By Richard Johnstone | 9 December 2011
The National Housing Federation has hit out at ministers’ calls for social landlords to be more transparent about their spending, saying they do not want to become government bodies ‘by default’.The row follows a letter from housing minister Grant Shapps on December 7 to NHF chief executive David Orr, which urged housing associations to make a ‘voluntary offer’ on greater transparency within the sector.
Shapps said the sector ought to ‘keep pace with the government’s own actions on transparency’ because it receives public money to provide affordable housing.
He added: ‘I firmly believe that all bodies – be they public or private – that receive significant amounts of public funding should be more transparent and more open to scrutiny.’
But Orr responded that he failed to see ‘why it was a matter for government, given our members are not public sector bodies’.
Shapps also warned that without ‘a comprehensive offer on transparency as soon as possible’, the Freedom of Information Act could be extended to cover associations that receive public funds, such as affordable rent grants.
The whole sector should follow in the example of the Home Group housing association, he said, which has voluntarily published details of all its spending over £500. This is the threshold that the government and local authorities use.
Orr insisted that housing associations were already ‘transparent, accountable and open’ in their operations, through three codes of practice.
The NHF had previously asked Shapps to be ‘more explicit about what additional measures you thought were necessary’, he said.
‘It seemed to come down to a requirement to publish all expenditure over £500, with no explanation of why this would be helpful.
‘Our difficulty now is that we remain unclear as to precisely the problem which needs to be resolved. There is no actual evidence of members refusing to provide information and you have given no indication as to the limitations in members’ reporting to their tenants.’
Any extension of the FoI to housing associations would have to prove ‘whether or not housing associations carry out functions of a public nature’, Orr said.
The government has not proposed extending the transparency requirements to other major recipients of public funds, such as prime contractors under the Work Programme, he added.
‘We do not think it appropriate for the National Housing Federation, or the government, effectively to require housing associations to use measures that have been designed for government departments and local government.’
