Fortnight Publications Ltd.

Fortnight on Housing: Tenant Participation: A Frosty ReportAuthor(s): Peter McLachlanSource: Fortnight, No. 137 (Nov. 19, 1976), pp. 6-7Published by: Fortnight Publications Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25546050 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 07:50

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Fortnight Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Fortnight.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.213.220.171 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 07:50:50 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

6/Fortnight

FORTNIGHT ON HOUSING TENANT PARTICIPATION ?a frosty report

The Department of the Environment's

housing division continues to burn the midnight oil. Yet another report has been turned loose on us. This time it might have been better if the document had found its way straight into the vaults of Stormont.

The latest twenty-five pages and

sixty-six paragraphs ?all beautifully numbered on the new much favoured decimal system ?concern Tenant

Participation and New Forms of Tenure. Heady stuff this! Or at least

this is what we were led to expect. It has taken a working party of

three senior members of the Housing Executive and three senior members of the Department of the Environ ment 15 months to manufacture this

'shadow' report. One can only call it a

shadow because practically every

single paragraph provides an

unenthusiastic commentary on very substantial ideas originally put for

ward by a committee in London chaired by that wizard of housing innovation, Harold Campbell.

Ray Carter provides his usual stir

ring and committed introduction. He

expresses his concern to involve

people much more deeply in solving housing problems. He asks for more

participation by tenants in managing their homes and estates. He wants

more feedback from tenants. He wants more experiments. And so

it goes on.

However the reader has only to turn to the summary in chapter four to realise that the Northern Ireland

working party was totally uncommit ted to the Campbell committee ideas.

It is not possible at this stage to

produce a definitive report and we

have concentrated on identifying the

main issues and suggesting some

pilot schemes.' That is the main conclusion. It would not be too

unkind to say that the report sets out

the Campbell ideas ?indicates that

t iere would be no objection to them \r principle?but in practice woe

betide anyone who tries to put them in'o practice. Would-be experimen

ters can expect a mountain of

obstruction.

The report has only two substantial recommendations. First the Executive should improve its contacts with tenants. Second there will be a pilot

scheme in equity sharing in Larne run

by the Housing Executive. We shall all be watching Larne for the emergence of this remarkable innovation.

UNCOMMITMENT It would be well to put on the

record that the Working Party which

produced this report was set up in a

very unsatisfactory way. Its counter

part across the water was composed mainly of people outside Government and the statutory housing authorities

who had real commitment to and

knowledge of the new ways of tenant

involvement and housing tenure.

Here, despite vigorous protests, the committee was composed entirely of civil servants. As a result such good new ideas as are about have been damned with faint praise; some have been omitted completely; and there is

absolutely nothing original in the

document.

Now to look at some of the details. On consultation with tenants the

report says that in relation to new

building and rehabilitation the

Executive might benefit from more

'feedback' from tenants. It would be

interesting to know the reactions of tenant associations to that word

'might'. There is a strong case for

making such consultation compul sory.

UNORIGINAL

Again the report says the Executive 'should continue to be prepared to

respond to requests for regular meetings with tenant representatives!

What does this mean? One would have thought that in the absence of the regular contact which the old rent

collector used to have it is now

absolutely essential that such contacts take place. And incidentally the idea put forward by the

committee that a news sheet would

help ?and I quote 'as a longer term

measure' ?is little short of laughable. Surely what is needed and needed

desperately is not a monthly public relations glossy written in the ivory fastnesses of College Square or

Stormont but regular human contact.

Having dealt with consultation in an astonishingly complacent manner,

the report turns next to repairs and

. .,. I I I I. *

management. Here the prejudices of the writer are laid bare. No evidence here of the excitement which has

greeted the concept of giving tenants

greater control over their own affairs.

Only a frosty indication that it would be extremely difficult to devise a scheme for tenants to take over

responsibility for maintenance. 'We

think', says the report, 'that the Executive should consider this possi bility further and see if it can devise a

pilot scheme in a carefully selected estate whereby tenants would be

given a rent reduction if they agree to

carry out all except major repairs.' We need not expect much action in this field.

The idea of a housing cooperative to take over responsibility for

management of public authority housing meets with an even cooler

reception. The report refers to a

strong school of thought in Great Britain which favours this approach. It goes on to say the present Govern

ment also favours it. But the view of the committee is stark and clear. 'We

agree with this in principle though we are doubtful whether the time is ripe for major advances on this front in Northern Ireland'. Bearing in mind the

saving to public funds which Harold

Campbell illustrated on a recent visit to the province, their approach to this issue by the working party is little

short of a disgrace.

Worse is yet to come. For the

report goes on to throw a series of doubts on the bona fides of tenants and their organisations. It dismisses the idea that such organisations can

help the Executive. It refused to

support the idea of letting vacant houses free of rent for housing advice centres. It raises every conceivable obstacle to tenant participation. It is to be hoped that when the real

significance of this report is

appreciated by tenants there will be a

steady and unrelenting pressure to

secure a more progressive policy outlook.

NEW FORMS With an almost visible sigh of relief

the report sails into the calmer waters

of the new forms of tenure. The

exciting idea of equity sharing is not

>

This content downloaded from 91.213.220.171 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 07:50:50 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Friday 19th November 1976/7

FORTNIGHT'S LEDU - Part 2 GUIDE TO TAILOR-MADE

SELF-HELP ASSISTANCE In the previous article it was

emphasised that LEDU is prepared to assist only those projects that are

likely to be commercially viable after an initial running-in period. Moreover, they expect those responsible for

planning the project to provide enough detailed commercial data and

projections to substantiate as far as

possible the claim of viability. Some

self-help groups may need the services of an accountant to produce these facts and figures.

The type of financial and non-financial aid self-help groups can receive from LEDU (providing their

project is eligible for assistance) is both unique and substantial. Natur

ally LEDU cannot guarantee long term success, but they do give ventures of this kind a fighting chance. Some development associ

ations may feel that there are always too many strings attached to any grant or loan from a public agency. But John O'Donnell, an ATGWU official who has been closely associated with the Newry and Mourr.e Co-operative Society, believes that LEDU has given local

groups the first real chance they have had to demonstrate their enterprise. It is one of the few government

sponsored agencies in which he has any confidence. He served a two-year term as a LEDU panel member for the Southern area and can recall a

number of successes, including the

Co-op, in which LEDU assistance was instrumental.

Fortnight estimate that around ten

self-help concerns have been assisted

by LEDU and a number of other

development associations are pres

ently engaged in preliminary discus sions with this agency.

FLEXIBILITY LEDU's flexibility has been

demonstrated by its willingness to tailor assistance to help overcome the specific difficulties faced by self-help groups. Acquiring the services of a

manager is probably the most crucial

problem facing a newly established

self-help concern. For example,

Ballymurphy Enterprises found that a full-time manager was essential if their small experimental business was to have any chance of expanding, yet the cost of a manager's salary was a

huge overhead which neither its level of production nor size of business justified initially. LEDU agreed to

contribute toward this cost which, as Sean Mackel said, was "most

welcome".

LEDU is prepared to give special assistance toward the cost of a full-time manager's salary over a

three-year period, on a decreasing scale. This assistance can be given in addition to the capital grants outlined below. It will only help with the salary of one manager, however, and this

person must be employed full-time on the proposed project. LEDU is also keen to help find the right person for the job. If asked to, they will outline the type of managerial skills required for the task, advise on the wording of advertisements for the post, and sit in on the interviews. Once a manager has been appointed, LEDU's Advisory Services can be called on to help him or her overcome the production and

management problems that will

inevitably crop up. Another common problem facing

self-help groups is a shortage of ready money. Clients of LEDU usually receive grants apd loans fairly

speedily; certainly a lot quicker than it

takes to raise money from the usual commercial sources.

GRANTS

The size of LEDU's grants and loans varies according to:

(i) the number of jobs involved; (ii) where the project is situated

within Northern Ireland; (iii) and the type of product.

Naturally, LEDU is likely to give somewhere near the maximum to a business proposing to

manufacture goods that are presently imported and which is likely to create

30 to 40 jobs in a job-starved area like Strabane or Newry; whereas it would probably make a far more modest contribution to, say, a two-man

pottery manufacturing business in

Hillsborough. Above all LEDU is highly flexible in

the types of aid it can provide. Financial assistance is offered in the

following forms:

a) Grants on capital expenditure: 30?40% on new premises and on new plant and machinery.

b) Loans: towards the cost of

building premises, purchasing plant, machinery, equipment and

working capital. These can be made at preferential rates of

interest and are frequently repay ment free and interest free for the first one or two years. For the remainder of the term of the loan there will be a fixed rate of interest. Repayment of the loan is

arranged by instalments geared to the project's projected earning ca pacity. Security is required for loans, usually in the form of a

charge on assets.

c) Employment grants: may be offered if the size of the labour force is increased over an agreed period (usually restricted to additional male employees).

d) Setting-up grants: to help with necessary expenditure incurred by relocation or setting up in

manufacture. *

condemned out of hand. The way it works is this. The prospective owner

buys say a 50% stake in his house and pays rent for the remainder. If he moves within a certain number of years he sells his share back to the Executive. After that period he can sell the share on the open market. Such a scheme would certainly help the young married couples entering into house purchase for the first time.

A cold shower of caution is poured on the idea of housing cooperatives before the report closes. The committee 'do not believe that

housing cooperatives will play a

significant role in Northern Ireland in

the short term'. But do they know? They may be right and they will cer

tainly be right if the Government policy is to stifle and discourage any efforts in this direction as this report has done.

A parting shot from the committee expresses pious hopes about housing associations. Perhaps they can try out some innovations. The truth is neither they nor anyone else is going to make any impact on our housing problems

while the Department produces reports like this and "office chair inertia" completely stifles our housing

action programme.

Peter McLachlan

This content downloaded from 91.213.220.171 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 07:50:50 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions