Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
167-179)
MS SUE
ADAMS, MR
JOE OLDMAN
AND MR
STEVE MALONE
10 NOVEMBER 2009
Q167 Chair: Good morning. Can I start
the questioning off? If you agree with whatever the first witness
has said, do not feel obliged to say it again; that way we will
obviously cover the greatest amount of ground. Can I start off
by asking you how successful you think the Decent Homes programme
has been overall and then, specifically, how successful you think
it has been in relation to the private sector?
Mr Malone: We think that the Decent
Homes programme has been hugely successful in the social rented
sector predominantly around the fact that there are targets focused
on the priority and level of funding. We have to say, however,
that we feel it has had limited impact in the private sector;
there has been no noticeable change in stock conditions shown,
by CLG statistics—there are still considered to be around
1.23 million vulnerable people in owner-occupied and private rented,
which is about 39% of properties. We feel that there is a likelihood
of this figure increasing with deteriorating economic conditions
and the increasing levels of extreme vulnerability (so issues
around pensions, savings equity values in homes, unemployment
and demographic implications), and we feel that the primary reasons
for the lack of impact include the lack of dedicated funding—some
examples are around private sector renewal funding shift of £75
million—the lack of targets in a non-mandatory regime, a
lack of prioritisation driven by a lack of targets, and consideration
of the broader implications around health and social care costs.
Q168 Chair: In expanding on that,
can you address whether you think it is down to specific difficulties
of the private sector that are to do with non-delivery?
Mr Oldman: I think there is a
specific issue around the private rented sector. Obviously, in
terms of standards, that is the most problematic sector, but there
have been particular difficulties (and I think it was raised in
relation to Supporting People) that older, private tenants have
had particular difficulty in terms of accessing grants for repairs
and adaptations. I think we are hoping that the current review
of the private rented sector, through the Rugg Review, will actually
look at conditions within the sector and their impact on older
people.
Q169 Chair: Can you expand on the
difficulty? Mr Oldman, you alluded to the difficulties for older
private sector tenants in gaining access to grants. Can you briefly
explain why?
Mr Oldman: I think there has always
been an issue with regulated private tenants and the whole difficulty
about having improvements carried out, and the fear of landlords
trying to gain vacant possession. That has always been a fear,
particularly for vulnerable, older people. So there has always
been that kind of barrier in terms of the legal framework which
has made it difficult, but, also, in terms of older people, because
it is such a diverse sector, the whole problem of identifying
older people and then actually making contact with the relevant
services.
Ms Adams: Just to add. We have
looked at the data in a great deal of detail from the introduction
of the Decent Homes standard in 1996, and it started out with
pretty large-scale investment, so social rented housing was a
very coherent programme of mass investment, and a huge impetus
and a very high profile target as well. So it got off to a very
strong start. Actually, even back in 1996, for the private sector
it did have a target, at that point, which was originally given
equal weight to the 2010 in the non-decent social rented. At that
stage, again, there was a grant system that was relatively accessible
to people, and quite a lot of local support. Then we have seen
that, gradually, that has tailed off. When you read the various
aspirational documents of the Department, there is quite a lot
of wishful thinking that you can reduce any investment in private
sector housing and equity release and the private market will
step in and fill the gap, and I do not think we have seen much
evidence that that wishful thinking has actually happened in reality,
particularly amongst the older old. So I think that is possibly
one of the reasons for the tailing off.
Q170 Chair: I am sorry—particularly
amongst the—?
Ms Adams: Older old. The over-75s.
Q171 Anne Main: On the older old,
I would be grateful if you could qualify what you mean by "older
old" when we are talking about this. Should any priority
be given to improve the decency of old people's housing over and
above other groups? I do not know if you are going to split it
down into "old" and "older old" or just "older".
If you could be specific.
Ms Adams: I think there is a case
to be made for prioritising action in older people's homes.
Q172 Anne Main: Can you give a category
of old?
Ms Adams: Okay. Just looking straightforwardly
at the evidence, older people over retirement age in private sector
housing are more likely to be living in non-decent homes, but
then that really starts to escalate when you hit over-75 and then
over-85—each of those deciles—which is all we have
to go on, in terms of social policy. There is a step change at
each level. I look at why should Decent Homes be addressing the
older old—the over-75s, the over-85s? My strongest argument
is that we have a health and social care policy and a policy around
ageing and older people that says: "Enable independence for
longer; enable older people to live in their own homes for longer,
have preventative activities in the home that reduce accidents,
reduce falls and make people healthier", but we do not seem
to have a private sector housing driver that targets resources
at the people in the worst housing at that end. So the argument,
for me, that any social interventions are on private sector housing,
targeted at those who have preventative health and social care
needs or reduced health and social care needs, to me, is a strong
enough argument. On top of that argument, when you analyse people's
incomes and savings, and who is in the worst housing, it is single
older women who see a big drop in income; for people over-75 and
over-85 you get a massive drop off in their savings and, of course,
they are less able to actually do the things in the house themselves.
Q173 Anne Main: Are you arguing,
then, just doing the various deciles that you have just described,
and even whether you are male or female, for prioritisation within
a priority category?
Ms Adams: I am arguing for prioritisation
on basic health and social care benefit, and I think there are
models where locally people are—local authorities—
Q174 Anne Main: You can have a fantastically
fit 82-year old, like my father-in-law, and a more fragile 65-year-old.
How are you going to do it? You are not going to do it just on
age then?
Ms Adams: No, you can do it on
health. I am saying that when you look at where people live, on
statistical averages, then you can make statements that they are
more likely to be in poor housing over a certain age group. If
you refine that further and say: "How would you implement
that locally?" it seems to me the good examples we have come
across are where there are good health and social care needs.
Q175 Anne Main: You have just argued
against yourself about prioritising for the older old and then
actually saying that you should be looking at it as a package.
I am trying to get from you, do you really believe it should be
prioritised on age (because you specifically did say that) or
actually, no, not age?
Ms Adams: If you want a very simplistic
system which has age cut-offs, there are benefits to being over
that. If you want to have a subtler system that is locally managed,
then you would tag it to joint health and social care assessment.
I think I am giving you two options: a very simplistic system
which has age levels, and age bars, and a more sophisticated system
which will tackle health inequalities and age inequalities, which
would have a more targeted, local focus, where it is linked to
health and social care. There are models where people are doing
that.
Q176 Chair: Just briefly, would you
go along with that, or do you think there ought to be a different
strategy?
Mr Malone: I think I would agree
with what Sue said there, the emphasis not being a homogenous
group.
Q177 Chair: The same with you, Mr
Oldman?
Mr Oldman: Yes, I agree with that
and, obviously, the health and safety rating system is an assessment
looking at the individual context of the conditions.
Chair: Indeed, we are just coming to
that, I think.
Q178 John Cummings: Why do you think
it is that local authorities are not using their statutory powers
to improve private housing? Do you have any examples of local
authorities which are working effectively in that area?
Mr Malone: I think there are a
variety of reasons why local authorities are not using their statutory
powers. Where it is not working well it is issues around effective
targeting, as we have just discussed there; it is issues around
joined up working and the pooling of funds between adult social
care and health and housing, and there seems to be, because of
the lack of a mandatory nature to the scheme, a lack of emphasis
around enforcement in that respect, and, quite often, capacity
within local authorities to achieve those levels of enforcement.
Q179 John Cummings: Are you saying
it is ineptitude rather than any decision?
Mr Malone: No, I do not think
I am, to be honest with you; I think sometimes there are challenges
within the local authority in terms of structure and the way local
authorities are working, and the priorities are different within
local areas. So I do not think it is ineptitude; I think it is
around the fact that there are no national targets.
| 
