HMO quotas revisited

I’ve blogged briefly about HMO quotas before. In a nutshell: the Scottish Parliament has been wanting to introduce quotas for multiple occupancy houses/flats. Obviously, this has serious implications for certain demographic groups, namely: immigrants, students, young professionals, and generally any unrelated people who share accommodation. A year and a half ago, when this was an issue, I blogged this about it:

The Scottish Parliament ammendment to introduce Houses in Multiple Occupancy (HMO) quotas in certain areas was withdrawn. Students are rejoicing. Discussing with friend about the issue. On the one hand I dislike the anti-HMO crowd’s battlecry of “It’s social engineering!” After all, I support affirmative action, which is some degree of social engineering. But on the other hand, I don’t see how HMO quotas would have helped. Friend argues that some areas of university cities have been almost exclusively populated by largely homogeneous and transient demographic group (namely, students). This is obviously bad for poorer people, and they can no longer afford to live in these areas. Friend argues that HMO quotas would address this problem by spreading students around the cities and resulting in a more evenly distributed population in cities. Maybe I’m missing something but I can’t see how HMO quotas would address what Friend quite rightly highlights as a real problem. But the fact is that flats in “student-heavy” areas are expensive and most people can’t afford to rent one unless there in the higher economic brackets. This leads to people sharing flats. Undoubtedly it would be a good thing if HMO quotas could address the problem in the way Friend thinks they would. But I’m concerned that instead of making “student-heavy” areas more diverse, the opposite would happen. High prices would mean that only the wealthy would be able to afford flats in these areas, so instead of being student-heavy, these areas would now simply be where the wealthy people live. Ie, one largely homogenous population would be exchanged for another. And I don’t see how that would benefit poor people.

Further to this, I would now add the following thoughts, both positive and negative:

• There is no price premium on HMO flats. It’s cheaper per person to rent a large flat between several people than a small flat between a few people. This means that accommodation that is currently HMO-licensed (or for which the landlords seek HMO licenses) and which lose the HMO license will not become cheaper in ceasing to be HMO-licensed. Thus there is no reason that previously HMO-licensed accommodation should suddenly become affordable to other demographic groups (elderly people, young families, poor people, etc) who are currently in competition for accommodation with students/young professionals/etc.
• There may well be a price premium on HMO flats if quotas are introduced. This would introduce a financial penalty for precisely the people who need to share flats because they couldn’t otherwise afford their accommodation. This seems morally flawed.
• If students can no longer afford HMO accommodation, HMO flats will start being let by professionals and other more wealthy people. Thus swapping one homogeneous population for another, and not alleviating the situation for poorer people who will not be able to afford HMO accommodation either.
• Unless it’s proposed that a number of currently HMO-licensed accommodations would lose their licenses, I can’t see how the quota would be at all effective, especially in areas that are already “student heavy”.
• On a local authority level, I’m not aware of proposals for alternative proposals for increases in HMO accommodation and facilities in areas that are not currently “student heavy”. If you decrease the HMO accommodation in some areas, there has to be suitable accommodation elsewhere for other people to move into. HMO accomodation is high sought after precisely because lots of people need it due to their financial circumstances. There are two ways of getting around that that I can see: (1) provide lots of subsidised (ie low cost) non-HMO accommodation for people who currently share flats due to financial circumstances; or (2) distribute HMO accommodation more evenly (and any necessary facilities/services in line with that, such as public transport). I don’t think HMO quotas are the most effective and constructive ways of addressing the problem, because of the other reasons I’ve discussed.
• “Student heavy” areas are usually going to be areas that have the right kinds of flats for student needs — flats with a largish number of bedrooms, nearby shops and public transport, etc. There is a reason these areas are popular with students. Other areas might be less suitable for students — they might not have nearby shops, public transport, easily cyclable routes, or they might have other associated problems. HMO quotas doesn’t take this issue into account. That said, the same facilities would benefit other demographic groups (eg, elderly people, poor people, etc). Similar to the above point though, I think there are more effective ways of addressing this issues — namely providing suitable accommodation at low cost elsewhere.

Anyway, I am prepared to be convinced about HMO quotas, but I think basically I’m anti (although with reservations). For more information, you can check out the Right to Rent campaign, where you can sign a petition in opposition to HMO quotas. –IP

Cameron calls for abortions to be made less accessible

The UK’s Conservative Party leader David Cameron called for the time limit on abortions to be cut from 24 weeks to 20:

Cameron told the Daily Mail: “I would like to see a reduction in the current limit, as it is clear that, due to medical advancement, many babies are surviving at 24 weeks.

“If there is an opportunity in the human fertilisation and embryology bill, I will be voting to bring this limit down from 24 weeks.

So David Cameron thinks abortions should be made less accessible, despite medical opinion to the contrary.

“For example, both the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists have said they do not believe there is a case for changing the time limits for abortion.”

Interestingly,

In 2006, 1,262 abortions were carried out at 22 weeks or later. Around 194,000 abortions were carried out altogether.

That’s 0.7% of abortions carried out at 22 weeks or later — a tiny tiny fraction of all abortions. The anti-abortion lobby likes to imply that late-term abortions are common, when in fact they are extremely rare, and frequently performed in cases of medical emergency. Late term abortions are medically necessary procedures.

You can write to David Cameron here and point out to him that cutting the time limit on abortions will endanger women’s lives, and is contrary to medical opinion. For more information about the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, please go here. Please consider writing to your MP and asking them to protect access to abortion if/when ammendments are offered to the the bill.

–IP

Action on Gaza blockade

Here’s some armchair activism for you, in protest of the Gaza blockade.

For everyone: sign a petition urging an end to the blockade and a free flow of supplies:

To the United Nations, the European Union, the Quartet, the Arab League & Israel: We demand that you end the blockade and growing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, ensure the free flow of supplies by land, sea or air, and help to broker the ceasefire which civilians on both sides desperately need.

For Scots: there is currently a motion before the Scottish Parliament condeming the fuel blockade:

S3M-1188 Bashir Ahmad (Glasgow) (SNP) : Gaza Strip Blackout— That the Parliament condemns the Israeli fuel blockade of the Gaza Strip; believes that both Israel and Palestine have a right to defend their citizens from aggression within international law; agrees with both UN and EU officials that the fuel blockade, which has led to the shutting down of the Gaza Strip’s power stations, equates to collective punishment; expresses grave concern that hospitals are being adversely affected which will undoubtedly result in the loss of further innocent life, and calls on the state of Israel to resume fuel supplies to Gaza immediately.

Find out if your MSP supports the motion by following the link, or write to your MSP asking them to support the motion.

–IP

Crossposted at SJJP.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill does not itself deal with abortion, but is presenting an opportunity for amendments concerning abortion rights to be tabled.

From Abortion Rights UK:

the government’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is speeding through the Lords. Although the Bill itself does not address abortion, it is expected that anti-abortion Peers and/or MPs will table a number of damaging amendments to restrict women’s rights to abortion. In addition pro-choice MPs are expected to table amendments to improve the law for women.

The Bill has already had its First and Second Readings in the House of Lords on 7th and 19th November respectively.

A stream of anti-abortion Peers took part in the debate and attacked current rights with pro-choice Peers speaking in defence of the 1967 Abortion Act. Pro-choice MPs are planning to table amendments to improve the law during the course of the Bill in the Commons.

Follow the link for more info. Amendments concerning abortion that are expected to be tabled include reducing the time limit on abortions, imposing a “cooling off” period and mandatory counselling for women seeking abortions, the removal of the need for two doctors’ signatures, permitting access to abortion in Northern Ireland, and removing the need for certifications to be sent to the Department of Health for all abortions.

If you are a UK citizen, please consider writing to your MP and urging them to protect women’s health by supporting those amendments that would improve access to abortions on demand (eg, by removing the need for two doctors’ signatures), and urging them to oppose the amendments that would restrict access to abortion (eg, the “cooling off” period and mandatory counselling).  Abortion rights has a model letter and advice on writing to your MP, here.

Hat tip:  Winter at Mind the Gap.

–IP

Mental health parity

Mental health parity legislation would give insurance coverage to those with mental health conditions and addiction which is equal to that given to people with physical illness.  The Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equality Act of 2007 (H.R. 1424) has been introduced in the US House of Representatives, and aimes to introduce such mental health parity. To encourage your representative to support the bill, you can write to them here.  Both links have more info.

–IP

Free rice!

Well this is nifty:

An internet word game has generated enough rice to feed 50,000 people for one day, the UN’s World Food Programme (WFP) has said.

Here’s how it works. When you play the FreeRice game, each correct answer, results in the donation of 10 rice grains by the UN to people living in poverty. From the FreeRice FAQs:

Who pays for the donated rice?
The rice is paid for by the advertisers whose names you see on the bottom of your vocabulary screen. This is regular advertising for these companies, but it is also something more. Through their advertising at FreeRice, these companies support both learning (free vocabulary for everyone) and reducing hunger (free rice for the hungry). We commend these companies for their participation at FreeRice.
If FreeRice has the rice to give, why not give it all away right now?
FreeRice is not sitting on a pile of rice―you are earning it 10 grains at a time. Here is how it works. When you play the game, advertisements appear on the bottom of your screen. The money generated by these advertisements is then used to buy the rice. So by playing, you generate the money that pays for the rice donated to hungry people.
Who distributes the donated rice?
The rice is distributed by the United Nations World Food Program (WFP). The World Food Program is the world’s largest food aid agency, working with over 1,000 other organizations in over 75 countries. In addition to providing food, the World Food Program helps hungry people to become self-reliant so that they escape hunger for good. Wherever possible, the World Food Program buys food locally to support local farmers and the local economy. We encourage you to visit the United Nations World Food Program to learn more about their successful approach to ending hunger.

Neat. So head on over and play.