Housing Benefit (Under-occupancy Penalty)

Jim McGovern Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Redwood]

I am afraid that I cannot give way again. I am running out of time, and if I give way I will not be given any injury time.

We need to look at the issue of under-occupation among the elderly, and we need then to look at the issue of the disabled. That was why I approached this debate with considerable nervousness. As I think my hon. Friends know, I wish us to be more generous to the disabled, not less generous, and I think we all feel a little nervous about how far we should go. I was somewhat reassured to see that there are different definitions of disability and a rather wider definition is being used than would, perhaps, be normal. I am interested in the people who are seriously disabled, as recognised through the receipt of disability benefit.

I urge my ministerial friends to be as generous as possible. We must not presume that there is an easy solution, however. Again, if there are issues that need to be sorted out, the best way to do that is through support and persuasion and offering people something better. That must be the aim. Why would somebody move if their new home is going to be worse than their current one? If it can be shown that there would be better, more appropriate and better supported accommodation, however, I might be more willing to accept that we should follow the proposed course of action. I urge my ministerial friends to be extremely careful about the definition of the disability category, however.

One Opposition Member argued that this is a cynical policy and there might not be many savings if it works. That is a misunderstanding of the true nature of the policy. It is not primarily a public spending-cut policy; it is a policy designed to try to get more people into public sector housing that is suitable for them. That is the bigger picture.

We have an inadequate amount of housing stock, and some people have more of it than they strictly need, whereas others do not have as much of it as they strictly, technically need on the needs definition. We are arguing here about the balance between those two groups, and whether it would be feasible to solve the overall shortage by producing more housing. Even the Labour party must understand that if we were to go for the big build answer, that would take several years to come through. Ministers are feeling very frustrated at present that they have identified places for building and the means of financing that building, but it is taking a very long time to get the building to come through so we can start to tackle this problem.

My next topic is how to tackle the problems of insufficient housing and excess welfare spending. The issue of eligibility is key. My constituents tell me that they feel much more inclined to pay taxes to make sure that people who have been settled in this country for many years, or who have been born and brought up here, can get access to proper housing than to provide housing for people who have only just arrived and seem to know how to work the system to get access to housing. The Government could productively focus on that. I am sure there will be European Union rules, but we need to negotiate on this with our European partners, and make a stand if necessary, because there is a strong feeling in our country that public housing will be limited—more limited than some would like—and if we are to make choices, the priority must be those who have been here for some time and who have made a contribution and are part of our settled community. That does not always seem to be the case. I hope Ministers will see the issue of eligibility as a proper avenue for addressing both excess benefit expenditure and the shortage of available property.

These are difficult waters. Anyone who looks at the situation rationally will agree that there is under-occupation and we need to tackle it sensitively. They will also agree that we need more housing provision overall, and we need to do what we can to tackle that. I hope we can all agree that the best answer is to find a way to enable more people to enjoy what every MP takes for granted. We take it for granted that we have a well-paid job and that we can afford to buy a house. I think that every MP owns a property. Indeed, some of them own rather more than one property, I believe, and that has sometimes become a matter of comment. It is normal for an MP to own a property—to be an owner-occupier—and to enjoy a good income, and I am sure most MPs own a spare room or two.

I do not think there is anything wrong with people striving, getting a better job, earning more money and having spare rooms. I am personally very much in favour of spare rooms when people can afford to have them. We also need to make sure we have a fair tax system so that we are all making a decent contribution to those who cannot afford spare rooms.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how many spare rooms he has in his house—or has he not got round to counting them yet?

[Mr Redwood]

My spare rooms are a matter for me because I paid for them myself, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman has spare rooms and I dare say he paid for them himself. That is exactly the kind of society we all want to live in, I would have thought. I do not know of any Labour MPs who could stand up and say that they are at the minimum accommodation level—I invite them to do so, but I do not see anyone rushing to stand up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie]

No, as I have only two and a half minutes left.

The other 2,804 households will lose 14% of their housing benefit. Tenants in two-bedroom council properties could lose benefit entitlement of approximately £9.93 a week, which is £516 a year. Those with two so-called spare rooms will lose an entitlement of £20.07 a week, which is more than £1,000 a year. Does the Minister understand what the loss of £1,000 a year means to families who are already struggling to make ends meet? Does he understand the consequence of that level of indebtedness? Legitimate lending companies will not lend to people in those circumstances, and credit unions can only do so much. This policy will drive people into the hands of loan sharks and illegal moneylenders, and the consequences of that will be picked up by social work departments, health services and the police, at a cost to the public purse for a policy that is unlikely to save this Government any money in the first place.

[Jim McGovern]

A couple of weeks ago, I attended a meeting with officers of Dundee city council who said that discretionary payments would be extremely limited because they have never had the funds for that. I asked whether they had smaller houses for people who were willing to move. They replied, “No.”

[Stewart Hosie]

The hon. Gentleman sums up the situation nicely. The discretionary pot is too small. I do not dislike discretion generally—I think it is quite helpful—but there are too many categories of people who should be fully exempt but who will be subjected to the tender mercies of discretionary decision making, which may go against them when it ought not to.

In short, this remains a very bad policy with too many of the wrong people suffering a very bad impact, and it must be reversed. It risks destabilising communities; it disproportionately hits disabled people; it puts the burden of paying the cost of this Government’s economic failure on the backs of some of the poorest in society. That, I think, tells us everything we need to know about the Tory-Liberal Government, many of whom—most of whom, I suspect, or perhaps even all—have not been poor and, more important, do not understand what it means to be poor in society today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Owing to pressure on the availability of larger properties, many social landlords provide significant incentives for people to move.

It is important to remember that the housing market is dynamic. It is not a static market, with people staying in the same house their whole lives, and they should not expect that to be the case. I understand that people move house, on average, every seven years. It is perfectly reasonable that that happens, and that it should continue to happen, because it frees up the properties people need. I intervened on the hon. Member for Dundee East to make that important point.

When a three or four-bedroom property in the social rented sector is freed up, it might well be filled by someone who had been living in the private rented sector, which is more expensive, so they will be moving into the cheaper social rented sector. The person who had been living in the three or four-bedroom property might move back into the private rented sector, which has a higher cost, but there would be a bigger saving because the other person had moved into the social rented sector. That is important, because some of the debate has focused on the inflexibility of the housing market. It has been said, for example, that there are not enough one-bedroom properties in the social rented sector for people to move down to, but there are plenty of properties across the country as a whole. People will move more freely between the private and public rented sectors and will continue to have their rents paid for them unless they choose, as they will be free to do, to earn more money by working a few more hours a week or by taking in a lodger and so on in order to get the extra income.

[Jim McGovern]

May I ask the hon. Gentleman—he is making the speech, but this applies to everyone on the Government Benches—whether he can imagine asking his mother, sister, brother, daughter or son to take in a stranger as a lodger?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I would be very happy to take in a lodger myself. Indeed, in my earlier life I had lodgers in my house, which helped to pay the bills.