In the Mix: Narrowing the gap between public and private housing

Tuesday 14th July 2009

“It should be for us a matter of principle not just a policy aim”, John Healey MP, Minister for Housing said, as he outlined the government line on mixed housing tenure and communities at a Fabian housing policy debate on Tuesday.

James Gregory, Research Fellow from the Fabian Society and author of the new report In the Mix: Narrowing the gap between public and private housing,   Kay Boycott, Director of Communications, Policy and Campaigns, from Shelter and Nick Raynsford MP joined the minister as they discussed some of the proposals put forward in the policy report that explores the link between housing tenure and mixed communities, and improving life chances and reducing inequality in 21st Century Britain.  The event was chaired by Tom Hampson, Publications Director from the Fabian Society. 

Gregory began with a short presentation of the report.  The research shows a strong association between public housing, worklessness and poverty: a situation created by an increasing residualisation of social housing stock.

This, argues Gregory, has been exacerbated by two landmark policy initiatives:  The 1977 Housing (Homeless Persons) Act which concentrated allocation on need, and the Conservative Right- to Buy schemes of the 1980’s - continued by the subsequent Labour Governments - that saw those who could afford to leave the tenure do so, and a reduction in housing stock that has never been re-matched in capacity. 

But it hasn’t always been like this.   Social housing was once a public good for all.  Now it is a fuel for negative stereotypes of people in poverty, which has been caused by this acute residualisation of stock.

“You create associations – ‘not like us’ – that undermines support and therefore resources.  We are talking about taking an approach to housing where you don’t have an over targeted approach to welfare,” explained Gregory.  Mix reverses the pernicious effects of overtargeting.

If you’re less favourable to redistribution in housing it affects everyone’s attitude to the welfare state as well, making redistribution across society much harder to win support for.

Gregory did concede that mix is not a panacea for eliminating poverty and reducing inequality, but it goes some way towards it.  It hasn’t reduced worklessness immediately but maybe it is too early to tell.  What it can change is perceptions between people both on and off housing benefits who begin to see each other as ordinary people.

Healey responded, welcoming a serious policy and political debate that goes beyond the usual housing specialists already with a vested interest.  This report is an integral part of this discussion. 

He warned of the growing number of voices who are questioning whether social housing is itself a cause of poverty and the implications for those on the left in the housing debate.

Council housing has given thousands of people a decent home and security and a settled base on what much of the rest of their lives can be built.  A fact too often ignored.  David Cameron speaks of a dependency culture in housing, with generations of families trapped and denied of the chance to break out.  This is sweeping social stereotyping at its worst, suggested Healey.

One only needs to look at Greenhalgh and his plans for Hammersmith and Fulham housing policy to see what a new Tory government will introduce.  “There is no plan for mixed communties and need is based on those with an £80,000 income and above” Healey said.  They talk of ending the divide between public and private renting home - ‘tearing down the Berlin wall of tenure and rent’.  In reality this means reducing the security that people have in their own home to a 2 month warning.

The concept of mixed communities is being embraced by thinkers on both the left and right so when conducting these debates we need to be aware of political allegiance and terminology. 

For those on the left, argued Healey, “mixed communities should be a demand for social equality and solidarity that people live together in the same neighbourhoods and streets, so people of different incomes, religions, ethnicity can share the same opportunities of their neighbourhood to get a step closer to a good society.”
 
The responsibility of the state and a belief about council and housing associations are where the political dividing lines are being drawn.  Mixed communities require a commitment to an active government.  And, Healey explained, “unless that’s the starting point then it seems that any other description lacks the credibility to meet the challenges that we face.”

Shelter’s experience of housing and mixed tenure is not just at the bottom end.  This is real opportunity to make the debate run to everybody, Boycott explained.  “We’re seeing new types of owners coming to us.  So one of the things we need to do is to engage everybody.  It’s not just about ‘them’, it’s all of us… struggling home owners… young people”

Raynsford welcomed Healey’s recognition of the role of the state in provision and intervention, but was nervous of adopting the same position as the Labour Party in the 1970’s.  “We got on the wrong side of the argument against the Tories because we were seen as being defensive for something that wasn’t defensible.”

It’s not just about housing supply but maintenance too.   Poor standards won the argument for the Tory’s right-to-buy, embedding ownership in the British psyche with a derogatory opinion of social housing.

But to win the argument we can’t defend social housing as it is at the moment, Raynsford explained. There has got to be a wider vision: one that avoids stigma and produces quality homes.  “It’s got to be the Beven image.  So the planning policy has got to be for everyone – in new developments integrated not out the way.  That’s got to be the norm,” he explained.

The discussion was then opened to the floor.  Sarah Thurman, Hyde Housing, questioned how to ensure quality when housing supply is so desperate, arguing this is a cornerstone of the defence of social housing and the only way to enable a truly mixed society. 

In response Healey suggested the government had a strong bargaining position with developers meeting the affordable homes targets in order to get the money they need to build.

Gregory went further, calling for planning agreements that have “bigger sticks with smaller carrots”.  Policy must be bolder with targets imposed centrally rather than locally.

Danielle Yong, RICS, asked about government commitments to introducing standards of service into the private-rented sector as experienced in the social sector.

“Private sector and decent homes decent standards, yes it’s an important part of the broader sweep of government policy.  I’m not sure whether I would accept that this is an argument that this is the government’s responsibility”, responded Healey.

“Can we leave stop having conversations about separate standards for separate sectors and tenures?  The big challenge is getting joint management of different tenants and different builds. We’ve got to have holistic management of the area of the whole,” retorted Raynsford.

Boycott furthered this argument.  “It’s not just about holistic management but a holistic offer” she said.  “People need to understand what the right tenure is for them.  A lot of the sector takes months to understand – it’s impenetrable.  We need this debate going out there to the public and the wider public.  Everybody needs to engage in this.”

Defend Council Housing put forward a case for stronger protection for existing council housing stock.  Raynsford argued that with private funding comes risk.  “The law of economics still must be applied” he said.
There was a call for Local Authorities to play a bigger role with accountability, along with increased access to finance. Here, Raynsford suggested there should be incentives in the new regime for clearer responsibilities and better standards of maintenance from local authorities. 

Hugh Owen, Riverside Housing Association, wondered whether the real issue is the geographic value.  “What can we do practically to tackle a dysfunctional housing market of boom and bust, which is the real enemy of sustainable housing?” he asked.

Boycott felt that the debate over the next few weeks will be the private rented sector.  “One of the things that surprises me are the deeply held public barriers – why is home ownership such an aspiration?”

A home is close to being the single most important thing in our lives. Strains and pressures are multiplied and opportunities decreased if you don’t have a settled home.  Reflecting on this, any future housing policy debate must be holistic in its approach.  All factors impacting on inequality and poverty must be addressed,  a serious analysis of all tenures including the private rented sector must be looked at, and people from a variety of backgrounds need to be engaged in the debate in a clear and understandable way.

This event was kindly supported by,