I recently asked whether social housing can be more than just a vital safety net for the most vulnerable, but also a springboard to opportunity. Most controversially, I asked whether it would be right to ask new tenants, who can work, to sign ‘commitment contracts’ in which they agree to engage with job-seeking or training in return for better support. My questions have sparked a passionate debate.
Having been brought up in private rented and council housing, I make no apologies for starting this difficult debate. The level of worklessness on some estates is a stark problem. Despite all the successes we have had since 1997 in reducing the scourge of long-term unemployment, there are still too many children growing up in Britain without ever seeing an adult get up and go to work in the morning. More than half of working-age social tenants aren’t working – more than double the national rate. Among young people, the situation is even worse. This is a major contributor to inter-generational poverty.
It wasn’t always like this and I am not prepared to accept that there is no more we can do to unlock the talent in these communities. I have been accused of stigmatising council tenants. I couldn’t disagree more. Council housing used to bring people together, giving security to hard-working families living in strong neighbourhoods. Today, many council tenants have the same values: they are hard-working and support their neighbours and families.
But there are also estates that are marginalised and overlooked. Unless we recognise the stigma that is already attached to some of our most difficult estates, we will never make a difference. And we will fail to give a second chance and a better offer to the people who live there.
Social housing will always have a strong role in supporting those in the most need – particularly older and disabled people, and carers. But there are also many inactive people who could work with the right training and support. It is not socially-just to stand by and watch young people getting left behind as the rest of us share in our country’s rising prosperity.
We should consider whether we can offer new tenants a complete package of incentives and opportunities along with the keys to their new home. In return, is it unreasonable to expect that those who can work, should be actively looking to do so? In this way, we can make sure that social housing is more than a just a roof over people’s heads – crucial as that is – but that it also helps them gain more control over their own lives.
For existing tenants, I want to see how we can better join up housing and employment services at a neighbourhood level, and whether we can expand existing schemes to offer tenants who cannot afford to buy outright, the opportunity to buy a share. I also want to look at how we give tenants a stronger voice to drive up standards of local services; and whether we can increase mobility in the system to allow tenants to express greater choice about where they live.
Many working in the sector are already deeply concerned about unemployment and are taking practical steps to tackle it. The Foyer Federation Network, for example, helps 10,000 young people each year. They ask young people to sign a learning agreement in return for a roof over their head. The results are inspiring.
Social tenants have the same aspirations as people who live in private accommodation. Most say they’d like to own their own home. They want their children to have the opportunity to fulfill their potential and to have more than they have. The Labour party is at its best when it is focused on supporting people’s aspirations. We must continue to be hungry for change and not accept, or appear to accept, that some issues are too difficult or uncomfortable for us to address. That is why we cannot afford to ignore this vital agenda.
No this is not Labour this is New Labour, Flint should understand at no time can she say she’s in Labour, it’s new Labour. how dare she even think she is a socialist.
Caroline’s socio-political chutzpah is always admirable! (She showed it when she was in-charge of public health too.) And most of what she’s proposing makes sense. But she shouldn’t be seen to be fighting in her own corner : the whole government must be clearly seen to be driving forcefully a new, joined-up, philosophical attitude towards “welfare state” that’s befitting the 21st century — that, unlike in 1945 when the government had to be the first resort to help people out, now, in a G8 affluent country like ours, government help should only be the very last resort. And, in a full-employment economy, to be fair to the tax-payers, the criteria (for all “able-bodied people”) to qualify for government help should be fairly high. The corollary, however, is that, unless the government can ensure that all who are willing to work are adequately skilled and gainfully employed, even Caroline’s fine prescription may run the risk of sounding like Tebbit’s “on your bike” type crude joke!
Not everyone will agree with Caroline Flint – but she has a point. Many youngsters on estates have little education and no skills training. The available work is usually unappealing and poorly paid: staying in bed is an option.
Training is expensive, but programmes offering free skills training would surely pay for themselves over time. Safeguards and assurances would be needed but at least there would be an offer of hope to the many disenfranchised youngsters who see no future for themselves.