Labour Party Conference 2024: Sunday

 

Labour Party conference formally started at 11am on the Sunday but since I was not a delegate, I was able to go for a run in the morning around Sefton Park (which is near my hotel room). I once again left it too late to book accommodation nearer but it was only a 20 minute bus journey away. I find the buses in Liverpool to be as good or better than London. Sefton Park is a huge City "lung" with a marvellous lake in the middle. 

I went straight to the fringe panel that I was on representing the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum (LAPFF)  with Liam Byrne MP and TUC Economics head, Nicola Smith. The topic was "Labour New Deal for Working Peoples: How will investors react".  I will post separately on this event which I really enjoyed. 

My next fringe was also on Pensions but I missed the beginning. "The Pensions Review: What is the right role for Pensions in Supporting UK Growth". I did try and ask a question about possible risks of consolidation and being directed" by the Government into so called "productive finance" but was not picked (it happens). 

I visited the Fabians/UNISON Health & Social Care fringe in the Maritime Museum with Wes Streeting MP. Having a National care service and sectoral pay bargaining for all care workers will be transformational.

At 5.30pm I went to the Annual Trade Union Rally and Reception: For a New Deal for Working People (Labour Unions). Which went well and I was able to meet up with trade union friends and colleagues including someone I did a health and safety course in 2003 (remembered due to incident that year at an infamous  Trade Union BBQ).

I left early for The Housing Fringe "More than a Landlord: How can Housing Associations help tackle the Housing Crisis". Where I made the point that Housing Associations can certainly do many good things and help to tackle the housing crisis, we need public subsidy in order to meet the scale of the problem. For example, Newham has 6500 families in temporary accommodation, 30,000 on its waiting list and 50% of our children live in poverty after housing costs are taken into account. 

I went back into the Labour Unions rally then went to the Association of Labour Councillors Annual Reception. More speeches and gossip.  Final visit was to the Labour Friends of Bangladesh Annual Conference Dinner. I missed the speeches and the main meal but enjoyed the company.

Newham Annual Rough Sleeping Count November 23

 

On Tuesday evening I took part with fellow councillors, outreach workers, council officers and other volunteers in the annual count of people sleeping "rough" in Newham. Across the country similar counts are taking place. Newham also does extra counts every alternative month. 

We had to arrive at Newham Dockside building for 11pm to be briefed (and eat the provided crisps, biscuits, chocolates and mince pies) then go out to be on site from midnight up to 3am. 

I was a driver and "counter" paired with an outreach officer from the homelessness Charity "Change, Grow, Live" who are contracted by Newham. I am also one of the two UNISON NEC members (and employed in the sector) for the UNISON Housing Associations and Voluntary organisations Community Service Group, so it is always interesting to speak with other workers who I represent nationally (wearing of course different hat). It was pretty cold that night and I had 4 layers of clothing, gloves and a UNISON LAS hat. 

We were asked to visit tower blocks in Newham where there had been past reports of rough sleeping. We had to visit 8 such blocks - take the lift up to the top floor then walk down the fire escape communal stairs. 

On our first tower block we found 2 rough sleepers settling down to sleep on the stairs and a third bed unoccupied. We engaged with them and they were polite and apologetic for sleeping on the stairs and explained that they believed that they will be getting more suitable accommodation very soon. We made arrangements for the follow up team in the morning to visit them and offer advice and support. This team started at 5am. 

You can see from the stats in the picture college that the number of rough sleepers in Newham has gone down dramatically in recent years. But it is still a huge issue and while they must be treated with respect and humanity, it is simply not a safe place to sleep on our streets (or communal stairways'). 

I do not know the overall Newham figures yet but will post again when I do. 

Is it about time we broke up these "mega monopolies" housing associations?

 

L&Q is headquartered in Newham and is also one of the largest UNISON "shops" in my branch. So I have had a fair amount of contact (and sometimes conflict) with L&Q over the years. 

Check out this "Inside Housing" Report on Friday. I won't comment on the horrendous specifics and strongly believe that all large Housing Association bosses are thinking this weekend about L&Q "there but for the grace of God"...but isn't it about time we  consider whether these mega housing associations are just too large, too bureaucratic, too  unaccountable and should be broken up? 

Mind you I am convinced that the failure of the Government to properly fund the development of new social housing is equally to blame (making housing associations forget they are landlords and not just developers)

The Week in Housing: L&Q in the spotlight Good afternoon. This week, the Housing Ombudsman issued its highest-ever single set of fines – totalling £142,000 to be paid to more than 100 tenants – as it published an excoriating report into L&Q, the giant housing association. The report, which we cover here, paints a deeply troubling picture of a failure in landlord services affecting hundreds, if not thousands, of residents. Michael Gove, the housing secretary, has now summoned Fiona Fletcher-Smith, the landlord’s chief executive, to a meeting, telling her she has “failed your residents”. And a sharp reminder of the potential consequences of poor repairs was also delivered by a coroner. A report was sent to the association regarding the death, through hypothermia, of a tenant who was waiting for a boiler repair. Of course, long-term readers will know there is history here. In the 2010s, as housing associations diversified into market sale development and raised more private finance than ever before, L&Q soared above its peers. It posted the biggest surpluses, secured debt at the lowest prices, promised the biggest development and took on the hardest regeneration schemes. It seemed to be the A-student, the shining example for what housing associations could be with good corporate management. But beneath this surface, there were always problems – a steady drip of stories from tenants and leaseholders about disrepair, service charges and complaints going unanswered. To read the rest of the Week in Housing newsletter, sign up here".

UNISON Community Seminar/Conference 2023 - Day 1

 

UNISON holds an annual Seminar and Conference for members who work in our Community Service Group (Housing Associations and voluntary sector).  This year it was held in Bournemouth. Unexpectedly I stepped in to chair a workshop on pensions due to illness.  Once again I will use my twitter feed to report on the day. 

At @unisontheunion @UNISONCommVol annual conference in sunny Bournemouth. Started 9am with meeting of Service Group Executive. Now #HousingAssociation sector meeting addressed by @CityHallLabour @Semakaleng

Our speaker @Semakaleng is Chair of @LondonAssembly #Housing committee & @CityHallLabour spokesperson. I asked for appropriate support for our campaigns against pay cuts, breaking #pension promises & trade union victimisation. Sem is willing to listen & work with us

After @Semakaleng we had a roundtable feedback from Housing Associations @UNISONCommVol members from all over the UK. Common themes were Cost of Living, pay cuts (below inflation offers), breaking #pension promises, bullying, discrimination, stress, workload but some positives. I made a suggestion about a new campaign to improve Housing Association Governance and accountability.

After lunch the @UNISONCommVol annual seminar kicks off with welcome from our Chair Malcolm Gray (long lost cousin) & speech/Q &A from @unisontheunion regional secretary Clare Williams. The actual #unisoncomm23 conference starts tomorrow

Next Nye Cominetti from @resfoundation on report "who cares" "exp of social care workers & the enforcement of employment rights in sector" clearly care workers are being unlawfully under paid by not properly inc travel time. #ucommunity23 @UNISONCommVol @GavinEdwards77

Final presentation by @organiserjo the @unisonglr regional secretary on "organising & recruitment strategy development project". We need to build on our strengths. While we need to acknowledge our weakness we should not beat ourselves up. Need to learn & evaluate.

After break I will be leading a #ucommunity23 workshop on "Find out what is happening to your pension & how to organise to improve it". @unisontheunion pension guru, Glyn Jenkins is not well. 4.20pm at Meyrick suite. Finish 5.20pm. All welcome but register beforehand at conference desk

Chatting to delegates outside #UCommunity23 with @DeniseT25475880. Both of us are standing for
@UNISONCommVol NEC seats. Many thanks for the support we have received so far from so many branches. Ballot papers drop 17/4/23. Any delegates who want to speak to us are very welcome

After a meeting of all London delegates there was a Conference social. Afterwards we went for a #UCommunity23 @unisonglr delegation meal with great comrades @JoeOgundemuren
@MarcelaBenede10 @CllrLolaOyewusi @rachangeli @TLJM44 @jcreed551

Social housing bosses need formal qualifications? Yes but....

Today the Government has announced that it will change the law to make it compulsory for Social Housing Managers to hold formal qualifications in a similar way to social workers and teachers. The reasons given were "both Grenfell and the death of Awaab Ishak showed the "devastating consequences of residents inexcusably being let down by poor performing landlords who consistently failed to listen to them"

Personally, I would support this requirement. I am a London Councillor and work in social housing. I happen to have a post graduate diploma in Housing and I am a Practitioner member of the Chartered Institute of Housing (CIOH). I would also agree with the housing campaigner, Kwajo Tweneboa, that this should not be just senior managers but all housing officers should hold these qualifications.

But if it is right for Housing Associations and Council Housing managers, what about the huge Private Rental sector? A sector well known for problems regarding damp and fire safety. Would this requirement also apply to the private sector managers who maintain ministry of defence" properties plagued also by damp or those who provide often substandard homes for Asylum seekers.

Damp is often caused by overcrowding and/or fundamental design faults. I often see families of 5 or 6 living in a one bedroom flat with no adequate washing or drying facilities. Where is the money to build the new homes desperately needed to overcome overcrowding and rebuild defective housing?

It is going to cost a huge amount of money to really tackle fire safety, damp and mould. As well as making our housing stock green and low carbon. At a time of below inflation rent caps (welcome obviously to tenants) where is this money going to come from?

The simple truth of the matter is that many Housing Associations and Councils are already being forced to compromise on management standards in order to "sweat" their assets (cut costs) to find the funds to build more affordable housing due to grossly inadequate state provision. 

My final point for now is that since there is little meaningful, independant and democratic tenant representation, who will make sure that landlords will actually "listen" in the future?

UNISON Community Seminar 2022 (& the "imposter" dismissed for bullying & harassing women) Day 1

 

Friday was day 1 of the UNISON Community Service Group (Housing associations and voluntary sector members) annual Seminar and conference in Glasgow. 

It was so good to have a physical in person conference and meet other delegates who I have not seen outside zoom or teams for 2 years or so. I was part of the Greater London Housing Associations delegation. 

At noon there was a series of sector specific workshops. As you would expect I attended the Housing Associations workshop, where we had a very useful wide discussion on current issues and problems in our sector and what we can do about them. 

However, someone who described himself as the "President" of UNISON also attended despite admitting (and then demonstrating ) he had little or no knowledge of Housing Associations. This man  must be an imposter since he has been dismissed by his employer for allegedly bullying/harassing 15 female UNISON members (and also men). 

Nevermind the awful nature of these allegations, UNISON rules have never allowed someone who is unemployed to hold such an office, not least because we are a trade union representing members at work on their terms and conditions. 

There was also workshops on the CVO sector and Major Charities. After these sessions there was a briefing for new delegates to the seminar and conference. 

The seminar started officially at 2.45pm and there was a series of really interesting speakers on topical Community Service Group issues followed by Q&A. 

Derby City branch Community UNISON members have posted a really good account of this session here http://derbycityunison.co.uk/2022/03/18/unison-community-conference-2022-glasgow-day-1/

Afterwards we had a London regional delegation meeting followed by a meal in a Spoons in 

Sauchiehall Street. One of the London delegates mother was Ukrainian and she made it clear her hatred of what is being done to her family members  every time the TV screens showed pictures of the fascist monster Putin. 

"Royal Mail CDC pensions ‘could outperform DB as well as DC"

 

Recently I completed a research project into Pension Provision for Housing Association staff. In the project I mentioned the pros and cons on the new CDC (Collective Defined Contribution) schemes that have very recently been allowed to operate in the UK.  I came across this video and article by CWU union who are very supportive of CDC for Royal Mail. 

"Latest actuarial modelling suggests the new Royal Mail CDC/DB pensions scheme could provide returns some 70 per cent higher than current Defined Contribution schemes and CDC schemes could even outperform Defined Benefit, says our DGSP Terry Pullinger in his video update to members today (7/10/20).

Work done by Wills Towers Watson Actuaries suggests “that the CDC scheme, on average, would produce 70 per cent more for an individual than a DC scheme and 40 per cent more, currently, than a DB scheme,” Terry explains, adding: “Now that is massive news and will certainly shake up the pension world.”

Defined benefit pensions schemes are, he reminds us, still considered “the ‘gold standard with guaranteed outcomes,” but adds that Wills Towers Watson’s performance modelling, “which has gone on ever since we created this scheme, even through the Covid period” suggests that CDC schemes “would on average actually produce a better benefit.”

Today sees the Pension Schemes Bill return to the House of Commons for its Second Reading, after which it moves into its final Stages and, providing it progresses, will then receive Royal Assent and pass into law.

Opposition to the Bill is not expected, although MPs will, no doubt, be looking carefully at the legislation and ensuring that it meets all of the usual stringent tests for new legislation.

If the progress of the Bill continues as currently scheduled – and it will become the Pension Schemes Act once it has received Her Majesty’s formal approval – Terry anticipates that the Royal Mail CDC Scheme would likely be introduced into the company “at some point next year” and “bring all our members into one ‘wage in retirement scheme.”

CWU members are warmly praised by our DGSP, who thanks them for the tremendous support” they gave to the union’s 2017 Four Pillars campaign, which was so powerful that it forced Royal Mail and the CWU into designing a new and unique on-going agreement on pensions that still offered a wage in retirement, and that led to this ground-breaking development.

Back in 2017, Royal Mail workers in the company’s DB scheme were faced with the prospect of being transferred into the DC scheme. DC schemes were once seen as the answer to reducing DB provision, but time had suggested that the outcomes for DC members would be insufficient to sustain dignity in retirement.

“So we were insistent that there must be another way,” explains Terry, “and we refused to accept that the only answer was a lump sum paid out when you retire, which wasn’t producing the best results and was insufficient to sustain people through their old age.”

Eventually, as a key aspect of the Four Pillars agreement, both the CWU and the business agreed to find a better solution, he continues: “We both got on the same page to develop the art of the possible.

“How to create such a pension scheme.”

With help and expert assistance from First Actuarial, who have aways been a great support to the CWU, and other unions, as well as Wills Towers Watson and others who support Royal Mail, the principle of a CDC scheme – a collective, shared-risk scheme – was agreed and a specific, Royal Mail CDC scheme was designed – and robustly modelled.

The scheme would replicate the old DB scheme in design, producing a wage in retirement generated via CDC and a guaranteed lump sum.

Although CDC in different forms is used in other countries, such as Canada, Denmark and the Netherlands, no scheme of its type has previously existed in the UK and so legislation was required.

“I know that it’s through the collective strength of CWU members that we’ve managed to achieve that,” insists Terry, who makes the further point that, as well as being beneficial to Royal Mail workers, the precedent set could also be “a game changer for many working people.”

For workers in other companies, “this could make a massive difference to their lives and certainly to what their retirement might look like,” he suggests, adding: “Hopefully it will encourage other employers to move away from DC and into this type of scheme, CDC, so that people can get back to having a Wage in Retirement and dignity in retirement.”

The CWU does not support any sense that CDC should replace DB schemes and believes that DB schemes are the ‘gold standard’ and will remain so until time suggests otherwise.

However, for CWU members, the modelling is excellent news that supports our view that we have found a way to give our members a genuine pensions that produces a wage in retirement.

After describing the current situation as “a big moment, a massive moment,” Terry gave a “massive thank you to all of our members who backed this union unanimously,” and that this is clear evidence that we only get what we deserve if we negotiate from a position of strength.

“It’s been a long time waiting, but we’re getting closer and closer,” he added.

UNISON NEC Election 2021: Your Community team standing for re-election

 

Both Denise and I have been nominated and accepted by the returning officer to stand again in the UNISON National Council Elections (NEC). 

The UNISON NEC is hugely important in our union and acts as the decision making "Parliament" of UNISON outside our annual National Conference meetings. 

We are standing for the Community NEC seats (representing UNISON members who work for Voluntary organisations and Housing Associations). 

Denise is re-standing for the Community Female Seat, she works for a Charity in Wales.  I am re-standing for the Community General Seat and work for a Housing Association in London. 

Postal ballot papers for all NEC positions will be sent to members home addresses from 4 May 2021 and the election ends on 27 May 2021. The results will be announced on 11 June 2021.

Vote John Gray UNISON NEC Community

Yesterday I received notification that I have been accepted as an "eligible candidate" for the UNISON National Executive Council (NEC) elections 2021-2023. I will be thanking all the branches that have nominated me. 

I am standing for re-election as the "Community General Seat" holder together with Denise Thomas who is also restanding for the "Community Female seat". 

Community is the part of UNISON that represents Housing Associations and Charities. We have 82000 members and is the fastest growing part of UNISON. 

The ballot opens on 4 May 2021 and runs until 27 May 2021. The results will be announced on 11 June 2021.

 

Standing for UNISON NEC Community Seats

 

Really pleased to announce that Denise and I are standing again to be re-elected to be UNISON National Executive Council members (UNISON's Parliament for our 1.3 million members outside our annual conference) for the two Community Service Group seats (the 80,000 UNISON members who work in Housing Associations and the Volunteer Sector). 

I work as a UNISON Convenor for a large Housing Association and Denise is a Senior UNISON activist for a National Charity. It has been an honour for both of us to serve as NEC members for the last 2 years. 

We are so proud of our Community UNISON members, who have been on the front line providing care, support and housing services during the Covid-19 epidemic. 

We shall be publishing our joint manifesto soon but are conscious that our members and branches will have other things on their minds during the next few weeks. 

GRENFELL 3 YEARS ON

By Newham Mayor Rokhsana Fiaz

"Still no justice for the victims of the Grenfell Tower tragedy in North Kensington, which could have been avoided if residents where treated with the respect and dignity they deserved.

We read the news reports over the weekend that many of the residents that survived this horror have experienced racism, ‘cultural bullying’, indifference and arrogance by a charity tasked with supporting them: including discriminatory decision making and practices such as negative stereotyping by the Westway charity. These former Grenfell Tower residents still haven’t been housed in suitable permanent homes either.

The Labour Party has estimated that some 56,000 people are still living in homes wrapped in the same flammable cladding as the Grenfell Tower.

Three years on from the gross injustice which led to 72 people dying on the 14th June in Grenfell, tonight thousands and thousands of people and families will still be going to bed in unsafe homes.

Including thousands of leaseholders living in properties that remain potentially unsafe, they find themselves as ‘mortgage prisoners’ unable to sell their homes or re-mortgage; and face the prospect of facing huge costs as well existing on-going costs such as ‪24/7‬ ‘waking watches’.

Leaseholders who are unable to re-mortgage face being put in on very high variable interest contracts; and all blocks with cladding - regardless of height - face intrusive and destructive testing.

A survey by the UK Cladding Action Group (UKCAG), published last week, shows that 9 out of 10 of 550 leaseholders and tenants surveyed have experienced sleeping problems and other mental health issues including suicidal feelings and self-harm as they contend with the prospect of unsellable apartments and crippling bills.

UKCAG say that there some 262 private and social residential blocks still wrapped in similar aluminium composite cladding systems, found to be the main cause of the fire that spread at Grenfell Tower, that killed 72 people. They’ve also estimated that 1,700 buildings across the country have some form of other dangerous cladding that needs replacing and others have other fire safety defects. The journal, Inside Housing estimates that some 600,000 flats nationally are unsellable as a consequence.

This includes properties owned by Housing Associations and private developers in Newham; and we’ve been pressing and demanding that they do more; with cabinet lead Cllr John Gray and deputy Cllr Shaban Mohammed, leading on this urgent focus locally.

The Government’s £1 billion fund is grossly inadequate and does not include on-going costs such as waking watches. The fund was only announced last month to help pay for the replacement of dangerous non-ACM cladding, adding to £600m already set aside for the removal of ACM cladding on social housing blocks.

Their slow and inadequate progress of this is unjustified, and their guidance is causing anxiety, delay, and confusion as well as risking lives.

Three years on from Grenfell, the government must meet full costs of making these homes safe and cover the ongoing costs caused by their failure to regulate and bring in effective building controls.

Building contractors who failed to build homes, to even the inadequate standards of the time, must also be held accountable and pay up.

Cllrs John Gray and Shaban Mohammed are organising a special zoom conference with Housing Associations who operate in Newham, to establish their latest progress and demand that they speed up on behalf of residents; as well as demanding government and builders to pay up.

https://www.theguardian.com/…/the-guardian-view-on-the-gren…

Why voluntary right to buy for Housing Associations is nuts

So scare government grant is being used to effectively give an existing social tenant a home which will then be lost for ever from social housing instead of being used to help build another social home? This is nuts in a housing crisis.

Hat tip Red Brick

Voluntary Right to Buy: should housing associations be ‘proud to be involved’?

Posted on May 10, 2019 by stevehilditch

"The headline is based on an Inside Housing article this week by a director of a national housing association, Stonewater, which is one of those taking part in the government’s pilot scheme in the Midlands. Sue Shirt says they are ‘unashamedly supportive of the VRTB’ and ‘proud’ to be selling off their houses, estimating that around 170 will be sold in the pilot period (presumably in most cases houses currently let at social rents). She gives two main reasons for this. One is that they are giving tenants what they want. The second is that (unlike with council housing right to buy) they plan to replace every home sold. She says that it keeps tenants in their communities whereas otherwise they would move out to buy. In Stonewater’s view, VRTB ‘helps the social housing journey’ by enabling financially secure tenants to buy instead of rent.

Superficially, of course, Ms Shirt has a point. No doubt the lucky buyers of Stonewater houses are over the moon, especially as they have qualified for discounts of up to 70% – or £82,800 outside London – the same levels as for council right to buy. They’ll have to raise a mortgage but instead of paying rent they’ll have a valuable asset to pass on to their children or to sell or let out at a later date. In many ways it’s surprising that the pilot scheme isn’t proving more popular. Stonewater has so far completed just 11 sales, and if it reaches its projected level of 170 it will have sold just two per cent of its stock in the region. That’s a lot of effort to reach such a small proportion of tenants, and the government is said to be considering extending the pilot scheme to raise more interest.

What is missing from Sue Shirt’s assessment is any examination of the wider picture if the pilot scheme does turn out to be successful. Of course, one reason why a housing association like Stonewater is willing to take part is that it gets full and instant recompense for the hefty discounts it has to give, so they can aim to have one for one replacement of their own stock. The money comes from a Treasury pot of £200 million created for the purpose. An extended scheme would need more money. Failing some magic by the chancellor, the only sources are the rest of the housing budget or reviving the Treasury’s original plan, which was to force councils to sell their high-value council houses and hand most of the money over to subsidise housing association discounts.

Either way, a lump sum worth up to £82,800 to one ‘financially secure’ tenant who buys their home comes at the expense of the same amount invested in new social housing for people who are struggling to rent, let alone buy. It is not the narrow perspective of whether Stonewater replaces one for one, the essential point is that the money available in the housing system will produce fewer additional homes in total for people in need.

Sue Shirt says that the ‘crucial point’ about VRTB is that it helps more people into much-needed, modern, energy-efficient housing. But this is a very suspect argument. After all, tenants exercising VRTB are in a nice comfortable home already, and while the mortgage they will now pay releases a receipt that Stonewater can reuse, that’s only because the rest of the sale price will be made up by the government.

A supposed advantage is that VRTB buyers stay in their home when they might have moved out to buy elsewhere. While this may be advantageous for the community in the short term, it ignores the issue of what happens when the buyer eventually moves. A house that could be relet at social rent may well end up in the private rented sector, as is frequently the experience with the council RTB. It will be let at higher rents – costing more in housing benefit if that is needed – and quite possibly with minimal management, causing problems for other tenants in the area.

While the pilot scheme might involve selling a relatively small number of homes, up to 3,000, the real danger lies in its potential success. This could have two effects. One is that it hastens the day when all housing associations are persuaded into a ‘voluntary’ scheme by attractive offers about how fast they can access the receipts, without answering the crucial question of where the money will come from once the Treasury’s £200 million has been spent and what the impact of that will be on other programmes. Back in 2015, when it was planned to use ‘council high value sales’ to fund the VRTB, in Selling off the Stock CIH showed that a popular VRTB scheme might require all the receipts from selling high-value homes, leaving no money for replacements.

The second effect will be to prolong the right to buy in England when it should be on its last legs. It was scrapped in Scotland in 2016, it died in Wales earlier this year and soon it may be gone in Northern Ireland too. Only in Whitehall do politicians continue to find ways to breathe life into a policy that’s not relevant to today’s problems. Let’s put some more nails in its coffin, not try to revive the corpse".

Tories build fewest homes since Second World War

This article in today's Daily Telegraph shows that the Tories since 2010 will have built the fewest homes since the war. 

"new-build housing completions in England between 2010 and 2019 are set to be approximately 130,000 per year. That is well below the 147,000 of the 2000s or 150,000 of the 1990s, and half of the level in the 1960s and 1970s....

The picture becomes even worse when you factor in population size. In the 1960s, the new-build construction rate in England was roughly the equivalent of one home for every 14 people over the decade. In the 2010s, that ratio was one to 43, more than three times higher."

While this is shocking and helps explain our awful homelessness and affordability problems the only answer on offer from the Tories is to "encourage" home ownership.

Hello? Look at the chart that they used above to illustrate the problems. You can see for yourself that the major reason for the decline in house building is the collapse of Council housing (see the green).  The Private sector and Housing associations never filled this gap.

If you want to solve the housing crisis in the UK then you have to allow Councils to build homes at scale and give them the government subsidy to make them good quality and truly affordable. 

UNISON - the union for Housing association workers

New recruitment leaflet from UNISON. A key message is that more employers sit down with UNISON to negotiate terms and conditions that any other union in the sector and that we represent workers interests around the table.

I was an trade union activist for many years (firstly T&G then UNISON) before I realised that negotiating terms and conditions was the most important thing. Representation of members in individual discipline, sickness, grievance, redundancies, TUPE etc is really important (and horrible for anyone to go through alone). However, most members will only need personal advice or  representation probably two or three times in their career.

But everyone wants trained reps negotiating their pay, bonus, leave, pensions, sickness, maternity etc every year.

Remember also the age old adage. The more people in the union. The better the deal we will always get with our employers.  

Being Scrutinised at Scrunty

Recently as Cabinet member for Housing Services I was called to answer questions by the Newham Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

This is a statutory committee of Newham Councillors whose role is to hold the Councils Executive members to account and make recommendations. 

As a backbencher Councillor for the previous 8 years, I had been a member of various scrunities (some longer than others) but this was the first time I had appeared as a member of the Executive. 

The Chair asked me to first give an outline of my housing brief for the benefit of the Committee. 

I explained that the present housing structure in Newham had been drawn up by the previous administration who had intended that all Councils services should be "outsourced". The new Mayor, Rokhsana Fiaz, has put a stop to all "outsourcing" and ordered a rethink and corporate redesign.  So things will change.

My housing brief is currently in 3 parts:- 

1. Traditional Council social housing management of our stock: repairs, rents, voids, allocations, residents engagement, Anti social behaviour (ASB), fire safety, right to buy, tenancy and leasehold enforcement. The Mayor has reserved the regeneration, planning and strategic delivery portfolio.

2. Homelessness and temporary accommodation (although not rough sleepers. The published minutes need correcting slightly on this), assessment, advice, support and prevention.

3. Private sector rental licensing and enforcement, including houses of multiple occupation (HMOs), advice and support. We really want to work with and support landlords but we won’t hesitate to drive bad and criminal landlords out of Newham and into the Courts. 

There are still a few grey areas (pardon the pun) about the scope of my brief due to the fragmented nature of the current structure.

Some Key issues

Number one is fire safety in our blocks including the removal and replacement of unsafe cladding. This is costing us a huge amount of money (waking watches) and it would appear that the Government will not reimburse anything like our total costs.

Review our entire allocation policy including the suitability of the offer for homeless temporary accommodation in light of the new Mayoral priorities and also changing Government policy. We have nearly 27,00 households on our waiting list and nearly 5,000 households in temporary accommodation. I suspect due to "sofa surfers", homes with grown up children who cannot afford to find a place of their own as well as all those private sector tenants, who have to spend most of their income on rent that the real figure of those in housing need is far higher.

Reform RMS repairs: (our in house repairs maintenance service). We have a number of good staff but the repair service is currently not good enough. RMS also has a limited new build module housing capacity which could be used more to build new homes on unused areas in estates.

Reduce Homelessness: Prevention is key. We spend far less than other boroughs which may be the reason why we have such high levels of homelessness. We need to educate residents about the scale and the real reasons for the housing crisis. We need more "joined up" thinking between housing and social services on these homeless issues which might result in financial savings to the Council and a better service for the people in Newham

Anti-social behaviour (ASB): While enforcement is not the only tool it is important. Too many residents live in fear of a tiny number of violent and abusive residents.

Fragmented caretaking service: This has been hived off the control of housing management. This has made it difficult to do anything about these services, particularly those services in estates, as I have no authority to manage these services.

Tackling housing poverty by supporting residents getting advice about benefits and support into decently paid work. We need to make sure "that work pays". This will reduce evictions and homelessness.

The need for Culture change and Resident Representation: There had to be a culture change on the part of both Members and officers in the way in which they interacted with residents, if residents were to be "at the heart of everything we do". There are practically no tenant and/or resident representation in Newham and while an annual citizens assembly on housing would be a good thing, it would not be a substitute for a proper democratic and accountable TRA. While we did not want to return to the “bad old days” when in some cases a small number of tenants had dominated the Tenants’ and Residents’ Associations (TRA’s) for their own ends. We need to carry out a review of tenants’ and residents’ representative structures as soon as possible.

Private Sector Housing Licensing - Enforcement: There will be an increase in the number of housing inspections undertaken to ensure that landlords were complying with the terms and conditions of their licences. Inspections and enforcement action are key to ensuring compliance and making landlords aware that non-compliance would not be tolerated. I am not at all opposed to properly managed private rented sector accommodation and I would expect any Councillor who rents property to be an exemplary landlord.

Planned Maintenance: We need to have planned maintenance and refurbishment programmes for Council properties. They are much cheaper than carrying out emergency repairs and better for residents. The “Decent Homes” programme ended eight or nine years ago. Therefore, there was a need for a properly planned programme. A housing stock survey is about to take place which will guide this.

Housing Associations: My own casework had shown me that the management performance of a number of housing associations within the borough had been abysmal. Therefore, if housing associations wished to work in partnership with the local authority, and I welcomed partnership working, it was necessary for poorly performing housing associations to improve.
In the Q&A with Councillors afterwards

In response to a question about the high cost and poor quality of some temporary accommodation I explained long-term lease agreements with decent landlords may provide an alternative form of accommodation and would do away with the requirement to pay a expensive “nightly” rate for private sector temporary accommodation.  Landlords want long term security of income. There are now a greater number of Council inspections of such accommodation. We are also thinking of buying and leasing properties.

Regarding the adverse effects that bad landlords had on their tenants, neighbours and good landlords, I hoped to see an increase in the number of prosecutions of bad landlords and an increased number of costs orders in the Council’s favour. Also, in the case of illegal evictions, I would want to see if necessary, custodial sentences for landlords to change their behaviours.

(picture college of some of the housing visits and inspections I have undertaken in last week). 

Letting the government off the hook over removal of housing subsidy

Hat tip Redbrick (shame because Dispatches have a good track record)

"With reporter Antony Barnett driving between sites in a flash open top and very sporty white car, trying to link a number of disconnected stories under the disingenuous title of ‘Getting rich from the housing crisis’, the Dispatches programme on housing associations on Monday had the kind of sensationalist style that gives TV documentaries a bad name. I broadly agree with Carl Brown’s comprehensive analysis of the programmes' deficiencies on Inside Housing - principally that the government was totally let off the hook.

Dispatches' Antony Barnett and his irritating sporty white car. (Pic Channel 4)

Executive pay in housing associations is of course an issue – especially large redundancy pay-outs - but the media obsession with it is a pain and rather hypocritical when you look at how much people in the media get paid (the last CE of Channel 4 – a public corporation – received a package of £1m in his last year, and don’t get me started on BBC executive pay). To reduce the motivation for housing association activities – good and bad – to a single driver – pay – is absurd. It would also make a change for the press or TV to take a wider look at people who get rich from housing – the developers, the financiers, the private providers of temporary accommodation and the rest. There is a lot of leakage from residents’ rents and mortgage payments to very rich people, and housing association chief executive pay is only a small part of it.

The programme has been widely condemned in the sector, but a little defensively. The answer to a simplistic attack that you’re doing a bad job is not to simply assert that you are ‘doing a great job, a really great job’ (to quote Donald Trump). Because there is another side to the coin and there are issues that need to more honestly addressed.

Stripping aside the overly-dramatic style of presentation and the crude and untrue linking theme of people 'getting rich', the actual issues selected by the programme should not be lightly dismissed. For example, the Clarion redevelopment of the Sutton Estate in Chelsea has been widely criticised, not just in this programme, estate ‘regeneration’ schemes in general have often led to a major reduction in social rented homes (although more homes overall) and the non-delivery of promises, and the practice of selling hundreds of formerly social rented homes in high value areas at auction is little short of a disgrace even if it has been encouraged by this government. The contributions from Tom Murtha asking if associations have lost sight of their original ‘mission’ to provide homes for the poorest, and from Karen Buck MP about disinvestment in the high value but also high need communities she represents, asked reasonable questions of the sector.

The programme failed to get to the heart of the debate about housing associations. The removal of subsidy by government – the main culprits - has led many associations, and especially the largest ones, to maximise their surpluses to enable them to grow their development programmes and to provide an element of cross-subsidy to keep rents in new homes below market levels. Some councils have done the same thing. Practice varies of course – some associations refused to do ‘conversions’ (whereby empty social rent homes are converted to much higher 'affordable rents' before re-letting), others have maximised the practice – but the bottom line is that surpluses from existing activities have grown. Some of the new homes are being provided by making bigger surpluses from existing tenants, but with virtually no debate about the pros and cons.

Within the new business model, associations have clearly done very well. They have kept housing production going and have expanded their output. They have reapplied large development profits to produce more homes rather than see the money leak out as dividends as it would with private developers. The issue is whether they could have done more a) to oppose the worst aspects of government policy and b) to maintain a bigger flow of homes for social rent even if that meant fewer homes overall. Not all associations have made the same choices and there has clearly been more than one possible outcome. Although we are used to needs analysis for social lettings, I never see a serious assessment of who benefits from the rising proportion of new homes at market or near-market prices. There should be far more debate about the implications of losing so many of the cheapest homes to feed a development programme that comprises more expensive homes.

We should start from the principle that tenants should not be paying – in rent and reduced services – for the government’s failure to provide funding for additional affordable homes. I talk to a lot of people in the business and for several years it was hard to get anyone senior in a big association to talk about tenant services rather than development. At strategic level, housing management seemed to be reduced to little more than a growing source of cash. It was hard to get anyone to talk about social rent – still the only genuinely affordable tenure for people on low incomes – rather than total output and ‘affordable housing’ - often a cover for producing homes that were not affordable at all.

Grenfell changed the terms of the debate, forcing a greater focus on existing social housing and the deal that social tenants get. Groups like CIH and Shelter are reviewing social housing and concluding that providing homes at lower rents for poorer people is a very important policy. Labour has shown the way forward with its Green Paper, and the government’s own Green Paper is due to be sneaked out before the Parliamentary recess. Whether they will put more grant into new social rented homes is the critical thing to look out for. If they do, the way the sector then responds will tell us much more about the mettle of housing associations than how much their chief executives are paid.

Excellent update on extending the "right to buy" to Housing associations by enforced sale council assets - Redbrick blog

The strange case of a government housing policy that won’t happen by stevehilditch

By Ross Fraser

Everyone in the sector will recall the surprise late insertion into the 2015 Conservative election manifesto of a policy to extend the right to buy to housing association tenants – funded by the enforced sale of council assets.

I recall chairing a post-election consultation meeting between DCLG and housing association CEOs and local authority directors of housing in July 2015 – when DCLG asked for advice on how to implement the sale of council assets.

Over two years on, DCLG still hasn’t arrived at a formula setting out how it will calculate the value of assets to be disposed by each authority – let alone consult the sector on it.   There is a simple reason for this – developing the formula is extremely difficult and ensuring that all authorities will deem it ‘fair’ is simply impossible.

Then there is the issue that the bulk of asset sales are likely to fall on the London stock-retaining boroughs.  A flat rate formula (requiring say the top 5% in value of all English retained council stock to be sold when vacant) will not raise enough money to fund the extension of right to buy to associations, so any levy is likely to be tougher on London. The authorities most-affected will be Conservative controlled councils such as Kensington & Chelsea, Westminster and Wandsworth.   The leadership of these councils has indicated complete opposition to the government’s proposals.

It is unsurprising, therefore, that there was no reference in the 2017 Conservative election manifesto to housing association right to buy or forced council asset sales.

Post-Grenfell – and DCLG’s apparent refusal to support council (and housing association) reinvestment in fire safety – the concept of forced asset sales has become even more toxic.

Then there is the fact that the policy requires secondary Parliamentary approval before it can be enacted.  The government only has a simple majority with DUP support.  Inside Housing has reported that up to 15 Conservative MPS are prepared to either vote against the measure or abstain – presumably including members whose constituencies fall within Conservative-controlled London boroughs.  And as we have been recently reminded, DUP support for the government’s legislative programme does not extend to social or welfare legislation.

The simple fact is that the forced asset sales measure will never gain Parliamentary approval and will eventually go the way of the now discarded Pay to Stay proposals.    And if there are no forced asset sales there will be no extension of the right to buy to housing association tenants.

My advice to DCLG is ‘come clean’ and formally drop the policy – any further work is a waste of time.  Councils need to know where they stand as, according to senior sources in local government, the uncertainty is holding back their ability to invest in new housing, essential maintenance and fire safety remedial works.   It’s in no-one’s interest to maintain this facade any longer.

UNISON Housing Associations Labour Link AGM with John Healey MP

I am very pleased that John Healey MP, the Labour Party Shadow Minister for Housing & Planning has agreed to be our guest speaker at our branch Labour Link AGM at House of Commons on Wednesday 26 October 2017. 

Due to limited space invite & RSVP only. 

Housing association pensions survey 2017

UNISON is carrying out mapping work on what is happening with housing association staff pension arrangements and their relationship with the Local Government Pension Scheme. 

Please do all you can to encourage responses to this survey.

Thanks

Gavin Edwards

UNISON National Officer

Community and Voluntary Service Group

Housing Associations    Send to a friend   |    View in a browser UNISON Community Service Group 1st August 2017 Housing association pensions: UNISON survey HERE Dear Housing Association UNISON Activist, UNISON wants to get an up to date picture of pensions in the housing association sector. To achieve this, it would be very helpful if you could complete this survey: https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/JG8MMNY This important information will inform our bargaining and campaigning work in the sector. Best Wishes, Gavin Edwards UNISON National Officer for Community

UNISON London Housing Association Branch AGM 2017: Secretary's Report

Today is the AGM of my branch (12-2pm and 6-8pm at the UNISON Centre, London) and this is my contribution to our annual report. Picture of 2016 Branch Executive. 

"2016 was a traumatic year for politics generally and for social housing and trade unions in particular. Attacks by the Conservative government on trade unions were seen off in part by united and targeted campaigning and protests.

The attempt to end social housing by withdrawing all grants for social rent, the introduction of the tenants “pay to stay” tax and the attempt to make “right to buy” in our sector compulsory has also so far failed even though we can expect the Government will come back again for the kill.

The branch must be prepared to continue to lobby and campaign against the implementation of the Housing Act and the proposals outlined in the recent Housing White Paper to make cuts to benefit for care and supporting housing projects and schemes.

The housing association world has experienced rapid change following the rise of the “mega mergers”. Huge existing associations are merging with each over to form even bigger
groups. While some mergers have failed due to “cultural differences” others have gone ahead with more likely to follow. Staff (and residents) can expect challenges ahead and while not all change is bad it will be important that we build strong unionised workplaces to stand up for our members.

While I find it somewhat ironic that one of the justifications given at the time for stock transfers from councils to housing associations used to be that council housing departments were too large and remote. The new mega housing associations are, however, promising to build tens of thousands of much needed new homes.

Our members will be developing, letting, selling, allocating, managing and maintaining these new homes. Our jobs and our future terms and conditions is dependent on making new and old employers successful and effective. No organisation will be successful if they don’t have good relationships with staff and their union. Our UNISON branch wants to work in partnership with our employers whenever possible but we will take on the small minority of bad employers who don’t want to work with us.

Finally, may I thank all our stewards and workplace contacts for the magnificent and often unappreciated work you do for members. You are the first line of defence for members and are our unsung heroes.

John Gray
Branch secretary"