One thing I admire about the housing sector is the way we constantly challenge one another and push each other to stand up for our social values. But recently major housing associations like my own have faced criticism for the way we choose to do business.
We stand accused of effectively killing off social housing by choosing to deliver the government's affordable rent programme – a programme that provides funding to build new homes on the condition that homes can be let at higher rents and landlords can implement fixed-term tenancies instead of lifetime ones.
How to respond to these concerns without sounding defensive? I will try by sharing some facts.
Successive governments have reduced funding for social housing since the 1970s. The problems and challenges that the social housing sector faces are deeper than a change in funding levels. Nobody, least of all a housing association chief executive, wants to see 70% cuts in government funding, or the increased risk of running out of development capacity within 10 years, but in 2010 we accepted the affordable rent model because we knew it was that or nothing. By acting as government partners we have at least continued to make the case for more investment in housing.
If we had rejected the affordable rent model, would the government have reinstated the old regime – or would more people have been homeless? Evidence, sadly, suggests the latter. Councils had the opportunity to meet the shortfall and enable us to charge lower rents, but only one out of 32 local authorities in London has chosen to do so.
Every housing association I know (including my own) has tried to minimise the impact of affordable rent on its residents, especially those also affected by welfare reform. At Family Mosaic, we do still charge social rents (the old rent regime with lower rents), while the average rent charged in London by housing associations is 65% of market rent compared to the potential upper limit of 80% market rent allowed by the programme.
And as chair of the G15, a group of the 15 largest housing associations in London, I am convinced that our members have become more focused on their social purpose than before the austerity measures, and are working harder than ever to meet the needs of London and Londoners.
Inevitably we have become more commercial, with projects such as building new homes for outright sale. But we do this to provide more social homes and services within a changing economic landscape. If we would rather build for sale than social renting we would all choose to maximise rents and not build any new social housing. That simply has not and will not happen.
There are of course risks in having a more commercial social housing model, but without government funding it is the only way we can continue to provide social value as well as desperately needed genuinely affordable housing.
The world has changed: the future is smaller government, and less government support for the poor and vulnerable. This is not because we have chosen to deliver a government programme, but because of bigger questions such as national debt and a change in the nation's attitudes towards the role of the state.
The challenge for housing associations is to find solutions that protect the poor and the vulnerable in this new world. The G15 knows it has to play its part in meeting that challenge. Our critics may not like the choices we've made – and time will tell us if we were right – but from where I stand the housing sector has made sensible, practical decisions driven by our longstanding social values and a desire to do more to help the homeless.
Brendan Sarsfield is chief executive of Family Mosaic
More on this subject:
• Affordable housing does not mean what you think it means
Interested in housing? Join the housing network for more news, analysis and comment direct to you.
