§ 2.45 p.m.
§ Baroness Turner of CamdenMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest. This is an issue that has arisen very sharply in Camden, where I am a resident although not a council tenant.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are refusing extra money for refurbishment of council homes in cases where tenants have voted against transferring housing management to an arm's length management organisation; and whether they object to direct council management.
§ The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)My Lords, the funding available for social housing, although greatly increased under this Government, is inevitably limited. We must therefore use it in ways that will most improve the lives of tenants. The Government have repeatedly made it clear that they will provide additional funding only to councils that separate their landlord and strategic functions. We believe that this provides a strong incentive to better performance, ensures a sharper focus on the two distinct housing functions, and guarantees tenants a greater role in the future management of their homes.
§ Baroness Turner of CamdenMy Lords, I thank my noble friend for that response, which I find rather disappointing. How is his statement to be reconciled 984 with the Government's desire to ensure wider choice in the provision of public services? After all, this is a case in which the tenants themselves have voted and have therefore expressed a choice. For that choice they are apparently to be penalised.
§ Lord RookerMy Lords, it could be argued that they had a vote. We have made it clear that there are three options: local voluntary stock transfer, private finance initiative, and an arm's length management organisation. Under the latter two, the homes remain in the ownership of the council. We have also made it clear that we will make additional funding available only under those three options. There is no fourth way. Camden and every other council have been told that. Camden made its decision in the light of that information. The money is limited and we are directing the extra funds to one of the three options, for the reasons that I gave in my original Answer. Just in case anyone thinks that no money has gone into the decent homes standard in recent years, I should point out that, since 1997, no less than £18 billion has been spent on the decent homes standard covering the social sector.
§ Baroness MaddockMy Lords, I listened with interest to the Minister's Answer, but he has not really answered the Question. When local tenants choose to stay with their local council, what is the justification for penalising them? Of the local councils that have voted to stay or have not had a vote, how many have been inspected and found to be bad in their housing management?
§ Lord RookerMy Lords, you cannot rig the ballot. When the ballots take place, it is known that one of the three options will bring in extra resources. If any or all of those options are voted down, the extra resources will not be available. That does not mean that nothing will happen; as I said, money has gone in. Indeed, about 100 authorities can meet the decent homes standard without selecting any of the three options. The fact is that tenants sometimes choose to stay with the council on the basis of false evidence from campaigners. Ministers are not allowed to campaign in favour of a "yes" vote because of ludicrous legal arrangements and straitjackets, and that applies even to policy enunciated and agreed by the Government.
The fact is that the consequence is known: there is no fourth way to extra money. That message has not quite got across. As I understand it, however, Camden has now accepted that that is the case. It is looking at another options appraisal and has started work on the process.
§ Lord Stoddart of SwindonMy Lords, as the former chairman of a housing committee and leader of a first-class local authority, I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that many people cannot understand why there has been a change in status. Good local authorities have always been able to manage their housing and their housing policy without any privatisation or assistance from outside bodies. If they had been granted sufficient resources by all governments to do 985 exactly that, they would be providing, and able to provide, a much better service than the present split-personality service.
§ Lord RookerLook, my Lords, for years some local councils have operated on the basis, "Vote for us and we will keep your rents down". However, they never say that the consequence is that there will be no repairs and no modernisation. It is a con. We are doing it differently. As I said, £18 billion has gone into social housing since 1997.
I give my noble friend one example. He is a noble Lord; he was my noble friend. He still is my noble friend; I am not arguing that point. I give my noble friend one example of how the separation of landlord and strategic functions works. Today we announced the reaching of the target that was set two years ago to get all families with children out of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Two years ago 4,000 families with 6,000 children were in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. That has been a highly targeted, highly managed process. It has been achieved with input from the public sector, the private sector and registered social landlords. Not all those families have gone into council housing. The point is that councils which have achieved that success rate of 99.3 per cent have dealt with their major strategic housing function of making sure that people are decently housed, not necessarily operating their narrow landlord function when some of them, of course, could not even collect their rents.
§ Baroness Thomas of WalliswoodMy Lords, is the Minister aware of the recent result in Waltham Forest council? Does that result not rather challenge his assertion that housing services are inevitably better managed by an arm's length operation?
§ Lord RookerMy Lords, I regret to say that I do not know the details of Waltham Forest. All I can say is that there has been success on this matter across the country. The largest stock transfer took place in Sunderland where 37,000 dwellings were successfully transferred. New organisations have been built up based on housing that are creating jobs and training enterprises going beyond the normal narrow range of the landlord function.