| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Webb: Will the Minister clarify whether that measure has teeth? How hard will a developer have to demonstrate that he has seriously considered brown-field sites, especially if there is only borderline commercial viability, such as with sites that are hard to clean up? Could the relevant authority insist on him using such a site or can he say that it would not be worth his while?
Mr. Raynsford: That is a pertinent question. The way in which the sequential test has been applied to commercial development, particularly out-of-town shopping, shows that there has been a significant change. There will always be a tail, because planning consents are often not taken up for some years. Having said that, it is clear that developers are now focusing on urban and town centre sites rather than out-of-town sites for commercial developments because of the greater teeth available to planning authorities, and to the Secretary of State on appeal, to enforce the sequential test.
We believe that a similar principle should apply in respect of housing. Authorities should consider closely the availability of opportunities for development on recycled, brown-field land before agreeing to permission for green-field development. Similarly, the Secretary of State will adopt that approach in considering cases that are subject to call in or appeal. Without raising unrealistic hopes about turning the oil tanker round in a shorter time scale than is possible, I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the House accept that we are moving in the right direct and that this sends strong signals to developers about the importance of concentrating attention in brown-field areas.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned VAT, which is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Gentleman will know that discussions have been continuing on the importance of measures that will encourage the regeneration of urban sites rather than allowing green-field land to be developed.
We have a full programme of revisions to existing planning policy guidance notes to pursue the matters that I have described. I mentioned the new PPG3 on housing, which is another major step in our commitment to revitalising towns and cities and protecting our countryside from unnecessary development. We are encouraging authorities to make more effective use of existing housing in all sectors by bringing empty homes back into use and tackling under-occupation.
I think that I have covered the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. I hope that he recognises the importance of the work that is being undertaken by the Government to ensure a better, more effective approach to these vital matters.
Mr. Iain Coleman (Hammersmith and Fulham):
The subject of this debate--which should have been titled on the Order Paper "Council tax benefit regulations" rather than "Council tax benefit regulation"--may appear rather dry and obscure to those unfamiliar with the issues, even by the standards of Back-Bench Adjournment debates. However, I am acutely conscious of the concerns and the financial problems caused to some of the poorest and most vulnerable of my constituents as a consequence of the introduction of these regulations. That is why I am pleased to have the opportunity today to highlight those matters and bring them to the Government's attention.
The nub of the problem lies in a Budget measure, originally proposed by the previous Conservative Government, which limits council tax benefit for properties in bands F, G and H to the maximum available for band E properties. In effect, the measure works as a cap on council tax benefit to householders living in properties that have been given a notional high market price. I acknowledge the significant concession made by the Labour Government in March 1998, in the announcement that, although the new regulations would be introduced from 1 April 1998, all existing council tax recipients were to be protected so that, in practice, there were no losers at the point of change as a consequence of the introduction of the new measures.
That was a source of very considerable relief to many of my poorest constituents, and the calculation made by the Department of Social Security at the time was that 65,000 people, who were then recipients of council tax benefit and would have been affected, were not affected at the point of change because of the Government's concession. In my judgment, that was a good example of our Labour Government listening to, and taking on board, the concerns of Members of Parliament and others who made representations to the Minister on our fears about the implications for those who were to be affected by the introduction of those measures. As a result of the concession, 2,159 council tax benefit recipients in Hammersmith and Fulham were, in effect, protected.
Council tax benefit is, of course, a means-tested benefit and is paid only if applicants meet a range of strict criteria. In practice, therefore, it is paid only to poor people living on low incomes with very few savings. The House will probably know the details of council tax band figures, but I remind hon. Members that the figures are as follows: to be in band F, a property must be valued at more than £120,000; to be in band G, a property must be valued at more than £160,000; and to be in band H, a property must be valued at more than £320,000. Hon. Members will, therefore, understand that, in reality, the new regulations will affect only poor people living in an area where property values are high.
In spring 1998, the local government information unit produced a report that showed that not a single property in Liverpool or the city of Birmingham would be affected by these measures, but I have already informed the House that, in one small London borough, more than 2,000 households were potentially affected by their introduction.
I am aware that the Government have recently commissioned an independent research agency--PS Martin Hamblin--to undertake a study of the effects of
the introduction of the changes. I must confess that I am somewhat disappointed that that research was not carried out sooner, but I strongly welcome the fact that the contract for the new study has now been awarded.
Today, I am able to advise my hon. Friend the Minister that in Hammersmith and Fulham, since the introduction of the new regulations on 1 April 1998, 140 households have had their benefit capped at band E. In band F, 95 households were affected and, as a consequence, face an annual bill of £183.78, or £3.75 a week. In band G, 44 households were affected and face an annual bill of £367.57, or £7.06 a week. In band H, only one household was affected and now faces an annual bill of £623.24, or £11.98 per week. Those may not seem to be large amounts of money to some hon. Members, but they represent a serious financial crisis to households already struggling to live on highly restricted means-tested benefit.
I will give the House a flavour of real-life case studies that are only too real in my constituency today as a consequence of the introduction of the regulations. There is the case of a single disabled pensioner aged 77, living in Fulham in a band G property, who receives an occupational pension of £42 a week, disability living allowance and state retirement pension. Her total weekly income is £134.00. Because her council tax benefit is capped at band E, she faces a shortfall of over £7 a week that she must find from somewhere.
There is the case of a pensioner couple who recently moved into a new housing association property in Fulham because their previous private sector rented flat had been condemned as unfit for habitation and had been demolished. The property is in band G and the couple face a bill of an extra £7 a week. They told me that they have never been in debt in their 50 years of married life. They have no idea how they will find the extra money and told me that, during the winter months, they kept the heating off in all but one room to make up the difference that they are obliged to pay. Their tiny life savings have been almost entirely whittled away. They were advised--correctly--by the local citizens advice bureau that there are no other benefits available to them to meet the difference. The reality is that if they had accepted an offer of a similar property in an outer London borough, away from their children, their grandchildren and their other local support mechanisms, they would not face that extra bill. They cannot understand why they should be penalised simply because they have lived in Fulham all their lives.
Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon):
In my constituency, I have come across another anomaly in the case of two asylum seekers who shared a flat. One was entitled to 90 per cent. income support and that was passported to 50 per cent. council tax rebate; the other was receiving national assistance and, therefore, entitled neither to money nor council tax benefit. Under council tax rules, the asylum seeker on income support has now found that he is required to pay the share of council tax due from the person on national assistance. He now has a liability order for the deduction of £2.50 a week from his 90 per cent. income support. That amount is to pay for the tax due
Mr. Coleman:
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is true that the introduction of the new measures has revealed a range of bizarre and peculiar anomalies, which I hope will be dealt with by the consultants in their review.
My local authority has a record that is second to none in London for developing new affordable housing in conjunction with housing association partners and other agencies and organisations. During the past six years, more than 1,000 new homes at affordable rents have been developed for local people who could never afford the astronomical cost of private property in Hammersmith and Fulham. I am looking forward to opening next month one such development of 35 new homes in Ackmar road near Parsons Green in my constituency. Earlier this week, I spoke to the chief executive of Shepherds Bush housing association, which was responsible for the development of that site. In that new development, 75 per cent. of the nomination rights will go to local authority nominations.
However, Parsons Green is one of the most expensive areas in which to purchase property in the borough--if not the whole of London. As a consequence, Shepherds Bush housing association's chief executive advises me that all 35 of the properties will almost certainly be placed in band H. Therefore, anyone eligible for council tax benefit, who moves into one of those properties, will immediately be faced with an extra weekly bill of £11.98. Even before anyone has moved into that new development, the housing association has received two refusals of offers because of the introduction of the regulations.
Local families whose members have dreamed of being given the opportunity to start a new life in a new home have had that dream dashed; they are frightened of the inevitable debt that they will face because their benefit has been capped at band E. I point out that that could not happen in Newcastle, Leeds or Cardiff. It could not happen in Barking or Hillingdon.
The London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham is currently involved in detailed negotiations with the country's largest urban property developer over the Imperial wharf site in Fulham, where it is hoped that the council will eventually, in partnership with housing associations, be able to develop well in excess of 500 new affordable homes for local people. That site is also located in an area of high property prices and we are again likely to face the same problems with refusals. In effect, therefore, the new council tax benefit regulations are paving the way for the development of areas in inner London, where the poorest and most vulnerable in our society will not be able to afford to live, despite the fact that major developments of affordable housing are being built--encouraged by the Government--in those areas.
On 11 March 1999, I received a written answer to a parliamentary question in which the Minister was kind enough to advise me that no information on savings as a consequence of the introduction of the regulations last year was yet available. However, I understand that the estimate of savings in the current financial year is £4 million, to the nearest million. I respectfully suggest that saving such a relatively small sum cannot be justified when measured against the misery that the regulations have already caused.
I continue to receive letters and telephone calls from constituents who cannot understand why they have, in their view, been singled out for unfair treatment because they live in an area where their family has lived for generations. It has been pointed out to me that no one in the general election campaign mentioned that such a measure would be introduced. I am unable adequately to explain to my constituents why the Government decided to protect existing recipients of council tax benefit, but introduce such a regressive measure for new applicants.
I have a case of one constituent who, as a council tax benefit recipient prior to the introduction of the new regulations on 1 April 1998, was protected, but who was desperate to return to work after being made redundant by a local engineering company after 30 years of loyal service. He was unable to find a job as a skilled worker, but took a job as a labourer in a local building company. After four months, he injured his back and had to give up that job. Now, he finds himself trapped by the regulations in a band G property with an additional bill of almost £400 per year. He points out that if he had not returned to work he would not be in that position. He believes that the regulations act as a disincentive to those who have been protected from the regulations and who are now worried about what will happen if they become unemployed again in future.
It has been suggested that housing association or local authority tenants caught in bands higher than E should, in effect, trade down to lower-banded properties. That suggestion reveals a complete lack of understanding of the way in which social landlords now work in inner London. Almost all housing associations and local authorities operate a strict one-offer policy. Even if it were possible--which it is not--for families to move from one geographical location to another, the implications in terms of disruption to their children's education and to family support mechanisms are horrendous.
1.29 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |