Download - Can we, should we, de-residualise social housing? A perspective on developments in England
-
7/28/2019 Can we, should we, de-residualise social housing? A perspective on developments in England
1/11
July 2013
Can we, should we, de-residualise social housing?A perspective on developments in England
Alex Marsh
School for Policy StudiesUniversity of Bristol
-
7/28/2019 Can we, should we, de-residualise social housing? A perspective on developments in England
2/11
1
Can we, should we, de-residualise social housing? A perspective on developments in
England1
In this paper I am going to focus on England, not Scotland or Wales. Increasingly the paths
taken on housing policy by the devolved administrations are diverging from that taken in
Westminster. Policy in Scotland and Wales is more strongly infused with a sense of social
democracy.
But fathoming out likely trajectories for social housing in England is a challenge.
We are now living with a Coalition Government. This inevitably means compromise and the
risk of less coherence in policy agendas. While many colleagues from elsewhere in Europe
would find coalition unexceptional, for us it is novel in many ways. It is not something to
which we are entirely reconciled. It doesnt fit well with our overly adversarial style of
politics.
It is unclear whether coalition government is a temporary aberration, destined to become a
historical curiosity. Or whether it represents the shape of things to come. At the moment the
smart money is probably on a further coalition as the outcome of the next General Election,
in 2015, partly as a result of voter disengagement, the fragmentation of popular opinion, and
the disintegration of mass political parties.
One thing is clear. Housing currently has a political profile in England that it hasnt had for
quite a long time. But the issue attracting most concern and media attention is not
necessarily the housing circumstances of households on the lowest incomes.
The overarching context for the English debate is a long-term failure of housing supply to
keep pace with population expansion and a considerable tightening of lending criteria on
residential mortgages in the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis. The net result is high
housing demand although the intensity of demand pressure of course varies across the
country and access and affordability problems. Owner occupation is declining and more
households are seeking to access rental accommodation.
In this context the Coalition government has attempted a rather audacious rethinking ofsocial housing. They have sought to tilt the axis of the whole system. They have sought to
challenge the idea of social housing as a long-term tenure or a tenure for life. They have
placed more emphasis upon social housing as a temporary safety net in times of difficulty.
They have legislated to allow fixed-term tenancies, to shake the system away from seeing
secure/long-term tenancies as the norm. They have legislated to break the link between the
status of statutory homelessness and access to long-term social rented accommodation.
1 This is the text to accompany my brief presentation to a Roundtable on de-residualisation at the ISA RC43
Conference in Amsterdam, 10th-12th July.
-
7/28/2019 Can we, should we, de-residualise social housing? A perspective on developments in England
3/11
2
Local authorities are now allowed to discharge their homelessness duties into the private
rented sector without requiring the applicants agreement.
But this attempted reorientation of social housing is being imposed upon a system in which
certain institutions are deeply embedded and which is subject to path dependencies. So
change on the ground is perhaps not progressing as fast or as far as central government
might have hoped. While the Governments change agenda has been embraced in some
localities and by some landlords, it has been rejected in part or in whole by others.
In financial terms we have a social housing system that has flipped over the last quarter of a
century from a reliance on price subsidy to a reliance on people subsidies. At the moment
around 95% of public money goes into housing allowances (housing benefit) and only 5%
into capital subsidy.
While the whole thrust of policy for thirty years has been for housing benefit to take thestrain, the size of, and increase in, the resulting housing benefit bill has come to be seen as a
major political concern.
The policy changes we have witnessed mean that more than ever it is important not to think
about social housing in isolation. In particular, policy has increased the interaction between
the social housing system and the bottom end of the private rented sector. And this
interaction is likely to increase over the medium term.
If we were to be successful in de-residualising social housing then we would need to keep
an eye on what was happening in private renting, which is where the displaced households
would almost inevitably end up. Without change in broader economic trends we are talking
about something akin to an exercise in deckchair rearrangement.
We also need to think about the fate of social housing in the context of current ambitious
attempts to restructure the social security system. The centrepiece of this reform is the
attempt to unify a range of core benefits, including housing benefit, into a single benefit
Universal Credit. There are, however, major question marks over the delivery of this project.
Yet, the Government has already introduced a range of restrictions and caps on housing
benefit. It has also introduced overall limits on benefit entitlement and changed methods of
uprating for benefits and allowable increases in social rent levels.
The Governments overarching policy concern is to avoid spending public money wherever
possible. While it has cut spending under particular budget headings, it is struggling to cut
relevant spending overall, when judged holistically.
But this overarching policy concern obsession - leads to a set of policies that do not cohere
well. Indeed, they appear to conflict in key respects.
-
7/28/2019 Can we, should we, de-residualise social housing? A perspective on developments in England
4/11
3
1. What are the standard scenarios about the future of social housing in your
country? How plausible are these scenarios?
We have seen significant tenure transformation in England over the last decade. Private
renting has expanded considerably, both in absolute and relative terms, while social housing
local authority and housing associations combined has declined. Social housing has now
been overtaken by private renting as a proportion of the stock.
When we think in terms of future scenarios we might think, very simply, in terms of growth
and decline and consider the factors that may contribute to movements in either direction.
There are a couple of notable changes that might point in the direction of future growth of
social housing.
First, the Coalition government has followed through on an initiative that started under theprevious Labour administration. It has localised the Housing Revenue Account. That is, it
has dismantled the national system of revenue subsidy underwriting the costs of (some)
local authority housing. The way this has been done means that some local authorities have
found themselves in a position to borrow money against assets in order to invest in new
building. For two decades local authority new construction has been virtually non-existent.
Now there are identifiable development programmes in some parts of the country.
Second, larger housing associations are now organisations of significant scale and balance
sheet strength. Several have entered the market for retail bonds and other financial
instruments in order to finance further new development. In doing so they benefit from the
comfort provided to lenders by the regulatory framework. However, we are arguably
reaching the stage where organisations may well be able to deliver on their development
aspirations by dealing with the markets on the basis of their own financial strength and
could do so operating outside the regulatory framework.
But these developments are perhaps not entirely what they seem at first sight. While the
Government has allowed local authorities to borrow it has not been willing to allow them to
do so on the basis of the prudential borrowing code, as recommended by the CLG Select
Committee last year. Instead Government keeps tight control over the overall borrowing
ceiling for local authorities.
The move by housing associations into the bond market allows them to tap into new sources
of finance, but the terms of engagement are different and it further embeds associations in
global circuits of capital. Critics have argued that as housing associations are obliged to bend
their minds to satisfying the markets the risk is that social purpose and, indeed, social
housing as conventionally understood are increasingly marginalised.
When we turn to consider decline we can identify a rather longer list of factors that maycontribute.
-
7/28/2019 Can we, should we, de-residualise social housing? A perspective on developments in England
5/11
4
The Coalition has sought to reinvigorate the Right to Buy, which had rather run out of
steam, by offering more favourable discounts. This was accompanied by a promise of one-
for-one replacement of the stock. But the numbers necessary to deliver on that promise dont
stack up.
On entering government the Coalition made substantial cuts to the social housing capital
program, which their predecessors had tried to use counter-cyclically in the face of the risk
of economic slowdown after 2008. More recently there has been some concession from parts
of the Coalition that this was probably not a great idea. But this later shift in policy stance
has not been accompanied by major new injections of funding. Instead the Government has
preferred to promote the use of the state balance sheet to offer guarantees in order to
encourage others to take the risk. This is an innovation in our context.
Through the Localism Act 2011 the Government has also reformed the planning system in
ways that has had the net effect of reducing the likelihood of social housing arguably any
housing being constructed. The Government has also allowed private developers to
retrospectively renegotiate and reduce the affordable housing requirements that had been
placed upon them when planning permission was granted, in order to improve viability.
This is seen as being a way of getting development started on sites that have stalled. Given
the importance of such s106 agreements in meeting targets for affordable housing delivery
over the last decade this is potentially a major change.
But perhaps the most significant move the Coalition has made is to introduce so-called
Affordable Rents as an alternative to conventional social rents. Affordable Rents can be set at
up to 80% of local market rents. All new development supported by capital subsidy is to be
on an Affordable Rent basis, and social landlords have the option to move to Affordable
Rents for existing properties when they are relet. In high demand areas this can represent a
significant increase in rent levels.
The aim is, of course, to increase the rental income stream. This will allow for shallower
capital subsidies and greater private borrowing secured against assets that are to be sweated
ever harder. In lower value areas, however, Affordable Rents may not be significantly out of
line with prevailing social rents, so the move wont necessarily allow access to new
resources.
There is limited research, as yet, on the impact of the Affordable Rent regime. A recent study
looking at impacts in London suggested that Affordable Rents were rarely being set at 80%
of market rents because that is a level judged by landlords to be implausibly high. Rents are
more likely in the region of 65% of market rents. So far the social profile of the tenants of
Affordable Rent properties in London is similar, if not slightly more disadvantaged, than for
conventional social housing. The implication is therefore that the housing benefit bill per
unit has increased in order to make properties accessible.
-
7/28/2019 Can we, should we, de-residualise social housing? A perspective on developments in England
6/11
5
The Affordable Rent regime has been opened up to private providers. So the distinction
between social landlords and private landlords has become increasingly blurred.
The Coalition Government is also expert at the PR puff and the sleight of hand. Policy
announcements quite frequent give with one hand and take away with the other. So it is
important to study the detail. In the recent spending review the Government made a fuss
about major increases in housing investment. But the increase was relatively modest, in
historical terms, and it came with a lot of strings attached. In particular, it was expecting that
many more relets would be at Affordable Rents, and a recalibration of the formulae for
social rent uprating means that over time social housing will become increasingly out of
reach of households who rely on housing benefit.
But the future trajectory of social housing is not about the structure and generosity of
subsidy alone. We also have to acknowledge the role of allocation systems. The driver of
social housing allocations in Britain is an assessment of comparative household need. The
overall imbalance between the number of households in need and the number of relets
available means that in many areas only those with significant need will have a chance of
gaining access. Indeed, in areas of acute need, for many years those who were designated as
statutorily homeless accounted for the bulk of lettings.
However, in 2009 a landmark legal case loosened the requirements to house those in the
most need. And, as noted above, the Coalition has legislated for discharging homelessness
duty into the private rented sector rather than social housing. In principle this means local
authorities have more latitude to reframe their local allocations scheme in ways that open up
the possibility of de-residualisation. Many local authorities are keen to increase the
proportion of lettings going to lower income households in work, rather than to those in the
most vulnerable social and economic circumstances. Some authorities have moved
decisively in this direction already. Others are consulting locally on revisions to their policy.
So these moves havent yet worked their way through the system.
Yet given demand pressures on social housing the scope for creating more socially mixed
communities as a result of these greater flexibilities is more constrained than the letter of the
new policy framework might suggest. Also, in the background it would appear that the
Treasury has ongoing concerns that more lettings to households in less disadvantaged
circumstances will represent a reduction in the efficiency of the targeting of subsidy.
2. What are the principal political, economic and social drivers shaping the scale,
limits and ambition of social housing?
The English system embodies some long-standing constraints and inflexibilities. Most
notably, for more than twenty years there has been a debate over whether we should switch
to the EU definition of public sector borrowing. This would allow borrowing associated withtrading activities including social housing, suitably constituted not to count against
-
7/28/2019 Can we, should we, de-residualise social housing? A perspective on developments in England
7/11
6
public sector deficit/debt. This discussion rumbles on without much progress. It means that
while local authorities have now been given prudential borrowing powers their discretion
over investment decisions continues to be tightly controlled by the centre. Some have the
capacity to borrow more and build more. But they are not able to.
But this type of long-standing issue is dwarfed by the austerity agenda to which the
Coalition has cleaved since 2010, in the face of significant domestic and international
criticism.
Almost all sides of the debate acknowledge the need for more social housing development
to address affordability issues, both chronic and acute. Most people recognise housing
investment can be a mechanism to give the economy a meaningful kickstart. And they
recognise that social housing development is likely to be more responsive in the short to
medium term than private speculative builders.
The primary difference rests in whether politicians are willing to put up the money to
underpin the investment. So far the Coalition has made some grand claims for the
investment of rather modest amounts of money. This comes down to political priorities. Few
dispute the dysfunctional nature of the housing market but it is not seen as such an
overwhelming political priority that decisive action has to be taken.
The opposition Labour party is developing a policy position that rests on the view that
policy has moved too far in the direction of housing allowances. A switch back to capital
subsidies is required.
That may well be true. A move to capital subsidies may deliver a reduction in overall public
support for housing in the medium to long term. But in the short term it is going to require a
boost in overall housing spending as housing allowances are maintained while new building
occurs. The Labour party has yet to offer a very meaningful transition plan.
While the austerity narrative acts as a general impediment to action, there are a range of
more detailed uncertainties about policy implementation that place constraints on the ability
or willingness of social landlords to plan. For example, the regulatory framework for
housing associations is under review (again). But more important are the social security
reforms. Something like two thirds of current social housing tenants receive housing
allowances. The outline of the new social security system is clear. But there are grave doubts
about whether it will be implemented to the Governments proposed timescale, if at all. And
if it is implemented there are ongoing concerns about its impact upon the security of
revenue streams and hence landlords ability to service debts. This is not a climate
hospitable to choosing to take on increased risk. We already know that the parameters of the
new social security system, as they interact with the new mechanisms for financing
development, make the development of new larger family properties either too risky oruneconomic in some parts of the country.
-
7/28/2019 Can we, should we, de-residualise social housing? A perspective on developments in England
8/11
7
For these reasons, and others, some of the more ambitious and innovative social housing
organisations are thinking through what can be achieved without government support or
outside regulatory systems. As levels of public subsidy decline we can anticipate eventually
reach a tipping point. Some landlords will conclude that it is no longer worth being subject
to regulatory surveillance and stringent policy requirements regarding how assets are to beused or who is to be allocated properties. The freedoms of true independence will most
likely appeal to some. Whether what they do with those freedoms can sensibly considered
social housing in any meaningful sense is an interesting question.
3. Is the present crisis a threat and/or an opportunity for social housing?
Both.
Social housing has not been a political priority in England for quite a long time. As housing
problems pile one on top the other the merits of a more robust housing policy become evermore apparent. The key role of new house building in sustaining the macroeconomy has
been widely accepted. The virtues of local housing organisations as key community
resources are being more widely recognised. So there is a window of opportunity for those
who wish to press the case for a better housing policy and for social housing to be a key part
of it.
However, the current trajectory of housing finance policy and social security policy means
that the future of conventional social housing must be judged seriously at risk. The
Governments attempt to accelerate the spread of Affordable Rents and intensify thesweating of the assets of, nominally, independent organisations is likely to have a
transformative effect on those organisations. Potentially it will also have a transformative
effect on the role they play in local housing markets. However, whether a transformation
occurs will depend on the way allocations policy is reshaped and the trajectory of the
private housing market. My best guess will be that the private housing market will continue
to be unaffordable to many particularly following the Governments new bubble-building
Help to Buy scheme and social housing landlords will not be able to reprofile their tenants
to the extent that some would like. That constrains the scope for de-residualisation.
The route out of the crisis for social housing could also depend quite profoundly on the
outcome of the 2015 General Election. Some commentators have suggested that housing
could be a key election battleground this time around.
The formal housing policy of the Liberal Democrats, the junior Coalition party, includes
significant commitments to social housing. The Labour opposition appear to be developing a
policy which is more hospitable to conventional social housing. If the General Election
delivers a Labour government or, perhaps more likely, a Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition
then the future for social housing could look very different from one in which theConservatives are returned for another term, either alone or in coalition.
-
7/28/2019 Can we, should we, de-residualise social housing? A perspective on developments in England
9/11
8
4. Do we see the sector playing a long term role in future mixed housing systems? If
so, what will its key characteristics be?
Current social housing organisations will no doubt continue to play a significant role in the
housing system. But there is likely to be a bifurcation, driven by the changing environment.
Some social landlords are likely to adopt the strategy of sticking as far as possible to
providing conventional social housing, perhaps with a greater community orientation.
These housing associations will not be developing new properties.
On the other hand, large housing associations will get larger, probably through merger and
acquisition, in order to strengthen their balance sheets and access assets that can be put to
work as loan security. Developing housing associations will become more closely enmeshed
with private finance and, of necessity, operate in more market-friendly ways.
They are also to varying degrees and in varying combinations - diversifying away from
conventional social renting. Not only to Affordable Renting, but also to greater involvement
in low cost home ownership and intermediate renting, or market renting. The Government
has launched a Build to Rent scheme intended to boost new construction for standard
private renting. Some of the early bidders for funding under the scheme are social housing
organisations.
Some associations, rather than diversifying into different types of housing provision, are
diversifying into related areas such as the provision of care or community services.
There is a general search for sources of cross-subsidy to underwrite social housing
provision.
Many of the larger organisations will therefore have a mixed portfolio of activity. Social
housing will sit as one element of this portfolio. It will possibly be a declining element. The
various activities may well be branded differently. This approach is likely to mean that the
market is segmented, rather than social housing being de-residualised.
Social housing, as currently understood, may eventually become primarily associated with
the smaller, non-developing, more risk-averse housing providers. Such providers are
unlikely to be well-placed to de-residualise.
Housing organisations that we have thus far viewed as social landlords will remain part
of the housing system. But the way the system is evolving means the time is ripe for a
reconsideration of what is social about social housing.
5. Final thoughts
Can we de-residualise?
-
7/28/2019 Can we, should we, de-residualise social housing? A perspective on developments in England
10/11
9
We can, but it is only going to happen if political priorities are significantly rethought. At the
macrolevel housing needs to come up the list of political priorities. This will enhance supply
sufficiently to give greater policy flexibilities. At the microlevel there needs to be substantial
change both in terms of finance and in terms of allocations.
It is most definitely not the case that policy cant innovate or isnt innovating. There is
currently plenty of innovation occurring. It is just that most of that innovation is directed
towards coming up with new ways of not spending public money now. Even if we end up
spending just as much, or more, money later.
Should we de-residualise?
I think the answer to that is yes, but within parameters. The mixed communities rhetoric
may have waned and the neighbourhood effects debate may continue to be inconclusive, but
there is evidence around stigmatisation and the like that means that reducing the labellingeffects of social housing would be a positive move. But, as I said at the outset, we need to
couple thinking about de-residualising social housing with a concern for what is happening
at the bottom end of the private rented sector. To some extent they are two ends of the same
seesaw.
We should also, though, go beyond thinking about social housing in the way that we have
conventional conceived of it in the UK that is, as a specific set of properties receiving price
subsidies.
This type of thinking is ever less relevant to understanding what is going on. It doesnt
allow us to build a balanced or comprehensive picture of what is happening. For example,
the Governments Build to Rent scheme for private renting is similar in scale to its annual
investment in Affordable Rented housing. Or the Government has recently expressed
interest in development Rent to Buy schemes that provide price subsidy on a temporary
basis.
Temporary subsidies, revolving funds, recycling subsidies. These are mechanisms that are
more explicitly part of housing systems elsewhere. They are only really starting to be
explored in the English context. If we move further down this route then it reinforces the
need to arrive at a more flexible understanding of social housing. Such mechanisms also
lend themselves to moves to de-residualise social housing.
We have asked: Can we de-residualise? Should we de-residualise?
We might also ask: is there the political will to act? That is, do we want to de-residualise?
This is a rather more pressing question. And the answer seems to me to be rather less clear.
-
7/28/2019 Can we, should we, de-residualise social housing? A perspective on developments in England
11/11
10
About the author
Alex Marsh is Professor of Public Policy at the University of Bristol. He has been Head of the
School for Policy Studies since 2007. Alexs research and writing has encompassed a wide
range of topics in the fields of housing studies, public policy and regulation.
Between 2005 and 2009 Alex has been managing editor of Housing Studies, the leading
international academic journal in the field. He continues as a member of the journals
Management Board.
Alex worked part-time as a Visiting Academic Consultant to the Public Law team at the Law
Commission between 2006 and 2010. His work with the Commission addressed compliance
issues in the private rented sector and systems of redress against public bodies.
From 2004 until 2012 Alex was a trustee of Brunelcare, a Bristol-based charity providing
housing, care and support for older people. For six years he chaired Brunelcare's Audit and
Scrutiny Committee.
www.alex-marsh.net
The material in this note is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/