Housing (CSR)

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 27th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Raynsford]

My hon. Friend speaks with considerable knowledge and experience of the subject, and I wholly endorse what she said. That is an area where there is great cause for concern. It is rather depressing that it is coming from a Minister whose language reveals the rather cavalier approach that he is adopting towards his policies.

In March this year, in the run-up to the general election, the current Housing Minister said:

“Conservatives will ensure that living in social accommodation means that you’ll get a ‘freedom pass’ to get on and do more with your life.”

That is the first time that I have heard a notice to quit described as a freedom pass. That is an indication of the Orwellian language that the Government are using to justify some of their wholly unacceptable policies.

All of us recognise that security is so important for people’s life prospects, so why should the coalition Government, without any manifesto commitment or reference in the coalition agreement, move to take away that precious security from a group of our fellow citizens who arguably need it more than anyone? The only credible argument advanced by those who advocate the policy is that it will free up social housing, making more homes available to those in need, but any serious analysis of the Government’s proposals shows clearly that it will not have that effect—on the contrary, it will discourage mobility—and that, even if it did have the intended effect, it would have disastrous social consequences.

Let us take those arguments in turn. If existing tenants are not to lose their security, and if new lettings are to be made on a new basis without the traditional security and at 80% of market rents, existing tenants who might have considered moving to a smaller home, so releasing larger accommodation for those in need, will obviously have second thoughts if the result will be a loss of security and a rent increase. The policy would have the opposite effect of that intended. If, however, to counter that perverse incentive to remain in an under-occupied home, tenants are allowed to keep their security when moving and not have a rent increase, there will be grotesque anomalies. Wholly different rents and tenancy terms will be perpetuated solely on the arbitrary criterion of whether the tenancy is offered to a transferring tenant or a new applicant.

Worse still will be the consequences of using the new insecure tenancies to require tenants to move on if their income increases or if they are judged to have enjoyed sufficient time in social housing. What chance is there of creating mixed and balanced communities, rather than ghettos of deprivation, if anyone who gets on is told to leave? If only the poor and the unemployed can occupy social housing, that is a recipe for residualisation and a total disincentive to aspiration.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend has come to the nub of the issue, which is that this is not about creating balanced communities but about social engineering. On new build housing, I use the example of my local authority, Hammersmith and Fulham, which is aiming for 40% affordable housing over the next 10 years. All those units will be intermediate housing, which is for people on incomes between £20,000 and £80,000 a year, yet 40% of households in the borough are on incomes below £20,000. The people most in housing need will not be provided with housing.

[Mr Raynsford]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point and shows the linkage between the policies on housing benefit, which will put enormous pressure on people on lower incomes to move out of high-cost areas, and the impact of the changed social housing policy that the new Government are introducing, which will have exactly the same effect.

I can match my hon. Friend’s observation by referring to the experience in my constituency. In the SE10 postal district, which is at the heart of the Greenwich and Woolwich constituency, average market rents are estimated at £380 a week and 80% of them would involve a rent of more than £300 a week for a supposed social letting. No one in low-paid work would consider such a tenancy unless they were to have most of the costs covered by housing benefit. Of course, if that were the case, there would be a huge surge in the cost of housing benefit, which hardly tallies with the coalition Government’s current objectives, nor the caps that they are applying.

Indeed, if people did move in on the basis that they would get most of their costs met by housing benefit, the double whammy from some sanctimonious Minister would be a call for further housing benefit cuts or caps on the grounds that people on benefit should not be able to live in such expensive areas. So who will occupy any homes that are built on that basis? Some may go, perfectly properly, to people in what is often described as the intermediate market. One of the more encouraging trends in recent years has been the development of mixed-tenure communities with opportunities for people to occupy housing on a range of different terms: social renting, intermediate renting, market renting, low-cost home ownership and outright ownership.

The whole point of such diversity is to provide for a range of needs and for people in different economic circumstances. It makes a lot of sense to provide intermediate renting solutions as part of mixed developments. However, it makes no sense to substitute intermediate renting for the social renting options that are available to those on low incomes. If in Greenwich, where social rents for council and housing association tenancies are currently in the range of £80 to £110 a week, all new lettings involved a substitution with lettings at 80% of market rents, the poor would lose out, and, even so, the scheme would probably fail because low-cost home ownership would provide a more attractive proposition to those who can afford a rent in excess of £300 a week.

Once again, we see a policy that has all the hallmarks of being made on the hoof. There is no serious analysis of its likely consequences, let alone empirical tests or pilots to see whether it works. It carries all the marks of the coalition Government proposing far-reaching and fundamental changes to institutions and policies that have potentially devastating consequences, with no supporting evidence base.

In their five months in office, the coalition Government have already had a disastrous impact on housing in this country. The recovery from recession has been stalled, house building is in crisis, social housing is facing a death warrant, private renting is being undermined by housing benefit cuts and hundreds of thousands of tenants are fearful about whether they can continue to afford their rent and many more are under the threat of having to move or facing the bleak prospect of homelessness. It is difficult to think of a more inept and deplorable record in such a short period of time. One can only hope that Ministers will come to their senses and recognise that this is no way to run housing policy. Our country and our people deserve better.