News
BackThe participants of a recent event concerned with social housing did not mince their words: non-profit housing shall remain a matter for the Member States. The rather unpleasant reason for the event organised by the European Economic and Social Committee were complaints and decisions taken by the European Commission, which might put the model of social housing at risk.
At the event, representatives from the Netherlands, Sweden and France commented on disputes concerning social housing, they currently had tried to sort out with the European Commission. They criticised in particular the income threshold, which had to be taken into account in respect of residents of council flats. According to this, anybody “earning too much” has no right to a flat within the scope of social housing. The French representative, Thierry Bert, Chairman of the French Association of Social Housing, criticised that far more parameters had to be taken into account than just the income of interested or existing occupants. Rents for flats would sometimes differ significantly; apart from that, property prices in France had exploded and in Paris they would increase by 8 to 9 percent each year. Even people with a relatively good income would often find it difficult to rent a privately owned flat.
Freek Ossel, the Alderman of Amsterdam for Housing and Neighbourhoods also pointed out that the quality of the flats had to be taken into account as well. People, who were just above the income threshold, which meant that they had no claim to a council flat, had to rent desolate flats in poor state because they were not able to afford privately owned standard flats. The Swedish representative Kurt Eliasson commented that from the point of view of the Swedish government, social housing should be open to everyone without restrictions.
Naturally the solicitor Pierre de Bandt, who had been sent to the event by the European Property Foundation, had a different opinion. Social housing was in direct competition with the private property market. This amounted to distorting competition. Only those most in need should be able to live in a council flat. Contrary to what other speakers would claim, the Commission would not interfere, but only look at the conditions which applied to applying for a council flat. The Commission would only become active in cases where the conditions were incorrect.
A representative from the public, who represented the City of Vienna, however supported the position of the representatives from the Netherlands, Sweden and France: social housing was a very important contribution to social cohesion. There were no restrictions for private persons - everybody had the opportunity of renting or building a privately owned flat. Similar to the French representative, he criticised income thresholds. There were significant differences in income in Austria’s regions alone; hence a fixed threshold would not make sense. A participant from Czechia commented that flats there had been privatised. As a result, housing had become very expensive and would pose a major problem in her country. The same had also happened in Hungary – there flats had also been privatised and only now attempts were being made to recreate a social housing sector.
Barbara Steenbergen of the International Union of Tenants confronted the European Commission with a current Eurobarometer survey. According to this, 43 % of tenants had difficulty to pay their rent in August 2012. Two years previously only 20 % of tenants had this problem. In view of these figures, is the Commission really willing to oppose social housing? asked Steenbergen the representative of the Commission during the event. Due to the court decision to lower the income threshold, 650,000 people in the Netherlands had been pushed to the brink of disaster. Anybody earning more than 34,000 € per year had no right to a council flat. At the same time, these people were excluded from the private property market, as rents were too high. Steenbergen strongly criticised the Commission for this development and asked what objective the Commission’s complaints would pursue. Did the Commission really want rents to rise significantly?
The Deputy Director General Gert-Jan Koopman for State Aid at the European Commission's Directorate-General for Competition showed no compassion: the Member States were free to organise services of general interest and social housing themselves. The Commission was only able to intervene in cases of misinterpretation. In the case of the Netherlands, the Commission had done nothing else but accept the threshold reported by the Netherlands themselves. In reply to this statement, a Dutch representative confronted the Commission official with the direct question what the income threshold had to be for the Commission to assume misinterpretation. The official did ignore the question and only commented that the Netherlands were free to change their rules at any time and that the Commission would only act in case of manifest errors. Replying to the repeated question of the Dutchman, the Commission official commented, that the Commission would probably reject a threshold of 70,000 €. Apart from that, Member States were not obliged to notify any changes. Nevertheless, the Member States would approach the Commission to establish whether their rules were acceptable.
The European Economic and Social Committee will draw up an opinion concerning social housing. Rapporteur Raymond Hencks emphasised at the end of the event that Protocol No. 26 of the Lisbon Treaty would apply, which gives Member States a broad scope in respect of services of general economic interest. The housing market had failed; many had problems to get a reasonable flat. Living space at affordable prices had to be provided.
Even if no legislative proposal on social housing by the Commission is to be expected, recent developments had to be critically analysed and put into question. The Commission had to be aware that by taking decisions as it did in the case of the Netherlands it would hardly make any friends and that countries and communities would be up in arms if such an approach would become the norm.
Freek Ossel, the Alderman of Amsterdam for Housing and Neighbourhoods also pointed out that the quality of the flats had to be taken into account as well. People, who were just above the income threshold, which meant that they had no claim to a council flat, had to rent desolate flats in poor state because they were not able to afford privately owned standard flats. The Swedish representative Kurt Eliasson commented that from the point of view of the Swedish government, social housing should be open to everyone without restrictions.
Naturally the solicitor Pierre de Bandt, who had been sent to the event by the European Property Foundation, had a different opinion. Social housing was in direct competition with the private property market. This amounted to distorting competition. Only those most in need should be able to live in a council flat. Contrary to what other speakers would claim, the Commission would not interfere, but only look at the conditions which applied to applying for a council flat. The Commission would only become active in cases where the conditions were incorrect.
A representative from the public, who represented the City of Vienna, however supported the position of the representatives from the Netherlands, Sweden and France: social housing was a very important contribution to social cohesion. There were no restrictions for private persons - everybody had the opportunity of renting or building a privately owned flat. Similar to the French representative, he criticised income thresholds. There were significant differences in income in Austria’s regions alone; hence a fixed threshold would not make sense. A participant from Czechia commented that flats there had been privatised. As a result, housing had become very expensive and would pose a major problem in her country. The same had also happened in Hungary – there flats had also been privatised and only now attempts were being made to recreate a social housing sector.
Barbara Steenbergen of the International Union of Tenants confronted the European Commission with a current Eurobarometer survey. According to this, 43 % of tenants had difficulty to pay their rent in August 2012. Two years previously only 20 % of tenants had this problem. In view of these figures, is the Commission really willing to oppose social housing? asked Steenbergen the representative of the Commission during the event. Due to the court decision to lower the income threshold, 650,000 people in the Netherlands had been pushed to the brink of disaster. Anybody earning more than 34,000 € per year had no right to a council flat. At the same time, these people were excluded from the private property market, as rents were too high. Steenbergen strongly criticised the Commission for this development and asked what objective the Commission’s complaints would pursue. Did the Commission really want rents to rise significantly?
The Deputy Director General Gert-Jan Koopman for State Aid at the European Commission's Directorate-General for Competition showed no compassion: the Member States were free to organise services of general interest and social housing themselves. The Commission was only able to intervene in cases of misinterpretation. In the case of the Netherlands, the Commission had done nothing else but accept the threshold reported by the Netherlands themselves. In reply to this statement, a Dutch representative confronted the Commission official with the direct question what the income threshold had to be for the Commission to assume misinterpretation. The official did ignore the question and only commented that the Netherlands were free to change their rules at any time and that the Commission would only act in case of manifest errors. Replying to the repeated question of the Dutchman, the Commission official commented, that the Commission would probably reject a threshold of 70,000 €. Apart from that, Member States were not obliged to notify any changes. Nevertheless, the Member States would approach the Commission to establish whether their rules were acceptable.
The European Economic and Social Committee will draw up an opinion concerning social housing. Rapporteur Raymond Hencks emphasised at the end of the event that Protocol No. 26 of the Lisbon Treaty would apply, which gives Member States a broad scope in respect of services of general economic interest. The housing market had failed; many had problems to get a reasonable flat. Living space at affordable prices had to be provided.
Even if no legislative proposal on social housing by the Commission is to be expected, recent developments had to be critically analysed and put into question. The Commission had to be aware that by taking decisions as it did in the case of the Netherlands it would hardly make any friends and that countries and communities would be up in arms if such an approach would become the norm.