星空传媒

If you have 100,000 households in temporary accommodation at an average weekly rent of 拢250, what is the annual cost to the public purse? How many housing benefit payments of 拢250 would it take to acquire enough to buy a new house?

How much would the exchequer save if the supply of social housing were such that it could rent from that sector instead? Which government department funds the difference? (One for politics students only). If a family must earn anything up to 拢12,000 a year just to cover private sector rent, how will this impact on the motivation to return to work and stop receiving benefits payments?

And does the economic incentive to move families out of the money-guzzling private sector and into social housing really justify making other groups on the transfer list, often also in dire housing need, wait longer to be rehoused? (Economics students only). Finally, does anyone really believe this constitutes value for money? (Rhetorical).

As the number of families in temporary housing has continued to rise, getting the answers right counts for more than a better GCSE grade. Hugely important issues are at stake. There is the straightforward question of 鈥渧alue for money鈥�, represented by the pouring of hundreds 鈥� maybe even thousands 鈥� of millions of pounds of housing benefit into the pockets of private landlords, a decent share of which are, of course, beneficiaries from the right-to-buy policy. With temporary housing certain to remain a feature of the landscape for many years to come 鈥� despite the five-year plan鈥檚 stated intention to halve the numbers by 2010 鈥� would it not be sensible to review the balance between 鈥減ersonal鈥� subsidy (housing benefit) and 鈥渂ricks and mortar鈥� subsidy (funding an increase in the supply of social housing)? Housing benefit has taken too much of the strain in terms of housing subsidy over the past two decades. More joined-up thinking is definitely needed between the Department for Work and Pensions and the ODPM.

We鈥檙e pouring hundreds, maybe even thousands, of millions of pounds of housing benefit into the pockets of private landlords 鈥� many of whom are beneficiaries of right to buy

And what of the employment prospects of today鈥檚 100,000 households 鈥� or even 2010鈥檚 anticipated 50,000 households 鈥� whose rents are so far in excess of those in the social sector that they would have to be perversely motivated to actually go out to work? Surely it is time for a comprehensive 鈥渨elfare to work鈥� policy for these households, making it easier for them to stay connected with the labour market. They need advisers who are fully familiar with housing need and to be able to get benefits and still work so that they won鈥檛 need to clear a private sector rent hurdle in order to make a living.

Add to all this the need for a policy priority supporting communities with high levels of temporary accommodation. High levels of population turnover tend to correlate with extra cost pressures on local services, from education to social services to policing 鈥� and certainly to housing management. Yet the compensation for this is virtually non-existent. Homeless families themselves are disproportionately unlikely to register to vote or make the other range of connections that build a healthy civil society. Surely it must be a worry that this non-participation (understandable as it is for the families involved) will become a habit, even after permanent roots can be put down?

The five year plan struck a careful balance between promoting asset ownership among low-income tenants and addressing housing need, especially with the target for fewer numbers in temporary housing. The plan, and increased investment running alongside it, are both welcome. But before awarding a 鈥渟tarred A鈥�, we should require action to address the issues of subsidy and incentive. Over the decade tens of thousands of families will rely on us getting the answers right.