22nd November 2010 saw the U.K. government outline its proposals for radical reform of social housing provision in England. Among the proposed changes was the introduction of ‘flexible tenancies’ for new tenants, with the minimum period of tenancy being a fixed-term of two years. This is a significant change from the current system, where recipients of affordable housing are given the mandatory assurance of a lifetime tenancy.

Since the proposals, there has been fierce debate about whether the controversial changes will really be to the benefit of some of the country’s most vulnerable people. The reforms are part of the government’s strategy to make more social housing available for those on the waiting list who are most in need. The waiting list currently stands at over 1 million households. But will the reforms lead to a fairer society, or will the changes undermine the security and stability of those in need of housing?

Arguments in support of flexible tenancies

• The current system isn’t able to serve the diverse requirements of those in need of affordable housing and places difficult restraints on local housing authorities. Flexible tenancies would allow local authorities more options when assessing the needs of tenants who may only be in need of transitional housing. This argument has been supported by the Chartered Institute of Housing.

• New flexible tenancies would be an addition to, rather than a replacement for, secure and introductory tenancies. The rights of existing tenants will not be affected by the changes.

• There is a serious shortage of social housing in Britain, with some tenants currently not in social housing which is appropriate for their needs. The proposed changes aim to increase mobility and free up affordable housing for those who are most in need. There is a perception in government that some people do not have sufficient incentive to move out of social housing into the privately rented sector, despite having the means to do so. Ending mandatory life tenancies is designed to give an incentive to those who are able to move out of affordable housing so that this may be better used for those with greater need.

Arguments against flexible tenancies

• Introducing fixed-term tenancies undermines the stability of communities. Greater mobility may have the effect of reducing community cohesion, while also severely disrupting the security of people’s living arrangements. This is Shelter’s view about the end of ‘security of tenure’.

• There is a concern that the changes will lead to social housing becoming the preserve of those in acute difficulty. If those whose circumstances are improving are being asked to move out of their property, then social housing tenants may find themselves surrounded by others in the worst circumstances. The political blog ‘Left Foot Forward’ argues that flexible tenancies will ‘entrap people at the bottom of the pile’, rather than promoting mobility.

• From a managerial perspective, an increased rate of people moving in and out of affordable housing could lead to increased costs and greater pressure on local authorities and housing associations. Landlords may also have difficulty in evicting those whom they consider no longer need social housing.

The arguments surrounding flexible tenancies are obviously complex. While there is an acknowledged need for reform in the affordable housing sector, there is a persistent and valid concern that granting greater flexibility to landlords could undermine the security afforded to tenants. Do such concerns assume that landlords cannot be trusted to treat their tenants with fairness, or does the proposed change undermine the fundamental purpose behind the social housing project?

There are no easy answers to these questions and only time will tell if greater local freedom will lead to a fairer future for all.