Conclusions and recommendations
Key conclusions and recommendations
1. The decent homes programme
has had a dramatic, positive effect on the living conditions of
almost all social housing tenants by putting very significant
resources into tangible improvements to social housing. We applaud
the Government, local authorities and their partner organisations
for the tenacity with which they have pursued the ten year goal
and the results they have achieved. The decent homes standard
is, nonetheless, a low standard, which makes it all the more shocking
that nearly 40% of social homes were below that level in 2001;
and all the more encouraging that so many landlords have gone
beyond the standard in the improvements they have carried out.
(Paragraph 19)
THERMAL COMFORT
2. The decent homes standard
requires the absence of Category 1 hazards under the HHSRS in
criterion (a) and it is not, therefore, necessary to repeat this
requirement specifically in relation to thermal comfort in criterion
(d). However, there is evidence of confusion around how to use
the HHSRS in this area. We recommend that the Government formulate
and disseminate practical guidance on what constitutes a risk
of excess cold under the HHSRS, building on the extant guidance
for landlords and property related professionals on the HHSRS.
(Paragraph 55)
While the decent homes guidance
refers to SAP 35 as a "proxy" for the absence of Category
1 thermal comfort hazards, we consider that the thermal comfort
criterion should be redrafted explicitly as a minimum energy efficiency
rating. We discuss below (in relation to reducing carbon dioxide
emissions) what that rating should be. The standard should not
mandate the specific inputs (such as type of heating system, thickness
of insulation) needed to reach that energy rating, as there will
be various ways to reach the desired outcome. Rather, accompanying
guidance should indicate the inputs likely to be necessary for
warmth and energy efficiency, while recognising that different
solutions may be necessary for different properties. (Paragraph
56)
We conclude that, while the decent
homes standard should not be linked directly to fuel poverty programmes,
its recasting as we recommend to tackle energy efficiency more
explicitly, would have knock-on effects on fuel poverty. As we
discuss below, this would also make a direct contribution to reducing
carbon dioxide emissions from housing. We discuss the detail of
this energy efficiency outcome measure in the section on additional
criteria: reducing carbon dioxide emissions. (Paragraph 61)
ADDITIONAL CRITERIA
3. We conclude that setting
national standards is only one way of improving housing and is
not appropriate for all types of improvement, and that the decent
homes standard should remain narrowly focussed. We further conclude
that, while some issues are best dealt with through national standards,
others are more appropriately set in local standards or agreements.
This is the approach which the Tenant Services Authority's statutory
regulatory framework proposes for the setting of standards in
the social housing sector. As we note elsewhere, many housing
management organisations have agreed and set, in conjunction with
their tenants, local standards which go beyond the nationally-set
standard and which reflect the priorities and resources of local
communities. We commend those organisations which have done so
and encourage others to follow suit. Meanwhile, we welcome the
TSA's approach to this issue, under which it will have an important
role in regulating the process by which such standards are reached
and ensuring that all parties—including tenants—have
had a proper input into agreeing appropriate local standards.
(Paragraph 72)
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
4. As we describe above, we
consider that standards should be set for the energy efficiency
of social housing stock and that such a standard should be part
of an updated decent homes standard regulated by the Tenant Services
Authority. As we recommended above, this energy efficiency standard
should be formulated as the replacement of the thermal comfort
criterion. Setting a standard is unlikely of itself to achieve
the desired results, but it is a necessary component of doing
so. We note the proposal by the Government of an additional "Warm
Homes" standard and commend to it our suggestion of amending
the thermal comfort criterion. (Paragraph 87)
MEASURING DECENCY
5. We conclude that the measurement
of non-decency should comprise both a snapshot of the current
position plus a forecast of potential future non-decency in
the next few years, in order to predict future work and spending
required. We recommend that the assessment that the Department
has been conducting identify the true scale of the backlog of
work to achieve the decent homes standard across the social housing
stock and provide an accurate picture of what remains to be done.
[...] homes where the tenant has refused decent homes work should
not be counted as decent. (Paragraph 104)
PRIVATE SECTOR
6. Like the majority of our
witnesses, and for the various reasons which we set out above,
we are in favour of retaining and strengthening a target for decency
in the private sector. Like our predecessor ODPM Committee, we
believe that every household should have a decent home. We therefore
recommend that future policy on the maintenance of standards in
the private sector be based on a clear long-term target to bring
all homes in the private sector up to the decent homes standard.
In the shorter term, we consider that funding should be targeted
at areas rather than at vulnerable individuals, in order to harness
economies of scale. (Paragraph 179)
We consider it a huge missed opportunity
that the considerable political will demonstrated by the Government
in raising social sector housing to the decent homes standard
has not been matched by similar energies with respect to the private
sector; and that the policy in the private sector appears to have
failed. The downgrading of the target for decency in the private
sector has weakened local authorities' already patchy engagement
with their responsibilities towards private sector housing. A
sustained and concerted effort on the part of local authorities,
led and supported by Government, will be necessary to achieve
the target of a decent home for all in the private sector. (Paragraph
211)
We welcome the publication of the
Government's response to the Rugg review of private rented housing,
which goes some way towards addressing some of the problems with
quality in the private rented sector which we identified in our
2008 report The Supply of Rented Housing and
call on the Government to commit itself to a programme of measures
which will raise these problems up the political agenda. We have
identified some of the necessary measures in the preceding sections
of this Report. We welcome the tackling of energy efficiency standards
in the private sector proposed in the Strategy for Household Energy
Management and look forward to more detail in due course. (Paragraph
212)
Conclusions and recommendations
in order
1. The
decent homes programme has had a dramatic, positive effect on
the living conditions of almost all social housing tenants by
putting very significant resources into tangible improvements
to social housing. We applaud the Government, local authorities
and their partner organisations for the tenacity with which they
have pursued the ten year goal and the results they have achieved.
The decent homes standard is, nonetheless, a low standard, which
makes it all the more shocking that nearly 40% of social homes
were below that level in 2001; and all the more encouraging that
so many landlords have gone beyond the standard in the improvements
they have carried out. (Paragraph 19)
Our findings: Social sector
MEASUREMENT OF THE TARGET
2. We
conclude that consistency of the data on decency can and should
be improved. We recommend that the Government establish national
guidance on the collation of stock condition data, to reduce inconsistencies
in the assessment of decency by landlords. Adherence to the national
guidance should form part of the Audit Commission's assessment
of local authorities. (Paragraph 32)
3. We consider that
where a tenant has refused decent homes work to a property and
the property remains non-decent, that property should be recorded
as a refusal and not as a decent home. We recommend that the decent
homes guidance is amended accordingly. Further, we consider that
when the tenant has moved on, the decent homes work should be
offered to the new tenant, as soon as feasible. (Paragraph 34)
The standard
CRITERION (A): THE STATUTORY MINIMUM
STANDARD FOR HOUSING
4. Although,
on the whole, the Housing Health and Safety Rating System has
been embedded successfully in the Decent Homes Standard, there
is evidence of lack of understanding of the system by some landlords.
We recommend that the Government, in partnership with the TSA,
take steps to improve the availability and take-up of training
in use of the HHSRS. (Paragraph 44)
CRITERION (B): REASONABLY MODERN
FACILITIES AND SERVICES
5. We
conclude that criterion (c) is expressed in a way that allows
homes with quite different standards of amenities to be classified
as decent. A landlord may avoid installing new kitchens and bathrooms
if he judges the other elements to be "adequate" and
"appropriate". We recommend that the TSA collate and
disseminate best practice on compliance with this criterion to
assist landlords and tenants in discussions of how the standard
is applied at a local level. (Paragraph 48)
CRITERION (C): A REASONABLE DEGREE
OF THERMAL COMFORT
6. The
decent homes standard requires the absence of Category 1 hazards
under the HHSRS in criterion (a) and it is not, therefore, necessary
to repeat this requirement specifically in relation to thermal
comfort in criterion (d). However, there is evidence of confusion
around how to use the HHSRS in this area. We recommend that the
Government formulate and disseminate practical guidance on what
constitutes a risk of excess cold under the HHSRS, building on
the extant guidance for landlords and property related professionals
on the HHSRS. (Paragraph 55)
7. While the decent
homes guidance refers to SAP 35 as a "proxy" for the
absence of Category 1 thermal comfort hazards, we consider that
the thermal comfort criterion should be redrafted explicitly as
a minimum energy efficiency rating. We discuss below (in relation
to reducing carbon dioxide emissions) what that rating should
be. The standard should not mandate the specific inputs (such
as type of heating system, thickness of insulation) needed to
reach that energy rating, as there will be various ways to reach
the desired outcome. Rather, accompanying guidance should indicate
the inputs likely to be necessary for warmth and energy efficiency,
while recognising that different solutions may be necessary for
different properties. (Paragraph 56)
8. We conclude that,
while the decent homes standard should not be linked directly
to fuel poverty programmes, its recasting as we recommend to tackle
energy efficiency more explicitly, would have knock-on effects
on fuel poverty. As we discuss below, this would also make a direct
contribution to reducing carbon dioxide emissions from housing.
We discuss the detail of this energy efficiency outcome measure
in the section on additional criteria: reducing carbon dioxide
emissions. (Paragraph 61)
9. We applaud the
Government's focus in its Household Energy Management Strategy
on warmth and energy efficiency of homes. It is not clear from
the Strategy how a new "Warm Homes" standard would complement
the decent homes strategy and its thermal comfort criterion. We
urge the Government to avoid a proliferation of standards. (Paragraph
63)
ADDITIONAL CRITERIA
10. We
conclude that setting national standards is only one way of improving
housing and is not appropriate for all types of improvement, and
that the decent homes standard should remain narrowly focussed.
We further conclude that, while some issues are best dealt with
through national standards, others are more appropriately set
in local standards or agreements. This is the approach which the
Tenant Services Authority's statutory regulatory framework proposes
for the setting of standards in the social housing sector. As
we note elsewhere, many housing management organisations have
agreed and set, in conjunction with their tenants, local standards
which go beyond the nationally-set standard and which reflect
the priorities and resources of local communities. We commend
those organisations which have done so and encourage others to
follow suit. Meanwhile, we welcome the TSA's approach to this
issue, under which it will have an important role in regulating
the process by which such standards are reached and ensuring that
all parties—including tenants—have had a proper input
into agreeing appropriate local standards. (Paragraph 72)
THE ENVIRONMENT
11. We
conclude that 'environmental' standards other than energy efficiency
should not be set nationally in the decent homes standard, but
may be agreed locally in accordance with the principle we note
above. (Paragraph 74)
CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS AND ENERGY
EFFICIENCY
12. We
note that the unit cost of new technologies will decline with
the development of the market and recognise that new technology
will have an important role to play in reducing emissions from
housing in the medium to long term. Meanwhile, there is much that
can be done at much lower cost while the evidence base is built
up to justify large-scale spending on new technologies. We conclude
that future funding should prioritise 'old technology' to improve
the energy efficiency of housing: insulation and efficient heating
systems, and education. We commend the Government's Strategy
for Household Energy Management for prioritising basic works such
as loft and cavity wall insulation. (Paragraph 82)
13. As we describe
above, we consider that standards should be set for the energy
efficiency of social housing stock and that such a standard should
be part of an updated decent homes standard regulated by the Tenant
Services Authority. As we recommended above, this energy efficiency
standard should be formulated as the replacement of the thermal
comfort criterion. Setting a standard is unlikely of itself to
achieve the desired results, but it is a necessary component of
doing so. We note the proposal by the Government of an additional
"Warm Homes" standard and commend to it our suggestion
of amending the thermal comfort criterion. (Paragraph 87)
14. Witnesses have
agreed that the best-understood and most effective energy efficiency
standard would be a SAP rating. The SAP rating of 35, currently
referred to in the decent homes guidance, is unacceptably low.
We accept that raising the bar for all property types to a minimum
level which is unachievable for many properties is not the answer
but do not consider that this should be used as an excuse for
not setting any standards. We recommend that the Government urgently
develop a range of minimum SAP ratings for different property
types. We further recommend that these minimum SAP ratings be
established on a sliding scale over several years to require landlords
to meet progressively more rigorous requirements over the next
few decades. (Paragraph 90)
THE ESTATE
15. The
maintenance of cleanliness, safety and good repair of common parts
of estates and communities is of great importance to tenants and
makes a substantial contribution to social integration and well-being.
We applaud the TSA's recognition of these aspects in its proposed
approach to standards and the flexibility it aims to build in
to its Neighbourhood and Community standard. We particularly welcome
the role which the TSA sees for tenants and other community stakeholders
in the process of setting standards locally. (Paragraph 97)
Management of the programme
THE BACKLOG
16. We
conclude that the measurement of non-decency should comprise both
a snapshot of the current position plus a forecast of potential
future non-decency in the next few years, in order to predict
future work and spending required. We recommend that the assessment
that the Department has been conducting identify the true scale
of the backlog of work to achieve the decent homes standard across
the social housing stock and provide an accurate picture of what
remains to be done. As we recommended above, homes where the tenant
has refused decent homes work should not be counted as decent.
(Paragraph 104)
ACCESS TO PUBLIC FUNDING
17. We
regret the Government's inability to give a firm commitment now,
just a few months from the originally planned end of the Decent
Homes programme, on how the funding will be provided to enable
the remaining ALMOs that have yet to receive funding to improve
decency in their stock. The lack of clarity prevents effective
planning by the ALMOs concerned but, more importantly, affects
thousands of tenants who continue to have to live indefinitely
in non-decent housing. We call on the Government to make clear
as soon as possible when the funding will be delivered to achieve
the completion of the Decent Homes programme in the ALMO sector.
(Paragraph 111)
18. We welcome the
Minister's suggestion that reform of the HRA will enable all local
housing authorities to fund the maintenance of their homes at
a decent level. We note, however, that the Minister's replies
were significantly weaker on the question of how retention authorities
can bring their stock up to that level in the first place. HRA
reform will not solve that problem. We call on the Government
urgently to set out how, post-HRA reform, authorities which have
retained management of their stock will be funded to eliminate
the backlog of non-decent housing. (Paragraph 116)
IMPLEMENTATION BY MANAGEMENT ORGANISATIONS
19. We
conclude that the ten-year experience of ALMOs has generated improvements
in asset management of social sector stock that are not simply
attributable to additional funding. We further conclude that these
improvements should not be lost because of a lack of clear statements
by the Government on the future of ALMOs after completion of the
decent homes funding already allocated. We recommend that the
Government make arrangements for the continued management of housing
stock by ALMOs, including by providing for access to funding under
the new self-financing system. We consider that local authorities
should not take their ALMOs back in-house until they have conducted
a ballot of tenants and received an endorsement by tenants of
that plan. (Paragraph 121)
20. We conclude that
local authorities with retained stock are capable of effective
day-to-day management, but that lessons learned from ALMOs should
be applied to improve their results. We further conclude that
unless local authorities with and without ALMOs receive the same
funding for housing improvements, the results will always be skewed
in favour of ALMOs. (Paragraph 124)
21. The establishment
of ALMOs has significantly improved the performance of council
landlords and the requirement to reach a two-star rating of service
in order to be granted funding has been a very successful driver
of standards of housing management. Some local authorities that
have retained day-to-day management responsibilities do not have
adequate asset management skills and strategies in place, notwithstanding
the existing regulatory framework and inspection regime. Nevertheless
we recognise that, for a number of reasons, it is not appropriate
for all local authorities which retain ownership of their stock
to establish an arm's length body to manage it. We recommend that,
rather than take day-to-day management of housing out of the hands
of those councils, the Government establish a mechanism to incentivise
housing departments of councils to improve their performance in
order to receive additional funding. This will put retention authorities
on a level footing, in funding terms, with authorities which have
established ALMOs, and will help to ensure that those authorities
can make the sort of progress to eliminating non-decency in their
housing stock which has been achieved by local authorities with
ALMOs. (Paragraph 130)
FUNDING
22. We
recognise the pressures facing the Government and the housing
association sector in continuing to deliver both new homes and
the maintenance and improvement of existing stock. We have previously
expressed our continued support for the Government's house-building
targets and recognised the need for new homes. Here, we emphasise
that the provision of new homes should not be at the expense of
the maintenance of existing ones. We support the Government's
policy objective of not just a home, but a decent home, for all.
As grant and rent policy for the housing association sector evolves
and future spending decisions are made, the maintenance and improvement
of the existing stock must be given equal priority to the building
of new homes. (Paragraph 136)
23. We welcome the
work the Government has done on reform of the HRA subsidy system
and its intention, in principle, to ensure that there is sufficient
money within the reformed system to maintain properties at a decent
standard. Combined with the improved potential for effective asset
management and forward financial planning which witnesses have
indicated that properly implemented HRA reform should also bring,
this should enable local authority landlords to maintain standards
of decency over the long term and prevent any reoccurrence of
the backlog which existed at the start of the Decent Homes programme.
However, in the absence of detail about the funding that HRA reform
will in fact supply for the maintenance of stock, we consider
that the convergence policy applied to social rents should be
relaxed. The restriction of rent rises has a negative effect on
the ability of landlords to set their rents and related standards
of service after consultation with tenants. (Paragraph 145)
24. We recommend that
the Government give ALMOs the capacity to raise private finance
against future rental streams in the context of a 30 year agreement
with their local authority. (Paragraph 146)
ADDITIONAL COSTS OF ADDITIONAL CRITERIA
25. We
recommend that the Government address [the] inequity [of access
to warm grant funding for people in the social and private sectors]
by allowing vulnerable people in the social sector access to the
same level of assistance as others. (Paragraph 154)
26. We conclude that
further work is required to calculate the costs of comprehensive
work to adapt social housing stock to higher standards of energy
efficiency. Whatever the final figure may be, however, it seems
clear that it will be well beyond the ability of landlords, householders
or energy suppliers alone to fund. A range of funding solutions
will be necessary, including—but not limited to—'Pay
As You Save'-type schemes. (Paragraph 155)
27. We welcome the
Government's commitment to the improvement of the common areas
of estates, and to ensuring that there is sufficient funding in
the new system to do so. The key to this, as to so much else concerning
funding of ongoing maintenance of social homes, is reform of the
Housing Revenue Account system. We look forward to seeing a reformed
HRA which ensures that sufficient funding is available for the
necessary work without placing too great a burden—in the
form of increased rents or service charges—on individual
residents of social housing. The 30-year business plans prepared
by individual local authorities under a reformed HRA system will
need to assess the potential contributions from all sources to
the maintenance of common areas, and build in sufficient resources
to maintain them to a decent standard. (Paragraph 158)
28. We consider the
restriction of ALMO spending on estates or communal areas to 5%
of their budgets to be unreasonable, and recommend that the Government
introduce greater flexibility to allow ALMOs to spend a greater
proportion of funds on these measures as necessary. (Paragraph
159)
Our findings: private sector
29. Like
the majority of our witnesses, and for the various reasons which
we set out above, we are in favour of retaining and strengthening
a target for decency in the private sector. Like our predecessor
ODPM Committee, we believe that every household should have a
decent home. We therefore recommend that future policy on the
maintenance of standards in the private sector be based on a clear
long-term target to bring all homes in the private sector up to
the decent homes standard. In the shorter term, we consider that
funding should be targeted at areas rather than at vulnerable
individuals, in order to harness economies of scale. (Paragraph
179)
THE STANDARD
30. The
recommendations which we make [in the section on the social sector]
on the thermal comfort criterion apply equally to its use in the
private sector. (Paragraph 186)
31. We conclude that,
given the scale of energy efficiency improvements required to
meet government targets on reducing carbon dioxide emissions from
housing, energy efficiency programmes must go wider than those
vulnerable private sector households to which the decent homes
standard is currently applicable. We draw renewed attention to
the conclusions of our report Existing Housing and Climate
Change, which considered these issues in more detail and made
a number of recommendations for Government action to reduce carbon
dioxide emissions from housing in both the social and private
sectors. (Paragraph 193)
MANAGEMENT OF THE PROGRAMME
32. We
recommend that the Government issue clear guidance telling local
authorities to maintain up to date information on the condition
of private sector housing stock. We further recommend that the
Government provide local authorities with a model of how this
should be done. (Paragraph 200)
33. We consider it
a huge missed opportunity that the considerable political will
demonstrated by the Government in raising social sector housing
to the decent homes standard has not been matched by similar energies
with respect to the private sector; and that the policy in the
private sector appears to have failed. The downgrading of the
target for decency in the private sector has weakened local authorities'
already patchy engagement with their responsibilities towards
private sector housing. A sustained and concerted effort on the
part of local authorities, led and supported by Government, will
be necessary to achieve the target of a decent home for all in
the private sector. (Paragraph 211)
34. We welcome the
publication of the Government's response to the Rugg review of
private rented housing, which goes some way towards addressing
some of the problems with quality in the private rented sector
which we identified in our 2008 report The Supply of Rented
Housing and call on the Government to commit itself to a programme
of measures which will raise these problems up the political agenda.
We have identified some of the necessary measures in the preceding
sections of this Report. We welcome the tackling of energy efficiency
standards in the private sector proposed in the Strategy for Household
Energy Management and look forward to more detail in due course.
(Paragraph 212)
FUNDING
35. We
are encouraged by the measures described by the Government in
the Household Energy Management Strategy and look forward to more
detail of how the financing model will work. We recommend that,
as part of the support which it gives local authorities for the
concerted effort to address the issue of non-decency which we
recommend above, CLG undertake or commission work to develop means
of levering in private finance for the improvement of private
sector stock. The results of this work should be made widely available
to local authorities, who should be encouraged to develop schemes
appropriate to their areas to facilitate access to those funds.
(Paragraph 220)
36. To facilitate
the joining up of local public sector funding streams which can
be applied to the elimination of non-decency in the private sector,
in line with the Total Place agenda, we recommend that a National
Indicator be available to local authorities specifically relating
to private sector housing improvement. (Paragraph 223)
37. We continue to
believe that, in the medium-term, VAT on property refurbishment
should be reduced and equalised with that applying to new build.
However, we conclude that the economic circumstances are not currently
such as to make that a viable proposition. We recommend that the
Government make such equalisation a medium-term policy goal, but
in the meantime should target the public funding available for
the renovation and refurbishment of housing more directly at the
poorest-quality stock. (Paragraph 228)
| 
