By
Brenda Almond
Last updated at 11:44 PM on 17th January 2012
Elderly people have a hard enough time in modern Britain. The private pensions crisis, the scandal of neglect and abuse in the NHS, the erosion in the value of their savings and the crippling cost of care are all increasing problems for older generations at the very time in their lives when they are at their most vulnerable.
But now an insidious new source of pressure is looming on the horizon — the growing belief within the Government that private properties belonging to the elderly should be used as a solution to Britain’s chronic housing shortage.
Heartless: The emotional toll on elderly people will be immeasurable. Many already feel a burden on their loved ones without the Government reinforcing this belief
Houses are no longer viewed as beloved homes, safe havens, and welcome private assets for hard-pressed families. Instead, they are to be regarded as a potential source of state-run accommodation, ripe for exploitation.
That is certainly the thinking behind the scheme outlined by Conservative Housing Minister Grant Shapps, which said that local councils should help the elderly downsize to smaller properties, with their homes then rented out to families on local waiting lists.
Blackmail
Attack on the vulnerable: Elderly people have a hard enough time in modern Britain
Once more, older people are being made to feel a burden on the nation, that they are making life more difficult for younger generations, that they could solve the housing crisis if only they were more altruistic.
I find this deeply offensive. Such emotional blackmail completely ignores the reality that most people, by the time they have reached their retirement, have worked very hard to pay off their mortgages.
Just as they should be enjoying the fruits of their labour, they are now suddenly urged by municipal meddlers to get out.
Many elderly people are already under pressure to downsize and pass on the money from the sale of their homes to their children and grandchildren, who may still be struggling with large mortgages or unable to get on the property ladder themselves. Shapps’s proposal will only add to this pressure.
The emotional toll on elderly people will be immeasurable. Many already feel like their increasing needs — depending on family to look after them through illness, or simply requiring help with chores or shopping — makes them a burden on their loved ones. For the Government to tell them they are a burden on society by ‘taking up’ a house that could be used by a young family is unspeakably cruel.
As a generation who lived through the war, for whom ‘doing one’s duty’ is seen as vitally important, these vulnerable people will inevitably feel even greater pressure to do as they are asked, and move out of their houses.
Many are still living in the homes they raised their families in, and while their children have now left home they are still surrounded by the reminders of family life — the faded children’s height chart on the kitchen wall, or the swings in the garden which the grandchildren now love to play on. Sentimental, yes, but things which provide untold comfort to the legion of elderly who live alone.
The physical upheaval of this ‘downsizing’ should not be underestimated, either. Moving is regularly listed as one of the most stressful events in a person’s life. When that person is elderly and being cajoled into leaving a home they may have lived in for decades, the negative effects could be dramatic.
We need an energetic new approach to house building, not to further degrade our elderly population by removing their hard earn homes
In justifying the scheme, it is said that there are 25 million ‘empty’ bedrooms in England. But what on earth does this mean? How is ‘empty’ defined? What appears to a council snooper to be an empty bedroom might be used as a study or a studio or a meeting place.
In addition, a spare bedroom can be invaluable. Many elderly people live alone and look forward to having their children, grandchildren and other relatives to stay. At a time of mounting concern about social isolation, we should be encouraging stays with the elderly, not penalising them for supposedly having too much accommodation.
Shapps argued that, in downsizing to smaller places, older homeowners would gain financially, since not only would they have all their moving costs paid, they would be able to keep the income generated once their properties are rented (after paying rent to live in their own, downsized homes).
Crucially, he has also maintained that the rent from letting the former family home could be used to fund future care. In this regard, property is effectively seen as expensive insurance, rather than a place to live.
But his point only reinforces a harsh political reality — that the Coalition is not going to make any attempt to end the outrage of spiralling care costs, which have forced so many elderly to sell their homes in recent years.
This was reinforced by Lib Dem Care Minister Paul Burstow yesterday, who warned that in future the elderly will have no choice but to raid their pension pots and free up equity in their homes to fund their care needs.
It is increasingly obvious that there will be no support for anyone with assets, no cap on the sums they will have to pay. Those who saved the most for their retirements are going to be punished the hardest.
Shapps’s proposal is part of this bullying pattern.
For behind all his soothing words his policy is infused with the belief that there is something anti-social, even selfish, in the elderly living in houses supposedly larger than they need.
According to this mentality, there is an arbitrarily-fixed amount of space that an older person requires. If they have more, say a spare room or a conservatory, they should be cajoled into giving up their property, no matter how deep or sentimental their attachment to it.
Hoarding
The proposal is in line with a report issued last October by Left-leaning think-tank the Intergenerational Foundation, which claimed that empty-nesters in their 60s are ‘hoarding’ the country’s living space, and should downsize, with a hefty new land tax serving an incentive to drive them out.
At the time of the foundation’s report, Shapps said that the Tory-led Coalition ‘does not agree that people should be taxed or bullied out of their homes’. Yet his own plan is exactly in the same spirit.
It is also nonsense to argue that those in bigger houses are somehow not making a sufficient contribution to society. By definition, the larger the house, the higher the council tax — and this is on top of all the taxes any homeowner will have incurred.
Bullying approach: Lib Dem Care Minister Paul Burstow warned that in future the elderly will have no choice but to raid their pension pots and free up equity in their homes to fund their care needs
This proposal conjures up images of clipboard-wielding officials going round the country, invading people’s homes and deciding which properties should be commandeered.
Not only is this distinctly un-British and an infringement of civil liberties, but it could also lead to perverse consequences.
In the 18th century, the government imposed a notorious window tax, by which property owners were taxed according to the number of windows they had — which led to people blocking them up. If this new scheme goes through, we may well see homeowners pulling down walls to reduce the number of bedrooms.
There are, of course, many elderly homeowners who want to downsize, especially if they are finding stairs or maintenance bills difficult. But it should be their own choice, not one dictated by the Government or their local authority.
Pressured
Would you want a clipboard- wielding jobsworth telling your parents it’s time to leave their home?
If they move, they should also be able to go to the sort of new home they want. The Government keeps talking about ‘suitable accommodation’ for the elderly as if this were just a matter of meeting some administrative criteria based on the number of rooms.
But it is a far bigger decision, with transport, proximity to the shops and family, aesthetic appearance and the friendliness of neighbours being vital factors when choosing a home — a choice which should be up to the individual. Yet the elderly will be pressured to accept what is offered by the council.
Instead of putting yet more pressure on the elderly, the Government should try to resolve the housing crisis by building more homes.
Incredibly, new builds are now at their lowest levels since the Twenties, yet we live in an age when housing demand is rising rapidly thanks to the breakdown of the family and the growth in the population, fuelled by immigration.
In the Fifties, under Winston Churchill and Harold Macmillan, Conservative governments would boast about the increase in home-building every year. We need to get back to that energetic approach.
But then this whole scheme is distinctly un-Conservative. With its emphasis on arbitrary targets and municipal oversight, it belongs to a failing socialist regime rather than a party that, until recently, trumpeted its belief in a ‘property-owning democracy’.
The elderly should not be asked to pay the price for this lurch to the Left.