星空传媒

But news of the so-called "end-to-end" review 鈥� designed to see if the government is getting the best out of the corporation in its dealings with registered social landlords and bodies such as regional housing boards 鈥� has also revived the debate into the future of the corporation. Although corporation insiders welcome the review as a chance to shake up how the government deals with the organisation, RSLs have a perfect opportunity to ask themselves what they want of their regulator. Whereas some associations would like to work closer with it, others would prefer a lightening of their regulatory burden.

Potential for change
At the corporation, many hope the review will encourage the government to cut through some of the micro-management it imposes on the corporation. For example, the ODPM issues affordable housing targets and chases up the corporation on monthly figures.

One corporation insider said: "This is a review of the methods used by the ODPM and the corporation to get affordable housing delivered. Maybe we should be involved in helping set targets, rather than just monitoring them. It's really about finding a process that allows the corporation to do what it's supposed to do without the ODPM micro-managing the process."

Other observers suggest that the review could also encourage a role for the corporation in investigating how ODPM policy is implemented. Andrew Heywood, senior policy adviser at the Council of Mortage Lenders, says: "There's something to be said about the corporation taking a tougher line, being more of an independent commentator. Off-site manufacturing is one area where this could happen. Will there be demand further down the line, for example?

If this new drive to boost supply is to be successful, the Housing Corporation may be the right body to do that."

Chief executive Norman Perry is confident of gaining Whitehall's seal of approval for the corporation's current working practices. "We're happy to have the opportunity to confirm that our continuous improvement programme is effective," he says. "We are actually quite keen to have an effective study of the way in which policy is taken up within the ODPM and then communicated to the corporation."

RSL chief executives have been quick to say what they hope to gain from the review: a reduction in the day-to-day burden of regulation. The corporation has put a great deal of emphasis on the "lighter touch" of its remodelled regulation regime. But although inspections are no longer part of the corporation's business, RSLs with more than 250 homes still have to deal with regulation teams doing risk assessments and continuous financial appraisals. Contrary to the corporation's stated intention, the tide of bureaucracy continues to mount, says Michael Kent, chief executive of Bromford Housing Group. "We now need full-time employees just to read and digest the outpourings of the corporation," he says. "Most of the corporation's initiatives are entirely logical, but for every new requirement the corporation needs to ask itself: how much will it cost and will we remove an equivalent burden? At the moment there is no evidence it is doing that."

Tom Manion, chief executive at Irwell Valley Housing Association, suggests that RSLs be allowed more scope for self-regulation. "There needs to be some acknowledgement for the self-assessment that associations do," he says. "It's still too difficult to have a frank, honest discussion with the corporation because of the way it wields its power."

Others, however, want to see more flexibility in relation to investment rather than regulation. David Cowans, chief executive of Places for People Group, says the corporation's relationship with developing housing associations needs to become more responsive. Plans to scrap restrictive funding rules, due out this month, don't go far enough, he says. "There needs to be better supply-chain management if associations are going to be able to build houses on the scale the government is asking for. We need proactive arrangements with the corporation that allow us to react quickly." The corporation could speed things up by funding the acquisition of sites, he suggests.

RSLs may think it fair for the corporation to be grilled on its performance, but certainly nobody wants the organisation that has overseen 拢25bn in public spending since its establishment in 1964 to be given early retirement. And there is little desire to see it lose prestige or be forced into a merger with regeneration quango English Partnerships 鈥� an idea that has been mooted. "I'd hope the review wouldn't find an overlap between the corporation and English Partnerships," says Perry.

Prove it or lose it
These are already difficult times for the Housing Corporation. Charged with the dual responsibilities of regulating more than 2000 housing associations and handling the investment in social housing of more than 拢1bn each year, it is under unprecedented pressure to demonstrate its effectiveness.

The corporation's regulatory framework was overhauled in 2002 and it has successfully devolved part of its work to regional offices. RSLs are now said to enjoy a far better relationship with their regional corporation offices than with central office, and the possibility of passing the bulk of the corporation's responsibilities to the regions has been suggested. Meanwhile, the corporation's attempts to focus on delivery have risked alienating large sections of the social housing sector; the Audit Commission took responsibility for the inspection of RSLs in April; the corporation's powers over investment stand to be diluted within two years and the departure of chair Baroness Dean in October may cost it political clout. "The cumulative effect of these blows means the corporation needs to have new purpose," says Tony Stacey, chief executive of South Yorkshire Housing Association.

A poor show in the review would raise questions about the best way for regulating and investing in housing associations 鈥� a prospect likely to appeal to very few at the corporation. But RSLs are voicing support and the housing sector wants to see its regulator in good health.

As Irwell Valley chief executive Tom Manion says: "The review will be a painful process for the corporation to go through, but there's no reason why it shouldn't benefit from the odd check-up."