UNISON support of Edinburgh tenants

Investment without strings, not stock transfer

That is what UNISON is campaigning for in the run up to the tenants’ ballot which could come as early as November this year.

That is why the Branch AGM in February voted unanimously to campaign against stock transfer.

When housing staff are farmed off to new employers, the evidence from all around the country is that they will be at the mercy of broken promises on conditions.

Colleagues in other areas report poorer conditions and the focus moving away from the range of housing support tasks to rent collection only.

That is why UNISON wants to make sure there is a real debate before tenants are balloted. We believe the huge sums being poured into consultants and glossy propaganda in the campaign for a yes vote would be better spent on improving housing.

UNISON is opposed to housing stock transfers for a number of reasons including

• the implications for staff,
• loss of democratic accountability
• the costs of transfer
• reduced choice for tenants.

A more effective alternative is direct investment using investment allowances, creating a level playing field between the different options.

Staff transfer

Normally staff who spend 50% or more of their time on the services the new housing body will provide will be transferred. But what about the rest?

Other transfers have brought problems for IT, wages and other staff. The Glasgow DLO lost the contract and had to lay off staff. l

• Staff transferring to the new organisation will NO LONGER be council employees. At the point of transfer the council gives up all responsibility for staff.
• Transfer of Undertakings regulations (TUPE) only offer
  protection at the moment of transfer.
• Pensions are not covered by TUPE.
• Eventually the new employer will want to impose their own terms. Edinburgh Leisure refused to honour a national pay award.
• Glasgow Housing staff are facing redundancy threats as £1.7 million is cut from the staffing budget. The GHA also wants to replace annual pay awards and increments with performance related pay.
• The new organisation will be much smaller with fewer career opportunities and little chance of redeployment.

The principle at stake

• Stock transfer means privatisation of an essential public service.
• Once transferred, there is no going back for staff or tenants.
• Democratic control and accountability through elected councillors will be lost. Take Edinburgh Leisure - they often say things are the council’s fault for cutting money. The council says it’s a separate organisation and they can’t interfere. No-one appears to be responsible.
• There is no demand from tenants for a change of landlord.
• Tenants are denied real choice. Real choice would mean the council having the same access to funds as a private body.
• The £1 billion promised is public money and should be directly invested publicly without strings.
• The Treasury can write off debt for a private body, so why not for the council?

Staff provide a good service

• The Housing Dept is not a failing organisation, so why break it up?
• The Modernising Housing Agenda and Neighbourhood Management initiative shows the service is developing and forward looking
• The plans are at odds with the much vaunted joint working with social work, for example.
• It is ironic that just recently Housing staff were being told that a merger with Social Work was the best way forward. The hidden costs

Stock Transfer is not Best Value

• Vast sums are spent on publicity, set-up costs, consultants, solicitors etc that could be spent directly on improving housing.
• The Parliament Public Accounts Committee reported that Stock Transfer costs £1,300 per tenancy more than councils doing improvements themselves.
• The National Audit Office reports repairs and improvements are expected to cost a third more after transfer - about £1.3billion - than if councils did the work themselves.

Alternatives to Transfer

• Direct investment in Council Housing without strings
• Take council spending on housing out of the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement as other European countries have done.
• Urge the government to give an Investment Allowance as revenues stream that would let councils borrow using the new Prudential Borrowing arrangements.

The Government can be challenged

• Westminster is coming under more and more pressure to make concessions to councils and tenants demanding fair play and a level playing field.
• The Prudential Borrowing Framework was introduced in April 2004 and allows some councils to borrow more. This was a significant concession to the campaign to defend council housing.
• The House of Commons Select Committee on Housing called on the Government to end the injustice of tenants being financially penalised for voting to keep the council as their landlord.
• After pressure from the trade unions and the Defend Council Housing campaign, the last Labour Party Conference demanded that the same ‘stock transfer’ funds should be available to councils if tenants vote to stay with them.

UNISON NEWS