Housing Benefit

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

Let me address some of the specifics. We are talking about putting a cap of £250 a week on the proposed maximum for a one-bedroom flat. That would amount to £12,000 a year to be spent on rent. I am afraid that not many people who are working can afford to spend £12,000 on rent.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

In the event that the problem is as the hon. Lady describes it, can she explain to my constituents why they are having their housing benefit reduced when the cap has no relevance whatsoever to people in Edinburgh because all the rents are well below it? Despite that, they will have their LHA reduced to the 30th percentile. Others, who are not necessarily in the private rented sector, will have non-dependants deductions from their housing benefit increased substantially, which is a serious problem for many low-income households. Why is that justifiable to solve the problem of high rents in London? Why not deal with London on its own?

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

It is justifiable because this country simply cannot afford the level of welfare benefits that we are paying out. It is all very well to say that this is all about London, but it is not; it is about the fact that people who are working hard are having to pay higher taxes to pay the bills that Labour left for us to sort out.

We have a system of housing support that is no longer fit for purpose. Housing benefit should act as a safety net to support people who need it—I think we would all agree with that—but it should not provide a subsidy for people to live beyond their means, by which I mean beyond the scope of what they could potentially earn. For those who are jobless, it is clear that this level of subsidy encourages benefits claimants to become trapped in dependency. If we are really going to reform benefits so that work is rewarded rather than penalised, we have to build in incentives that do not encourage people just to sit back and collect their benefits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burley]

I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that housing benefit expenditure ballooned from £11 billion in 1999 to £20 billion 10 years later, and is forecast to reach £25 billion by 2015. The Prime Minister would agree with me that the country simply can no longer afford that. We cannot go on like this, spending £25 billion a year on housing benefit.

I wish to leave for a moment the necessity argument and the fact that we have to make these changes. Even if we were in the boom years, they would be necessary purely on the grounds of fairness. They are all about fairness, but the problem with the word “fairness” in political debate is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There is no single agreed definition of what is fair. Everybody in the House defines it in their own way. For Opposition Members—I respect them for it—it is about redistribution of income. It is about taxing the rich more and throwing more money at the poor. For us, it might be about fairer taxes or rewarding hard work and playing by the rules. Fairness is about being able to keep more of what one earns.

What I wish to add to the debate is what we believe is fair when it comes to housing benefit. I will start with a few basic questions of principle. Is it fair that hard-working individuals and families in this country should subsidise people living in properties that they have no realistic chance of ever affording to live in? Is it fair that when the average salary in this country is £22,000 a year, some people, as we have heard, can claim more than £100,000 a year just for their rent? Is it fair that even under the proposed cap of £20,000 a year, a person would still need to earn about £80,000 just to have that disposable income for their rent? Is it fair that the cap is being set so high? If the average salary in this country is £22,000, the cap should actually be about £7,000 a year.

[Sheila Gilmore]

If the real aim is to reduce the housing benefit bill, will the hon. Gentleman explain why his Government propose to change the way in which houses, for both councils and housing associations, are built? The tenants will be paying for the cost of building houses and rents will rise to 80% of market rents, which will put up the housing benefit bill. If that is the hon. Gentleman’s key objective, how does that help us to reduce the housing benefit bill?

[Mr Burley]

The hon. Lady should have listened to what I said. Our point is that it is not just about reducing the housing benefit bill, but the issue of fairness. We need to go back to the first principles in this debate and decide what is a fair amount for the working majority to pay towards those who do not, cannot or will not work. What is fair? The average annual earnings in my constituency is £25,279 a year.

[Mr Burley]

That is precisely my point. People in Cannock Chase who earn £25,279 a year would frankly love to have £20,000 to spend on housing from an equivalent annual salary of £80,000, because that is what it equates to. That is dreamland for them. They have never earned £80,000 a year, so why should they be paying out of their hard-earned taxes for some people to have the equivalent of a salary of a quarter of a million pounds so that they can live in parts of London that have some of the most expensive postcodes on Earth.

[Sheila Gilmore]

If the problem is about households with very high rents, why not tackle that problem? Perhaps we could build more affordable houses in London. Why not solve the problem in a phased way? Housing benefit changes will be made all over the country and 30% of housing benefit recipients in my city are at work. Why are they being punished because there is a problem? Why not just solve the problem? The hon. Gentleman has spoken very eloquently on it.

[Mr Burley]

I agree with the hon. Lady on the need for a regional cap. Funnily enough, some of the work that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has done on regional caps for MPs should be considered. In my constituency, the IPSA cap to claim is £700 a month. That is what IPSA thinks is a reasonable rent for an MP and his family to claim to live in Cannock Chase. Yet under the housing benefit rules, a person can claim £1,600 a month, which is more than double what IPSA thinks is fair for an MP. How is that fair?

The charity Shelter, which has been guilty of some terrible scaremongering, has claimed that up to 80,000 people will be made homeless by the plans. It falls to it to redefine its ludicrous definition of homelessness, which includes two teenage children living in the same bedroom. That is hardly the definition of homelessness that most people in this country would understand. For most, homelessness is about someone not having a roof over their head. Even according to Shelter’s own briefing, the average loss in my constituency will be £30 a month—£7.50 a week. The total number of claimants in Cannock Chase is 10,278. Therefore, one eighth of my constituency—it is a very poor working-class constituency that used to have 52 coal mines—will have to adjust their weekly outgoings by less than a tenner. Is that really a reason to speak of weeping children, social cleansing, Highland clearances, or, worst of all, as Polly Toynbee said, a “final solution” for the poor? She somehow compared capping housing benefit to £20,000 a year to the extermination of 6 million Jews. The left has engaged in disgusting language and it should be thoroughly ashamed.

If anything, these reforms do not go far enough for me. Let me finish by saying that as a country we must start to live within our means. We need to even up the benefit that a person gets from working with the benefit that a person gets from the Government. Yes, the changes are about saving money, but they are also about fairness. It is simply not fair that people on low incomes in my constituency, in which the average income is 25 grand a year, should pay their taxes to subsidise those who want to live in some of the richest postcodes in this country, where a person would need a salary of £250,000 to afford them. That is not fair and neither is the Opposition’s motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Any organisation facing an item of expenditure that has increased by 80% over 10 years would consider it a matter for attention, so it is entirely appropriate that the Government have been looking at housing benefit, given that expenditure there has increased from £11 billion in 1999 to £20 billion in 2009, and it is predicted that, without the reforms the Government are bringing forward, that figure would rise to £25 billion in 2014. As the Minister reminded us earlier, that is £1,500 per working family. Labour did nothing about the situation during 13 years in government, despite the anxieties of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), although it was recognised by Labour in its 2010 Budget and is accepted in this motion. The question, therefore, is not whether we should act, but how we should act.

The situation today arose from the freeing up of the private rented sector by the Conservative Government in the 1980s. People were freed from the state as the only provider of affordable housing, and new, assured short-hold tenancies massively increased the private rented stock—a stock of property that was barely in existence up until that point. That measure gave greater choice to tenants and increased mobility, but it became clear that if people’s circumstances changed, or they were unable to remain in their homes, a new form of support would be needed. However, that support has got out of control. In addition, the system has introduced unforeseen consequences, because the payment of housing benefit has caused rents to rise higher than they would otherwise have done. There are 3.3 million rented properties in the UK, and 1.2 million tenants receive this benefit. That is more than one third of the total, and has a massive effect in the market for rented properties.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that according to two recent research reports—the Rugg report in England, and another conducted in Scotland for the Scottish Government—the proportion of those in the private rented sector on housing benefit was less than 20%. In Scotland, it was 17%. That report was published last year—not a long time ago. Of that 17%, only 8% were on full housing benefit, 6% had half paid, and 3% had less than half paid. Those are the actual figures from research. It is important that we have this published research, and that Government Members are aware of it.

[Mark Pawsey]

I am referring to the UK as a whole, and I will go on to show how the current system has driven rents up. When councils make their rates available, landlords use them as a benchmark for the rents they charge, knowing that a proportion of tenants will be able to pay and will not contest the level. The recipients of housing benefit are happy to accept whatever a landlord asks for, because they know that the state will pay. That contrasts with the position of private tenants, paying rent out of their earned income, who will be keen to negotiate the best rent they can. These higher rents might be good for landlords, but that does nothing to help people who are not in work to find work. In fact, the reverse can apply, because it can discourage claimants from taking low-paid employment or from working longer hours, because if they do so, their benefit entitlement might be lost, and the mobility introduced by the sector might be reduced.

It is worthwhile remembering—sometimes the Labour party seems to forget—that the benefits paid to recipients come out of the taxes paid by hard-working families. A number of my hon. Friends have drawn attention to that. Often, they are the kind of people who look with envy at the kind of housing enjoyed by some recipients of housing benefit. The new system will make things fairer.

We have heard a great deal today about the effect on people living in London, and some Government Members could be excused for thinking that this is a London-only issue. In my constituency, however, a terraced house costs £550 per month to rent, so some of the sums spoken about, such as the family cap of £26,000—more than many people in my constituency earn in a year—are out of this world to the average resident in my constituency. They fail to understand why such sums should be made available.

Concern has also been expressed about the effect of the new rules on availability of properties for people in receipt of housing benefits. I believe that landlords will have to become more realistic in the rents they accept. They will have to accept a lower return than they enjoy now. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) spoke about landlords enjoying a return of 12%. There is no reason residential landlords should receive a disproportionately higher rate of return at the expense of the state. In order to improve returns, those who are committed to this sector for the long term and who continue to acquire properties in the future will not be willing to pay capital prices at the level they have done previously. That will exert downward pressure on the price of housing, making housing more generally more affordable, and, as a side effect, benefiting many people struggling to make a start on the housing ladder.

Increasing the supply of housing more broadly will be another important factor as the coalition deals with the Labour party’s failure to build enough homes. Last year, fewer homes were completed than in any time for a generation, and today’s housing reforms need not be seen in isolation when it comes to providing support for those in need of housing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

Sorry; the shadow Secretary of State is disowning the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), who got it wrong. In 2014-15 the housing benefit budget will have been “slashed” from £21.5 billion to £22 billion. We are not slashing. We are making changes.

It has been said that we are being too hasty. The Labour party has decided that after 13 years of making the problem worse, doing something about it is “hasty”. Labour was so unhasty that it never got round to doing anything about the problem before it lost office. We are getting a grip.

First, we have established that the impact of the changes has been grossly exaggerated. Secondly, we have established that rents will not stay as they are. During the debate it has been suggested that the fact that the British taxpayer is putting more than £20 billion a year into housing benefit has no impact on the market. We, the taxpayers, pay housing benefit towards 40% of private rented tenancies. It is a long time since I studied economics, but I reckon if we pay for 40% of the tenancies and we put £20 billion a year into the market, we might just be having some impact.

[Sheila Gilmore]

The hon. Gentleman is using the figure of 40%. Recent research done both in Scotland and England is completely different. It produces a figure of 20%. In fact, in Scotland it was 17%; the report was produced for the Scottish Government. Only 8% of that was for housing benefit. We need to see the evidence that differs from the research that the Government themselves commissioned.

[Steve Webb]

I am not sure what the hon. Lady is questioning. Some 40% of private rented sector tenancies have housing benefit. That is a fact.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out earlier, people have said in this debate that rents will not fall. There is an assumption that rents have to go up. I have news for those people: since November 2008 private sector rents have fallen by 5%, while LHA rents have risen by 3%. So there is a void. That is further evidence. Opposition Members have asked for evidence, and here is clear evidence that LHA is driving up rents.