'Homes for Citizens' has been published by the Fabian Society in conjunction with Moat and Crisis – what is the overall picture it presents?
A collection of thoughts from very different groups of people, from people involved in various think-tanks of different political leanings, some well-known politicians as well, and one or two campaigning organisations. The thoughts in the booklet are diverse. They don't always completely agree with each other, but I think that is the very nature of housing.
The politicians involved are less cross-party than we would have hoped for, but it wasn't through want of trying. The two politicians involved are Kate Green, Labour MP for Stretford and Urmston and Nick Raynsford, Labour MP for Greenwich and Woolwich.
How important is it for housing associations to be involved in the public debate over the direction of housing policy?
Housing policy is currently undergoing significant change. Arguably some aspects of housing policy are in need of refreshing. I think there is a real opportunity to make more sense of housing. However, as always with any type of reform, there is a danger that it will be carried out in a less than perfect way.
When they have something to say about how proposed housing policy will affect things on the ground, I think there is a really strong obligation on the part of housing providers to feed into the debate.
What is the current state of affairs in the social housing sector?
With change comes quite a lot of uncertainty. We are implementing some new models and there are some aspects of those new models that I don't think anybody is able to reflect accurately on the impact they might have.
There is also uncertainty around the proposed changes to benefits. If we take welfare reform as an example, there is huge uncertainty as to the impact of the changes.
It seems very unlikely that they are going to pass in exactly their current form. I sincerely hope they don't, because in their current form I think they are going to cause quite significant problems. How they are going to be revised as they pass through the various stages in the legislative process, I don't think anybody can tell. No matter what, it is clear they will have a profound impact on how housing works.
'Excited’ is not quite the right word, but from within the housing sector there are a number of us hoping that we can take this opportunity to change things for the better.
In 2010 the coalition government announced it was giving social landlords the ability to remove security of tenure; what effect will this have on social tenants?
At Moat we think for someone to be secure in their home is a positive thing. Our intention is to allow people to live securely in their homes.
We would like to carry out tests on people living in our homes, on an infrequent basis, to determine whether, for example, they are still in need of subsidised rents.
If people reach a place where they can pay full market rent for a property, we think we shouldn't threaten their right to live in the home; rather we would ask them to pay full market rent. That then gives us an ability to use that extra income to go away and build a new home that somebody who needs subsidy can move into.
For people to lose the security of living in a particular home is negative and creates bizarre incentives. We think there is another way of cutting this, which says let's just make sure that people are paying what they can afford in order to live in their home.
You stress the importance of mixed communities, do you think communities are becoming increasingly income-polarised?
I think there is certainly economic polarisation going on at the moment, particularly between younger people and older people, interestingly. That is a broad social point. I think this is an extraordinary generation where many of us think that maybe our children will lead a less high standard of living than we have. That has probably not happened for quite a number of generations.
Perhaps as a broader observation I think we have an opportunity to pull different aspects of society together by challenging the way that we deliver housing.
We have a lot of the foundations there. Shared ownership has been a good stepping-stone tenure to enable a better mix of rented and owned houses in estates, creating mixed communities.
At Moat we would say very strongly, expanding that mix of tenures is increasingly important in the future. I think it is hard to say whether it is polarising more, but I think there is a great opportunity in rethinking how we deliver housing to polarise it a lot less.
What do you think the prospects are for first-time buyers in the future, if we do not see greater innovation in the market?
I think it is pretty grim, actually. Without some of the stepping-stone products like shared ownership or shared equity, I think the prospects for first-time buyers are really difficult.
Deposits on mortgages are going to be required way into the future. People don't have those kinds of savings. A lot of first-time buyers are obviously young and relatively new to their careers. Many will have passed through some sort of tertiary education and will be starting work already with levels of debt.
I think it is really tough for people going through first-time buying and we think it is incredibly important to provide shared ownership/shared equity properties in the future.
You call for innovation in the social housing market – do you think at present there are too many restrictions on social landlords in the way they can design, plan and fund their housing provision?
I think we are moving from a situation where there certainly has been far too much restriction. I think some of that is being relaxed at the moment. We never have as much freedom to do this in the way we feel appropriate, so I would love to have more freedom, but it has got better.
I think one of the challenges to the sector at present is to make sure the obstacles that are in our head and the way we think about how to deliver housing, don't become the important obstacles. I think this is a time to challenge some of the thinking that we have developed over the decades about housing.
In 2010 the government introduced a new housing product, affordable rent, charging tenants up to 80 per cent of market rents and allowing landlords to decide on the length of lease – with a minimum period of two years. How does this new policy stand up against the five tests of fairness and efficiency Moat has drawn up?
I think you can't look at the affordable rent product in isolation; you can only look at it in combination with a benefits model. So whether the affordable rent model will or won't work, I believe depends on how the benefits system is designed to operate around it. Neither can work in isolation.
Proper use of public subsidy is the first test and I think it fits with that reasonably well. In terms of flexibility I don't think it impacts on it. What does impact on flexibility is the type of tenure you put alongside it. That is why we are arguing strongly for security of tenure but reviewing rent levels. I think it is neutral on flexibility.
I think there is a real risk that if the benefits system isn't designed to operate effectively alongside affordable rents, then it could reduce aspiration. If the benefits system is designed correctly, then it may be okay in terms of aspiration.
The reason I am saying that is, if you look at what happens with a couple, for example with three children who move into an affordable rent property. Typically in the area that we operate, that couple with three children would need to be earning a joint income of about £40,000 before they are off benefits, under affordable rent. Therefore the way the benefit tapers work under the new benefit reform is absolutely critical to understanding whether there are incentives that create aspiration or incentives that destroy aspiration.
As far as security is concerned, it is more about the tenure that you apply. I don't think the affordable rent itself answers that question. For us it is about whether you continue to offer tenures where people are allowed to remain in their homes.
Mixed communities – again, I think it is mostly neutral against that test, but has the potential to turn negative with short-term tenancies. Overall, I think it depends on how it is packaged up with other housing models. If there is shared ownership built alongside it, it passes the test. If there is a tenure that allows the person to stay in the home as their economic circumstances change, again it passes that test.
What I am saying is, affordable rent is not a complete definition of a tenure; there is a whole lot of other stuff that goes around affordable rent. That is around tenure security and how the housing benefit system works.