Dawn has me at a disadvantage because I have not heard the statement from Tessa Jowell to which she refers, but I would imagine she is talking purely about social housing and it isn't obvious from her posting that Dawn recognises this.Assuming this to be the case this is actually not a new idea. The Labour Party was toying before the general election with the notion of making it obligatory for *under-occupiers", that is people who are living in social housing in excess of their needs, to downsize and make way for families who may be living in smaller housing in overcrowded conditions.This is a difficult one to get right, and I can genuinely see both sides of the argument. If a person has lived in their current home for decades, brought up their children there, sunk roots and formed bonds within their local community, it does not seem fair or reasonable, especially when they are old, that they should be made to suddenly up sticks and relocate to some unwelcoming high-rise rabbit hutch at the opposite end of the borough. On the other hand the raison d'etre of social housing is that it is supposed to be about need, not desire. In Hounslow the number of people under-occupying is roughly similar to the number of households that are overcrowded. If everybody who was able to downsize did so the problem of overcrowding would be more or less resolved. I would imagine a similar situation exists in other boroughs.The present arrangement is that incentives are provided for under-occupiers who wish to move into smaller properties but it is not obligatory for them to do so. More importantly, as there is no obligation to move the under-occupier is very much in control of the situation, effectively being able to make demands as to the type and location of the property that they are prepared to move to. This protects them from the prospect of being uprooted from their communities against their will.The change that was being mooted by Labour (I'm not sure whether it actually became party policy) was that as from a certain date new tenancies would be awarded on the understanding that if and when the household no longer required a property of a certain size they would be obligated to vacate it and move to a smaller dwelling. This was to apply to all new tenancies, not to existing ones (if they had tried to apply it to existing tenancies local authorities could I imagine have been sued by their owed tenants for breach of contract).Like I say, neither the current set-up nor the proposed new one is without pain, and there is no "right" solution to this problem. But I don't believe that demonising an individual or a party for taking one view with honest intentions particularly helps the debate.
Phil Andrews ● 5040d