Decisions and deckchairs
The report has implications for housing in general and housing associations in particular that go way beyond how many councils we have, says Shayne Hembrow
Given all the publicity when the report was published you could be forgiven for thinking it was only about local government reorganisation. In truth, hidden in the 353 pages is a raft of changes to public service organisations ranging from community councils to fire authorities, CADW and national park authorities. In addition there are many proposals for changes to regulation, governance and performance management that are very likely to impact housing associations in one way or another.
The degree to which many of the changes will directly affect RSLs will depend on our continued inclusion as a ‘public body’. The premise that we are involved in the delivery of major public services and therefore should be classed as public bodies is one that needs to be robustly challenged if we are to preserve our independence and all that it brings. There is no suggestion that Capita, BUPA or G4S are classed as public bodies yet they provide some of the most significant services for the public.
Putting that to one side, the main proposals could bring positive benefits for both the sector and housing in general. A few of these are summarised below:
• A stronger focus on housing – Resources are a factor in how well councils manage their strategic housing activity, often even more so where the stock has been transferred. Pooling resources will improve the ability to understand the various housing markets in a county, even one that is much larger, the needs of different client groups and the solutions available. Better informed, more integrated strategies will help sustain political and community priority for housing which can only lead to more positive outcomes.
• Health and social care – will the integration of health and social care finally make the obvious and often debated relationship to housing a reality? Perhaps. It will certainly not hinder it and it could help resolve the issue of hospitals, nursing and residential care schemes being used as housing. The recommendation that Powys Council and the Health Board merge could provide a welcome blueprint for the rest of Wales and reduce the present functionalisation that prevents many people getting the services they so badly need.
• Planning – securing the best outcomes from the planning process appears to have got much more difficult in recent years. The process for adopting local development plans has been derailed in several counties and section 106 agreements have not been as productive as they might have been. What impact the level of resources has had on these issues is unclear, though having enough people with the level of skills and experience to successfully negotiate section 106 agreements, or provide the evidence at LDP inquiries for higher levels of affordable housing is likely to be a factor. Developers nvest considerable resources securing the best deal for themselves and larger councils are more likely to be able to match those resources and get better outcomes for their communities.
• Political leadership – the report quite rightly makes much of the need for good leadership and for this to be sufficiently local to understand communities and their needs. Too local though can lead to that focus being parochial and misplaced and the report highlights the high ratio of elected representatives to population in Wales. Ensuring the focus is on the strategic bigger picture balanced with appropriate representation will help secure the best possible leadership which will better serve housing and communities.
• Funding – it is difficult to say if devolution of the social housing grant programme to local authorities has improved outcomes. Programming and timely spend appear to have suffered though perhaps this was to be expected given the relative priority and resources attached to housing in different councils. Ensuring that each of the 22 councils gets a fair share of the limited resources does mean they are often spread thinly. Fewer councils with a larger share would give greater scope to use available grant to better effect. The report recommendation that the Welsh Government require a stronger emphasis on outcomes against national policy objectives will be a challenge for existing structures. The offer of greater autonomy for those organisations that demonstrate their ability to make best use of resources is attractive in reducing the existing level of bureaucracy.
Reducing the number of councils from 22 to 10 or 12, in itself, will not achieve the improvements mentioned above or address the many issues identified in the report. There is a danger that the structural changes of the magnitude proposed will only serve as a distraction from solving the problems that need to be addressed – moving deck chairs on the proverbial titanic. If the focus can stay on solving the real problems and reorganisation is combined with service redesign then the report represents an excellent roadmap for the future.
And as for the assertion that only big is beautiful, in the housing association world, I am sure that will lead to as much challenge as any of the recommendations!
Shayne Hembrow is deputy chief executive of Wales & West Housing