In a strongly-worded private letter, Green Party leader Caroline Lucas MP has accused the prime minister of dealing council and housing association tenants a double-whammy as the PM proposes to slash housing benefit (1) while attacking security of tenure.
The letter was sent on 5 August but the PM has yet to respond.
In the letter, the Green Party leader and MP for Brighton Pavilion questions the PM's evidence base and calls his proposals "ill-judged". Mr Cameron has indicated publicly - but with no prior announcement from the Department of Communities and Local Government - that he would like to see fixed terms for all new council and housing association tenancies, lasting as little as five years (2).
Caroline Lucas points out that "Cutting housing benefits will serve to further increase demand for social housing, as private tenants are unable to afford their rent."
She accuses the prime minister of "coercion", saying that "making continued occupation of a tenant's home dependent on an official deciding whether or not the tenant deserves to remain there would both remove tenants' security and discourage social mobility."
She asks: "Why would I want to get a job and do well if this meant I might lose my tenancy?"
The UK's first Green MP also questions the prime minister over the bureaucracy likely to be created by his proposal, including "the cost of the process of assessing who should and shouldn't lose their home, including the inevitable appeals and possible court cases..."
"These are people's homes not just their houses"
Caroline Lucas continues: "A real look at the evidence shows that the shortage of council house supply is not down to under-occupation by tenants but due to massive and continuous under-investment in council and social housing over decades accompanied by the disastrous policy of 'right to buy' which has decimated the council housing stock."
She adds, "it should not be forgotten that these are people's homes not just their houses and security of tenure is one of the great successes of council and social housing, allowing families to remain in areas they could never afford to stay in if this security did not exist and allowing them to make roots and play an active part in their communities."
The letter concludes with an attack on the government's cuts agenda, which Caroline Lucas says is the driving force behind the policy:
"This policy is a transparent attempt to divert attention away from the consequences of the cuts that your Government is making."
Notes
1. See "Housing benefit cuts will increase homelessness, Green Party leader warns" at http://www.greenparty.org.uk/News/2010-13-08-Lucas-Housing-benefit-cuts-homelessness.html.
2. See eg "David Cameron announces plan to end lifetime council tenancies: Council homes for life to be replaced by tenancies lasting as little as five years based on need and income", Guardian 3.8.10, at http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/aug/03/lifetime-council-tenancies-contracts-cameron.
3. The full text of the letter is below.
Rt Hon David Cameron MP
Prime Minister
10 Downing Street
London
SW1A 2AA
5 August 2010
Dear David,
Council and Housing Association Tenancies
I am aware of the convention to write to the Minister responsible on a particular policy area. However I am writing to you directly as public knowledge of your policy proposal on the above issue arises from the comments you made during your recent visit to Birmingham, rather than any official policy document from the Department for Communities and Local Government or communication with Parliamentarians.
The media reports that you want to see fixed terms for all new council and housing association tenancies lasting as little as five years. The details of the proposal are not yet available on the DCLG website, despite press reports that a consultation paper is imminent. It is not at all helpful for such a major policy proposal to be made before any official documentation is made available. Nonetheless, going on what the press has reported, I understand that the idea is for a new short-term tenure to be implemented by local councils, involving regular reviews of tenancies.
I cannot see how your policy announcement could be described as evidence based. On what basis do you conclude that under-occupation and high income are prevalent in the Council and social rented housing sectors? I would be very interested to see the data upon which you have relied in coming up with this ill-judged policy.
A real look at the evidence shows that the shortage of council house supply is not down to under-occupation by tenants but due to massive and continuous under-investment in council and social housing over decades accompanied by the disastrous policy of "right to buy" which has decimated the council housing stock. Do you still support "right to buy" given that you do not even appear to support the "right to rent"?
I should be grateful for details of what account has been taken of the impact of your Government's threatened cuts to housing benefits in relation to this policy? Cutting housing benefits will serve to further increase demand for social housing, as private tenants are unable to afford their rent. Clearly, it makes sense to provide opportunities for council and social housing tenants with space in their home to move to smaller accommodation if that is something they want to do.
However, it should not be forgotten that these are people's homes not just their houses and security of tenure is one of the great successes of council and social housing, allowing families to remain in areas they could never afford to stay in if this security did not exist and allowing them to make roots and play an active part in their communities.
As well as being unfair, coercion will be ineffective - it is not the way to improve council housing supply. The threat of coercion in the background, making continued occupation of a tenant's home dependent on an official deciding whether or not the tenant deserves to remain there would both remove tenants' security and discourage social mobility. Why would I want to get a job and do well if this meant I might lose my tenancy? And what would be the cost of the process of assessing who should and shouldn't lose their home, including the inevitable appeals and possible court cases?
The Government cannot avoid the need for real and sustained investment in both council and social housing by trying to suggest the supply problems are caused by under-occupation of council homes. It is not tenants who are to blame for the council and social housing crisis!
This policy is a transparent attempt to divert attention away from the consequences of the cuts that your Government is making and it can only be described as a counterproductive assault on tenants' rights.
I should be grateful for your response to my concerns.
Yours sincerely,
Caroline Lucas, MP for Brighton Pavilion