MPs blast DCLG over "weak" control of Decent Homes programme

MPs this week slammed the government over the running of its flagship Decent Homes programme, arguing that there was insufficient information on its impact and how much money was being spent.

The Public Accounts Committee acknowledged that there had been “substantial progress’ towards the objective that all social housing should be of a decent standard by December 2010.

More than one million homes have been improved since 2001, and wider benefits of the programme include greater tenant involvement in housing decisions and the creation of jobs in deprived areas.

But the MPs said it was unacceptable that the Department for Communities and Local Government lacked basic information, such as the total number of homes made decent.

The committee also described as “unsatisfactory” that the DCLG did not identify the likely cost of the programme at the start.

The £19bn estimate the government did prepare was not ‘fit for purpose’, the report said, as it omitted the cost of improving housing that would fall below standard as the programme progressed, the cost of inflation and the costs to registered social landlords. The total cost to local authorities and RSLs is likely to have been £37bn by 2010/11.

The DCLG should, when setting up major programmes in future, “be clear on what costs it is letting itself in for, and then put in place arrangements that enable the costs it then incurs to be accurately identified”.

The report said that local authorities need clear plans in place to prevent the build up of another maintenance backlog. It is therefore “vital” that the DCLG acts quickly to finalised funding arrangements with individual councils.

The committee also said that the DCLG should examine why arms length management organisations have spent more on improvements per property than local authorities that retained their stock.

As part of its current evaluation of the Decent Homes programme, the Department should similarly consider whether the policy decision not to provide additional funding to some local authorities – those that wished to retain day-to-day management of the housing stock – “has had a negative impact on value for money, for example, if lack of funding led to cheap materials being used that consequently needed to be replaced earlier”.

Calling on the DCLG to “get a grip” on the programme, Edward Leigh, chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, said: “Huge amounts of money are being spent without anywhere near enough information available on the impact of the programme and precisely how much is being spent.

"The initial estimate by the DCLG that the cost to the social housing sector of the programme would be £19 billion was unreliable. The Department had failed to take into account key factors such as the cost of the programme not only to local authorities but also to registered social landlords. This is indicative of a generally weak approach to financial control and project management. The Department still does not possess reliable statistics on the number of homes made decent or not.”

Leigh said the committee was particularly concerned that the DCLG will not do enough to make sure that landlords can complete the outstanding improvement work and that improved properties will not fall back into disrepair.