In Britain significant changes in housing tenure have happened over the last hundred years. In the 1900’s private landlord provided the vast majority of housing with the remainder being owned by the occupiers. In response to housing policy according to the national statistics website (www.statistics.gov.uk) by the 1970’s this trend had changed dramatically with half all houses being owner occupied and a third being provided to tenants by local authorities and only the remainder (15%) being provided by private landlords. These trends continued even further in the 1990’s with policies aimed towards increasing owner occupation which subsequently increased to around two-thirds, the local authority housing to less than a quarter and the private rented sector reaching an all time low of below 10%. In looking at the above the clearest change is the dramatic move away from private renting and towards owner occupation. The clearances of slums by several governments started the decline of privately rented housing it was policy to demolish these houses which were in the private rented sector. The growth of the public rented sector and the building of houses for owner occupation were also factors.
“In the period of the Conservative governments reign from 1979 to 1997 housing policy in social, political and economic terms was the most important element of their privatisation program.” (Forrest, Murie 1988 p1). The housing policy that brought the most drastic changes was the ‘right to buy scheme.’ The right to buy was introduced in the 1980’s and saw a dramatic change in owner occupation in the UK. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) web site () it provided a new framework for the sale of council housing in the UK. This policy applied to flats and houses and was made wildly available with the vast majority of people in social housing qualifying for it. It was not the what the right to buy was doing that had such an impact as council houses had been sold to their occupiers long before the 1980’s, but it was the scale on which it was being done. Within the first six years of it being introduced over a million council houses were sold and to date the figure stands at well over two million. The success of the right to buy has some basis in the unpopularity of social housing such as high rise flats and problem estates. The emergence of this unpopularity was accentuated by the Conservative government with policies designed to increase the rents of rented property. The creation of mortgages also allowed buyers who would otherwise not have the funds to buy a house to pay for one over an extended period of time and government support for this through tax exemptions increased people’s ability to pay further. The ‘right to buy’s’ success was also aided by the restriction the Tories placed on local housing authorities to build houses.
The effect of such drastic sales was life changing for both those who bought and those who did not. In 1978 the social rented sector had a cross section of the population with lower middle class and working class people living together. According to the JRF website () the right to buy has resulted in disproportionate concentration of remaining social housing stock in areas where there is a low demand for housing due to low employment opportunities. This means there is a shortage of social housing in the areas where people need it that need it and where housing is available the people who need it can not access it. With the trends of people who can afford to move from social housing to owner occupation the result has been a concentration of people in the social rented sector on low-incomes. The best stock had been sold off through the ‘right to buy’ and little maintenance had been given to existing ones. This meant the worst houses that needed renovation were where some people in social rented housing found themselves.
The policy of housing benefit payments also emerged at this time. They replaced rent subsidies but with the rise in rents that the Tories brought in more people then had to rely on housing benefit which is resulted in a situation today were most people in social housing are on housing benefit. According to Balchin (1995 p10) “spending on housing dropped in real terms by about 60% over the period 1979/80-1993/94,” in the conservatives in there last term. This resulted in hardly any new social housing being built to replace the ones sold through the ‘right to buy,’ this created homelessness and also helped make local authority rents rise.
To live a normal life requires a home yet homeless people are found in every country in the world. Homelessness is a complex problem and is seen as one of the most extreme forms of social exclusion. Many factors can lead to people being homelessness they can have mental problems, drug and alcohol problems, experienced violence at home, be child runaways and be coming out of institutions such as care or the army. These are all factors that in some cases can make peoples homelessness inevitable but generally the main reason for it is a lack of suitable housing. Contrary to stereotypes and public belief the vast majority of homeless people are not rough sleepers and still need the help of a local authority housing department and the voluntary sector. Since the 1980’s homelessness has been on the increase. According to Balchin (1995, p271) the number of statutory homeless households in England increased from 56,750 in 1979 to 134,190 in 1993. The same period saw a sharp decline in low-cost rented housing due to the mass selling of socially rented housing through the ‘right to buy.’ These increases in homelessness clearly coincide with the lack of affordable housing and show how housing policy has contributed to social exclusion through not meeting their demands.
Three main acts were passed to address the problems of homelessness caused by housing policy. The Housing Act 1977, the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Act 2002. These acts were concerned with changing strategies of local authorities towards homeless people. Through the three acts increased protection and support for homeless people has been achieved however the acts aimed at helping homeless people are futile to the fact that not enough houses were being built and do not do enough in respect to atone fully for the errors of other housing policy.
In the 1980’s and 1990’s due to a fall in house prices the concept of the ‘negative equity trap emerged.’ Negative equity is a term used to describe when property is worth less that the money owed on it. According to Balchin (1995 p, 215) “By October 1993 25% of those who bought their houses between 1998 and 1991 were caught in the ‘negative equity trap’.” The trends in the 1980’s and 1990 saw the number of people taking out mortgages increase dramatically as more people moved towards owner occupation. In this same period a collapse in house prices occurred. Due to a rise in interest rates which was not met by a raise in wages people were unable to pay their mortgages and subsequently had to sell their homes. People were made to sell their home for less than they bought them for and in some cases home owners were made homeless. Previously to 1987 state provided security was given to those who had lost their income and could not afford to pay their housing costs. According to Ford, (cited in Ellison and Pierson 2003, p149) after 1987 the Conservatives abandoned this believing individuals and not the state should be responsible for sustaining home ownership and that the insurance market could fulfil this role. Housing policy failure to address the problem of negative equity and provide housing for people who were made homeless (through having their houses repossessed) again contributed to creating social exclusion.
“Balchin (1995, p246) states that ethnic minorities account for approximately 6% of the UK population,” according to the 1991 census. Ethnic Minorities are considerably disadvantaged in the housing market as a whole. Indian and Chinese however have enjoyed success in the housing market however Black, Bangladeshi and Pakistani people have mainly experienced discrimination both direct and indirect in hosing policy. The allocation of the poorest quality of housing to a higher proportion of ethnic minorities compared to Whites has been a trend. Ghetto’s are a problem in Britain where a high number of ethnic minorities populate a large area of poor housing in the inner cities. Evidence of institutional and structured racism has also existed and has resulted in some ethnic minorities finding it harder to become home owners or find better accommodation. Other minority groups also experience social exclusion through failures in housing policy. The lack of housing for those with disabilities in the UK helps to ensure continued isolation and dependence on other to carry out their most basic of everyday tasks.
In Conclusion housing policy has contributed to social exclusion to a large extent. The ‘right to buy’ created a lot of social mobility for some but for those who were left at the lower end the gap between the rich and the poor widened. The dramatic move towards owner occupation created problems as the Tories did not build affordable housing to replace the stock that had been sold resulted which resulted in a shortage. These shortages crated social exclusion as it limited people ability of choice and access to housing. Owner occupation also created more social exclusion as it denied access to a broad range of the poorest households. Homelessness increased due to housing policy and although housing acts tried to address the problems caused they were unable to atone for the errors already made. The policy of housing benefit and raises in rents forced many people in social housing to rely on benefits and lowered the wealth of people causing social exclusion Negative equity was an unforeseen result of housing policy failure which also caused people to be homeless and greatly damaged people’s wealth again causing social exclusion. Finally the disproportionate numbers of ethnic minorities in poor accommodation has not been addressed full by housing policy which will continue to contribute to these groups being socially excluded.
Bibliography
Balchin P.(1995) Housing Policy: an introduction. Routledge
Ellison, N. and Pierson, C. (2003) Development in British Social Policy 2. Palgrave : Macmillan.
Forrest, R and Murie, A (1988) Selling the Welfare State: The Privatisation of Public Housing. Routledge
Hills, J. and Grand J. and Piachaud D (2002) Understanding Social Exclusion. Oxford University Press
(1/4/2005)
Soc
(1/4/2005)
(3/4/2005)
(232fsd