U-turn on childcare cuts: is the coalition waking up to its women problem?

Ministers have rightly backtracked on a regressive cut aimed directly at working women.

Sooner or later something had to give. And today it has. Following much speculation the government has finally announced a change in its planned cuts to childcare, a key area of concern for many working mothers (and fathers). The recent heat about fast falling support for the coalition among key groups of women voters is starting to take its toll.

So £300m has been found to ensure that more part-time workers can claim tax-credit support for childcare without necessitating a further cut in provision for existing claimants. Up until now there had been widespread fear that any extension in support for part-timers would mean yet another cut in childcare support for everyone else.

To get perspective on these changes requires some background. Under Labour those parents on low and modest incomes working more than 16 hours a week were eligible for support covering 80 per cent of their childcare costs. Last April the coalition cut this support to 70 per cent. That may sound a small change - it isn't. It meant a major hike in the share of childcare costs low-income working parents have to pay. On average this has translated into a £450 loss for half a million parents, with some losing a staggering £1300.

Since then there has been much well informed speculation, based on meetings between ministers and children's campaigners, about another significant reduction in support for working parents currently claiming childcare support (as part of the move to towards the Universal Credit). The implications of this further cut were going to be devastating for many families, as lone parents and second earners - overwhelmingly women - would have been left with little if any incentive to work more than a few days a week.

Today's announcement removes this threat. Importantly, it extends for the first time eligibility for childcare support to those working less than 16 hours a week, without any offsetting cut for other parents to pay for this. This is genuinely good news for many families struggling on low incomes looking for slivers of work to help make ends meet. What it completely fails to do, however, is reverse April's cut.

For those involved in the technicalities of this policy debate, today's news feels like a bit of a victory - something awful has been averted and something positive secured. That's why there has been a fair bit of relief, and positive reaction, to the announcement. But for working parents already claiming support, still smarting from April's cuts, there isn't going to be any gratitude. You don't get prizes in politics for avoiding making a bad situation worse. In fact the money made available today almost exactly matches the cut made in the spring. The net result has been a shift in support away from those working more than two days a week, towards those working less than this. And this extra money comes from the £2bn set aside for introducing the Universal Credit; we don't yet know what else this money might have been spent on.

And let's not forget that, particularly following April's cut, the system of childcare support has some truly miserable features. Donald Hirsch, the leading welfare expert, has pointed out that someone on the minimum wage weighing up whether to work an extra hour will keep only about 35p of the extra £6 they earn (once they take account of additional childcare costs, the extra tax paid and reduced tax credits). Work hardly pays.

Today's shift on childcare is, nonetheless, significant in that it represents a clear decision to back-track on what was going to be an incredibly regressive cut aimed directly at working women. It also reveals something of the internal discussion going on within the coalition.

Above all it confirms that they have been rocked by recent polling showing plummeting support amongst female C2 voters, as well as other work by campaign groups showing how severely childcare costs are hitting family living standards. In the face of these concerns, abstract apologies from David Cameron to women voters were never going to suffice.

It also reflects the fact that Nick Clegg, who absented himself from debates on welfare and work for too long, has woken up to the fact that what was happening on childcare made a total mockery of his claim to champion 'alarm clock Britain'.

On closer inspection his team realised that further cuts would have risked the death of full-time work, or anything near full-time work, for women in low-income families relying on tax credits to pay for the childcare they need to hold down a job. This is obviously a major economic issue - but it's a massive electoral and gender one too. The Liberal Democrats, who were disproportionately reliant on female votes last May, realised during the summer that they couldn't sit this one out. Over recent weeks Clegg forced the hand of IDS and George Osborne and vetoed the idea of the announcement being made to the Tory faithful in Manchester this week.

Less easy to discern are the other changes this new found concern with working women might result in. Many expect a watering down of the coalition's proposed axing of Child Benefit for all higher rate tax-payers in 2013, though pressure for this will come from Conservative backbenchers (worrying about the impact on middle income stay-at-home mothers) rather than the Liberal Democrat leadership. Another flashpoint is likely to be the new and severe charging regime for parents using the Child Support Agency.

Either way the coalition's woes with working women on low-to-middle incomes are set to grow not diminish. The wider economic, fiscal and social forces underpinning them are hardly going to be reversed by one announcement on childcare. But at least today's announcement was more than warm words. And that's a step forward.

Gavin Kelly is a former adviser to Downing Street and the Treasury. He tweets @GavinJKelly1.

Show Hide image

Has Brexit burst the British housing bubble?

The fall in value of the pound is having a negative impact on property prices.

The high cost of housing in the UK has almost nothing to do with supply and demand. What matters is political control. Rents are high because landlords have gained the upper hand politically. The consequences are vividly illustrated in Ken Loach’s new film focusing on inequality in Britain, I’ Daniel Blake.  As a student in the 1980s I paid £9 a week to rent a room in a shared house in Newcastle upon Tyne. Private rent was low because for decades before then rents had been regulated. It was the lifting of that regulation that meant rents could rise so that now students have to borrow vast sums of money just to have a place to live. Today’s students pay many multiples more in rent than I ever did, and millions of families with children are also struggling because they have to rent privately.

Because rents have been allowed to rise as high as landlords can get away with, the landlords have been encouraged to buy up more and more properties that were once social housing or lived in by a family, who had bought the property with a mortgage. The number of people renting privately doubled between the last two censuses of 2001 and 2011. That has never happened before. It was the end result of years of deregulation and the withdrawal of our government from representing our interests in housing. Well-regulated private renting is a benefit, but without rent regulation it becomes a social evil.

Housing prices are not determined by supply and demand because you do not have a choice about needing to be housed. Allow an unregulated market to develop when social housing is also being cut and there is no choice not to buy what is on offer, other than sleeping on the streets. Prices will go sky-high. The purchase prices for mortgage borrowers also rise to astronomical levels as first-time buyers are competing with landlords to buy properties, and so have to be able to secure a mortgage equal to the amount a landlords can wring out of people desperate for a home.

In the first blog in this series on affordable housing published by Taxpayers Against Poverty, Stephen Hill, director of C2O Futureplanners, explained: “There are over one million less affordable homes than there were in 1980. The population has grown by nearly nine million people. Incomes at the median level are flat, and secure employment is increasingly scarce.” He is correct, but the situation is even worse than that — it is not lack of housing that is the problem. Each annual census in the UK records the amount of housing that exists at each point in time. It does this by recording the number of rooms in homes over a certain size. The number of rooms per person has risen at every census since 1981.

The 2011 census was the first to count bedrooms and found that in England and Wales there were 66 million for a population of 55 million (21 million of whom were married or in a civil partnership). So even if we make the ludicrous assumption that only married people share a bed and no children use bunk-beds, there were at least 22 million bedrooms empty on census night 2011. We have not been building a huge number of new houses or flats in recent years, but we have been adding extensions on to our existing homes and so we now have more housing than we have ever had before, per person and per family. We just share it out more unfairly than we have ever done before.

If housing prices were about supply and demand then our surplus of bedrooms would result in falling prices, but this is not a free market. You are not free to buy a flat that has been left empty in London to appreciate in value by its owner. They do not want to sell, or sometimes even rent it out, and you almost certainly would not have the money even if they did.

It is in the housing market that the majority of investments are made in the UK, housing is where most wealth is held. As we become more and more economically unequal it is through housing that we most clearly see that most of us are losers while just a few (who own multiple properties) are winners. Recent UK governments have been allowing wealth and income inequalities to rise and rise.

As Fred Harrison explained in the second blog in this series, government has not only withdrawn from regulating housing rents and profits to avoid this winner-takes-all-economics — it is now even prepared to provide £2bn to buy properties that home builders can’t sell so that they don’t need to lower prices even if landlords and first-time buyers will not buy their properties. The government sees renting-seeking as a social good, and believes that the market in housing should be regulated less and less with each year that passes, other than intervening to keep prices high and rising. Meanwhile, street homelessness rises, evictions rise, the debt of mortgage holders rises, housing prices rise and a small minority of the population become richer. So how will it end?

You might have thought that prices would stop rising when landlords stopped buying properties because the return on their investments in terms of rent would not making it worth their while paying, say, one million pounds for a three-bed house in a part of London near a tube station. Suppose that the most a family could pay was £20,000 a year in rent. The landlord’s “return” on their investment would only be two per cent a year, ignoring wear-and tear and anything else that they might be able to off-set against paying tax. If the forces that were actually at play were “supply and demand” then surely prices have to stop rising when people can no longer afford the rents?

However, landlords have another return: the escalating value of the property itself. If the property is rising by five per cent a year in value then they are making a seven per cent return when they rent it out, even if annual rents are just two per cent of its value. The rise of five per cent a year is due to speculation which is itself partly fed by a belief that the government of the day will do all it can to protect their investments, but it will only do that up to a certain point.

Because it needs to raise taxes a little given the state of the national finances, the UK government is now withdrawing its support of reckless profit taking by smaller landlords. In October 2016 a group of buy-to-let landlords lost their appeal in the courts to try to continue to be able to claim their mortgage interest payments as a business expense. From 2017 only the largest of landlords who set up companies to rent out their properties will be able to continue to do that.

The government knows that the housing market is in trouble. That is why Philip Hammond, the current Chancellor, announced that their “Help to Buy” scheme (which was aimed at the very best-off of potential first time buyers) will end in December 2016. The government knows that with the risk of falling house prices in future it cannot afford the guarantees that “Help to Buy” created. “Help to Buy” schemes were the previous Chancellor, George Osborne’s biggest spending commitment. They were designed to help inflate the housing market and keep prices rising, but eventually every speculative bubble has to burst.

On 21 September the first reports of a stalling market were released under headlines that included: “Q2 UK house sales at an all-time quarterly low says Land Registry”. UK Land Registry figures now show housing prices to have fallen in London by 7% so far in 2016, with the number of sales roughly halving. Investors have stopped buying; if a recent investor wants to sell they have to do so at a loss. Nationally prices fell by 4.5%.

So what happened to the magic-money-tree? In short the pound fell in value and it has been continuing to fall ever since the UK voted to leave the EU. There was always going to be “the event” that triggered the end of speculation and it is looking more and more likely as if Brexit was that event. Once the pound begins to fall in value then any overseas investor knows that if they buy property in the UK, even if its value in pounds does not fall, it will be worth less to them in future.

Suddenly UK housing is not a safe asset. Suddenly prospective landlords actually have to try to rely on their tenants’ rent to pay back their borrowings. Suddenly housing prices change despite no great alteration in supply or demand. Suddenly the whole edifice looks unsafe, not just for the majority of young and almost all poor people in Britain, but for the large majority of the population.

It was never “supply and demand” that determined our housing costs and profits. Relying on that belief did not result in greatly improved cheaper housing for most people, but it was easy to claim that somehow tomorrow would be better if we just left it to the market — until we left it to the ever more unregulated market for too long. Housing costs, prices and supply are determined by governments, including those that shirk their responsibilities and have too much concern for the economic fortunes of the affluent few.


This is part of a series of blogs on affordable housing published by Taxpayers Against Poverty. You can read others in the series on their website http://taxpayersagainstpoverty.org.uk/ or sign up to attend their seminar in Parliament on the 16th November here: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/taxpayers-against-poverty-affordable-housing-seminar-tickets-28329123170