Grant Shapps doesn't do logic

From the BBC:

Plans to make it a criminal offence for council tenants to sub-let their homes are to be unveiled by the government. A consultation will also detail plans to force thousands of tenants earning £100,000 or more to pay market rates. An estimated 160,000 tenants sub-let their homes, which is not currently an offence...

Housing Minister Grant Shapps said: "For too long this country has turned a blind eye on the multi-billion pound problem of housing tenancy fraud and abuse. This year the coalition is determined to end that scandal. Why should someone on a six-figure income enjoy a fantastically subsidised council rent, whilst those in real need languish on the waiting list? And why is it so easy to get away with sub-letting your council house at market rent and simply pocketing up to £1,000 a week at taxpayers' expense?"

From Dash 24, two weeks earlier:

The housing minister Grant Shapps plans to increase the cap on discounts for council tenants to buy their homes to £50,000, while pledging to replace every sold home with a new affordable one. Mr Shapps said the restrictions on discounts over the past few years have made Right to Buy (RTB) meaningless in many parts of the country, with fewer than 3,700 sales last year compared to a peak of 84,000 less than 10 years ago...

This will mean, for example, that someone in the West Midlands who had been a tenant for eight years on an household income of £20,000 could buy their £90,000 flat with a discount of £50,000 compared to £26,000 previously - effectively doubling their discount. In London, a tenant for five years buying a flat worth £160,000 would also receive a discount of £50,000 - more than three times the previous cap of £16,000.

So, to recap...

- 160,000 tenants sub-letting their council houses and making a handsome profit (because council house rents are lower than market rents) is A National Scandal, but

- allowing (say) 84,000 tenants a year to lock in an extra £50,000 profit by allowing them to buy their council houses at undervalue, as well as 'up to £1,000 a week' rental income by subsequently renting them out is... what, exactly?

Or to turn that into a question, if subletting council houses at a profit of 'up to £1,000 a week' is being done 'at taxpayers' expense', is selling off council houses for a discount of 'up to £50,000' not also something being done 'at taxpayers' expense'?