The housing minister Grant Shapps announced the other day that extra funding for decent homes may no longer be restricted to ALMOs who have acheived a two-star rating. Under proposals published by the HCA, councils who have opted to retain their housing management under direct control would also be allowed to bid for extra money. The consultation paper can be found here: http://bit.ly/aSQDlT
This plan has prompted responses along the lines of "Unfair! How dare you change the rules when all those ALMOs have 'jumped through all those hoops' to get their 2 stars in order to get their hands on the dosh". Well perhaps we need to step back and think about this a bit. Maybe Mr Shapps is actually doing something positive for once. Amongst the many negative things that he has done so far - and there have been many - he could be about to change a deeply flawed policy that Blair and Brown would not be shifted on. Blair's government set the decent homes standard, which has to be seen as a positive policy due the history of underinvestment in the council housing stock by successive governments. But then came the catch - only councils who were willing to jump those 'hoops' were able to access the money to enable them to reach the decent homes standard. And despite successive Labour Party conferences voting in favour - the so-called 'fourth option' of investing in 'traditional' council housing under a democratically elected local authority - was steadfastly ignored by the Labour leadership. Only those councils who agreed to transfer their stock to a housing association or to set up an Arms Length Management Organisation (ALMO), were able to obtain additional funds to reach the minimum decency standard. On top of that, New Labour said that only those ALMOs which reached the Audit Commission's 2 star (good) rating would qualify. Hence the 'hoop jumping' complaints.
This plan has prompted responses along the lines of "Unfair! How dare you change the rules when all those ALMOs have 'jumped through all those hoops' to get their 2 stars in order to get their hands on the dosh". Well perhaps we need to step back and think about this a bit. Maybe Mr Shapps is actually doing something positive for once. Amongst the many negative things that he has done so far - and there have been many - he could be about to change a deeply flawed policy that Blair and Brown would not be shifted on. Blair's government set the decent homes standard, which has to be seen as a positive policy due the history of underinvestment in the council housing stock by successive governments. But then came the catch - only councils who were willing to jump those 'hoops' were able to access the money to enable them to reach the decent homes standard. And despite successive Labour Party conferences voting in favour - the so-called 'fourth option' of investing in 'traditional' council housing under a democratically elected local authority - was steadfastly ignored by the Labour leadership. Only those councils who agreed to transfer their stock to a housing association or to set up an Arms Length Management Organisation (ALMO), were able to obtain additional funds to reach the minimum decency standard. On top of that, New Labour said that only those ALMOs which reached the Audit Commission's 2 star (good) rating would qualify. Hence the 'hoop jumping' complaints.
Whilst I can fully understand the feelings of these ALMOs (and their 'parent' councils) who believe that they have had to implement considerable changes in order to meet government targets. But, was the original Labour policy 'fair'? Complaints by several local housing authorities who, for a variety of reasons, chose not to become a housing association or an ALMO, were that they too could have achieved - and many did - a 2 star or even a 3 star rating, but that there was no opportunity to access extra resources. This clearly led to a belief that the policy was more about who owns and manages the housing stock rather than about the actual need for investment. The challenge now for the council/ALMO sector is to resist accusations of unfairness and try to work within a policy framework which although is not perfect, may just be an improvement on what was there before.
A further point is maybe there are some ALMOs who have successfully jumped their hoops and are now delivering improved services for their tenants and have carried out major investment works to their stock - have perhaps made a jump in the right direction?
No comments:
Post a Comment