Housing Minister Caroline Flint’s this week gave a speech after which it was reported that she had apparently proposed linking getting a council house to getting a job and despaired at the number of people who are NEET (not in employment, education or training) who live in council housing.

(I was at the conference she spoke at and that was not the full impression I got but inevitably this is the way the story has been received)

Some background factors:

As you may know the UK is unique in the world as under the terms of the 1977 homelessness legislation (updated in more recent housing acts but still based on the '77 Act, Scottish legislation different again but still based on '77 Act) people that fall into a priority need category and who are unintentionally homeless have a right to apply to their local authority for rehousing.

Broadly speaking people fall into a priority need category if they are families with children or single people who are vulnerable through mental or physical health or through an institutional background etc. More information on this is at http://england.shelter.org.uk/policy/policy-959.cfm. Families applying must also prove that they are unintentionally homeless (ie haven’t refused to pay the rent/mortgage) and must have a local connection to the council area (generally have lived there before, have family there etc) – both of these are interpreted differently by different local authorities.

Case law has ruled that the right to rehousing is generally realised with the granting of a secure social housing tenancy. This means that as long as they pay their rent on time and do not commit antisocial behaviour tenants are safe in their homes for life or until they want to move out.

As a result inevitably social housing (ie council and housing association housing) will have many people who fall into the NEET category.

We should feel proud that the 1970s Callaghan Labour Government passed an Act that guarantees good quality housing to those who are least well off in our society.

When the Act was introduced council housing accommodated around 32% of the population and had a range of people in it - the majority of people were 'normal' working families. In many cases council housing was of a higher quality than private housing - being more spacious and better built.

Through the 1980s as a result of the Thatcher government's policy of right to buy and the restrictions on councils using the money to build new housing (which actually was the practical problem - not sale of council homes in itself) the number of council houses diminished and so increasingly local authority housing departments had to prioritise who they rehoused giving priority to those who were entitled to rehousing under the terms of the law.

Anyone who could afford it (and remember big discounts of 50%+ were available for council tenants) bought their own home - they were fools if they didnt. And so council housing increasingly became the residual option - housing for people who had no other choice. Whatsmore the sales of council housing were concentrated among the most desirable properties (generally houses) and so the council property left was the hard to let tower blocks often on out of town estates in undesirable locations cut off from employment and town centres.

As I mentioned before as the council housing was sold off the Tories made it very hard (if not impossible) for councils to replace it with new housing. Over two million council homes have been sold off and not replaced.

In the 1970s 150,000+ new council homes were being built each year. This declined through the 1980s until now around 30-40,000 new housing association homes are being built each year. Added to that is the continued operation of right to buy which still results in tens of thousands of housing sales a year. Indeed I think it was only last year when the social housing stock was greater at the end of the year than at the beginning largely as a result of a fall in the number of right to buy sales. The numbers being built are set to increase but even if new builds doubled they will no way match need and accumulated demand.

Add to that economic factors - house price inflation has averaged 10%+ a year for the last decade making housing a substantial asset to pass on and 'cultural' factors - the popularity of the channel 4 property programmes and the idea that housing is an investment. These result in home ownership being seen as the most desirable choice by the majority of the population.

So today we have a situation where less than 20% of the UK population lives in social housing, 70% of the population own their homes and most people ultimately aspire to do so.

 The flip side to this is that inevitably social housing will contain the people who cannot afford to buy market housing - the people with the problems and those unable to work. It is therefore no surprise that economic disadvantage is concentrated in this group. In many cases council house dwellers form separate sub-cultures cut off from the rest of society.

It is clear that tackling the problem is going to take a long time. The government needs to take the lead in tackling poverty, promoting work and providing training etc for people in disadvantaged groups. It has realised that if it wants to really tackle the problem it should break up the concentrations of poverty on social housing estates and so include home owners alongside social housing. It should also encourage the ‘aspirational’ tenants by offering shared ownership etc. Ultimately the government should increase social housing building radically so that there is scope for local authorities to allocate the housing more on the basis of what will make a mixed community rather than on the basis of need. It must be accepted also that some of these will never be in a position to get a job.

Many of these issues were addressed in the housing green paper published last year – it is vital that the new Housing Minister does not get sidetracked into blaming social housing tenants for their state but sets about ensuring that the green paper is implemented.