13 Comments »

1. The problem I have with this is the definition of "key worker" which seems to me to be arbitrary. If teachers and nurses are "key workers", why are not cleaners, bus drivers, and postmen and women? It is important that this programme does not become a middle-class subsidy and end up fuelling house price inflation while keeping others in social housing of decreasing quality.

   Comment by David Boothroyd — 24 Mar 2004 on 1:13 pm | Link

2. Indeed. The definition of "key worker" in this context is, apparently:
   * nurses and other NHS clinical staff;
   * teachers in schools and in further education and sixth form colleges;
   * police officers and some civilian staff;
   * prison and probation service staff;
   * social workers, educational psychologists, planners (in London) and occupational therapists employed by local authorities; and
   * whole-time junior fire officers and retained fire fighters (all grades) in some fire and rescue services.

   The inclusion of planners and not other local authority staff seems a little odd to me; and what about hospital porters, ambulance drivers, etc.

   The other problem is that this is basically a subsidised mortgage scheme. That seems very likely, as David warns, to lead to house price inflation, since it does nothing to increase the supply of housing while increasing the number of people who can afford to buy. The answer to this problem is actually to build more housing, and perhaps split existing houses into more affordable flats, rather than just to make mortgages more widely available.

   Comment by Chris Lightfoot — 24 Mar 2004 on 1:51 pm | Link

3. Of course the Government could just decide to pay public sector workers a decent salary so that they could afford to buy housing without any special support.

   Comment by Uncarved Block — 24 Mar 2004 on 2:16 pm | Link

4. "Pay public sector workers more" is too simplistic. For one thing, the sorts of salary raises that would have to be paid would mean massive tax rises and the inevitable victory of a political party pledging to reverse them. Public sector workers have always traided higher salaries for greater job security and a better pension scheme. Secondly, in the south-east and London, public sector workers are never going to be able to compete with their contemporaries who earn megabucks at Morgan Stanley etc. Increasing their pay will simply force house prices ever higher. The best way to solve the problem is, as Chris says, building more homes. There is another way to help in inner London, which is by reintroducing security of tenure – thereby cutting the value of all those buy-to-let flats.

   Comment by David Boothroyd — 24 Mar 2004 on 2:52 pm | Link

5. I think London has a housing density of about a quarter of that of New York and Paris. Surely for inner London we also need more medium and higher quality high rise housing.

   Comment by Lodjer — 24 Mar 2004 on 2:56 pm | Link

6. David– wouldn’t reintroducing security of tenure create disincentives for landlords, and therefore result in a drop in the amount of property available to let? That would be fine for those who could afford to buy — increasingly many if prices drop — but bad news for those who must rent.

   Comment by Chris Lightfoot — 24 Mar 2004 on 2:58 pm | Link

7. I see no inevitability in a political party winning an election on a pledge to cut taxes. I don’t think that the Britsh public are quite as selfish as some politicians like to think that they are (or maybe I am too idealistic).

   My point about public sector pay was that for a Government so wedded to market forces, they seem blind to supply and demand in the wage market. If the public sector wants to employ people in the South East then it must pay South East salaries. Alternatively they could Macdonaldise the public sector and pay comparitively lower salaries to teachers and nurses who get an extra star on their name badge for following the instructions on a laminated card.

   There is some trade off with pensions and job security but some would argue that this trade off is with the increased threat of injury and death in their line of work rather than the salary.

   Comment by Uncarved Block — 24 Mar 2004 on 3:28 pm | Link

8. I don’t think it’s that you’re too idealistic as such, it’s just that taxation for frontline services and even pay rises for teachers might be fine, but alongside that come pay rises for the public sector workers the public hates, like civil servants and Inland Revenue staff and NHS managers. Those sorts of pay rises are fertile ground for claims of ‘waste’ and ‘pampered bureaucrats’.

   If the public sector could accept proper differential pay between regions, perhaps there could be more flexibility, but at the moment it’s quite hard to achieve where it hasn’t been achieved already.

   Comment by Marek Ostrowski — 24 Mar 2004 on 4:10 pm | Link

9. I am a management trainee with Willmott Dixon Housing and am currently carrying out some research on behalf of our Innovation & Sustainability team. We are investigating whether Scheme Development Standards are required for ‘key worker’ accomodation. The background is that we are working with a number of RSL Clients on developing a ‘standard’ range of dwelling types specifically for key workers and obviously we want to be as clear as possible aginst what design criteria we should be working.

   Can you advise re the following :
   If a scheme is designated as ‘key worker’ and is funded or part-funded by the Housing Corporation, do you require SDS compliance ?
   How does the H. Corp define a ‘key worker’ scheme ?
   How do enablers like English Parrtnerships who you work with deal with the above issues ?

   I would appreciate any guidance you can give on the above subjects.

   Regards
   JESTYN SHOYOOLA

   Comment by jestyn shoyoola — 28 Jul 2005 on 3:29 pm | Link

10. I am a management trainee with Willmott Dixon Housing and am currently carrying out some research on behalf of our Innovation & Sustainability team. We are investigating whether Scheme Development Standards are required for ‘key worker’ accomodation. The background is that we are working with a number of RSL Clients on developing a ‘standard’ range of dwelling types specifically for key workers and obviously we want to be as clear as possible aginst what design criteria we should be working.

    Can you advise re the following :
    If a scheme is designated as ‘key worker’ and is funded or part-funded by the Housing Corporation, do you require SDS compliance ?
    How does the H. Corp define a ‘key worker’ scheme ?
    How do enablers like English Parrtnerships who you work with deal with the above issues ?

    I would appreciate any guidance you can give on the above subjects.

    Regards
    JESTYN SHOYOOLA

    Comment by jestyn shoyoola — 28 Jul 2005 on 3:29 pm | Link

11. Public sector workers have always traided higher salaries for greater job security and a better pension scheme. Secondly, in the south-east and London, public sector workers are never going to be able to compete with their contemporaries who earn megabucks at Morgan Stanley etc. Increasing their pay will simply force house prices ever higher.
    —————
    Jeremy
    <a href="http://basicroad.org/&quot; title="">http://basicroad.org/

    Comment by Jeremy — 22 Dec 2006 on 9:31 am | Link

12. This is a great article. I am new to your blog and i like what I see. I look forward to your future work.
    I&#8217;ve taken a quick look at your postings, which are very interesting. Lots of material and ideas! Congrats on being so focused!

    Comment by David — 27 Dec 2006 on 4:04 pm | Link

13. (1)Why did Housing Associations in Hampshire advertise an extension to eligible key worker categories from October 2005 to March 2006, thus implying that newly qualifying key workers would be able to part-purchase properties, when these were in fact no longer available to purchase because the government and Housing Corporation knew in January 2005 of problems that prevented them being sold and the Housing Corporation, Hampshire Zone agent and Housing associations "worked closely" in the months prior to anouncing the extension to disperse these properties to four other areas?

    (2) Why was it announced in Parliament in spring 2006 that the key worker shared ownership scheme was being abolished because police and nurses would not purchase in what was termed "inner city ghetto’s"?

    (3) Why was it not disclosed that properties intended for key worker shared ownership purchase had instead been previously dispersed to 4 other areas?

    Any Answers please?

    Roz Kellett

    Comment by Roz Kellett — 10 Aug 2007 on 12:19 pm | Link

---

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.