Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
400-409)
RT HON
JOHN HEALEY
MP, MR PETER
MARSH AND
SIR BOB
KERSLAKE
7 DECEMBER 2009
Q400 Mr Hands: On a pound-for-pound
basis have you got more homes moved up to the Decent Homes standard
in the private sector than in the public sector? That would seem
to be a simple value-for-money assessment you could do. Is that
true?
John Healey: I have not made those
calculations because I am not sure you can draw a pound-for-pound
comparability between the range of circumstances you find in the
private sector with what is essentially a public housing programme,
which is the Decent Homes Programme. I am going to let the Committee
have the data that we have from the regions on this—Mr Hands,
if you want to do those sums, then you can do them.
Q401 Mr Hands: But you have already
said, judging by the fact that you have data in front of you that
show which local authorities are lagging in getting the number
of their homes up to the Decent Homes standard—its sounds
like you will be naming and shaming particular local authorities—on
that basis you must be able to see how many homes you have brought
up to Decent Homes standard in both private and public sector
in each authority, and you should be able to make an assessment
on whether you are getting a better bang for the buck in giving
money to the private sector than to the public sector.
John Healey: That is not correct.
I am able, as you would expect, to track the progress of local
authorities and housing associations, particularly local authorities,
through the Decent Homes Programme which we put in place for public
housing. The condition of private sector home housing, local area
by local area, is a matter for which there is a general responsibility
for local authorities to make an assessment of. Therefore it is
not possible to make a direct comparison between an assessment
of a programme designed and delivered for social housing and that
designed to help some of the most vulnerable households in a very
wide range of circumstances in the private sector.
Sir Bob Kerslake: I wanted to
emphasise the point that the Minister is making. The goal in relation
to the private rented sector is different. The focus there is
on the number of vulnerable people in non-decent housing, and
therefore focused more on the person than the handling of the
whole of the stock. If you look at the performance in increasing
the number of people deemed vulnerable in decent housing in the
private rented sector—overall that progress has been quite
strong towards the target. But a like-for-like comparison is not
relevant because you are trying to achieve different things. In
the case of the social housing sector the aim is to do all stock;
in the case of the private rented sector the focus has been on
those people deemed vulnerable living in private rented stock
rather than the whole of the stock. It is doing a different job.
What we can say is that as far as that is measured, progress towards
that target is good.
Q402 Mr Hands: I still think you
should be able to look at the amount of money being put in and
the number of homes, regardless of the type of household within
them and to see on a pound-for-pound basis. There may not be a
direct comparison but you should be able to look at the data—which
worries me about whether you are getting value for money or whether
you really have any figures to test the value for money.
Mr Hand: Mr Hands, we can certainly
do that and I will ensure the Committee has that data. What both
Bob Kerslake and I are saying to you is that because the programmes
are different and the policy purposes behind them are different,
then making a direct comparability between the private sector
programme and the public sector programme cannot be done.
Q403 Mr Hands: Here I am looking
at non-decent homes by tenure, 2006-07, published in the English
House Condition Survey, so clearly you are able to assess the
number of non-decent homes. I appreciate you are saying it is
targeted in a much more specific way in the private sector but
I would still have thought you should be able to look at how much
you have achieved on a pound-for-pound basis. I would like to
know what your intention is for the future of the Decent Homes
Programme in the private rented or even owner-occupied sectors.
What are you doing going forward in the private sector?
John Healey: On the Decent Homes
Programme?
Q404 Mr Hands: Yes.
John Healey: That would be a matter
that we will consider for the next spending review period, and
we will make those judgments and decisions accordingly.
Q405 Mr Hands: Are you expecting
any change in the approach that you currently have to the private
sector?
John Healey: I think it is too
early to tell. We are barely half-way through the current three-year
spending review. These are matters that will be properly considered,
and decisions will be taken, for 2011-12 onwards.
Q406 Chair: Quite a lot of witnesses
in earlier sessions, not actually the ones today, have made the
point about imposing the Decent Homes standard in the private
rented sector for example, that the local authorities do not have
enough environmental health officers, they do not inspect the
properties; they are reactive not prospective; and that the focus
on vulnerable tenants is slightly problematic in that vulnerable
tenants, as everybody else, move, so you have non-decent homes
that would then cease to be non-decent because the vulnerable
tenant has moved out of it, or vice versa. There has been a huge
range of criticisms of the approach of Decent Homes in relation
to the private rented sector in particular and slightly less so
to owner-occupiers.
John Healey: Clearly, where those
criticisms are well based and where there is good evidence, and
particularly where there are any conclusions that this Committee
might draw as a result of this inquiry, we would take those into
account in coming to the sort of decisions that will be necessary
during the course of next year.
Q407 Mr Betts: Is it because the
private rented sector was an afterthought (because it was not
part of the original programme) in terms of tackling the private
rented sector and the problems that exist there, there might be
a different strategy from the Decent Homes Programme which is
completely separate and actually encourages local authorities
to go out there and look at the problems that exist, as many of
them seem currently not to have a policy for dealing with, and
putting a private rented sector strategy together in each area?
John Healey: There is a different
strategy for the private rented sector Decent Homes from the public
sector rented homes, and we have made that point already. There
is a variation in the degree to which local authorities currently
have sought an assessment of the private sector Decent Homes problems
in their area, and the question for the future of some of the
things that we are concerned about in the Decent Homes for the
private sector is clearly linked to any decisions that Government
may take on a broader front, including, as we discussed earlier,
the heat and energy savings strategy.
Q408 Mr Betts: There is a feeling,
and certainly witnesses have said to us that local authorities
very often do not appear to have a strategy; that there are powers
around HMOs but they probably do not go far enough. There are
powers possibly around selective licensing where there are real
difficulties in the private sector, and very few local authorities
have come forward to request government support for going down
these routes. Is that not concerning, that really there ought
to be a wider look into and that we are not getting it back from
local authorities at present?
John Healey: Both the area of
selective licensing and the question of a case for an extension
on houses for multiple occupation powers are areas that I am looking
at very carefully at the moment. They are not necessarily simply
about Decent Homes, as you appreciate, Mr Betts. Were we to look
at some obvious steps in each of those areas, they may not necessarily
have a direct impact on the Decent Homes concerns that this Committee
is looking at at the moment.
Q409 Chair: Can I ask one very specific
question. Private sector housing was in PSA7 and now it is being
monitored as a legacy target. What does that mean?
John Healey: If I may, I will
set that out in writing for you.
Chair: Okay. If it does not mean anything
just tell us it does not mean anything and then we can get rid
of it. Thank you very much indeed.
| 
