Have you heard of the Decent Homes Programme? Until today neither
had I, but it’s been in existence for a while now. Introduced in 2000 and overseen
by the Department for Communities and Local Government, the programme aims to
improve the condition of homes for social housing tenants in England. The cost
to date stands at around £40bn, so I was naturally curious to know where the
money went.
There are four principle requirements for a decent home.
1. It meets the current statutory minimum standard for
housing - to be decent a dwelling should be free of category 1 hazards under The
Housing Health and Safety Rating System (England) Regulations 2005. This
includes the nasty stuff like risks from asbestos, lead and various other
inarguable hazards.
2. It has reasonably modern facilities and services.
3. It is in a reasonable state of repair.
4. It provides a reasonable degree of thermal comfort.
I would challenge anybody to deny social tenants these
fundamental and ‘reasonable’ requirements. Even a nasty, snarling, frothing, right-wing
aberration like me can see that to provide anything less would be an affront to
human dignity. But where it starts to
get contentious is in the interpretation of just what is reasonable.
How did I come by today’s enlightenment? I spoke to a
programme manager for a contractor involved in the scheme. His company is
tasked with bringing up to ‘decency’ some tens of thousands of homes. But their
brief goes far beyond what you or I may consider merely decent. For instance,
in search of thermal efficiency they are installing air and ground source heat
pump systems at a cost of around £6k per house. Some homes have solar
photovoltaic generators to further reduce the energy costs to the household.
This is on top of thermal insulation, rewires, brand new fitted kitchens, new bathrooms
and new windows as a matter of course.
Naturally one wants to see wise investment in public housing
stock, especially in terms of on-going savings in maintenance and energy costs,
but isn’t this taking the piss ever so slightly? Where is the help for the
couple on average incomes who have bought their homes and invested every spare
penny into making them just liveable? Hands up who wouldn't want lower energy
bills for life? How many homeowners in negative equity would love a new
kitchen, a new bathroom… or some heat this winter?
Well tough. You can only have that level of decency by right
if you live in a council house. Sod you, striving Britain with your
penny-pinching thrifty ways. You deserve all the misery you go through with
your wondering if you’ll have a job to go to next week and your wondering if you’ll
ever be able to afford to retire. You chose to make your own way in the world,
contrary to the great Marxist plan, you can bloody well starve out there, damn
you.
Well, why not a government
scheme to improve the stock of social housing tenants. A Decent Citizen
Programme, if you will. Only a decent citizen should be allowed access to a decent
council house – I think that’s only fair. A decent citizen would have to meet
several criteria:
1. Demonstrate a reasonable standard of behaviour in public as well
as in private.
2. Have a reasonable attitude towards the state which generously subsidises their accommodation.
3. Make a reasonable contribution to maintaining a civilised and decent society.
4. Have the decency to recognise when they no longer need to
rely on the state to house them and move out to give a chance to another decent household.
Comrade Crow - decent citizen?
No comments:
Post a Comment