Housing Benefit

Debate between Karen Buck and Mike Hancock

Tuesday 13th July 2010 Westminster Hall

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

William Beveridge deferred any strategy for dealing with housing costs on the ground that that could not be done while there were still significant regional variations. To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen’s famous comment to Dan Quayle when Dan Quayle compared himself to Kennedy, “George Osborne, you are no William Beveridge.”

Our problem is that we have had a 30-year policy of shifting expenditure from the construction of affordable housing to the housing benefit budget. That includes, I have to say, decisions made by the Labour Government, which I did not agree with at the time. We are dealing with that now in the worst possible way.

Four categories of people are involved. There is a very small number of very extreme cases, which the Labour Government were planning to deal with through taking out the most expensive properties at the top of the market in the local housing allowance calculation, which was a reasonable one. We will not support such cases, but we have to have a sensible strategy for dealing with those extremes. I do not think that any Labour Member would disagree that pumping billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money into the pockets of private landlords is an insane way to go about a housing policy, but what is proposed is more insane.

I say that because of the other three categories. One is pensioners who never expected to be on housing benefit but who, many years into their private tenancy, as the rents have gone up, have found themselves caught. The second is people in the private rented sector who were working but who have lost their jobs or whose incomes have gone down and who now find that they have to claim housing benefit, possibly for a transitional period. The third category is people—families in many cases—in priority need, who either could not access social housing or were deliberately placed in the accommodation that we are talking about by local authorities. All three categories but certainly categories one and three are made up of very vulnerable people.

I have a few questions for the Minister and I would be grateful if he confirmed that he will write to all hon. Members with replies to these questions and those asked in the excellent opening speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier). Can he confirm that placing homeless households in private rented accommodation was a deliberate policy of local authorities and Government, and remains so? Is he aware of how many households have been either directed to or maintained in private lettings over the past five years as a deliberate housing policy?

What proportion of households making applications and accepted by local authorities as homeless had as the main reason for their homelessness acceptance the end of an assured shorthold tenancy? I believe that it is the majority of cases; it is the main driver of homelessness.

If a household is in priority need and faces a reduction in housing benefit below the rent payable, will the local authority continue to have a homelessness duty to it? How many private tenants on housing benefit currently face a shortfall between local housing allowance and the rent charged, and what is the average amount? Hon. Friends have cited some figures. Shelter has come up with the figure of 50% of all housing benefit claimants and cited the figure of £100.

What assessment has the Department made of the numbers overall and broken down by different categories—pensioners, families with children and those of working age—and by local authority area for additional homelessness applications that are expected as a result of the policy? What assessment is being undertaken of the implications for local authorities of the movement of substantial numbers of families with children, pensioner households and others, referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge)? I am thinking in particular of the capacity to provide school places and the implications for children’s services and adult services of dealing with large numbers of people with additional needs in a very short time scale.

Is it the Government’s intention to introduce new legislation to change the homelessness duty? What discussions are being held with local authorities about changes to the homelessness duty and the local connection criterion? Is the Minister confident that local authorities that will be the recipients of large numbers of people moved as a consequence of housing benefit changes are content to receive additional large numbers of low-income and, often, vulnerable households? What discussions have been held between the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Communities and Local Government about the introduction of new homelessness legislation to accommodate that difference? Will the forthcoming impact assessment indicate the Government’s confidence as to the availability of additional private rented sector housing at the reduced local housing allowance levels in all areas? What assessment has been made of the market capacity and ability to reduce rent levels?

I have a number of other questions, but I shall write to the Minister because other hon. Members want to speak. I am absolutely confident that the Department does not realise the full gravity of what is proposed.

[Mr Mike Hancock (in the Chair)]

I call Caroline Lucas. Please remember the time.

Housing Need (London)

Debate between Karen Buck and Mike Hancock

Tuesday 29th June 2010 Westminster Hall

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

We have heard some excellent speeches from Opposition Members this morning, and I hope that we will hear more. I will try to be brief. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) on giving us that opportunity.

London has always been a city of mixed communities. In constituencies such as that of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field), mine and those of other hon. Members, we see the historical product of that mixture. Properties were built by Peabody and Octavia Hill, and the 19th century housing associations. They recognised that there were slum conditions in London and that the poor have always lived in different parts of London. We are in danger of engineering a set of solutions that fly in the face of the centuries-old history of London by making London, particularly central London, safe for millionaires to live in.

We had a mixed stock of housing in our cities, and that stock has changed, but the supply of properties has not changed. The buildings are still there, but the people who live in them are different. For example, Westminster has 14% less social housing than in the 1980s. In Sutton, there has been a 7% fall in the number of social housing properties, and in Wandsworth, remarkably, there has been a 22% fall in the proportion of social housing properties. Some of the people living in ex-social housing properties bought their properties, and rightly so. Good luck to them. Understandably, they took the opportunity, and then sold and moved, so those properties are now in the private rented sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), who has left the Chamber, said that some people living in ex-local authority homes are paying rent of £400, £500 or £600 a week when their neighbours are paying only £100 a week.

We have heard about the employment trap being almost a justification for such policies, but let us not forget that rents cause the employment trap. Those who are living in private rented accommodation and facing a rent of £400, £500 or £600 a week obviously find it difficult to work, although despite that many do. If they had the benefit of a social rented unit, as many of them used to have, they would not face the employment trap and the disincentive to work. Indeed, all the records show that unemployment and worklessness in social housing was far lower 30 years ago than nowadays because all sorts of social housing—housing association and local authority property—is residualised due to the reduction in stock.

We now blame tenants and those who live in those homes but, in many cases, they would have been social tenants if the available capacity were the same as 20 or 30 years ago. We retreat to the policy that was actively encouraged during the 1980s of shifting large numbers of people not just to outer London, but in some cases to bed and breakfasts in Margate or to social housing in Birmingham, regardless of all the local and community connections people might have had. What a desperate legacy we are still dealing with for families who were, by definition, going through the homelessness gateway and therefore vulnerable. They had children, disabilities or caring responsibilities, and we are still dealing with some of the consequences of cramming people into bed-and-breakfast accommodation and shattering their local connections in order to implement a harsh homelessness policy.

This policy is absolutely insane. Although I have been critical in the Chamber about the Labour Government’s failure to build enough social houses, they did—rightly— look at ways of reducing homelessness. The number of households accepted as homeless has fallen steadily over the past 15 years. Over the past year, a duty of homelessness was accepted for 36,000 households—9,000 over the last quarter. That number is down.

Looking at homelessness prevention we see that last year, 123,000 households were diverted from making a homelessness application. Fine. We all agree that keeping people in their homes and providing them with an alternative would be a sensible thing to do. However, where were those 123,000 households diverted? More than 60% were diverted to the private rented sector. We have achieved a reduction in homelessness by placing people in the private rented sector. Now we are saying to those people that we can no longer put them in the private rented sector in most places, so what will happen? They will be homeless. They will make an application and, under present law, there is a duty to accept them as homeless, so what is the answer?

Earlier, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster came up with an answer: the coalition Government will change the law. I predict that they will change the law so that local authorities no longer have a duty to house homeless applicants; Westminster council has made it clear that it supports that position, as has Hammersmith council. Local authorities could not house those people because if they did, the entire policy on housing benefit reduction would be shattered. Therefore, the Government will change the law to allow all homeless households to be housed only in the private rented sector. They will remove all forms of local connection. But what will be required? How will the Minister answer that? Will households be required to find alternative accommodation anywhere in England, or will it just be anywhere in London? That question goes to the heart of the implications of the policy.

The Government propose to cleanse lower-income people, many of whom work, from large parts of London. That is the core purpose of the policy; it has no other purpose. Those households will have to live somewhere—unless they do not have somewhere to live. In 1997, one of my first cases as an MP was helping a family whose children were living in a bus. I predict that one consequence of this policy will be that families will sleep in their cars, on waste ground or on the streets. We probably will have disorder; there will be catastrophic overcrowding and we will see people living in the streets. Of course, we will also see people shipped away to the north of England.

What is the sense in a policy in which, on the one hand, the Secretary of State for the Department of Work and Pensions says, “Let the workless come to London to find jobs,” but on the other hand, the workless are driven out of London to where the housing is? Such a policy is intellectually incoherent and, above all, morally indefensible.

[Mr Mike Hancock (in the Chair)]

If the last two speakers want to speak they will have to be generous to each other as we have less than 10 minutes.