Our current campaigns: Get involved

Future Housing Review has written an open letter to Gavin Barwell MP, urging a public consultation before roll-out of VRTB.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE OPEN LETTER

CLICK HERE TO SEND EMAIL TO THE MINISTER

CLICK HERE TO SEND EMAIL TO YOUR MP

Housing White Paper says that Right to Buy will apply to homes built by Council-owned companies.
How helpful is that?

Why do the politicians refuse a formal consultation on the Right to Buy extension?

Why is there no news on the never-ending pilots?

Please tell us what you think. @FH_Review   #VRTB

Right to Buy Extension – Plain Bad Policy.

Author: Nigel Turner
Director, Future Housing Review.

 

There’s nothing new relating to Right to Buy in the recent Housing White Paper, except a statement that Right to Buy will apply to homes built by Council-owned companies.

It’s an opportune time to consider the policy in the round.

In Part One of this article, we consider why the Right to Buy extension policy was included in the Conservative manifesto in 2015.

In Part Two, we consider mistakes made by the Government in the implementation of this policy and the likelihood of further serious blunders.

In Part Three, we set out a brief history of the policy to date.

 

Part one – Why was the right to buy extension policy included in the 2015 conservative manifesto?

 

The following section is an attempt to understand the genesis of the Right to Buy policy during the Conservative manifesto drafting process in the early days of 2015. Unfortunately, there are precious few solid facts to go on and, to a large extent, we have to rely on snippets of information online – and from the press – that allow us to make some educated guesses as to how the policy came into being.

So what clues are there?

 

Clue 1 – It all starts with IDS.

The Conservatives have not seriously considered extending the Right to Buy since they took office in 2010. Iain Duncan-Smith’s proposals to include Right to Buy extension in the manifesto are referred to in the press from January 2015.

A case for a discretionary scheme in the context of national housing policy had been argued by Iain Duncan-Smith’s think tank, the Centre for Social Justice in its 2008 report ‘Housing Poverty – From Social Breakdown to Social Mobility’:

Housing Allocation Reforms. Policy 2.5

Councils should be free to offer right to buy discounts of up to 30% of the market price, and housing associations should be free to offer similar levels of discount for right-to-acquire and social HomeBuy purchases. (Page 119).

 

Clue 2 – David Cameron backs the proposal.

‘David Cameron will reinvent Margaret Thatcher’s right-to-buy housing scheme with a “big doorstep offer” in the Conservative manifesto to working-class voters.

Downing Street sources say the prime minister is backing a plan by Iain Duncan Smith to let housing association tenants buy their homes at a discount price — an effort to revive the property-owning democracy that took the Tories to election victory in the 1980s.’

Sunday Times – 22nd March 2015.

 

Clue 3 – The policy finds a heavyweight political champion in Theresa May.

Home Secretary Theresa May is up at 7am on 14th April 2015 to launch the Right to Buy policy on behalf of the Conservatives.

During her interview with BBC Breakfast News, the Home Secretary states that the cost of funding the Right to Buy scheme will be paid for by sales of high-value council housing which will net £4.5 billion annually.

The same morning, the Home Secretary is interviewed about the Right to Buy extension by John Humphrys on the Today Programme

When asked about funding the cost of the scheme, the Home Secretary reiterates that the funds would be raised from the sale of high-value council homes.

‘We’re talking about something like £4.5 billion a year.’

So none of that adds up to a hill of beans really, but it does show that huge public-expenditure  figures are being bandied around, and that Theresa May is publicly committed to the policy from the very moment the Conservative manifesto was launched. After the launch publicity, senior Tory politicians do not appear to have much to say about the Right to Buy extension in the run-up to the election on 7th May 2015.

 

Policy background

There is some interesting policy background, quite apart from the Centre for Social Justice report cited above.

A report entitled ‘Ending Expensive Social Tenancies’ written by Alex Morton and published by Policy Exchange in 2012 suggests a model for funding the building of more social housing, viz. the sale of expensive local authority housing. The report states that this expensive social housing has a value of £159 billion and that sales could produce £4.5 billion annually ‘to spend on new homes’.

Interestingly, the figure for funding the Right to Buy extension quoted by Theresa May in her television and radio interviews on the day the 2015 manifesto is launched is £4.5 billion annually.

The passages on housing issues in the Conservative manifesto are drafted by Alex Morton.

Perhaps – and this is pure speculation – the Conservative politicians formulating their manifesto like the idea of selling local authority assets, but do not warm to the idea of spending receipts on new social housing. Instead, why not use the potential windfall identified by Mr Morton to fund the Right to Buy extension and win the general election à la Thatcher?

Senior Conservative MP David Davis may also have been involved in the manifesto policy process.  In 2012 he produced (jointly with Frank Field MP) a report entitled ‘Right to Buy 2.0’. It is interesting that his report uses the phrase ‘extending the right to buy to all housing association tenants’, which is virtually identical to the wording in the manifesto.

Mnay of the senior cabinet ministers who were in Cameron’s third cabinet in early 2015 and who had a chance to shape the manifesto policies have since retreated into the political hinterland – for example, David Cameron, William Hague, George Osborne, Eric Pickles, Michael Gove, Oliver Letwin, Grant Shapps, and Iain Duncan-Smith. There are just a handful of senior cabinet members from early 2015 who are still politically important today, viz Theresa May, Philip Hammond, Chris Grayling, Jeremy Hunt and Michael Fallon. None of them – with the possible exception of Theresa May and Philip Hammond – seems particularly interested in pushing the Right to Buy extension now.

 

The flimsy rationale for the 2015 manifesto policy.

The public reason given for the manifesto policy is the idea that 1.3 million housing association tenants will be helped to home ownership. The policy chimes with Tory ideology that the people should own their own homes, and that the state should distance itself from the provision of housing.

However, given the absence of a normal policy-development process within Government and the mindset of the senior Conservatives responsible for formulating manifesto policy, it is quite reasonable to deduce that the policy owes its inclusion in the manifesto to the Conservatives’ need to have a game changer that will capture the skilled working-class C2 vote. It is widely accepted that this policy wrong-foots Labour and helps the Conservatives win an outright majority in May 2015.

 

Conclusions as to the origins of the policy.

Our conclusions, based on the clues given above and other research we have carried out, are that:

  • the Right to Buy extension policy is probably first considered by senior Conservatives as a potential manifesto policy because of a suggestion made by Iain Duncan-Smith, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions early in 2015;
  • the reports from Centre for Social Justice (2008), Policy Exchange (2009) and Davis & Field (2012) are used to mix and match the policy and provide rudimentary costing information;
  • by any reasonable standards, discussions between senior Conservatives and their advisers over the course of a few weeks do not allow enough time to consider and assess such a significant policy;
  • Home Secretary, Theresa May, is the single most assiduous supporter of the policy at its launch;
  • the policy fits with general Tory ideological principles about home ownership;
  • it is highly probable that the policy is adopted by the Conservatives principally for reasons of vote-winning political expediency.

 

Part two – Mistakes and blunders

 

The seven policy mistakes to date.

It is disconcertingly easy to identify seven major mistakes that have been made by the Conservative party and the Government so far in the introduction of this policy, viz:

  1. Including the policy in the Conservative manifesto at the last minute – without due consideration, and on the basis of political expediency and Conservative ideology.
  2. Rushing into a voluntary agreement with the National Housing Federation to implement the scheme, rather than legislating through Parliament.
  3. Not using the change of Government last July or the recent Housing White Paper as a chance to reconsider the policy.
  4. Deciding to roll out the so-called large-scale regional pilot, notwithstanding that five pilots have already been completed. In this respect, Government either does not realise or does not care that there will be huge tenant resentment in the parts of the country not enjoying regional roll out.
  5. Failing to publish costings or financial impact assessment. The Government’s failure to heed the criticism of the Public Accounts Committee report of April last year is especially significant.
  6. Failing to consider alternatives, e.g. grant-aided discretionary sales.
  7. Refusing to undertake a formal consultation.

In the next section we analyse how the Government has largely failed to take obvious measures which might have helped to avoid these mistakes.

 

Blunder analysis.

The book ‘Blunders of our Governments’ by Anthony King and Ivor Crewe (One World 2013) sparked huge interest among politicians, commentators and academics, and has met with general approbation.  The authors identify multiple human and systemic failures in UK policymaking and delivery.

David Morris is an expert in contemporary UK higher education policy. In his article concerning policy-making lessons for higher education reforms, he refers to Blunders and highlights six instances of what a government might do to maximise the chances of success of its policies. These principles are based on the findings in Blunders and may, in our view, be directly applied to the Right to Buy extension policy.

The following numbered paragraphs set out the six principles. We have added a few words to two of the principles identified by David Morris – these are shown in square brackets at principles 5 and 6.

We award the Government marks out of 10, based on how well we reckon the Right to Buy extension policy complies with the relevant principle. This is a serious exercise, and our scores have been determined as objectively as possible.

 

1. Enable proper Parliamentary scrutiny of legislation.

There is, of course, no legislation for this project, other than the provisions of the Housing and Planning Act dealing with the sale of higher-value Council properties and payment of grant to refund Right to Buy discounts. The scheme envisaged by the voluntary agreement entails no parliamentary or other independent scrutiny. However, the scheme is considered by two parliamentary Select Committees.

In February 2016, the Communities & Local Government Select Committee on Housing Associations and the Right to Buy comes to the following conclusions:

“The Government proposes to fund the Right to Buy discounts for housing association tenants with the proceeds from the sale of high value council homes. However, we believe that public policy should usually be funded by central Government, rather than through a levy on local authorities.”

The Committee finds the robustness of the funding model for the Right to Buy discounts is extremely questionable, calling on the Government to set out the fully costed evidence for the proposals. The Committee is also “concerned that the Government’s policies could have a detrimental effect on the provision of accessible and affordable housing across all tenures.”

The Public Accounts Committee produces a scathing report in April 2016. Chair Meg Hillier says the government should be “embarrassed” by the report’s findings.

“Extending Right to Buy will affect many thousands of people yet the department has failed to provide basic information to support its stated aims. Instead we have heard vague assertions about what it will accomplish and how,” she said. “The approach to paying for this policy seems to be entirely speculative. On the basis of evidence heard by our committee, there are no costings or workings out. We are not talking about a ‘back of an envelope’ calculation – there is no envelope at all.”

It is completely unacceptable that Government has taken no action to publish details of the scheme in response to the findings of the two parliamentary committees.

Government Score: 2 out of 10

 

2. Link up delivery and policy.

It is self-evident that, while anyone can hatch a policy idea, it takes detailed project management to get it to fly. Without a properly scoped project agreement in place between the National Housing Federation and the Government, we cannot even see who is responsible for the different elements of the scheme. How can the project be brought in on time, on budget and to required quality, when there are currently no time scales for national implementation, no published budget and no qualitative parameters in place? All in all, this is not a good starting point for the implementation of any project, let alone one that may involve billions of pounds of public expenditure.

David Morris comments:

‘A retired civil servant once remarked that “there’s a pervasive view in Whitehall that those who do are below the salt, while those who think are above the salt.” Such a view has been compounded by the emergence of semi-autonomous executive agencies, distinct from senior policymakers. As such, ministers and senior officials who make policy decisions often have very little idea about how they might be implemented. In many cases, policies turn out to be far more complicated in practice than they were anticipated in theory.’

The Right to Buy policy, as expressed in the Conservative manifesto is succinct, as follows:

‘We will:

  • give more people the chance to own their home by extending the Right to Buy to tenants of Housing Associations […]
  • fund the replacement of properties sold under the extended Right to Buy by requiring local authorities to manage their housing assets more efficiently, with the most expensive properties sold off and replaced as they fall vacant.’ 

Rather than preparing draft legislation, however, the Government quickly suggests that the National Housing Federation should implement the policy and thus the voluntary Right to Buy is born in November 2015.

The National Housing Federation is jointly responsible with DCLG for setting up the scheme. What this means is that the Federation takes on a policy-making role on behalf of its members. In order to make life more interesting, someone invents the concept of ‘portability’ of discounts, which adds an unnecessary degree of complexity that does not exist in the statutory Right to Buy framework.

Our view is that a right to buy can only be conferred by legislation. The voluntary framework would effectively operate by means of discretionary sales, which is not the same thing at all. The upshot is that many tenants’ expectations will be confounded. The Conservatives promise a ‘Right to Buy’ and we believe they are unable to deliver that unless they bring forward proper legislation.

There is a patent disconnect between the stated policy (an absolute right) and its implementation (a discretionary or voluntary framework). The Government will probably not be able to make some aspects of their policy work without legislation, and, in any event, we are years away from national implementation of the voluntary scheme.

Government Score: 1 out of 10

 

3. Avoid symbolic policy and legislation

How does the policy originate? It is not mentioned in Brandon Lewis’ speech to the National Housing Federation in September 2014. David Cameron does not mention it in his speech to conference in October 2014, though he talks about the Conservative’s ‘landmark new policy’ for the building of 100,000 Starter Homes, which is already starting to sink without trace.

It is first mentioned in press reports early in 2015, and the man identified as pushing the idea of extending the Right to Buy is Iain Duncan-Smith.   It appears that he has the support of senior colleagues such as Theresa May, Sir Eric Pickles and Sir Oliver Letwin (who, incidentally, was a member of Margaret Thatcher’s policy unit in the 1980s). I suspect – and this is pure speculation – that David Cameron is persuaded to include the policy in the Conservative manifesto on the recommendation of Australian marketing guru Sir Lynton Crosby, who is widely credited with winning the 2015 election for the Conservatives.

I  have dealt in more detail with the origins of the policy in Part One.

By February 2016, the Centre for Social Justice, in its report ‘Home Improvements’, is sounding warning notes on the implementation of the Right to Buy extension.

We also urge the Government to ensure that there is no net loss of homes which are truly affordable to those on a low income as a result of the new Right to Buy in Housing Associations. Currently there is the possibility that Council homes sold to fund the scheme will be replaced by products like Starter Homes, which are inaccessible to the poorest. (Page 15.)

 

The Right to Buy in Housing Associations will provide home ownership opportunities for a wider range of incomes. Even so, only about 10 per cent of those who will be eligible for the new Right to Buy will be able to afford it. (Page 21.)

 

We urge the Government to ensure that Council homes sold to fund the Right to Buy in Housing Associations are replaced with homes for social or affordable rent. If the Government wishes to replace them with home ownership products, it must find a way to make them affordable for the poorest in society. (Page 82.)

 

There is much that is purely symbolic about this policy. Interestingly, the Right to Buy extension policy in the manifesto is formulated at break-neck speed by a small group of politicians, many of whom were born in the 1950s and therefore grew up politically in the Thatcher era.

Government Score: 3 out of 10

 

4. Minimise turnover of officials

We have two prime ministers and two housing ministers in the 21 months since the 2015 general election. This does not improve the chances of getting the policy right. We don’t have any information as to whether DCLG staff has been churning at the same rate.  Hilary Davies, head of Voluntary Right to Buy implementation for the DCLG, does not inspire confidence in joined-up officialdom when she says at a National Housing Federation conference in November 2016 that: ‘…we don’t really know yet where the ministers are with regard to the details.’

Even if we assume that all DCLG officials are still in place, there are no published guidelines and no published financial impact study for the policy 20 months on – so if there is a crack team working full time on this project, what exactly are they doing?

Government Score: 3 out of 10

 

  1. Don’t try too much too quickly – [take the time to deliberate].

It is possible to identify at least two occasions on which the Right to Buy extension policy is rushed through too quickly without appropriate deliberation: both constitute serious mistakes.

First, the original policy is not properly considered, precisely because it is a manifesto pledge, not a policy conceived by an incumbent Government. Most of the content of Blunders deals with policy decisions taken by a Government while in office, all of which require at least some discussion with civil servants. A manifesto pledge does not require any deliberation beyond the confidential manifesto policy procedure. I get the distinct impression that this pledge is nodded through in the five or six weeks preceding the publication of the manifesto without in-depth consideration. Nevertheless, it is printed in blue and white, and the Conservatives go on to win the election.

Secondly, there is unreasonable haste in getting the National Housing Federation to enter into a ‘voluntary agreement’ and this is mainly because of other political considerations arising from the Government’s desire to have a flagship housing policy to announce at Conference and to put housing associations in their place. There appears to be no real consideration of other options, for example legislation.

The ill-considered policy goes on its erratic way, only to stall at the Autumn statement.  The ‘regional pilot’ (a delaying tactic) is likely to continue until 2018. That means Government will have another two years or so to come up with a new policy, once it has realised that it is impracticable to extend the Right to Buy voluntarily. Government has achieved very little in the last 21 months, although the sector’s expectation was that the scheme would be rolled out nationwide after the first five pilots. The recent Housing White Paper gives no further details on the proposed regional pilot. At a stretch, it may be argued that by delaying implementation, Government is not trying to do too much too quickly, but I’m not sure the Government deserves much credit for that.

Government Score: 5 out of 10

 

6. Break down cultural disconnection – [take the time to consult]

David Morris comments: ‘In many government blunders, ministers and officials projected their middle-class assumptions about families and personal finances onto the delivery of policies that affected people very different to them, with disastrous results. This cultural disconnect, it is argued, can be countered by effective consultation and engagement with key stakeholders when preparing and delivering policy.’

Government may argue that the National Housing Federation’s consultation with its members is sufficient to understand all cultural issues, but the voices of other key stakeholders, including tenants’ organisations and local authorities, have been completely ignored. Future Housing Review continues to campaign for a formal consultation. Gavin Barwell says in a letter dated 12th December 2016 to Future Housing Review:

‘We are confident that the voluntary nature of the agreement and the close working relationship with housing partners will lead to the effective implementation of the voluntary Right to Buy without the need for a formal consultation.’

The full text of the letter can be seen on futurehousing.org.

We have found no evidence to support a contention that implementation without consultation will overcome the obvious barriers of cultural disconnection.

Government Score: 1 out of 10

Blunder score

Based on our total score of 15 out of 60, we assess the chances of the voluntary Right to Buy policy avoiding the blunder zone at around 25%. The corollary is that the probability of further Government blunders is around 75%. These are not good odds for such a controversial policy. We welcome contributions from anyone who can show us where we may have been ungenerous – or indeed too generous.

 

Conclusions as to implementation of the policy.

Following the election victory, David Cameron decides not to legislate to bring the scheme in, but to foist an agreement upon the housing association sector to implement the policy. This is an unusual move and the opportunity for an effective Parliamentary say is lost. I believe the National Housing Federation believed it was doing its best for its members at the time.

As Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, having taken over from Greg Clark in July 2016, Sajid Javid now has the unenviable task of implementing the Government’s Right to Buy extension policy. Nearly eighteen months on from the voluntary agreement, there is precious little to show in terms of progress.

At the time of writing (February 2017) we do not have:

  • any published guidelines for implementation
  • any financial impact assessment or costings
  • any open debate.

 

We find it unacceptable that significant public money – including £250m for the next round of super-pilots – continues to be channelled into a policy of such dubious pedigree. We believe this policy is discredited both in terms of origins and implementation to date and that it has no social value.

It should not be overlooked that the housing associations themselves have a decisive role in the implementation of the Right to Buy extension policy. An association’s board has a responsibility to ensure that its policy decisions are made in accordance with relevant governance principles. We believe that the voluntary agreement with the National Housing Federation should be suspended with immediate effect. The National Housing Federation should conduct a poll of its members to see what they think about the policy now. In the meantime, it is open for an individual housing association to decide not to support the scheme, and opt out of the voluntary agreement altogether.

 

Part three – A brief history

2015

 

April On the day the Conservative Party manifesto is launched, Theresa May appears on BBC breakfast television and says that sales of 15,000 higher-value council houses will raise £4.5 billion a year, which will fund the Right to Buy extension.

 

The manifesto itself promises that a Conservative government will ‘give more people the chance to own their home by extending the Right to Buy to tenants of Housing Associations and create a Brownfield Fund to unlock homes on brownfield land’.

 

David Orr, chief executive of the National Housing Federation, publishes an article entitled ‘Seven reasons why extending Right to Buy is plain bad policy’.

 

May In the general election, Conservatives win an outright majority.

 

July DCLG refuses to release Right to Buy costings as ‘ministers need ‘private space’ to assess the policy’.

 

September David Orr, chief executive of the National Housing Federation, publishes an article entitled ‘Four reasons why housing associations should sign up to the voluntary Right to Buy deal’.

 

October The National Housing Federation makes an offer to Government to implement the Right to Buy extension, which is accepted by David Cameron.

 

2016

 

January Government invites five housing associations to run pilots of the Right to Buy extension, which are due to run until January 2017.

 

February The Communities & Local Government Select Committee on Housing Associations and the Right to Buy comes to the following view of the scheme:

“The Government proposes to fund the Right to Buy discounts for housing association tenants with the proceeds from the sale of high value council homes. However, we believe that public policy should usually be funded by central Government, rather than through a levy on local authorities.”

 

The Committee also finds [that] the robustness of the funding model for the Right to Buy discounts is extremely questionable, calling on the Government to set out the fully costed evidence for the proposals.

 

The Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research, based at Sheffield Hallam University, is appointed to investigate all aspects of the pilots and their effectiveness, including levels of demand.

 

April The Public Accounts Committee slams the Government’s approach to funding the Right to Buy extension and chair Meg Hillier says the Government should be “embarrassed” by the report’s findings. “Extending Right to Buy will affect many thousands of people yet the department has failed to provide basic information to support its stated aims. Instead we have heard vague assertions about what it will accomplish and how,” she said. “The approach to paying for this policy seems to be entirely speculative. On the basis of evidence heard by our committee, there are no costings or workings out. We are not talking about a ‘back of an envelope’ calculation – there is no envelope at all.”

 

May The Housing and Planning Act 2016 receives the Royal Assent. The Act contains measures that will require English local authorities to make an annual payment to Government in respect of the expected sales of “higher-value” vacant stock over the year. These payments will be used to compensate housing associations for selling housing assets at a discount to tenants.  The Act also provides for grants to be paid to associations to cover the cost of Right to Buy discounts.

 

The Chartered Institute of Housing says: ‘We remain concerned about the

ongoing loss of social rented housing, a problem which will be exacerbated

by some of the measures in the Act (including the sale of higher value council homes, if these are not replaced, and starter homes, if these are included on

sites instead of affordable homes to rent)’.

 

June It is announced in the Welsh Assembly that legislation will be introduced over the next year to abolish the Right to Buy and the Right to Acquire.

“This will ensure social housing is available to those who need it, and who are unable to access accommodation through home ownership or the private rented sector,” says Welsh first minister, Carwyn Jones.

 

Future Housing Review launches its campaign to challenge the Right to Buy extension with the support of the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust.

 

David Cameron resigns following Brexit vote.

 

July Future Housing Review publishes its manifesto for housing associations to be able to opt out of the Right to Buy extension in certain circumstances.

 

Theresa May forms her new government.

August Scotland abolishes Right to Buy following a consultation report published in 2013.

 

Chartered Institute of Housing CEO Terrie Alafat says that the Institute will not press for a formal consultation, although it has criticised Government policy on sales of higher-value local authority stock and believes the numbers don’t stack up.

 

According to the Financial Times, John Perry, policy adviser at the Chartered Institute of Housing, says that: “Right to Buy offers an enormous benefit to those it benefits directly, but the effect on future tenants is the main problem, because of the refusal to recycle all the receipts and replace the lost properties.”

 

Inside Housing report concludes that Government is set ‘to spectacularly miss target for replacement of homes sold under [statutory Right to Buy]’.

 

September Jeremy Corbyn challenges Government record on replacement of council homes sold under the statutory right to buy.

 

Labour drops its support of the Right to Buy, calling for the controversial policy to be indefinitely suspended in England. At the party’s conference in Liverpool, Teresa Pearce, shadow housing minister for Labour, says the policy was wrong “in a time of shortage”.

 

Tony Stacey of South Yorkshire Housing Association announces that it is considering its position on the Right to Buy extension and will take a report back to its board once the details of Right to Buy are finalised.

 

Inside Housing reports that 1.6% of eligible pilot tenants applied to buy as opposed to previous estimates of demand of between 7% and 20%.

 

Inside Housing reports that eight sales have been completed as part of the pilot scheme, although the Government has not confirmed that figure.

 

October Future Housing Review launches a campaign for a formal consultation on the Right to Buy extension and publishes an article putting forward its case.

 

November DCLG announces that Right to Buy extension will be ‘delayed by the Brexit vote’. Hilary Davies of DCLG says: ‘We have a new government as of July and we don’t really know where the ministers are with the details.’

 

The Autumn statement includes a £250M budget for a new ‘regional pilot’ to test one-for-one replacement and portability. The statement identifies sale prices and discount rates as areas of uncertainty.

 

December The Northern Ireland Government launches a consultation on legal steps necessary to reverse ONS decision to reclassify housing associations as public bodies. The consultation will consider plans to repeal statutory RTB for housing associations.

 

Future Housing Review writes an open letter to Gavin Barwell MP requesting a formal consultation for the Right to Buy extension policy. This letter is co-signed by Sarah Brooke-Taylor, Mark Jackson, Graham Howarth, Tom Murtha and David Cowan, and subsequently endorsed by Arlene Kersley and Tom Warder.

 

In a letter dated 12th December (written in response to an earlier email) Mr Barwell says:

 

‘We are confident that the voluntary nature of the agreement and the close working relationship with housing partners will lead to the effective implementation of the voluntary Right to Buy without the need for a formal consultation.’

 

The full text of the letter can be seen is on futurehousing.org.

 

2017
February The Government publishes its Housing White Paper and has nothing new to say about the Right to Buy extension.

 

 

Nigel Turner

Director, Future Housing Review

10th February 2017

View and download article