Tenancy for life opponent gets key role at council
Share
A controversial councillor who has opposed the right to lifetime tenancies has been made deputy cabinet member for housing policy at Westminster City Council.
Councillor Dr Ian Rowley, who was promoted this week by council leader Colin Barrow, has previously suggested abolishing automatic lifetime tenures for all council tenants.
In an article for think tank Localis earlier this year, Mr Rowley described social policy in his borough as a ‘unique version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire? UK welfare-state style’. He highlighted the enormous subsidies which social housing tenants in wealthy London boroughs receive, which can stretch to £1 million.
Mr Rowley told Inside Housing: ‘I am not against social housing. I was partly brought up in social housing. But I do think there are some circumstances where lifetime tenure is inappropriate.
‘Some people, such as those with disabilities, should have a council house for life. But there is a presumption that everyone who moves into social housing in any circumstances will be given a lifetime tenure when it should just be a helping hand for a while.’
Councillor Rowley said he will stand by his views while examining council housing policy. He said: ‘Social housing is failing, and we are stuck with a system which is not delivering. Look at the life chances, the levels of unemployment, and the levels of worklessness.’
The Westminster City Council Labour group was unhappy with the appointment. Councillor David Boothroyd said: ‘Colin Barrow must have known councillor Rowley had these views when he promoted him. Does this mean that he wants to introduce this appalling policy? Westminster’s council tenants deserve to be told.’
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (26)
Jen | 19/05/2009 10:26 am
My opinion - WHO DOES THIS POMPAS PRAT THINK HE IS? AGAIN SOMEONE WITH NO VISION OR IDEA ABOUT THE EFFECTS OF THIS, IT DOSN'T AFFECT HIM. HOW WOULD HE LIKE TO LIVE WITH CONSTANT INSECURITY? DO THESE LOW INCOMED TENANTS NOT HAVE ENOUGH PRESSURE AND STRESS IN THEIR LIVES WITHOUT FEELING MORE VULNERABLE? BUT THEN DOES HE CARE, NO! OF COURSE NOT. IT'S A CASE OF I'M ALRIGHT MATE SO WHICH VULNERABLE GROUP CAN WE ATTACK NEXT. WELL AT LEAST THEY KNOW WHO NOT TO VOTE FOR.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
ILAG | 19/05/2009 11:16 am
I don't think Westminster Conservative councillors (or Conservatives anywhere for that matter) will be worrying about not getting votes from their tenants as the data shows that tenants either i) dont vote or ii) dont vote Conservative. So he's got nothing to loose. In any case, it's not as if he has a choice about it. Secure tenancies are legally mandated, introduced as they were in 1980 (by a Conservative government!). Before that time social tenants could be evicted on just 28 days notice with no appeal so we all need to remember that security of tenure for social tenants is i) a relatively recent thing and ii) a Conservative initiative in the first place. This chap simply has no power to turn round to CityWest Homes (their ALMO) and start demanding they convert all their tenants to assured shorthold tenancies as this would probably be illegal. So, in the final analysis, there is next to nothing he can do about secure tenure in his patch irrespective of what he believes.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
P'Odong Dan | 19/05/2009 11:17 am
What comes to mind is the sordid aware of MPs expences, one rule for the others another rule for them. Stinks of hypocricy, the sort, if in third world would be referred to as corruption, nepotism and outright oppression.
If only people in Britain knew how oppressed they are; they don't have the benefit of comparison experience.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 19/05/2009 12:49 pm
Most people as well as professional observers are taking for granted conservatives will win the next election. However between the no-voters (because of expense claims corruption and growing general alarming and well founded disinterest for political parties - but not necessarily for politics) and conservatives like this councillor doing their best to lose votes and credibility... I can't wait to see how this much taken for granted for conservative victory will turn out in a farcical loss.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
a housing manager in the South of England | 19/05/2009 2:10 pm
This makes sense. There is not enough affordable housing in the South East and hence it needs to be allocated according to need. affordable housing should be a step in a journey, a platform from which people can progress. No other tenure offers a home for life. Shorter tenancies will enable more people to benefit in their time of need. Flexible terms and regular housing options reviews for all social tenants would encourage progression and free up resources for those in genuine need. As a housing manager I am often frustrated at the waste of large family homes occupied 'for life' if they so choose by single people or couples whilst their overcrowded neighbours of varying tenures suffer from the lack of affordable family home supply.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Bernard Townroe | 19/05/2009 2:22 pm
As ever, a crass inversion of reality from the Tories. The poorest, most vulnerable live lives cushioned from hard work and hard times, living in their palatial social accommodation. Whilst others, rather more privileged - but, obviously, far worthier invidividuals - get taxpayers' money to clean out their moats. Kafka has nothing on this lot.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 19/05/2009 3:02 pm
a housing manager in the South of England | Tue, 19 May 2009 14:10 GMT
As a housing manager I am often frustrated at the waste of large family homes occupied 'for life' if they so choose by single people or couples whilst their overcrowded neighbours of varying tenures suffer from the lack of affordable family home supply."..........
If this is true as you say, why housing associations do not find remedy to this, maybe encouraging swapping between overcrowded homes with those underoccupied? Maybe giving incentives of some kind... As usual, instead of finding solutions, some housing professionals attack what is left of secure tenancies. Don't you realise that whether overcrowded or under occupied any social tenants will tell you they want to feel secure in their homes?... If you want social tenancies be stepping stones -fine - but then there should be secure jobs and means of income for social tenants to next ste onto. Otherwise they will come back to you as homeless after six months having stepped on the next stone and finding there is no other stone in front but a large precipice to fall into. And while there might be an element of stagnation amongst social tenants - you cannot give them such irrepsonsible advice for them to get out of their social tenancies and have them ending up completely homeless. Would you do that to your relatives and closest ones?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
michaelbarratt | 19/05/2009 4:10 pm
Colin Barrow council leader sacrificed a City career in 1996 to dedicate himself to charitable works (while of course retaining a number of business interests). He has now we learn appointed Councillor Dr Ian Rowley deputy cabinet minister for housing. Dr Rowley has immaculate credentials, including proposing the abolition of automatic lifetime tenures for all council tenants. Surprise appointment? No of course not. The lower orders have had things too good for too long - time to call and end to all that. What next? time for the ‘battlers’ to head for the sticks and the private sector rental market? – why waste prime real estate on a bunch of under performers?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
gio | 19/05/2009 4:55 pm
Flexible and needs based tenancy looks sensible to me, we need more flexibility in the housing area and fresh thinking and for people to put forward new views even if we may disagree with them. There is too much concensus thinking and group think in the housing area , this is seen from some of the comments above, real old style left wing vitriol which has solve nothing, look at the state of social housing and the social outcomes.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
For balance | 19/05/2009 5:16 pm
I struggle to understand the hyperbole that is launched at anyone who evaluates the appropriateness of security of tenure.
To all opponents - instead of hiding behind character assassinations and gross distortions of the truth (it's getting boring) - answer this: why should the state give a significant asset forever to one individual irrespective of whether or not they need it forever? If this idea was suggested today, it would be laughed out of the arena.
This isn't about attacking the poor. This isn't about chucking them out on the streets. But it does look like a good attempt to restart the discussion about whether one section of the population should be confined to one house for the rest of their lives (whether they want to be there or not) and whether we should be so patronising as to assume that they are unable to stand on their own two feet in a few years time.
But, do go on with the silly Thatcher/all Tories are evil comparisons. That will really help the discussion ...
(and, as an earlier commentator pointed out, it doesn't matter anyway - this would take national government action to change. so what westminster has done is hardly earth-shattering anyway)
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment