Liberal Democrat opposition to David Cameron’s idea of fixed-term social tenancies goes far beyond the rebuke issued last week by deputy leader Simon Hughes.
The evidence comes from early day motions (EDMs) that Cameron’s coalition partners have signed over the last three years.
In the last parliament, EDMs opposing moves to end secure tenancies were signed by 41 out of 63 Lib Dem MPs.
Ten of them stood down at the election, but the rest still represent a majority of the current 57-strong parliamentary party and include two Cabinet ministers and seven junior ministers.
In November 2007, after Caroline Flint had flirted with the idea of making new tenancies conditional on looking for work, Labour’s Austin Mitchell sponsored an EDM that this House ‘actively opposes both the stigmatisation of council housing as housing of last resort and proposals to means test or time limit secure tenancies’.
This was ‘so that local authorities can respect the choice of existing tenants who want to keep the council as their landlord and get their homes and estates improved, house the wide range of people on council housing waiting lists and so return council estates to the mixed communities they were before shortage distorted allocations policies and concentrated deprivation’.
The 123 signatories included 37 Lib Dems, 27 of whom are still MPs. Signatories included two MPs who are now coalition Cabinet ministers (energy secretary Chris Huhne and Scottish secretary Michael Moore) plus another six who are now junior ministers: Norman Baker (transport), Jeremy Browne (Foreign Office), Paul Burstow (health), Ed Davey (business), Lynne Featherstone (equalities) and Steve Webb (pensions).
The other 19 opponents of time-limited tenancies who are still MPs were Hughes, Bob Russell, Mike Hancock, John Hemming, Don Foster, Adrian Sanders, Andrew George, Alan Reid, Stephen Williams, John Leech, Mark Hunter, Roger Williams, Lorely Burt, Jo Swinson, Dan Rogerson, Charles Kennedy, Mark Williams, Jenny Willott and Tim Farron.
A second Mitchell-sponsored EDM in December 2008 pointed out ‘the urgent need to boost the economy by a massive programme of public investment to improve existing council homes and estates and build a new generation of first-class council housing to provide secure tenancies and low rents’.
It also called on the government ‘to provide funding to build new council homes thus allowing authorities to open up their allocation policies once again to the wide range of people on council housing waiting lists so that butchers, bakers, nurses and teachers can live together with young families and pensioners thus returning our estates to the mixed and sustainable communities they used to be, and to provide a sustainable housing policy offering security and stability for the 21st century’.
Many of the same MPs signed and they were joined by Andrew Stunnell, now a junior minister at Communities and Local Government, Martin Horwood and John Pugh.
Since the election and the coalition, Mitchell has sponsored another EDM that argued that ‘the only way to allow for greater mobility of council and social housing tenants to enable them to move to where the jobs are is not to reduce the security of tenure to which tenants have a right, but to increase the stock of public housing so that it can not only cope with the increased demand but also allow for more mobility of tenants’.
Lib Dem signatories were understandably thinner on the ground but Russell, Hancock, Hemming and new MP Mike Crockart still offered their support.
Supporters of those three EDMs total 31 out of the 57-strong parliamentary party. Education minister Sarah Teather, who held the housing brief before the election, takes the total to 32 as a well-known defender of secure tenancies.
She told Inside Housing in July 2009 that she would resist any form of conditionality creeping into social housing allocations. ‘How on earth can you persuade people to go back into work, if you tell them that as soon as they get work, they’re in danger of losing their flat?’ she asked.
‘We do need to give people incentives to move out, but that’s completely different from losing security of tenure.’In interviews over the weekend, housing minister Grant Shapps continued to defend Cameron’s idea.
‘Affordable housing is very expensive to build, and takes billions of public subsidy,’ he said. ‘We provide tenures which last a lifetime and sometimes beyond. That is not an efficient situation for the future - and is unfair for people on waiting lists, who are often the most vulnerable in our society.’
An opinion poll for the Sunday Times suggested that 62% of voters support Cameron and 32% oppose him - Lib Dem voters by 67:26 and Labour voters by 48:47. However, Lib Dem backbenchers have been making no secret of their opposition in local media interviews. Two MPs in the party’s Westcountry heartland have already condemned the plan. Andrew George (St Ives) said it would create an even more divided society while Adrian Sanders (Torbay) said: ‘The coalition agreement is based on two fundamental principles: one – fairness, and two – looking after the interests of vulnerable people. So far given what we know about this idea, it fails both those tests.’
And there is also some opposition on the Conservative backbenches. Nadine Dorries, who was brought up on a Liverpool council estate, said she welcomed the debate but that fixed-term tenancies would simply discourage people from looking for work.
‘If we are going to support families, then the bedrock of families is the family home and I do not think that saying to people “in five years’ time you might lose your home” is a good way for people to try to improve their lot,’ she told the Today programme on Saturday. ‘Rather than saying to people “if your lot has improved you will be moved on” we should be giving the option to buy. That incentivises people to improve their lot.’
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (12)
Sidney Webb | 09/08/2010 3:56 pm
Shapps says that building social housing is very expensive. What more expensive than building private housing?
Yes he may say that private housing is without subsidy; but his announcement today would subsidise private house building!
Historically there has been private building supported by a range of subsidies, including individual tax support to make purchasing more affordable.
Why doesn't Shapps look to the private sector to assist build his very expensive homes. Over past years market nams such as Standard Telephones, Marconi, and Fords have all subsidised the building of social housing. Previously illustrious brands, including Guiness and Sunlight, have been behind the development of affordable housing.
If Shapps were to look at alternatives, and at solutions rather than rushed soundbites and tribalism, I could find him more credible.
Security, social cohesion, sustainable communities, hope and fairness - can any of these truly survive if Secure Tenancies are scrapped?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Melvin Bone | 09/08/2010 4:58 pm
'Security, social cohesion, sustainable communities, hope and fairness - can any of these truly survive if Secure Tenancies are scrapped?'
They would probably prosper. Secure tenancies are just not working.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sidney Webb | 09/08/2010 5:08 pm
What is your evidence that secure tenure does not work?
Type of tenure is not to blame for economic realities, nor for housing shortages. Security of tenure has not floored governments nor caused mass unemployment.
Please expand so that your point may be understood Melvin.
Do you support the idea that private companies can be encouraged to contribute as they once did? How about companies providing entire housing schemes, which again is nothing new?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sidney Webb | 09/08/2010 5:08 pm
What is your evidence that secure tenure does not work?
Type of tenure is not to blame for economic realities, nor for housing shortages. Security of tenure has not floored governments nor caused mass unemployment.
Please expand so that your point may be understood Melvin.
Do you support the idea that private companies can be encouraged to contribute as they once did? How about companies providing entire housing schemes, which again is nothing new?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris | 09/08/2010 10:01 pm
The parliamentary outcome of this debate will be interesting to witness, not so much in terms of what policy results but more who comprimises over what.
As all three parties are divided on the issue the outcome will depend on the Whips, but I would expect that there will be too much caution to let it get that far. Better to sacrifice a head (say for instance the Minister with responsibility who has already made some large gaffes and poor judgement calls) and drop the potato that force a split vote. Meanwhile, the LibDem left will claim a moral victory and the coalition will claim proof of their national interest objectives.
Time to listen closely so as to not miss the subtle undercurrents.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
chris hemming | 10/08/2010 8:02 am
The issue seems to be
1. Is new subsudised housing now only availiable to those who are only extremely needy and so stigmatised. Would broadening tenancy availability enable a wider group of people to access social housing?
2. Can more housing for those on the waiting lists be provided by cheaper means without widening the social divide (106 provision puts the cost on to the price of other homes).
3. How would the demand as well as the supply of social housing be affected and thus the administrative costs of the process?
4. Are there any criteria thadit could disqualify people from occupying social housing? ie a banker on £100,000 or an MP claiming expnses and how would this be reviewed and administered etc...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Melvin Bone | 10/08/2010 9:36 pm
1. Yes
2. No
3. Stupid question you'd need an essay to answer.
4. Stupid question #2
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris | 10/08/2010 9:50 pm
Mr Hemming - you have broken the unofficial rule of not asking questions that are a) too difficult for Melvin to understand or b) too difficult for him to answer. Shame on you.
Broadening availability would return the social mix that used to exist on estates. I used to have a Director of Mobile Oil as a neighbour, as well as bus drivers, shop workers, scientists, in fact people from all walks of life, even politicians. This was on a 1960's built walkway estate, not glorious suberbia.
Two major national companies had contributed to the building of the above estate, which significantly lowered the cost to the public purse. in return they housed some of their staff there, and kept a number of homes for international visitors to be billeted in.
I think that demand would be increased as people generally would be more impoverished from their enforced spell in private rented accomodation. The cost to the public purse of administering the means test and reallocation of housing would be immense and repeated.
It would seem, from the proposals, that either time limits or salary limts would be applied. taking some of the less educated comments from this website it would also seem that owning a flat-screen TV, a mercedes car, an ugly dog, or having children would also preclude eligibility.
All around it is simply moving the chairs around the poop deck, or to put another way has all the positive attraction of any other timeshare scheme.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris | 10/08/2010 9:52 pm
Actually - checking back - PSR has unfairly asked Melvin too difficult a question (based on the lack of any reply) - it is terrible that you tow are ganging up on the challenged fellow, please try to make simpler points and ask simpler questions.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
wilsonma | 11/08/2010 7:49 am
Not surprised Lib Dems oppose this scheme. As a former Lib Dem Councillor I would have been shocked if they had not. Christopher you make an assumption yourself. You assumed Chris was a man. Is it possible Chris could be Christine Hemming. If Grant Shapps wants to make a significant change to Social Housing there is a price to be paid. The quid Pro quo is fundamental change in private rented sector tenancies. Will Mr Shapps bite the bullet? Come back to us about root and branch reform of Social Housing, and not as appears to be the case change for ideological reasons only, when, and only when you are putting reform of the private sector on the table.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris | 11/08/2010 10:35 am
Apologies for any gender assumption made whilst making a sarcastic observation
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Melvin Bone | 11/08/2010 3:57 pm
'Christopher Webb | 10/08/2010 9:52 pm
Actually - checking back - PSR has unfairly asked Melvin too difficult a question (based on the lack of any reply) - it is terrible that you tow are ganging up on the challenged fellow, please try to make simpler points and ask simpler questions.'
What a wonderfully offensive post.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment