Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140
- 159)
THURSDAY 25 NOVEMBER 2004
DR TIM
BROWN, MR
ALAN WALTER
AND MR
CHRIS WOOD
Q140 Mr Hopkins: If I can shift over
to allocations policies, in the 1970s our housing applicants had
choice because we built lots of houses and there was a very low
level of points required for people to be re-housed. They could
choose between estates and they could choose their type of house
because there was plenty of supply. Is your system not a bit like
the National Lottery for a lot of poor people putting their number
in a hat and hoping they are going to be drawn out and get a nice
house somewhere? Does this make the fact that there is a desperate
shortage of decent homes more palatable because people think they
have a bit of a gambler's chance of getting one?
Mr Wood: No. The comparison with
the National Lottery, frankly, I do not think that is a goer.
The point that Tim made before, you cannot disguise the fact that
choice-based lettings does not increase the supply of housing.
There is a shortage of housing and demand outstrips supply certainly
in London and choice-based lettings has not done anything to produce
more houses, and that is irrefutable, but given the situation
that we have got, to my mind there is an enormous amount more
dignity in a system of choice-based lettings than there was in
the system which preceded it.
Q141 Mr Hopkins: Well, there is plenty
of dignity if there are plenty of houses and there is a real choice.
If there is not a real choice because there are not enough houses,
you are just playing a game with people surely?
Mr Wood: But I think there is
a real choice.
Q142 Mr Hopkins: Would it not spice
up this game, as I call it, by putting in a few nice choice Docklands
luxury properties with applicants getting a chance of getting
one of those as well?
Mr Wood: Well, tenants do in Newham
have a choice of properties. We have properties provided by housing
associations in the docks, so they are advertised through the
same choice-based scheme.
Q143 Mr Hopkins: But people have
said that there are literally hundreds of people applying for
each of these better properties each week and only a very few
will be successful..
Mr Wood: Absolutely.
Q144 Mr Hopkins: So their chances
are really minimal of getting one of those houses.
Mr Wood: But that is a factor
of supply and demand, not a factor of choice-based lettings.
Q145 Mr Hopkins: Okay, I am coming
to that. Does it not then take the onus off the local authority
to provide those houses because they can say, "Well, you
have not applied for one of these good houses. You've rejected
one of the lesser properties and that's your problem. That's the
real world you're living in"? Is it not the job of the local
authority to provide housing for the millions of people for whom
owner/occupation is just not possible and the only source of a
decent home is for the Government and for society collectively
to provide those homes through local authorities?
Mr Wood: I would agree with everything
you say, apart from through local authorities. I do not see why
it needs to be through local authorities and evidently the last
20 years has demonstrated that it does not need to be through
local authorities because local authorities have not built new
houses for years and years.
Q146 Mr Hopkins: Well, we could have
a national scheme, like the Northern Ireland Housing Corporation.
That took housing out of the hands of the local authorities because
they could not be trusted not to do it on a discriminatory basis.
So it could be provided nationally, but in any case—society
collectively, it could be a national housing scheme or a local
housing scheme. I happened to use local authorities because that
is how we have done it traditionally in Britain, but society has
got a job collectively to make sure that the least advantaged
in society have decent homes and children have decent homes in
which to grow up.
Mr Wood: Absolutely.
Q147 Mr Hopkins: With the increasing
marketisation of housing, does that not mean that we have winners
and losers and we now do not really worry about the losers too
much?
Mr Wood: It seems to me that you
are just expressing in a number of different ways the difficulty
that we confront because of the imbalance between supply and demand.
I agree with you, that there is an imbalance between supply and
demand, particularly in London, and that people have to wait unacceptably
long times to access housing, the solution to which could be to
build more houses, but that is a question for government. I guess
if Mr Prescott were here, he would say he was addressing that
question by investing in the growth areas, like the Thames Gateway.
Q148 Mr Prentice: I will come on
to John Prescott in a minute, but we are interested in responsiveness
in public services and the key question, just reformulating what
Tony said a few moments ago, is this: is there merit in separating
housing strategy from housing management, just in a word? You
are all housing professionals.
Dr Brown: I believe that there
is, but I think it is important that what can be learned from
choice-based lettings, what is popular, what is not popular, needs
to feed into strategy and investment decisions and it has to be
a partnership between local authorities and housing associations.
Some of the more enlightened choice-based letting schemes actually
have tenants groups working as forums to discuss and to work on
choice-based lettings to feed back, but I think there is a case
for separating out strategy from management. It is not as though
there has got to be a huge gap because they have got to learn
from each other.
Q149 Mr Prentice: I understand that
and I am asking the question because that is what is driving government
policy and I just want a snappy reply from you.
Mr Wood: My view on this has changed.
I thought it was simply dogma and I did not see the value of it,
but my view is changing because the evidence seems to indicate
that the arm's length management organisations are providing better
services than their predecessors. Now, I manage a large, traditional,
comprehensive housing department and we do repairs and benefits
and the whole bit and I think we do it quite well, but I cannot
refute the evidence which seems to be that the arm's length management
organisations, where they are focusing exclusively on management,
seem to be working.
Q150 Mr Prentice: Okay, we know where
you are coming from! Since we know where you are coming from,
let me ask you this question. John Prescott told the Labour Party
Conference just six weeks ago, "Public financing of housing
doesn't treat local authorities on a level playing field. I'm
going to set up an inquiry to look into it", and then the
following day our colleague, Keith Hill, said, "We recognise
yesterday's vote and we'll engage as a result of that and we're
going to continue a review, continue to negotiate and discuss
with all the various interested parties". Then on 29 October,
just a few days ago, the Deputy Prime Minister said, "There
is no fourth option. We're sticking with the three options that
we've been talking about for the past hour and there's no need
to create alternative options". You must have felt absolutely
poleaxed by that.
Mr Walter: Can I start by saying—and
it is not a form of flattery—I am not a housing professional,
I am a tenant, and in terms of voice it is clear that housing
professionals have all sorts of views on all sorts of issues.
Actually, there is not the opportunity for a strong voice from
tenants to come through. On the issue of separating housing strategy
from management, I am not aware of any tenants who want that.
Just to come back on Chris's point, I am always waiting for the
evidence to support the benefits of separation. We have yet to
hear any. The idea that the experience of ALMOs is evidence is
laughable because the criteria for being an ALMO is precisely
that you have already been assessed as being a good-performing
authority. If you were good-performing with the council, then
it is simply fair to expect, unless ALMOs made it worse, that
you would continue to be good-performing. As the BFS committee
made clear, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that setting
up the ALMO brings those benefits. In terms of being poleaxed
by John Prescott, we were not poleaxed, but we are getting a bit
tired of all this because the pendulum swings backwards and forwards.
Q151 Mr Prentice: You were told one
thing and a few weeks later you were told something else.
Mr Walter: Yes, and I do think
tenants are entitled to expect—remember we are talking about
6 million people who live in council homes around the country—when
a senior politician like the Deputy Prime Minister makes a clear
commitment that he will keep to it; and the idea that you can
just—
Q152 Mr Prentice: You want a fourth
option, which is direct investment in council housing. That is
what you tell us.
Mr Walter: Right. For the record,
can I say that my understanding—and I have talked to a number
of participants who were in the private negotiations with John
Prescott—is that he effectively, having talked to the Treasury,
conceded that at least for good-performing councils there was
no argument any longer in allowing them to have access to the
ALMO pot of money.
Q153 Mr Prentice: You hold to this
view because you tell us in your submission that councils get
£6 billion a year in rent, and £1.4 billion is clawed
back by the Government, which just disappears into the Treasury
coffers. You tell us that if that £1.4 billion were available
to housing authorities to spend on doing up their council properties,
then there would not be any need for all these other options that
we hear about, because people would be living in decent houses
and local authorities could afford to do them up. That is your
position. Can I just ask about the costs of running choice-based
letting schemes, because that is important, is it not? If you
are translating into 12 languages and sending out leaflets to
people's homes and this sort of thing, it must cost an arm and
a leg.
Mr Wood: It is cheaper.
Q154 Mr Prentice: How do you manage
that?
Mr Wood: We save money because
it is less labour-intensive. There is an initial set-up cost because
of the technology, but in the longer run it is definitely more
efficient. We have been able to reduce the number of staff administering
the scheme and divert those resources into other areas, for example
tackling anti-social behaviour, which has become an emerging priority
for our tenants.
Q155 Mr Prentice: What about voids?
You often hear about council houses remaining empty for long periods
when—
Mr Wood: It is quicker.
Q156 Mr Prentice: How long would
a property be expected to stay empty for in, let us say, one of
your worst areas?
Mr Wood: The average performance
in Newham now is about 25 days.
Q157 Mr Prentice: What was it like
under the old system?
Mr Wood: Nearly double that.
Q158 Mr Prentice: Down from 50 days
to 25 days.
Mr Wood: Yes.
Dr Brown: That is a fairly common
pattern across all of the 27 pilot schemes. I think what is interesting
is what you do with the efficiency savings you make. I would argue
that one of the things you do is put much more emphasis on the
advice and support services. The way in which a number of the
schemes provide better advice and support services for a vulnerable
group is to use the savings from greater efficiencies in re-letting
and voids into advice and support solutions. I would argue that
if we moved to sub-regional schemes, which is what Chris is very
keen on, and regional schemes, those savings can increase. Why
do we need 354 back-office systems for choice-based lettings?
You could have a regional system and really save quite a lot through
efficiency, and push that back into front-line services. We have
not really learnt all the lessons we can from choice-based lettings
and efficiency. We could really do something about improving council
services, I reckon, by greater efficiencies.
Q159 Mr Prentice: A regional call
centre.
Dr Brown: Yes.
| 
