Gordon Brown has said that increased investment in affordable housing is a ‘moral duty’. And another strand to his Building Britain’s future statement poses ethical questions, such as how we ration social housing.

It is not yet clear what his suggestion of ‘local homes for local people’ will mean in practice, although the government consultation launched this week should give more details. Local authorities already have considerable flexibility, and a recent legal case confirmed that it is lawful to prioritise waiting list time. Nonetheless the local homes for local people policy is clearly a step in the direction that Labour MP Margaret Hodge proposed in 2007, when she argued for different allocation rules to take into account ‘length of residence, citizenship or national insurance contributions’.

Some media coverage has reinforced the perception that current rules mean that ‘local people’ are losing out to new migrants. This has been refuted by the Equality and Human Rights Commission although some people, including correspondence on Inside Housing’s letters page, argue that this evidence is not conclusive. What is clear is that most foreign-born residents - 64 per cent according to the EHRC - live in the private rented sector. Generally, this is the worst end of the stock. Many are living in overcrowded conditions with friends and relatives. More and more are sleeping rough. Only a tiny proportion are likely to be entitled to social housing and too many of this group - refugees, for example - are being wrongly turned away by housing authorities.

Giving more priority to the length of time people have spent on waiting lists could also detrimentally affect other potentially vulnerable groups moving into an area. For example, those fleeing violence, intimidation and homophobia, or those relocating for work.

Last year, a survey published by the Communities and Local Government department found that one in 10 households accepted as homeless have at least one member who at some stage has been an asylum seeker. These families were more likely to be stable and better educated than other households in the survey which do not include an asylum seeker. This touches on another aspect to the allocations debate. Many social landlords are arguing that if we continue to focus allocations of existing stock on those in most need, concentrations of poverty as highlighted by Professor John Hills’ review of social housing are set to continue.

Localisation of allocations, involving not only local authorities with their statutory duties to homeless people, but also tenants and social landlords, could shift the balance away from need as the primary driver behind allocations. A commitment to equality must be at the heart of systems, but not as an abstract concept. Strengthening communities is also important. But does this mean we are in danger of returning to a time when many of those in greatest need end up in the worst end of the private rented sector?

Heather Petch is chief executive of the Housing Associations’ Charitable Trust

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment