Tom Gann and Andrea Marie explain why they think the council is wrong to seek to evict tenants involved in last week’s disturbances…
As Labour activists in Greenwich, we are ashamed that our Labour council has said that it will seek the eviction of council tenants involved in last week’s disturbances.
Currently, Greenwich has the power to evict council tenants who commit offences within the neighbourhood or locality of their house. The reason for this power is to remedy a situation where a tenant’s repeated pattern of antisocial behaviour makes their neighbours’ lives miserable, for example, where there has been an “ongoing campaign of harassment” against neighbours. Greenwich, alongside other councils, proposes to widen substantially the notion of “locality” underpinning this power to evict tenants involved in the disturbances. Where offences committed in the rioting differ from those that have usually resulted in eviction is that they are not linked strongly to the home, nor are they likely to be repeated, continuing to make neighbour’s lives miserable. Consequently, eviction is merely an extra punishment to those in this particular type of accommodation.
Unlike the millionaire’s daughter accused of looting shops in Charlton after travelling up from Orpington, Greenwich residents who live in council housing will be punished twice. Given, as the council’s own Equality Impact Assessment for its Housing Strategy makes clear, Black and Minority Ethnic residents are more likely to live in council accommodation, evictions also risk discriminating on the grounds of race.
Evictions will also target family members who live in the same house who have not committed a crime and are likely to be women and children. These families will be caused considerable disruption to their family life while being rehoused. Children living in temporary accommodation are some of the most deprived, missing out on schooling, on play, and opportunities to develop.
If, like Wandsworth Council, the council deems the family to then have made themselves deliberately homeless and sees no responsibility to rehouse them, the council will not only be undermining their right to a family life but also making destitution a punishment. Both of these things should never be used as a punishment for people, whether innocent or guilty of a crime.
A Labour council advocating this “double punishment” of council tenants and their families can only be made sense of within a wider context. The coalition government’s social housing white paper undermines the principles sustaining council housing and was initially, at least, enthusiastically welcomed by Greenwich Council. Councillor Offord, the cabinet member for housing, “welcome[d] the opportunities set out in the White Paper” and stated we “welcome…the capability to vary rents and lengths of tenure independently…we do not think that landlords should be required to offer a lifetime tenancy.”
The ideology behind this and the proposed evictions is one that characterises council housing as an emergency and charitable measure for people who have failed and need help to get back on their feet, at which point tenants are expected to progress to renting in the private sector or buying their own house. Without security of tenure living in a council house ceases to be treated as being worthy of respect. The right to a home ceases to be unconditional and becomes conditional in a way that would be experienced by any owner-occupier as profoundly oppressive.
Suggesting, at least for council tenants, that the right to decent housing is not unconditional is an attack on the rights of all council tenants, including the law-abiding. We are embarrassed to see our, Labour, council alongside Tory Wandsworth, and against Ed Miliband, who has warned against “kneejerk” responses like evictions, at the forefront of this tawdry and destructive populism.
It seems that there will be campaigns including direct action against evictions. We hope we will not have to take action against decisions taken by councillors who we usually respect.
Tom and Andrea are Labour activists in Greenwich. They blog on politics at http://labourpartisan.blogspot.com/
Hmmh. “Direct Action” ? Labour proposing more riots? I wonder if the authors have noticed that provision of the benefit culture society has bankrupted the country while simultaneously producing a mass of youth and the not so young who are so ill-educated and unpleasant that they stand no chance of obtaining decent employment. While the country trims its expenditure to match its earning ability, let us re-invent the concept of ‘national insurance’ as a way to support the unfortunate rather than the irresponsible and the idle. A good start would be to establish that housing and other benefits are conditional on a willingness to follow basic rules of honesty and decent behavior. If these criminal individuals prefer to make their own way in the world, that will be their choice.
This is exactly why we are in this mess: excessive unconditional support on housing, food, drink, broadband etc. has over the years crated a permanent underclass that treats everything around it with zero respect. Canny politicians were able to buy votes by supporting this life style during the good years, eg. by encouraging people to claim all kinds of benefits they may be entitled to. This is now over because of the moral decay and the excessive financial burden (not just benefits, but also other costs, eg. policing, prison service, cost of crime etc.) this has caused. It’s time to brush aside out-dated ideologies and to take a pragmatic approach like Greenwich council thankfully is planning to do.
There are good reasons not to evict tenants who committed these crimes, such as it being unfair on their families and also the possibility of forcing them and their families into crime on a permanent basis and strengthening the underclass. Tough jail terms and community service and rehabilitation are sufficient.
However the entirely separate issue of retaining secure tenancies is one I fundamentally disagree with. Social housing should be for those in need and not a right. We have a real shortage and when tenant circumstances change those who can afford private accommodation should move out for those who need it more, and when children move out tenants should downsize for families desperate for space. Everyone seems to think they have a right to everything these days, we should not be subsidising this bizarre principle when there isn’t sufficient housing or funding for it. Should never have been like this.
I’m not a Labour supporter but I agree with most of the piece bar the last paragraph.
Being a council tenant should carry neither privileges nor penalties. Therefore if a high earner like Frank Dobson lives in a council property in a desirable part of London he should pay what would be the full market rent for a similar property. Likewise I’ve never really understood why council tenants in Greenwich were exempted from the £12 charge that everyone else has to pay for collection of bulky rubbish.
Similarly being a council tenant shouldn’t mean that you are subjected to a greater degree of social control than everyone else in society. If a council tenant and another person are charged with the same offence it seems wrong that the council tenant might be punished twice over. Equally it would be unsatisfactory if he could expect a lesser sentence because he is at risk of eviction. I think it’s best to let the criminal courts punish criminals, that’s what they are there for.
I find it difficult though to envisage any circumstances in which action to defy the rule of law would be justified in Britain, you may as well do away with elections if you think that it is.
I think it is wrong, the young girl of 8 did nothing why she should be made to leave her shcool and be made homeless, it was her brother who did wrong he should be punished. Blamin those not involved its not right and I think its a case of the goverement have got some power so they will use it, they are just showing themselves to be bullies basically. Their were many involved in this but it seems the poorest are the ones who get it worse cos they have no power like his mum and sister.
Another point should be added. The gulf between property speculation, riots and social housing.
Without excusing the violence and suffering caused, the riots are a consequence of the recession – massive youth unemployment, cuts in services, education maintenance etc.
The recession itself was primarily caused by the collapse of the housing bubble – i.e. massive speculation which trebbled house prices over a decade – which forced the Labour government to nationalise the banks. Our previously healthy public finances then went into the red, made worse by less tax take as the economy tanked.
The other impact of the housing bubble was to increase the need for social housing – because private housing became increasingly unaffordable during the bubble years, whilst making it much more expensive to build new housing (as land values shot-up too)
Thanks for all the comments. We should make clear that although we’re Labour members, we do not, unfortunately, speak for the party as a whole, so it’s not true that Labour are proposing more direct action, let alone riots. It’s also a mistake to conflate direct action with riots; direct action certainly encompasses a wide range of protest (strikes, protest marches, moral pressure) that surely enhance a democracy. Democracy is not the same as merely having elections every few years.
We think Paul’s comment, despite agreeing that the evictions are wrong, is indicative of the gap between liberalism and socialism. For a liberal, Dobson’s rent can only appear as an arbitrary privilege because there’s no consideration of the general principle that council housing ought to be accessible to everyone. On a more pragmatic and historical note, many of the problems which Will and Megad seem to associate with council housing and council estates have only really emerged after right to buy was introduced, when council housing began being treated as an emergency and charitable measure. To contrast with the NHS, where a universal service means society as a whole has a stake in its protection, council housing has become unloved and run down. Lack of council housing, especially in the current situation, in which, as Nick says, private housing has become unaffordable, particularly in London (an average London rent is now 72% of the gross weekly wage of the lowest paid), serves as a barrier to work because of the loss of housing benefit when working.
We are pleased that Councillor Roberts has apologised to Labour members over his statement about evicting council tenants and that no evictions will be pursued in Greenwich. We just wish this was the same in all boroughs.