Examination of Witnesses (Questions 540
- 559)
THURSDAY 19 APRIL 2007
YVETTE COOPER
MP, MS TERRIE
ALAFAT AND
MR PETER
RUBACK
Q540 Martin Horwood:
One of the problems is that local authorities do not have the
ability to do that at the moment.
Yvette Cooper: I suppose you probably
would come up against the same issues around the nature of housing
associations' ability to borrow compared to local authorities'
public sector borrowing. It might also have implications for some
of the self-financing pilots, although I have not really thought
that through.
Martin Horwood: It would be a good thing.
Q541 Emily Thornberry:
When there were questions being asked about housing associations
and their stock, I was thinking that there is increasing alarm,
is there not, that some housing associations, again particularly
in inner London where there is so little land, seem to be selling
off their properties, seem to be selling off some of their land,
indeed as are local authorities selling off housing that they
simply cannot afford to do up so they sell that on and are selling
off land too. As housing is so limited is there any way in which
that can be restricted or regulated?
Yvette Cooper: There are restrictions
and regulations around what properties can be sold off and the
Housing Corporation has a role to play in this. We did some analysis
of what kinds of homes were being sold off by housing associations
and some of them were properties that might have been built by
housing associations as a part of mixed communities, so it was
always intended that these particular properties would be sold
off on a full market basis. Some were also properties that had
been built particularly for students, for example, where there
was always the intention to pass it on to a university. There
were some specific examples like that which seemed completely
legitimate. Where it raises concern is where you have street properties
particularly, the properties that are genuinely a part of mixed
communities, that end up being sold off because they are more
expensive to manage than those on estates, but they might also
be more important properties in terms of maintaining mixed communities.
We have asked the Housing Corporation to keep a close eye on this.
There will be times when there are financial decisions that housing
associations need to make to keep their overall programme viable,
nevertheless you want to avoid decisions that end up undermining
mixed communities where they are not necessary.
Q542 Mr Olner:
Minister, can I say that over the last couple or three years I
have noticed that more and more people, particularly young people,
are having a great deal of difficulty in getting onto the housing
list at all. In my authority the housing list has grown bigger
and bigger. What incentives can we immediately offer local authorities
to start to address that by building more council properties?
I mentioned earlier about the small amount of build you could
do with factory produced housing and whatnot. I think most housing
authorities need that sharp injection to get the top of the housing
waiting list out of the way.
Yvette Cooper: What they should
certainly be doing is looking at the wider level of housing that
is needed in the area, so what is needed in terms of market housing
share, shared housing and social housing, making sure the planning
system is supporting that. Secondly, they should be working with
housing associations on what additional social housing is needed.
Because of the ability of housing associations to lever in additional
private sector borrowing that is clearly often the most effective
way to deliver additional housing. In addition, I would urge them
to look at the pre-prospectus recently published by the Housing
Corporation that looked at other ways in which councils might
be able to directly build themselves if they have got their own
assets that they could put into the process as well. Part of this
is about additional funding, which is what we have been putting
in over the last few years as part of the Spending Review and
we have said it is a priority for the next Spending Review. Your
local authority, probably like mine, is one where they could probably
do with some more of this, to look at further contributions from
section 106 where they may not have been doing as much as they
could have been in the past because that might also help them
with the provision of social housing.
Q543 Mr Olner:
I think they have squeezed a fair bit out of that. It is this
initial incentive to be able to build blocks of ten, 20, 30 houses
or whatever. It has been a long while since I have been on the
housing authority but it seems to me that there is not the specific
grant of money there available for them to do it. I wondered whether
you could lever some money into first and new build.
Yvette Cooper: The pre-prospectus
is part of doing that.
Q544 Chair: Minister,
can you expand on that as to how you can help local authorities
where they are providing new housing to diversify the size of
unit that they build.
Yvette Cooper: You mean by that
more family homes, do you?
Q545 Chair: Yes.
Yvette Cooper: This is a particular
pressure obviously in London but it does raise issues in other
parts of the country now as well.
Q546 Chair: Because
of the right to buy having largely got rid of all the family housing.
Yvette Cooper: The Regional Housing
Board in London and the Mayor now have specifically looked at
increasing the proportion of family housing as part of the way
in which the social housing budget is spent. Other regional housing
boards would probably be wise to look at the same issue.
Q547 Mr Hands:
We have got a little bit of time to look at the Hills report and
the creation of mixed-income neighbourhoods, which we have already
alluded to. How much of a role can social housing play in meeting
the wider objective without reducing the overall supply of social
rented homes? Hills makes a strong case for landlords to diversify
stock through selective sales, offset by spatially diverse purchasing.
Do you support this approach? I guess tied to that, going back
to London again, I am afraid, when you get an approach where the
Mayor of London sets in stone that all boroughs should build 50%
social housing on all new projects, does it make sense to have
the same rules for, say, the London Borough of Bromley as for
the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, one which has a very low
proportion of social housing and one which already has a very
high level of social housing? Would it not be more appropriate
to have some greater flexibility there for individual councils
within their area rather than this fixed centrally driven 50%
target?
Yvette Cooper: Well, the Mayor
does not set a 50% target for social housing, it is a 50% target
for affordable housing, which includes both social and shared
ownership housing. What there is then the scope for is to have
at individual borough level a debate as part of the individual
plan as to how that borough should contribute to the city-wide
strategy of a 50% affordable housing target. There is scope within
the planning process to have that debate and to have that debate
both with the Mayor but also through the examination in public
as to what an individual borough's contribution should be towards
that overall 50% target because it might vary from one area to
another, but that is a matter to be looked at probably through
the planning system, through discussions both with the Mayor and
also examination in public of the individual borough's plan.
Q548 Mr Hands:
You are doing the opposite, without going back to our GLA Bill
discussion, by concentrating the entire power with the Mayor who
will set a policy across London. That is really doing the opposite.
Would you be supportive, say, of councils which have an existing
very high percentage of social rented housing not building any
more on the basis of the Hills report to get mixed communities?
Yvette Cooper: I do not think
London boroughs can operate in isolation from what is happening
elsewhere in the rest of the capital. That is why we have said
it is the Mayor's role to draw up the regional housing strategy
for London. What happens in one borough has a very big impact
on what happens in a neighbouring borough. A lot of people move
between different parts of London at different stages in their
lives and I think it is wrong to see it as individual borough-based
housing markets when that is clearly not the way in which London
works.
Q549 Mr Hands:
That is not social housing. Social housing has very, very little
mobility between boroughs.
Yvette Cooper: That may be part
of the problem. We think that they should be considering far more
mobility. It has been a disappointment that some of the boroughs
have resisted some of the cross-borough working around social
housing and around choice-based lettings across borough boundaries.
We think all boroughs should be contributing to delivering additional
social housing and affordable housing that the city needs. Clearly
it is important to do that as part of mixed communities and it
is important for an individual borough's circumstances to be taken
into account as part of their planning process, but they all do
need to contribute and it would be better if some of the boroughs
did a bit more to work across boundaries than they are currently
doing.
Q550 Chair: Minister,
have you got any detailed information about how those schemes
are or are not operating because it is an issue which has been
raised with us in evidence and it would be useful to have the
most up-to-date information?
Yvette Cooper: Yes.
Q551 Chair: Can
I also ask you, you did not answer the first bit of Mr Hands'
question which was about the Hills proposal on essentially selling
off where you have estates, selling off some of the properties
into the private market in order to achieve the tenant mix and
then presumably using that money to provide some more social rented
housing elsewhere. Does the Government support that approach or
not?
Yvette Cooper: We think this is
a very interesting approach. There was a JRF development where
they did this but, of course, they had more flexibility to do
it on that particular development, according to my recollection,
because the social housing in the area had quite high property
values, the nature of the development, so it meant that it was
easier than it would be in some areas to be able to sell off properties
in a social housing area and then put the money into replacing
the social housing in another area by buying back or whatever.
Some areas will be easier to do that in than others. You have
to take very seriously the need not to reduce social housing supply
in areas where it is badly needed. Those are the constraints that
you operate under. However, as an approach it is certainly a very
interesting one if it would allow you to do more of that kind
of mixed community. Where you have a new estate being built next
to an existing social housing estate, for example, there are things
that you might be able to explore in that area where you might
be able to sell off some of the existing social housing but use
the funds to pay for new social housing on the additional higher
levels of social housing on the new estate being built so you
can better mix both communities rather than end up having a polarisation
between them. The economics matter and that is why we are still
at an early stage of looking at this.
Q552 Mr Betts:
Can I just follow up that issue and then another one about Hills
as well. It follows from the question Martin Horwood asked earlier.
You answered about selling off and had the caveat about not reducing
the supply of social housing in areas where there is a shortage,
but is there not still an issue around the right to buy in some
areas? In some areas right to buy is still making more mixed communities
because the vast majority of housing in those areas is socially
rented but in other areas where perhaps a very small proportion
of the housing stock is socially rented the right to buy reduces
the mix of the communities by simply making owner-occupation more
and more the predominant form of tenure in that area. When we
went to Holland to take some evidence about social housing there,
they have something similar to the right to buy but in the end
the social landlord, which is normally some sort of housing association
in the area, can actually decide, according to the housing market
in that area and the shortages of social housing, whether to sell.
They look at the circumstances and if they have got a surplus
of housing or a predominance of social housing they can sell but
otherwise they can decide not to. Have we not got to move to something
similar to that system if we are going to protect mixed communities
in areas where there are very, very few social housing units?
Yvette Cooper: As you will be
aware, we did introduce different restrictions on the right to
buy in particular areas, reductions and discounts in particular
areas a few years ago as part of the previous Housing Bill. At
this stage we are not looking at further restrictions or proposals
to change that, partly because we think right to buy does play
an important role. Right to buy for a lot of people at the moment
is not affordable because of what has happened with overall house
prices as well, so the impact that it has on different areas is
very mixed. It is something that has played such an important
role in giving people the opportunity to buy their own homes that
what we are looking at instead at the moment is different ways
of being able to provide additional social housing in an area
or different ways of being able to have a social home buy approach
to get the kind of mixed tenure rather than right to buy restrictions.
Q553 Mr Betts:
Would you be prepared to look at extending the restrictions that
you have already brought in to more areas because currently they
only apply to some areas, do they not?
Yvette Cooper: I do not think
we have been at the moment but I do not know whether we have had
any approaches from any areas to do so.
Q554 Mr Betts:
But you would listen to approaches if they were made?
Yvette Cooper: We always listen
to local authorities if they ask us things but it is not something
that we have been looking at ourselves.
Q555 Martin Horwood:
In your opening comments you linked worklessness and housing tenure
and Hills makes the same connection and makes quite a radical
argument that one of the purposes of social housing actually is
to improve the employment and the income of tenants. I would like
to ask do you agree with that vision and would you agree with
some of the ideas that he has to reduce the separation between
local authorities and Jobcentres? In my experience even the employment
aspect of Jobcentres is becoming more remote even from local Jobcentres
let alone local authorities or social housing providers. Do you
think that might be one example of a policy tool or are there
others that might fulfil that vision of Hills on work and social
housing?
Yvette Cooper: We are very interested
in this aspect of the Hills review and have a programme of work
looking at this in the Department at the moment as to what more
could be done—working with DWP as well around what more
could be done—to help people in social housing into work.
Obviously part of what is happening is that social housing inevitably
is also more likely to include people who will struggle to work,
so people who have got serious problems with incapacity or invalidity
are also more likely to end up in social housing, so the figures
are quite complex in terms of what they show. However, we would
like to see more being done to help people in social housing into
employment. Some of that might involve closer working with Jobcentres.
There are some interesting programmes that some housing associations
do run about job advice or very localised employment advice and
help. I think the Notting Hill Trust do quite a bit of work around
helping tenants into training or employment. Interestingly, some
have set up as part of the Decent Homes schemes, both local authorities
and ALMOs and some stock transfer programmes, quite substantial
training schemes as part of the repair and refurbishment work
for local residents and tenants as well.
Q556 Martin Horwood:
Hills was quite complimentary about some of the initiatives of
housing associations and the Housing Corporation in terms of added
value, but can we narrow it down on to that Jobcentre and local
authority issue, that you are in favour of a closer relationship
between the employment function of Jobcentres and local authorities?
Yvette Cooper: I think we are
keen to look at it. What we do not want to do is to try and simply
replicate what Jobcentres do by housing associations because it
is not the housing associations' core purpose, so there is no
point in getting that duplication, but we are looking quite extensively
at exactly that relationship between local authorities, Jobcentres
and—
Q557 Martin Horwood:
He was not talking about duplication, he was talking about bringing
the functions back together again because they have become too
distant.
Yvette Cooper: We are looking
at John's proposals and the important thing is to make sure that
we do not end up duplicating or changing the function of either
housing associations or Jobcentres but can look at much closer
working between them.
Q558 Mr Betts:
Can I just come back to another recommendation of Hills, and this
is the use of assets by social landlords, particularly the fact
that many of them are locked into very blinkered needs-based letting
systems which simply look at the person on the waiting list with
the greatest need and give them the house that comes up. In parts
of London that may be essential because of the chronic housing
shortage but in other areas we have seen a substantial reduction
of transfers within the housing stock. I think Hills points out
that there is a lot more scope to get people who are living in
three-bedroom properties and want to trade down into smaller properties,
people who want to be moved near grandparents so they can get
childcare which enables them to go back to work, and those sorts
of factors ought to be built into the systems wherever possible.
Are we going to get some reflection and guidance from the Department
to local authorities and others about it?
Yvette Cooper: I think probably
one of the most striking elements of the Hills review was the
analysis he set out which showed how little mobility there was
within social housing. John talked particularly about mobility
for work but you might also think around mobility for overcrowding
or other reasons as to why people should do more moving within
the stock. We have been looking particularly around mobility for
work reasons and how you should do more to support people who
might want to be able to take up a job somewhere to be able to
move within the stock. That includes across local authority boundaries
as well which can sometimes be more difficult. We are also looking
at it as a part of overcrowding allocations. We do get anecdotes
of larger properties being allocated to someone who is currently
in temporary accommodation who might be happy in a smaller property
where a family in a smaller property who were overcrowded could
have moved into a larger property and effectively you then open
up their home which the family in temporary accommodation could
have moved into. There are some anecdotal examples of the allocations
process not working intelligently enough around overcrowding.
That is one of the things we have been looking at already as part
of the overcrowding programme. Again, it does particularly affect
London but it could apply more widely. We are also looking very
closely at the broad mobility issues that John raised in terms
of work as well.
Q559 Mr Betts:
Have you got a timescale for when you are likely to come back
on those matters?
Yvette Cooper: We are trying to
do the work as rapidly as possible because we also want to be
able to take account of it as part of the Spending Review considerations
as well. We are working on it quite intensively over the next
few months.
| 
