Tories may reassess lifetime tenancies
The housing minister has implied the Conservative Party may look at the security of tenure for future social tenants – barely two months after the party pledged it had no policy to change their rights.
Grant Shapps was responding to a question in Parliament from Labour MP Karen Buck. She asked him whether he would confirm that ‘new tenants – people coming off the housing waiting list, as he described – will enjoy the security enjoyed by existing tenants?’.
The week before the General Election a spokesperson for the Conservative Party stated categorically that the party had ‘no policy to change the current or future security of tenure of tenants in social housing’.
The spokesperson had been clarifying prime minister David Cameron’s pledge to ‘respect social tenants’ rights’ in an interview with Inside Housing. Mr Cameron had stated that the ‘compassionate Conservative Party believes in the importance of social housing and the security it provides’.
Mr Shapps said he also believed that ‘security of tenure is terribly important, particularly for people in social housing, and we are keen to protect that’.
But he added: ‘There are 1.8 million families languishing on that social housing waiting list, and it is right and proper that we look at the way in which we can reduce that list.
‘It may include looking at tenure for the future.’
Mr Shapps later emphasised the government ‘will not change tenancy arrangements for existing tenants’.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (31)
philipjohn001 | 11/06/2010 12:05 pm
Oh well, no surprises there then. It was always going to just a matter of time IDS made that very clear!
I wonder what will be next?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11/06/2010 12:20 pm
I think it is a very good idea, that this be reveiw as there are small families living in large houses who could relocate to smaller property in order to free up houses for other families.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mark Thompson | 11/06/2010 1:11 pm
Not a good idea full stop!!!
there are better ways of reducing the lists,
to name a few.....
* contacting everyone on it to see of they wish to remain or if their circumstances are the same as the time of applying.
* Make the criteria stronger for applying
* evict those who are not paying the rent / causing asb
* Give councils the right to build their owbn stock by allowing them to lkeep the right to buy money, instead of it going tino the geovernemt coffers
* provide more affordable houses, and get the banks to give more mortgages to people,
*get the house prices back to some kind of reasoanble level - i.e fixed prices. so that poepl can afford to buy.
* sort out empty homes, there is a block of 10 newly built properties round the corner fomr hwhere i leive, which ave been empty since they were built 6 years ago
its not rocket science!!!!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Wyllieboy | 11/06/2010 1:48 pm
So we are not going to regulate private landlords or agents because Councils already have the powers to deal with these issues so there is no need to legislate. Why not in this case then? Council’s already had the power to serve notice on under occupying tenants but chose not to do so. This is a long term plan, do away with security of tenure as they did in the private sector and the sale of Council blocks to private landlords becomes a much more attractive prospect. This isn’t about freeing up under occupied properties it’s all about selling off the stock to the highest bidder.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dave Hollins | 11/06/2010 3:07 pm
And we were accused of scaremongering when this was raised before the Election.
The new housing policies are becoming clear - huge cuts in affordable housing, looking to drop security of tenure for new social tenants, refusing to intervene to improve things for private tenants, all accompanied by spin and obfuscation. Same old Tories, but where are the LibDems who are supposed to be moderating the excesses of the Tories?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
michael barratt | 11/06/2010 4:53 pm
The introduction of so called flexible working conditions has undermined the working conditions of millions of low paid workers who have also seen the value of their wages drop by 20% in real terms over the last two decades. The loss of strong union representation and security of tenure in the workplace has produced a compliant workforce. The right wing of the Labour party along with the Libcons now apparently seek to introduce uncertainty into the home in the form of more 'flexible' tenures.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
VICTOR KEMP | 11/06/2010 5:09 pm
WHY DONT COUNCILS USE THE SPECIAL SERVICE VEHICLE AS CROYDON DOES TO BUILD COUNCIL HOUSES WITHIN A CONSORTIUM, JUST PROVIDE THE LAND AND SHARE THE RENTS / REPAIRS. LATER COULD BUY OUT THE OTHERS WHEN FINANCIALLY VIABLE
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
| 11/06/2010 5:11 pm
That along with left wing of the Labour party allowing 3m legal and 1m illegal immigrants into the country, the majority of which come from the third world. The downward pressure on wages and the demand for housing is a direct result of this!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11/06/2010 5:50 pm
I have been a social housing tennant for 11 years. I am employed by the local government on a low wage. Unfortunately I am unable to obtain a mortgage due to my low income and age is not on my side. I constantly am worried when I read discussions by Stephen Greenhalgh, Hammersmith Leader and Grant Shapps referring to making social housing a form of assured short hold tenancy opposed to an assured tenancy. Homes give people stablity and a meaning in life. Without that securtiy what have people got?? Reading such literature has impacted on my health. The Government place such emphasis on not wanting home owners to lose their homes during the recession, however they are quite happy to consider changing social housing to a temporary tenure. Again the low income worker is penalised. I know the rent I pay meets the cost of my property you only have to read the Defend Council Housing Website to establish that. However the government is quite happy to send social housing tenants out to 'flock' in the private rent industry to line some developers coffers!!! Great!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11/06/2010 6:50 pm
If the country has so much of a defecit how come the Tories both wanted to and thought they would be able to higher the threshold for 'millionaires tax'. Wouldnt that have been a big loss in revenue. How were they planning to recoup that loss???
But instead their happy to consider throwing people out of their social homes into an overly costly unstable private sector because they feel social homes do not bring a visible enough return. Shame on them! Why dont they bring back the workhouses and have done.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment