Private Rented Sector

Debate between John McDonnell and Ian Mearns

Wednesday 25th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

Suitable accommodation is non-existent. Firefighters in the Hayes station were commuting from Devon and Cornwall. It is very difficult to find anyone in public service locally who can afford a property in the area.

This means that the overcrowding in my constituency is appalling. In the 40 years that I have lived there, I have not seen it on such a scale before. People tell me it is as bad as it was after the second world war. We complain about kids being out on the streets and joining gangs, but overcrowding means that kids are forced out on to the streets, and they become incredibly vulnerable. Think about a child going home and having to do homework in the room where the other kids are having tea, or having their bedroom in the room where they have to do their homework either on their knees or on the bed. The social impact is horrendous.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[John McDonnell]

I cannot give way any more. I apologise.

There is also squalor in the private rented sector. In my constituency there are landlords, the majority of whom own one or two properties, who do not maintain them. This has been made worse by the economic recession. Walk down any street in my constituency and it will be clear from the standard of the properties and their maintenance which ones are the buy-to-lets. When the tenants complain, they are evicted. They have virtually no legal redress, because they cannot get into the courts; or they turn up at the citizens advice bureau or the law centre and it is difficult to get advice because they too are swamped. There is also an element of blacklisting of certain tenants who challenge particular landlords. The environmental health standards of some properties are appalling, yet obtaining enforcement by the council is difficult. I do not blame the local authority, because with staff cuts it is difficult to provide cover for the scale of the problem faced and the enforcement required.

Houses in multiple occupation in my constituency have experienced all the health and safety risks, including fires and, unfortunately, some fatalities as well. There is a continuous churning process, with families in short-life accommodation, perhaps for 18 months or two years, being moved out. That disrupts the family, breaking down family relationships and undermining communities, and the long-term impact on children’s education and social relationships is devastating.

The solution is a statement of the blindingly obvious: build more council houses. I was critical of the previous Government. We had debates such as this, but I think that the Labour party has learned the lesson that we now need to invest in social housing on a scale that we have not done in the last 20, 30 or 40 years. We need a massive council housing programme. Councils should be encouraged compulsorily to purchase empty land. We cannot wait around any longer while we negotiate with developers. The crisis is too large. In an area of desperate housing need, we still have empty properties. Homes are standing empty. There are 700,000 empty properties in this country, 300,000 of them long-term, beyond six months. We should be encouraging councils to use their compulsory purchase powers to take over those properties, and put homeless families in them.

I support everything in the motion, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) said, it will have limited effect, at least in my area. What we need are rent controls. We are accused of Chavezism, but I am quite proud of that. I am a Bolivarian. The only thing that would work in my area is control of rents, because at least in that way we would get back some form of affordable housing. If it is not the same in other areas, let us devolve the ability and the power to local authorities to determine in their area whether they want the power to control rents and at what level they should be set. That would at least give hope to families in my community that they might have a decent roof over their heads for their children.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between John McDonnell and Ian Mearns

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I agree with my hon. Friend, but I will come to that point later. The way in which the banks have continued their profligate distribution of bonuses looks like them cocking a snook at the Government and the level at which the levy has been set.

When the Chancellor appeared before the Treasury Committee, he advanced two arguments on how the levy was constructed. First, he argued that the levy was based on the price of the insurance that the Government and the taxpayer now implicitly offer for the wholesale funding of the banks; the levy is therefore a tax on the wholesale funding of banks’ operations. However, a calculation of the appropriate insurance for that scale of banking insurance, which could surely be done, would show that that sum is significantly more than the current bank levy proposal would raise.

The Chancellor’s second argument was that the levy was in the interests of equity: the banking sector, as well as the rest of us, should make a contribution to resolving the economic crisis. However, the amount that the bankers are being asked to provide to help to tackle the crisis that they created is piffling in comparison with the damage caused to our wider society, and minute in comparison with the burden that is being carried by others in terms of job losses and services cuts. Whole communities now face significant suffering and deprivation.

The Chancellor himself admitted that the targeted revenue sum was “relatively small” because, he argued, it balanced fairness with competitiveness, yet no study has been published and no evidence has been produced on the impact on banking competitiveness of varying the levy. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), I want to know what independent assessments have been made of the balance between fairness and competitiveness and how the calculation was arrived at. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr Love), who said that the measure throws the Government’s commitment to tax simplicity out the window. The taxation system on this issue is now more complex than any other point of taxation in the tax book, so I endorse the questions about how HMRC, with its current staffing cuts, can cope with the implementation of the levy. I would also welcome the Government publishing the consultation on the assessment of the amount of tax take from the proposed levy, because it looks like consultation was either non-existent or fairly minimal.

The amendment would require the report to consider

“the adequacy of the bank levy in the context of other reforms”.

Our understanding is that the levy was set to assist the implementation of the Merlin agreement and to ensure that the banks had a lending strategy to help get the economy moving and out of recession. As others have said, the levy must be set so as to ensure a continued influence on banks’ behaviour in relation to remuneration and bonuses. While promoting the bank levy, the Prime Minister and Chancellor exhorted bankers to show restraint. Is the levy set at the right level to ensure that the other reforms linked to it are completed and adhered to?

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

The evidence of our eyes and ears of the relationship in recent months between the Chancellor and the Prime Minister and the bankers is that there has been one word from the Chancellor and another word from the Prime Minister, and the banks have continued to do exactly what they want.

[John McDonnell]

That is exactly my point. It might be that the levy is being set in relation to other banking reforms, particularly those on bonuses and remuneration, but not only have we seen the complete disregard of the Chancellor’s and Prime Minister’s exhortations, with bonuses continuing at a very high level, but we have seen, as another Member said, a diversion into other forms of remuneration and salary increases. That is almost an abuse of the system as set out in the Government’s proposals.

If the debate is about the adequacy of the levy, and in view of the fact that in spite of the Government having set down a marker in the proposals, bonuses have continued and remuneration has increased, can the Government not support the amendment? If the review reported at least by December—I would prefer the autumn—we could consider increasing the levy to ensure adherence to the wider banking reform proposals the Government want implemented. It is clear from the evidence produced today that the banks need a continuing threat—a sword of Damocles—hanging over their heads, if we are to get any change in the bonuses and remuneration that are so offensive to all our constituents suffering in the recession.

It might be that the levy was set so that the Merlin agreement could become fully operable and lending might start in earnest again. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East noted, however, so far all the indications are that the revival of lending has not taken place. The Government’s proposals therefore warrant a review at the earliest stage, because even now, while they are still being implemented, they are not working. The evidence for that is all around us. It is clear now—this is why the review is so important—that the levy has become almost irrelevant to the real issues of capitalisation and regulation.