Peter Black

A number of Liberal Democrats have commented on the recent off-the-cuff remarks by David Cameron in which he suggested that council houses should no longer be allocated "for life". Those I have spotted are Sara Bedford, Alex Foster, Tom Stubbs and Steph Ashley. Many of them have acknowledged that the Prime Minster has raised a valid point, some have posed questions as to how it will work in practice but not all are on board.

Like Simon Hughes I have concerns, not least because I believe that having identified a problem, David Cameron has failed to think through the consequences of his solution, whilst at the same time confusing tenure with issues of supply and demand.

The idea that Council and other social housing should just be there for those who are in economic straits is wrong. It creates a ghettoisation effect whereas in reality we need a mix of housing, both to rent and buy, private and social on all estates so as to offer choice to people according to their circumstances.

That choice is often denied through shortages on the supply side, some of which is down to lack of movement by tenants but most of which is down to economic pressures on the housing market itself. The fact is that if we do not have enough social housing for rent then that is because large numbers of homes were sold under the right to buy, a policy which David Cameron still advocates.

The real issue of course is social mobility, both upwards but also geographically. Both the current housing minister and his Labour predecessor identified that the inability to find suitable housing was stopping people taking up employment. The proposed solution being piloted now by Grant Shapps is that people who live in social housing in England will be able to swap homes more easily with other tenants anywhere in the country.

The Freedom Pass will allow them to see details of every council and housing association tenant looking to exchange. They have previously only been able to do this in their local area, or through a more complicated system elsewhere. That is a start. We may also want to take the bureaucracy out of the transfer scheme that exists between local councils and place some sort of duty on local authorities to assist with housing where somebody has secure employment and is moving into their area, the 'right to move' as Mr. Shapps puts it.

In terms of social mobility I think we need to understand what actually happens in many instances. Some people have argued that somebody whose economic circumstances have improved should move out of their social rented property and buy instead. That surely has to be a matter for them to choose. However, what normally happens in these circumstances, especially in a period of rising house prices, is that the tenant uses their new-found prosperity to purchase the council home under the right to buy. They then sit out the discount repayment period, sell the home at a profit and buy somewhere better. The outcome is that they have moved on but their previous home is no longer available for rent, unless of course the Council has bought it back with a pre-emption clause.

The Welsh Assembly's newly acquired power to limit the right to buy for a short period in areas of high demand so as to replenish the social housing stock may assist to counter that, but that does not remove the need for investment. There are for example 26,000 empty private sector homes in Wales, many more in England. These properties are a blight on the local community and the owner should pay much more in Council Tax as compensation for failiing to use that asset properly. However he or she should also be offered assistance from Social Housing Grant money to bring it back into use, initially for rent at an affordable price.

We need to expend more resources on helping people in difficulties with their mortgage stay in their own home so that they do not become another statistic on the waiting list and we need to offer incentives to tenants to move to more suitably sized homes. This is particularly pertinent where a single pensioner ends up occupying a two or three bedroom house for example.

Better management of our housing stock to tackle the problems we face does not have to involve taking people's tenancy rights off them. It means working with a wide range of individuals and organisations to secure the best outcome.

David Cameron's proposal took the line of least resistance and in employing an element of compulsion offended my liberal principles and sensibilities. Having articulated the issue he now needs to find realistic and achieveable solutions, some of which I have suggested above. That will require more thought and application than a throwaway remark. Hopefully, wiser heads will prevail.