Council housing
Up to 300,000 council homes could be built in next decade
by René Lavanchy
Councils will be given more money and freedom to build council homes than at any stage since Margaret Thatcher came to power, under the Government’s review of council housing finance released this week. Local government representatives say the new funding system could see 300,000 new homes built by 2020.
Housing minister John Healey said he would “want to see councils building more new homes”, as he announced a consultation on how to give local authorities the right to keep all rent from council housing, as well as revenue from house sales.
The plans – first indicated by Mr Healey’s predecessor Margaret Beckett in January – are the first shake-up of the council housing system since Gordon Brown became Prime Minister and will put councils on a more equal financial footing to housing associations – a move resisted by the Government since 1997.
The announcement came a day after Mr Brown pledged to build 3,000 new council homes in 2009-11 as part of the “Building Britain’s Future” plan, just two months after the Budget allocated spending to build only 900. About 375 council homes were built last year.
In total, the Government now promises 110,000 affordable homes for sale or rent by 2011, an increase of 20,000 over previous targets.
Mr Healey said he would bring in legislation to dismantle the housing revenue account system, under which central government collects housing revenue and redistributes it: “This would provide councils with a financial framework in which they could plan and manage for the long term in the same way we expect of other social housing providers. It would give councils a greater capacity and more freedom to respond to local needs”. He added that he was excluding all new council homes from the HRA with immediate effect.
Campaigning group Defend Council Housing has long criticised the funding system as a “robbery”, and says that the Government keeps over £1 billion annually in housing revenue more than it gives back in funding. The right to retain rents and sale profits has long been called for by unions, campaigners and MPs in the House of Commons Council Housing Group.
Mr Healey also announced that, for the first time, councils would be able to access the social housing grant, which subsidises new affordable home building and which has previously only been available to housing associations – another key demand of council housing campaigners.
The Local Government Association welcomed the plans. Paul Bettison, the LGA’s environment chair, said: “The increased spending on council house building is a major victory for town halls. Councils want to build homes to cut waiting lists and get people into their own homes.
“It is also good news that the Government will consult on major reform of council house finance. We have campaigned hard for town halls to keep control of proceeds from council house rents and sales that could deliver 300,000 new homes in the next decade.”
Health service
Darzi signals PFI rethink
by René Lavanchy
Ministers are set to consider scrapping the Private Finance Initiative as a way of funding hospitals and health centres, health minister Lord Darzi has suggested.
In an interview with British Medical Association newspaper BMA News, Lord Darzi said: “I believe PFIs have served the NHS very well… but I have no doubt that the department will be appraising whether it is still the model for the future or whether there are other, better models.”
Unions and the BMA welcomed the comments. Karen Reay, Unite’s national officer for health, said: “We hope he means that the PFI experiment is abandoned, and not that the whole sorry process should be accelerated. We shall be seeking clarification from government on this point.” l
Defence
Pressure mounts to scrap Trident
by Keith Richmond
The Government is under increasing pressure to review its controversial commitment to spend £20 billion to replace Britain’s ageing Trident nuclear missile system.
The decision to spend such a large sum of money on a single project has never been popular – not with those on the left, who have long been opposed to nuclear weapons, nor with those service chiefs – of the Army and Royal Air Force – who, unlike the Royal Navy, don’t get to play with these “toys”.
Now two more issues have been concentrating minds at the Ministry of Defence.
The first is the fear that an enormous chunk of the defence budget is about to be swallowed by a weapon which will never be used. Meanwhile, British servicemen on active duty in Afghanistan and Iraq – and before that in the Balkans – are stretched for equipment which the MoD cannot afford.
The second issue is the recession which is forcing both Labour and the Conservatives to examine where they can make cuts in public spending. It is not clear how, in the current economic climate and with budgets set to be cut throughout Whitehall, the Government is going to be able to justify spending £20 billion on nuclear-armed submarines.
Critics of Trident have been given a boost by a new report from the Institute for Public Policy Research – its authors include the former Defence Secretary George Robertson and ex-Liberal Democrat leader Paddy Ashdown – which contends that Britain cannot afford much of the defence equipment it plans to buy and should revisit plans to renew its independent nuclear deterrent. It suggests considering possible alternatives to Trident or extending the life of the current system.
Lord Ashdown argued: “We can no longer afford to maintain museum Cold War armaments.”
Lord Robertson said: “In the post 9/11, post financial crisis world, we must be smarter and more ruthless in targeting national resources at the real security risks.”
A spokesperson for CND said: “With the UK facing its biggest economic crisis in decades, there is no case for wasting billions of pounds replacing the Trident nuclear weapons system.”
But the Government, which has to agree an initial contract for the design of the submarines in September, insists it is still committed to renewing Trident. This policy is backed by the Tories, but opposed by the Lib Dems and many Labour backbenchers.
Postal services
Postal privatisation on the back burner
by Cary Gee
Campaigners against Royal Mail privatisation have welcomed comments made by Business Secretary Lord Mandelson earlier this week which indicated that the controversial Postal Services Bill, which seeks increased private investment in the postal service, will not now be heard in the current parliamentary session.
However Billy Hayes, general secretary of the Communication Workers Union, stressed that the delay must be used to modernise the postal service while ensuring it remains in public ownership.
Mr Hayes said: “The Government must now consider alternative legislation by the autumn, to allow for a new form of regulation of the industry and the removal of the pensions deficit.”
Modernisation within the public sector has long been at the forefront of the CWU’s strategy in fighting a partial sell-off of the most profitable parts of the business. Campaigners argue that would leave a weakened service unable to compete with the private sector.
Dave Ward, deputy general secretary of the CWU with responsibility for postal services, insisted that co-operation with Royal Mail employees was the only realistic way forward in trying to improve the existing service.
He said: “We have offered management a three-month moratorium on industrial and executive action in order to achieve a modernisation agreement. With the Government’s new position, management must take this opportunity to respond positively to the workforce’s concerns.”
So far, Royal Mail managers have not responded to the offer, putting customers at risk of severe disruption of deliveries. A CWU spokesman confirmed that the union has received many requests for strike action from its members throughout the country who are struggling to cope with the demands placed on them.
He said: “Our workers are angry and feeling the pressure”, but insisted that the union offer remains on the table.
Working conditions
Report shames Tesco’s workplace practices
by Keith Richmond
A shock new report revealing the secret practices of the supermarket giant Tesco concludes that the company’s employment practices in Thailand, South Korea and the United States fall well short of the firm’s published principles.
In Thailand, employees are required to work two shifts (18 hours) or even three (24 hours) back to back; coerced into working unpaid overtime; and sacked for trying to join a trade union.
In South Korea, the company employs contract workers on lower pay and allowances than permanent employees doing the same hours on the same job and forces employees to work up to 20 hours a week unpaid “voluntary” overtime.
And in the US, the company employs part-time rather than-full time workers and refuses to meet unions to discuss them organising among employees. It rejected out of hand a legitimate recognition request from the majority of workers at one store in California.
The report is the work of Union Network International, which represents 900 trade unions and 20 million workers worldwide, and which last year set up the Tesco Global Union Alliance to represent Tesco workers in 12 countries around the world including Britain, Ireland, China, Japan and the US. It was published just before the supermarket gave evidence to the House of Commons select committee’s inquiry into local government and the way it is funded.
Phil Bowyer, deputy general secretary of the UNI Global Union, said: “We want to talk to Tesco about this research which found inconsistencies between its own global principles and local practices. We ask Tesco to take remedial action.”
Tories’ new Euro group gets off to shaky start
by Kate Holman
Following last month’s European elections, the centre-right European People’s Party has retained its position as the largest political group in the European Parliament.
When the Parliament convenes for its first Strasbourg session on July 14, Britain will be the only country in the European Union not represented on the EPP, which has some 80 seats more than its left-of-centre rival.
David Cameron’s promise to pull the Tories out of the EPP and follow an aggressively Eurosceptic line means Britain is absent from the Parliament’s most powerful grouping– which has automatic access to key committee and delegation positions.
In the meantime, the Tories’ new group, the European Conservatives and Reformists, has got off to a shaky start. With 55 MEPs from eight member states, it just scrapes past the minimum threshold for formal recognition. However, more than 90 per cent of its members come from just three countries: Britain, Poland and the Czech Republic.
Only last week, Hannu Takkula from the Finnish Centre Party pulled out after party leaders strong-armed him into joining his two other MEP colleagues in the liberal ALDE group. Fortunately for the ECR, his place was taken by Waldemar Tomaszewski, leader of the Electoral Action of Poles in Lithuania party, which attracts just 4 per cent of Lithuanian voters.
The largest group in the ECR, after the 26 Tories, is made up of 15 members of the hard-right Polish Law and Justice party (PiS): a virulently homophobic organisation with racist activists.
Next in line are nine members of the ODS of Mirek Topolánek, the former Czech Prime Minister photographed naked at a party at Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s villa. ODS founder Vaclav Klaus describes global warming as a “false myth”.
The rest of the group comprises one MEP each from the Dutch Christian Union, the nationalist Flemish Lijst Dedecker (an ally of the far-right Vlaams Belang), the Latvian National Independence Movement, which honours Latvian soldiers in the Waffen SS, and the Hungarian Democratic Forum.
With little in common but Euroscepticism, the group could have its work cut out agreeing a programme.
Single-MEP delegations are also likely to demand key positions in return for their loyalty, giving them a disproportionate influence and potentially marginalising Conservative MEPs even further.
Hungarian Lajos Bokros is already expected to quit his seat to return to national politics within the next few months. It would take only one more defection to wreck the whole
group. l
Executive pay
Union fury over Network Rail bonuses
by Cary Gee
ASLEF general secretary Keith Norman has reacted angrily to news that Network Rail bosses are set to pocket more than £1.2 million in bonuses.
Chief executive Ian Coucher is due to receive an “incentive payment” in excess of £150,000, while directors Peter Henderson and Ron Henderson will each get more than £300,000.
Mr Norman said: “The world has gone mad. It was only last month that Network Rail’s performance, especially over the West Coast mainline, was heavily criticised by the rail regulator.
“If the performance of our members sank to these levels, they would be on a discipline charge, not a gravy train. At a time when profits are down and debt is increasing, putting our members at real risk of redundancy, these bonuses are an affront.” l
Lindsey dispute
Contractor accused over refinery strikes
by René Lavanchy
Wildcat strikes at the Lindsey Oil Refinery were deliberately caused by a contractor “screwing the clients”, it was alleged this week. Union officials said Jacobs Engineering was to blame for triggering walkouts by mismanaging contracts and arguments with client firm Total.
The allegations came as workers at Lindsey returned to work this week, following the reinstatement of nearly 650 workers sacked for striking unofficially.
Unite regional officer Bernard McAuley said: “These companies are screwing the clients and they use the men as a barometer. When there are disagreements over contractual arrangements they’re out for two to three days and that takes the heat off the contractor and they renegotiate the contract.”
The Lindsey project is now about three months behind schedule. “Jacobs and their sub-contractor Shaws were spending their time on internal fighting”, he said.
He added that another contractor firm, Amec, had a better record after taking over another building site from Jacobs. “There was one day’s industrial action there, on a very tight contract.”
Tom Hardacre, Unite’s national officer for construction, said: “Some of those contractors, when they appear to go wrong, appear to blame the workforce in some way.”
Business Secretary Lord Mandelson has launched an inquiry into productivity on engineering construction sites. Mr Hardacre said he had told the inquiry committee that arguments over contracts could impact on the workforce.
Jacobs were unavailable for comment.
Fraught relations at Lindsey have led Unite to second a full-time official, Michael Gaskell, to oversee the site until the project is completed.
About The Author
