Features
USEFUL LINKS
|
The government is throwing money at social housing in the UK. But there's a catch - councils will have to cede responsibility for running their properties. Demetrios Matheou reports
Keeping housing problems at arms length
It is a frightening statistic: 1.6 million homes owned by councils or
housing associations are not in a fit state to live in.
If you multiply that by the numbers involved in family occupancies, many
millions of people are being let down by the country’s social housing.
And the government still doesn’t quite know what to do about it.
Its recent initiative, unveiled by the deputy prime minister John Prescott,
involves handingover £1.5 billion to 13 local authorities, to improve
a total of 185,000 homes over the next seven years.
It sounds good. But there’s a catch: the councils must cede responsibility
for running their properties to so-called arms length management organisations
(Almos).
And while welcoming the move, UNISON’s housing experts are asking: “Is it enough?”
They highlight the negative consequences of a basic flaw in the government’s
attitude – which is not to trust local authorities to improve their
housing stock themselves.
The authorities chosen include six Labour councils: Newcastle, Camden,
Gateshead, Sheffield, Easington and Warrington; three Tory councils: Barnet,
Solihull and Poole; the Liberal Democrat controlled Islington; and three
authorities with no overall political control: South Lakeland, Harrow
and High Peak.
Prescott sees the scheme as a “half-way house” solution: councils
might have to cede control of their properties, but they keep them in
the fold. He argues, and others might concur, that this at least stems
the steady leak of social housing away from local authorities.
Direct investment
Indeed it has been more of a flood than a leak. The last government sold
1.6 million council houses and flats to tenants in what amounted to the
biggest privatisation of all. Under Labour, some 750,000 council homes
have been passed over as “stock transfers” to housing associations
and developers. This led some to speculate that council housing was facing
a slow death.
So Prescott may have signed a reprieve. The question is – are we
anywhere nearer a solution to the overall scarcity and decrepitude of
social housing?
Heather Wakefield, UNISON’s national secretary for local government
calls the move a “welcome boost for public housing stock and the
quality of public sector assets”.
But she reiterates the union’s belief that allowing for direct investment
by councils is the most efficient and equitable way of improving tenants’
homes: a view that has been echoed in recent reports by the National Audit
Office and the Public Accounts Committee.
“We believe that direct investment using an investment allowance would be the simplest, quickest and most cost effective means of achieving the decent homes standard,” she says.
“And it is a much faster solution than where the local authority
is pursuing stock transfer, a PFI or an Almo.”
The trouble is that the government has tipped the balance against councils,
by limiting the resources available to them for direct capital investment.
And when a council doesn’t have enough resources to do the job itself,
it must choose one of the three options – stock transfers, PFI or
a management organisation – or a combination of the three, to put
to its tenants.
Colin Meech, the national officer for UNISON’s housing campaigns,
points out just two of the built-in flaws to the government’s thinking.
“At the moment tenants are offered one of three choices,” he
says. “But what happens if they reject all of those?
“And what if they all choose arms length management organisations
– is there enough money for every authority to have one?”
Level playing field
The experience of Hammersmith and Fulham illustrates the problems. Despite
having one of the best housing departments in the country, it is being
denied the £70million it needs to repair its properties to the decent
homes standard, by the government’s deadline of 2010.
The tenants, however, have voiced their disapproval of the government’s
preferred options. Indeed they have led a commission into the borough’s
housing stock, which has concluded that the 14,000 homes should continue
to be run by the council.
Steve Hilditch, a former director of policy at the homelessness charity
Shelter who chaired the commission, says that: “The government's
mantra has been 'what matters is what works'. In Hammersmith and Fulham
council housing works.
"And tenants are now saying, 'if it ain't broke, why are we being
forced to fix it?'."
UNISON believes that the government must provide a “level playing
field” between the different options – in other words, create
the conditions whereby direct investment, too, can be presented to tenants
as a choice.
The union is proposing the gradual introduction, within the housing revenue
account, of an “investment allowance” – a revenue stream
against which authorities can borrow, and thus own and manage their own
properties.
This solution could be utilised using Labour’s new “right to
borrow” and prudential framework, that are included in the Local
Government Bill 2003.
Ironically this idea originated in the 2002 consultation paper 'A Way Forward for Housing Capital Finance' – in the office of the deputy prime minister.
Contact the article's author
Contact UNISON's Colin Meech for more information on the union's campaigning on housing issues
|
|
WHY THE OPTIONS DON'T WORK Stock transfers The process of stock transfer can take up to two years between
the initial options appraisal and the actual disposal of the stock
– during which time not a single additional repair or improvement
is achieved. If tenants subsequently vote against transfer - as they have
recently done in Stockport - alternative proposals have to be
developed resulting in further delays. Arms length management organisations Only where a 2* or 3* rating is achieved by a local authority
are additional resources made available. Private Finance Initiative Ten more projects have been selected for support from the Office of the Deputy Prime minister in 2002/03. The government's target is to refurbish 90,000 council homes
under the PFI every year for 10 years. In August 2002 - almost threeyears after approval - none of the initial pathfinders had even signed a contract. |
LOTS MORE FEATURESIncluding stress in the workplace, getting out of debt and the pensions crisis more... |
© Copyright 2008
