Response to Keith Hill's Answers to Select
Committee Questions Wednesday 28 January
Q523 Christine Russell: What about Camden?
What dialogue are you having with Camden, because you have told
us there is no fourth way, so what option has Camden now got,
a top, three-star authority?
Keith Hill: To be entirely accurate, on the
last CPA assessment it was two-star on housing. It has been a
three-star in certain aspects of its housing performance in the
past but I do not want to take away the fact that Camden is overall
an excellent authority.
Camden's response: In the last CPA statement
the Housing assessment was rated at a 3(Good) out of a possible
4—there can be no misinterpretation of this.
It is also suggested that Camden has been a
three-star authority for certain aspects of its performance "in
the past". In terms of delivery of services, the three-star
ratings relate to housing management and the capital programme
and the inspections took place around 18 months ago. Camden would
maintain that these ratings are still valid in the present, particularly
as both services were judged to have excellent prospects for improvement.
Q523 response continued..
Keith Hill: If I may say so as well, Camden
had a singularly hard struggle. It is probable that the Defend
Council Housing organisation is at its strongest in Camden, a
combination as far as I can see of superannuated Communists and
not much younger Trotskyites. Of course, they also had to face
an absolutely unremitting campaign on the part of the local newspaper,
which is very widely read, the Camden New Journal, which certainly
did not hesitate to misrepresent its interview with me and I had
to send in a correction to them. Of course, you know the law on
these matters. The local authority is very constrained in terms
of how it can put the case, so if you have an unscrupulous contrary
campaign and you are limited to simply setting out the pros and
contras yourself as an authority it is very difficult.
Camden's response: We entirely agree with Keith
Hill's sentiments that Camden had a singularly hard struggle in
undertaking its ALMO consultation. DCH has its main supporter
base in Camden, and their campaign messages were widely reported
in the local newspaper, the CNJ. Residents clearly trust what
the CNJ reports about council activities: the Association of London
Residents survey 2002-03 found that 60% of residents said they
got their information about what the Council was doing from the
CNJ above any other form of communication.
Therefore, Keith Hill's statement in response
to Q524, that Camden should "go back and seek to engage with
tenants again" is one we would firmly question in the light
of his acknowledgement of Camden's unique struggle in presenting
the ALMO case. Does he think that the DCH and the CNJ would not
notice if we re-consulted with tenants? Does he think that DCH
would not campaign just as ferociously against an ALMO? Or is
he suggesting that we do a quick telephone poll of selected residents
to get the desired outcome of a "yes" ALMO? After such
a resounding "no" vote we do not think it is appropriate
or indeed desirable to re-consult residents, whether it be through
another ballot or a telephone poll, when they have made their
preference clear.
Q523 response continued..
Keith Hill: The fact of the matter is that this
was a result based on an unusually small turnout in the ballot.
The turnout was only 30%. That is significantly lower than the
turnouts in the preceding ALMO ballots which have all been above
40% and in some cases much higher.
Camden's response: We recognise that this turnout
is lower than the average nationwide but is in fact 6% higher
than what our neighbours Islington achieved. Other city authorities
such as Hammersmith and Fulham and Leeds have achieved around
40% turnout and it is clear that city authorities do have significantly
lower ballot turnouts that smaller authorities.
Q523 response continued..
Keith Hill: One does have to ask the question,
what about the 70% of tenants who did not vote? There is at least
a question about communication and contact and a need, I would
suggest, for at least an effort to get serious involvement, engagement
and consultation with those.
Camden's response: It is inconsistent to suggest
that only when a majority of tenants on a low turnout votes against
a Government driven proposal that questions should be asked about
the views of those that didn't take part in the vote. This is
borne out by the fact that the Minister has approved the formation
of ALMOs in Leeds through Section 27 application where over 60%
tenants didn't exercise their votes and we assume that the same
will happen in Islington where 76% of tenants didn't vote.
Camden went to great lengths to involve tenants
in the consultation and was vindicated in the High Court for its
approach. A series of direct mailings stretching back some 18
months was followed by a concerted effort to meet ordinary tenants
through a series of show flats, a seven week mobile exhibition
which visited every corner of the Borough, seven days a week,
and a fully informed website complemented countless public meetings.
Information was translated into all the local
community languages and specific meetings took place with the
local Bengali community.
Tenants were offered the opportunity to vote
through the post, internet and telephone and all voting information
was also translated on the ballot papers
Q523 response continued..
Keith Hill: As I understand it, Camden, for
whatever reasons, never engaged in the complete option appraisal
process. We think that they need to go back . . .
Camden's response: Camden was required to carry
out an option appraisal as part of its Round 3 bid and this was
submitted to the Minister's office as part of our bid. It was
carried out independently by Hacaschapmanhendy who concluded that
the ALMO option was the best option for the Borough. Consultation
on stock transfer and the experience of two PFI pilots also contributed
to the Council considering an ALMO to be the only remaining option
that might have been viable at the time of the appraisal. The
bid and option appraisal were approved by the Minister's office.
We are aware that the requirements for option
appraisals in Round 4 of the bidding were more stringent and required
sign off by the ODPM, but do not feel that this would have had
any impact on the final conclusion.
Q524 Christine Russell: So do you think there
was a lack of political will to do that?
Keith Hill: I do not think there was a lack
of political will. I think it was a succession of events. My understanding
is that they tried a limited stock transfer and then went as it
were without a lot of delay to the ALMO option. Maybe Camden ought
to back and seek to engage with its tenants again.
Camden's response: Camden has investigated stock
transfer and taken part in the first two pilot rounds of PFI so
we do have local experience of the issues around these options
and our tenants' attitudes towards them. At this stage we feel
we would be open to huge criticism if we were to invest yet more
resources in another option appraisal in what we know are likely
to be unpopular options so soon after we have completed such a
thorough consultation on our preferred option.
Q525 Chairman: Wait a minute: there is a
fourth way. It is just that you are not prepared to go along with
that, is it not?
Keith Hill: We believe that the evidence clearly
suggests that the PFI transfer or ALMO routes deliver a better
service to tenants, they engage tenants in a way that conventional
housing management does not engage tenants. We think that there
are other advantages to hard-pressed local housing authorities
as well.
Camden's response: Camden is committed to improving
services to tenants and leaseholders and fully engaging them in
the process. We were in the process of setting high standards
and raising expectations further had we set up an ALMO and will
continue with that ambition despite the ALMO proposal being rejected
by tenants. We do not have any issues with central government
over its shared ambition to achieve these aims through the three
options available.
However, Government must recognise that Camden
is in a different position as it has already achieved high standards
through direct management. We would also agree that there is evidence
that standards are being raised locally through stock transfer
and ALMOs (although not yet through PFI we would suggest).
However of the 26 ALMOs that entered the programme
through rounds 1 and 2 that have now had inspections, only three
(Derby, Westminster and Brent) have achieved the same 3 star excellent
rating with excellent prospects for improvement rating as Camden.
The question needs to be asked—if we have
already achieved 3 star ratings from the independent Audit Commission
for both our housing management services and the delivery of our
capital programme, and a CPA 3-rating, will an ALMO really be
able to demonstrate that it can deliver "a better service
to tenants" than it would have otherwise got from the Council,
as Keith Hill says?
Q530 Mr Betts: What you are saying then, Minister,
is that if tenants decide that they do not want to take up one
of the options of stock transfer, ALMO or PFI, if they want to
remain in the traditional way to have their houses managed by
the local authority, then they do not have a right to have their
homes brought up to a decent standard?
Keith Hill: They choose not, in those circumstances,
to engage in the programme. I find it frankly impossible to believe
that either local authorities or tenants would not wish to seize
the opportunities presented by this huge amount of new investment
to have their stock and their homes improved.
Camden's response: Camden did seize the opportunity,
but our tenants did not and despite the Minister's beliefs this
cannot be ignored. However through the course of our consultation
it became clear that there a number of other issues that concerned
residents beyond the desire to keep a successful service, fear
of privatisation as raised by the anti-ALMO campaign and coverage
in the local newspaper. Many of these have been raised by previous
witnesses at the Select Committee:
— Suitability of the Decent Homes standard—Is
the standard suitable for high-density inner city housing stock?
Tenants are concerned about lifts, mechanical and electrical services
and the wider environment—more so than internal modernisation
and new kitchens and bathrooms.
— Concerns about community safety and
crime—Camden tenants have made it clear that tackling these
issues is their main priority for the Council and there was concern
that separating the housing service which contributes greatly
to tackling these issues could worsen a situation where great
strides have been made in recent years.
— Impact on leaseholders—Leaseholders
make up nearly 25% of Camden's residents and they had concerns
about the additional costs of the works that they would contribute
towards to enable the Council to meet the decent homes standard.
Leaseholders voted in a similar fashion to tenants with a clear
majority against the proposal.
Q528 Mr Betts: I want to turn to the question
of tenant choice. Is it not rather odd that in order to transfer
stock to a housing association there has to be a ballot, but in
order to transfer stock to an ALMO or a PFI arrangement there
does not have to be a ballot? The local authority can just do
it. Is that not a gap in the legislation that needs to be filled?
Keith Hill: The requirement, as you know, is
for a consultation. The requirements do not stipulate a ballot,
although ballots are most often employed, but we need to be satisfied
that there has been an appropriate sounding of the views of tenants.
That could be by a survey, for example. The most important thing
is quite clearly a process of consultation, engagement and a clear
result in favour.
Camden's response: We would like to reiterate
the point that at this stage we must accept the verdict of our
tenants who have given a clear result against the formation of
an ALMO. We note that the ALMO guidance states that applications
for ALMOs must have the support of a majority of tenants. We presume
this should not be interpreted as a clear majority of all tenants
as it is clear that in many cases ALMOs have been approved without
a 51% majority of all tenants. Had Camden's ballot result been
77% in favour, we are fairly certain that the Minister would have
had representations from tenant groups questioning the legality
of approving an application where under 25% of the total tenant
population had either voted no or not all.
| 
