Affordable Homes Bill

Nick Raynsford Excerpts

Friday 5th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

May I at the outset draw attention to my interests as declared in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?

I am very pleased to speak in support of the Bill, and I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on seizing the opportunity of his good fortune in being drawn in first place in the ballot to introduce a Bill that will have a significant impact on the living standards and housing prospects of a substantial number of our fellow citizens. The House should warmly welcome this serious Bill, and I applaud his decision to bring it in.

As the hon. Gentleman made clear, the Bill has two main purposes: first, to limit the circumstances in which social housing tenants are subject to deductions in their housing benefit or universal credit because of the impact of the bedroom tax; and secondly, to encourage the development and take-up of low-cost home ownership and other intermediate housing market options to assist people in need of housing who are unlikely to qualify for social tenancies but cannot afford the often prohibitive costs of housing for sale on the open market. I support both objectives, although in several respects I would like the provisions to go further. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman has made clear his own inclination to go beyond the specific measures, but the Bill as presented to the House is a good start in the right direction, and it deserves our support. I will take the two main objectives in turn.

I applaud the three proposed limitations on the impact of the bedroom tax, which is one of the harshest measures introduced by the present Government. The bedroom tax was misconceived from the outset, being promoted on a false—indeed, one might say fraudulent—premise that the objective was to encourage better use of the country’s social housing stock. It was misconceived in that there was no way that the measure could achieve its supposed objective of prompting tenants under-occupying social tenancies to move into smaller homes because the supply of smaller homes available to accommodate them was hopelessly inadequate. Social housing providers and local authorities presented such evidence to the Government time and again when they proposed the bedroom tax, but the Government ignored all the clear evidence that there was simply not a sufficient supply of smaller homes to make it possible for people who would be penalised to move into smaller accommodation.

[Mr George Howarth]

On that point, I can give the example of the Ravenscroft Re-build Housing Co-operative in my constituency. At my surgery last week, two ladies told me that because of how it is funded, the rent for a two-bedroom property is £54.50 a week and the rent for a three-bedroom property is £56 a week, while there are no smaller properties within the co-operative and there is a waiting list of one. If they moved to social housing—say, a one-bedroom flat—the rent would be between £70 and £80 a week, which makes a complete nonsense of the purpose of the policy in the first place.

[Mr Raynsford]

My right hon. Friend’s point is absolutely valid. The policy is based on extremely unproven and in many cases very suspect assumptions. The idea that people eligible for housing benefit will benefit either themselves or the public purse by moving out of accommodation costing £55 a week into accommodation costing £70 seems absurd. That, however, is the consequence of the bedroom tax as it is currently constituted. The Government have made it clear that they expect people to look for alternative options in the private rented sector, even though that sector is in general hugely more expensive than social housing. There are a whole series of contradictions at the heart of this policy.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Like my right hon. Friend, I absolutely welcome the Bill. Does he agree that from the start there has been a problem about the definition of under-occupation? If someone is disabled and needs a spare room, perhaps to keep their oxygen cylinders in, they are not under-occupying their property.

[Mr Raynsford]

My hon. Friend makes an absolutely valid point. The definitional issues about what constitutes under-occupation have bedevilled the policy right from the outset. We all know of people who have medical needs that mean they require an extra room or spare bedroom, and of those who for a variety of disability reasons cannot share a bedroom with the partner with whom they are assumed to be able to share. We also know the basic human wish of individuals after a relationship breakdown to have a spare room so that their children can come to stay with them. The appalling way in which the Government have ignored these real human concerns and have imposed rules that have a harsh impact without taking account of such issues is one of the greatest condemnations of the whole policy.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Raynsford]

I intend to make some progress, because many hon. Members want to speak. I may give way later, but for the moment I intend to make some progress.

I have made it clear that I regard the premise on which the policy was promoted as fraudulent because the Government’s real objective was to cut £500 million of public expenditure out of housing benefit. As the hon. Member for St Ives has clearly said, that could not be achieved if the policy’s ostensible objective—to encourage movement by tenants in social housing into smaller accommodation—was successful, because there would be no saving in public expenditure. The Government have been in the tortuous position of trying to justify the policy on the basis of making better use of the social housing stock when in practice they were after cuts in public expenditure that could not be delivered if the ostensible objective was met.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman has made the point that some people in social housing provided by local councils want a spare room to enable their children or friends to stay. We all recognise that that is the case, but his Government changed the rules about that for the thousands and thousands of people in private accommodation in every constituency. Why should there be one rule for one lot of people and another rule for another lot? It is rank hypocrisy.

[Mr Raynsford]

The hon. Gentleman has clearly not been listening to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) very forcefully made the point that the policy introduced by the previous Labour Government was not retrospective and did not penalise people on the basis of their existing circumstances. Quite simply, given the higher cost—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman who asked the question would like to listen. He will know that private rented housing is generally very much more expensive than social housing. Social housing is allocated by landlords on the basis of how many bedrooms people need. If people who take private rented housing—they are not subject to allocation, but can choose their property—were able to select much more expensive properties that are larger than they need, that in itself would be reasonable grounds for a restriction. However, that applies only when people move into such housing, not retrospectively. Finally, I put it to him that if he and the Government were really concerned to make better and more efficient use of under-occupied social housing, they would not have exempted elderly people because it is predominantly that group whose properties are under-occupied. That point absolutely goes to the heart of the process: this is not about better use of the social housing stock; this is about trying to make cuts in public expenditure, which has been the Government’s objective from the outset. I now want to make some progress.

This whole ghastly process, which has caused anxiety, misery and hardship on a very large scale to hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens, was based on a false premise, without any proper evidence to justify what was done. It was a truly dreadful example of the worst type of policy making. Ideally, the whole policy should be consigned to the dustbin immediately, and it will be if the Labour party forms the Government after the next general election.

In the meantime, the hon. Member for St Ives has given us an opportunity significantly to limit its negative impact by restricting its application in three specific ways. The first way is by excluding cases where significant adaptations have been made to a property to meet the needs of a disabled tenant or a close relative who lives in the house. Quite why the Government did not accept the need for such an amendment from the outset is difficult to understand. It is clearly wasteful of public expenditure to drive disabled people out of properties that have been adapted for their needs if, as a consequence, they move into unadapted properties that have to be adapted at considerable expense to make them fit for them to live in. That is yet another illustration of the perversity of the whole policy. The exemption is long overdue and will remedy one of the blatant injustices and endemic nonsenses that are inherent in the bedroom tax policy.

Secondly, an exemption is proposed for tenants and close relatives who are in receipt of disability living allowance or personal independence payments and who, because of their disability, are not able to share a bedroom with someone with whom, under the bedroom tax regulations, they would be expected to share a bedroom. Again, that is a sensible, humane exemption that ought to have been agreed from the outset. Instead, the Government argued that discretionary housing payment could be made in such cases, ignoring three principal objections.

First, not everyone who might qualify for discretionary housing payment will apply for it. The Government’s own review has demonstrated that that is the case. Secondly, not every local authority will approve DHP in all appropriate cases. Thirdly, the DHP regime is temporary. The Government have not confirmed that it will continue to be available beyond 2014-15, despite being pressed by the Work and Pensions Committee to give such a guarantee. It is far better to exempt those who are in receipt of DLA or PIP from the bedroom tax than to depend on the vagaries of DHP.

I do, however, have an anxiety about the precise wording of clause 2(1)(b). I have mentioned this point to the hon. Member for St Ives and I hope that, if necessary, the provision can be amended in Committee. As hon. Members will know, there are two levels of bedroom tax: it is 14% when the tenant is deemed to have one bedroom more than is strictly required and 25% when the tenant is deemed to be occupying two or more bedrooms more than they need. The exemption in the Bill is qualified by clause 2(1)(b)(v), so that it does not apply when the tenant has two or more bedrooms more than is strictly needed, even when the tenant has established that he or she cannot share a bedroom and so needs one bedroom more than their strict entitlement. The provision appears, therefore, to leave the tenant exposed to a 25% benefit reduction in such cases, rather than the more limited 14% reduction, which would appear to be fairer. I may be wrong in seeing that as a potential loophole that needs closing, and I would be delighted to hear from the hon. Gentleman if that is the case. If not, I hope that he will consider an amendment in Committee.

[Mr Harper]

I want to correct for the record a factual point that the right hon. Gentleman made about future funding. In the autumn statement in 2013, the Chancellor announced that an extra £40 million would be made available in 2014-15 and 2015-16 to ensure that discretionary housing payment for those affected by the removal of the spare room subsidy would be maintained. The right hon. Gentleman said that no such commitment had been made. I just wanted to ensure that the facts were put on the record.

[Mr Raynsford]

I immediately withdraw my comment if that is the case. I was working from the Library briefing dated 3 September—so it is very recent—which indicates that no such commitment has been given. I apologise if that is not the case, but I was speaking in good faith on the basis of the latest available Library briefing.

Thirdly, we come to the last and most far-reaching exemption. Clause 2(1)(c) exempts tenants from liability to the bedroom tax when neither their landlord nor the local authority, in cases where they are not council tenants,

“has made a reasonable offer of alternative accommodation.”

That addresses the appalling unfairness by which tenants who cannot move into smaller accommodation because their landlord or the local authority does not have sufficient homes to provide that option still end up having their benefit cut.

The DWP’s own evaluation admits that in the first six months of the bedroom tax, only 4.5% of affected tenants were able to downsize. Even though the figure subsequently rose to 19%, the DWP still confirmed that social landlords

“had not yet been able to accommodate most of those who wanted to move to a smaller home”.

On those figures, we know that less than 10% of those who are affected and who want to move are able to do so because of a lack of alternative accommodation.

It is a common-sense amendment to stop penalising people who have no opportunity to move into smaller accommodation and so avoid the impact of the bedroom tax. It is a long overdue amendment and, once again, a far better safeguard than the hope of getting discretionary housing payment.

[Sarah Newton]

I am finding the right hon. Gentleman’s comments deeply offensive. The social landlords to whom I spoke this summer, when I was finding evidence of what is happening under this policy, treat their tenants with respect, dignity and compassion. The professional housing officers, who do such a difficult job so well, use discretionary housing allowance and the powers that they have to ensure that tenants are treated well. I urge the right hon. Gentleman not to be so offensive to hard-working housing officers up and down the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Raynsford]

I have to say to the hon. Lady that the hundreds of thousands of people who are unfairly penalised by the bedroom tax find it an offensive policy. I in no way withdraw my remarks about the culpability of the Government she supports for introducing such an ill-conceived and, in many ways, fraudulent policy.

We come now to the second part of the Bill. Clause 3 addresses a very different but also very important housing need. We are all well aware of the huge constraints facing people who aspire to own a home, but who are squeezed out by the astronomical house prices in most parts of the country or by their inability to raise the necessary deposit to qualify for a mortgage. The option of shared ownership, shared equity or other discounted sub-market sale schemes has been an important, albeit not yet widely available, route into home ownership for people in such circumstances. Developing such options and parallel intermediate market rental schemes also has the merit of reducing the pressure on social housing waiting lists, which are, as we all know, under huge pressure because of the acute shortage of affordable housing in most parts of the country.

The irony of the current situation is that, despite the obvious logic of such low-cost home ownership and intermediate rented housing schemes, and the evidence from so many social housing providers and others that such options are popular and in high demand, they have not yet been developed on a sufficient scale to make an impact on housing needs. That is the background to clause 3, which requires the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the availability of such arrangements, the need for financial instruments to support them, the case for intermediate housing options and some of the obstacles and impediments to the expansion of the sector. It is only a report, but if it acts as a catalyst to stimulate increased activity in this section of the market, it will be worthwhile and should certainly be supported.

I know, from talking to the hon. Member for St Ives a month or so ago when he was framing the Bill, that he would have liked to go further. He was interested in promoting a new financial regime to help overcome some of the practical obstacles that cause difficulties when shared owners seek to sell their home and move on, as well as in helping the development of community land trusts. Those are worthwhile objectives and I hope that he will press for them, whether by tabling amendments in Committee or seeking assurances from Ministers. However, given the constraints facing private Members’ Bills, particularly in a Session that will end sooner than most because of the general election, I understand why he has taken the cautious path of limiting the provisions of the Bill.

In conclusion, this is a Bill that meets very real social and housing needs. It is a worthwhile Bill that addresses serious injustices and that deserves the support of the House on Second Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Tony Baldry]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I suspect other hon. Members will enlarge upon the fact that, under Governments of both parties, new social housing has tended to be a planning windfall gain from new house building. Under the Labour Government, very little new housing was built. In Banbury and Bicester and throughout my constituency, more new housing is going up—as a consequence, new social housing is going up—than for a very long time. He is correct that that leads to new social tenancies.

[Mr Raynsford]

The right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the fact that the average number of homes built per year during the lifetime of the Labour Government was 145,000. The lowest number in any one year was 124,000. The current Government have not completed 124,000 homes in any single year they have been in office, so it is simply not true that more housing is being built than was built under the previous Government.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

The right hon. Gentleman is a little selective in his use of figures. The previous Government were in office for 13 years, and had they not built houses in all those years, we would have been in serious difficulty. As a consequence of the economic mess they got the country into, during their final years in office and during the early part of the recession—the hangover of the recession overlapped with our being elected—the construction industry was in dire straits. I am glad to say that, wherever I go in my patch, I see signs saying “Bricklayers wanted” outside building sites. The construction industry tells me that it finds it very difficult to get the people with the skills it needs because the building boom, with new housing going up, is running apace, thanks largely to the policies pursued by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in turning the economy around.

I should get back to the central point to which I wish to draw the House’s attention. The experience of the pathfinder areas of the local housing allowance led to the previous Government legislating for a national roll-out from 7 April 2008. The local housing allowance measure was contained in the Welfare Reform Act 2007 and associated regulations.

Housing Benefit

Nick Raynsford Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, including the chairmanship of a social housing provider.

This is a cruel policy, based on an unsound and in some respects fraudulent premise. It is cruel because it is causing anxiety, fear and misery to large numbers of people who have done nothing wrong. It is cruel because it is deepening poverty and deprivation in an arbitrary and unfair way, and because the large majority of those who are adversely affected by it can do nothing to mitigate its impact.

The policy is also cruel because it conflicts with basic human instincts, such as the instinct of a parent to have their children to come to stay at the weekend if they normally live with a former partner elsewhere. There is also a basic human instinct for a disabled person to have a carer stay overnight from time to time, or to have a spare bedroom for medical needs such as dialysis.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

A constituent of mine is unable to share a bed with his wife due to his painful disability. The bedroom tax will leave his family £9.52 a week worse off. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the bedroom tax pays scant regard to the pain that it causes?

[Mr Raynsford]

My hon. Friend makes an obvious and clear point that illustrates one of the deeply unfair and cruel impacts of the policy.

The policy runs against basic human nature when teenage children are told that they cannot expect to have a bedroom of their own, particularly at a time when those in charge of education are emphasising the importance of children having a bedroom in which to do their homework, so that they can do well at school.

[Ian Mearns]

I have seen an estimate that 375,000 children could be affected by the bedroom tax. Is it the Government’s deliberate policy that up to 375,000 children might have to move school because of moving house as a result of the bedroom tax, so disrupting their hard-earned education?

[Mr Raynsford]

My hon. Friend, along with many other colleagues, has forcefully made the point about the destructive impact on communities and the impact on people who are unfairly forced to move because of the bedroom tax and other measures.

I have talked about the cruelty of the policy. I shall now show that it is unsound and in some respects based on a fraudulent premise. That premise is that the bedroom tax is about making better use of the social housing stock. This is simply wrong when the supply of smaller lettings available to those adversely impacted is hopelessly inadequate. It is wrong when, according to the Local Government Association, less than a quarter of those hit by the tax have the option of mitigating it by moving into smaller accommodation. It is clearly wrong when the largest single group of people known to be under-occupying social housing—notably those who are over retirement age—are exempt from the tax.

I can understand why, politically, the Government do not wish to be seen to be penalising elderly people, but they cannot on the one hand claim that these measures are about achieving better use of the social housing stock and then entirely ignore the largest group of people known to under-occupy accommodation. Recently visiting a 91-year-old pensioner living in a four-bedroom property brought that home very clearly to me. The council is giving priority for a move locally not to people like her, although that would be logical, but to people who are hit by the benefit cut of the bedroom tax, because it is only right that those people should be given priority, to protect them from the tax. We thus get these absurd and perverse consequences where the policy works against the very objective that it is supposed to achieve.

We have heard about the other perverse consequence—the extent to which the policy is leading not to better use of the housing stock, but to increased vacancies among larger properties in areas where people simply cannot afford to occupy and pay the bedroom tax, and to increases in rent arrears, which is not just bad for the affected tenants, putting their tenancy at risk, but bad for the landlords who require rental income to fund increased investment in social housing.

On all the bases, then, on which this policy is being promoted, it is not succeeding and it is having perverse and damaging consequences. The hard truth is that this is not a policy prompted by a desire to make better use of the country’s social housing stock. If that were the real intent, pensioners would not be exempt, and the Government would be increasing, not cutting, investment in new social housing. Indeed, if the impact of the bedroom tax were, miraculously for everyone affected, to find alternative smaller accommodation, the policy would fail because the Department for Work and Pensions would be left with a half a billion pound hole in its budget.

The whole wretched policy emerged not out of an evidence-based study of patterns of occupation, need and mobility in social housing, but out of a crude cost-cutting imperative that was introduced in total disregard of the human consequences. It is a deeply flawed and cruel policy, based on unsound premises, for which all those who are responsible in the Government should be ashamed. The sooner this wretched tax is abolished, the better.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Raynsford Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Mrs Rolnik from the UN appeared over here, seemingly at the invitation of those opposed to all our policies, the Labour, or welfare, party included. I was interested in the notes that came back from the UN after she left. Some of the officials said,

“who is that strange woman; why is she talking about bedrooms and why on earth do we have a UN Housing Rapporteur.”

My thoughts entirely.

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

The statement from the United Nations not only reveals that Mrs Rolnik visited the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Ministry of Justice, the Homes and Community Agency and Manchester city council, but gives a statement of housing need in this country to which most serious commentators would wholly subscribe. Will the Secretary of State now stop his delusional approach to a scheme that cannot work because there is an inadequate supply of smaller accommodation for people to move into?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

It was the right hon. Gentleman’s Government who left office with the lowest level of house building since the 1920s—[Interruption.] It is higher now than it was under them—nearly 1.8 million on waiting lists in England and 250,000 tenants in overcrowded accommodation. The Opposition never talk about that. Never do we hear them say they were sorry for the overcrowded mess they left behind them. Instead of little gimmicks with people from Brazil, they would be better off apologising for the mess they left us in in the first place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Raynsford Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

As my hon. Friend knows, our goal is to have a retirement income based on the foundation of a simple, single, decent state pension—the legislation on this was announced in the Queen’s Speech—complemented by automatic enrolment into a workplace pension, so people have a pension based on their national insurance and a pension of their own with a contribution from both the employer and the taxpayer. That is a good combination to build on.

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

What does the Minister have to say to my constituent, a 91-year-old pensioner who is occupying a four-bedroom property and has been told that, because the priority has to be given to allocating smaller homes to people currently being hit by the bedroom tax, she has no immediate prospect of being housed in smaller, more suitable accommodation?

[Steve Webb]

We expect social landlords to manage their housing stock effectively, and many social landlords have put in place schemes to enable older tenants to trade down, which many of them would want to do. If the right hon. Gentleman’s constituent is 91, I would think the housing association in question has had plenty of time to do something about that.

Housing Benefit (Under-occupancy Penalty)

Nick Raynsford Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend is very welcome to join the conversation between my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) and me, which I am looking forward to. He raises an important point. My hon. Friends have credibility in this argument because they have been willing to take difficult decisions on public spending, whereas Labour has just said no to everything, disowning its responsibility for the deficit and any willingness to say where the money would come from.

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

rose—

[Geraint Davies]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. It is a common misconception that there is a one-way flow of people in this context. If someone moves from social housing into the private rented sector, as some do, that frees up socially rented accommodation, into which someone who might previously have been living in overcrowded, temporary or bed and breakfast accommodation can move. There will be flows in both directions, and we have taken account of those moves in our estimate of the cost of the changes.

[Mr Raynsford]

Does the Minister not recognise that the largest single driver for the increase in housing benefit in England is rent increases, not only in the private rented sector but in the social and affordable sector, because of the policies of his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government who are pushing rents up higher? If a tenant moves out of a secure council tenancy into a new affordable rent tenancy, that will involve a substantially higher rent. If that person is on housing benefit, the benefit bill will rise. That is entirely counterproductive. Why is the Minister doing this?

[Steve Webb]

The right hon. Gentleman is very knowledgeable about housing, so he will know that the period of the last Labour Government was not a good one for the building of affordable homes. That is part of the reason for the problems we have now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Byrne]

I am answering the question. The Deputy Prime Minister said:

“If I’m going to be sort of self-critical, there was this reduction in capital spending when we came into the coalition government…But I think we’ve all realised that you actually need, in order to foster a recovery, to try and mobilise as much public and private capital into infrastructure as possible.”

But what has happened in the past couple of years? What has happened even in the past year? For the last year for which records are available, the number of housing starts in this country has fallen by 11%. That is the reality of what this Government have delivered.

This policy is not simply a cruel punishment; it is a cruel and unusual punishment, because it is not normal—it is not usual in a modern, advanced and civilised country—to reward the rich in quite the way this Government are proposing while punishing the poor. It beggars belief that next month—the month in which those on £1 million a year will get a £2,000-a-week tax cut—those with a spare bedroom will face a £14-a-week rent rise. In what world is that fair or normal and usual? It is only in a Tory world, defended by a Liberal Democrat.

[Mr Raynsford]

As some very misleading comments about housing have been made by those on the Government Front Bench, will my right hon. Friend confirm that in 2007, the last year before the recession, the net additions to the housing stock in this country numbered 207,000? The current Government have presided over a collapse, and fewer than 100,000 new homes were started last year. That is their shocking record and they should not pretend otherwise.

[Mr Byrne]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. Of course, the Labour party is proposing to have a tax on bankers’ bonuses in order to release £1.3 billion for new housing and to spend the 4G licence proceeds on building homes. That is in sharp contrast to the sob story from the Deputy Prime Minister lamenting the fact that the Government cut capital spending too far and too fast.

Welfare Reform Bill

Nick Raynsford Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but that is not a conversation that the shadow Secretary of State will wish to have with his close friends in the trade union movement, who would not approve at all of the idea of beginning to regionalise how the public sector operates.

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

The Minister expressed surprise at the concept of variable caps and benefits. Is he not aware that that concept has applied since the time of Beveridge, in the form of local reference rents, which have existed up to now? Why does he not recognise that regional or area variations in the cap are appropriate, because rents vary enormously from area to area?

[Chris Grayling]

We need to be clear about what has happened. We have been through months of debate. The Labour party has got itself on to an almighty hook on the issue of the benefit cap—it is on the wrong side of the argument—and is desperately trying to wriggle free. The Government are having none of it. We are standing by our proposal. The benefit cap that we propose is the right thing and we will press ahead.

Living Standards

Nick Raynsford Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

I draw attention to my registered interests. I was interested to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke). All I can say is that it would be nice to see some of the growth he talks about, but he must be aware that it is proving stubbornly resistant to the policies the Government have adopted.

I intend to focus my remarks on the housing market and associated benefits, which the Minister will be familiar with as his Department is responsible for them. I will do so for three reasons. First, the availability and affordability of housing is critical to people’s living standards. Secondly, housing and construction have a huge contribution to make to employment and the country’s economic performance, and currently they are underperforming. Thirdly, the Government’s policies in this sector provide in microcosm a rather telling illustration of incoherence, which is why their policies, not just in housing, but across the whole economy, are doomed to failure.

Like the wider economy, the housing market is in a fragile and parlous state. The recovery that was under way in the early months of 2010 has been halted in its tracks, output has plummeted and net additions to the housing stock in the latest 12 months are just 121,000, the lowest ever recorded and only half the level required to meet estimated need. New housing starts are even worse. In the latest 12 months new starts fell below 100,000 to just 96,000.

The Government have responded with some measures. The mortgage indemnity scheme announced in the autumn statement addresses one of the factors that are currently inhibiting the market: the availability of mortgage finance to people who cannot raise substantial deposits. I welcome that, with some reservations, but it does not address the other factors discouraging market recovery, particularly the wider economy; the fear of unemployment, which clearly inhibits people from taking the risk of purchasing a new house; and the considerable problems of uncertainty in the planning system, which are the product of the Government’s ill-considered meddling in planning rules. The scheme does not provide the rapid response that is urgently needed, because we do not yet know the full details, how lenders will respond or, critically, what interest rates are likely to apply on mortgages given with the indemnity. If they are high, that will largely undermine the potential benefit, thereby reducing potential take-up. We do not yet know when the scheme will come into operation. We think that it will be in the spring, but that is almost six months away and in the meantime the market is seriously underperforming.

The position in the rented sector is even bleaker. The Government have made huge cuts to the Homes and Communities Agency budget for investment in housing, essentially stopping social housing investment. There has been an overall cut of 60% in investment and in the latest six months only 454 new social and affordable homes were started in England. That is a measure of just what a desperate state the affordable housing market is in.

The Government’s new policy is based on the Orwellian concept of affordable rents. The previous Government’s policy of target rents was based on a formula that took account of earnings, so it generally delivered rents that were affordable to people on low incomes. The new affordable rents, however, are related to market rents, and the concept is 80% of market rent. In areas of high values, such as London and the south-east, that is a recipe for huge rent increases, and in some cases a doubling of rent levels.

The interesting question, to which I hope the Minister will give some thought, is how people on low incomes will meet those vast rent increases. Either they will go elsewhere, and probably the only option is the private rented sector, where rents will be even higher because, by definition, they will be market rents, or they will be dependent on housing benefit. Back in the 1980s and 1990s, the then Conservative Government talked about housing benefit being the solution to coping with higher rents. The problem now is that we have a Department for Work and Pensions that is hellbent on cutting housing benefit at the same time as the Department for Communities and Local Government is making people more dependent on it. That is inherently contradictory, and simply cannot work. It will result either in increased poverty, homelessness and deprivation, or in a huge increase in the housing benefit bill, which will no doubt spark further calls for it to be reduced. The policy is incoherent, and cannot deliver the new homes that are needed. It threatens serious social consequences, and I hope that the Government will reconsider.

Housing Benefit

Nick Raynsford Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend recall the answer that the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb) gave less than one month ago, when he indicated that at the last count 48% of local housing allowance recipients received a sum less than the rent that they were due to pay? The idea that half of all local housing allowance recipients are forcing up rents, when they are not actually getting enough housing allowance to pay the rent, is an extraordinary proposition.

[Mr Alexander]

My right hon. Friend’s expertise is well revealed in his question. I have been told to avoid hysteria and be careful and measured, but any of us who recollect the impact of the community charge, when a number of poor people started with a small but rapidly accumulating debt and ended up owing significant arrears to local authorities—which ultimately had to write off those debts—have reason to be very cautious before endorsing these proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Betts]

rose—

[Mr Raynsford]

rose—

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I will give way in a minute.

Nine tenths of the rise in housing benefit in the past 10 years is down to increased rents. To put that into context, if that increased spend in rents going to private landlords had instead been used to invest in social housing, we would have had 80,000 social homes being built per year. I therefore wonder who Labour Members think has squandered the money they had flowing into the Exchequer. Political short-termism was the reason for that.

[Mr Raynsford]

rose—

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Okay, I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman as he was one of those responsible.

[Mr Raynsford]

Will the Secretary of State please now put the record straight and say that the increase in housing benefit attributable to rent increase covers both the social and the private sectors, and that the increase in housing association rents contributed to building the homes that were built? Will he now put the record straight and say it is completely wrong to imply that this is entirely going to private landlords when it is not?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

When the right hon. Gentleman is in a hole he should stop digging. The reality is that he was responsible for one of the lowest levels of building social housing. I do not know whether he is proud of that, but I would not be if I were sitting there with him.

We have to ensure that people who pay their way without recourse to benefits will no longer have to subsidise people who live in properties that the former could not afford. As I said, the maximum rate under the cap will be set at a level that is affordable and which some will consider generous. Based on what people spend on average on housing, the figure will be quite high; about £80,000 a year is what you would have to have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

Let me draw attention at the outset to my interests as declared in the register.

It is clear that the Government are pursuing a policy not of housing benefit reform but of housing benefit cuts—a policy based on assumptions that are wholly untested.

[Bob Russell]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Raynsford]

No, I have only just started. I will give way in due course, but the hon. Gentleman is perhaps being a little impatient. He might benefit from listening for a moment before interrupting.

The policy is based on assumptions, many of which are wholly untested, premises that are, frankly, incredible, and an absence of detailed impact assessments of how the eight different cuts will cumulatively affect the 4.75 million households that currently receive housing benefit. In my view, it is that absence of a detailed and thorough appraisal of the impact of the cuts that is the most serious indictment of the Government.

We have heard the Secretary of State’s claim that the effect of the changes will be to reduce rent levels in the private rented sector. His noble Friend Lord Freud made a similar claim last week when, according to a report in The Guardian, he said:

“We are expecting a large number of people who see less housing benefit to be able to negotiate their rents downwards, and the landlords will move to the new lower rate.”

As the Secretary of State and Lord Freud are clearly not totally familiar with the rented market, let me remind them and their colleagues on the Front Bench what is actually going on. Yesterday’s Evening Standard reported:

“Widespread rental ‘gazumping’ has hit London for the first time as desperate tenants fight to secure homes. Rents have soared by up to 35 per cent this year, with as many as one in four landlords asking for sealed bids from applicants, according to one agent.”

The director of a lettings agency is quoted as saying:

“The exceptional demand for rental properties which we saw earlier in the summer is showing no signs of slowing down. If anything, the rental market is now more red-hot than a month ago.”

He said that

“one four-bedroom ex-council home was recently let in Camberwell for £500 a week—£150 above the asking price and more than 40 per cent higher than the previous rent.”

A partner at Cluttons is quoted as saying:

“occupancy rates stand at an unprecedented 95 to 98 per cent, as tenants opt to stay put rather than move and risk being frozen out,”

adding that

“the stampede for homes was at all levels of the market, from studio to family homes and is in all areas of London.”

She said:

“We had a studio let at Cinnamon Wharf in Shad Thames that had been on at around £225 to £230 a week. I suggested putting it on at £305 and we got that within half a day.”

The director of another agency said:

“The demand for rental property will heat up even further in the medium-term and gazumping will become even more common as tenants look for any way in which they can get ahead of the competition.”

[Bob Russell]

I was going to ask the right hon. Gentleman what interest he was declaring, but my question to him now is this: is he not talking about supply and demand? If the issue is supply and demand, why did the previous Government, in which he played a leading role for 13 years, fail with the supply?

[Mr Raynsford]

Let me say to the hon. Gentleman what I have said in many previous debates. When we came into government in 1997 we inherited a very serious problem caused by the condition of the existing housing stock, as he knows. He also knows that a great deal of money was put into the decent homes programme to improve the condition of millions of social homes throughout the country. Because that was a priority, perhaps not enough was spent on building new homes, but if he looks at the figures, he will know that during the later years of the previous Government, until the recession hit, there was a rising trend of new house construction in all tenures, including social housing. Had that been sustained, we would now be seeing levels approaching those set out by Kate Barker in her report.

Obviously there has been a recession in the meantime. It has hit the world—it has hit this country and everywhere else—but given that situation, we want to see policies that will improve prospects rather than make things worse. The problem is that the present Government have managed to destabilise every part of the housing market. House builders are in shock because of the ill-considered planning changes. The private rented sector is in difficulty. Landlords are worried about the proposed changes to housing benefit. The social housing sector has been pulverised by the Government’s proposal to remove security of tenure and to jack up rents to near market levels. That has created a serious problem of anxiety and lack of confidence in all sectors of the market. Not surprisingly, as the hon. Gentleman highlighted, there is therefore a problem with shortage of supply. That is precisely what is driving rent levels.

[Mr Burley]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Raynsford]

No. I have given way once, and I must make a little more progress.

All hon. Members should realise that the Government’s hope that the changes will lead to a reduction in rents is delusional. It will not happen, and the consequence will be that many people who depend on access to private rented housing, and on a degree of housing benefit to support it—many of them are in low-paid work—will find it harder and harder to compete in an increasingly tough market. I am afraid that the Government are making things worse.

[Simon Hughes]

One factor over the past 13 years that affected supply was the number of right-to-buy applications exercised by tenants. Does the right hon. Gentleman support a discretion for local councils to decide whether to allow the right to buy? That has become the policy throughout Wales.

[Mr Raynsford]

The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the subject. The right to buy now has a relatively minor influence on the supply of housing, because most people in social rented housing are on incomes that make it impossible for them to buy. I would not change the current rules. I think it is right to have an option for people to buy, but in the current market there will not be many who take that up. I want the focus to be on securing a good supply of rented accommodation through social and private providers at rents that people can afford, supported by a proper benefit system.

We know that a substantial number of local housing allowance recipients are in properties where the rent is higher than the LHA. I have quoted the answer given by the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), earlier this month that 48% of LHA recipients had to meet a shortfall because their rent was higher than the LHA. It is absurd for the Government to argue that the LHA is driving increases in rent, when the evidence that I quoted from the Evening Standard shows that it is the private market and the huge demand in the private market that is driving the increase. A very high proportion of LHA recipients will find it increasingly hard to compete, because their LHA is already below the rent that they are paying.

[Steve Webb]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Raynsford]

No. I will not give way because I have very little time left. The Minister should remember that private tenants who are dependent on housing benefit may find that they are priced out of the market as a result of the Government’s policies. I am surprised that he and his party are prepared to countenance that.

The hard questions that Ministers must answer—they have not done so—is simply: where will the tens, and perhaps hundreds, of thousands of LHA recipients go when their allowance is cut to a level that makes it impossible for them to make up the shortfall, and their landlord declines to reduce the rent?

[Steve Webb]

The right hon. Gentleman cited a £500 rent on a four-bedroom property—he quoted that from a newspaper—which is above our cap. Is it his policy that taxpayers should pay someone £500 for a four-bedroom property?

[Mr Raynsford]

No, it is not, and the point has already been made that that is not a housing benefit letting; it is a market letting being driven by the market. The Minister finds that difficult to understand because of his extraordinary prejudice that the local housing allowance is somehow driving the increase. I would have thought that he understood that, because he has some grasp of economics. He should also understand the cumulative effect of a series of such changes: not just the cap, not just the local housing allowance, but the change in non-dependant deductions, the restriction of the entitlement of social housing tenants of working age who are deemed to occupy larger accommodation than they need, the extension of the shared room rate to single applicants aged 35—the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott) raised that anxiety—the change to the uprating formula using the consumer prices index rather than the retail prices index, the 10% cut in benefits for those on jobseeker’s allowance for more than a year, and the overall cap on benefit entitlement. Cumulatively, those changes will have a devastating effect. Why has the Minister, with his distinguished background in social policy, not insisted on proper appraisals of the cumulative impact, and the impact over a period, of all the changes, which will have dire consequences for many people on very low incomes?

This is not evidence-based policy making; it is faith-based policy making, using assumptions that most of the commentators in the outside world who have a real understanding of these things believe to be seriously flawed. I put it to the Minister that unless the Government can give us evidence that their policy will reduce rents in the private sector—for which there is not a shred of convincing evidence—and that the cumulative impact of the changes will not have dire consequences for many vulnerable people, the only decent thing for them to do is to withdraw their package and say that they will look again at the measures and discuss with the Opposition agreed arrangements to deal with abuses of the system without causing vulnerable people to suffer. If they do that, they will have our support. If they do not, I hope that all hon. Members with open minds will vote for the motion tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amber Rudd]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for making that point, because it is exactly the one with which I am about to deal. Earlier in the debate, we heard about sensational articles in newspapers and unrealistic reporting. I am afraid that Hastings has been on the receiving end of quite a lot of that. I have spoken to the councillors who made those comments and to our director of housing, Andrew Palmer, who has done excellent work. I asked him how many London councils had made inquiries of him, and he said none. I asked him whether he had had an opportunity to speak to the people who run the bed-and-breakfast establishments that he very rarely uses—although he has had to do so occasionally—and to the landlords whom he uses for the purposes of the local housing allowance. He said that he had spoken to all of them, and that not one of them had received such an inquiry.

I strongly believe that we have been reading sensationalist reports in the newspapers. There is an apocalyptic vision of a group of Londoners arriving on the south coast, but it simply is not happening. I think it important to repeat that so that people do not become fearful. They do not have to believe what is said by the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) about extra pressure on education establishments, because that is not happening at the moment.

We hope that rents will fall. Members will not be surprised to hear that I agree with much that has been said by Conservative Members about reducing rents. The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) spoke of the unrealistic aspect of falling house rents, and referred to an article in the Evening Standard that focused mainly on larger houses. In my constituency at least, between 80% and 90% of people who receive local housing allowance live in homes with one to two bedrooms. The larger house element does not feature so much, although it represents a large cost. I am told by Westminster council, whose representatives I have consulted, that house prices in its area are falling rather than rising.

[Mr Raynsford]

When the hon. Lady reads the record of the debate, she will see that among the quotations that I gave from the article in the Evening Standard was one from an agent who said that properties of all sizes were affected, from the largest to the smallest, and that all areas of London were affected.

[Amber Rudd]

I am interested to hear that London is affected. We will see the consequences, but at present I am receiving different answers and people are reaching different conclusions. It is not entirely clear how the private sector will respond, but one thing is entirely clear: we cannot continue with the cost as it is now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has followed the proposition. It involves new houses and new build. People in existing tenancies do not face that change.

We have heard talk of the impact of these changes. I appreciate that it is a shame to introduce facts at 9.45 pm, but I shall give it a try. As was pointed out by the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Miss Begg), this is not just a London issue, but obviously the impact of the cap will be felt particularly in London. There are 400,000 people on housing benefit in inner London, which ought to be where the impact will be greatest. Of those, 313,000, or 77%, will be unaffected because they are in social tenancies, and a further 30,000, or 7%, will be unaffected because they are in the non-local housing allowance sector. That adds up to 84%. A further 6% receive local housing allowance, but will not be affected. That means that 90% of people on housing benefit in central London will not be affected at all, while another 3% will be affected by less than £10 a week.

The mistake made during the debate is that people have assumed that any shortfall is equivalent to homelessness. That is a ludicrous leap. We know that people experience shortfalls in a number of ways. Of all the people on housing benefit in central London, 7% will experience shortfalls of more than £10 if there is no change in rents.

[Mr Raynsford]

Will the Minister confirm that he has just misled the House? Tenants in social housing will be subject to increased non-dependant deductions. The housing benefit of those who have received jobseeker’s allowance for 12 months will be terminated or reduced by 10%, and the benefit of those who are deemed to be occupying accommodation larger than they need will be reduced as well. All those social tenants will be affected by the Minister’s changes. Will he now admit that?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think that the right hon. Gentleman intended to include the word “inadvertently” in his intervention.

Housing Benefit

Nick Raynsford Excerpts

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Margaret Hodge]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. In my view, the process is much more about political engineering than it is about achieving sensible reductions in public expenditure. I shall talk about the impact that the proposals will have in my constituency and the borough of Barking and Dagenham. In doing so, I hope to expose the flaws in the Government’s argument and what I think is the shameful agenda that they are, in fact, pursuing.

The Minister claims that the policy objective of the cap on local housing allowance—setting that cap at 33% of average local rents—linking housing benefit to the lower consumer price index rather than the retail price index and capping the total benefits that workless households receive, is to drive down rents. Let me tell him that he will not achieve his objective. His policies will not drive down rents. What they will do is drive out families—drive them in their droves out of the inner-London constituencies where they live to constituencies such as my own in the London suburbs.

Let us consider the facts—these are the facts from the Department for Work and Pensions, not my facts. In Brent, 9,650 families will lose from £18 a week to £160 a week and the families who will lose the most are those with the most children. In Hackney, 16,440 families will lose from £13 a week to £125 a week, and again the families who will lose the most are those with the most children. We can also take the example of Camden, where 2,940 families will lose from £20 a week to £262 a week, and yet again the families losing most are those with the most children.

It is simply nonsense to believe that the rents in Brent, Hackney or Camden will go down. A survey by London Councils found that 60% of landlords who are renting to tenants in receipt of housing benefit would not be prepared to reduce their rent by even a small amount if their tenants could no longer afford to pay the existing rate because of the reduction in local housing allowances. More than 90% of landlords said that they would try to evict a tenant or refuse to renew their contract if the tenant fell into arrears, if the shortfall in rent was more than £20 a week. Those landlords know that their properties will not lie empty. We all know that there is a massive shortage of housing in the capital and we know that, with the drying up of the mortgage market, more people are being forced into the private rented sector, which in turn increases demand in that sector. We know that the buy-to-let market is booming, because investors can get a good return on their properties. Landlords will not lower their rents, but poor people will be forced out of their houses.

Do not just listen to me on this subject—listen to Boris Johnson, the Conservative Mayor of London, when he says in the briefing that he prepared for today’s debate that the Government’s proposals will lead to

“the loss of the private rented sector as a major safety net for London boroughs”.

He continues:

“We expect landlords to leave the housing benefit market due to the perceived instability of housing benefit in the short and medium term”.

Those are Boris Johnson’s words, not mine.

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way and I congratulate her on securing this debate. I very much want to reinforce the points that she is making. The private rented sector is absolutely vital to meeting housing needs in London. During the past 15 years or so, that sector has begun to recover from very low levels seen in the late 1980s. The real damage that could be caused by these maladroit and ill-considered housing benefit changes could well destroy confidence and take away a large quantity of housing that otherwise would be available to meet the needs of Londoners.

[Margaret Hodge]

I bow to the huge experience and knowledge of my right hon. Friend and I agree entirely with his analysis of the likely impact of the changes that the Government are proposing to make.

In my constituency, all 3,810 households that currently receive local housing allowance will already lose out because of the housing benefit cuts that will come into effect next year, so they will experience additional hardship as a result of those cuts. Because rents in Barking and Dagenham are currently lower than in the inner-London boroughs, private tenants in the borough will not be hit as badly as those in central London, where rents are the highest in London. but as inner-London private tenants are forced to find a home in outer London, rents will inevitably be driven up in the outer-London boroughs. More demand on limited supply will be a double whammy for the people of Barking and Dagenham. Has the Minister commissioned any research to understand better the potential impact of his proposals on rents in outer-London areas such as Barking and Dagenham? If so, will he place that research in the Library?

We know from anonymous quotes in the press that civil servants are telling Ministers that the proposals, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) said, will lead to the biggest population movements experienced since the industrial revolution. Even at her worst, Shirley Porter deported only 1,000 people out of Westminster, yet this Liberal Democrat Minister is deliberately forcing tens of thousands of families out of inner London, in a shameful act of social engineering and political gerrymandering that will damage our communities irreparably.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Russell]

The hon. Gentleman has asked how many social houses were built. If we factor those figures in, the number is still considerably lower than that achieved during the 13 years of the previous Conservative Governments. Presumably, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) can give us chapter and verse about how successful the housing association sector is, an issue on which the Government in whom he served failed so lamentably.

[Mr Raynsford]

Will the hon. Gentleman tell hon. Members about the state of the social housing stock in 1997, the condition of the properties in which people were living, the extent of the backlog of disrepair that had to be dealt with and the scale of the renovation programme—the decent homes programme—that was put in place by the previous Government, which has improved the living conditions of millions of people in this country? Why is he being so churlish about that?

[Bob Russell]

The right hon. Gentleman is correct about the inheritance of the new Labour Government, but that makes their concentration on one aspect of housing just as bad. I am not saying anything new; these are points that, as Hansard will confirm, I put to the then Prime Ministers Blair and the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), as well as to Prescott when he was in charge of council housing—or rather non-council housing.

In the years of plenty when the economy was thriving, new Labour should have emulated what Clement Attlee did in 1945 after six years of war: introduced a house building programme to house the poorest people in the land. It did not do that. The poorest people were among those the party turned its back on, which is why it lost 5 million votes at the last general election.