星空传媒

Choice is far more important to poorer people than to the better off, precisely because they have so little of it. I smell humbug in some of the arguments against choice. Public sector bureaucrats have a way of using the needs of the poorest to do down the slightly less poor they should also be serving. So, for example, we can鈥檛 have more choice in lettings in high-demand areas because it would disadvantage the homeless. We can鈥檛 have more choice in supported housing because nobody would want to live next door to drug users or people with mental health problems. As I say, humbug.

In the same vein, the right to buy for housing association tenants will, apparently, lead to certain disaster. But why should tenants housed by local authorities have the right to buy, but not those housed by associations? I understand the arguments about charitable status, but surely these arguments protect the provider; they don鈥檛 empower the tenant.

Let me describe how a different approach to housing choice might work. At Notting Hill Housing Trust in west London, housing demand is enormous. In ethnicity, language and religion, west London is probably the most varied neighbourhood in the world. But we also have the diversity of the rich, the almost rich, the poor and the almost poor, the needy and the well-provided for, the young and the old and some of the best and worst housing conditions in the country. And our response? Essentially, we have four products, none of them new or unique: supported housing, low-cost home ownership, permanent rented housing and temporary rented housing. Huge segments of housing demand are simply ignored for no reason other than lack of imagination and a devotion to satisfy the regulators. Having been an Audit Commissioner for so long myself, I regard satisfying regulators as a condition for success, not success itself.

Through a period of low interest rates and high property values Notting Hill has acquired enormous assets that could work much harder. Our stock is not spread out or hard to manage, though we have the same range of difficulties as all London associations. Most Notting Hill homes are in a radius of a few miles. We should become much more efficient and we are becoming so.

Tenant involvement is no substitute for choice. Can it be right that tenants can be on the board but can have no say in who lives in the room next door?

Some of our neediest customers, in supported or temporary housing, should be able to move to another Notting Hill home. Why shouldn鈥檛 homeless people move straight to affordable home ownership? Supported housing tenants have the least choice of all. Tenant involvement is important, but it鈥檚 no substitute for choice. Can it be right that tenants can be on the board but have no say in who lives in the room next door in a shared house?

As it stands, a lifelong customer of Notting Hill is likely to remain relatively poor, never move to another Notting Hill home or buy their home. I want our customers to be able stay with us as they get better off or as their family circumstances change; perhaps they might move to another home or neighbourhood. To achieve all this we need growth but also innovation. We could provide rented housing for those not needy enough to be nominated by a local authority. Cheaper homes for young workers who are neither 鈥渒ey鈥� nor rich enough to buy are also on our agenda. Flexible financial products could be offered to adapt to people鈥檚 changing means and used for moving from temporary to permanent housing. We have set up an accommodation agency so people can choose the private rented sector. Growth and innovation will mean that Notting Hill tenants will have the kind of choice found in a department store. Housing associations need to be much more than charity shops.