Security of tenure for housing to be tied to work or training

The Municipal Journal has just reported that Wandsworth LBC is considering introducing a 'Housing into Work' scheme for new housing applicants. They would be subject to fixed-term tenancies tied to periodic reviews of their employment status.

Tenants who fail to take steps to find work or improve their employment prospects during the fixed term face the prospect of losing their homes.

The Council's Housing spokesperson Councillor Paul Ellis said: "We are effectively creating a contract with selected new tenants to support and help them find a job or gain new skills. In return we expect them to take up these opportunities." 

Some questions that spring to mind include: who will be the "selected" new tenants and how selected; what is the degree of support and re-skilling they will have to contract to undertake; who will manage this contract; how narrow or permissive will the "expectation" to take up the opportunities; and how will its outcomes be measured when a family's human right to a roof over its head is at stake?

He went on to say even more portentously that 'People who refuse to meaningfully to look for work without good reason will forfeit their right to a council home." The definition of "meaningful" will be absolutely critical here.

Further, he suggested that 'This isn't about punishing people who are made redundant or cannot find a job. It is about having a way to penalise those who can't be bothered to make the effort.' So, it's not just a test of meaningfulness, they will also have to prove the degree to which a tenant has been "bothered" to find work and it is de-facto about the housing landlord now taking on the role of "penalising" its tenants not for their behaviour as tenants bit for their capacity to participate in an economy which is in recession - that's a big stretch. 

This really does begin to look like soundbite territory for the Daily Mail.It also begs the question that if this about jobs and skilling, why not concentrate on those aspects and not complicate it by tieing those outcomes to social housing availability? It is also potentially discriminatory, selecting one group in society to have their housing put at risk. 

The MJ tells us that the council are also looking into giving working families higher priority in the allocating homes. Which would suggest a consistency of approach at least, whatever one might think of the higher profile elements of the policy. What happens when/if they lose their jobs - might this policy be expanded later on to deal with existing tenants in work?

Cllr Ellis added: "It is important that our housing estates have a good mix of people from all walks of life and with different socio-economic backgrounds. We believe that increasing the number of families on our estates who are in work will act as a beacon for those around them." Which of course we would all welcome from a social balance viewpoint, but rather than create balanced communities by wider societal means, the balance will be narrowly socially engineered.

We have already blogged earlier this year that Wandsworth LBC caused controversy after threatening convicted rioters with eviction from their council homes. Despite the 'big brother' rather than 'big society' aspects of this policy  Marlene Price, vice-chair of the Borough Residents' Forum - the organisation representing the council's 33,000 tenants and leaseholders - welcomed the proposals.

She said: '"I support the council's efforts to encourage people to do all they can to improve their lives and improve the life chances of themselves and their families."

The MJ finishes it piece by revealing the policy draws on new powers contained in the Localism Bill - "giving local authorities greater freedoms and flexibility when it comes to determining who is given a taxpayer-subsidised home." We'd be interested to understand just exactly what the nature is of the "tax-payer subsidised home". Council housing finance has been complex for years, being a mix of capital and revenue funding, public borrowing and housing benefit - but this phrase is just too general and potentially emotive to be trusted.  

The policy could be effective later this month. Comment now.