2. Questions to the Minister for Housing and Local Government – in the Senedd at 2:23 pm on 13 November 2019.
Turning to spokespeople's questions, and, again this afternoon, the Conservative spokesperson, David Melding.
Diolch yn fawr, Diprwy Llywydd. Would you agree, Minister, that following your accusation that the private house building industry were creating the 'slums of the future'—comments you made earlier this year—that the Welsh Government has created a rather inhospitable environment for private house builders in Wales?
No, I wouldn't agree with that at all. I stand by what I said. I said they were in danger of creating the slums of the future. If you have an estate of houses that has no infrastructure available to it, where people have to drive to work, where the houses are poorly built, and, frankly, we've seen examples of that from the big house builders across Wales, where not even the most routine of fire breaks have been present, where there's little green infrastructure, where the houses are too close together and there's no play space, this—. I know he agrees with me: this is not a good example of development.
On the other hand, there are many private sector developers across Wales, particularly in the SME end of the market, who build really lovely private sector homes in mixed developments with good green infrastructure and so on. I can give him a list of good SME builders of that sort. So, it's not the private sector in general. There have been issues with some of the bigger builders building far too fast in mono-tenure estates a long way from any infrastructure, built, I think, just to generate profits for that builder rather than building the communities that we need for the future.
Well, I'm glad you qualified those remarks and added some commendation to your appreciation of the sector, because I think you caused a lot of distress when you used that rhetoric about slums earlier this year.
And the point is, we obviously need a housing market that brings together the public and private sector, large and small house builders, and national and local government in a positive public-spirited partnership. And a robust housing strategy to increase supply needs more than the very necessary expansion in social housing; it also needs private house builders to significantly increase market housing to boost affordable delivery in general, mixed tenures, and everything else that goes hand in hand. And a lot of what you said earlier this year was actually about poor planning law, poor regulatory enforcement, and it's not a matter that can be laid at the doors of most house builders who do an excellent job for this country and are there with much latent capacity. And if we can encourage them, they could really be at the heart of solving our housing crisis.
Well, again, we can find some areas of agreement and some areas of disagreement in those remarks, David Melding.
So, recently I met with one of the very biggest house builders; we had a full and frank exchange. I've just had a letter back off them thanking me for the very positive meeting and indications of the way that we can go forward together with this ambition. And I think you share my ambition to see the houses that are built being fit for human habitation, easy to heat and cool in the summer, with good, green infrastructure around them, not houses that people are only in because it's all they could afford, there's no social housing available, and the developer has maximised their profits. So, I agree with you that there are large numbers of good small and medium-sized builders around. Some of the larger builders have not stepped up to that plate, although I'm very pleased to say that in my conversations with them, they are seeming to step up to that plate now.
Having thrown a comment that I very much disagreed with at you, can I ask you to elaborate on what you were reported to have said to the Chartered Institute of Housing Cymru in Swansea earlier this week? It's something I rather approve of. You said that:
'the "major flaw" with Right to Buy was not necessarily the selling off of council homes, but was instead not allowing councils to use the proceeds from those sales to build more homes.'
I mean, I agree with that. But does it not prove that it was the Welsh Conservative Party that was correct all along, the right to buy policy needed reform not abolition?
So, I'm afraid the headline of the article that you've obviously read is rather misleading. If you go on to read what I actually said, the headline isn't quite it. What I said was, when we have built enough social homes in Wales, when any person in Wales who wants a socially rented home can rock up to a council and say, 'I would like to rent from you, please' and they can show you a portfolio of suitable premises, then we might need to look at whether, in order to get mixed tenure into some estates, we would, in limited circumstances, allow people to buy their socially rented home. So, it's not quite the headline that you've been so pleased to see. So, I'll just reiterate it: when we have built that many social homes across Wales, and it's something that people can choose because there is a sufficient supply, then, yes, of course, we could look to see how we can drive some mixed tenure in. But I fear that that will not be in my political lifetime or yours.
Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Leanne Wood.
Minister, you'll be aware that the National Housing Federation has joined the lengthy list of organisations who are critical of the behaviour of Europe's most vindictive and incompetent department, the Department for Work and Pensions. In this case, they are referring to the problems caused by universal credit for those who pay their rent on a weekly basis. The regulations for universal credit state that tenants with weekly tenancies will have their universal credit entitlement calculated on a maximum of 52 weeks. This means that every five or so years, tenants paying weekly on the same day will be charged rent on the basis of 53 weeks, but will only be able to receive universal credit to cover 52 weeks. Therefore, there is a shortfall that Community Housing Cymru have estimated could affect 13,000 people in Wales.
This might seem like a minor quirk of the interaction of the regulations and the calendar, but for people who are already struggling and who are already distrustful of the DWP, it simply adds another problem and may push households over the edge. So, what actions are you taking to mitigate this?
Yes, I agree. And I think there's a real problem—we were discussing only in this Chamber, I think the last time I was answering questions, or in one of the statements on housing—around what the local housing allowance does to people in the private rented sector as well. Because, as you know, universal credit is capped at the local housing allowance level, and that's been frozen for four years. So, quite clearly, people are having to top up their rent very substantially from a very small amount of money. And that is driving rent arrears, debt and, pretty much, misery into the sector. And I think that report, off the top of my head, I seem to remember, said that only 2 per cent of available housing for rent in Cardiff was inside the local housing allowance, because it's been frozen for four years now. The Government of the party opposite had said that, if they had stayed in power and not called this general election, they were going to review that next summer. I don't know what 'review it' means, but we obviously hope that they would put it back to where it should be, which is at around a third of the normal market rent for an area. So, the first thing we ought to be doing is saying that we would do that.
Secondly, on the way it's paid, the delays in universal credit, when you come in and out of universal credit, are clearly ruinous for people. I can't remember if I'm on the second or third, but, anyway, the last point I want to make is to agree with you entirely that, obviously, people should be paying the rent they have to pay. And if they pay it weekly, they should be paid it appropriately, and if they pay it monthly, they should be paying it appropriately. I'm very much hoping that, when we get our Renting Homes (Wales) Act, which we passed in this Assembly back in 2016, in force, which I very much hope to do by the end of this Assembly term—as you know, we're working very hard to do that at the moment—that will at least alleviate some of that, because it will give people a better security of tenure as their lease is running.
Okay. Well, Community Housing Cymru have suggested using discretionary housing payments to help those people affected. Now, my preferred option is for Wales to have administrative control over social security so we could solve this problem overnight, and it wouldn't cost us any money either. There's no point in asking you if you agree with that, Minister—we've been round the houses on this many, many times.
So, I want to broaden the subject. You'll be aware of the lengthy list of reductions to social security payments over the last decade, and how each one of those has not only made poverty worse, but has also hindered the ability of our housing associations to support people. The Wales Audit Office a few years ago noted most of the alleged savings from benefit cuts have been swallowed up by housing associations having to focus resources on administrative tasks that have been caused by many of these cuts, in addition to the wider costs public services have had to bear from homelessness, arrears, stress, and so on. Has the Government conducted an up-to-date assessment as to how much Westminster's social security cuts have cost Welsh public services?
I'll talk to my colleague Hannah Blythyn, who takes a lead on welfare issues, but it's one of the issues that we've asked the homelessness action group to look at as well, because they're going to do three more reports. As you know, they've done the homelessness report in the run-up to Christmas for us. But it's one of the things we've asked them to look at as well. And I think we're still awaiting the piece of research on the administration of welfare. I don't know off the top of my head—I don't know if Hannah does—when that's due, but I can write to the Member and tell her when it's due.
Minister, if your Government did carry out an assessment, as I've just suggested, I think it would finally put to bed the notion that there's a financial benefit to Westminster controlling these matters. The truth is, we can't afford not to take over control over welfare administration. It's clear from international evidence that one of the most effective ways to reduce poverty is to give more money to the poorest households. Now, Plaid Cymru wants a fair deal for Welsh families, which means we are now proposing that Wales introduces a new £35 a week payment for every child in low-income families, lifting 50,000 children out of poverty. After almost 20 years, child poverty is worse than ever in this country. Isn't it time we took a different approach, and would you agree with Plaid Cymru that now is the time to introduce such a payment?
I think, again, we agree on the base—obviously, the way out of poverty is to give people more money. Their chance to earn it, in good, fair employment, is obviously the best way to do that, so that people are not reliant on benefits—so, paying a real living wage, and all that sort of stuff. So I think we're on the same page on that. We are awaiting a piece of research, but I'm afraid I just can't recall when it's due back. We want to be sure what would happen if we take over the administration of benefits, what that means for us in terms of cost, and whether we can administer the benefits properly, without having to administer some of the, frankly, appalling mandation and sanctioning regimes that are currently perpetrated by the DWP, with which I know she disagrees, and I also vehemently disagree with people having their money stopped because their bus was late, and so on—a completely heartless way to go on. So, we want to just be sure that, if we take over the administration, we aren't just having a series of unintended consequences as a result of that, in terms of the cost to the rest of the public purse, because I agree with her in the principle of administering it, but what we want to look at is what the practice would look like. Apologies—I should be able to remember, but I can't remember, when that research is due, so I will write to you about it.FootnoteLink