear no more boasting about unrealistic targets for how the Government are going to start all these homes, given that they have lamentably failed to deliver them.

[Alison Seabeck]

rose—

[Mr Raynsford]

Of course I give way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Seabeck]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Does he share my concern that the Minister is not here to answer the questions he has just posed on those figures? The Minister did not explain that he was going to leave early.

[Mr Raynsford]

I am very grateful for that intervention, and I suspect I shall be in deep trouble tonight for my failure to give way earlier. My hon. Friend makes a very valid point about the absence of the Minister. I hope he is away for only a short time, because I am sure he will benefit from hearing some of the comments I am going to make in the latter part of my speech.

Council Tax Support

Debate between Alison Seabeck and Nick Raynsford

Wednesday 14th May 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Raynsford]

My hon. Friend is prescient—I was about to come on to that very point. I hope he will bear with me, so that I do not repeat myself by first answering his question then coming back to the text in my speech where I refer to the issue.

To add to the challenge, the Government added two further obligations. The first was to protect all recipients over pension age—the point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) referred. The second was to avoid creating work disincentives. The first might well be justified, even though, as my hon. Friend indicated, it will create anomalies, with people in virtually identical circumstances but divided by perhaps a couple of years in age receiving different benefit entitlements because of those few years. People over retirement age generally live on fixed incomes and cannot easily adjust to unexpected reductions in benefit entitlement, so a degree of protection for pensioner households is understandable. However, protecting around 40% of recipients will inevitably mean heavier cuts for those who are not protected. It is the remainder of households—a majority, including those in work—that have borne the brunt of the change.

Imposing what was estimated to be an average cut of 16% in entitlement for working-age recipients is bad enough, but of course it runs completely counter to the stated objective of avoiding work disincentives. Furthermore, the centrally imposed requirement to safeguard those over pension age does not sit comfortably with the Government’s other stated objective. I will quote from the Government’s objectives for the scheme, which give a stated aim as being to

“reinforce local control over council tax. Enabling decisions to be taken locally about the provision of support with council tax is consistent with a drive for greater local financial accountability and decision-making”.

One of the more bizarre characteristics of the current Government is that they keep on talking the language of localism while dictating, often in minute detail, exactly how local authorities should behave.

Thirteen months on from the introduction of localised council tax support, how have local authorities responded and what has been the impact on the households that depend on financial support to meet all or part of their council tax liabilities? There have been several studies, including detailed analyses by the New Policy Institute and the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Those studies show that a minority of councils have sought to maintain the same level of support as under the former council tax benefit scheme, but the large majority of councils—more than four out of five—have reduced benefit entitlement for working-age applicants. Almost three quarters have introduced a minimum payment, which varies considerably from area to area: currently, 69 out of 326 authorities expect recipients to pay 8.5% or less, but at the other extreme, 47 councils expect contributions of 20% or more. The majority of councils are somewhere between those extremes, expecting a minimum contribution of around 15%—my own local authority of Greenwich is in that category.

In addition to a minimum contribution requirement, several other changes to the former council tax benefit scheme have been made by individual councils. They include: removal of the second adult rebate; a band cap restricting entitlement in higher value properties; reductions in the limit on savings that can be held before entitlement is withdrawn—many have reduced that savings limit from £16,000 to just £6,000; increased non-dependant deductions; and changes to the income taper, which determines the rate of benefit withdrawal as income levels rise.

In the first year of the new arrangements the Government provided transitional support, conditional on local authorities limiting any minimum payment requirement to 8.5% of the total liability. With the ending of that transitional support, almost half the councils that had kept to the minimum payment requirement then increased the amount; there have been other changes to the details of schemes in specific areas as well.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

For the record, I draw the House’s attention to my indirect interest in my right hon. Friend’s interests. Does he agree that the net outcome of all these changes, with their piecemeal effects, is that the south-west has been hit hardest? The average cut in support across the south-west is now £177 and last year, it was even worse, at £185. Cornwall, which was an objective 1 area, is historically very poor, yet people there are being badly hit by the changes.

[Mr Raynsford]

My hon. Friend has identified one of the interesting characteristics of the consequences of this change to localisation—the significant and often surprising variations between individual areas. One of the curious characteristics of the change is that, based on figures I have seen, the largest adverse impact appears to be on council tax benefit recipients in the south-west, who are now facing a greater average obligation to pay than those in any other region in England.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Alison Seabeck and Nick Raynsford

Wednesday 18th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Raynsford]

There are certainly no details about how the compensation arrangements and the safety net procedure will work. Nor is there any indication that central Government are prepared to accept that they are putting local authorities in an impossible position by proposing that they should take all the downside risk of a serious increase in demand for council tax benefit in any one year which they cannot themselves have anticipated.

What will happen to a local authority if a local business closes? What will happen if there is a serious rise in unemployment in the district, and as a consequence a large number of additional claims for council tax benefit are received? The authority will have no safety net. All that the Government propose is the possibility of some sharing or pooling arrangement with neighbourhood authorities to offset the risk. That is not compensating local government; it is local government having to help itself out in order to cope with the risk that is being transferred to it by central Government.

[Alison Seabeck]

I must first draw Members’ attention to my indirect interest in the interest declared by my right hon. Friend. I should have done that earlier, but I did not get around to it.

Might not a pooling arrangement lead to different problems popping up in different authorities at different times during the year? Exactly when and how will the safety net begin to operate in all those individual instances, and will authorities really want to share such a degree of risk?

[Mr Raynsford]

There are two different elements. One is the safety net system, which the Government have outlined without giving us the details, and which is designed to cope with circumstances in which there is a serious reduction in non-domestic rate revenue because of changes beyond a local authority’s control. That safety net exists, at least in principle. There might also be changes in benefit demand. Indeed, both of those elements might arise, as there might be a reduction in business rates because of the closure of a business and an increase in benefit claims because the people employed by that business are now out of work and therefore require help with their council tax. There could therefore be a double whammy. There is no safety net from Government to help local authorities with the second element. Instead, there is only the suggestion that there might be some pooling of risk, which is an unacceptable response to a very serious problem.

Parliamentary Standards Act 2009

Debate between Alison Seabeck and Nick Raynsford

Thursday 15th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Raynsford]

My hon. Friend makes a telling point and countless examples have been brought to those of us who served on the Committee of ways in which the current system imposes unreasonable costs and burdens and is inefficient. Our objective as a Committee was to come forward with proposals that would be practical and sensible and could be implemented to achieve a better system of independently regulated expenses. That is the nub of what the Committee is proposing. As the report emphasises, the improvement of the process should deliver savings in expenditure because the current system costs more than is required to run an independently regulated, transparent and cost-effective system. Indeed, as the Chair of the Committee made clear, it is hard to find examples anywhere else in the world of a system where the regulator is also the payment agency—where the two roles, administration and regulation, are combined. There are unfortunately inherent inefficiencies in the way in which that is being done, which need to be addressed to create a fair but also more cost-effective system.

Therefore, it is sad, but not entirely unpredictable, that much of the media reaction to the publication of the report and today’s debate is to interpret them as an attempt to turn the clock back to the bad old days. May I say openly, as an MP who has not been subject to personal criticism for his expense claims over the years, that I have no wish whatever to revert to the old system, which was open to abuse and has rightly been replaced by one of independent regulation? All MPs suffered reputational damage as a result of the exposure of the abuses that some perpetrated under the old system. The restoration of public confidence is vital and that is what should be at the forefront of our minds. That is why we must stick with a system of independent regulation, but it is also why we should not stay silent now about the failings of the administration of the existing system.

The worry is that, because MPs are naturally worried about reputational damage in a climate where some of the media have used this as an opportunity in the last day or two to raise lurid headlines of “Back to the bad old days”, and “Greedy MPs want more money”, genuine concerns about the inefficiencies and unsatisfactory features of the current system will not be addressed. MPs find it easier and safer not to put their heads above the parapet and risk being attacked by the media for supporting sensible recommendations that will improve the system.

[Alison Seabeck]

I also declare an interest. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the taxpayer will not thank us in the long term if we kick the issue into the long grass and allow the additional costs that IPSA is racking up in processing our claims to continue ad infinitum? Something does really need to be done.

[Mr Raynsford]

I agree wholeheartedly. We have a responsibility to speak out openly and properly about the failings of the existing system, while at the same time making clear our commitment to a framework of independently regulated expenses that guarantee transparency, probity and all the objectives that were rightly emphasised in the preparation of the 2009 legislation.

The report proposes exactly that. First, any fair-minded commentator reading the report will see that it clearly is not arguing for a return to the old discredited system of self-regulation; that is not anywhere in the report. It is utter nonsense for some media commentators to imply that that is the objective. Secondly, it is not a case of “greedy” MPs arguing for more money. As any fair-minded observer of the report will see, it focuses on ways in which savings can be made and argues that we should be operating a system that gives better value for money to the taxpayer. Indeed, as the report highlights, the criticisms have been overwhelmingly about the processes operated by IPSA, rather than the amounts of money involved. Thirdly, the report does not argue for flat-rate allowances, although it has been misrepresented as doing so. I will come back to that issue in a moment because it is controversial, but it is important to put on the record that it is not the Committee’s recommendation that there should be flat-rate allowances, other than those that already exist. There are flat-rate allowances in the existing system that apply to London MPs and those living in the area around outer London.

Localism Bill

Debate between Alison Seabeck and Nick Raynsford

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Raynsford]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. There is no way in which there will be more social homes, because he knows perfectly well that the only social homes provided will be provided because the previous Government funded them, and that most of the homes for which this Government will be responsible will be the so-called affordable homes—although that is a travesty of English, given that they are based on the principle of 80% of market rents, which will in many cases be a real test of affordability—and homes that are created as flexible tenancies under the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, because we have debated it and I am sorry he cannot acknowledge it, that the previous Government inherited from their predecessor the most disgraceful backlog of poor condition housing in the social sector and rightly concentrated investment in the early years on putting that backlog right. A huge number of tenants now live in decent homes because of the Labour Government’s work, but that Government also allowed those tenants who wanted to buy their homes to do so, and that inevitably accounted for some reduction in the volume of social housing.

[Alison Seabeck]

Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that in the five years between 2005 and 2010 the Labour Government built more than 250,000 affordable homes? In the five years between 2010 and 2015, we expect at most 150,000. Is that not pretty pathetic?

[Mr Raynsford]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point that I entirely endorse. It shows that the Minister’s claim was entirely incorrect, and he should be ashamed of making it.

The first amendment in my name, amendment 361, is about security of tenure. It is not the wrecking amendment that the Minister tried to pretend it is. It simply states:

“In preparing its tenancy strategy a local authority must ensure that to the greatest extent possible, tenancies granted in its area provide security of tenure so as to support and develop stable and confident communities.”

That is absolutely in keeping with the intelligent comments of the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) on how there is a place for flexible tenancies, but they should not take over, and to the greatest extent possible we should try to support security and help to build stable communities.

That is the purpose of the amendment, and I cannot understand why the Government are reluctant to accept it. I give the Minister one last chance. If he wants to be held to have any real credibility on the issue, he should accept it, because it would indicate that he is not simply performing a sleight of hand that will deny tenants security, but is genuinely interested in maximising the number of tenants who enjoy security of tenure. That would at least be a step in the right direction, and I hope that the Government will change their mind. I note, however, that he did not bother to respond to my question about why they have not accepted the amendment on a minimum of five years, so perhaps I might do a little better on this second try.