Peter Dowd
Main Page: Peter Dowd (Labour - Bootle)Housing and Planning Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Peter Dowd Excerpts
Dr Blackman-Woods
The point housing associations were making, I think, was how difficult it was to get some of that information. It is interesting to question why the proposed thresholds are so much lower than the thresholds that were in the original consultation document. Last month the Government introduced a further consultation document on the new thresholds of £40,000 a household in London and £30,000 outside London. Part of the reason for the lower thresholds, I suspect, is that not many people on very high incomes live in social rented housing. Presumably, at some point in our discussions on this part of the Bill, the Minister will explain to us why the Government have consulted on much lower thresholds than were in the original consultation document.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend aware that the Association of Retained Council Housing has said that the unresolved practical difficulties are likely to complicate things further, and that the administrative process will not justify the likely income?
Dr Blackman-Woods
Indeed. That is a succinct critique of the whole scheme in one sentence.
Peter Dowd
I was going to raise that point later. If the difference between the two markets is so negligible, what is the point of putting such significant administrative burdens on local authorities, whose budgets have been cut so dramatically—by up to 50%? What is the point of or rationale for the proposal?
Mr Jackson
The hon. Gentleman pre-empts my comments. That point will become clearer as I progress in my remarks. The key point is that there is confusion about whether the Labour party agrees with the principle of the threshold, despite the hon. Member for City of Durham having been challenged about that, I think, five times. If it agreed with the principle that a £60,000 threshold would be right, we could reach some consensus about the right lower figure to put in the Bill. I think that was a reasonable challenge, and she failed to rise to it. She did not answer the question clearly, other than to quote what housing associations thought when Conservative Members had challenged her specifically about what she thought.
If Her Majesty’s Opposition agreed with the principle that people who have the wherewithal should pay a higher market rent to divert scarce resources to people on low incomes, who are the bedrock of the country—blue collar workers who get up in the morning, get their kids ready for school and do the right thing, who live in social housing and need our help—I think we could establish a consensus, which we do not have at the moment.
Peter Dowd
In that case, would the hon. Gentleman agree that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, for example, should inform local authorities directly of the earnings of people living in that accommodation?
Mr Jackson
No. The hon. Gentleman must understand that the amendment is effectively a wrecking amendment to the proposals. Irrespective of whether the cap is £40,000 in London or £30,000, or whether in the normal course of events, as often happens with regulation and guidance, it is eventually changed through secondary legislation, he must know that it is a bit rich to say that there is an onerous bureaucratic burden on housing associations in finding out their tenants’ household income. Incidentally, they did not struggle that much to fight quite rigorous and robust campaigns against the so-called bedroom tax, with all the figures at their disposal, which they shared regularly with the media. However, we are now told that it is too difficult for them to find out about those financial circumstances.
The requirements in the amendment are onerous and extremely bureaucratic. To check and cross-reference with the Department for Work and Pensions database—
Mr Jackson
I am just getting into my flow but, as the hon. Gentleman is agreeable, I will give way to him.
Peter Dowd
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the bedroom tax had nothing to do with tax per se? It had to do with the bedroom for which the person had to pay—their income was irrelevant.
Mr Jackson
The hon. Gentleman cannot very well pray in aid the autonomy, authority and independence of housing associations in what is a voluntary scheme and then say, “Well, actually, you can’t trust them to check their own tenants, so let’s hand it all over to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.” He cannot have it both ways. If they want to be independent and focus their scarce resources—we all agree on that, so there is a consensus—on the most needy of their tenants who require that assistance, then, frankly, and this is a wider issue, they have to raise their game.
However, if we look at amendment 200, we see that it refers to
“people aged over 65…people on zero hours contracts”.
How can we possibly police people on zero-hours contracts? Things change in respect of people’s working circumstances —each week, each month—and policing that will be very difficult.
Dr Blackman-Woods
As we know from the most recent consultation document on pay to stay, the Government have accepted the need for a tapering scheme, but we have no idea whether that is a firm reassurance that a taper will be applied. Many of those who responded to the consultation said that there is a danger that families will fall off the cliff if they exceed the given threshold and there is no taper in place.
The Committee has received extensive written evidence from Tower Hamlets Council, saying how difficult things will be for tenants, particularly in London, where there is a substantial difference in many areas between a social rent and a market rent. A family in London might have a household income of £40,000, which, let us be honest about it, is low for London—it is about half the average wage.
Peter Dowd
On the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Lewes about subsidies—not that I accept that her principle is about subsidies—does my hon. Friend agree that there seems to be a dislocation between what Government Members say about marginal subsidies for some people and about subsidies of £14.5 billion, according to the Government’s own figures, to train operators, subsidies to defence firms and grants to businesses? If the hon. Lady is so concerned about subsidies, would it not be best to get a grip on those figures first, rather than challenging the ones we are discussing?
Dr Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point.
I would direct all members of the Committee to the detailed briefing we received from Tower Hamlets Council. I should have said before that it is just one example of the many briefings we have received demonstrating the impact that these measures will have on housing stock and tenants. It is worth Members reading that evidence, because it shows that many people, in many areas of London, will be plunged immediately into poverty levels of income if the scheme is applied as currently outlined. Indeed, that will happen not only in London but in any area with fairly high market rents, which means most of our cities. It also means some of our more rural areas, because there is such a dearth of social housing that there is real pressure on housing stock, so market rents are quite high. It is important, therefore, that we take time to look at the impact of these measures.
We have also had an important briefing from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which says:
“The threshold at which ‘high income’ is reached will be…important.”
It also says that its research shows
“that this proposed threshold may be too blunt to accurately reflect the differing needs of households. Each year, we ask members of the public to help us define a Minimum Income Standard, showing how much money people need, so that they can buy things that members of the public think that everyone in the UK should be able to afford. The results of this exercise for 2015 show that a couple with two children would need to earn at least £20,000 each to achieve a basic standard of living.”
Yet here we have people earning much less than that having a lot more of their income taken up by housing costs. The foundation says that the measure will plunge more people into poverty.