Housing Voice Independent Inquiry: London & SE

On Thursday I made a verbal submission to this inquiry. Housing Voice is the "campaign alliance established to champion the need for more affordable homes to buy or rent". The inquiry is gathering evidence across the country on ways to combat the "affordable housing crisis". Lord Larry Whitty is chairing the inquiry (seen in centre of picture with panel members Steve Hilditch and Michael Ward).

Heidi Alexander MP for Lewisham East and on the CLG Select Committee (left) spoke as did UNISON General Secretary Dave Prentis.  There were 18 speakers listed! "Housing Professionals Voices", "Voices of those at the sharp end"; "Labour Voices", "Local and Regional elected" and "Other voices".  There were politicians from across the political divide. Residents and a wide range of other people with interest in affordable housing took part and contributed.

There was disagreement about the solution but no-one denied that we have an appalling housing shortage and that homes are currently unaffordable especially in London. Access to land with permission to build, planning and finance seems to be major barriers. Solutions offered included housing co-operatives, deregulation (House Builders Federation) and greater regulation (of private sector including rent controls: not I think supported by the HBF), funding from pension funds.

I think the role of public funding is absolute key and while there is a lot that can be done to improve supply and affordability at the margin, without a significant funding in state funding we will not resolve the crisis. We will only get the funding when we can raise the political interest in housing to match that of education and health.

Labour London Assemby member Valerie Shawcross was the last speaker. In the Q&A some Housing Associations got a bit of a pasting from the politicians over their variable management standards, being so fragmented, inefficient, arrogant and unaccountable.  

I'll post my submission later.

"Housing Voice" - for Affordable Housing in Britain

On Thursday I went to the Parliamentary launch of Housing Voice the Affordable Homes Alliance
in the Jubilee Room of the House of Commons.

The meeting was hosted by it's Chair - Lord Whitty (2nd right). This cross Party campaign has been formed to raise awareness of the lack of affordable homes across the UK and the need for
urgent government action. Lord Whitty also spoke at last week's UNISON housing fringe.

David Orr, the Chief Executive of the National Housing Federation, Shadow Housing Minister Alison Seabeck MP (speaking) , Alison Graham of Child Poverty Action Group, Roger McKenzie, Assistant General Secretary, UNISON and Stephen Gilbert, the Liberal Democrat Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Housing spoke at the launch.

UNISON sponsored the launch and YouGov research which has showed that:-

• 71% of the public do not think the Coalition Government is giving much attention to affordable housing
• For those in private rented accommodation affordable housing is their biggest concern after the economy – 40% compared to 28% for health and 18% for education
• Building more homes for rent would be a very popular policy with 70% support - including a majority of supporters of the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats or Labour
• Given a list of possible policies, less than half (40%) supported the idea of increasing supply by moving people from their council or housing association homes once their incomes rise above a certain limit
• A massive 18% - almost 1 in 5 – always or often struggle to pay their rent or mortgage

"The Housing Voice campaign aims to become a forum for ideas and a vehicle for action in order to build public awareness and push for urgent Government action to deliver more affordable housing"

So all good stuff. What I found interesting was:- Lib Dem Stephen Gilbert MP recognising that we have 250k new households per year but we are only building 125k new homes per year; Alison Seabeck MP thinks that there are votes to be won in planning but too many MPs think it will lose them votes.

David Orr pointed out that countries such as Finland and Norway plan to build 7 homes per 1,000 population to adequately house their people. This would have meant the equivalent of 420k new homes in the UK. We only built 100k last year - the smallest number since 1923 - when our population was half it is now.

Former Housing officer, now an Assistant General Sectary of UNISON, Roger McKenzie, reminded everyone that we we do live in one of the richest countries on the planet but if people do not have dignity, jobs and homes then life becomes intolerable.

Alison Graham of CPAG pointed out how can children who live in awful housing succeed in education if they smell of damp. (Which as a housing officer I know what she means) Toby Lloyd of Shelter was really pleased that at this launch that there was a wide spread of players and not the usual "housing suspects".

  

Finally, in the Q&A I mentioned that there seems to be a clear connection between countries cited in the debate who have good housing policies for all and are also those countries who are more successful because they are more equal. This would seem to support the arguments put forward in "The Spirit Level" book that societies that are more equal are simply better for everyone - rich and poor.

Update: forgot to add that Alison Seabeck MP had previously agreed to be a guest speaker at a UNISON Housing Association Branch Labour Link meeting, which we now hope will take place early September.

UNISON NDC 2011: Building a Future for Public Housing

These are some of my notes from the UNISON housing fringe on Monday evening. The meeting was chaired by Heather Wakefield, Head of Local Government. Other speakers were Lord Whitty (Housing Voice) and Mo Baines (APSE). I was billed for the first time as “NEC”.

Aim: What are housing associations up to and how will they respond to government policy?

Does the so called “affordable rent” model make any sense? Is it viable? Will it work for housing associations and those seeking decent, affordable homes?

Key points Housing Associations are operating in a difficult financial environment. Almost ££50 billion of debt is held by larger housing associations (with more than a thousand homes), £18 billion will be paid through re-financing. Housing associations see re-financing as a threat, as rates on new loans are likely to be higher than those currently held.

Under the new system housing associations will get, on average, about £32k per new home, instead of £80k that they received previously. They will be expected to make the difference by charging higher rents – at 80 per cent of the market rate – and use the increase in rents to support more borrowing. The government hope that this model, based on lower grant per home but increased borrowing, will deliver 150,000 new affordable homes by 2015. Remember this is not only on new build but could be also for existing stock.

A recent survey by Inside Housing magazine suggest that while the majority of the largest associations will make bids to gov to build homes under the new system, the extra risk and borrowing is leading to associations scaling back development plans. We will know more in July, when the Homes and Communities Agency awards contracts.

It is also becoming blatantly obvious that this new funding system doesn’t work for all regions. Whilst the difference between existing social rent (which as a rule of thumb is about 50% of market rent) and an 80% of market affordable rent in the South East is in the region of £60 per week, in the Midlands and the North it ranges from about £17 to about £25. Unsurprisingly such associations aren’t likely to generate the kinds of revenue that would enable the model to work.

UNISON, as a housing union, operating in an environment in which half of the public housing is delivered by housing associations and half by local authorities and ALMOs, has to work out two sets of issues. The first set of issues are will this so called affordable rent, based on 80 per cent of market rents, will deliver more decent homes for our members and their families, and working people on low to middle incomes people more broadly.

We know from internal surveys that more of our members are in the private rented sector than the social rented sector, and that this where most people who can’t afford to buy now find themselves. Would this group of people see Affordable Rent as a better option than the private rented sector? How would it work alongside traditional social housing?

As yet we don’t the answers, but we can see problems. In London the average housing association rent on a two bedroom property is £102 per week. An Tory unaffordable rent would be £248. How many low paid workers could afford that? Clearly this is unsustainable – especially when considered alongside cuts to Local Housing Allowance. (housing benefit)

The second set of issues does the new funding system impact on the sustainability and character of housing associations as employers of our members and potential members. Can employers make the new arrangements work in a way which guarantees their survival, and the jobs of our members? Is the business model this implies one that necessarily entails a tougher environment for people at work in housing associations? We have the private sector companies claiming they could save money by managing staff and estates on behalf of housing association. Of course this will be by the slashing and burning of our terms and conditions.

Its already tough out there, with pay cuts and attacks on terms and conditions. Would this make things worse? But as well as a threat is this also an opportunity? Can we organise around this new model in a way that is appealing to housing workers?

Again its early days. The signs are that everyone is cautious about trying to implement this system in the current economic climate. The least we can do, as a union that wants to grow in the sector, with a wider commitment to the provision of affordable housing, is to watch carefully how these issues develop over the months ahead and be prepared to speak out and act as necessary.