On reflection however, each of
the issues discussed yesterday is not so much a problem with the changes that
David Cameron has proposed to social housing policy, but with those he has not.
For one thing, he has not proposed any reforms that would make the alternatives to council housing more attractive. Both private renting and housing benefit have become significantly less secure and less affordable options in recent years. Only a house with no mortgage currently offers the sort of security available to council tenants, and this is not a viable option for most, practically regardless of their age and occupation. Even if council tenants were moved to leases lasting a period of several years with a guaranteed renewal if their circumstances remained the same, they would still be more secure than most people who rent and many who are tied into paying off a large mortgage.
It does not have to be like this however, greater protection for tenants who are renting in the private sector would both give them greater security and encourage landlords to sell their property, increasing supply and lowering house prices. Meanwhile a move away from housing benefits that pay a great deal to support the worst off, but nothing to those who do slightly better, would vastly increase the opportunities open to those receiving help with their housing costs. It would also help to reduce the sense amongst those who currently do not qualify of being left far worse off than those lucky enough to have reached to top of the council house waiting list.
Nor is there need for greater reform only outside of the state housing sector. Even after the proposed reforms, the government's role here would remain essentially the manager of housing supply, rather than a partner helping people achieve their dreams of ownership. Having your rent subsidised by the state when you have a high income or are subletting property is clearly an abuse of the system. However, the solution should not be to end such people's leases, but to move – and not simply allow them to move – towards fully owning the property, so long as 100% of the money raised is put into building new houses for those who currently could not afford either to rent or buy. Alternatively people whose incomes are rising, but who are not yet in a position to buy their own home, should be gradually moved from a subsidised rent to a commercial rent, again generating more revenue to invest in increasing the social housing stock. This way abuses can be curbed whilst the advantages associated with long-term residents and secured tenures can be maintained, not just for those tenants, but also for their wider communities. Such reforms could be combined with a move to fixed term contracts, in order to ensure that people's circumstances are regularly assessed and to provide an opportunity for those who are abusing the system, especially those who are acting as slum landlords, to be kicked out of the system.
This is an area where a Liberal Democrat concern for tenant rights and a Conservative desire to grow the ownership state can, as they should, move hand-in-hand. Disregarding the current proposals because they go too far rather than not far enough will kill any possibility of this discussion bearing fruit. Whilst there are plenty of good examples of council housing working well, it is an area much more likely to harm both those who live in council housing, and those who are currently prevented from doing so by a lack of supply. As such, it is an area in deep need of reform. It is therefore vital that this new ‘big argument' should not end until it has produced a ‘big solution.'