Housing Benefit

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

I will give way in a moment, but I want to make a little progress. Let me take the first line of the Labour motion and change one word so that it reads,

“this House regrets the pernicious effect on vulnerable and in many cases disabled people of deductions being made from housing benefit paid to working age tenants in the private rented housing sector deemed to have an excess number of bedrooms in their homes”.

The Opposition position seems to be that this is pernicious and evil when it affects social tenants, yet not merely acceptable but policy when it affects private tenants. There are two coherent positions: one is the Government position that asks anyone on benefits to contribute towards the cost of an extra bedroom, and the other is to state that anyone on benefits will receive housing benefit, regardless of the size of house they need; that would cost a lot of money but it would be coherent. The Labour party’s position is incoherent. It states that social tenants should not have to pay towards an extra bedroom, but that private tenants should. We have heard cases of people who need extra bedrooms, for example for dialysis machines. Social tenants need an extra room for that machine, but private tenants should have to pay for it. Surely some mistake.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

One of the strangest things in this argument about the private rented sector is that during the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill I never once heard the Government mention it—it is one of those later justifications. The problem is that people in the private rented sector were not suddenly told one day, “Your house is too big; you have to start paying for the extra rooms regardless of whether you can move.” That is a huge difference and the two things are not comparable. If we want to talk about equalising, perhaps we should equalise rents.

[Steve Webb]

I am interested that the hon. Lady mentions rents, because if we compare private and social tenants, she is saying that social tenants, who already benefit from subsidised rent, should not have to pay for an extra bedroom, whereas private tenants paying a market rent should pay for it. That does not seem fair to me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

I do not know the details of the hon. Gentleman’s case, but I am sure that he is taking it up with his local council. Rather than responding to individual cases, however, I would prefer to stick to the principle of why we believe this to be fair and right. I will come to my reasons in a moment.

On social housing, as the Minister said, it would be wrong to expect thousands of homes to sit empty waiting for people to move in. I took up such a case in my own constituency recently. The local council said that it was not getting as much new homes bonus as it had expected, and I wondered whether that was because Suffolk, thought to be prosperous, was missing out. We looked into it and discovered that 120 of the homes sitting empty belonged to the local housing association. I found that extraordinary. So we brought the association in to find out what was being done to maximise the use of those houses—whether they were one, two or three-bedroom homes. Not only will Flagship have to pay more money council tax, if those homes are not used, because we have allowed councils to charge 100% for empty homes after a certain time, but maximising their use would help the council to keep more of its new homes bonus.

Of course, the market can operate in social housing, as has been eloquently explained, via house swapping. I understand that 392 house swaps have been arranged in north Kensington, compared to only nine in Doncaster. It is incumbent on Members to work with their councils to understand what they are doing to facilitate house swapping. From what I learned this morning, my own area is not doing enough, and I will pursue that matter in the future.

[Sheila Gilmore]

The problem is that the hon. Lady and her Front-Bench team do not seem to know what the policy is for. We hear that it might be about making savings, but if everyone slots into the right-sized house—according to the Government’s criteria, which I do not necessarily accept—there will be no saving. Is it about making savings or making better use of properties? If it is about making better use of properties, there are lots of better ways to do it.

[Dr Coffey]

The beauty of Government Members is that we think we can achieve both. We believe we can save the taxpayer money and put it towards the affordable homes programme. Our estimate—I appreciate that it is only an estimate and that we will have to wait and see—is that it will save £500 million a year. Meanwhile, we have set aside £4.5 billion for the affordable homes programme to build houses in this Parliament and are already arranging the programme for the next Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Main]

No, I will not give way. The hon. Lady can make her own remarks.

It appears that in trying to garner support for the incoherent policy that tried to level the playing field with the private rented sector—I thought that was a good idea as a Labour party policy—Labour started the process that should have been continued by ensuring that people paid for the accommodation that they were using. I have not heard from Opposition Members—perhaps they can illuminate the House and the public on this point during their speeches—what, if they choose to get rid of the inequality of a bedroom tax, which obviously does not exist, but let us go with the fantasy for a moment, they will do when they are in power. Will they allow the anomaly, or will they pledge, at goodness knows what expense, to reverse the proposals that they introduced in 2008?

[Sheila Gilmore]

rose—

[Mrs Main]

No, I will not give way to the hon. Lady.

The Opposition should also address overcrowding. As yet, they have not done what Mr Tom Copley says that they should do and apologise for the fact that they never addressed the dire need to build more social housing to allow—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Freer]

No, I am sorry. I have given way once and I am running out of time.

Under that policy, we got no social housing at all on smaller developments because builders built to the threshold. That was Labour’s legacy in London. Of course there are difficulties, as the population makes the transition to the new arrangements, but, as I mentioned, I cannot be alone in the Chamber in having to deal with constituents in accommodation that is too small for them, where children and parents are sharing bedrooms, where children of different sexes approaching puberty have to share bedrooms, or where living rooms are doubling up as bedrooms.

What about the families consigned to emergency accommodation? We do not hear much about that from the Opposition today. That is a problem forgotten by Labour and being dealt with by the Government. It is argued that it is cheaper to subsidise spare rooms than to move people or adapt homes, yet the overall costs of converting larger properties to smaller accommodation would be repaid by the savings on emergency accommodation alone.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mike Freer]

No. I have given way once already and we are running out of time.

[Sheila Gilmore]

rose—

[Mike Freer]

You can bob up and down as much as you like. I have given way once.

The capital cost of adaptions for disabled people moving into smaller accommodation is also likely to be offset by the savings in rehousing those who are in temporary accommodation. In my authority, the average cost of adaption for a disabled property is £7,000, yet my council spends on average on emergency accommodation £14,000 for one placement. So one placement would pay for two houses to be adapted. Again, the fiscally incoherent Labour party argues that the cost of downsizing is offset by the housing benefit, but what about the larger families already in the private sector who may then be rehoused in those properties that become vacant? Little is said of that saving.

This is a completely one-sided debate. What about the private rented sector? People in such accommodation do not get spare rooms. What about the people in my office? They work, yet they do not even get a flat of their own. They have to share. You are quiet on the private sector. Let us make it fair. This was your policy. You were quite happy to tax the private sector spare rooms, but now you say no.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

During the second world war and the 1950s, there was clearly a need, which was why the Conservative Government in the 1950s built record numbers of council properties—to enable people to live in decent accommodation. I agree about that. Clearly, however, social housing should be based on need, not expectation for life, and as people start new careers and move on, they should vacate social housing for the benefit of others in greater need.

[Sheila Gilmore]

rose—

[Bob Blackman]

I am not giving way again.

The Labour party clearly does not recognise this fundamental change that needs to take place.

[Sheila Gilmore]

rose—

[Bob Blackman]

The hon. Lady can keep popping up and down, but I am not giving way.

The Labour party would hand out £500 million of taxpayers’ money while presiding, as it did, over record low levels of housing development. It failed to provide the housing needed during its term of office, and this Government are now trying to turn that around after many years of neglect. The last Government allowed social rents to increase, knowing that housing benefit would pick up the costs for the vast majority of tenants: about 80% of tenants were receiving the maximum housing benefit. That is fine while people are fully occupying those properties—they will be in need, because they will have been assessed as being in need—but once they are under-occupying those properties, it becomes right and proper for Governments and councils to say, “It is time for you to move on and for a family who need that property to move in.”

Earlier, someone challenged the position in the private sector. On average, home owners occupy their property for seven years before choosing to move on, but of course some people fall on hard times and have to sell their property in a rush or lose everything when they lose their job or become disabled. We have to have sympathy and ensure supply for those people across the board. In the private rented sector, on the other hand, we need longer tenancies, because currently they are often for six months or less. Clearly, however, we need some equalisation between the private and social rented sectors.

There are other courses of action that councils can consider. My own local authority has brought in incentives for people who under-occupy to move out. It will give them cash incentives to enable them to buy their own property or move to a smaller property when their families have moved on. That is the right sort of approach. There should be a carrot and stick approach. If someone chooses to under-occupy, they will get less benefit. If they choose to occupy a property that they no longer need, they should not expect the public sector—the taxpayer—to fund them.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is hard to know where to start in responding to what he is saying. If this were a matter of choice, it would be a very different issue. Why is it appropriate to apply a financial stick to people who do not, by definition, have the financial capacity to move on because they are on benefits? In those circumstances, there is no choice to be made. An amendment was tabled to the Welfare Reform Bill which would have resulted in this measure applying to people who had been made a reasonable offer but refused it. Does the hon. Gentleman regret the fact that the Government did not accept that amendment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

If that were indeed true, why is there a discrepancy between privately rented accommodation and social housing in this context? I hope that the Opposition will enlighten me on this. The last Labour Government might have wrecked the economy, but they at least had some sense of responsibility—unlike the current Opposition. Why did that Labour Government believe that there was a perfectly good reason to equalise the treatment of the private and social sectors?

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I will not; I have only a short time in which to speak.

Labour Members talk about fairness, but is it fair that someone on a low income who is in privately rented accommodation should pay taxes in order to subsidise someone else’s spare room? Is it fair to raise taxation from low-paid workers to subsidise other people’s accommodation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Esther McVey]

I would like to raise the example of Susannah from south Yorkshire. She had had four children and did not necessarily want to move. In the end, she looked around for six months and moved. She said, “Actually, I wished I’d had that support earlier, because now I am in an area I prefer. I have downsized. I have a smaller house, which means that my cost of living is less. I am paying less on cleaning and less on heating, and I can live within my means.” I have a list of people like that. I ask Opposition Members to work with their local authorities and their constituents to help them downsize so they can live within their means. I know that living within one’s means is not something Opposition Members understand, but that is what we all have to do as a country.

[Sheila Gilmore]

At what point, when the costs of this policy outweigh the savings, will the Government admit that they have simply got it wrong?

[Esther McVey]

We are planning to save money and move people into the right houses, something the Labour Government failed to do. They left people in the wrong houses and never supported them, and lived beyond their means.