Who can argue against making British workers and veterans the priority for social housing? Given the limited stock of housing, wouldn’t it be monstrously unfair not to put those in work and those who fought for the country first? Well, of course so much of our public policy in the last few decades has been illogical and monstrously unfair.
And so, as a few weeks ago when I wrote in support of Reform’s announcement to ban foreigners from council homes, I find myself in agreement with the proposals put forward by Richard Tice yesterday that council housing allocation should prioritise young British married working couples with children, along with military veterans.
Overhauling the system is well overdue. The latest English Housing Survey revealed that in 59 per cent – almost two and a half million – of social-rented households the lead householder does not work. Meanwhile, many in work struggle to afford a home. That same survey found that of the adults living with others because they could not afford their own accommodation, three quarters were in work and most commonly they worked 30 hours per week or more. It is telling that the outrage-mongers never seem to find it in themselves to express any outrage about this.
Reform’s decision to prioritise homes for married couples with children has set the cat amongst the pigeons. But of course the state should be encouraging marriage given its incontrovertible benefit both to children’s life chances and in reducing future reliance on the state. Indeed, the Tories might take this moment to pause and ask themselves why the supposed party of the family, that so often presented itself as defending marriage and the family as a social institution, never thought to promote those convictions in social housing allocation.
And yes we should also be encouraging procreation. The ONS projects that more Britons will die each year than are born from this year, meaning immigration has become the sole source of UK population growth.
Tice was careful to say that exceptions would be made for those who had made significant contributions through previous jobs, and benefit claimants who were genuinely unable to work from illness/disability. That has not stopped the permanently aggrieved from coming forth with a litany of objections, accusing Reform of punishing everyone from single mothers to same-sex couples. Dimmer commentators have also accused the party of targeting widows. Reform’s policy makes clear that ‘widows and widowers will retain the marriage weighting’ in allocation. But then reading to page 17 of a policy paper can hardly be expected of those with an axe to grind.
Tice, who spent some 15 years of his business career actually building homes, is as good a messenger as any for this policy prospectus. Alongside the changes to allocation, he announced (apparently fiscally-neutral) plans to build 50,000 homes a year for ten years, solely for British born workers aged under the age of 35.
It is those references to ‘British born’ workers – rather than just British citizens, as in last week’s announcement by Robert Jenrick reducing eligibility to welfare – that may end up being one of the most significant elements of this announcement. For it may introduce a new dividing line between parties on the right. Time will tell whether it becomes a recurring feature in Reform’s policy programme. Either way, it is hard not to feel that it’s only a distinction the party has made because of the widespread sense amongst the public that for years now British citizenship has been handed out like confetti.
I suspect the reforms will land well with the public. To the extent they still have any faith in the system, I think the average person assumes, for instance, that prime social housing in central London goes to those who are working, perhaps in essential worker roles, or doing anti-social hours that would make it difficult to commute long distances home using public transport. Certainly, that is what I assumed: that those living in council houses in prime Westminster (where, by the way, 60 per cent of the social housing goes to foreign-born households), might be cleaners working in Parliament or night-shift nurses working at St Thomas’ hospital. Little did I know.
Westminster council actually abolished employment priority for new applicants in March last year. Meanwhile it now gives additional priority simply for having lived continuously in the borough for a decade. Westminster allows social housing to remain effectively within the family, with an individual having grown up in the area thanks to their lucky parent’s council house potentially able to succeed to the tenancy, their years living in the borough further strengthening their priority status. Having a job, strictly optional.
This is the broken system we need to change. We are a country facing problems on many fronts. We have both a worklessness crisis and a housing crisis. Attempting to kill two birds with one stone is smart public policy.
Comments