Housing (London)

Debate between Karen Buck and Glenda Jackson

Wednesday 5th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) on securing this important debate. Looking around Westminster Hall, once again we see Labour colleagues—but not, sadly, colleagues from other parties—speaking about the housing crisis in London.

In the Ipsos MORI poll in London a couple of weeks ago, we saw the evidence that, for the first time ever, Londoners rate the housing crisis as the most serious issue facing them, with 82% of those polled agreeing that we are in the grip of a housing crisis. That crisis affects just about every Londoner—certainly every younger Londoner, who faces the challenge of finding a home of their own. We see this crisis as a cost-of-living crisis, with people unable to afford to buy the homes that, until a few years ago, they were able to buy, albeit sometimes with a struggle. We now see that it is necessary to have a salary of around £50,000 to get a mortgage on a first-time property in London, and of course that is not far off double the average income in London.

We also see that the rented sector, which is growing so dramatically, is being squeezed in London, with rents up 7.9% last year to an average of £938 a month. Again, what we are seeing is not only a terrifying squeeze on Londoners’ incomes but an enormous increase in the housing benefit bill as a consequence; I will refer again to that increase in a minute.

The situation has implications for how we live and the nature of our society. We are seeing a record number of young people who are no longer able to leave home because they are unable to afford a home of their own. We are also seeing an impact on the London economy, which London First and other employers are raising as a matter of serious concern.

If people live in a family home where there is an opportunity for them to stay into their twenties and even into their thirties, that is not great for the families or the young people themselves, but at least it is manageable. However, if we are looking at the kind of young people whose families are in the private rented sector or social rented sector, the situation is leading to the explosion of overcrowding. Currently, 24% of all Londoners are living in overcrowded accommodation. Tragically, I often see young people thrown out of their overcrowded family homes drifting into sofa surfing and sometimes into homelessness. We have seen a dramatic rise in homelessness, especially among the young.

The situation has not only had a serious impact on people’s lives but caused an absurd increase in public spending on the consequences of failure. I made a series of freedom of information inquiries to London councils last month and found that London local authorities had spent half a billion pounds on emergency accommodation since 2010. My own local authority is Westminster, which of course has led the charge on so many of the policies that the Government are adopting. It has spent a staggering £111 million on emergency accommodation. That accommodation is bed and breakfasts and the replacement for bed and breakfasts, which is the nightly booked annex accommodation, with no time limit—families are stuck, often on the outskirts of London or even beyond.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

I entirely concur with everything that my hon. Friend has said, not only in this debate but in the many others we have had about this issue in the past. I can give an example from my own constituency, where a family has been housed—they have to be housed, because there is a statutory duty on the local authority to house them—in a place that is infested with lice and clearly unfit for human occupation. However, there is virtually nothing else that that local authority can do.

[Ms Buck]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that some of the conditions that people are living in are shocking in their squalor. That is particularly offensive, given what was in a superb report produced a few weeks ago by Tom Copley of the Greater London authority. It showed that a third of former right-to-buy properties in London are now in the private rented sector.

I have said many times, in Westminster Hall and elsewhere, that it appals me that we can have two households living next door to each other, one in a local authority property where the rent is, say, £110 or £120 a week—allowing people in that household to work and thereby improving their incentive to work—while next door to them is a former right-to-buy property. Many such properties are rented back to the local authority for emergency accommodation, and the rent for them can reach £500 a week. I have been in some of them and seen water pouring down the walls and black fungus growing in the bathroom, including in the toilet. Even for a rent of £500 a week, it is impossible to ensure that such properties are anything other than a slum.

The coalition Government—and, indeed, the Mayor of London—want to see that process intensify; they want to see social housing sold off in central London. They want to see us flogging the last of the family silver, even though these properties are enormously important.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Karen Buck and Glenda Jackson

Monday 13th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ms Buck]

I will be very interested to see the evidence for the hon. Lady’s assertion. Although I know that our two parties have differed in the past on their interpretation of “rough sleeping”—on street homelessness—and that there is a genuine debate to be had about how that is measured, I was not aware, and I stand to be corrected, that there has been a shift in the data set for the measurement of the number of people approaching local authorities as homeless and being accepted as such. Nothing on the DCLG website indicates that, so I dispute her definition and it seems to me that we are facing a genuine problem.

Even more worryingly, rent arrears and mortgage default were to blame for a growing share of the number of people who were approaching local authorities as homeless; although not the main cause, that is a growing cause of those applications. It gives me no satisfaction to see that; I do not want people to be made homeless. As we discussed in Committee, homelessness is one of the greatest traumas that any household can possibly face. The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) and other Government Members must face up to the fact that the statistics show a growing trend just as the cuts in housing benefit begin to be flagged up and as people react to the changes in the incoming benefits.

The second set of data to come out in the past week of which we need to be cognisant was a survey released on Friday by the National Landlords Association. It found that 58% of all private residential landlords plan to reduce the number of properties they let to tenants on local housing allowance. Some 80% of landlords expressed concern about the reduction in local housing allowance rates from the average market rents of the bottom 30% and the same number were worried, as I shall discuss in the context of the relevant amendment, about the future local housing allowance increases being linked to the consumer prices index rather than true market rents. The survey also found that 90% of landlords stated they cannot afford to reduce their rents to absorb changes to the local housing allowance as the large majority are faced with mortgage repayments and rising running costs.

The worrying picture is that our discussions are put in context by the cuts in housing benefit that have already been through the House and were opposed by the Opposition, which are feeding through into the concerns of landlords. One point of concern is that when the Government assert that 30% of properties will remain available to tenants on local housing allowance, they ignore the fact that not all the properties in that threshold will be available to tenants because it will not necessarily be the landlords within that cohort who are prepared to let in the first place.

We will have to wait and see, but it is entirely reasonable for alarm bells to ring on the impact on homelessness when we look at those two sets of statistics. If we find either that households are in an affordability crisis or that landlords simply pull out of the housing benefit sector, particularly in those areas where the demand for private rented accommodation is greatest—that is, London, the south-east and some of our cities—we will have a severe problem and many the assumptions being made by the Government about savings are unlikely to be realised. Homelessness is an expensive process and places considerable pressure on local government.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

Is there not a third warning bell, also, in the evidence that is being produced almost weekly that the inability of first-time buyers to obtain a reasonable mortgage means that they are forgoing the possibility of ever becoming homeowners and are renting? That is increasing not only in cities but across the country, apparently.

[Ms Buck]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Without any question, we are seeing a growth in the private rented sector for all those reasons, including the affordability crisis and the lending pressures in the home ownership sector. That means that the private rented sector, which we all applaud and support—we want a healthy private rented sector—can draw from an increased pool of potential tenants who are not on housing allowance. There will be competition for those properties between tenants who do not require housing allowance and those who do and are on the transitional protection path through the caps and reductions in the 30th percentile on which we have already agreed—I shall turn in a second to the further ratcheting down that is intrinsic to the future use of the consumer prices index rather than a local housing allowance determination—and that pressure will mean that a larger pool of people are frozen out of such accommodation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Buck]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have been drawn into arguing with the Government on their own terms, which is a clinical, cash-led way of debating such things: if it will cost £5, someone may have to lose their home; that is the only measure. However, my hon. Friend is right, and we expressed such anxieties about the whole under-occupation policy in Committee. We could be talking about somebody in an adapted property, somebody who has been in their family home for 30 years, or somebody who has been in their home for 30 years but has recently been widowed or lost a child and is suddenly deemed to be under-occupying.

[Glenda Jackson]

Is there not another bureaucratic hurdle for people who are in adapted homes or, as is often the case in my constituency, elderly people who have lived in a place for a long period whose families have moved? Both categories could be defined as vulnerable. I am not saying that all young people in this country are necessarily hell-raisers, but would there not be a justifiable cause for an additional tenant to go through a Criminal Records Bureau check?

[Ms Buck]

I am not going to be drawn into debating the advantages and disadvantages of an argument that has just been thrown into the air by the Minister. In some circumstances, the idea may work. Some individuals of working age will actively want to downsize and will say, “We are in a three-bedroom property and it is too big for us. We have been waiting for years to get into a one-bedroom property.” In the real world, we all deal as constituency MPs with people with a huge number of different needs. There are people in all different circumstances, and these different options will work for some people.

The point, surely, in discussing this amendment is that there are 101,000 to 108,000 households in properties that are specifically adapted for their needs who, despite the slightly more sympathetic noises coming from the Minister, in just over 18 months will lose up to 23% of their housing benefit. I am not sure that the vague and general ideas being thrown out by the ministerial team are doing anything to help us deal with that reality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Buck]

The point that the hon. Lady misses is this: when people come to my advice surgery and say that they need an adapted property, they do not mean that they need one in Merseyside. That is the fundamental problem. Not only is there a regional imbalance in the supply of accommodation, but each individual has individual needs. If they do not, why does my local authority employ Dependability Ltd to send occupational therapists to assess individual needs? I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) would support me on this, but every individual with a disability is likely to have personalised requirements. That is my central argument. Not everybody has wheelchair access adaptations or larger bathrooms or lower counters. Adaptations are highly tailored to the individual’s circumstances, as they should be.

In some cases, the Government’s proposals will work like a dream. Nobody is arguing that in no instance will a perfect match be found and people will be satisfied. My central point is that that will involve a minority of the 108,000 who will be affected. I cannot see—housing associations support my analysis—how the result could be anything different. The measure is likely to result in a phenomenal waste of money on adapted properties and/or to trap people with disabilities who are by definition on low and fixed incomes with a cut in their living standards, which is exactly what the Government told us they wish to avoid.

Last year, the Secretary of State claimed that disabled people had “nothing to fear” from his welfare plans, adding:

“It is a proud duty to provide financial security to the most vulnerable members of our society and this will not change.”

If disabled people are in an adapted property with an extra bedroom, they have every reason, as things stand, to worry.

To return to the intervention from the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott), the discretionary housing payment, which the Government repeatedly say is a panacea, is the philosopher’s stone, as I described in Committee. Somehow, the £40 million a year fund will stretch to cover overall cuts in housing benefit of £1.5 billion. There is no earthly way in which it can stretch sufficiently to cover the protection of vulnerable younger people who are affected by the single-room cuts, of people in accommodation that has been adapted for disabled use, and of all those whom we want to keep in their homes because we want them to keep their jobs when their property becomes unaffordable owing to overall housing benefit cuts and the downrating from CPI.

[Glenda Jackson]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mutters from a sedentary position, the scheme is not voluntary. That is surely the antithesis of what Government Members have argued—they say that their plans treat everybody as individuals. The scheme is an imposition.

[Ms Buck]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The scheme is not voluntary. Voluntary downsizing has a proud history. Good local authorities and housing associations provide voluntary downsizing, which is sensible. The Government’s measure requires 108,000 households whose properties have been adapted for disabled purposes to take, within the next 18 months, a significant cut in their housing benefit, or to move, regardless of the value of that adaptation. The Minister implies a mammoth bureaucratic exercise to evaluate every one of those adaptations, and to establish individual cost-benefit analyses in every case, in the hope, which I suspect will be a forlorn one, that an appropriate property will be available for people to move into when they fall foul of such analyses. That appropriate property does not have to be within the local authority area or even the region where those people have family, friends, support and, in some cases, employment.

Those two concerns, of the many that the Opposition have on housing costs, are the subject of the amendments that we have tabled. I hope that the Minister, who has made sympathetic noises on both issues in Committee, goes a little further tonight, and gives us solid and binding reassurances that there is a way of resolving the benefit trap that will catch so many people, in order, as Ministers have frequently stated in the media, to deal with a very small number of high-value claimants who dominate the media agenda. It is not fair to capture 108,000 disabled people and 750,000 claimants of local housing allowance, all of whom will be affected by the housing benefit cuts, in order to deal with a small number of extreme cases, on which we could otherwise have had a sensible debate about attempting to resolve.

Housing Benefit

Debate between Karen Buck and Glenda Jackson

Thursday 10th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Ms Buck]

rose—

[Glenda Jackson]

rose—

[Steve Webb]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Westminster North in a second. One of the reasons why deficit reduction is so vital is that so many items of spending have become too large. Some of the concessions that we have talked about would be £100 million here or £500 million there. Very soon they add up to serious money.

Academies Bill [Lords]

Debate between Karen Buck and Glenda Jackson

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Glenda Jackson]

I do not wish to be rude, but the hon. Gentleman is not a testament to his own education. He does not listen to what I say. The point that I was making about a community was not about education, but about the way in which communities work together over a wide spectrum of experience, ethnicity and age. I consider that the Bill has enormous potential to create a serious breakdown in social cohesion—

[Ms Buck]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Glenda Jackson]

May I just finish the sentence? Then I shall be delighted to allow my hon. Friend to intervene.

It seems to me that the strongest bulwark against that serious breakdown is to ensure that we have an admissions policy that is fair in the broadest sense, as suggested by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas).

[Ms Buck]

Is not my hon. Friend’s point reinforced, and that made by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) undermined, by the extraordinary variation in the intake of precisely the pupils whom my hon. Friend has described—pupils who are on School Action Plus, pupils with special educational needs and pupils who are entitled to free school dinners? Schools with a significantly larger proportion of pupils in those categories almost invariably struggle to achieve the educational standards achieved by schools that choose to take fewer such pupils. Will not allowing more schools to choose less deprived pupils increase that variation between higher and lower-performing schools?

[Glenda Jackson]

I entirely agree, and we must take that seriously.

We have come so far in so many ways in this country. I know that the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) disagrees with me, but over the past 13 years I have seen a transformation of the schools in my constituency and a transformation of the educational levels of pupils in my constituency, and that seems to be increasing. There are invariably benefits in such circumstances, because of the wide variety of people whom our children meet. The variations in culture, language and tradition feed into schools in a way that has an intrinsically positive effect not only on the children’s education, but on the quality and stability of life in this country.

I am a product of the 11-plus, and I remember distinctly what happened at the time. I lived in a very small town. I was probably related to two thirds of the people there, and everyone knew me and my entire family. The results of the 11-plus came in. As I walked to school people asked me, “Have you passed?” and I said, “I don’t know.” “Oh,” they said, “You’ve failed.” I went home for lunch. The brown envelope had arrived; I had passed. I went back. In the intervening time, my mother had run around and told everyone that I had passed.

What is most shocking to me, however—I did not realise it at the time, but I realise it now—was the attitude of adults whom I had known all my life. I must say in fairness to them that they had always looked out for me and mine and ours, because at that time there was a community culture of looking out for our children. They had changed in a second their view of what I was capable of and of what I was as a human being. If Government Members really wish to return that burden to the shoulders of 11-year-old children, I throw up my hands in despair because I do not know what they want from education or what they expect of our children.