Housing chief James Murray slams fixed tenancy plan

Cllr James Murray

The Prime Minister’s idea to end right to lifelong council homes ‘will create fear and panic’

Published: 13 August, 2010
by PETER GRUNER

ISLINGTON’S housing chief, Labour Councillor James Murray, this week accused the Prime Minister of creating “fear and panic” among thousands of council tenants over his controversial plan to end lifelong tenancies.

Executive member for housing Cllr Murray described as “unworkable” and a “return to the Dark Ages” David Cameron’s ideas for a five-year or more fixed term for all new council and housing association tenancies.

The row blew up after Conservatives argued that many council tenants may have started out in need but now earn way above the average wage and could well afford to move out of subsidised social accommodation and into the private sector.

But one of Mr Cameron’s staunchest supporters, Islington Conservative Party chairman Richard Bunting, criticised the Prime Minister’s proposal, pointing out that there was a danger that tenants might refuse better paid jobs just so they can keep their council homes. “In principle it’s a good idea to free up council housing,” Mr Bunting said. “But it needs a lot of careful thought and consultation.”

Council housing was introduced nationwide towards the end of the 19th century and peaked after the Second World War, when it replaced homes destroyed in the bombing. Many tenants purchased their homes under a previous Conservative government’s right-to-buy scheme and with a rising population – particularly in Islington – there is a desperate shortage.

Currently, council tenants have secure tenancy for life. Housing association tenants have secure tenancy for life after a probationary year. Council tenants also have the right to hand the property over to their children, whereas housing association tenants do not.

“What Cameron is suggesting is extremely scary,” Cllr Murray said. “He seems to want tenants to be means tested every five or 10 years.  And if they don’t fit a certain criteria that the coalition government sets, they lose the tenancy.

“This fear and uncertainty is the very thing that social housing was meant to remove. People need security when their kids are growing up and at local schools. 

“It is the very basis of our hard-earned housing system. The Tory scheme will destroy communities and force tenants into the private sector, where they will face financial exploitation.”

Islington currently has 11,000 people on the housing waiting list, with 15,000 in council accommodation.

Cllr Murray added: “Our biggest aim is to build more social housing in Islington. Unfortunately, insufficient was built under the previous Lib Dem council. But these are difficult times and the coalition government is withdrawing a lot of funding.”

Conservative activist Oriel Hutchinson supported Mr Cameron and said people’s circumstances can change.

“With thousands on the waiting list, what is wrong with asking those that can afford it to rent from the private sector?” she said. “More people renting in the private sector might even bring the private rents down.”

Comments

Far too much social housing in Islington

"there is a desperate shortage....Our biggest aim is to build more social housing in Islington"

As a letter in the Trib pointed out the other week, Islington has waaay too much social housing already, at some 44% of the borough being in the hands of the State (the local authority) or quasi-State entities like Housing Associations. The London average is 26% and the national average is 18%. Only the most feckless and irresponsible from the "priority" list ever get a tenancy under the present "needs" based allocation scheme. The employed have got no chance. Concentrating "deprivation" and self created deprivation in most cases at that. Nobody asked the benefit dependent single parents to have so many kids at the expense of the taxpayer did they? They get away with it because the keys to a council flat are the reward...

Islington should be selling it's bloated social housing stock to repay the debt it owes to the Government, certainly not building any more. That would indeed be a toxic legacy...

“More people renting in the

“More people renting in the private sector might even bring the private rents down.” - errr, so higher demand = lower prices??? I thought Conservatives were meant to understand free market economics?

Post new comment

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.