Help To Buy is in a mess - here's how Osborne can rescue it

To avoid a "second home subsidy", the government must limit the scheme to first-time buyers.

The government’s Help to Buy scheme - a handout to the big beasts of the construction industry wrapped up as a fluffy social policy giving the hard pressed a leg up - has had an inauspicious start to life.

The scheme will share out £3.5bn in interest-free loans to buyers who can rustle up a mortgage deposit of just 5 per cent, each loan offering up to 20 per cent of the value of a new-build property worth £600,000 or less, and taxpayer backing for up to £130bn of mortgage lending.

From the off, the policy faced criticism for artificially stimulating the housing market, threatening another disastrous cycle of boom, bubble and bust.

Even the Treasury select committee felt moved to share its concerns about the risks of channelling public money into an investment whose value - like all good property speculators know - could go up as well as down.

But the biggest problem with Help to Buy is the loophole in the mortgage guarantee scheme that will allow existing home owners access to a loan. Parodying the government’s own 'spare room subsidy' (or 'bedroom tax'), shadow chancellor Ed Balls found a new moniker for the policy: "the second home subsidy".

On BBC1’s Sunday Politics show this week, Conservative MP Nadhim Zahawi was challenged on this issue yet again. He gave a halting and stumbling response, which cleared absolutely nothing up and raised new fears about the perverse impact these loans might have.

Asked what the government could do to stop the policy being used to buy second properties, Zahawi said:

One of the things we have to look at is the detail. How do you decide? If parents want to help get [children] to get a 5 per cent deposit in place or if someone is selling a smaller property to help their family into a bigger place?

Clear as mud. But look again at what he asking us to consider: how do you decide if a parent purchasing a second home to help their child onto the property ladder - buying it for them, or with them, or using their existing owner occupied property as leverage - is using or abusing equity loan scheme?

It’s worth remembering that, when he unveiled Help to Buy in the Budget, chancellor George Osborne said that home ownership was now "beyond the great majority who can’t turn to their parents for a contribution. That’s not just a blow to the most human of aspirations, it’s a setback to social mobility."

What is this fudged idea over public funding for second homes if not a double-bolted cap on social mobility?

Allowing parents to purchase a second home through to the scheme to support their younger family members removes the opportunity of government support from the children of those who could never offer them an independent leg up, and uses public funds to consolidate wealth in the hands of those who already have it. And if that’s the case, it must be stopped. Immediately.

Writ large, a policy like this only exacerbates social inequality, with its disastrous consequences for us all (no need to rehash the excellent work of Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett here). It’s not clear that this is exactly what Zahawi meant in his fumbled answer to Andrew Neil’s forensic questioning; perhaps he was just having a bad morning, or feared falling foul of the party machine. Either way, a vacuum will be filled with speculation, so government must clarify exactly how, and by whom, Help to Buy will be accessed.

Another dangling question for the coalition is whether Help to Buy has actually pushed the construction industry to develop more homes? We know there is demand for decent housing; the problem is with the lack of supply. Builders aren’t building, and where they are they’re not building the right sort of homes.

As David Orr, chief executive of the National Housing Federation, explained in his response to Help to Buy: "Our housing market has long been weakened by the lack of new houses being built... the government should be focusing on unlocking investment to build more new homes as a way of managing down the housing benefit bill and boosting the economy."

If the policy has only managed to put down the foundations for £600,000 Barrett ‘dream homes’, what is its value to first time buyers?

But listen up, Osborne, because you can rescue Help to Buy with three simple measures:

1. Reduce the limit to 20 per cent of any property valued at the national average of £238,293, rising to £350,000 for London and the South East.

2. Only allow first-time buyers to access the mortgage guarantee scheme.

3. Only open the scheme up to properties with three bedrooms or less, forcing developers to build the type of affordable housing that is so desperately in demand for first-time buyers.

The Chancellor may feel reports that house prices are on the rise for the first time since 2010 confirm that his policy is working. I believe it demonstrates quite the opposite.

George Osborne meets with a couple at the Berkeley Homes Royal Arsenal Riverside development in Woolwich. Photograph: Getty Images.

Hannah Fearn is contributing editor of the Guardian local government, housing and public leaders networks

Getty
Show Hide image

Expressions of sympathy for terror's victims may seem banal, but it's better than the alternative

Angry calls for "something to be done" play into terrorists' hands.

No sooner had we heard of the dreadful Manchester Arena bombing and before either the identity of the bomber or the number of dead were known, cries of “something must be done” echoed across social media and the airwaves. Katie Hopkins, the Mail Online columnist, called for “a final solution”, a tweet that was rapidly deleted, presumably after she remembered (or somebody explained to her) its connotations. The Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson wanted “a State of Emergency as France has” and “internment of thousands of terror suspects”, apparently unaware that the Nice attack, killing 86, happened after that emergency was declared and that nobody has been interned anyway.

It cannot be said too often that such responses play into terrorists’ hands, particularly if Isis was behind the Manchester bombing. The group’s aim is to convince Muslims in the West that they and their families cannot live in peace with the in-fidel and will be safe only if they join the group in establishing a caliphate. Journalists, striving for effect, often want to go beyond ­banal expressions of sympathy for ­victims. (It’s a mistake I, too, have sometimes made.) But occasionally the banal is the appropriate response.

Pity begins at home

Mark Twain, writing about the “terror” that followed the French Revolution and brought “the horror of swift death”, observed that there was another, older and more widespread, terror that brought “lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty and heartbreak”. The first, he wrote, we had been “diligently taught to shiver and mourn over”; the other we had never learned to see “in its vastness or pity as it deserves”.

That is true: more children across the world die each day from hunger or disease than could ever be killed in a terror attack. We should not forget them. Nor should we forget that the numbers killed in terrorist attacks in, for example, Baghdad far outnumber those killed in all European attacks of our times combined. In an age of globalisation, we should be more cosmopolitan in our sympathies but the immediacy of 24-hour news make us less so.

When all is said and done, however, pity, like charity, begins at home. We naturally grieve most over those with whom we share a country and a way of life. Most of us have been to concerts and some readers will have been to one at the Manchester Arena. We or our children could have been present.

Cheers from Highgate Cemetery

What a shame that Theresa May modified the Tory manifesto’s proposals on social care. For a few giddy days, she was proposing the most steeply progressive (or confiscatory, as the Tories would normally say) tax in history. True, it was only for those unfortunate enough to suffer conditions such as dementia, but the principle is what counts. It would have started at zero for those with assets of less than £100,000, 20 per cent for those with £120,000, 50 per cent for those worth £200,000, 99 per cent with those with £10m and so on, ad infinitum. Karl Marx would have been cheering from Highgate Cemetery.

Given that most people’s main asset – the value of their home – did not have to be sold to meet their care costs until death, this was in effect an inheritance tax. It had tantalising implications: to secure their inheritance, children of the rich would have had to care for their parents, possibly sacrificing careers and risking downward mobility, while the children of the poor could have dedicated themselves to seeking upward mobility.

The Tories historically favour, in John Major’s words, wealth cascading down the generations. In recent years they have all but abolished inheritance tax. Now they have unwittingly (or perhaps wittingly, who knows?) conceded that what they previously branded a “death tax” has some legitimacy. Labour, which proposes a National Care Service but optimistically expects “cross-party consensus” on how to finance it, should now offer the clarity about old age that many voters crave. Inheritance tax should be earmarked for the care service, which would be free at the point of use, and it should be levied on all estates worth (say) £100,000 at progressive rates (not rising above even 50 per cent, never mind 99 per cent) that yield sufficient money to fund it adequately.

Paul Dacre’s new darling

Paul Dacre, the Daily Mail editor, is in love again. “At last, a PM not afraid to be honest with you,” proclaimed the paper’s front page on Theresa May’s manifesto. Though the Mail has previously argued that to make old people use housing wealth to fund care is comparable to the slaughter of the first-born, an editorial said that her honesty was exemplified by the social care proposals.

On the morning of the very day that May U-turned, the Mail columnist Dominic Lawson offered a convoluted defence of the failure to cap what people might pay. Next day, with a cap announced, the Mail hailed “a PM who’s listening”.

Dacre was previously in love with Gordon Brown, though not to the extent of recommending a vote for him. What do Brown and May have in common? Patriotism, moral values, awkward social manners, lack of metropolitan glitz and, perhaps above all, no evident sense of humour. Those are the qualities that win Paul Dacre’s heart.

Sobering up

Much excitement in the Wilby household about opinion polls that show Labour reducing the Tories’ enormous lead to, according to YouGov, “only” 9 percentage points. I find myself babbling about ­“Labour’s lead”. “What are you talking about?” my wife asks. When I come to my senses, I realise that my pleasure at the prospect, after seven years of Tory austerity, of limiting the Tories’ majority to 46 – more than Margaret Thatcher got in 1979 – is a measure of my sadly diminished expectations. l

Peter Wilby was editor of the Independent on Sunday from 1995 to 1996 and of the New Statesman from 1998 to 2005. He writes the weekly First Thoughts column for the NS.

This article first appeared in the 25 May 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Why Islamic State targets Britain

0800 7318496