Housing (CSR)

Debate between Karen Buck and Nick Raynsford

Wednesday 27th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Raynsford]

My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. People who are opposed to housing developments will inevitably see a council’s decision to grant consent as tainted if it is to receive a financial sum as a result of doing so. That will always be a problem with such a scheme, and I highlighted the difficulties that it would create almost a year ago when I spoke with the Housing Minister, who was then the Opposition spokesman.

There are many other areas of uncertainty. How many homes will the scheme generate? We have been given some pretty flamboyant promises by the Housing Minister, but how will the Government’s estimates for the number of new homes generated compare with the 160,000 homes for which plans have already been ditched since the general election, primarily because of changes in planning rules? Tetlow King Planning has estimated in a report for the National Housing Federation that a further 120,000 to 140,000 planned homes could be lost in the coming year.

What will be the impact of cuts to funding schemes for local authorities? Which authorities will gain and which will lose? How will the bonus be split between district councils and county councils, bearing in mind that the former have to give planning consent, but that the later have to meet most consequential infrastructure costs? I hope that the Minister can give us more detailed answers to those questions, but I fear that we may have to wait rather longer, as we have waited in vain for the emergence of detail on the scheme for the past five months.

One question that I hope the Minister will answer is this: given all the questions and doubts that have been raised in so many quarters, including by those who have a real understanding and professional involvement in the field, why has the scheme not been piloted to test whether there is a realistic prospect that it will deliver the benefits that the Housing Minister constantly assures us it will bring? How can the Government claim to believe in evidence-based policy making, when they have not a shred of empirical evidence to support the case for the housing bonus incentive?

As if the damage caused by the harsh housing benefit cuts and their maladroit destabilising of the housing market was not enough, the Government have also embarked, in clear breach of Conservative election pledges, on a dismantling of the whole basis of social housing in England. Why Liberal Democrat Ministers and Members are choosing to go along with those disastrous policies is a mystery. Perhaps the Minister can give an explanation. Enjoying security in one’s own home is an asset that almost all hon. Members take for granted, as do the great majority of the population. The old adage that an Englishman’s home is his castle reflects a deep-seated belief that a secure home is a bedrock of a decent society.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a growing body of research demonstrates the negative impact upon children’s well-being of high enforced mobility? The savings gained as a result of some of those measures and the removal of security of tenure will be more than offset by the damage done to children’s health, emotional well-being and educational achievement.

[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.