We must see a decisive change in welfare to reward those families who play by the rules rather than exploit them, says Frank Field.
On Tuesday I introduced a Bill that will ensure families that work hard, and who are not a nuisance to their neighbours, have worked hard with their children or have helped in the community, will be in the best position to gain the best of any housing that becomes available for new tenancies.
My bill will also put a new responsibility on housing associations to inform tenants if they are placing a neighbour from hell next to them, or will be filling a vacancy due to the former tenant escaping from the unwanted attention of nightmare neighbours.
Some critics might claim that such a policy cannot work, that it will prove all too difficult to operate in practice. But just such a policy which favours the good tenant used to work fine.
Most tenants who had up-to-date rent payments, and whose children were well behaved, could make the first bid for the best houses when they became available.
If such a policy once worked I cannot see for the life of me why it cannot work again. Or that it would prove more troublesome than the present set-up that penalises those decent families who are a credit to their local community.
The bill does not, of course, add to or take away from the number of council or housing association properties. It simply reorders who will have first choice for good housing.
Homeless families, who now take priority, would only have priority status if they also pass the good citizenship test. Otherwise they will have to choose after hard working families have made their choice.
If these hard working families were already housing association tenants they would be vacating their current homes and these would go back into the pool to be reallocated to other families, including those who are homeless.
The bill will also ensure that housing associations would have to declare to prospective tenants the downside of any properties they are trying to let.
This will bring their practice in line with what a private owner who has to do now when they make a similar declaration when they are trying to sell their property.
A homeowner now wishing to sell their property, has to provide prospective buyers with information of any police calls to their property, with such details covering instances of anti-social behaviour or face action in the courts for providing misleading information.
No such obligation falls on social landlords who exploit this concession in two ways. They move trouble makers from one area, where the neighbours are at their wits end, into another decent area.
The area from which the neighbours from hell are moved gain respite from a constant barrage of yobbish behaviour and worse. But this is at the cost of the other area which now has the hooligans inflicted upon them without any right to be consulted, let alone being able to block the transfer.
Many housing associations also behave in an underhand way when they transfer a family from a property that is next door or near a chaotic neighbour.
The family transferred gets a new life but at the cost of the housing association moving an unsuspecting family into the hell hole next door.
In future housing associations should have to inform communities that they intend to dump such a family on them. Likewise, the association should have to inform tenants that they are moving a family next door to a nasty neighbour.
In the first instance the Bill will give communities the right to object to such a transfer.
In the second instance, families will be able to refuse a move to such a property and not to be penalised, as they are now, for refusing an offer of a new home next to or near a neighbour from hell. Tenants would also have the right to legal redress against their housing association.
Both of these moves in the Bill will begin to move the balance in the welfare state towards decent families while making life a lot less cosy for those neighbours who disregard all the rules of decent civilised behaviour.
But of course neither reform, no matter how urgent or important, increases the supply of desperately needed decent homes.
That is why David Davis and I have published proposals which will compel housing associations to sell houses, just as councils have to.
Most of the best housing is now owned by housing associations and, unable to buy, these best tenants invariably stay put.
Our proposals are to extend the right to buy to these tenants, but only on the condition that all of the money from sales is used to build new homes.
This will overall increase the number of homes and give a much needed boost to local building employment.
Another win-win situation.
Frank Field is the MP for Birkenhead.