ao link
Twitter
Facebook
Linked In
Twitter
Facebook
Linked In

You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles

The Social Housing White Paper’s proposals could work – but still do little

If the proposals work, they could give social housing residents a welcome level of protection, but there is also much to worry about in the government’s white paper, writes Matthew Bailes

Linked InTwitterFacebookeCard
The government is planning to complete a decisive U-turn on the changes it made in 2010 (picture: Getty)
The government is planning to complete a decisive U-turn on the changes it made in 2010 (picture: Getty)
Sharelines

If the proposals work, they could give social housing residents a welcome level of protection, but there is also much to worry about in the government’s white paper, writes Matthew Bailes #UKHousing

The most interesting thing in the new Social Housing White Paper is not what it does say but just how little it says about most big social housing policy issues.

For example, it says nothing meaningful or new about who social housing is for, how much of it we need and what rent people should pay.

There is only a passing reference to what sounds like a low-key review of how it is allocated. A review of the Decent Homes Standard is promised – let’s hope that goes some way to delivering the long-awaited plan on carbon neutrality and addresses the related question of fuel poverty.

But we can safely assume that if the government had an overarching strategy, it would have taken the opportunity to spell it out. The fact that it hasn’t is therefore telling.

The white paper is really only about consumer protection and redress, and might reasonably be described as the latest in a series of loosely connected tactical interventions on housing policy.


READ MORE

How the Social Housing White Paper will impact the sector: housing associationsHow the Social Housing White Paper will impact the sector: housing associations
The Social Housing White Paper: The proposals at a glanceThe Social Housing White Paper: The proposals at a glance
The Thinkhouse Review: making sense of the evidence on housing market trends and outcomesThe Thinkhouse Review: making sense of the evidence on housing market trends and outcomes

This is bad news for two reasons. The first and most obvious is that the issues above need urgent attention. There is absolutely no sign of the housing crisis dissipating and there are quite a few reasons to think it will get worse, particularly for the growing numbers on low incomes.

From that perspective, the white paper is a missed opportunity.

The second is that its narrow focus means it does not provide comprehensive solutions to some of the issues it does seek to tackle. The clearest example is around stigma, which is rightly highlighted as a significant concern.

It is obvious that one of the main causes of stigma is the huge gulf between demand for social housing and the available supply. Given allocations are based on need, this inevitably results in a concentration of vulnerable households in the stock that is available.

“It also creates a group of disgruntled would-be social housing residents who feel deprived of the opportunities afforded to previous generations”

It also creates a group of disgruntled would-be social housing residents who feel deprived of the opportunities afforded to previous generations. It is not surprising that this fuels stigma and resentment. Better training for housing officers won’t solve this problem.

There are similar issues concerning the proposals regarding anti-social behaviour (which won’t do anything to address the glacial speed of the legal process) and the warm words on quality of buildings and places (which would be more plausible if the government wasn’t also in favour of permitted development).

The text on building safety largely reiterates what has already been said, which means we are no clearer about the route map out of crisis on fire remediation.

The sideswipe about larger associations lacks much grounding in evidence or a recognition that the government, by strongly encouraging associations to take commercial risks to cross-subsidise new affordable homes, has its fingerprints all over consolidation within the sector.

Putting that trend into reverse is neither possible nor desirable, and would have plenty of downsides that would not be confined to development. Scale may help tackle the future challenges in asset management and the future opportunities in digitisation of services (which is barely mentioned).

If there is a headline, it is that the government is planning to complete a decisive U-turn on the changes it made in 2010 – essentially changing things back to how they were under the last Labour government.

Unsurprisingly, the document does not describe the changes in this way.

“From this perspective, the mooted code of practice on the consumer standards could be a wolf in sheep’s clothing”

There is a certain irony in this, given the premium that is placed on housing providers being open and transparent. Here, I found myself torn on the proposals.

On the one hand, it is right that consumer regulation is strengthened. There are also one or two encouraging signs that the government has recognised the good things about the current system, including the importance of economic regulation and the good sense in a co-regulatory approach.

However, there are also good reasons to be nervous. If the word ‘inspection’ heralds a return of prescriptive rules and someone wandering around with a clipboard, we risk going back 20 years. From this perspective, the mooted code of practice on the consumer standards could be a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

There is also plenty of scope for performance indicators to create perverse incentives. It doesn’t take a huge amount of imagination to work out what rogue organisations might do if asked to measure the number of complaints.

I welcome new rules on transparency in principle, but Freedom of Information is not the ideal starting point. We need a bespoke solution if we are to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy, cost and perhaps unwelcome attention from the Office for National Statistics.

My tentative conclusion is that if the regulator is given the freedom to make sense of these proposals, there is a decent chance they could remedy some of the deficiencies in the system.

But there are some significant risks. I worry that politicians’ interest in prescribing how regulation is conducted far exceeds their understanding of the subject. There is also scope for ministerial whim to be delivered through the backdoor, if appointments to the regulator’s board are driven more by political allegiance than technocratic grip.

“I am not sure how much choice low-income families really have in practice”

And my former colleagues face a major challenge in getting to grips with local authorities – which could ultimately embroil them in some time-consuming political skirmishes. If any of these risks crystallises, economic regulation could be put at risk at exactly the wrong time. The sector and its key stakeholders, including the lenders, need to keep a close eye on next steps.

My final thought goes back to the bigger picture. If these proposals work, they will give social housing residents a lot of protection. That is welcome, but I do wonder how the government can continue to justify the growing gap between the social and private rented sectors in this respect.

Although, in theory, private renters have more choice, I am not sure how much choice low-income families – including those relying on local housing allowance and the growing numbers in temporary accommodation – really have in practice. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there is further noise in this space.

Matthew Bailes, chief executive, Paradigm

Linked InTwitterFacebookeCard
Add New Comment
You must be logged in to comment.