I’ve always thought that housing never gets as much attention as an element of economic policy as it should. It gets plenty of coverage as part of social policy, but that reflects the undue emphasis on social housing.
I’m not an economist and so hardly the perfect advocate for this kind of approach, but here’s a bash at some things I think should be covered in a Labour economics of housing:
1) Unbalanced market as a risk to the wider economy
This is in essence, the lesson of the credit crunch. When people are dependent on the value of their home for their savings, their pension and the vast bulk of their wealth, then falls in house price fundamentally undermine people’s economic security. More than that, it poses a fundamental risk to the whole economy: when prices fall, people feel quickly poorer, begin to worry about their future, stop spending and suck demand out of the economy. Such crises of consumer confidence put a lot of firms out of business.
2) Lack of labour mobility.
The coalition have gone on a lot about the lack of mobility in social housing, but overall we have a housing system in which it is difficult to move for the majority of people. It’s not a quick and easy task to move if you own your home, especially when it’s an investment decision as well as a location decision. That doesn’t make for a flexible and mobile labour market when people can easily move to take up jobs, confident that they can easily find secure and affordable housing.
3) Employment in housing and construction
As I’ve covered in previous posts, during the recession the Labour government invested heavily in housing to keep firms in business and maintain employment. Although construction and residential construction is not a large sector of the economy, it is labour intensive and these aren’t jobs that can be moved off-shore to developing countries.
I hesitate to say that the government has published its final proposals for the self-financing of council housing, since they’ve made so many announcements about it they are rivalling the quantity issued by the previous government. And strangely enough, despite this the broad shape of the package is pretty much the same as that put forward by John Healey when he offered his ‘prospectus’ last year. One key difference, of course, is that a prospectus implies choice, whereas the current package will – after a bit of negotiation around the edges – be imposed by statute from April 2012, on all 171 councils that still have housing stock.
On the face of it, the figures involved look alarming, and no doubt some on the left will use them to oppose self-financing outright, as they did when Labour put it forward. The headline figure is that councils will take on around £19bn of new debt, to enable them (in effect) to buy their way out of the system. While the LGA originally demanded that all ‘historic’ debt be written off, this was always an unlikely call on public funds, even more so with Mr Osborne in charge at the Treasury. More recently, among local authorities there has been gradual and – almost – universal acceptance of the principle that extra debt would have to be taken on as the price for escaping from the so-called ‘subsidy’ system. (The word ‘subsidy’ increasingly means, of course, that tenants subsidise the Exchequer, not the other way round.) And the other side of the coin is that a minority of councils will have part of their debt paid off.
Inevitably, the Treasury had its fingers in this pie well before the general election. The cap on each council’s borrowing, which restricts them to the levels to be included in the settlement itself, was already envisaged in Labour’s prospectus. Not only that, but it was always likely that the Treasury would ensure that it kept the surpluses the government would have earned from council housing in the future, however much these are correctly argued to amount to ‘daylight robbery’ from tenants.
In terms of the arithmetic, the spreadsheet experts have so far concluded that the current deal is similar to, and perhaps even a bit better than, the one in John Healey’s prospectus. However, whatever the overall deal, what will matter to authorities is how their individual figures work out. Given that there is a fair amount of local detail in the latest paper, this is where the focus of interest on the figures is likely to shift.
There is already a danger, of course, that hard-pressed councils whose revenue support grant has been cut are looking at their housing revenue accounts to see if they can help make up the shortfall. Labour was alive to this, and included updated guidance about maintaining the ‘ring fence’ around the HRA in its prospectus. In the current document, the guidance has been dropped and there is only a brief reminder that the ring fence needs to be kept. It seems to me that it’s always been down to tenants to be vigilant on this issue. Their vigilance needs to be even greater when, after April next year, the only income to the HRA will be their rents. The first call on rents will be to pay the debt charges, then maintain the stock, then run the landlord service. Councils and tenants can’t afford to let any of their rental income be siphoned off to make good cuts elsewhere.
There remain several points of contention about the caveats in the overall deal the government has put on the table, and all of these are a result of those greedy Treasury fingers looking for the meat in the pie. The new one to emerge as part of Mr Shapps’ package is that councils will have to continue paying three-quarters of right to buy receipts back to government. Labour can hardly rail against this iniquity, since they introduced it, but credit was due to John Healey that through his package it would have been brought to an end. The Treasury have locked their fingers round this tasty morsel, and must now somehow twist the settlement so that it reflects 30 years of future stock losses through right to buy. This introduces a high and unnecessary degree of uncertainty, since predictions of right to buy sales are invariably wrong.
The Treasury also wants the facility to reopen the settlement if circumstances change. One of these might of course be a wayward forecast of the effects of the right to buy, but the very prominence of this caveat is making councils think that ‘self-financing’ might be maintained only as long as it suits the Treasury. This is not what the deal is supposed to be about.
However, it’s the debt cap that really grates with councils, in part because of the context of overall spending cuts. If it was a bad idea under Labour, it’s a far worse one when grants from central government and other sources of finance apart from borrowing are likely to be extremely scarce, to put it mildly.
The debt cap, the continued repayment of receipts and the constant threat that the settlement might be reopened are all eroding councils’ supposed autonomy. Interestingly, as was revealed last month, councils have an unlikely ally in the deputy prime minister, who is said to have asked for councils’ borrowing powers to be reconsidered in a letter to Eric Pickles about the imminent local government finance review.
Of course, if the Treasury were to listen, at last, to the case for taking council borrowing out of the main national accounts, they could use self-financing to get council debt off the government’s books completely. Council housing is anyway now classified as outside government by the Office for National Statistics. Because most of its income comes from charges (rents). Where councils have ALMOs, these are considered separate public corporations (like, say, the BBC). Taken together with likely changes to the accountancy rules about housing revenue accounts and the separating out of housing debt, this could be the moment for the Treasury to take a step towards giving council housing – like housing associations – real autonomy. However, none of us will be holding our breath.
This year’s Progressive London’s conference takes place on 19th February and housing will be top of the agenda with session entitled “Housing – Foundations for the Future” which will discuss the progressive alternatives to the present housing policies that experts believe will force 80,000 Londoners to leave their homes.
Labour Mayoral Candidate Ken Livingstone, who is hosting the Conference, said: “The Tories’ attitude to housing can be clearly seen by the results of their policies in London. Between 2000 and 2008 156,181 new homes were built, an average 19,522 a year. Since Boris Johnson was elected in 2008 house building has fallen significantly, just 25,700 new homes, an average of 12,850. If the Tory Government and the Tory mayor’s policies are not reversed then London will become a housing no go area for the ordinary people who keep this city alive. Londoners need homes, homes they can afford, and homes that families can live in.”
Stephen Cowan, Labour Group Leader at Hammersmith and Fulham Council, who will be speaking at the session said: “The present governments housing policy will directly lead to greater segregation and larger poor communities. It has been shown that 80,000 Londoners will be forced to move if changes to housing benefit, the ending of security of tenure and the forcing up of the social housing rent cap to 80% are introduced. Now is the time for Labour to set a new and progressive housing agenda.”
The Progressive London Conference will take place on 19th February 2011 at Congress House, Great Russell Street, London WC1B 3LS. More details from www.progressivelondon.org.uk
Categories
The revolving door for homeless people
For those of us who are getting a little long in the tooth, the passage of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act in 1977 was one of the most significant moments in post war housing policy. Sponsored by a Liberal, the late Stephen Ross MP, supported by most Labour MPs and quite a few Tories, the Act was a triumph for the campaign led by Shelter and SHAC and others. The Act placed clear statutory duties on local authorities to assist the homeless based on the central principle that households in ‘priority need’ (mainly families with children and vulnerable single people) who are unintentionally homeless would be found a settled home, in practice usually an offer of social rented housing. The Act was seen by many as the last brick in the creation of a comprehensive welfare state.
The homelessness section of the Localism Bill, currently in Committee in the House of Commons, drives a coach and horses through the legislation. It will allow local authorities to discharge their main homelessness duty by providing privately rented accommodation (subject to there being a minimum 12 month fixed term).
Practice in homelessness has changed a great deal over the past few years. Partly driven by the well-intentioned but ultimately counter-productive target of halving the number of households in temporary accommodation, ‘gatekeeping’ the homelessness duty has become an art form. The growth in ‘housing options’ services has substantially improved practice in the prevention of homelessness, but has also led to a huge increase in the diversion of homeless households into the private rented sector, often without troubling the homelessness statistics collector. Up to now the homeless household, if they knew their rights, had a choice: they could either go into the system and wait for a social letting or be found a private let straight away. Given the option of a lengthy spell in temporary accommodation, many chose an early move into a private letting. Now they will be required to take private accommodation even if it is against their wishes or best interests.
Responses to this element of the Bill are varied. Not surprisingly, many councils support anything that reduces the burden on them and some are proud of the quality of the housing options service they provide (see Camden for a good example).
Shelter’s assessment is that “this measure will ultimately strip the homelessness legislation of its force and leave the most vulnerable families ….. facing a cycle of insecure accommodation, eviction and reapplication to the council.”
Citizens Advice stress that the policy will create a revolving door for the homeless because the ending of a private rented tenancy is already a significant – and increasing – cause of homelessness, and that this will get worse as the changes to the Local Housing Allowance come in. They also argue that private renting is not well suited to many homeless people – the characteristics of homeless households and the profile of existing private tenants are very different, with the latter tending to be younger, single, and less likely to be vulnerable.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation argues that ‘given that homeless households are often also experiencing poverty and other forms of social disadvantage we would be concerned about the impact on homeless households achieving stability, the increase in housing costs for individuals and the welfare benefit bill.’
The Housing Law Practitioners Association goes to the heart of the issue: ‘We suggest that the aim of a homelessness policy should be to bring the applicant’s homelessness or a cycle of homelessness to an end.’ They also argue that the burden placed on social lettings by the Act is acceptable even with the current dearth of supply: ‘If 21% of social lets are to those owed the main homelessness duty, we think that is a welcome feature, not one requiring change.’
The Chartered Institute of Housing broadly accepts the changes but this seems a contrary conclusion given their enormous list of ‘concerns’ about the proposal – the poor quality of the private rented sector, affordability, its inappropriateness for homeless families and vulnerable single people, the lack of support services, the revolving door problem, and the growing concentration or ghettoisation of poor private tenants. They should know that the government will do nothing about any of these things.
It may be clever politics to include these measures in a jumbo Bill with plenty of other controversies for people to focus on, but this section deserves major scrutiny. The ‘Big Society’ should be outraged.
An interesting spat between Patrick Butler of the Guardian and Grant Shapps. Butler – the Guardian’s head of society, health and education – wrote a strong piece arguing that ‘savage cuts will leave people sleeping in the streets’ and Shapps replied with ‘the government is protecting the homeless from council cuts’. Read both and see what you think.
Butler’s article quoted examples of councils making huge cuts in their Supporting People (SP) programmes, which provides services to homeless people amongst others. He quotes (as far as I know his figures have not been challenged) examples of 65% and 45% cuts. Butler concludes by saying:
The savaging of SP, a proven cost-effective social intervention, also spells doom for scores of small charities, which have quietly used SP money to up the kind of innovative, low-cost, volunteer-assisted community support networks that the coalition likes to call “big society”. Much of this infrastructure will be laid to waste.
In his reply, Shapps says he ‘simply does not recognise’ Butler’s ‘apocalyptic picture of impending social disaster’. The government has protected both SP budgets and homelessness budgets, ‘so there is no excuse for councils to be targeting any disproportionate spending reductions on programmes that support the most vulnerable.’
To discover the truth we have to rely on mostly anecdotal information at this stage. However, Inside Housing’s survey of 150 councils’ intentions for 2011/2012 shows that there will be cuts of more than 30% in 16 councils and 67 of the councils in the survey will lose money compared to this year. Of equal interest is the fact that the remainder appear to have increased allocations – although, with no ring fence around SP spending, it remains to be seen what will actually get spent given all the other pressures.
And a National Housing Federation survey of 136 organisations which provide services to vulnerable people revealed that the vast majority of councils had already indicated cuts greater than 12%. Nearly three quarters of respondents (73%) said local authorities they work in had already indicated cuts of greater than 12%. 41% expected cuts over 20% in their area, and 18% of respondents expecting cuts over 30%. 60% of respondents said their organisation would be forced to reduce the level of service they offered and the top five client groups most at risk of cuts were: single homeless people, older people in need of support, people with drug and alcohol problems, ex-offenders, people with mental health problems.
The best that can be said is that a major redistribution of funding is taking place at the same time as the total national allocation is being frozen (taking Shapps at his word) or reduced, making life impossible for the losers, and more importantly, for the people who depend on the services. As funding is not ring fenced councils are doing what the government says they should – determining local priorities. Regrettably, some vulnerable groups do not seem to be highly prioritised and ‘localism’ means the government can wash its hands of any responsibility for the outcome. For Shapps to say that ‘there is no excuse for councils to be targeting any disproportionate spending reductions on programmes that support the most vulnerable’ when he has shifted large sums of money away from many of them is outrageous.
Shapps’ article contains one hostage to fortune. He says “If I thought this would in any way increase homelessness and rough sleeping, I certainly would not support the moves we are making to ensure every taxpayer’s pound is spent more wisely.”
We will soon know and then the sector can hold Shapps to his word. As we are talking about the very visible end of homelessness, the evidence will be there for everyone to see.
Housing Emergency is holding a lobby of Parliament on 15 February. The meeting point is Central Hall Westminster (Storey’s Gate SW1H 9NH) from 12-4pm.
The group includes the House of Commons Council Housing Group chaired by Austin Mitchell MP, trades unions such as Unite, GMB, UNISON, and UCATT, councils, tenants’ federations, National Tenants Council members, and Defend Council Housing.
There will be a rally starting at noon with speakers including Caroline Lucas MP, Councillor Catherine West (Leader Islington Council), Labour Housing Group Executive member Jackie Peacock, Linda McNeil (Leeds Tenants Federation), Mark Serwotka (PCS General Secretary). There will be workshops including ‘what to say to your MP’ at 2pm and a closing rally at 3.30.
The themes of the rally are: *Hands Off Secure Tenancies – no means test *Cap Rents not Benefits *Oppose up to 80% market rents *No Evictions due to Housing Benefit cuts *Build Council and other housing for rent
Housing Emergency says
“Government proposals to cut housing benefit, force rents up to 80% of market levels, and remove security of tenure for new tenants will increase fear and insecurity, rent arrears, evictions and homelessness. These policies do nothing to reduce high rents, Nor do they build the secure, genuinely affordable homes for rent we need, with 5 million already on housing waiting lists.
Ministers want to drive people into insecure, expensive private renting and destroy the principles of public housing. We want secure and stable mixed communities – not poverty traps and transit camps.”
The leaflet for the rally can be downloaded here.
Further information: [email protected] or [email protected]
Last night’s launch of the London Labour Housing Group was an astonishing event. Getting on for 200 people packed the Grand Committee Room in Parliament, full to overflowing. Chaired by Nicky Gavron AM, guest speakers were Ken Livingstone, Karen Buck MP, and Linda Perks from Unison. Alison Seabeck MP, Labour’s shadow housing minister, popped in from the Committee on the Localism Bill to wish us well. The audience included MPs, councillors, unionists, tenants and Labour members from all over the capital, with outer London as well represented as inner.
Ken’s speech ranged over 4 decades of housing policy in London, the peaks when boroughs like Camden were producing 2,000 homes a year and the GLC had a target of producing 10,000 a year on top of the boroughs’ efforts, and the troughs when Thatcher was in power and the Tories held County Hall and all programmes were cut back. If Labour policies had continued through the 1980s, it can confidently be said that London’s post-war housing crisis would have been overcome and the city would be totally different today. Councils need to build again and we need to find ways of bringing private rents under control. But our policies must also meet the needs not just of the poorest but of the many Londoners, people earning up to £70K a year, who can no longer afford to buy and also have limited housing options. As London’s population continues to grow, genuinely radical policies are needed if the capital is not to resemble Paris, with the centre of the city occupied by the rich and the poor consigned to the outskirts.
Karen focused on the changes to housing benefit and the local housing allowance. She contrasted the number of people predicted to have to move from their local areas under this policy with the furore over Lady Porter in the 1980s; her attempts to remove the poor from Westminster were miniscule compared to what will happen now. The danger lies in the range of changes combining together to force people on low incomes to move, but increasingly it was being realised that there is nowhere for them to move to. If people attempt to move from expensive to cheaper areas the impact of the increased demand will be to raise rents at the lower end of the market – which would be catastrophic. Rising homelessness, growing unemployment, increasing rents, growing dependence on private rented accommodation, all of these pressures would increase the HB bill; the policy would be devastating in effect but counter-productive in saving money.
Linda emphasised the impact of the cuts on local government in London, and the fact that councils would be cutting back on front line services at just the time that people need them most. It was important to link what was happening in housing to other sectors, especially health, because it was all part of a single policy to roll back the state. She stressed the importance of getting maximum support for the TUC national demonstration against the cuts on Saturday 26 March in Hyde Park and pledged Unison’s support for housing campaigns in the coming months.
There were around 30 contributions from the floor, identifying weaknesses in previous Labour housing policies, the issues being faced in the boroughs, the links between housing, employment, health and education, and ideas for future campaigns. There was a strong focus on the need to win the Mayoralty in 2012 with a strong and radical housing policy. The new London LHG will help develop those policies but also support a range of housing campaigns because the issues will not be properly addressed until we have a Labour Mayor in 2012, more Labour boroughs in 2014, and a Labour government whenever the General Election comes.
You can join Labour Housing Group at http://www.labourhousing.co.uk/join-lhg and contact London Labour Housing Group through [email protected]
I’ve never been much of a fan of the House of Lords. But you have to doff your cap occasionally when they have a debate of real interest based on a real knowledge of an issue. So it was with the rather uninspiringly-titled debate Motion to Annul – Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2010 held on 24 January. The debate, which resulted in government Minister Lord Freud promising to undertake a review of the housing benefit changes after a year or so, can be found in full here.
There were exceptional speeches from Richard Best, Victor Adebowale and Patricia Hollis, amongst others. It was notable that there were no speeches in favour of the government’s position, apart from the Minister – you could say there was a progressive majority. It’s worth a read, but here is a selection of a few quotable quotes.
Lord Best (Crossbench): The charities working in this field ……… all note the likelihood of several thousand tenants facing homelessness. Apart from this wrecking the life chances of the families concerned, the charities point out that the extra costs of homelessness could more than outweigh the housing benefit savings. Homeless Link notes that, on conservative estimates, if even one quarter of those identified as at severe risk were to become homeless, then all the gains from the housing benefit cuts would be lost.
Lord Adebowale (Crossbench): We have not thought through the impact on families and on the societies in which they live-on social services, on health, on mental health and on employment….. we know that the poor will suffer. We know where they will suffer, we know how they will suffer and we know what the impact on public services will be, but we do not have a clear plan B.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (Liberal Democrat): The $64,000 question remains…….. will these housing benefit regulations mean that landlords will reduce their rents, thus bringing the huge housing benefit bill down, to general rejoicing by taxpayers and the Government, or will it mean that not enough landlords will, or can afford to, reduce their rents low enough for LHA claimants, that the discretionary housing payments will be spread too thin to make much difference and that therefore thousands of people will face eviction, child poverty will increase and local authorities will eventually have to pick up a very large bill?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Labour): …… the DWP‘s own figures show that the increase in housing benefit has been caused not by increased rents but by increased demand for HB from more tenants in both the private and public sectors. Only 13 per cent of the increase in HB can be attributed to private sector rent increases. In other words, the increase in the HB bill has not come about because HB has driven up rents and, therefore, has sought to catch up with the rents that it has inflated. Instead, the HB bill has risen because more and poorer people are claiming HB, including those in low-paid work. That is a fact.
……. the Government do not control, as they believe they do, the rents of the private rented sector. It is a fallacy. Indeed, preliminary findings from current research suggest that, whether housing benefit claimants account for 20 per cent or 70 per cent of the private rental market, it makes no difference at all to local rent levels. HB levels, and therefore the Government, do not shape the market, full stop.
Why is that? It is because it is a landlords’ market and not a tenants’ market; it is, therefore, not a Government’s market and not a HB market. Surveyors, letting agents and estate agents are reporting gazumping, six to eight tenants after every property and sealed-bid rent offers. The British Property Federation tells us that 150,000 extra tenants will enter the private rental sector next year, pushing up rents even further. Even where landlords in the past might have accepted some limitation of their rents if they were gaining capital growth, this, too, is no longer the case. Those on current HB levels struggle to find a home. What will happen?
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (Liberal Democrat): The private rented sector is not a place for long-term, low-income households’ housing needs to be met. It is a device that should be for another segment of our society altogether. We have let it get out of control in a way that is difficult to justify.
Lord Freud (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Welfare Reform), Work and Pensions; Conservative): I make a firm commitment to the House that we intend to commission independent, external research to help us evaluate the impact of the reforms ……. (It will cover) homelessness and moves; the shared room rate and houses in multiple occupation; what is happening in Greater London; what is happening in rural communities; what is happening in black and minority ethnic households; large families; older people; people with disabilities and working claimants.
Many housing benefit recipients will not be affected by the changes until well into 2012. We will therefore make the findings available in early 2013, with initial findings available in the spring of 2012 and an interim report in the summer of 2012.
Categories
A Man’s a Man For A’ That
I could try to make a link but it’s nothing to do with housing really. It is Burns night, and my friend Billy Rae sent me this that I thought I would share.
It reflects the mood of the times, from the Burns’ poem ‘Why Should We Idly Waste Our Prime’.
Why should we idly waste our prime
Repeating our oppressions?
Come rouse to arms! ‘Tis now the time
To punish past transgressions.
‘Tis said that Kings can do no wrong —
Their murderous deeds deny it,
And, since from us their power is sprung,
We have a right to try it.
Now each true patriot’s song shall be: –
‘Welcome Death or Libertie!’
The Golden Age we’ll then revive:
Each man will be a brother;
In harmony we all shall live,
And share the earth together;
In Virtue train’d, enlighten’d Youth
Will love each fellow-creature;
And future years shall prove the truth
That Man is good by nature:
Then let us toast with three times three
The reign of Peace and Libertie!
Categories
Under-occupation – the market solution?
A lot more is said than done about the issue of under-occupation of social rented homes.
Grant Shapps has allocated a piddling sum of £13m amongst the 50 councils with the largest numbers of under-occupiers. Of course it is a move in the right direction, if a small one, and the linked announcement that a central unit will be set up in the Chartered Institute of Housing should be a valuable resource supporting local initiatives.
Ministers say there are 430,000 under-occupied social homes in England – where tenants have two or more bedrooms more than they require (against the ‘bedroom standard’). I support the focus on tenants with 2+ additional bedrooms because tenants with one spare room over the rather ancient ‘bedroom standard’ do not regard themselves as under-occupiers.
With an estimated 258,000 social renters living in overcrowded conditions, simplistic arguments are sometimes made that the problem could be ‘solved’ if selfish older tenants were stopped from blocking social homes needed for larger families. Calls for draconian action of some kind to require under-occupiers to move to smaller accommodation seem to have been rejected – the government says it has “accepted the basic right of older tenants to stay in their homes, and that policies of encouragement are better than those of coercion….. Ministers are clear that they will not force people to move – but want to provide a helping hand to those wanting to do so.”
Just like older home owners, older tenants have often raised their families in these homes and are emotionally attached to them, still have many family visitors, are part of the local community, have neighbourhood support networks, and now have time to enjoy the garden if they have one. They have probably paid for the property a few times over in rent, and now contribute through rent pooling to the cost of homes elsewhere.
Bespoke solutions are needed, with landlords who know their tenants talking with them individually and devising a solution that meets their needs and preferences. It might involve financial incentives, a choice of suitable alternatives in preferred locations, and practical support with moving and other arrangements. We need far more schemes like the London Seaside and Country Homes scheme, offering tenants genuine retirement opportunities if that is their choice. It is regrettable that financial incentives to downsize have been cut back in many places – I suspect by an amount many times greater than Mr Shapps’ new fund.
Mr Shapps says that he wants to “make it easier for those tenants wanting to move from larger family homes to smaller, more manageable homes, to do so.” But where, exactly, are these homes? Like people who are being decanted for development, older tenants realise that they have a little bit of negotiating strength for once. They will only accept somewhere smaller if it is in some way better or suits their needs more than their current home. The right to buy and the failure to reinvest mean that there are many fewer smaller dwellings on the ground floor in good locations with access to outside space. Many top class sheltered housing schemes have had their onsite wardens removed due to changes in the Supporting People regime. There is little new development. As in so many other areas, supply and short-sighted funding regimes are the barriers to a sensible policy.
Now for the warning. Everything is not always what it seems with this government. We should not forget the analysis of Mr Shapps’ friends at Localis. In their report on social housing reform, which pointed the way to many of this government’s policies, they argued for a market approach not a change in powers:
“There has been a number of calls for Landlords to gain more power to require tenants to move to more appropriately sized accommodation to deal with under-occupation. Whilst such powers would assist with this problem, the move to market rents and personal subsidy would, in our view, address this in a more fundamental way as under-occupancy will become more expensive for tenants as their rents, but not their housing benefit, rise.”
We have had a number of policy shifts in this direction already, both through rents policy and housing benefit. Call me cynical but, despite the warm words, I think this is the real agenda.