Showing posts with label Select committee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Select committee. Show all posts

Friday, August 28, 2015

Evidence from the UNISON Housing Associations Branch to the Select Committee

"We are a London-based branch of the national trade union UNISON, which organises workers providing public services. 

We organise over 3,000 workers across Greater London who are employed by housing associations and are recognised by most of the G15 housing associations as well as a number of smaller housing organisations. 

We welcome the opportunity to submit evidence to the Communities and Local Government Select Committee and have consulted with our members and activists in order to compile this response.

Background
·                     Last year housing associations were assured that they could plan ahead for the future with a new rent increase model of CPI inflation plus 1% increases per year. Instead they have now been instructed to apply a 1% cut in rent every year for the next 4 years. This could mean that some will go bust since they modelled an increase into their business plans when they took loans and bonds to pay for new building. There is an advantage to social tenants in receiving a cut in rents but not if it leads to a net decrease in the social housing stock. 

·                      The reductions in rents will also inevitably mean threats to jobs and services. Housing associations have been for many years been providing additional services to residents such as floating support to vulnerable tenants, job training and youth clubs. These will all be at risk. 

·                     Housing costs in London are high and decent housing is scarce. The cost of non-socially provided housing in London outside is unsustainable, with private rents averaging £1,500/month, and the average cost of buying a house at around £480,000 (nearly 20 x average wages). Extending the Right to Buy to HA tenants is therefore likely to be extremely popular with London residents; for many this may be their only hope of every buying a property. For some inner London boroughs the number of properties purchased under Right to Buy is over 60%.

Implications of extending Right to Buy to housing associations
·                     Extending Right to Buy will also mean some housing associations going to the wall especially if the government does not fully refund any discount (which will be over £100k in London). Others will have financial problems with paying off early fixed rate loans (such as LOBOs) and meeting their convenants, even if they get the full value of any sale. 

·                     Many housing associations currently have charitable status and many of them have benefited from money or gifts of land in the past. This could cause problems with their status if they sell property in this way. This is a real threat to the existence of many associations and means that after years of real-terms pay cuts or stagnation our members may find themselves out of work altogether.

·                      If local authorities have to sell their housing stock in order to fund the discount then that will be not only unfair but financially disastrous for them and their tenants. The 3 year settlement on council housing finances has also been ripped up.  

·                     It has been rumoured that instead the government will take away the remaining subsidy for new investment and use it to fund the discount. This will pretty much end the supply of new homes at sub-market rents in expensive areas such as London. 

·                     Even if the government does fully refund the cost of Right to Buy (which has not yet been clarified) then since new homes costs more to build than existing properties there will still be an overall reduction in social homes. With high land prices and opportunities for development in inner London low, selling off housing association properties through Right to Buy would mean a net decrease in the numbers of social housing properties across the capital, as properties are sold and not replaced.

Changes to benefits
·                     The proposed maximum benefit cap of £23k per family in London and £20k outside will not only result in more evictions and rent arrears especially for tenants with children. It will also make it harder for landlords to let their empty properties to residents on waiting lists since many will not be able to afford the rent due to the cap. This is crazy.

·                     The so called "pay to stay" will mean that tenants who earn over £40k in London (and £30k outside) will have to pay "market rates". This will be unworkable unless housing associations are given the powers to demand income details from tenants with criminal sanctions, which will of course, go down badly with all tenants. Changes to benefits such as the bedroom tax have already increased the workloads and stress levels of our members, who do a difficult job at the frontline of the government’s austerity regime.

·                     If "pay to stay" does go ahead and means that renters are charged full market rent they will be effectively forced to try and exercise the right to buy in order to stay in their homes. Even if you are on £40k per year salary in London, you will find it difficult to get a mortgage even with a discount – the Islington and Shoreditch Housing Association recently advertised a property in Hackney for sale under a supposedly ‘affordable’ shared ownership scheme for £1,000,000. Market rents will be completely unaffordable in parts of the city. This will increase social cleansing leaving large parts of London available only to the very rich.

·                     Inside Housing recently showed that around 40% of council houses sold under Right to Buy are currently being rented privately. There is no reason why this pattern should not be repeated in the housing association sector, meaning that private landlords will benefit from homes built through public subsidy. Furthermore, many of these properties are occupied by tenants who are claiming housing benefit – a transfer of wealth from the state to private landlords which would be completely unnecessary if these properties were still owned by local authorities.  It is this transfer of housing benefit to private landlords which has led to the Conservative government claiming that the welfare bill is unsustainable and to their cuts to the social security system – a problem that could be solving by relieving the pressure on housing both in London and nationwide.

·                     It is also possible that the certain individuals and rogue companies will be looking to make deals with vulnerable tenants into "loans" to enable them to buy their property in order to get hold of the £100k discount.

Sustainable future
·         The UNISON Housing Associations branch believes that the housing crisis, particularly in London, will not be solved and indeed will be worsened by extending Right to Buy to housing associations. As workers we feel this will remove or dilute the social aspects of our work and lead to increased stress, job losses and the forced closures of many associations. As housing workers and as London residents we do not feel this is the way to solve the housing crisis.

·         We call for a programme of mass house-building in the capital, both for social rent and for private ownership. We also call for greatly increased regulation in the private rented sector to give tenants greater protection and security of tenure, and for rent controls to be reintroduced and rents capped at a “Living Rent” set by an independent commission.

·         We note that Right to Buy for housing associations was defeated in the 1990s following a broad based campaign against it. The UNISON Housing Associations branch will continue to campaign against Right to Buy in housing associations and for a fair and sustainable solution to the housing crisis.

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Select Committee on Future for Housing Associations - Have your say

My UNISON branch Greater London Housing Associations and the national UNISON Community Service Group Executive are asking members to make submissions to the Parliamentary Select Committee investigation into the future of Housing Associations. See below. 

I posted here my thoughts on the problems facing the sector. I have since found that Newham has the most expensive Housing Association rents in the country despite having the lowest wages in the capital. Why?

(SGE) "MP's are holding an inquiry into the viability and sustainability of housing associations. This inquiry looks at the proposed extension of Right to Buy and how this and a number of other government measures may impact on the ability of housing associations to build and develop.  
 
The National Community Service Group will be submitting a response, however our response will be stronger if branches and activists also respond using the links below.  
 
Could you please send a copy of your response to cvsector@unison.co.uk
 
Please note the deadline is 28 August 2015
 
For more information on the inquiry please click on:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/communities-and-local-government-committee/news-parliament-2015/housing-association-sector-right-to-buy-inquiry-launch/

To submit your response please click on:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/communities-and-local-government-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/housing-association-sector-and-right-to-buy/commons-written-submission-form/
 

(HAB) Dear Branch activists,

As you may be aware the Conservative party promised to extend Right to Buy to Housing Associations. The Communities and Local Government Select Committee will be hearing evidence for and against this proposal and as the trade union representing Housing Associations workers UNISON would like to get the views of its members and activists in order to submit evidence to the committee.

If you have a view, please reply to this email on or before Friday 21st August saying whether you oppose extending Right to Buy to Housing Associations and what impact you feel this would have.

UNISON Housing Associations Branch.

(hat tip Photo to top trouble maker comrade Paul McCabe)

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

Select Committee Hear Damning Evidence on LOBO Loan Scandal And Conflicts

I was at the Parliamentary select committee hearing yesterday with Newham Councillors, Cllr Fiaz and Cllr Whitworth. Bearing in mind the savage cuts in our budget, I was incensed to hear futher details how Councils were duped into buying LOBOs when paid advisers were also receiving commissions from the Banks. I will post my thoughts later.

Below is a press release from Debt Resistance, who I do not always agree with but let us all say well done for their work in exposing this national scandal. 

"Communities and Local Government Select Committee Hear Damning Evidence on Local Government LOBO Loan Scandal And Conflicts Of Interest With ICAP and CAPITA Treasury Advice.

The Communities and Local Government Select Committee inquiry into LOBO loans to local authorities heard evidence on Monday from Vedanta Hedging CEO Abishek Sachdev and former Barclays Capital trader Rob Carver on the back of Debt Resistance UK FOI research featured in C4 Dispatches – ‘How Councils Blow Your Millions’. Presenter and C4 journalist Antony Barnett also fronted the committee, broadcast live on Parliament TV.

Highlights of evidence submitted during the hearing included:

Antony Barnett (C4 Dispatches):

'Based on data obtained via FOI's by Debt Resistance UK, Dispatches, and from Government sources, we estimate 250 councils have LOBO loans, and there are around 1000 individual LOBO loan contracts'

'Brokerage fees [on LOBO loans] are significant and this is public money, we can estimate from Freedom of Information requests councils paid £25,000.00 in brokerage fees on £10million pound LOBOs. So over all, we are talking tens of millions of public money, being paid to ICAP, Tullet Prebon and other brokers - who were also being paid commissions from the other side. On an equivalent Government PWLB loans, I think they only paid £75'. 

Rob Carver (former derivatives trader - Barclays Capital):

[LOBO loans] are: 'the kind of risk that makes traders and hedge fund managers wake up at night screaming. It’s just horrible, horrible stuff, and I don’t think anyone who understands it would do it.'....  ‘I wouldn’t do these deals with a gun to my head.'

'On average, looking at interests rates now, you'd expect LOBO loans to be worse value than Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) loans. The reason you know that is because thats what the loan breakage costs tell you. The break costs tell you the expected value of that loan going into the future. The fact the breakage costs are so much higher tells you on average all the derivative models think LOBO loans will be a worse deal than PWLB loans.'


Abhishek Sachdev (CEO Vedanta Hedging):

'I would categorically say I don’t believe you could find a finance officer or treasury officer in a council who could assess the risks and rewards of these LOBO products. Even FTSE 250 businesses wouldn’t be able to analyse these on their own.’

'We looked at exit (breakage) fees for both PWLB loans and LOBO loans. On PWLB loans the exit fees were 38% of the loan value. On LOBO loans, the exit fees were greater than 90% of the loan value'.

 

In response to evidence submitted during the hearing, Newham Council Labour Councillor John Gray said:

'I was incensed to hear of the massive hidden LOBO loan kickbacks that banks paid 'independent' council advisors that were supposed to be representing the interests of residents and taxpayers'.

Despite damning evidence of profiteering, amounting to the systematic manipulation of local government finance by the financial sector, the Commons CLG Committee has not announced a full inquiry, nor scheduled further evidence sessions at this stage.

Instead, individual named parties will be privately invited to submit evidence to the Committee, with no further action expected on this matter until at least September, when a summary report will be prepared.

In response to the news the CLG Committee will not conduct a full inquiry, Joel Benjamin of Debt Resistance UK said:

 "Instead of a full public hearing, where evidence is scrutinised and broadcast live on Parliamentary TV, the CLG Committee have allowed a situation where CAPITA, ICAP, Tullet Prebon, RBS and Barclays are granted preferential treatment and will submit written evidence to the Committee in private, with no scope for either forensic questioning by MP's, nor public oversight.

I fail to see how this opaque arrangement is in the interests of UK taxpayers, who are billions of pounds out of pocket as a result of LOBO loan borrowing from banks and demand answers as to why this scandal has occurred, despite attempts to toughen regulation since the banking crisis. Parliament and The FSA both failed in their duty to fully investigate Treasury Advisors following the Iceland banking crisis in 2009. This matter cannot be swept under the carpet yet again. 

Billions of pounds of taxpayer money is ultimately at stake here, with serious questions of impropriety to be answered. Parliament must fully scrutinise public sector borrowing from City of London banks and address conflicts of interest with the unregulated financial advisors that recommend LOBOs whilst accepting undeclared kickback payments from banks and brokers.” 


Failure of the CLG Committee to initiate a full public inquiry highlights the limits of institutions including the Financial Conduct Authority and Local Government Association that failed to spot the LOBO loan scandal to act in the public interest. DRUK insists citizen debt audit pressure must be applied to local authorities to ensure this issue is taken seriously.

Many local authorities which do not fully comprehend the long term risk and cost implications of LOBO loans have rushed to defend LOBO deals. DRUK's Jamie Griffiths observes:

"LOBO loans present terrible value for taxpayers despite arguments to the contrary. By extending the life of the loan and giving up the ability to repay when interest rates are low, councils end up paying significantly greater sums in interest than they would by borrowing from central government. While so-called 'independent' auditors look the other way, taxes collected by councils end up paying not for essential services but to feather the nests of bankers, brokers and advisers."

Already City Watchdog The FCA are seeking to distance themselves from responsibility for this fiasco, despite being directed to investigate Treasury Management Advisors by DCLG in 2009, yet refusing to do so.

The FCA claim to lack the powers required to investigate conflicts of interest within the very firms they are supposed to regulate – with an FCA spokesperson confirming that local authorities are "sophisticated" borrowers:


 

Ludovica Rogers from Debt Resistance UK continues:
"DRUK is calling for a UK wide audit of Local Authority debts, a thorough regulatory investigation into the systemic abuse of Local Authority finance by the financial sector and where appropriate legal and enforcement action.
 
We call on people and local grass-roots groups to join the campaign and start organising their own local action group. We need a localised decentralised campaign spread across the country run by citizens for citizens.
 
This is not a campaign against Local Government. It is a campaign to reclaim our democratic institutions from the clutches of the financial sector. We need to keep the pressure up and insist that our Local Authorities are run in the interest of their citizens and not the interests of the City of London.


Debt Resistance UK intend to submit FOI evidence to the CLG Committee on LOBO loans, but as yet have not been called by the CLG Committee to provide evidence.

For press inquiries email: press@debtresistance.uk  Phone: 07543219635

Links to further information:
 
UK Local Authority Debt Audit website: http://lada.debtresistance.uk/
Debt Resistance UK website: http://debtresistance.uk/
Interactive map of local authority debt: bit.ly/LADAmap
What is a LOBO loan? http://bit.ly/LOBOLoan
LOBO Loans are potentially illegal http://bit.ly/DebtTrap
The conflicts of interest http://bit.ly/LADA3

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

Select Committee Investigation into Councils and LOBOs: Monday 20 July



In this session the Communities and Local Government Committee will examine the evidence presented on the Channel 4 Dispatches programme of Monday 6 July 2015 regarding local councils and lender option, borrower option loans.
The Committee will be questioning the people involved in the making of the programme. The Committee is expected to explore how Councils have allegedly ended up with £15 billion in complex bank loans with high interest rates and difficult exit clauses.
The meeting will be webcast on Parliamentlive.tv.

Witnesses

Monday 20 July 2015
At  4.00pm
  • Mr Antony Barnett, Reporter, Channel 4 News and Current Affairs
  • Mr Abhishek Sachdev, CEO, Vedanta Hedging Ltd
  • Mr Rob Carver, Former Derivatives Trader, Barclays Capital

Background

On 6 July 2015, a Channel 4 Dispatches programme revealed that many Local Authorities had taken out loans from banks for which Councils were paying high interest rates and which many Councils were locked into because of expensive “break” clauses.

The report suggested that up to one fifth of Council borrowing was taken out under such Lender Option, Borrower Option loans for which interest rates were over 7% in some cases. Most of these loans were taken out between 2003 and 2011 when Councils believed interest rates would remain high. The Dispatches programme estimated that banks made more than £1bn in upfront profits on local authority loans.

Further information

Tuesday, June 09, 2009

Supporting People Funding: UNISON gives evidence to Select Committee

Yesterday evening I met up with two of my Group UNISON housing association stewards, Linda and Kay outside the Houses of Parliament. They are both residential Scheme Managers (wardens) of sheltered housing blocks. We were going to the Communities Local Government (CLG) select committee on Supporting People (SP) funding.

UNISON national officers Mike Short and Pete Challis were giving evidence to the select committee based on their report and responding to any questions. I was part of the working group that helped produce the original UNISON report.

The committee of MPs did seem to take their role very seriously and listened carefully to speakers and readily challenged them about their evidence.

Key issues that were brought up included the Personalisation of services in 2011 which should mean that elderly residents of sheltered blocks will be able to purchase “services” themselves directly rather than from the housing provider. So in theory each of the 68 residents of the blocks that Linda and Kay each manage will be able to “purchase” care services independently rather than communally. This could obviously mean the end of local communal wardens.

Also other vital issues were discussed such as competitive tendering on price rather than quality; residential versus floating support; the removal of ring fencing from the Supporting People budgets; the "evil" of 2 tier workforces and the inadequate size of the SP budget given what everyone wants it to do.

Linda and Kay were really impressed with the meeting. They were referred to as “concerned practitioners” by the UNISON presenting officers to the select committee and I am certain that the MP’s clocked that we were ordinary workers (and of course potential voters to them) who were disturbed about this issue.

The meeting finished about 5.45 and all the Labour MP’s went off to the meeting of the PLP to decide upon Gordon’s fate. The select committee are expected to issue their report soon and there will be a government green paper on SP funding in the near future as well.