Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
40-59)
MR NIGEL
LONG, MR
MICHAEL GELLING
OBE AND MS
TRISH CANHAM
26 OCTOBER 2009
Q40 Chair: So the answer to the question:
have tenants been kept informed and been involved in plans to
manage the backlog after 2010, Mr Long?
Mr Long: I think the answer to
that, Chair, is that yes, the Decent Homes programme has been
an incredible success, and there are lots of examples of tenants
being involved in ensuring it is delivered effectively on the
ground, and I think people are aware of the funding constraints,
and that is why I think there is a big push towards the setting
of local priorities. So for TPAS the debate would be how you move
towards more local prioritisation, tenants making decisions on
the ground, and therefore how they can access the funds through
their landlords to actually deliver the next stage of Decent Homes.
I think the previous speakers are right, we really have to think
about Decent Homes 2, son and daughter of Decent Homes, but for
us at TPAS the key thing is how we can build upon what has been
the real success of tenant involvement in the first phase of Decent
Homes, and ensure that takes us forward in the second phase of
Decent Homes to deliver value for money again, but the answer
to your question is yes, I think people are aware of constraints,
but they are keen to address the challenges in the next phase.
Q41 John Cummings: TAROE tells the
Committee that Decent Homes standards are relatively weak. You
also tell the Committee that you feel that steps should be taken
to improve upon these, so that the national acceptable minimum
standards across the sector are raised year by year. What specific
elements of the current Decent Homes standards are weak, and what
would you suggest we do to improve it?
Mr Gelling: Well, the elements
that are weak are the basic elements that tenants look at, so
if you ask anybody, what would you class as a decent home, they
would not say, well, if I had a modern kitchen at least 20 years
old, that would be a decent home, and that is a standard with
the Decent Homes. They would not say a reasonable modern bathroom,
30 years old or less, would be a decent home. Ordinary tenants
are quite surprised when they see what a decent home standard
is, because it is a very low bar. We would say that some of the
best organisations that have gone down this road of Decent Homes
have had Decent Homes Plus, because they have had tenant involvement,
and they have added to those, those requirements of Decent Homes
they have added to, so it has been a far more improved Decent
Homes standard that they have signed up to.
Mr Long: Could I just add to that,
because I think Michael has made a very powerful point about initial
standards, but what has come out of the consultations around the
country is that often, Decent Homes standards themselves are not
what is critical to people living on estates, hence the debate
about the environment, and hence we have seen examples of landlords
around the country not just delivering the Decent Homes, but improving
the estates where people live as well, addressing anti-social
behaviour, doing basic things, like actually it is much more important
to get the security right first before you change the bathrooms.
So the Decent Homes standards are weak at one level, and in the
next stage of Decent Homes, what we have to do is not only, I
think, address some of the low level standards, but address the
wider issues, and I think the proposals around reforming the housing
revenue account suggest that that might be being addressed.
Ms Canham: I agree that the external
environment is really important as far as the Decent Homes standards
go. It seems that they are vital for people with physical and
mental well-being, to have a good green environment, or access
to a green environment. Locally where I come from, we have an
officer who deals with something called local community action
plans, so she visits all the communities to find out what they
value most, and top of the list every time is access to green
space, whether it is just a small patch locally, or somewhere
larger. I think it is most important that that should be included.
John Cummings: I would very much like
to hear perhaps TAROE tell the Committee what you think is good
about the Decent Homes standard.
Chair: I think we had that at the beginning,
Mr Gelling outlined what he thought was good. Can I pick up—
John Cummings: I must have misunderstood
there, Chair, because it did come across by Mr Gelling that there
appeared to be nothing positive about the Decent Homes standards.
I am perhaps mistaken in that assumption.
Q42 Chair: I think at the beginning,
in his introductory statement, he said a lot of good things about
the Decent Homes programme. But the question I would ask is: I
accept that tenants would suggest that the standard of Decent
Homes is too low, but given that many homes were actually below
even that very low standard, surely they do accept that it is
a good idea to bring every home up at least to that low standard?
Mr Gelling: I cannot object to
what you are saying, but if you are living in a property that
is below Decent Homes standards, I mean, why are you paying rent
for that kind of property? That is the reality. But there is an
expectation; if you empower people, if you involve people, as
ALMOs do, as co-operatives do, as TMOs do, as some local authorities
do, and as some housing associations do, and you raise their expectations,
and they are involved in a Decent Homes programme, and the choices
are there, as Nigel was saying, about the environment, and everything
else is in that package, and how it is going to be funded, because
it all should not come from housing either, the expectations have
been raised. I am saying there are huge amounts of good work done
under the Decent Homes banner, but the Decent Homes banner itself,
in itself, by itself, is not a really high standard to achieve,
but because of the involvement and the expectations and the work
and the positiveness about doing work in a place, because we are
investing in places, it is the additionality that goes with that
that raises that expectation, and the quality of life for people
in that environment.
Q43 John Cummings: Have you drawn
any general lessons about the best ways to involve tenants in
the Decent Homes programme?
Mr Gelling: If I had the template,
I think I would be a millionaire, because what works for me as
a tenant, with my landlord, might not work for you if you were
a tenant with your landlord.
Q44 John Cummings: How many landlords
are you dealing with?
Mr Gelling: Well, there are something
like 2,300 housing associations in the country, there are 100
local authorities with retained council stock, there are 100 ALMOs,
I think. Clive is far better briefed on that.
Q45 John Cummings: What about private
landlords?
Mr Gelling: I do not know a great
deal about private landlords, but in the 1996 Housing Act, when
it set up the independent Housing Ombudsman, private landlords
could voluntarily join.
Q46 Chair: I think Ms Canham deals
with private tenants, so it might be more appropriate for her
to speak on that.
Ms Canham: I do not have a lot
of experience with private landlords, but I would like to say
that according to the statistics, 80 per cent of the properties
in this country are owned privately, and I would ask whether the
Decent Homes standards actually is extended to that sector, because
there are, I think, millions of vulnerable people living in private
rented accommodation.
Q47 Chair: Sorry, the Decent Homes
standard is supposed to extend to the vulnerable people in private
rented accommodation, so that is supposed to happen already.
Mr Long: What is interesting is
that all the landlords that have delivered most effectively in
terms of Decent Homes, they have all worked with their tenants,
they have all set up forums, forums that often have overseen the
process of Decent Homes in their area, these forums have often
set the priorities, so there is a lot of evidence that where landlords
are committed to effective tenant empowerment and tenant involvement,
they work closely with them, and that has led to the Decent Homes
programme being more effective on the ground and we give a number
of examples in our submission. The second area I bring out in
terms of good practice is, if you like, the other party to this
process is the contractors who do the work. Again, where you get
effective contractors who are committed to resident involvement,
and they are working with the landlords and they are working with
the tenants, you get much better performance, and we have seen
that with companies like Lovells, Mears and Frank Haslam Milan.
We see really good practice. So it is possible to deliver really
effectively on the Decent Homes, despite, if you like, the threshold
standards, and it is possible to do that where the tenants and
the landlord and the contractors are working effectively together.
One of the things we would advocate, Chair, is the importance
of contractor accreditation, ie the best contractors we would
expect to show that they can deliver on resident involvement before
they can actually undertake a contract. We think that is a very
important part of the jigsaw.
John Cummings: In view of what you have
told the Committee, should tenant involvement be formalised still
further?
Q48 Chair: Yes or no I think is the
answer to that.
Mr Gelling: Yes, I would say.
Mr Long: The answer is yes.
Q49 Mr Betts: Coming on to the extra
works that might be incorporated, and you have been making various
submissions that environmental works ought to be part of bringing
housing up to a decent standard, looking at community facilities,
things like play facilities for kids, anti-social behaviour has
been an issue, so maybe community wardens I know in some areas
have been very popular, but are any of these functions really
landlord functions as such when they are going to be carried out
for the benefit of the whole community, not just those that pay
their rent?
Mr Gelling: I would say that a
landlord does have a responsibility, as do others. I mean, the
police have a responsibility to be involved, the Primary Care
Trust has an obligation to be involved, so it is not just about
housing, it is about people's quality of life. A person who pays
rent is no less a person than who owns their own property, and
they have an investment in that community, so they would expect
their landlord to engage with other agencies when that improvement
is coming online to see whether or not the other agencies had
resources to put in there to assist.
Q50 Mr Betts: I was not in any way
suggesting that tenants were lesser people, what I was suggesting
maybe was if, say, a community warden service is provided, or
there are general improvements to the open space in an area, and
they are paid for out of tenants' rents, then tenants alone are
paying, but the whole community gets a benefit. Is that not a
problem, that we somehow—maybe landlords are a good mechanism
for dealing with this, but do we have to have the funding done
by different means?
Mr Long: I think there are two,
possibly three issues here. The first is that most of the problems
on the ground require a range of players to be involved, the landlords,
the police, health and so on and so forth, probation and what
have you. Clearly it is wrong for tenants to pick up the bill
for funding the bulk of that activity, and I think one of the
big debates that is taking place now around the reform of council
housing finance is what should be charged to the tenants and what
should be charged to the general taxpayer. I take the view that
there should not be double taxation, and the taxpayer should pick
up the bill for all things such as police, rather than things
which are direct landlord responsibility, so I think that principle
is probably quite clear. I think the third point though is what
is becoming clear to me is that if there is not clarity over what
should be charged to rents and what should be charged to the general
fund, and there is not, but if there is to be clarity on that,
then there has to be the acceptance of a role for the wider community,
and there is a limited role for what tenants should pay so they
do not pay twice, and that issue is still not clear in the current
consultation on council housing finance reform, and there is still
a debate to be had. I suppose the last point, the fourth point,
if I may, Chair, is when local politicians are faced with a choice
between funding a PCSO or funding something to do with health,
and I think of Sheffield's sheltered housing schemes and the healthy
eating programme on that, but when politicians locally are faced
with that choice between funding that and not funding that, what
they end up doing is trying to fund that, and that often does
mean taking it from the housing revenue account when in principle
it should come from the general fund.
Q51 Mr Betts: Can I just move on
to another issue, we have partly touched on it before. There is
some fairly obvious belief that the Decent Homes programme, because
the Government has laid down targets, has actually driven forward
a national programme in a way that probably has not happened before
in this field, but if we move on now into looking at the future,
when you ask people, should all tenants across the country, irrespective
of where they live, be entitled to the same standards that the
Government is going to lay down that everyone has to deliver,
people will probably say yes, of course they should. If we also
say, should there be real emphasis on discussion and participation
with tenants at local level, and their views taken into account,
then of course they should. But what happens if tenants in different
parts of the country have different views about what should be
done?
Mr Long: My take on that would
be that the current move from the TSA towards local standards
is so crucial, and that should be emulated in terms of Decent
Homes, if a community wants to establish a higher standard, and
they can find ways with their landlord to fund that, then that
is for the tenants to make that choice, working on the ground.
So local priorities is a really important thing for me, setting
local standards is a really important thing for me. There clearly
needs to be a minimum standard across the country, but above that,
tenants should in their own communities set the standards. But
then you come back to that fundamental issue: how do you pay for
it?
Mr Gelling: There is the other
issue about empowerment, the TSA are looking at empowerment and
what the empowerment standard is, and that will mean different
things for different people, but as long as there is a core standard
that you cannot come under, you can build on it, you can deal
with it in different ways, and you can achieve it by doing different
things, that should not be a problem, because you will always
get diversity in this country; no matter where you live, you will
get that diversity in reaching the same aim, and people will get
there with different paths. You have to allow that flexibility.
Q52 Mr Turner: When an ALMO or an
LSVT comes along, the stuff that is put on in front of tenants
is fairly good stuff, in the sense that you are going to get a
lot of Decent Homes standards and all the rest of it. Why do you
think tenants in some places do not take the advice of their local
authority and approve it?
Mr Gelling: Why does not the local
authority take the advice of the people who elect them? At the
end of the day, tenants live in a property, it is their home,
the landlord, whoever the landlord is, and housing association
tenants do not have that choice yet; it might be there, on a piece
of paper, but it does not really happen with choice from tenants,
but I think you have to look at the different circumstances of
those organisations where tenants have decided not to transfer,
and you have to go and talk to people about that, and maybe—
Q53 Mr Turner: Can I just interrupt,
I was not just talking about LSVTs, I did mention ALMOs as well.
Mr Gelling: Maybe people do not
realise the value. It is about how you approach the subject with
people, it is about what promises are going to be made, and can
they be kept, and what promises have been made in the past and
not been kept, so why should I trust you this time? You are going
to transfer, I am going to have the best thing since sliced bread
as far as my house is concerned, it has never happened in the
past. I think there is a lot of trust and faith, and you just
cannot turn a thing round in a couple of years and say this is
going to happen.
Mr Long: TPAS would take the view
that it is up to individual tenants within their own landlord
and on the ground to make a judgment as to what is the best way
to generate the funding to improve their estate, so it might be
that the best way to do it is through a stock transfer, it might
be the best way to do it is through the ALMO route, they have
to make that judgment on the ground, and my experience is they
do make those judgments, which is why there have been a large
number of stock transfers. I think what happens in some places
is that tenants are just not convinced by the people pushing a
particular course of action, and that tenants just do not believe
the current director of housing, or the consultants who have come
in. It has varied across the country, but often tenants have,
perhaps against their better instincts, gone for some of the more
radical options, the stock transfer options, because at the end
of the day, they want to create decent homes, decent communities.
I suppose in a sense it would have been better if right at the
start, local authorities had been able to have access to the resources
that you can only get at the current position in the private sector.
Q54 Mr Turner: I think you were in
the room when we were talking earlier with the other panellists
about the Government's housing revenue account proposals for the
changes there. How important do you think that is for tenants?
Mr Long: I think it is crucial.
I think I personally, TPAS personally, if I can say that—
Q55 Chair: TPAS can be personally,
as an organisation.
Mr Long: Yes, TPAS support the
self-financing option, but clearly the issue of the debt needs
to be addressed. Richard from the Chartered Institute of Housing
was raising that issue, clearly the issue of debt needs to be
addressed. We are coming to the conclusion that yes, writing off
the total debt was unlikely, but we think there needs to be some
balance between writing off debt and reallocating debt, and we
think perhaps the key factor there might be some resources have
got to take account from what it is like to deliver services in
the longer term in high cost areas. It is one thing to move to
self-financing in a relatively low-cost area, but to move to self-financing
in Islington or Kensington and Chelsea where I used to work, or
Westminster, is a very different thing. So it might be that actually
one looks at some combination of debt write-off and debt reallocation,
but the debt issue has to be addressed, and I think the high cost
of the service issue has to be addressed.
Q56 Mr Turner: NORA states that in
principle, the provision of social housing should be devolved
to a local level, however there needs to be a system of allocating
funds to deprived regions where tariffs or section 106 funds may
be inadequate. I wonder if you could just expand on that, and
tell us what you mean.
Mr Gelling: We support the proposal,
but it is about local authorities having the ability to do a 20-30-year
financial business plan, so people know exactly what the game
is that is being played, and how the investment is going to roll
out. I think also I would say this. I used to sit on a local authority,
I used to be on the housing committee, I think you cannot ringfence
enough the money around housing revenue account, because that
is so vital that it is not leaked anywhere, because that is one
of the major problems in the past why we were left with properties
that needed so much more investment in them at this current time.
There is an asset here, and it has to be looked after properly,
but local authorities have to have the ability to plan that financially,
so there has to be some kind of continuity; even if Government
changes, even if ministers change, there has to be some continuity
with that kind of financial business plan, to make that happen.
Ms Canham: I think talking about
section 106 contributions, I have heard and had experience of
local authorities who, despite having the chance to collect considerable
amounts of money during the housing boom, have not actually been
very efficient about collecting these amounts of money, and in
some cases, they have been totally lost, and I think there actually
needs to be in place some sort of method of ensuring that local
authorities are collecting these amounts.
Q57 Chair: Can I just clarify, Ms
Canham, do you actually have knowledge of the private sector,
the private rented sector?
Ms Canham: It is mainly only owner
occupied, rather than rented.
Q58 Chair: So not private rented
sector?
Ms Canham: No.
Q59 Alison Seabeck: Finally, the
newly set up TSA have been out having a national conversation,
as they called it. How impressed have your organisations and your
tenants been, and indeed the landlords you have had contact with
been with that process?
Mr Long: TPAS are very supportive
of the TSA. We think in its short life, since last December, it
has made some significant progress. In the first phase of its
national conversation, it got responses from 27,000 tenants, which
is pretty impressive. In the second phase of its consultation,
it has now had responses back from around 700 stakeholders. TPAS
has undertaken some of the consultation on behalf of TSA, so I
need to be open about that. We think it has made real progress,
and we are really looking forward to the publication of the next
set of standards, the statutory consultation phase that TSA is
going to go through, so I think the answer is it has shown so
far a real commitment to tenant empowerment and tenant engagement,
and that is really to be welcomed. If it has a weakness at the
moment, I would say it is in danger of overegging the pudding
a bit, and it must not claim too much progress, but I think its
general philosophy and the way it is going, and its commitment
to involvement, has been very successful. There is still a way
to go. We did a whole bit of work around BME communities on behalf
of the TSA, and I think it was interesting that perhaps the TSA
has not reached out enough into both the vulnerable, the communities
of vulnerable people or into the black and ethnic minority communities,
and I think that is a further piece of work, but I think as a
general rule of thumb, I think the TSA has done very well.
Mr Gelling: I would endorse everything
Nigel has said, but there are other things that happen outside
of the formal consultation that TSA went down, and many tenants
in our organisation, we have a structured organisation of currently
about 5 million people, they have had their own consultation,
they have been talking to their own landlords for the very first
time, some of them, so real meaningful conversations have taken
place between landlords and tenants that has never happened before.
|
