The conference is open to people of goodwill of all faiths
and of none.
The speakers will make their contributions in the morning and
chair two seminars each in the afternoon giving the opportunity
to people attending to attend two seminars and report back to
a plenary session proposals for the political, practical and
academic work that should be done. There will be a further meeting
on April 22nd 2005 to discuss progress. Meanwhile a memorandum
will be written to be sent to the Prime Minister and the relevant
Government Departments and Select Committees in the House of
Commons by Professor Peter Ambrose.
Chairperson: Antonia Swinson: Antswin@aol.com
Professor Peter Ambrose – suggested starting
point of some contents for the Zacchaeus 2000 memorandum to
the Prime Minister about affordable housing, for discussion,
expansion and elaboration with input from other speakers on
the 15th October.
British Housing: Massive Debt + No Strategy = More Poverty
+ Ill Health
1. MASSIVE HOUSING DEBT AND ITS EFFECTS
House price levels and rents are largely conditioned by house
purchase lending volumes. There has been a massive escalation
of outstanding housing debt since 1980, especially since the
1987 deregulation; the 1980 figure inflated to 2004, and allowing
for the growth of owner occupancy, should be c.£155bn
– the actual current figure is £800+bn. This is way
out of line with other EU countries as a % of GDP; this complicates
our joining the EM system and other economic issues. This has
happened because lenders have adopted so-called ‘generous’
policies, i.e. they have increased repayment periods, used higher
loan/income multiples, counted more of the ‘second income’,
even induced people to overstate their incomes, etc. There is
an evidenced overlap of interests between the lending industry
and the land/development industry – it’s like me lending
you more and more to buy something from me – good for me,
not so good for you.
2. A WIDE RANGE OF ADVERSE EFFECTS FOR RICH AND POOR
a. inflated and volatile development land values (so land becomes
a speculative commodity rather than an input to housing production,
which is still at historically low levels)
b. high house values mean landlords seek higher rents for a
competitive return on value
c. higher rents squeeze amount left in low incomes to buy basic
needs for healthy living
d. effects on spending on other health-promoting necessities
such as recreation and holidays
e. no provision of affordable housing for large rent paying
families brings overcrowding increased homelessness and higher
emergency housing costs
f. ‘buy to rent’ and speculative activity bids up
prices and rents in some areas
g. lack of affordable housing affects labour mobility and job
chances
h. reduction of capability to go on strike due to mortgage commitments
reduces the power of organized labour.
i. effects on fertility rate, the age of having a first child
and family size
j. increased stresses on family life where two incomes are needed
to service debt
k. complications when life goes wrong (divorce, unemployment,
etc.) means more stress
l. effects on the life quality of older parents helping children
to cope with housing costs
m. the extra £645bn that has been used to push up house
prices that could have been used more productively as investment
in health, education, infrastructure, etc.
3. NO STRATEGY
There is no clear UK Housing Strategy – only successive
‘crisis management’ measures. There is no recognition
that housing is key economic infrastructure and that sufficient
good standard, healthy, affordable housing when and where it
is needed is a vital prerequisite for buoyant economic development
and a healthy and socially integrated population. There is no
recognition that failure to meet these requirements has severe
public cost consequences in the NHS and Schools (see Zacchaeus
2000 - Memorandum to the Prime Minister, 2004). There is no
strategic thinking and policy formation on:
a. matching aggregate house purchase lending to housing output
b. matching statutory minimum incomes to increasing housing
costs
c. achieving a cost-effective mix of supply side/demand side
support
d. avoiding expensive technological errors (e.g. the ‘high
rise’ boom, poor insulation, etc.)
e. matching housing promotion patterns to the full diversity
of local needs
f. achieving a non-stigmatising mix of private/voluntary/public
development
g. whether housing support should be progressive, regressive
or neutral in effect
4. THE POOR SUFFER MOST – AND WHAT THAT COSTS
The massive increase in debt and the lack of strategic thinking
impacts most on the poor.
a. They pay a higher % of income in housing costs and council
tax and have not enough left to cover all other vital expenditure
to safeguard their health and safety.
b. They are driven further into debt at high interest, experience
more stress and other ill-health related to poor housing and
they generate, unwittingly, higher NHS costs.
c. Low income rent payers do not own property and have no ‘asset
cushion’.
d. Many live in areas of housing run-down that produces adverse
‘area effects’ on other services such as retailing,
health and education.
e. They suffer from a range of outcomes not of their making.
Morally and economically this is a disgrace. Radically new approaches
are required to housing finance, setting the levels of statutory
minimum incomes and strategies.
Peter Ambrose.
University of Brighton 01273-643914
Home 01273-471869
DOWNLOAD
OF THIS PAPER
DOWNLOAD
OF CONFERENCE FLYER
DOWNLOAD
CONFERENCE APPLICATION FORM