Stand by for action

Should tenants pay something towards their rents if rents are coherent?
This is something that has to be approached in stages. Clearly if you have not got a coherent rent structure itÕs very difficult to put in place a sensible reform of housing benefit. Achieving greater coherence in rents is a very high priority, It’s a complete mess at the moment. You need differentials in rents to reflect quality, but they must not be so large that there are undesirable social consequences.

Will you need to compensate RSLs to produce coherent rents?
We don’t want to pour money into subsidising existing provision. We have to be pragmatic about the way we achieve adjustments. A period of time is needed to allow harmonisation.

What place will affordability have?
First you have to take into where we start from which is the present confusion, and its getting worse. You have got the problem of stock transfer associations where existing tenants are paying substantially lower rents than those who have taken on a tenancy since transfer. Some neighbouring boroughs have huge differentials for no apparent reason, which makes it difficult for people to move between areas.

Secondly you have to take into account a huge range of variables. For RSLs they have got to pay their way so you can’t suddenly cut rents without bankrupting associations. We have been bearing down heavily on rents for a number of years. You will have to wait for the Green Paper to see what further proposals will be.

Thirdly you have got to take into account affordability. There are lots of interesting ideas about how you create more coherent rents and take account of affordability.

What about basing rents on capital values and then dampening them with regional or local earnings?
I can’t tell you but it would be a logical progression.

Will shopping incentives come later?
If people want to pay less for housing we should not prevent that. The thing I object to more than anything is this take it or leave attitude, this what you are given is where you will end up.

How will that work in areas of high demand?
Even within a framework where some rationing is necessary we don’t have to deny choice. The Delft model, currently being piloted in Harborough, is a very interesting illustration. You can ensure that those who qualify for housing can have more say in where they end up living.

Would you like to apply the Delft model nationally?
I don’t think it's the only option. We can develop our own home grown ones, we don’t always need to look across the water to Holland.

What do you think of the single tenure option?
You will have to wait until the Green Paper.

Would a single tenure help silence campaigners against stock transfer?
I think those who are opposed to transfer will find another argument. On the whole I think their opposition is ideological rather than practical. But I agree that under the current arrangement there’s a genuine anxiety that tenants feel.

Is council housing sustainable in its current form?
I don’t think the present situation will remain as a model for future provision, I think there’s a strong case for change. But all the stories about the demise of council housing are greatly exaggerated rather like the stories about my illness. I’m a pluralist, I believe in choice, I’m a believer in a range of housing providers including local authorities, RSLs and tenant-controlled bodies.

What about the LGA’s desire for quasi corporations?
You will have to wait and see.

In the past if councils have bid to transfer they have been allowed to, will they be disappointed this time round?
Perhaps yes. I agree that in the past you bid and you got on the programme. As we move towards a more strategic approach it becomes important to ensure that we encourage appropriate proposals, not just say "yes" to everyone. I don’t want to give the impression that we are going to reject large numbers out of hand.

You talk about the need for mixed communities but at the same time low cost home ownership schems are falling. How can reality meet the rhetoric?
Wait and see. We are very serious about that. I accept that LCHO has been going down and there’s a very acute need in the South East for new imaginative ways of dealing with it. It could be about how you use existing RSLs to do more. The Peabody development at Murray Grove is providing unsubsidised housing for people on low incomes at a sub market rents. It's for the sort of people who find it difficult to get into home ownership in the London market but who won’t qualify for social housing. That’s a very good option. We need to explore more of those. In the early 80s when John Stanley was minister the joke was there was a new shared ownership scheme every week. In a sense that thinking has gone a bit quiet. There’s a case for new approaches: agreements with developers, shared ownership, market rented, accommodation a bit below the market rent.

Perhaps you will need to nudge councils a bit more if you want to achieve balanced communities?
We don't want to be prescriptive. What we want is local plans to develop in response to local circumstances. There are a few local authorities who are reluctant. We have to get a good mix of housing rather than giving them a formula.