Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
380-399)
RT HON
JOHN HEALEY
MP, MR PETER
MARSH AND
SIR BOB
KERSLAKE
7 DECEMBER 2009
Q380 Mr Betts: In terms of that response
when you come to that aspect of the details of it, is it likely
to set a context in which the Department and yourself calculate
the necessary amount of money that will be needed to properly
maintain properties to a decent standard over the next 20 or 30
years?
John Healey: Yes.
Q381 Mr Betts: That is the sort of
calculation that will be brought forward.
John Healey: Yes, that is precisely
one of the principles on which we wish to base the end of the
current system and the proposition for a new one.
Chair: Can we return to explore the idea
of whether beyond 2010 Decent Homes standards or some other standards
will be higher than they are at present?
Q382 Mr Hands: In terms of looking
at a couple of the problems that have been mentioned to us by
witnesses in some of our written evidence, first of all in terms
of the data collection and the methods of measuring progress,
what steps do you think could be used to improve the process of
measuring progress against the Decent Homes standard, and how
would you improve the comparability of data, which is one of the
other things we heard about, that unfortunately there just does
not seem to have been that much of a level playing-field in terms
of the data provided? What lessons do you think have been learned
from that, and what would you seek to change either in the extension
of the existing programme or in a new programme?
Mr Marsh: There are probably two
different issues at play here. One is different providers, different
landlords, have different interpretations of what the standard
might be for their local communities. That is not to say the baseline
is not clear, I think it absolutely is clear, but a number of
providers have gone beyond the baseline and said that they will
do more than is required by the standard itself and other aspects—for
instance, replacing kitchens en masse even if technically they
were still modern and acceptable. From a tenant's perspective—and
every time we talk to tenants about this particular issue they
raise this—it is about some of the other things that the
programme has helped deliver, which is involvement and choice.
Our standards that will come into force next April will require
each provider to set out clearly how it intends to meet each standard.
So whether it is a degree of interpretation, we will be asking
the councils and the housing associations to say what their interpretation
of decency is and what meeting the Decent Homes standard by 2010
or beyond that means for them and their tenants. By requiring
that to be reported publicly, we think that will improve the transparency
of the difference in quality that is offered over and above the
minimum standard set out in the direction that was issued.
Q383 Mr Hands: Just having them all
report publicly and transparently what standards they are using,
you think will drive comparability of that data. I see what you
are saying. That is quite right.
Mr Marsh: We have to be clear;
we are being asked by the Minister to enforce the Decent Homes
standard as in the direction, and that is either a pass or a fail,
but from a tenant's perspective the quality of the pass can differ.
Being clear about how the quality of the pass differs between
providers I think will help put pressure on those landlords who
have taken a de minimis interpretation of the standard
and help to shine a light on those who are taking it one step
further, given the resource constraints in which they are operating
do vary across the three sub-sectors of social housing.
Q384 Mr Hands: Moving on to the question
of neighbourhoods, how would the neighbourhood standard proposed
by the TSA be assessed? How can you go about doing that? Do you
think it is fair to expect landlords to maintain standards beyond
the dwelling itself, which would be an unusual move but might
be justified?
Mr Marsh: Let me answer the second
question first because that is an easier question to answer. The
answer there is absolutely "yes". Whether or not the
landlord is owning the space or not, many tenants have told us
loud and clear during the national conversation, "Having
a warm, secure and modern facility behind my front door counts,
but I care about the quality of the space outside." That
might be simple things like the regularity of cleaning of the
communal areas, lift maintenance, and issues that are without
doubt the direct responsibility of the landlord; and it can be
more complex issues—the gap between the curtilage of the
home and the public highway can often involve three or four different
agencies, and landlords and local authorities have a requirement
to co-operate with each other in deciding who is meant to do what,
where. As well as things like communal areas and lifts, the other
big issue that tenants are telling us is safety. The neighbourhood
standard can be a powerful way of describing what the public realm
facility will feel like. I recently visited three estates in Westminster.
The work they have been doing in lighting and knocking down some
walls and removing the spaces where people can hide has been transformational,
as transformational as the work indoors. I do not pretend it is
easy. It is very difficult to say there is a national metric on
the quality of neighbourhood; it is far more subtle and complex
than that. However, requiring landlords to work with their tenants
and be clear on an estate by estate basis what a quality neighbourhood
means for them as part of a deal, as part of the rent money is
a good and positive move forward.
Q385 Mr Hands: Do you see it as being
restricted just to physical fabric? You mentioned things like
lift maintenance; could it be extended to areas like anti-social
behaviour on an estate or in a neighbourhood? How far should a
landlord's responsibilities go in that area?
Mr Marsh: It absolutely does extend
to anti-social behaviour. That is why within our neighbourhood
standard we talk about anti-social behaviour and neighbourhood
management as two parts of the same jigsaw. These things can be
linked. I refer back to the Westminster scheme. I learnt for the
first time the power of pink lighting, which is an anti-social
behaviour tool which can be used to deter—I use the phrase
carefully—spotty teenagers from lingering. It is a particular
light that shines up acne that prevents people from wanting to
linger. This is an actual scheme and is not dissimilar from the
use of high-pitched frequency sonar devices in underpass areas.
I think anti-social behaviour is part of the same pitch, but let
us be absolutely clear that anti-social behaviour is a more complex
issue than simply the physical environment, and that is why we
have been working with Government on extending the family intervention
projects across estates.
Q386 Mr Hands: Is there a difference
between the social landlord and the private landlord in terms
of where the definition of their responsibility for the decent
neighbourhood might begin or end? Do you think it would be the
same for both kinds of landlord vis-a"-vis where they should
be and where, say, the police should be?
Mr Marsh: This is a complex issue
that involves the local authority that often is an enforcement
body in relation to noise pollution, the police and landlords.
Often we find, particularly on estates with a significant amount
of right-to-buy, there is a presumption in the public press that
it is always the social rented tenants who have antisocial behaviour
issues; and actually this is where all landlords have to play
their part. We only regulate housing associations and next April
we will regulate local authority landlords too. Many times, an
RSL or a local authority landlord, understanding what they can
do to help identify and deal with anti-social behaviour that emanates
from residents in the private sector, can be key too. Tenure issues
do not stop the responsibility of those partners to work together
to resolve the issues because the kid next door can be as much
of an issue or more of an issue than the child that happens to
live in the property you are renting out.
Q387 Mr Hands: There is also a question
on thermal comfort. Do you think the thermal comfort criterion
is adequate to prevent excess cold and subsequent ill-health and
excess winter deaths? I am not sure who that is best directed
at.
John Healey: To be perfectly frank,
I have no idea about the detail of the thermal comfort measure,
but if that is a question the Committee is interested in, I will
certainly undertake to let you have chapter and verse.
Mr Hands: It was suggested to us for
example by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health that
there be a thermal comfort criterion in the Decent Homes standard.
Q388 Chair: Particularly with earlier
witnesses there was a suggestion that the SAP rating in Decent
Homes, which is only 35, should be 65 as a target for the future.
John Healey: I am not sure I recognise
those SAP figures. What is clear is that one of the impacts and
results of the Decent Homes Programme is that on average people's
fuel bills have been £170 a year or thereabouts less, and
that the SAP ratings have risen higher and faster in the social
sector than in the private sector.
Q389 Chair: I suspect, Minister,
that is because many housing associations and ALMOs have delivered
Decent Homes plus, which is admirable, but the actual Decent Homes
standard is very low and only about 35.
Sir Bob Kerslake: Just to reiterate
what the Minister said, in the social sector the average SAP rating
is 58 compared to 48 in the private sector. In terms of the social
sector the number of dwellings with a SAP rating of 30 or less
has been reduced from in 1996 over 14 per cent of the stock to
less than four per cent, so it is difficult to see how those numbers
reconcile, I think.
Q390 Chair: I think it is the difference
between the standard that is set within the Decent Homes Standards,
which is 35, and what the authorities have actually delivered,
which is indeed for many of them well above the Decent Homes standard.
Sir Bob Kerslake: I think that
is right. The practical reality is that whatever standard is set
the bulk of local authorities now, and housing associations, have
gone higher.
Q391 Chair: Can I push on the issue
of fuel efficiency? Outside the Decent Homes Programme the Government
itself has targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and housing
stock is an important part of that, and social housing stock is
certainly an important part of improving energy efficiency of
existing housing. Has there been any consideration as to how beyond
2010, whatever happens after Decent Homes, it is co-ordinated
with the Government's general programme to try and reduce greenhouse
gas emissions from existing housing, and in particular has there
been any consideration about where the money is going to come
from for what is a huge step in getting social housing to the
sort of energy efficiency levels that will be required if we are
going to meet our greenhouse gas targets?
John Healey: It is indeed a huge
undertaking and would be a huge programme. The answer to the first
part of your question, Dr Starkey, is that that work is going
on at the moment, in particular between our department and Ed
Miliband's department. It is part of the work that is going on
to report on and plan for the future the heat and energy savings
strategy, which is essentially to deal with the fact that two-thirds
of the homes we will be living in in 2050 have already been built
and therefore if we are going to seriously tackle the fact that
more than a quarter of our carbon dioxide emissions as a country
come from our homes, then clearly our homes have to be of a better
and greener and more energy-efficient standard in the future.
We can tackle that on the new homes front, as we will do, with
the 2016 zero carbon homes requirement in regulation, but the
work that we are now doing to put in place plans for the future
for homes that are already built, and we will need still in 2050
is going on but it is complex. It will be costly. In terms of
social housing, we have said that we will look to public housing,
housing associations and council housing, to play something of
a lead role in that sort of programme in future.
Q392 Chair: Are you expecting the
funding to come from the Government or from the utilities, say?
John Healey: I think you will
have to examine the plans in the New Year when we publish them
in order to probe and come to a view about those sorts of questions.
Q393 Chair: I am not sure I am completely
clear. Is the current Government policy that there will not be
a Decent Homes plus standard that will be introduced after 2010?
Is that the case?
John Healey: It depends what you
mean by Decent Homes plus.
Q394 Chair: All right, can I explain
what I mean by it? You have given a commitment, Minister, that
the money will be there one way or another for all social homes
to be brought to the Decent Homes standard, including those homes
which are currently decent but with the passage of time will become
non-decent. What we are trying to find out is whether the Government
is considering, once all the housing has been brought to a decent
standard, actually driving standards up further by having some
sort of successor programme with higher standards, which might
include things like much higher energy efficiency standards, for
example.
John Healey: My concern is to
complete the Decent Homes Programme that we are a long way through,
but for the benefits of the tenants who still have not had their
homes improved, whether that is new glazing, doors, central heating,
insulation, new kitchens or new bathrooms, that we complete that
job. What we are committed to doing in the overhaul of council
house financing in the HRA subsidy system review is to make sure
that we go in the way that Peter Marsh has said, beyond the walls
of the home, to deal with concerns that there are sometimes about
common areas, levels of fire protection, and those elements. We
will base the plans for dismantling the HRA system on those standards.
Alongside that, as I indicated earlier in my answer, in the work
on the heat and energy savings strategy, which is joint work particularly
with the Department for Energy and Climate Change, we are looking
for the longer term at the sort of energy-efficient, carbon-reducing
standards and the refurbishment that will be required in the long
run for all of the homes in our country, private and public housing.
We have said, as a first principle, that where we can we will
look to social housing, or public housing—however you like
to describe it—to play a part in leading the way and setting
any new standards of that for the future.
Q395 Chair: We want to move on to
the private sector but can I confirm with Mr Marsh that TSA will
not only be requiring social landlords to maintain the Decent
Homes standard but will require them to agree additional standards
locally, which can only be higher not lower?
Mr Marsh: Under the direction
we are required to ensure that providers maintain Decent Homes
and we require providers to be clear about their interpretation
of that standard. Where they can, and where resources allow, we
will encourage the development of a local standard beyond the
Decent Homes minimum.
John Healey: I will supply the
Committee with detail of this tomorrow. I am announcing today
a programme assessment of the Decent Homes. I am concerned that
some local authorities, the poorest performing local authorities,
are going backwards. I want to make sure that they are not letting
their tenants down, and that they are also getting the benefit
of the lessons learned in other areas. I am concerned, for instance,
that 27 local authorities have seen their levels of Decent Homes
drop backwards in the last year. I am concerned that ten authorities
had more than a third of their stock at the end of 2008-09, in
other words April this year, non-decent. I am particularly concerned
that 14 authorities had an increase in their non-decent stock
over the last couple of years of 10 per cent or more of the total
homes for which they are responsible, and this is a programme
assessment that will be completed by the end of February and to
which I am looking to your Committee's report to make a substantial
contribution—and I welcome your report for when you produce
it.
Q396 Mr Hands: How much funding has
been made available through the Decent Homes Programme for improvements
in the private sector and what work have you carried out to assess
the value for money of the work carried out with that funding?
John Healey: Roughly £1 billion
over this spending review period. Bob, can you give an indication
of how we track the spending?
Sir Bob Kerslake: It is tracked
predominantly through the local authorities; the funding goes
directly through to them from the private rented sector, not through
the HCA in this instance. The tracking is done through the local
authorities and through regional arrangements for funding.
Q397 Mr Hands: Are you satisfied
that value for money has been achieved? It is all very well saying
it has been tracked through the local authorities, but who is
seeing whether value for money is achieved? Is that only the local
authorities or are you also assessing their returns centrally?
John Healey: That would be a matter
for our department and the Audit Commission in their routine programmes
of ensuring that local government is spending and delivering effectively.
Q398 Mr Hands: So there are no additional
checks on them, no specific checks on the private sector funding?
John Healey: We are able, through
the returns we get from local authorities and from the regions,
to trace the impact of the Government investment that we make
in this programme. Disentangling what is central government contribution
from what is normally supplemented to and added to by local authorities
is clearly more difficult.
Q399 Mr Hands: It sounds as though
it would be very difficult on that basis to assess the value for
money of that £1 billion of investment.
John Healey: I think what we can
point to, though, is the figures for the number of homes or number
of vulnerable households in particular that may have been helped
over any reference period by the sort of investment we have been
prepared to make into the private sector in the Decent Homes Programme.
| 
