Portillo calls for end of tenancy for life
Share
Former Conservative front bencher Michael Portillo has added his voice to those who think that security of tenure should end.
Mr Portillo, who ran for the Tory leadership in 2001, told Inside Housing in an exclusive interview that there isn’t enough social housing to keep giving people homes for life.
‘It should be clear that social housing, which is in short supply, is made available to meet social need. Where the need ceases to exist, the provision is no longer appropriate,’ he said.
Mr Portillo would also give priority to those who have connections with their local area, over new immigrants. ‘Then of course, when they are settled in a community, what they can achieve rises. I think there should be some priority,’ he said.
Mr Portillo’s comments on tenure follow a report published in April by Conservative think tank Localis, which urged an incoming Conservative government to scrap security of tenure. Localis would only require councils to house those who are unable to house themselves.
See the full interview with Michael Portillo
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (9)
Ian Rowley | 04/06/2009 2:16 pm
Well done Michael for raising this issue again. I contributed to the origional Localis work. Serious debate is now starting around the whole issue of automatic assured tenure, which needs to be removed, as a starting point. Circumstances may mean that tenure is de-facto lifetime but this should not be the starting point and assumption for all tenures and all circumstances.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Les | 04/06/2009 3:54 pm
So we no longer want mixed,sustainable communities then? Are sink estates the preference, so we can concentrate the poor, destitute and vulnerable together? This would surely be the result if only the poorest people can access and remain in social housing.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sam Taylor | 04/06/2009 4:14 pm
"there isn’t enough social housing to keep giving people homes for life"
And whose fault is that?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Len White | 04/06/2009 6:43 pm
Could that be THE Ian Rowley, nicknamed 'the new Alan B'stard' in Westminster where he is responsible for housing policy?
According to the West End Extra, Mr Rowley - "City Hall’s new housing czar was bombarded with criticism ... after writing an article supporting the selling of council housing, moving tenants out of Westminster and scrapping secured tenancies."
In his Localis paper, Rowley argues amongst other crazy ideas for a new system of tied cottages: “Key workers in both the private sector and public sector needed to fill jobs, for social balance and social cohesion should have access as part of their employment terms”, with access to housing depending on “contribution to society”.
We now see real Tory housing policy coming out of the woodwork with influential figures in key Tory Councils, like Rowley at Westminster and Greenhalgh at Hammersmith, arguing for the ending of security of tenure, market rents, and the sale of estates.
Have the Tories learned nothing from the saga of Dame Shirley Porter selling council houses for unlawful gerrymandering?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Tiago d'Cruz | 05/06/2009 11:16 am
Common sense at last. The vulnerable should get social housing for the time that they need it and not for life
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ian Rowley | 05/06/2009 1:04 pm
WRT Len White's comments.
Yes I wrote the Localis piece which was then spun into name calling, "Alan B'Stard" and silly sound bites "tied cottages"!!! This was just a typical Westminster Labour Group negative spin operation, the spirit of Damien McBride and Derek Draper still seems to be alive and well there. What matters to the WCC Labour spin doctors is headlines, name calling, and sound bites not accuracy or serious policy analysis.
Some reality checks are given below:
"Bombarded with criticism" This has just been in the headlines. critique from the WCC Labour group in the form of silly name calling and negative spin cannot be considered "bombarded".
"Housing Czar". Hardly the case. I have a brief to work on policy, I do not set it or control it. This is done within the WCC cabinet with cabinet member for housing Cllr Roe making the final decision.
"Moving tenants out of Westminster" Negative spin designed to spread uncertainty by implying an intention to move large number of tenants which is not the case.
" Selling council housing" Negative spin implynig mass sales, this was never written, A commentary was made on looking at selling NEW developments on the open market to fund more houisng in lower costs area, ie get more bang for the buck in an environment where there will be heavy public spending cuts. Simply if we can sell one NEW hounsing unit and use the money to house 2-3 families we need to look at this.
" Tied Cottages". Negative spin. The call was made to look at using some form of social housing access as part of employment terms for key workers who cannot pay for intermediate housing. This is part of a flexible accomodation and labour market structure that exists in tne private sector. If a lawyer comes from New York to London then they are given subsidised rented accomodation because of London's very hight costs, this is the way the world works, it should be looked at for key workers as well.
The Hills Report into social housing calls for mixed communities , the question is how in high land costs areas such as Westminster one brings this about. Some of the ideas in the Localis piece wer an attempt to look at how this could be done.
"Access to housing depening on contribution to society". Correct and why should this not be looked at ? It is wrong that the impact of peoples behaviour on others is not considered. It cannot be the case that the rights of one person is taken as absolute irrespective of the gross violation of the basic human rights of other people that their behaviour causes is accounted for. I ma currently helping with two problems where violent prostitutes have been moved into social housing with devistating impacts on residents mental and physical health.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
ILAG | 07/06/2009 3:54 am
Ian, if you are reading this there is good chain of debate on the earlier "Tenancy for life opponent gets key role at council" news article see
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/story.aspx?storycode=6504671
Having read the 76 page "Principles for Social Housing Reform" Localis document, I can say that I think it is superb as are your observations in the West End Extra article and I completely agree with your comments above.
So keep up the good work and just ignore the Sparts!
As a leaseholder with an ALMO landlord in the borough next door, I am all too familiar with the problem of nightmare tenants that the present so-called "needs based" allocation system generates and how these monsters can destroy entire communities yet prove incredibly difficult to remove due to the secure tenancy system, the weakness of the judiciary and the legal aid system that will supply hoards of barristers to defend the indefensible in court. A return to the Merit based allocation system of the 40s and 50s would clearly be welcome in order to house those who work for a living and discourage the breeding-for-benefits culture. However I would not want to see the security of tenure of the older generation, who were housed under the Merit based system, become cut short or means tested in any way. It is that older generation that make council estates liveable. In that sense, and for those people, I do believe the tenancy should be "for life" in order to maintain stable communities.
What is your view on this?
ILAG
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 08/06/2009 10:50 am
Easy points aside, it still remains the case that the lack of supply of social housing was created by policies initiated and promoted when Portillo was a cabinet minister.
Now we see another easy argument - remove tenancies for life because of the lack of supply. The argument does not have any merit taking aside the morality of the proposal.
Short-term tenancies cannot create stable communities but only transient ones with the obvious outcome of less community and less caring for that community or property. We will give you a roof over your head whilst you are in need but then you must move on is the proposal. Move on to where precisely?? And - you only have this temporary house or flat whilst you need it - Who decides this? How long does a vulnerable person have to findanother property??
If this proposal is thought through for just two minutes it shows that the only option is private rented - a less than cunning plan from the right to populate private rented sector. Of course as PSL stock becomesmore in demand what happens to the rent levels - They increase of course. Who do PSL owners vote for?
Aside from being a policy of looking after ones friends, this proposal is unworkable and impractical. It does absolutely nothing to alleviate the high demand except bring in more PSL stock at higher rates of rent. It also makes social housing even less the property of choice and thereby increases the negative stigma of social housing. It would also lead to more transient social tenants, more instability, less of a stable community and likely to increase anti-social behaviours.
In summary the policy is nothing but a very short-term fix for PSLs and would increase rent levels and would further damage the perception of social tenants.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Martin Ballard | 08/06/2009 5:45 pm
So the old chestnut is rolled out yet again showing a complete lack of imagination. This does nothing to tackle the real problem which is the lack of supply of housing with low rents providing security for tenants to raise their families, neglected by successive governments. There is a huge social cost attached to moving families on (i.e. without security of tenure) through unemployment without a fixed abode, interupted schooling/lost education, temporary accommodation, children put into care, medical costs associated with stress, depression etc. It is easy for those more privaliged to pick on extreme examples of terrible tenants in an attempt to justify the ending of security for tenants however the worst "tenant" appearing in my local paper over a period of many years whose family terrorised the neighbourhood was a private home-owner. Most of the tenants I've met are decent people therefore critics appear to prefer to pick out the minority of bad examples to suit their case. Of course low cost secure housing might not suit or appeal to those wishing to maximise profits from the private housing sector. Despite all the criticism and stigma dished out onto secure tenants in recent years it is worth considering how things were before council housing came along, perhaps a trip along to the Museum of London might assist?
Nothing new on offer then! I thought that perhaps Mr Portillo might produce an environmentally friendly new age social housing solution for the UK perhaps with a tenants contract and obligation to participate in local community tenant associations - to give something back. I thought maybe Right to Buy could be changed so that the RTB discount valuation is given towards a private mortgage, the tenant with the necesaary means could leave to free up social housing and still get their discount. But all we have is "End secured tenancies" -is this really the best they could come up with..... how disappointing. Maybe Mr Brown isn't so bad after all............
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment