TOM MURTHA
TOM HAS SPENT OVER 45 YEARS WORKING IN SOCIAL HOUSING. HE BEGAN HIS CAREER AS A COMMUNITY WORKER IN THE INNER CITY OF LEICESTER AND RETIRED AS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF MIDLAND HEART, ONE OF THE LARGEST HOUSING AND CARE ORGANISATIONS IN THE UK, IN 2012.
TOM HAS SERVED AS A CHAIR AND NON-EXECUTIVE ON A NUMBER OF HOUSING AND CARE BOARDS AND TRUSTS. HE NOW SPENDS HIS TIME WRITING ON SOCIAL MEDIA SITES AND IN HOUSING JOURNALS ON ISSUES RELATING TO LEADERSHIP, DIVERSITY, VALUES AND THE IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL HOUSING.
TOM IS AN EX-CHAIR OF HACT, NORTH WALES HOUSING AND EMMAUS, AND RECENTLY SERVED ON THE BOARDS OF PLUS DANE AND NEHEMIAH. HE IS ALSO A FOUNDER MEMBER OF SHOUT, THE CAMPAIGN FOR SOCIAL HOUSING. IN 2009 TOM WAS AWARDED AN HONORARY DOCTORATE BY THE UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM FOR HIS LEADERSHIP IN THE HOUSING SECTOR. HE WAS AWARDED A LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD IN 2018.
HERE, DURING GLOBAL DIVERSITY AWARENESS MONTH, TOM REFLECTS ON RACE IN THE HOUSING SECTOR, AND ASKS: HAVE WE MADE ANY PROGRESS?
As I get older my memory begins to fade; but I will never forget 1983, a turning point in my personal and professional life. In June, my son, Kieran, was born. In September, the National Housing Federation published the second report on Race and Housing.
It was called: Still a Cause for Concern. I played a small part in both! My son is now 40 years old, and so is the report. My son has achieved all that we hoped for and more in his life. Can the same be said of the report? I had not seen a copy for many years, but I have often talked about it when referring to the sector’s lack of progress on race and diversity.
Just recently a housing colleague who worked with me on the two reports contacted me to say he had copies of both. I asked him to send them to me. I received them a few days ago and I decided to compare what we said then to where we are today, to see if my belief that little had changed was correct.
The reports were ground-breaking; the first of their kind in social housing. They were written in response to the social unrest which erupted in many inner cities in 1981. A short while after the National Housing Federation met at its Annual Conference in Sheffield on Sunday 13th September 1981. The disturbances were the main talking point, especially among those who worked on the ‘frontline’ in inner city areas.
I remember the day well: a young worker from the Commission for Racial Equality stood up and challenged the sector for not doing enough to support black people and communities. His name was Gurbux Singh; he went on to be the Chief Executive and Chair of the CRE.
At the end of the debate, the following resolution was overwhelmingly carried. (Conferences were different in those days.)
Conference notes the particular problems of ethnic minorities in inner city areas and calls on housing associations to ensure that their policies are non-discriminatory, and that due regard is paid to the particular needs of ethnic minorities in their areas of operation.
To achieve this, the Federation’s Housing Management Committee was tasked with producing advice on a Fair Housing Policy for housing associations. They established a working party of people who lived and worked in diverse communities.
Because of my work in anti-racism in Leicester, Richard Best asked me to be the secretary. The working party published the first report in September 1982. It was called Race and Housing: a Guide for Housing Associations.
When I read the report now, I am surprised at how familiar it seems. There have been so many reports written since then. I have been involved in some. They nearly all cover the same ground.
Then as now, the report identified that racism and discrimination was a major issue in social housing. It provided detailed guidance on a range of activities from allocations to record keeping. It recommended that housing associations undertake a comprehensive review of all their policies and procedures to produce a Fair Housing Policy which should be monitored regularly and reported on.
The response from the black community was critical of housing associations. It was unconvinced of their commitment.
They were seen as remote unresponsive white agencies, protectors of white privilege, which perpetuated racial disadvantage in housing and employment.
Many of these proposals would not be out of place today. Indeed, many are still essential for our work, as recent failures and tragedies have shown in maintenance and other areas. The report was a call for action – the first of many. It was recognised as a catalyst for change. Some would argue it is still needed today.
I am particularly taken by the sections on positive action and communications; areas where we have certainly failed in recent times. Record keeping and monitoring were hotly debated then, but eventually there was general agreement that it was necessary in all areas of our work to monitor the impact of changes. We seem to have forgotten that.
The guide ends by quoting Lord Scarman who asked in his report on the Brixton disorders in 1981:
For all in responsible positions to give a lead in combatting racialism and discrimination against black people which remains a major source of social tension and conflict.
The report challenged housing associations to give such a lead. It was intended to show how to do this. It recognised that it had no power to enforce change and that only housing associations themselves could make that decision. Experience tells me that we should have argued more for some type of regulatory enforcement.
The second report was published twelve months later. It was called Still a Cause for Concern. It reported that the first report had sold over 2,500 copies: then, the highest number in Federation history. But had anything changed?
The brief of the working party was to monitor this and report back to the next Annual Conference. To do this, it surveyed housing associations and black community groups and organisations and held a series of meetings with them across the country. These meetings produced disturbing conclusions.
The response from the black community was critical of housing associations. It was unconvinced of their commitment. They were seen as remote unresponsive white agencies, protectors of white privilege, which perpetuated racial disadvantage in housing and employment. I have heard similar comments from tenants and community groups today.
The housing associations in their response seemed to be unaware of this. They felt that black people had little interest in participating in their work. Then as now, they were convinced of their good intentions; there was clearly a credibility gap that needed to be bridged. Some would argue this is still the case.
The research was critical of housing associations and endorsed the view that they should be doing more. I am not sure that a National Housing Federation report would be as critical of its members today.
The survey of housing associations gave a position statement as of January 1983. It found that:
- 27% of tenants were black;
- 4.5% of staff were black;
- 18% of literature was translated;
- 25% of associations had one or more black committee member;
- 34% kept ethnic records on lettings;
- 15% kept ethnic records on employment;
- 44% provided training.
There was no way of verifying these figures, and then – as now – they were heavily influenced by London. The definition of ‘black’ also varied. The report suggests that housing associations were promoting a rosy view of their success; I have seen similar criticisms today of how the sector promotes itself.
That black people were not underrepresented as tenants is not surprising. Then as now, they lived in some of the worst housing conditions and were often exploited by unscrupulous landlords.
In 1983, despite the slow progress, there was a feeling of hope and expectation that change would come.
That they were underrepresented in employment especially at higher levels is again not surprising, given the levels of racism and the sector’s own view of how little black people wanted to participate at the time. The report did identify some real progress on working with older people. But not with the young.
What does this tell us about the situation in 1983 compared to today? There has been some progress in the number of black people housed by housing associations and in employment at lower levels; but as recent examples and research have shown, black people are often housed in the worst conditions and receive a poorer service.
The credibility gap still exists. One young black activist is reported as saying in 1983: “Why do you housing associations think you are so bloody marvellous? You are doing nothing for us.” I can hear similar black activists saying the same things on Twitter today.
At more senior levels, progress on the appointment of black staff has been glacial over the 40 years. Some might say there has been none. Like glaciers, in some areas, we have receded as the external environment and pressures changed. In 1983, despite the slow progress, there was a feeling of hope and expectation that change would come. I do not feel that today.
Neither do many of my black colleagues. Just look at the comments of Lara Oyedele, after a year of campaigning for change as President of the Chartered Institute of Housing. Denial and resistance to change are still strong in the sector. Racism still exists. If I were writing the reports today, I would use a similar title. After 40 years, there is still much cause for concern.
I have spent a lifetime campaigning for change in social housing. I have witnessed generations of extremely talented black people being prevented from reaching their true potential. Some have burnt out. Some have become disillusioned. Some have move on to success elsewhere. In 1983 I had hoped that my son’s generation would witness meaningful change and an end to racism. I know now it will not happen in my lifetime. I am not convinced it will happen in his.
The struggle for equity is centuries old. Forty years ago, a small group of passionate people began the fight for change in social housing. I am proud to have played a small part in it.
In 1983 I had hoped that my son’s generation would witness meaningful change and an end to racism. I know now it will not happen in my lifetime. I am not convinced it will happen in his.
I get angry when I read reports from the National Housing Federation and others that continue to say it will take time. You have had over 40 years. How much time do you want?
You could argue it is even more important now than it was then. We now have a government that incites racism, that seeks to divide society and demonise asylum seekers and refugees.
As Lord Scarman said in 1981, those in responsible positions should give a lead. When will those responsible for social housing do that?
The time for talking is long gone. It is time for action.
Housing View 