Angela Rayner slashes right-to-buy discounts in ‘attack on aspiration'
As a result of the move, which will impose stringent restrictions on the right-to-buy scheme, the Deputy Prime Minister was accused of an 'attack on aspiration'.
Under the new scheme, the discount will be cut to between five and 15 per cent, depending on how long the tenant has lived there, down from 35 per cent at present.
Ms Rayner also announced that tenants must have lived in a council house for 10 years – up from the current three – to be able to qualify.
People who have previously benefitted from the scheme will be barred from trying again, and newly built council houses will be exempt from the right to buy for 35 years.
Kevin Hollinrake, shadow housing secretary, called Ms Rayner a 'hypocrite' as she had benefitted from right to buy herself.
In 2007, Ms Rayner bought her former council house in Stockport, Greater Manchester, for £79,000 after claiming a 25 per cent discount. She later sold the property for £48,500 more than she paid for it.
'Today, Labour has chosen to quietly bury bad news, slipping out a policy that slashes right-to-buy eligibility and discounts,' Mr Hollinrake said.
'This is nothing short of an attack on aspiration. Labour is turning its back on the very families who work hard and want a stake in their future.'
He added: 'For decades, right to buy has helped millions take their first step onto the housing ladder. Now, this Government is making it harder than ever to own a home. It is increasingly clear that the only guaranteed route to housing in this country is to arrive on a small boat.
'And the hypocrisy is staggering, Angela Rayner has personally benefitted from right to buy. Yet under her party's watch, that opportunity is being stripped away from others. Labour's message to aspiring homeowners is clear.'
Right to Buy was the totemic policy of Margaret Thatcher in 1979, helping to propel her to her first general election victory.
Sir Keir Starmer promised wholesale reform to restrict access, saying it had too dramatically refused the number of social houses available to people who needed them.
Ms Rayner's Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government department announced the changes on Wednesday night, saying it would bring forward legislation to increase the eligibility requirement from three to 10 years.
The department said this would allow councils to rebuild their stock and to better ensure that only tenants who have paid rent on their homes for many years are able to benefit from the scheme.
The changes will prevent existing property owners, or those who have previously benefitted from the scheme, from exercising the right to buy unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as being the victim of domestic abuse.
Newly built social and affordable housing will be exempt from the right to buy for 35 years, making it more financially viable for the council to build new homes.
This is much higher than the 10 or 20 years envisioned in a recent consultation document.
Labour promised at the last election to build 1.5 million more homes over the course of the Parliament. It says many of these will be social and affordable homes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
11 minutes ago
- The Independent
Indefinite jail terms ‘not right and not fair', Lords say in call to end IPP injustice
Peers have demanded answers over the government's refusal to resentence prisoners trapped under 'no hope' indefinite jail terms, insisting: 'It is not right and it is not fair.' In an impassioned debate in the House of Lords, peers urged prisons minister James Timpson to take decisive action to end the injustice of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) jail terms. Successive governments have refused justice committee recommendations to resentence more than 2,500 prisoners still trapped under the abolished jail term. The open-ended sentences were scrapped in 2012, but not retrospectively, leaving those already jailed incarcerated indefinitely. Victims of the scandal, whose tragic cases have been highlighted by The Independent, include Leroy Douglas, who has served almost 20 years for stealing a mobile phone; Thomas White, 42, who set himself alight in his cell and has served 13 years for stealing a phone; and Abdullahi Suleman, 41, who is still inside 19 years after he was jailed for a laptop robbery. In a speech as his private members bill to resentence IPP prisoners reached committee stage on Friday, Labour peer Lord Tony Woodley, admitted it will not succeed without government support. Addressing IPP prisoners and their families, he told them not to give up hope, but added: 'Sadly, my Bill by itself will not bring you justice. But it can help build pressure on the government to do the right thing, and it can help build public awareness of this industrial-scale miscarriage of justice. 'So please don't have false hope in my Bill. Hope – but not false hope – is my aim here.' Raising a series of 'probing' amendments designed to 'expose the lack of logic' behind the government's refusal to resentence IPP prisoners, he said it is 'as big a scandal as the Post Office and the infected blood scandal'. 'Almost 100 prisoners have taken their own lives – hundreds more have been driven to insanity, with this no-hope, never-ending sentence,' he said. 'The only difference with IPP is that not enough people know about it.' He reminded the government that almost 700 IPP prisoners have served at least ten years longer than their original minimum tariff. He added: 'How can the government deny resentencing to these people – still inside, over 10 years past their minimum sentence? 'My Lords, let me remind you we are talking about people who have been locked up for over a decade longer than someone else convicted of the exact same crime, but before 2005 or after 2012. 'My Lords, a lot of nonsense is spoken about 'two-tier' justice, but this is one situation where that label seems to apply. It is not right and it is not fair.' His proposals were backed by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Dr Alice Edwards, who said the jail terms have caused 'unlawful psychological torture' to prisoners. In a statement before the debate, she said: 'It is time to end the perpetual damage caused by the IPP scheme. 'These sentences have caused unlawful psychological torture and ill-treatment to too many prisoners under the care of successive British governments. 'A resentencing court is a promising way forward, in which there could be an initial prioritisation exercise of cases, necessary exclusions and, for those whose mental state requires psychiatric or other intensive treatment, their transfer to a secure mental health facility outside the prison service until such time as they are deemed fit, with regular reviews.' However, prisons minister James Timpson said none of the amendments eased his fears over resentencing, insisting the government's priority is public protection. He said the IPP Action Plan, designed to support each prisoner's progress to release by the parole board, is 'where we will sort this out'. However he vowed to 'pull hard on every operational lever' to address the crisis and said he was carefully considering separate proposals put forward last month by an expert panel convened by the Howard League for Penal Reform. The panel, led by former lord chief justice Lord John Thomas, called for all IPP prisoners to be given a release date within a two-year window at their next parole hearing and for fewer offenders to be recalled.
Reuters
15 minutes ago
- Reuters
Welfare cuts U-turn shows extent of UK's fiscal challenges, S&P says
LONDON, July 4 (Reuters) - The inability of Britain's government to make cuts to welfare spending this week underscores the extent of the challenges it faces in repairing its finances, credit rating agency S&P Global said on Friday. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer was forced to scrap 5 billion pounds ($6.83 billion) worth of benefits cuts due to opposition from within his own government, reducing the already razor-thin margin it relies on to meet its self-imposed fiscal rules. "We consider the inability to make modest cuts to welfare spending, which has ballooned in the UK since the 2020 pandemic, underscores the UK government's very limited budgetary room for manoeuvre," S&P said in an analysis. S&P has a "stable" outlook on its AA UK credit rating and though it sees the fiscal position as "vulnerable" it said the direct effect of this week's last-minute policy reversal was small in the context of the country's "existing fiscal challenges". The now-cancelled 5 billion-pound-a-year of mainly disability allowance cuts would have amounted to 0.2% of 2025 GDP, by 2029. That compares with last year's headline government deficit of 5.9% of GDP - equivalent to almost 170 billion pounds. "Getting the deficit down to the pre-pandemic five-year average of 3% of GDP would require a roughly 70 billion pound consolidation effort," said S&P, which is next due to review Britain's rating on October 10. "We expect that the UK's fiscal consolidation will remain a slow process," it added. ($1 = 0.7321 pounds)
BBC News
16 minutes ago
- BBC News
Scottish Water union members to vote on pay offer
Union members at Scottish Water are to vote on a pay offer made by the company to try to end a series of of members of Unite, Unison and the GMB have been on strike at the company regularly since the most recent was a seven-day stoppage last Water said the current offer would see pay increase by 7.5% over two years on average. It said the offer followed "positive discussions" with the unions. Unions believe the strikes have caused the company difficulties. However, there have been no major disruptions to the water supply on strike days to test the company's emergency people who have taken part in the industrial action work in a wide range of practical and administrative jobs at the publicly-owned water industry in Scotland was never privatised and is directly accountable to the Scottish government. Unison is urging its members to reject the offer, while Unite and the GMB have not made a the offer is turned down, strikes could resume. The results should be known later this STUC has called on the Scottish government to intervene in the dispute after months of a had also claimed the company had been attempting to undermine the unions in the strike – a charge Scottish Water has denied. 'Above inflation increases' Scottish Water said it urged all members to vote on its "very strong and progressive" pay said the combined offer for all employees provided a minimum increase of £2,850 - made up of a £1,400 underpin for 2024/25 and a £1,450 underpin for 2025/26.A spokesperson said: "Those on lower salaries would see higher percentage increases. "This builds on a decade of above inflation increases at Scottish Water that reflects our commitment to the principles of fair work while ensuring increases are affordable for customers too."It is in everyone's interests that the current dispute is resolved so that our people can get the pay increases they deserve and continue delivering an essential service to the people of Scotland."
