Healey slams Tory councils
Housing minister John Healey has accused the Conservatives of harbouring secret plans to triple social rents and scrap security of tenure.
Mr Healey told the Labour party conference in Brighton that he had repeatedly challenged David Cameron to disown the now highly controversial conclusions of a meeting called by Stephen Greenhalgh, the Tory leader of Hammersmith & Fulham council.
The minutes of that meeting showed that the ‘priorities identified’ were to equalise rents between tenures, create one form of rented tenure using the assured shorthold tenancy, and to develop private renting.
He continued: ‘Conference, these are the conclusions of four Tory council leaders, two deputies of the London mayor, and the shadow housing minister.
‘Secret plans that would double or triple rents for 8 million people in council or housing association homes, and put their homes on the line with two months notice.
‘If I am wrong, David Cameron can say so. But he won’t.
‘I challenged him two months ago, and two weeks ago. I’m now publishing my letters, and I challenge him again to come clean.’
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (4)
Joe Halewood | 29/09/2009 2:30 pm
Yes its the party conferences and yes grandstanding and sophistry is to be expected.
It would however be very interesting to read these minutes and see the correspondence between John Healey and David Cameron.
The scrapping of secure tenancies has been well trailed and even if social rents are to be brought into line with private then at best this is doubling and not tripling them. Though the impact on public spending if the 8 million social rents double (if 70% then 5.6m rents double!!!) is hard to believe this will come about.....unless the Tories have a secret plan to time limit HB!!!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 29/09/2009 7:00 pm
Tis the silly season of the party conferences isnt it?
Despite the (rabid?) right-wing proposals of Greenhalgh et al being well trailed - and they are offensive and unworkable - can anyone see any government allowing rents to double?
A quick number chrunching exercise - 8 million people lets assume thats 3 m tenancies of which 70% on benefits = 2.1m HB claims doubling at a cost to the public purse!! No government is going to allow that massive increase in costs. It equates to at least an extra £7.50bm per year if not an extra £10bn per year.
That said the issue of the removal of security of tenure is still there and it would be very interesting to see the correspondence between the parties on this.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Steve | 30/09/2009 10:20 am
As hinted at by Joe, the Tories would presumably limit HB. This could then force people from higher rent to lower cost areas. Wasn't something like this tried by Westminster in the 80s and the person largely responsible is now living somewhere that GB has no extradition agreement with, as there's a multi-million pound fine awaiting here? Not quite the same idea but likely similar outcome.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
| 30/09/2009 4:01 pm
The usual negative comments from the usual lefty suspects. There is, what, six or seven months of Labour government left? And even Brown is seeing the writing on the wall with the renewed ASB initiatives and plans to scrap automatic council flats for pregnant teens (ie the very "needs based" incentive to get pregnant early in the first place). The same old failed liberal lefty polemic will very soon be history with the incoming Government and there is signs that even Labour don't believe it anymore. Yet the usual suspects defend the status quo; like Japanese soldiers hiding out in the jungles of Pacific Islands thinking the war is still on. Got news for you guys; the old ways are history.
The incoming Conservative administration will not be swept to victory by the votes of council tenants (just some 12% of all housing is council owned, remember) so no need to worry about them as turkeys won't vote for Christmas and the Tories know this. Everyone else is fed up seeing headlines with out-of-control scum on council estates terrorising their communities and everyone (especially the older merit allocated tenants) knows these creatures are a direct result of Labour's "needs based" allocation policy.
I wonder how many housing managers would really miss the end of the secure tenancy? If they really thought about it deeply? Yes, in public they will wail and moan and say "how can the Tories be so heartless?". But in private? No more having spend hundreds of hours and tens of thousands of pounds on trying to get Ground 1 or Ground 8 Possession claims through a supine and myopic judiciary. Just a 28 day notice to quit. The same notice that existed for most of the 20th Century and governed all council and social housing until the advent of the Housing Acts in the 80's and 90's that gave birth to the concept of "secure" and "assured" tenancies. These instruments have proven themselves far to difficult to manage, with costly court actions involving (in cases of Possession on Grounds of ASB) a requirement for brave and tormented witnesses to take the stand and point fingers. Who really wants to go through that? Neither the victims, witnesses nor housing management. What about dealing with the system gamers who are subletting and making a fortune at the expense of the taxpayer? More expensive court cases requiring an evidential burden that is nigh on impossible to achieve. All this to defend the laughable and very recently created sacred cow of the concept of the secure or assured tenancy?
Wake up and smell the coffee. All secure and assured tenancies should be retrospectively converted to AST via Act of Parliament. Then all housing management has to do is serve a 28 day notice of termination. Job done. This system existed all throughout the "Golden Age" of council housing from the 40's to the late 70's (prior to the Rent Act) when estates were not the no-go areas that they today. How many working in frontline housing management who are not card carrying Socialist Worker polemicists would really oppose a return to the pre Rent Act era? Publicly, maybe not many. But privately, let's face it guys, you would be delighted.
ILAG
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment