MPs slate decent homes programme
Share
A committee of MPs has slammed the way the decent homes programme has been run, and called for clear proposals on its future.
In a report looking at the scheme, the Public Accounts Committee says the £19 billion estimate of the cost of the programme was ‘not fit for purpose’ and the true cost is likely to be around £37 billion.
It also says it is ‘unacceptable’ that the government lacks ‘basic information, such as the total number of homes made decent’.
The MPs acknowledge that the scheme has improved more than a million homes since 2001, but note that it will fall short of its original aim to bring all social housing up to standard by December 2010, with around 305,000 homes still needing work by that date.
The committee says that if the decent homes programme is to achieve value for money in the long term then local authorities need to have clear plans to prevent a similar maintenance backlog occurring in the future.
The government plans to put local authorities in charge of funding maintenance work, and the committee says ministers must act quickly to finalise these new funding arrangements ‘based on reliable assessments of likely costs and revenues’.
Committee chair Edward Leigh said: ‘The [Communities and Local Government] department must get a grip on the programme and introduce improvements in almost every aspect of its management of the project.
‘We are particularly concerned that the department 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.’
Housing minister John Healey said the department was ‘totally committed’ to seeing decent homes through to completion.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (4)
ILAG | 18/03/2010 4:02 pm
£37 Billion! Wow. Now that's what I call an overspend. No wonder the share prices of the listed "framework agreement" social housing contractors who install the badly made, badly installed and overpriced kitchens and bathrooms that tenants don't want are so high. Labour. Dontcha just love 'em?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Isidoros | 18/03/2010 4:38 pm
I haven't read yet the full report, but from the summaries I've seen it seems reasonable in its general conclusions and I believe that its criticisms-cum-recommendations for the improvements needed are common sense.
However, I must also say that bringing an estimated 1.1m homes up to the DHS and investing c£37bn extra on improvements to council housing (most probably some kind of record in recent times?) is by all accounts an impressive achievement. I think its fair to acknowledge that, despite the reasonable concerns about the planning and procedural shortcomings listed above.
My main worry is whether a change of government may put a break to all that investment and bring us back to the underinvestment, privatisation, demonisation of social housing etc situation that we had started believing was behind us.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
ILAG | 18/03/2010 7:09 pm
In the words of Mandy Rice Davies "Well he would say that wouldn't he?"
Because he Isidoros Diakides (crazy name, crazy guy, even crazier beard) Labour chair of housing at rotten borough Haringey Council. Yes the same Haringey that so screwed up it's DHS finances that it had to pinch £5m from the MRA and screw their leaseholders for ten times the amount that neighbours pay for aerials:
http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/2009/09/5m-raid-for-troubled-haringey-%E2%80%98decent-homes%E2%80%99-project.htm
"£5m raid for troubled Haringey ‘Decent Homes’ project
Money set aside to repair local residents' homes was raided by Haringey Council’s Labour Cabinet last week, after it was forced to pump yet more taxpayers’ money into the troubled ‘Decent Homes’ programme. Over £5 million was diverted from Haringey Council’s Major Repairs Fund to plug a gap in the Decent Homes budget, due to a Labour overspend on digital aerials and pitched roofs.
Only last month it was revealed that the Decent Homes project was £26 million in the red. The Homes for Haringey Gateway Report showed that the project overspent on items that were not shown in the original budget. This threatens work to homes still to be improved by the four year Decent Homes programme.
Local Liberal Democrats, concerned at the continual problems with the Decent Homes programme, have questioned Labour’s ability to control such large financial projects.
Cllr Matt Davies, Liberal Democrat Housing Spokesperson, comments:
“This project is rapidly descending into a financial farce. Sadly, once again, it is the Haringey taxpayer and council leaseholders who will have to pick up the tab for Labour’s financial incompetence.
“The Council’s own report shows that the Decent Homes project is over-budget, thanks to the massive overspend on digital aerials and pitched roofs.
“It may be desirable to have these, but you do not spend money that you do not have and which was never in the original budget.
“Now, Labour have had to dip into the Major Repairs Fund, which was already allocated for urgent repairs, to bail out the Decent Homes Project. It clearly demonstrates yet another Labour financial project that is out of control.”
Lynne Featherstone MP adds:
“This is more evidence of a council in crisis. Council leaseholders are being used as a cash cow, to hide Labour’s financial incompetence in the Decent Homes programme. They have had to fork out over £1000 each, to fund Labour’s reckless spending.”"
----------
So it now appears that Labour's management of the DHS budget on a national level is equally appalling as it's performance on the local level as witnessed in microcosm in North London's most incompetent borough. The sooner these jokers are out of office the better.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Peter | 19/03/2010 4:39 pm
I recall when the DH programme was in its consulting stage, there was a concern about the real costs of carrying the programme successful because there were sufficient evidence at the time that majority of the Councils did not carried out cyclical maintenance or repairs as they should have done. Many councils suspended or scraped capitals programmes because there was a major exercise to reduce their overall expenditure budgets to reflect savings and 'efficiency'. Even at that time (1998) the estimate came in at around £20B to do a 'decent' job. Clearly, that was an estimated costs went out window very quickly and there lots of streamlining in what actually constituted DH. Nevertheless, Labour Party general election's pledge had to be honoured and watered down DH programme went ahead with lots of money being siphoned from other areas.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment