Beckett dismisses tenancy for life speculation
Share
Housing minister Margaret Beckett has distanced herself from reports that the government is considering scrapping lifetime social tenancies.
Speaking yesterday evening at a seminar organised by the think tank The Smith Institute, Mrs Beckett described the forthcoming housing reform green paper as ‘very much a work in progress’.
‘I’ve made no decision and nor has any minister, on the content and timing of the green paper.’
Housing minister Margaret Beckett
In reference to this week’s newspaper reports suggesting that her department is drawing up proposals to make social tenancies subject to regular reviews of tenants’ financial circumstances, she said: ‘To say it was speculation, is to put it mildly.’
On her department’s work in drawing up a housing reform green paper, she said: ‘I neither want or have the slightest intention to anticipate what the outcome of all that work will be.’
She added: ‘I’ve made no decision and nor has any minister, on the content and timing of the green paper. The timing depends on how I feel the work of the content is going, which will drive the timing, rather than the other way round.’
But the minister did say the current system had to be re-thought as it concentrated dependency and disadvantage in particular estates, frustrating people’s attempts to either get out of social housing or to get into it.
‘As an effect of the credit crunch, I feel these pressures will increase rather than decrease,’ she said. ‘What we have at the moment is not effective or sustainable and it seems to me that people deserve better.’
She added: ‘We’ve made substantial improvements to the housing stock, [but] we’ve not been nearly so good in investing in people who are living in these homes.’
And Mrs Beckett indicated that she wanted to encourage social tenants or would-be social tenants to look beyond social housing to the private sector: ‘If people could find greater stability and security in the private rented sector, or could take advantage of low cost home ownership, then maybe fewer would think that social housing was their only option.’
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (9)
John Thornhill | 12/11/2008 8:14 pm
I attended the seminar hosted by the Smith Institute and was impressed by the open, considered and reflective approach of Margaret Beckett towards the question of housing reform. She emphasised John Hills' analysis of poor mobility, multiple deprivation and dissatisfaction in the social rented sector; and anticipated further pressures with the credit crunch. She reiterated the underlying raison d'etre for the reform debate: that the housing offer we currently have is not effective or sustainable. Social housing is not working as it should for those whom it is aimed at.
Positively, she emphasised that the housing reform green paper is "a work in progress" and she welcomed the housing reform debate which embraces a wide variety of opinions. She said that the overwhelming problem in the UK is a shortage of housing itself: not just affordable or social housing. This is the first priority. "we must increase supply despite the economic climate."
She stated that there are not three separate housing sectors aimed at three different housing groups: social, private rented and owner occupied; and as CIH has argued, housing reform must address all three sectors. She acknowledged and welcomed the Rugg review and said if people could find greater stability and security in the private rented sector, then maybe fewer people would see their role in the social rented sector. Additionally, all reform efforts must involve tenants and the creation of the TSA and NTV is a key component in this. She concluded by saying social housing will always be a vital resource for the vulnerable; but it needs to be more than just that. It should not just be there in times of crisis: it needs to provide better opportunities and support.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
michael barratt | 12/11/2008 10:14 pm
"Mrs Beckett indicated that she wanted to encourage social tenants or would-be social tenants to look beyond social housing to the private sector."
The problem with the private sector rental market is that rent levels are overly influenced by housing market speculation rather geared to the potential for tenants especially those on low income to pay. Furthermore, the security of tenure extended to tenants in public housing is far great than that enjoyed by tenants in the private sector. In fact the security of tenture in the private sector is extremely tenuous and also provides little or no protection in regards to rent increases.
From the perspective of the tax payer, the private rental market represents poor value. Since the finacial burden on the State relating to the payment of housing benefit is considerable less in relation to public housing than comparable housing in the private sector.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mark Bichard | 13/11/2008 10:38 am
Why doesn’t this Government think about proposals such as abolishing tenancies for live before steaming in? If we were to look at reviewing tenancies based on an individuals circumstances and it was found they weren’t actively looking for work etc would we evict them? What about the homeless stragetry that Local Authorities have in place? Its ok saying you would review tenancies but would we look to make people homeless because they didn’t meet the criteria set out for Social Housing?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 13/11/2008 11:01 am
So what's new?... the CIH lacks the most basic understanding for social tenants to move out of their present homes. We can only do so if we have a good safe job to go with it - ie - good enoguh to either afford a mortgage or pay for rented private housing. Where are in the present or the future these safe well paid jobs coming from so we can do that?... CAN ANYONE ANSWER THAT PLEASE!... Would anyone with any sense advise a friend, a relative, a son or a duaghter to let go of her social tenancy for a prospect of likelyhood to end up homeless?... These people (politicians and CIH) are madness personified! They are creating a psychological terror climate to push social tenants into taking unsafe jobs so that their newly bought house will be repossessed or their private landlord will evict them for not being able to pay the rent anymore... Far from Hehping anyone they are persistently sowing new seeds for more misery.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Martin Ballard | 13/11/2008 2:52 pm
It's extremely worrying for council tenants that the government is so out of touch with them regarding the question of their future. Instead of concentrating upon providing the means and opportunity for those that are interested in moving from the social housing sector into the private housing sector say for instance by providing an equivalent of the RTB discount to go private hence releasing social housing they prefer to undermine and stigmatise tenants encouraging the ramblings of organisations such as the CIH. All this does is deflects attention away from the real issue which is the long term failure to provide the quantity and quality of social housing for rent that is needed. It really is time to face up to this and put in place some council house building programmes to tackle the problem because it's obvious that the private sector cannot cope particularly in these difficult economic times. It's really crass of politicians to speak about tenants trying to get out of social housing into the private sector because I've met plenty of very proud and decent council tenants that appreciate the security that they have and just want the government to invest in their homes instead of creaming off funds from the local authority.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Vivienne St Clair | 14/11/2008 2:37 am
Under the spin of 'newlabourspeak' about reducing the problem of sink estates and ghettoisation of social housing, the government's sweeping changes to are more likely to make the problems worse, not better. This will be due to the combined effect of rent rising towards 'target rents', increased service charges, mixed tenure estates with the choice of having more or fewer services. Already tenants who are on a low income that is just above the level for benefits etc are talking about being unable to afford their social tenancy for much longer. It will make sound business sense for HAs to concentrate their leasehold sales, market rents and 'affordable' lettings on the better estates in more salubrious areas. There is no restriction on how many of these uses can be brought in on any one estate. These 'better off' estates will be more likely to have a majority of tenants who will choose to have more services (tenant empowerment via choice), thus higher service charges. Either the landlord will have to not charge the lower income tenants for those services, or the poorer, non-benefits tenants may have to 'choose' to live on 'cheaper' estates. When housing benefit is no longer payable on these extra services (as is threatened), yet more tenants will end up having to 'choose' to move downmarket. A great many of the city social housing estates are old ones, hard-to-heat as they have no cavity walls, no insulation at all, so poorer tenants are more financially at risk from the start.
Means-testing is most likely to be used to get the relatively better-off tenants to pay more rent for their existing tenancy, giving them the feeling that however hard they work their situation never improves. For the rest, an annual inspection of their finances will increase the stress of living in social housing on a low income. It is quite simply cruel to impose this on people already over-stressed by working long hours just to make ends meet.
The only answer is to build more housing for affordable rent. The wealthier members of society seem to want to have their cake and eat it. They want to keep service staff, hospital cleaners, hotel workers, washers-up, couriers, tea-persons, office cleaners, and so-on within reach of their jobs, keep them on very low pay for very long hours, and then resent paying taxes to enable them to have an affordable home.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
nik masters | 14/11/2008 8:03 am
Welcome to Autocracy - New Labour Style.
What next ?
Council Housing Tenant's to be told they are 'entititled' to only one meal-a-day,
if they are not in work ; and the need to be 'means tested' and their
'circumstances reveiwed' constantly !
The simple solution is to build more quality Council Housing, for those who need it.
This will not be achieved through Private Companies, who want to profit.
It can and will be achieved, by a Goverment that cares for all it's people;
not just the 'well-off' and 'rich'.
Unfortunately, this particular Labour Government has lost it's integrity
and are using Housing as a Political Platform to squeeze in votes.
Shame on you.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Meric Apak | 14/11/2008 12:46 pm
The private housing sector is going through a melt down crisis for the third time in my life time, taking down with it those who were persuaded by successive governments that council housing is no longer the favourite option, causing misery to thousands of defaulted mortgagees.
As a council tenant I enjoy my security of tenure, I exercise my democratic right to hold my landlord to account at the ballot box, and I know the rent I pay is the most affordable and stable in the country.
Given these undeniable benefits council housing provides, instead of stigmatising all council tenants as lazy single mums on benefits, why are we not waking up and smelling the coffee, that the only long term viable option is not the first, second or third options - which all include a privatisation string attached, but it is the fourth option, which says “all the money from our rents and capital receipts should be ring-fenced to manage, maintain, repair, improve and build new first class council housing for all who need one. Discrimination against council housing should end. We need a 'level playing field' so that council housing gets the same rights and access to gap funding, debt write-off and borrowing as other types of landlords”.
Visit www.moonlightrobbery.org.uk to see how this government is has been profiting on the backs of council tenants to the tune of £17 billion in the last 10 years.
Meric Apak, Chair, Camden federation of Tenants and Residents Associations (council).
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mark | 19/11/2008 10:26 am
Thank goodness for common sense. When she retires, perhaps she can take over at CIH and get them to drop their shameful support for ending tenancies for life.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment