Document leak shows HCA is 'under review'
Share
The future of the Homes and Communities Agency looks uncertain as a leaked government document reveals that it is under review.
The document, seen by the Daily Telegraph, reveals that 177 organisations face the chop as the government looks to abolish some quangos to help tackle the deficit, with a further 94 still under review.
A statement from the Cabinet Office on the accuracy of the claims said: ‘The cabinet secretary has this morning asked for an immediate investigation into the leak of a government document on public bodies reform. We deeply regret any extra uncertainty for employees that this irresponsible leak has caused.’
Design body CABE and the social housing regulator the Tenant Services Authority also feature as ‘under review’, as well as the Buildings Regulations Advisory Committee.
The government is consulting on the future of the TSA, and housing minister Grant Shapps has made it clear he wants it abolished. However he has previously said the HCA would continue in a leaner and more focused form.
A HCA spokesperson said: ‘The housing minister has made it clear that the HCA will continue as a smaller and more streamlined enabling and investment agency with an important role to play in helping local authorities achieve ambitions for their communities.’
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (10)
Anonymous | 24/09/2010 5:09 pm
More importantly, what about the Leasehold Advisory Service and the Residential Property Tribunal Service.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jimmy Devlin | 24/09/2010 5:56 pm
Is TPAS included in that list?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 24/09/2010 6:49 pm
If there is any justice in this world then TPAS must be on the list.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
ILAG | 24/09/2010 6:50 pm
Good point there Anon. LAS is under review and RPTS subject to merger with other entities:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8021780/Quango-cuts-full-list-of-bodies-under-review.html
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Junior | 24/09/2010 10:10 pm
I Cannot see the tpas on the list
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Milliways | 25/09/2010 9:40 am
As far as I'm aware, TPAS is not a government body, but is funded by its membership. This list is about Non-Departmental Public Bodies, also known as quangos or arm's length bodies, that are established by primary legislation and funded by tax-payers'money through grant-in-aid. National Tenant Voice however is on the 'abolition' list.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 25/09/2010 10:33 am
TPAS isn't a quango, unfortunately. It's a company.
Shapps has already confirmed that the HCA will stay. That either makes the Telegraph ill informed (old list?) or Shapps a liar.
Either way, this has contributed to a great deal of angst and worry amongst housing proessionals connected with - and working for - the HCA.
And you have contribtued to this - well done!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dave Hollins | 25/09/2010 12:08 pm
Scrapping the NTV without a word of consultation with tenants is a complete disgrace.
Along with getting rid of the TSA, it's a sure sign that the Tories and Liberals have no interest whatsoever in listening to what tenants have to say and reducing their options for opposing their reactionary policies.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 25/09/2010 2:56 pm
NTV and TSA were complete wastes of time and money writ large.
The avenue for tenant representation should be through councillor and MP.
Definitely not through this bunch of marzipan liggers who quickly establish their primary function as existing in as fine a fashion as possible at the taxpayers' expense.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 25/09/2010 3:45 pm
John Redwood thinks so too:
It was good yesterday to wake up to a front page splash saying there will be a substantial cull of quangos. It was even better to hear that the Cabinet Secretary is launching a leak enquiry, implying it was a serious leak and there is substance behind the story.
Labour in Opposition in the 1990s attacked quangos. They rightly thought then that there were too many, that they were increasing in size and power too rapidly, and they needed to be diminished. In government they went the other way, soon abandoning any pretence that they wanted fewer and leaner quangos. Instead every problem had a piece of legislation and a quango or two as the answer. They expanded the number, budgets and powers way beyond anything undertaken by their predecessors in office.
Today the new Coalition government seems to grasp that quangos are the soft underbelly of the overextended state. They are often a needless or excessive layer of government. If a quango has a budget to spend on something worthwhile, let it be spent by the Ministers and officials of Whitehall or the Councillors and officers of Town Hall whose salaries we are already paying. We do not need another bunch of officials to supervise it. If its spending is at best marginal and at worst a waste of money, then close the budget as well as the quango.
If there is overlap, merge and reduce the amagamated overhead. If the quango has some independent regulatory function make sure it is doing it well, efficiently, and that it is a necessary function.
We set out this approach to quango reduction in the Economic Policy review. We saw it as complementary work to deregulation, as often the deregulation initiaitive produced areas of regulation organised by quangos that could be abolished together.
The quango state has allowed the multiplication of Chief Executives and senior executive personnel, large expenditures on corporate overheads, consultants, logo making, marketing and advertising. It has created shadow taxation regimes as people and businesses are charged ever higher fees for the services and regulatory clearances they have to take from the quango state. It is high time there was a good reveiw of how much of this is necessary, and a concerted effort to cut the overhead. If government can do more for less anywhere easily, it must be in quangoland. If government should do less for much less in any area, it is also in quangoland.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment