For, even amongst my fellow Liberal Democrats, the idea that those in social housing should be charged a premium for occupying a property larger than their needs might indicate is a difficult one. So, when I admit to appreciating the concept, I do have an obligation to explain why.
I observe the long waiting lists for social housing with increasing despair. Families and individuals who lack stability in their lives tend do experience worse outcomes than the rest of us, bringing costs both in terms of personal loss and the implied need for intervention by state agencies. The most obvious, and rather attractive, option is to build more social housing, but when one sees the passion with which people, Liberal Democrats included, oppose the reality of major homebuilding, that begins to look like a long-term game plan, rather than a quick win.
An easier short term contribution is to make better use of the available housing stock. And that, for me, is where the concept of sticks and carrots comes in.
It strikes me as reasonable if, where someone is occupying a property larger than they need, that they pay a premium. However, they should have a real opportunity to downsize and not be punished because there isn't one. For that is where the current regime goes wrong. The long-term failure to build sufficient housing, be it public or private, has created huge shortages of smaller properties, especially in villages like mine. Accordingly, there is no real choice, and the levy is, effectively, punitive.
I don't believe that people should be punished for having to rely on social housing. Indeed, I would have no fundamental objection to seeing opportunities to take up social housing be extended to a far broader range of potential tenants - it would create a better social mix and address the crisis brought about by the emerging ghettos of low achievement and aspiration that so concerned Caroline Flint when she was Housing Minister.
It's something that Liberal Democrats could, and should, lead on...
2 comments:
Addressing the issue of under-occupation is one thing.
But a policy which financially penalises the worst off in social housing isn't something we should be countenancing.
Add to that that this is a policy who's primary aim is to save money on the HB budget (see the impact assessment) and doesn't apply to either (a) Households that are in work and not receiving HB or Households where someone is over Pension Credit age and it's hard to see why Liberal Democrats are supporting except out of blind loyalty to defend any coalition policy.
The option of linking it to an unreasonable refusal to move to other alternative accomodation doesn't seem to have been considered. Nor was my suggested way of tackling the under-occupation problem of incentivising tenants with a 50/50 split of the savings in HB over say 6 months. (I don't have the information to do the sums but that's likely to be reveue neutral if you assume that the property left empty at the end of all the moves will be taken by someone in B&B or (less likely) more expensive private sector housing.
Anonymous,
We are as one. Increasing flexibility in the social housing sector will create savings by taking those on waiting lists out of the private sector. It is fundamentally wrong to use this as a means of raising additional funds from the poorest whilst also making them much less secure.
We also need to ensure that any policy takes into account changes in family life, another point that current policy 'conveniently' overlooks.
The policy is fine though if, as some Conservatives (and a few Liberal Democrats, I fear) believe that the State has little or no place in housing the poor and the vulnerable.
Post a Comment