A few thoughts on housing policy (1) - the Right to Buy

It is a good few weeks since a new blog post has appeared on this site. Since l4h has been busy with various training projects, time has been a bit scarce. But as housing is back in the news it seemed like a good time to put some of my thoughts down in writing. The main subjects that are currently occupying my mind are: the resurrection of the right to buy; the tenant scrutiny role; and what might be emerging in the Localism Bill. Of course these are all interrelated as they are all important aspects of the developing shape of coalition housing policy. Mr. Shapps would no doubt also point to other elements of policy, but for now, these are the ones that seem to be exercising my mind. Clearly these are just my own musings, and whether people agree or disagree is up to them, but hopefully, they might be read as part of the on-going debate around these issues. Let's take each subject in turn...this post will look at some points about the right to buy. Future posts will examine the other issues in due course.

Fanning the Flames of the Right to Buy...

Mr. Cameron's announcement at the start of the Conservative Conference that the right to buy is to be given a facelift led to not a few raised eyebrows in the housing profession. Surely this was yesterday's policy which although had achieved the success that was intended by Mrs Thatcher, it had become much less popular and less relevant for a range of reasons. Mr. Blair's watering down of the benefits of the policy, the general downturn in the economy and the related difficuly in securing a mortgage, and the simple fact that most of the better quality stock had already been bought at hefty discounts, had all contributed towards a significant decline in the number of sales. It did come as a bit of a surprise therefore when Cameron announced to Andrew Marr that he was intending to administer emergency CPR to the dying patient. But, he explained, this time it would be different...

Now I have always had conflicting views on the right to buy. Whilst I would not seek to deny the aspiration of home ownership to those who desire it, I have always had a difficulty with a policy which sought to meet this aspiration at the expense of people in housing need and who could not aford to buy their home. Since Mrs. Thatcher introduced the right to buy in the 1980 Housing Act, there have been around 2 million council homes sold to sitting tenants. These sales have generated vast amounts of capital receipts. In fact the sale of council housing has generated more money than all the other privatisations put together, this despite discounts being available up to 70 percent of market value. Under current rules, councils only retain 25 percent of the proceeds, with 75 percent going to the Treasury. The revamped scheme, according to Cameron and Shapps, will introduce higher discounts (which were reduced by Blair), and the use of 100% of receipts - presumably by central government - to support the building of new rented housing. Cameron has promised that for each home sold under the new scheme, one will be built to replace it. Although this might seem to present a degree of feasibility at first glance, there are two major flaws when one looks a little closer. 

First, any large scale sales drive will clearly have a detrimental effect on the ability of councils to provide much-needed homes for people on their lengthy waiting lists. Although homes will continue to be occupied by the same people, the natural turnover of vacant properties will diminish - particularly as a proportion of those who can afford to buy would presumably leave the social sector anyway to take up owner occupation elsewhere.  

Secondly, the additional rented accommodation that will replace these homes will be let under the government's controversial 'affordable' rent model, which sets a rent up to 80 percent of private sector rents. So a socially rented home, let at a genuinely affordable rent, will be replaced by one which is likely to be out of reach for many poor families.  

Answers to questions on just how this will be achieved, where these homes will be built, and how councils will be expected to help families in dire housing need, are eagerly awaited. The government is to publish a housing strategy next month, when we should learn how the scheme is likely to work in practice.

More on rioters, punishments and housing tenure...

As the dust begins to settle following the dusturbances of last week, the real battle has commenced. The political battle that is. With Cameron, Clegg and Miliband making major and well reported speeches, we should all now be clear where we are going. But are we? Are we confident that our politicians have our best interests at heart? I wrote yesterday that I was not comfortable with knee jerk responses and simplistic on-the-hoof policies to tackle what is a very complex issue. There is a school of thought of course that the only interests that (most) politicians have at heart are their own. A tad cynical perhaps, but then I am old enough to have witnesses too many lies and betrayals from politicians of all colours over the years. So where do we go from here? I do like the idea of some kind of period of reflection and a chance for us all to think about the wider issues. But honesty is a key requirement. And openness. Two ingedients that often seem in short supply these days. 

What I definitely do not like is the use of housing as a tool of punishment. Housing is something that is fundamental to us all. It is our base and our refuge. Something that should be a positive aspect of our lives, not something to be used in a negative way. Someone else has written about tenure. Why should Shapps propose a separate punishment, ie eviction from a social rented home, that would not be available to be used against a private renter or a home owner? More scapegoating of social tenants? Surely not. Anti-social behaviour in all its forms is not tenure specific. In addition, he is planning to use this punishment against families where a son or a daughter has been convicted of a riot-connected crime. Is this fair? I don't think so, although I know that some people will.


The debate will continue and politicians will keep on trying to seek a way forward - for themselves and for their parties perhaps. Ordinary people need to involved in this process. More inclusion, openness, honesty, and acceptance of mistakes are needed, but don't hold your breath. This could be a positive watershed if we (society as a whole) take the opportunities presented to us to and seek progressive outcomes for all concerned.

'Punishing' the rioters?

In the aftermath of the recent disturbances in some major cities, there is clearly a vast opportunity for politicians of all colours to begin their diagnosis and their various recommendations for treating the ills of society. Two of the main ones that have emerged appear to be the removal of benefits from those people who have been convicted of offences relating to the disturbances, and for the eviction from social housing tenancies of perpetrators and their families. 


Now I have never been totally comfortable with the increasing levels of responsibility for social landlords to deal with anti-social behaviour. Whilst there are some clear breaches of tenancy agreements that should be dealt with, the constant blurring of what are police and criminal justice responsibilities and those of social landlords can sometimes cause confusion on the part of tenants and others. I am also uncomfortable about politicians introducing opportunistic and populist  policies in an attempt to look as though they know all the answers, or just to look tough. The trouble is that we have not had a time to reflect on the issue in any depth, and the adoption of knee jerk responses has a real possibility of either having no effect whatsoever, or even to make matters worse. 

The causes of the disturbances are clearly complex. To adopt simple remedies as a response could be a dangerous thing.



I would be very interested to read the views of other people from the social housing world on this issue.


David Wardle
August 15, 2011.

More on Blended Learning programmes

Many thanks to those who responded to my blogpost yesterday about our new blended learning programmes. We already have one concrete bookings and a number of enquires. Some have asked for more detailed information on the programmes, particularly in relation to the content of the workshops. There are initially two separate programmes that have been designed - Anti-Social Behaviour and Resident Involvement. Here are the broad headings of issues to be covered in the workshops. Do remember however, that these can be amended and tailored to your specific requirements.


ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR:
Workshop 1:

• What is Anti-Social Behaviour?
• Policy context - current and future
• Responses to ASB 
• Prevention
• Enforcement
• Rehabilitation
• Non-Legal Remedies for ASB
• Legal Remedies for ASB
• Case Studies 

Workshop 2:

• Review of Workshop 1
• Practical Issues
• Effective case management
• Gathering Evidence
• Partnership working
• Skills development
• Barriers and challenges
• Case studies

RESIDENT INVOLVEMENT:

Workshop 1:

• What is resident involvement?
• Benefits of resident involvement
• to residents
• to landlords
• to communities
• Policy context 
• Methods of involvement
• From involvement to empowerment
• Skills development
• Tenant panels & scrutiny (1)
• Governance issues

Workshop 2:

• Review of workshop 1
• Practical issues
• Barriers and challenges
• Ensuring representation
• Equality & diversity issues
• Tenant panels and scrutiny (2)
• Good practice examples
• Case studies

In addition to the workshops, practical exercises and tasks, with supporting on-line material, will be set for completion away from the training room setting.  These are aimed at embedding learning, ensuring learning is linked to changes at the workplace, and to cater for different learning styles. Constructive and supportive feedback will be provided by an experienced assessor on these exercises. In addition, participants will be encouraged to reflect on their learning and to visualise how their new knowledge and skills can be put into practice. If required, follow up tasks can be set to review how effective the learning has been in improving performance.


The all-in cost for each programme (including two one-day workshops, plus assessment and feedback on exercises and tasks, plus access to a tutor for the duration of the programme) is only £995 + VAT.


If you are a small organisation, why not get together with neighbouring councils or RSLs to make up a viable number of learners?


For more information or an informal chat about these programmes, please ring David on 07986 246406 or email david@learning4housing.co.uk. For more information about learning4housing, please visit the main website at www.learning4housing.co.uk

David Wardle