[page 23]
A Welcome Home?
A bousing crisis will greet the new government. The MIR invited Peter Lush, secretary of the NALGO Housing Associations branch, to review A Welcome Home - Labour's new strategy for housing. IN 1966, FOLLOWING the television play Cathy: Come Home, the housing charity Shelter was founded. Cathy Come Home had shown the desperate situation of a young working-class family which faced being made homeless and into care.
having their children taken It is a damning condemnation of capitalism that twenty-five years later, not only is there still a need for organisations such as Shelter but the homelessness crisis has grown much worse. Yet in this period there have been nine years of Labour gorernment, and in some inner-city areas, twenty-five years of Labour councils. In 1990, 169.526 families or single people were accepted as homeless by local authorities: 45.170 households were housed in temporary accommodation. These figures exclude the thousands of single people or childless couples who are not covered by the homeless persons legislation. The same figures in 1980 were 76,471 and 4,170. In the period of the Tor! government, of a 'property owning democracy', there has been an increase of over 100% in homelessness, a 1,000% in households in temporary accommodation. (All in One Place.* p+8) Homeless in The past thirteen years have seen a contin- London.
uous campaign by the Tories to undermine public housing. The 'right to buy', portrayed as the liberation' of council tenants from local authority bureaucracy, has for many ended in grief with mortgage arrears and repair bills. The local authorities have been starved of funds to even being able to build new housing, not spend the receipts from 'right to buy to replace the houses that were sold. Policies such as Housing Action Trusts and transfer of stock to formed housing associations have also newly aimed to reduce the role of local authorities in council housing.
In 1975, 110.335 new council houses were built, with a total of 144,725 in the public sector. In 1990, only 6,242 new council houses were built, with a total of 20,084 altogether in the public sector. No wonder some families face a sentence of up to four years in bed-andaccommodation in London whilst breakfast 220 MIR waiting for a place to live.
The Tories have continually promoted home ownership as the answer to the housing crisis. In reality, this option, even with 'right to buy, excluded large sections of the population. Now, the effects of the recession, combined with high interest rates and the commercial outlook of the building societies, forced the government to introduce palliative measures to ease the crisis facing many owner occupiers in the run up to the general election.
In 1991, over 70,000 properties were reposs- Over essed because of mortgage arrears. 200.000 other mortgage payers are at least six months in arrears. The recent government announcement transterring some of these properties to housing associations to became rented properties. unless backed by large government grants, will produce enormous rents for these properties and could cause financial problems to housing associations that take them on. The real aim is to bail out the government's friends in the building societies as much as the beleaguered mortgage holders, with the societies faced with hundreds of repossessed unsellable properties, and huge financial losses. This is the magnitude of the crisis that would face an incoming Labour government. Woul Labour be able to solve the housing crisis? PAST LABOUR MANIFESTOS have proudly put forward targets for house building. In the 1950s, Labour and the Tories competed for which party would build more council homes. What is noticeable about A Welcome Home - Labour's new strategt for bousing is the complete lack of any specific commitments or targets for house building and renovation. The document starts with An emergencl programme for homeless people. No socialist * All in One Place — The British Housing Story: 19-1-1990 by John Newton. published by the Catholic Housing Aid Society Peter Lush writes in a personal capacit!:
[page 24]
would dispute the need for an ramme. But what this offers instead of using the resources the homelessness crisis.
Before outlining the details of a socialist alternative, it is important to stress a fundamental point: whilst the major building companies and monopolies that control resources are in private hands, it will not be possible to solve the housing crisis. More money can be given to local authorities and housing associations. but whilst the resources are controlled privately: a co-ordinated national house building plan is not possible.
Labour's aims of "clearing inadequate bedand-breakfast hotels and putting a roof over the heads of those people who are forced to sleep rough" are very laudable. But how will they be achieved?
A Welcome Home includes many measures which happen already, such as housing associations managing temporary accommodation for local authorities, partially rehabilitated empty property being used as temporary accommodation and local authorities leasing from the private rented sector. Socialists would also support the other proposals made such as local authorities acquiring properties in the private market, and a right to acquire private properties that have been empty - although a long period' should be six months or so, rather than years! Also, landlords and private derelopers should not be able to make profits through sales to local authorities.
But the key question with all these policies is: how much moner is put into them? How many empty properties will local authorities be able to buy? How much money will be given to provide more short stay hostels, with adequate staffing, resettlement workers and, crucially. permanent accommodation for homeless people to move into: It property has been empty for a long time, it often needs a great deal of work to bring it up to a decent standard. Where will the resources come from to do this, and the staff to organise the programmes?
The document also talks of extending the homeless persons legislation to increase the number of people local authorities have a duty to house. The aim of "making all local authorities responsible for all homeless people in their area" is excellent. But this is immediately qualified to areas where homelessness is at loo levels, or it there is a "plentiful supply of rented housing." Are there any areas that fit these criteria?!
emergency progis half measures.
that exist to end
THE SECTION IN A Welcome Home on home ownership offers reforms in areas such as leasehold, and the idea of transferring owner occupiers in trouble with their mortgages into tonants or 'shared ownership' ( part rent. part mortgage) schemes. However, instead of legislation
GO NO WATCH HATS
HOME OUT! OFF SOL
RIDLEY HATS SPIES THE
ABOUT OCEAN NO
to stop repossessions because of mortgage arrcars. they will "encourage lenders to reach sensible arrangements for repayment ofarrears" How will this be enforced if building societies put their commercial aims first and continue repossessions?
Over two-thirds of homes are now owneroccupied in Britain. compared to 55", in 1979. (Guardian. 5 November. 1991). There has been an increase of 5.-00.000 owner occupiers since 19-1. Often, working class families have been forced into home ownership because of the lack of alternative rented accommodation. But. in addition. many have turned to home ownership in a reaction to bureaucratic run. underfunded local authority housing. Any socialist programme for housing needs to recog nise this, and look to providing genuine choice in housing.
But a programme that does not challenge the control of the banks and building societies over owner occupation. and does not provide protection trom changes in interest rates and the threat of repossession. is only scratching at the surface of the problems facing thousands of mortgage payers. Fortytour percent of all households are paying a mortgage — they often have less protection from eviction than tenants it they hit financial troubles and run up arrears. Why not use the National Housing Bank which the labour leaders propose. to provide interest free loans to those who want to own their own homes. but at the same time put resources into rented accommodation through local authorities so that people have a genuine choice of what pe of housing to live in?
SOME OF LABOL R'S most signiticant ret
[page 25]
240 Sprin Hou.
MIR
199 ing
-THE ESTAT 'E
FOR
ALE
the past have been in the area of rented housing. Labour morement activists today should never forget that our predecessors in the movement established council housing as an alternative to private landlordism. The 1965 Rent Act gave protection to private tenants against the horrors of Rachmanism, and the 1974 Housing Act extended this to furnished tenants.
The private rented sector has been in decline since the beginning of the century. Attempts to revive it have been ineffective, for the simple economic reason that there are far more prof itable and secure areas for capitalists to invest their money! Only 7.5% of households now live in private rented accommodation.
Labour's programme should aim to massively increase the public rented sector. primarily through local authorities, but not opposing the development of housing associations where they play a significant part in housing in a particular area. However, democratic tenant control should be introduced into housing associations as a condition of future funding
Labour aims to provide legal rights for tenants. But unless local authorities are given the resources to enforce them, they will be meaningless. One proposal is the 'right to repair' an excellent idea in theory and recently includ ed in Major's 'council tenants charter'. . But unless resources are put into repair budgets for local authorities, how are the repairs to be paid for? One inner-London borough has £180 a year to spend on all day-to-day repairs per property (excluding heating). How does this tall! with a legal right to repair?
There is also encouragement for tenants to have greater control over their housing. Socialists should support this, as many tenants face seemingly unaccountable faceless bureaucracies in local authority housing departments Would the crass design mistakes such as high rise and system building have occurred in the
1950s and 1960s. if the people planning and providing this type of housing had also had to live in it?
But the reality facing many housing co-oper-
atives is that there are no more resources available to them than any other tenants. This can
mean tenants spending hours of voluntary work
to release small sums to spend on much needed
repairs, Socialists should support local control over housing and tenant control. but only if adequate resources are provided to housing co-
operatives. and clear guidelines provided for
the employment of staff, equal opportunities,
etc.
These are important provisos. In a time of
housing crisis, some tenants have been encour-
aged to form co-operatives by cynical Tory
councils with the aim of breaking up council
housing. The energy and enthusiasm put into
forming tenant management co-operatives on
council estates, which often arise from frustrat-
ion with the cuts in local authority housing services, could be better used campaigning for more resources for housing, and building a national tenants' movement to fight for tenants' rights. The idea that a 'socialist island' can be created in a sea of capitalist housing is an illusion whilst resources for housing co-operatives are as scarce as for any other sector of public housing.
The section on The private rented sector shows the dilemma the Labour leaders face in trying to improve housing under capitalism. It says "If we wish to see the sector continue to cater for mobile people, and for people who have little prospect of gaining housing by a social landlord in the short term, then we must find a way to meet the concerns of private tenants, while at the same time recognising the legitimate economic interests of landlords". Yet it does not "intend to set out here a comprehensive policy for reform" to achieve this! Indeed, the only guarantee given is not to introduce retrospective legislation in the private sector, because of landlords currently making investment decisions! The proposals for registering private landlords and rental deposits being held by an independent body are fine in theory, but would be almost unenforceable in the jungle of the private rented sector.
INCREASING HOME PRODUCTION and improlement should be the most important section of Labour's strategy. Indeed it proclaims that "Labour will marshall the resources of social landlords and private house builders to provide more new and improved homes". Yet continuous qualifications are put on commitments.
The document says that "it is not desirable to fix a single. simple national target for the number of new homes to be built or improved each year". Why not? Socialists would agree that the mistakes of system building in the past must be avoided. But the document itself declares that "more than one million homes (are) unfit for human habitation". so shouldn't that be the first target? According to the Institute of Environmental Health Officers. 2.8 million homes are unfit for human habitation or in need of serious repair. (Guardian. 9 September 1991) Why not target to renovate these homes? From 1981-90. two million rented homes were lost. Shouldn't restoring those rented homes be a target? It is quite wrong to abandon a target for new housing, which would be a beacon of hope to those in sub-standard accommodation, because of the argument that quality will be lost. It is now possible to learn from pas: mistakes, which were often made because limited resources were allocated, and because ef the lack of democratic control by tenants.
In fact, the real reason why the will not commit themselves to cause to solve the housing crisis
Labour leaders targets is bewould require
[page 26]
an enormous input of resources. For example, the Building Employers' Confederation estimate that £24bn is needed to be spent on repairs to the UK's housing stock. (Guardian, 11 September 1991). Throughout the 1980s councils could not afford to rehabilitate sub-standard housing. The Institute of Environmental Health Officers estimate that houses in England and Wales would have to last 2,500 years if they were to be replaced at the rate currently achieved by local councils!
Changes Labour proposes in housing finance, to lift the ring fencing of housing revenue accounts, are welcome. But again. the question of resources is crucial. Already: Labour leaders are warning Labour local authorities not to be expected to be 'bailed out' if Labour win the next election. In 1975, after one year of a Labour government, environment minister Tony Crosland announced that 'the party's over' for local authorities. Now that announcement is being made in advance of Labour winning the election! David Blunkett has warned "there will be no pot of gold for the coming financial year... we will be able to help but not in picking up the bill in extra central government spending" (Guardian, 23 December 1991).
The Tories pre-election 'tax bombshell' scare campaign included every spending commitment a Labour spokesperson has ever made. It quoted shadow environment minister Bryan Gould from November 1990, advocating spend ing an extra £3bn on housing construction, repairs and maintenance. (Guardian, 7 January 1992). In fact this was not to be extra money but would come from the receipts from council house sales, of which £lbn would be spent on new homes. Yet this would only build 20,000 public sector homes. Even if this was just in London, this would be less than 650 per borough!
Not much more than £shn is held by local authorities from right to buy sales. (Guardian, ¿ October 1991). Yet the Labour leaders want to "relax, progressively the constraints on the use" of even these limited funds! A Welcome Home argues that they must avoid "any sudden and unsustainable burst of activity which could lead us back to the industrialised building problems of the 1960s and 19-Os." Try explaining to a family stuck in bed and breakfast, bringing up children in overcrowded squalor. that there should not be a burst of activity' in housing!
The reliance on market forces, and their incapability of solving the housing crisis, is also shown by the comment that "a construction industry suffering the most severe recession for decades will need some time to respond to the increased demand for materials and skilled labour." So the document calls for the creation of community-based construction agencies' to provide a quality building service. safe conditions in the notoriously dangerous building ind-
ustry, and a reliable source of skilled labour Yet. the Labour leaders restrict these agencies to competing in the market by saying that "we do not intend unfairly to subsidise trading activities at the expense of employment in the private sector. Any legislation would ensure that the agencies have to achieve a set rate ot return in relation to their turnover and to conform to agreed accounting standards." In other words. they will have to compete with the private building companies on market terms.
Even on Housing Action Trusts. the Labour leaders do not give a clear commitment to abolish them. Nor does A Welcome Home give a clear commitment to stop 'voluntary transfer' where some councils have been able to transfer all their stock to a housing association, ending their role as a social landlord.
A new Labour government would face the task of rebuilding the welfare state and social services that the labour movement fought for decades to establish, and which have faced thirteen years of attack from the Tories. But Labour's plans will be doomed to failure if they attempt to work within the constraints of the market and private ownership system. The resources exist in Britain to end the housing crisis, and to provide quality homes for those in need Socialists will support every reform, every gain proposed in Labour's strategy: But without fundamental changes to the system, of nationalisation of the monopolies that dominate building, buikling supply and finance as part of a socialist planned economy: the measures a Labour government can introduce will be very limited, frustrating the hopes of the millions facing housing problems. =
Nearly million are un need s repair
three
home it or erious
MIR C25
[page 27]