Tenant bodies to create new committee to speak out on issues NTV cannot
Election rules silence NTV
Four national tenants’ organisations are planning to create an independent committee that will be more outspoken than the National Tenant Voice.
The new national tenant scrutiny committee is being planned by the Tenants’ and Residents’ Organisations of England, the Confederation of Co-operative Housing, the National Federation of Tenants’ Management Organisations and the Tenants Participation Advisory Service - all of which helped set up the NTV.
The £1.5 million NTV was created to enable tenants to ‘better influence national policies’. But it will play no role at all in lobbying politicians during the election campaign because it is a non-departmental public body. NTV representatives have been told they are subject to ‘purdah’ and are unable to speak publicly about tenant issues in the run-up to the election on 6 May.
Richard Crossley, chief executive of the NTV, said cabinet office guidelines about political impartiality ‘prevent us making any public declarations on political parties’ positions during this period’. The new committee would have no such constraints. It will also not be possible for the government to shut it down.
Michael Gelling, who is chair of the NTV but spoke in his role as the chair of TAROE, said the new committee would be able to look at areas that the NTV could not. ‘The NTV is a non-governmental public body so it can’t publicly stand up and decry another non-departmental body,’ he said.
Mr Gelling added that the NTV, which only appointed Mr Crossley as its first chief executive last month, was in the ‘wrong place at the wrong time’ because it was launched just before the election.
The group is hoping to hold the first scrutiny committee’s public hearing in June and call managers from the TSA to give evidence.
Nic Bliss, chair of the CCH, said: ‘The view of the national tenant organisations is there is a need for some independent scrutiny - it [the new committee] wants to work in partnership [with the NTV].’
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (5)
annoyed of Devon | 23/04/2010 1:49 am
This is typical of why organisations that supposedly represent tenants are giving tenants a bad reputation. These national organisations had full involvement in the setting up of NTV and yet at the first opportunity they step out on their own and create another committee probably without the full blessing of the NTV members and certainly without consultation with the active tenants they claim to represent. If you wish to be members of NTV or any other goverment sponsored body you sign up to rules of such a body including election rules. This demonstrates only self interest of those involved and will do nothing to increase the voice of the many tenants involved in good work around the country. I hope the TSA and anyone else you deem to call on will tell you what I would, get over yourselves and get back to doing what you where set out to do, speak up for tenants not your own self interests. I also think you might as well hand your head on a silver platter to the next goverment because your imaturity obviously leads to doubt about your ability to deliver.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
HAPPIANT | 23/04/2010 5:08 pm
I have to agree with "ANNOYED" of Devon. The National bodies were fully in favour of setting up the NTV, at some considerabe expense to the public purse, and yet at the first opportunity, break away to form yet another Group to fill themselves with yet more self importance. What do they hope to achieve which is not already being addressed by the other National bodies, to which they are already aligned?
Perhaps they, the new NTSC, know something the rest of us don't; that the NTV could be under threat before it gets off the ground, so to speak.
It could be that the "New NTSC", in summoning the TSA to their public meeting in June, will together with the NTV, all end up dissapearing in a cloud of smoke. We can but hope.
A definition of "purdah" "Seclusion or ostracism resulting from embarrassment". How very apt.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jimmy Devlin | 24/04/2010 10:30 am
Not taken too long to expose the NTV as meaningless has it?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Paul Mason | 26/04/2010 1:41 pm
For an area with as many politically aware people as social housing, I'm surprised that people haven't got this.
The Cave Report called for an organisation to act as "an advocate for tenants in national debates and undertake dialogue with the government, regulators and providers’ representative bodies, on more equal terms".
The best way to do this is have a formal organisation within the government structure, which is very much harder for government, regulators and providers to ignore. This is precisely what the NTV is.
However the flipside of this is that the NTV has to follow the rules that government bodies do, including keeping quiet for the 4 weeks every five years when a general election is on and not being a blatent campaigning body.
Fortunately we have National Tenant Organisations, reflecting the diversity of housing structures, that are there to fulfil this campaigning role and don't have to be bound by these rules. Good on them for using their skills to the most!
I know that many of us in housing are using to finding conflict getting in the way of things.
However, the sooner that we realise that having organisations both inside the tent (NTV) and outside (NTOs) isn't a conflict, but instead is a clever pincer movement to make sure that Tenants' voices and views are heard as powerfully as possible, the better.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
margaret | 27/04/2010 5:32 pm
it is not another high up group we need but more help with active tenants underfunded unabale to attend all the training and event. So they are unable to bring thier tenants and community needs to a higher level or Goverment or become involved in the four national organisations becauce they are also working. Tenants needs are becoming to top down it needs to bottom up
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment