Examination of Witnesses (Questions 479-499)
28 JANUARY 2004
RT HON
KEITH HILL
MP, MS ANNE
KIRKHAM AND
MR JEFF
HOLLINGWORTH
Q479 Chairman: Minister, can I welcome
you to the fourth session of the Committee's inquiry into Decent
Homes and could I ask you to introduce your team and yourself
for the record.
Keith Hill: Thank you very much
indeed, Mr Chairman. I am delighted to be here. My name is Keith
Hill and I am the Minister for Housing and Planning and many other
things. I would like to introduce to you the two colleagues who
are with me: Anne Kirkham, who I think you have seen before, who
is responsible in the Office for delivering our Decent Homes target,
and Jeff Hollingworth who is our Head of Private Sector Renewal.
With your permission, since I think you know, Mr Chairman, I am
the last person to be an advocate of the principle of ministerial
omniscience so I shall not hesitate to call upon my colleagues
to supplement my own observations.
Q480 Chairman: Do you want to say anything
by way of introduction or are you happy for us to go straight
to questions?
Keith Hill: I would like to make
a little introductory statement which I hope the Committee will
find helpful. It is important, Mr Chairman, in the light of recent
events and speculation that I make clear that the Government is
committed to the delivery of the Decent Homes targets. When we
published the Sustainable Communities plan last year the Deputy
Prime Minister made it clear that there are three options available
for those local authorities that need additional resources to
bring their housing stock up to the Standard. Those options are
transfer, PFI and ALMO. This has not changed in the light of recent
events in Camden. I met with the Leader of Camden Council just
after the vote on ALMOs was announced and my advice to Camden
Council and their tenants was to look at the options again. These
options provide a clear focus for the delivery of the landlord's
service and secure guaranteed tenant involvement in decision-making.
There will be no so-called fourth way. The cavalry will not come
over the hill with alternatives. We completed a thorough review
early last year that looked at the options for delivery. There
are three options that will deliver additional resources and it
is for tenants and the Council to choose. We do not want to force
tenants into accepting changes they do not want. We have already
made clear in guidance on delivering Decent Homes that if an individual
tenant does not want to have work carried out to their home then
we expect the local authority to respect the wishes of the tenant
and not carry out the planned work. The same applies where tenants
vote against the options that will provide the additional resources
and will respect this decision, but we are not going to provide
an alternative option. The Government have created three options
that provide all social tenants with the opportunity of having
their homes brought into decent condition by 2010. This policy
is making a real difference up and down the country. Hundreds
of thousands of tenants are now living in better homes, ie warm,
dry and modern homes. Where there has been a change in management
arrangements either through a transfer or an ALMO tenants are
experiencing improvements in service. On a whole range of indicators
transfer RSLs show better performance in local authorities, for
example re-let rates are faster, a higher proportion of repairs
are done on time, 85% of tenants say the RSL is good at keeping
them informed compared with 77% of local authority tenants. Although
ALMOs are only just up and running they are recording some service
improvements. Of course, Mr Chairman, there is still very much
to do, but we are making good progress. Thank you very much indeed.
Q481 Christine Russell: Good morning,
Minister. I am sure you will be aware that we have heard quite
considerable criticism of the fact that the standards that you
are going to require are actually too low, particularly the standards
for insulation and heating systems etcetera. It has been pointed
out to us that the standards are actually lower than in the current
building regulations for new-build. How do you respond to those
criticisms?
Keith Hill: Let me say—and
I dare say this is likely to be a repeated refrain in my response
to this—that there is an issue about resources and the resources
available to tackle poor housing are limited although hugely expanded
on investment in the past. So we focus the definition on the essentials
which is to provide a warm, wind and weatherproof home. We set
parameters that ensure social landlords tackle the worst housing
conditions across a range of criteria. There needed to be a balance
between tenants' priorities and landlord responsibilities to maintain
the fabric of their stock. On the specific issue of the insulation
level in the thermal comfort criterion, my understanding is that
that criterion was set on advice from the Building Research Establishment
and that related to a judgment about loft insulation and matters
of that sort and the savings in terms of heat that could be made
by changes in that direction. I confess that I am certainly not
an expert on thermal comfort and I am confident that my colleague
Anne Kirkham will be able to give you a more detailed response
on that, should you seek one.
Q482 Chairman: Are you going to give
us that response?
Ms Kirkham: In terms of the thermal
comfort criterion?
Q483 Chairman: Yes.
Ms Kirkham: When we set that criterion
it was a revision to what we had put into the original definition
which was to bring households out of fuel poverty. When we produced
the initial Decent Homes definition that included that aspect
of the definition local authorities felt that was an unreasonable
definition to have adopted. We consulted on what an appropriate
definition would be and that was to secure efficient heating and
effective insulation in the building. In terms of determining
the standard of efficient heating, as the Minister said, we consulted
with the Building Research Establishment and we also consulted
with our colleagues in Defra. The Building Research Establishment
advised that in putting in loft insulation the greatest advantage
was gained in going from no loft insulation to some loft insulation,
that is when you get the maximum benefit in terms of value for
money from what you have put in. Incremental leaps above that
give you progressively less benefit. The 50 millimetre level is
simply a trigger for action, it deals with the worst properties
and anything below that needs to be dealt with.
Q484 Chairman: What did Defra ask for
in terms of getting to our targets for reducing global warming?
Ms Kirkham: Defra were quite happy
with that definition in terms of the way we put it together because
it is combined with the heating system that goes in. The insulation
measures change if you put in a different sort of heating system
that may well be less inefficient. The two are working together.
They agreed with us that that definition was appropriate.
Q485 Christine Russell: Can I ask you
about noise insulation because I think most of us would agree
that a priority for tenants is peace and quiet and there is a
lot of disappointment being expressed at the fact that you are
not including noise insulation.
Keith Hill: Can I respond to that
question perhaps in general terms and if there are specific technical
details again I will turn to Anne to supplement my response. I
think we need to be a bit careful about this issue of noise. We
all have our constituency experiences. I can remember going to
visit Housing Association properties in the Brixton part of my
constituency and what I found there was a very poorly converted
HMO though with separate flats. The fact of the matter was that
when somebody used the toilet in the flat upstairs it was like
Niagara Falls coming down in the downstairs flat. Equally, I have
to say that when people walked up the stairs it was like a herd
of elephants coming through the flat. These are natural unavoidable
functions associated with living in contiguous properties and
it seemed to me in those circumstances there was a very powerful
case for activity on noise insulation. I think at the same time
we need to make a distinction between a structural defect and
behaviour and I really do think that there is a strict limit to
how far Government can be expected to regulate or invest to control
behaviour. The fact of the matter is that I have a hi-fi system
but I have never used it at more than about a quarter of its potential
volume. Government cannot be expected to legislate for civility
and this is very often, on the issue of noise, a matter of civility.
Q486 Christine Russell: I accept that
Government cannot legislate for good behaviour. Is it not true
that very often in social housing schemes when budgets are tight
it is the soundproofing measure that actually gets cut out? Is
there not evidence to support that?
Keith Hill: There may be. I have
not seen it. There is obviously a perception that that is the
case. Where there are serious structural issues I think we would
expect those noise insulation issues to be addressed. It goes
a bit wider than that. The issue of traffic noise is rather more
than the issue of civility, is it not? It is an integral aspect
of our society. If it is the case, if there is evidence,—and
I would be interested to see it—that noise insulation is
at risk in those circumstances, then I think it is something that
we ought to think about. Can I ask Anne to come in on any technical
aspects of this?
Ms Kirkham: As you are aware,
the definition does include issues of noise from an external source.
It does not include the internal source. The reason for not including
that in the definition is that when the definition was constructed
it needed to be something that could be measurable universally
across the housing stock by all social landlords, and the impact
of internal noise is very much dependent on a whole host of factors
coming together, so, in terms of determining what is the appropriate
level of noise insulation or an appropriate standard, that I think
would be very difficult to do in the context of a wide definition
that applied to all stock. That was the reason for not including
that and some other elements of the definition. However, in implementing
the Decent Homes Standard we have never expected social landlords
only to concentrate on those things that make a home decent in
accordance with the definition.
Q487 Christine Russell: Would you like
to comment, Minister, on the Audit Commission's comment, which
is, "Well, the Decent Standard may be just about decent now
but it is going to be wholly inadequate by 2010 because public
aspirations will have gone up substantially"?
Keith Hill: I am reasonably unapologetic
about our Decent Homes Programme.
Q488 Chairman: Reasonably unapologetic?
Keith Hill: Let me put it another
way. I am proud of and would stoutly defend our Decent Homes Programme.
You will know, Mr Chairman, as other colleagues here will know,
that in 1997 when we came in to power we inherited a scandalous
£19 billion backlog in refurbishment and modernisation of
social housing stock and we have sought to address that. It seems
to me, if I may say so, that it is one of the proudest achievements
of this Government that we are now firmly embarked on that programme
of delivering weatherproof and warm homes and modernised homes
to a substantial part of our population. Indeed, if I might be
political for a moment, these are people who have always supported
us and I think it is absolutely excellent that we are at last
delivering to them, and I think the speed and determination with
which we are doing that is increasing rather than decreasing.
Again, I have to say that we are dealing with an issue of resource.
The Government juggles resource even in the housing area. I do
not have to tell this committee about issues of housing demand
and supply. Over the next two years we expect to invest five billion
pounds in housing. That is divided about equally between the Decent
Homes Programme and new housing. It would be excellent, of course,
if we could devote it all to new housing and that would go a very
long way to meeting at least some of the urgent issues of housing
demand. The fact of the matter is that we have committed ourselves,
quite rightly, to dealing with Decent Homes. Of course aspirations
are likely to increase but, for heaven's sake, if you live in
a house which has bathrooms and kitchens 30, 40, 50 years old,
if you live in a house which is cold, if you live in a house which
suffers from extreme water penetration, dealing with those—and
this is not patronising—really is making a real difference
in the lives of literally millions of our fellow citizens.
Q489 Mr Clelland: But what about things
like accessibility and decent neighbourhood requirements? Would
you not be willing to consider widening the definition of the
standard in order to include things like that?
Keith Hill: I recognise that this
is an issue. You will know, of course, that all of the options
can, and as I understand it normally do, contain an element of
broader environmental regeneration. Of course, in the PFI schemes
the regeneration of the whole neighbourhood is integral to the
project over a period of 30 years. In the transfer schemes I understand
that it is normally about 5% which is allocated to broader environmental
improvement and regeneration and the same goes for the ALMO so
there is already an element there. Some of these broader issues,
of course, are addressed in other government programmes. I am
thinking, for example, of the Pathfinder regeneration schemes
where we hope to be able to announce good things in the near future,
not least, I understand, in your own locality. Nevertheless, I
recognise this as an issue but we have to be targeted and focused.
There is an expanding resource, twice the amount that the Government
inherited, which is being invested in these areas. Government
I think gets in trouble when it dilutes and loses focus and there
is always a great tendency, is there not, to chop and change the
programme? I think that we are absolutely right to remain quite
focused on the properties themselves.
Q490 Mr Clelland: On the properties themselves,
in terms of accessibility for the elderly and disabled, surely
that is something which ought to be a basic standard. What about
when we are refurbishing properties to meet the Decent Homes Standard?
Should it not be compulsory to ensure that accessibility is built
into that?
Keith Hill: Presumably not in
every case. I do not think there are many advocates of the implementation
of—what are they called?—lifetime homes across the
board. I think it is part of the Mayor's target for something
like 10% of new and possibly refurbished properties that should
have those lifetime requirements. Again, I think there is an issue,
and it is one that we should increasingly be aware of and probably
cater for as we develop programmes, but again it is a matter of
resource.
Q491 Mr Clelland: But you do not think
there are basic accessibility issues that could be addressed in
terms of the standard? I am not talking about having walk-in showers
in every house and that sort of stuff, but there are basic things
like the width of doors making life easier for elderly and disabled
people. There are basic things that could be done, are there not,
that could be built into this standard?
Keith Hill: I think it is a difficult
issue. Of course, you are right. One recognises that we live in
an increasingly aged society and we recognise the advantages of
independent living and we want people to live in their own homes
for as long as possible, and those homes need to be fitted for
elderly citizens. I would expect authorities to take these considerations
into account in their programmes, not, I have to say, (though
this is again a matter for consideration) necessarily implementing
these standards across the board, but perhaps thinking about the
way in which one might focus these standards, at least in some
of the properties. Are we doing anything more on that?
Ms Kirkham: The guidance that
is about to go on our website does suggest, as part of the refurbishment
package for local authorities and housing associations, that when
doing that they should take those factors into account because
often you can do something within the home. For example, when
you put in new windows you can fit them with catches that can
be easily used by disabled people, so those sorts of considerations
I think should automatically be done.
Q492 Mr Clelland: But these are considerations.
You are not willing to build those into the standards, saying
"You must reach this standard"? You are just saying
there are some things they might do but they do not necessarily
have to do?
Ms Kirkham: We have left it as
things that they might do, to point out those things they can
probably do for the same cost as putting in a normal window frame,
for example.
Q493 Chairman: Minister, you are proud
of the fact that you are putting the money into Decent Homes,
but is it not important that we get value for money out of that?
When the Committee was looking at empty homes we saw numerous
examples in the north of England where lots of money had been
spent, I think on one property up to £70,000 on modernising
it and yet people did not want it, so if you do not reach the
level of people's aspirations there is a danger that all the money
going into Decent Homes is going to be wasted. Is there not a
case for making sure that the standards measure up closer to what
people want rather than the minimum standards that we have got
at the moment?
Keith Hill: I recognise absolutely,
Mr Chairman, the issue you identify of large investments in the
past going into properties for which there is no demand. We obviously
need to be careful about wasting money in that way again. That
is why I think the options appraisal process is so important,
because it encourages local authorities to engage in a proper
business plan, it encourages local authorities to think about
medium to long term issues of demand and, above all, of course,
it involves the active participation of tenants who are themselves
absolutely part of the process of deciding what is required in
a specific locality. In a sense that very consultation involvement
of tenants gives you some kind of security and backstop about
what is being provided in the programmes. I have to say that I
have no evidence so far of an analytical nature to suggest that
the investment has the potential not to meet the aspirations of
the tenants affected, and I have to say on the anecdotal level
that I have now visited innumerable localities, viewed innumerable
modernised kitchens, bathrooms and observed the central heating,
and it may be that they are chosen for me but the folk that I
have talked to are over the moon about the improvements made,
so I have no sense that we are failing them in this regard.
Q494 Chairman: The only problem with
relying on existing tenants is that they are often very pleased
with what happens because they are consulted but, of course, in
filling these homes we have to be looking at future tenants, have
we not?
Keith Hill: Of course we have;
you are absolutely right about that. It is not axiomatic that
even if it is a new property people are going to want it. On the
contrary: it is perfectly possible to see—I have seen it
myself in Merseyside, for example—properties which are probably
not more than 20 or 30 years old which are standing empty because
people do not want to live there, though that is normally, as
I understand it, to do with issues around the broader environment.
I do recognise the issue of rising aspiration, but of course I
also have to consider issues of demand. The fact of the matter
is that globally we still face major issues of unrequited demand
for housing. I have no reason to believe that in substantial parts
of the country, and it is not a simplistic division between north
and south, as you well know, there will not be demand for decent
homes.
Q495 Chairman: You have resisted the
changes to the Decent Homes Standard to raise standards, but,
of course, you are tweaking the standard yourself, are you not,
by bringing in the Housing Health and Safety Rating System? How
many properties do you think are going to have to be treated as
a result of the new Housing Health and Safety Rating System as
opposed to the old system?
Keith Hill: How many houses in
the social sector, presumably?
Q496 Chairman: Yes.
Keith Hill: I have a statistic
in my mind.
Q497 Chairman: Perhaps someone will pass
it to you.
Keith Hill: I do propose to share
this with the Committee. The statistic I have in my mind for the
social sector, because we have been dealing (as my beloved colleague,
the honourable Member for Sheffield Attercliffe is only too aware;
he is a distinguished member of the Housing Bill Standing Committee)
precisely with the Health and Safety Rating System, is something
like 4% of council housing stock which we do not think meets the
Health and Safety Rating System standards.
Q498 Chairman: So it is an extra 4% that
is going to have to be dealt with above what was originally thought
from the Decent Homes Standard? Is that right?
Keith Hill: Remember that the
Health ad Safety Rating System is primarily concerned with hazard
and risk. I know this is a matter for the Committee but it does
not actually deal with the more general issues of thermal comfort
and weatherproofing and modernisation.
Q499 Chairman: So it is 4% in council
stock. What about in the private sector?
Keith Hill: In the private sector
the figure is substantially higher but I could not put a statistic
on that.
| 
