Michael Read

Comment on: £3bn funding package for London housing finalised

Michael Read's comment | 07/02/2012 2:28 pm

Into the pot. From the local government section of ConservativeHome.

"Cllr Liam Smith, Labour Leader of Barking & Dagenham council, was granted an "emergency" tenancy of a two bedroom council property six weeks after breaking up with his wife. This despite earning £45,000 a year and many two bedroom properties being available at rents well within his budget in the Borough he leads.

There are two things which stand out here. The speed with which Cllr Smith was granted his tenancy and the moral question - as put by Victoria Hollins on BBC London News Tonight - of why somebody on £45,000 a year needs "emergency" housing from the state.

The first question is simple. Did Cllr Smith secure this tenancy because he was able to exploit his position at Barking & Dagenham Council? There is certainly no question that couples with children living in one bedroom flats on Barking & Dagenham's waiting list will be asking themselves why Cllr Smith was such an urgent case, when for less than a third of his £2,400 a month take-home pay he can rent privately in the Borough. Rightmove has 10 pages of 2 bedroom flats and houses to rent in the Borough between £750 and £950 a month, all of which he could move in to in a week. Yet he applied for a tenancy of a Council property at a below-market rent and secured this in six weeks, when most people applying to the Council for housing are told they may not secure a tenancy in their lifetime.

John Redwood - on social housing

Posts: 8

In Policy forum | 24/09/2010 9:57 pm

John Redwood, Conservative right-winger, but surprisingly compassionate, writes on social housing on his blog. He plays a part in making the weather. "Yesterday I attended a meeting organised

Posted in: John Redwood - on social housing

Michael Read's post | 16/09/2010 12:12 pm

John Redwood, Conservative right-winger, but surprisingly compassionate, writes on social housing on his blog. He plays a part in making the weather. "Yesterday I attended a meeting organised by the National Housing Federation where a number of public sector housing groups came to lobby MPs.

Their gloomy presentation was based on the usual precepts that state direction and control and more use of the state cheque book were the only possible answers to a problem. We were told that the cuts to Housing benefit, the removal of regional planning and housing targets and the level of public funding were all bad decisions which stood in the way of a good housing policy.In the discussion which folllowed it was good to see some newly elected MPs cut through their two central propositions that all that was needed was more public cash and more central control to solve the problems. It was also good to have an old fashioned meeting about the issues with some disagreements and differing views in a Commons committee room, instead of the informal meetings with drinks or running buffets available that were so common in the Labour years. It emerged as we questioned the panel of presenters that:

1. Current new public sector housing provision costs more than it need do thanks to the rules and bureaucracy surrounding its procurement

2. There are substantial numbers of empty homes already owned by the public sector which need to be brought back into use

3. Subsidising people rather than houses makes more sense. If you subsidise houses people living in them may get better jobs and good incomes but you cannot withdraw the house subsidy.

4. There are problems with a small minority of tenants whose anti social behaviour disrupts neighbours. The Housing Association representatives complained about courts and legal enforcement standards

5. The current policy does not allow sensible incentives to be offered to people in social housing to encourage a move to smaller homes when their families have left home

6. New home building hit new lows during the easy spending Labour years, so even Labour did not in practise think they could build their way out of the problem.I pointed out that around half of those living in rented accommodation would prefer to buy but cannot afford to do so. We need more pathways into home ownership, assisted by more shared ownership and easier purchase schemes.

The aim of housing policy should be to offer more people the choice and security which ownership brings. For all those approaching retirement it is especially important to lift the need to pay rent for the rest of their lives. The poorest of our society end up paying the most for their housing at the end of their lives when they can least afford it. We should look again at schemes like the proposals I put forward to help members of the armed services own a home whilst on Her Majesty’s service, so they have some housing