Crisis? What housing crisis? David Miliband unaware of bitter homes repairs battle

Published: 01 July, 2010
by RICHARD OSLEY

FORMER Foreign Secretary David Miliband risked alienating core supporters in his Labour Party leadership campaign after revealing he knew next to nothing about Camden’s battle with the government over repairs to council homes.

He needed local members last Wednesday to explain the long history behind the issue  and how Labour ministers repeatedly refused to provide direct investment in the borough’s estates.

This, even though it was Mr Miliband, as Communities Minister in Tony Blair’s government, who was meant to be working on breaking the deadlock and ensuring that Camden’s council properties were brought up to scratch.

And it was the Primrose Hill-based high-flyer who tenants, councillors and Labour Party activists were explicitly told to talk to by Mr Blair back in 2006. 

Former council leader Dame Jane Roberts wrote to him on the subject when she was in office and tenantsurged him to intervene. At the time, the New Journal doorstepped him at a Labour Party conference but rather than making any comment he referred reporters to press officers. 

The failure to get the issue resolved when council estates around the country were having upgrades was a key factor in Labour’s council election defeat in 2006. The party only won back control two months ago.

The issue was raised as Mr Miliband made his third public appearance in Camden in as many weeks – the local branch is one of the largest pools of members entitled to vote on the leadership. 

He spoke at a question-and-answer session organised by the Queen’s Crescent Community Association. It was in Gospel Oak where Labour uncharacteristically lost council seats in 2006 to the Conservatives in the midst of the housing row. 

Tenants wanted to keep the council as their landlord but Mr Miliband’s government was insistent that control of estates had to pass to a new private company and withheld money when residents rebelled.

At last Wednesday’s event, former council leader Raj Chada asked Mr Miliband why Mr Blair’s government and then the Brown regime that followed appeared intent on replacing good council services with ones run by private companies.

During the exchange, Mr Miliband was clearly surprised: “You didn’t have any Decent Homes money? At all? How was it resolved?”

Mr Chada said: “You didn’t give us the money.”

Privately, some Labour supporters who are backing Mr Mili­band’s bid were disappointed. They urged people to concentrate on the way he deftly answered questions on foreign policy at the community centre.

“Just a few weeks ago, he was Foreign Secretary dealing with some of the world’s toughest issues – you have to go back years to when he was a local government minister. He deserves a bit of slack,” said one of his backers. 

When the New Journal interviewed Mr Blair during his unsuccessful attempt to help Camden Labour out by appearing ahead of the local elections in 2006, the PM specifically told the newspaper to ask Mr Miliband about the lack of funding to Camden’s housing department.

He said: “David Miliband is trying to resolve it. Until he gets to work out what the right solution is, there is not much point me commenting.”

Labour councillors – now back in power in Camden – were challenged repeatedly at Monday’s full council meeting on how they will fund repairs in the future.

Lib Dem deputy leader Councillor Matt Sanders said it was incredible that Mr Miliband was not aware of the dispute. Former Lib Dem housing chief Councillor Chris Naylor said: “It’s a bit scary that someone who lives in the heart of Camden and is tipped to be the new Labour leader is so out of touch that he doesn’t know about Camden’s top political issue involving hundreds of millions of pounds and 50,000 of Camden’s residents. 

“When Labour claimed they were lobbying hard, who were they lobbying?”

History lesson – ‘It’s still not resolved’

MILIBAND: I’m aware there was a specific issue in Camden. I think it was about council house building.

CHADA: No. Decent Homes. I don’t want to get into the history of it but 80 per cent of tenants rejected the Almo [arms’-length management organisation] and the government said no: it’s an Almo or nothing. No money.

MILIBAND: Um-eh. What? Was it a very low-performing department?

CHADA: No. We were top, we were four stars. In terms of performance, there was no need for it [the Almo].

MILIBAND: Ah. What we should be saying is that if you are outstanding you should be allowed to do more – not less. How was this resolved?

CHADA: You didn’t give us the money.

MILIBAND: You didn’t have any Decent Homes money? At all? And it’s still not resolved?

CHADA: It’s still not resolved.