Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Lord Best Excerpts

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Lords Chamber

I fear that the Government’s new rent policy has created considerable uncertainty in the market and reduced the capacity of social landlords to invest. It has undermined the long-term ambition articulated so clearly by the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, to create a stable platform for new affordable supply. However, the Government have now set their course and are unlikely to be diverted from it. I hope, though, that they will carefully consider the amendments that I have put forward, along with others, and seek to mitigate its impacts. I beg to move.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Kerslake and to speak to Amendment 108 in this group. These amendments all address the implications of the Government’s plan to require housing associations and councils to reduce their rents by around 12% over the next four years. It has often been said that rent controls were the reason for the private rented sector declining from more than 60% of the nation’s housing after World War II to a meagre 8% or so by 1990. For sure, the new rent cuts will also have unintended consequences.

The Government, in the DWP’s impact assessment for this measure, justify the rent cuts on the grounds that housing association rents have been increasing at a much greater rate than those of private landlords, but it has been government policy that associations should raise their rents toward market rent so that social housing grants can be cut. The higher rents have been necessary to enable associations to borrow more to compensate for grants being reduced from some 90% of the costs of a new home down to around 15%. Lower grants and higher rents have meant more people needing housing benefit. Although previous Conservative Housing Ministers have said, “Let housing benefit take the strain”, now Ministers responsible for welfare want to dramatically reduce housing benefit expenditure and the rent cuts are intended to save nearly £2 billion per annum by 2021 and every year thereafter. These savings will have significant negative consequences for the Government’s housing policy.

The housing associations, whose incomes will have fallen by £1.6 billion per annum by 2020-21, and annually thereafter, can try to make up the difference in three ways. First, they can cut their development programmes, which would damage the Government’s hopes for the building of substantially more homes, as explained by my noble friend Lord Kerslake. Secondly, they can cut their revenue costs; a number have already announced that their added-value programmes will be axed, such as tackling anti-social behaviour, supporting loss-making specialist housing, helping people into work, reducing tenants’ energy costs and so on. Removing these local services means extra costs for society elsewhere. Thirdly, associations can reduce the surpluses that some have generated in recent years, but these surpluses have been ploughed back into housing and services, as well as being important in satisfying lenders, from whom the housing associations have been borrowing some £3.5 billion a year on excellent terms. With increased risk, raising loans will be more difficult and more expensive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, Amendment 107 calls for certain types of property to be excepted from the provisions of the rent reduction scheme. It was assumed when it was drafted that it would have the same effect as Amendment 109 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and others. I acknowledge that Amendment 109 seems to have garnered a broader range of support and doubtless this has much to do with the credibility of the person whose name is at the top of it as well as the substance of the drafting.

The scope of this exception is built on the coverage of the regulations which widen the protection from the benefit cap. It is intended to include supported housing where the landlord is of a specified type and provides, or causes to be provided, care support or supervision to claimants; supported accommodation where the landlord is a specified third or social sector provider and care, support or supervision is provided to residents; third and social sector refuges, including local authority refuges where a claimant is accommodated because they are fleeing domestic violence; and local authority hostels providing care, support or supervision.

The Government’s briefing note on these clauses indicates that they are minded to align exceptions to the policy with exemptions that apply to the rent policy set out in the rent standard guidance. We would support this as far as it goes as its coverage would include PFI schemes, temporary social housing and short-life leasing schemes for the homeless, residential and nursing homes, student homes and key worker accommodation. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that this is still the intent and say why, therefore, more could not be put in the Bill.

Despite this, it is considered that the specialised supported housing definition included in the rent standard is too limited. The guidance itself has indicated that interpretation has not been without difficulty. For example, it says that the exemption from social rent requirements of specialised support in housing is usually limited to those properties developed in partnership with local authorities or the health service and which satisfy all of the following criteria. The scheme should offer a high level of support for clients; no or negligible public subsidy should have been received; and the scheme should have been commissioned in line with local health and social services or supporting people strategies and priorities. I paraphrase.

Adopting the definitions in the housing benefit and universal credit regulations—which is what this amendment and the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best, do—will provide a wide enough basis for an exemption from Clause 21. The reason we need a comprehensive exception from the policy in this respect has been abundantly clear from the range of submissions we have received. As the submission from Homeless Link sets out, the type of accommodation we are referring to—let us call it supported housing—caters for a wide range of tenants with specific needs requiring various degrees of support. It points out that this provision is generally more expensive to build, manage and maintain. The fear is that the rent reduction measure will lead to a loss of existing supported housing schemes, with fewer schemes being developed in the future. Those who bear the brunt will be the homeless, those with mental health problems, people fleeing domestic violence, those with learning disabilities and those with drug and alcohol problems. Denying them the chance of decent accommodation and care and support will only push the costs elsewhere in the public sector as well as impairing the life chances of those whose quality of life is under challenge.

We have been presented with examples of projects that will fall by the wayside, including from Riverside, with a third of its supported housing schemes being at risk; St Mungo’s, with a cumulative four-year loss of projected income of £4 million; and the YMCA, with the potential end to a housing project for 170 16 to 17 year-olds. Indeed, Riverside has set out a range of stark facts. It states that early Riverside projections indicate the impact of the rent decrease policy will be a reduction in income in excess of 16% over four years, a cumulative total of almost £100 million, which it says will reduce its operating margins by 9.5%. Riverside owns and manages around 4,600 units of supported housing. Housing associations as a whole manage 105,000 units of supported housing, which is 3.7% of all stock managed. The level of savings forgone, it is suggested, as a result of an exception for supported housing, would be modest.

Having moved this amendment, I hope it puts us on the same page as the noble Lord, Lord Best. I look forward to hearing from him to see whether we can forge a common position. I beg to move.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 109, which covers the same issue as Amendment 107, moved by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton. Of course I entirely support that amendment, which was so well presented by the noble Lord. In both cases the amendments look for an exclusion from the proposed 12% rent cuts for supported housing as defined in housing benefit and universal credit regulations. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Kerslake and Lord Shipley, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester for supporting this amendment, and to the noble Lord, Lord Horam, who spoke earlier in favour of exceptions and exclusions for cases of this kind. I also offer sincere thanks to Members from all sides of the House who signed a letter to the Times, co-ordinated by the National Housing Federation just before Christmas, expressing the hope that the Government would give favourable consideration to the case we are making today.

The specialist housing organisations that fall within this definition—such as St Mungo’s Broadway, the YMCA and many small charities—would suffer a major blow from the 12% reduction in income from their rents. These are the organisations on the very front line, providing supported housing for those with mental health, drug and alcohol problems, homeless people, care leavers, those fleeing domestic violence, as well as veterans and older people needing care and support.

The vulnerable people these charities support inevitably require higher spending than for general-needs renting. The charities working for them operate on the margins of viability and can easily be pushed over the edge. As well as supported housing being provided by specialist bodies, many of the larger housing associations have been keen to include schemes of this kind within their wider stock, but these social businesses cannot absorb loss-making projects. It is very hard for them to sustain this specialist provision if supported housing becomes a financial liability.

Management costs are not the only ingredient that means supported housing must have higher rents than the norm. There are higher maintenance costs due to the higher turnover of tenants, greater wear and tear, more voids between lettings, more arrears, and even significantly higher insurance premiums. Yet without these housing schemes it is certain that a lot of people will suffer the most acute deprivation, including living out on the streets. Moreover, the wider impact on society from neglecting their needs will be immense. The Homes and Communities Agency found that supported housing work produced a net positive financial benefit of some £640 million—more than six times the savings that the Government would obtain from cutting rents by the fourth year of this rent-cutting policy.

The accommodation covered by the amendment has already been given special status in respect of the new benefit cap and exemption from the so-called bedroom tax. Therefore it seems entirely consistent to exclude these hostels and specified accommodation schemes from the requirement for rent cuts. The Government have stated that it might be possible for an organisation which could face extinction as a result of the rent reductions to apply for a waiver from this requirement. However, there are two flaws in this approach to solving the problem now facing housing.

First, the specialist charities requesting a waiver face ongoing uncertainty and an unknown, potentially bureaucratic and time-consuming process to decide the somewhat extreme question of whether they will become insolvent rather than just be completely undermined by losing so much income. Secondly, the waiver route does not address the issue of supported housing provided within their wider role by larger housing associations that do not face financial ruin but which are likely to pull back from pursuing this kind of accommodation if rent cuts render supported housing loss-making.

If an association with wider objectives has to improve its financial viability by closing its supported housing schemes, the effect will be just as bad as forcing a small charity out of business. This is where we get into the issues raised by the Minister on the difference between exempting organisations by providing a waiver if they look like they are going bust because of the rent reductions, and excluding categories of housing—the category in this case being supported housing.

I know that the last thing the Government want is to undermine housing provision for those in the most acute need, with all the extra expenditure for the NHS, social care, the justice system and the rest which would follow. I believe that the Government already have a concession of this kind in mind, but confirmation of the position by the Minister is needed urgently because the process for a rent reduction on 1 April, with the sending out of thousands of notices to tenants and local authority housing departments, which will be very hard to rescind, must begin at the end of this month.

I must conclude with a footnote, albeit a rather important one. The Government are also planning to introduce another constraint: a cap on housing benefit for council and housing association tenants at the same level as for tenants of private landlords; that is, at the local housing allowance level. This ceiling is not a problem for the great majority of housing association properties since their rents are lower than in the private rented sector. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, suggested that they are something like 40% to 50% lower. But, of course, rents for supported housing—the kind of housing that private landlords do not provide—are obviously much higher.

For example, a homeless project for people with mental health and/or drug and alcohol issues is currently charging £119 per week, but the relevant local housing allowance maximum for an ordinary one-bedroom flat is £84 per week, so the new cap at LHA levels would mean a loss of £35 per week per flat for the project. A purpose-built autism scheme for enabling people to move out of institutional care would face a shortfall of £90 per week per flat, even though the scheme saves huge sums compared with the costs of leaving people in the institutional setting.