Recommendation 44

We asked MHCLG about its understanding of the impact that £3.8 billion of self–remediation costs might have on social sector housebuilding, and whether it had undertaken any assessment of how many houses would not be built because money was being spent on remediation. MHCLG told us that it was “certainly the case” that social housing providers were having to balance a range of obligations. We therefore asked if it was reasonable to conclude that when local authorities were deciding whether and when to complete remediation works, they were having to cut back on their commitments on new homes. MHCLG accepted that where a social housing provider was spending money on one type of activity, it would not be able to spend money on another type of activity. It told us that this was one of the reasons why Ministers planned to take stock of the overall position of the sector ahead of a strategy in the spring.76 MHCLG wrote to us after our evidence session to tell us about its response to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 report, and that it was taking forward an “ambitious programme of social housing reform” to change how residents’ voices are heard and acted on, to “keep people at the heart of policy and practice.” 77 73 Qq 21,60, 62; C&AG’s Report, para 3.11 74 Qq 28, 64 75 Q 28; Letter from National Housing Federation to Committee of Public Accounts, 11 February 2025 76 Qq 62-64, 74 77 Letter from Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to Committee of Public Accounts, 18 February 2025 26