|
CWU
YOUTH
POLICY
AND DISCUSSION DOCUMENT**
HOMES FIT FOR HEROES
“Decent affordable housing is not a luxury but a
right. Evidence has proved that the lack of
affordable housing has a clear correlation with low
retention and recruitment. Increasingly young
people are experiencing greater difficulty in
gaining a foot on the housing ladder”.
How can anyone disagree with such a statement? But
these are not the words of a leading politician or
part of a government policy document. They are in
fact part of CWU’s policy on housing, adopted at our
Annual Conference in 2006.
Housing is an important issue for the CWU and its
members. It is not just that this has featured in
three debates at Annual Conference over the last
three years. It is that, we believe, decent
accommodation is a fundamental human right that
impacts upon all other aspects of society –
employment, environment, infrastructure, health,
education and welfare.
A campaign for decent housing for our members,
especially these who are finding themselves evermore
excluded from the market, is an issue we cannot and
should not back away from.
These are sentiments that our government shares. In
July they published a consultative document under
the title of “Homes for the Future: More Affordable,
More Sustainable”. The CWU is currently considering
its response to this document, which must be lodged
by 15 October 2007.
The government’s consultation document is a bold
publication covering virtually every aspect of the
housing debate. However, rather than concentrate on
one segment of the issue or another, the CWU’s young
members have a clear, overriding, overwhelming
objective: That there is sufficient housing to
ensure adequate availability for all our members and
their families.
Policies adopted first at the Youth Conference and
then at the union’s General Conference make it clear
that this – the goal of availability – takes
precedence over debates about private or public
sector, rented or owner-occupied, local authority or
not-for-profit management.
As a union, we have rejected what has been a
favourite government theme up until now of “key
worker” status – essentially giving certain
categories of workers a big step up into the housing
market. The view endorsed by our Conference is that
this is essentially divisive and not a viable
alternative to the availability of good quality
accommodation for all.
The alternative is what has become known as the
“fourth option”. For some people this “fourth
option” is loosening the restrictions of local
authorities so that they are free to allocate more
resources to house building and that they are able
to have more freedom with what they do with the
proceeds from the sale of housing stock. Yet, in
reality, circumstances dictate that if we are to
achieve our objective, the “fourth option” cannot be
an only option. A one size-one solution cannot suit
all.
So we support the ‘4th Option’ in
principle to give local authorities a level playing
field, but the ‘4th Option’ is not the
only option and we need to have a mature debate
about the role of Registered Social Landlords (RSL’s)
and Housing Associations in the future build and
provision of Affordable and Social Housing.
And as we develop our policy, there are certain key
questions which we cannot avoid if we are to make a
meaningful contribution to government policy in the
pursuit of the objective of increasing housing
availability.
-
In the debate about “affordable housing” what in
reality does “affordable” mean? Is it shared
equity or low cost homes? Or both? How is this
term defined and what should it include?
-
When accommodation is described as affordable,
that description must be accurate and the cost
must include everything - basic rent or
repayments, service charges, builders’ premia
- the lot.
-
Do we agree with the “growth agenda” – that
there must be a huge expansion in the number of
homes built over the next 15 years.
-
What contribution do we expect the private
sector to make – either through taxation or
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) policies
so that, for example, BT does not just vacate a
telephone exchange, but actually pays for it to
be converted into residential accommodation?
-
What is our attitude to the not-for-profit
section? This includes Registered Social
Landlords, or RSLs, some of whom have charitable
status and should not automatically be seen as
private sector profiteers. Ought we not
challenge the view that only local authorities
can build affordable/social housing?
-
And does this sit comfortably with our support
for groups like Defend Council Housing?
-
Where should investment for new housing come
from?
-
Is it realistic to lobby for a change of
regulation so that local authorities can use
their existing housing stock to leverage funds
for building new homes? The sums involved would
run into billions.
-
Instead, should we argue that the value in land
which is gained when planning permission is
given to develop upon it, should be ring fenced
in a centralised ‘roof tax’ with a percentage
specifically directed to the building and
provision of affordable housing? The current
‘up-lift’ in value takes the cost of an acre of
land from around £1, 500 to over £1 million when
permission is given to build, trapping some of
that profit, which inevitably the government
will do at some point judging by the success of
the ‘roof tax’, and putting it into affordable
housing will allow us to lead on this debate and
hopefully take the idea to another level within
the movement
That is why this statement is both an important
development in itself, but also is only the
beginning of a much larger, longer campaign. The
statement says clearly that young members of the CWU
are engaged in the housing debate. How can we be
anything but when this issue impacts so directly
upon our lives?
But it also signals the beginning of a much longer
campaign in which the above questions and many
others that many of us have probably not even
thought of, need to be addressed in order to achieve
our longer term objective.
What happens next?
The CWU Youth view will feed into the union’s
overall submission to the government’s consultative
document. There will be a feature article in the
next edition of the CWU Voice designed to kick start
the campaign across the whole union. The policy
objective of more affordable housing is already
starting to feature heavily in our publicity
material. This aims to be a participative campaign
actively involving our members. This is not only
important in itself, but also vital if we are to
really get to grips with developing our views on the
questions raised in this paper and elsewhere. We
will also, of course, be seeking to work with other
unions, the TUC and appropriate pressure groups.
Have your say
So what do you think? What have been your
experiences? Contact us at
youth@cwu.org.
CWU Youth Advisory Committee
September 2007
**This represents the thinking of the YAC and is not
the policy of the CWU as a whole, which is yet to be
determined |
