Salt of the Earth

There's been a lot of blether, woffle and guff in the media last week about Local Authorities running out of salt. One bit of snow and the country grinds to a halt, it wasn't like this in the old days when we had to pay the mill owner for permission to go to work, etc etc children today they don't know they're born, schools closing because of Health and Safety gorn mad, bimey guv'nor and so on...and so on.

I've waited in vain for anyone to mention how difficult this snowy and icy weather must be for homeless people. And waited. And waited, so it looks like I'll have to do it.

One of the problems of course is the differing definitions of "homeless". The Department of Communities, under the control of feisty Krankie-lookalike Hazel Blears, claims that there were only 483 people "sleeping rough" in the UK in June 2008.

Even if that were true, it is still 483 too many, and you can bet your sweet palookah that the figure will have gone up dramatically since that time, with jobs being axed left right and centre because of the credit crunch.

Shelter, the homeless charity, has a multiple definition of homelessness that also includes people living in overcrowded accommodation, people at risk of domestic violence etc., as you would expect.

Crisis, the charity that tries to help London's homeless, has a report which examines these issues as well, and comes to the conclusion that:

We suggest a range for the overall number of single homeless people of between 310,000 and 380,000.

This is a big jump from 483 rough sleepers, even allowing for the fact that one would expect this Government routinely to massage downwards any statistics that are likely to a) embarrass them and b) lead to them actually having to do something.

Maybe the true figure is somewhere in between.

I know I bang on a lot about treating the disease and not the symptoms - over a wide range of issues - because I see it everywhere I look. But in this case, if there is anyone sleeping rough these cold winter nights, we really do need to do both.

It is a scandal even if there are only 483 people sleeping rough this winter and we must do something to rescue them.

The long term issues of homelessness have their roots deep in the very fabric of how society is organised, in the loss of community responsibility, the break up of the family, and the failure of the authorities to ensure a continued and commensurate supply of affordable housing to cope with the demand.

I would like to see more use made of the large amounts of derelict land in the UK. If necessary, central government should “nationalise” or requisition brown field sites that meet certain criteria. They could acquire the land for a fair price to both sides.

They could then parcel it out into “settlements”. Each settlement is a cluster of a set number of eco-friendly, prefabricated, timber-framed kit buildings set around a central source of services, e.g. a small CHP plant, green space, etc, planned along the lines of those designed by the Walter Segal Trust.

The inhabitants of each settlement would then sign a covenant to stay for five years. The government provides the infrastructure and then the settlers provide the labour, as a co-operative, to build their own houses on the site. The houses are identikit, prefabricated. We built lots of "prefabs" after World War Two to repair the housing stock which had been destroyed by Nazi bombing raids, we need a similar effort now. There's nothing wrong with prefabs. I was born in one, but these would be eco-friendly "Uberprefabs" fit for the 21st century.

They then have a choice.

§ If they stay five years paying rent, they have the option to buy (?) but first the cost of the house itself gets charged to their account. But the rent they have paid to date counts as back-dated mortgage.

§ Or they can continue to rent until they decide to buy – at any time after five years.

If they buy, and later decide to sell, there are restrictive covenants on the kinds of people they can sell to, e.g. locals, young families, starters on the housing ladder, key workers, etc.

OK - even though it's now official Bolshy Party Policy (because I say so!) it's still a sketchy plan, and easy to pick holes in. It needs a lot of work. But I haven't seen anything better coming from the people whose job it actually is to sort this stuff out, and who seem to be claiming a lot of salary and expenses for so doing.

With the construction industry in the doldrums, and the government looking around for something to throw money at, now is the time to galvanise the affordable housing situation by starting on schemes such as this. OK, it's not perfect. But which would you rather have? - a patch of derelict land with a ragged collection of homeless rough sleepers huddled round a makeshift fire, desperately trying to keep warm, or the same patch of derelict ground with a small number of eco-friendly social housing units on it, adding to the general stock of affordable housing and providing worthwhile jobs in their construction.

In the meantime, get writing to anyone who you think will listen to ask them what they are doing about giving homeless people shelter during this vile weather.

And keep the salt, and the newspapers that bang on about it, for your fish and chips.