§ Mr. Raynsfordasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what he proposes as the amount of housing investment programme allocation to be withheld from local authorities in 1987–88 for distribution by his Department's urban housing renewal unit; what urban programme resources will be available for distribution by the urban housing renewal unit; and what will be the amount available for distribution by the urban housing renewal unit for community refurbishment schemes.
§ Mr. John PattenMy right hon. Friend has not withheld any housing investment programme allocation from local authorities in 1987–88 for distribution by the urban housing renewal unit (estate action). He has proposed that an additional £75 million should be made available, on top of local authorities' main allocations. This will be available for local authorities to spend through their housing investment programmes, through the urban programme or on community refurbishment schemes and other environmental projects on estates. At this stage, it is not possible to predict the proportion of such expenditures in schemes to be approved next.
§ Mr. Raynsfordasked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is his estimate of expenditure in the full financial year 1986–87 in relation to (a) targeted housing investment programme allocation, (b) targeted urban programme resources and (c) community refurbishment schemes approved by his Department's urban housing renewal unit;
(2) what is his estimate of spending by local authorities so far in 1986–87 in relation to targeted housing investment programme allocations approved by his Department's urban housing renewal unit.
§ Mr. John PattenAccording to information supplied by local authorities, it is estimated that targeted expenditure on urban housing renewal unit (estate action) schemes which involve combinations of housing investment518W programme, urban programme and community refurbishment schemes, will be some £50 million in 1986–87. It is not possible at this stage to categorise this expenditure precisely, nor to say exactly how far each authority has got with each project.
§ Mr. Raynsfordasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total amount of housing investment programme allocation available for distribution by his Department's urban housing renewal unit in 1986–87; and what is the total amount approved so far by the urban housing renewal unit as (a) targeted housing investment programme allocation, (b) targeted urban programme resources and (c) community refurbishment schemes.
§ Mr. John PattenIn 1986–87, the total of resources available for allocation to schemes approved by the urban housing renewal unit (estate action) is £50 million. For the 86 schemes so far approved, the resources already committed for expenditure this year are:
£ million (a) Housing investment programme 37 (b) Urban programme for community refurbishment schemes 1.8 (c) Other urban programme projects 2.5 More approvals will be announced shortly.
§ Mr. Raynsfordasked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how he will treat expenditure by local authorities with respect to spending authorisations under the housing investment programme distributed by the urban housing renewal unit for 1986–87 if that expenditure falls in 1987–88; and if, in that event, expenditure will count against the amount he proposes to withhold from local authorities for distribution by the urban housing renewal unit in 1987–88;
(2) if approvals for the total amount of housing investment programme he proposes to withhold from local authorities for distribution by the urban housing renewal unit in 1987–88 will exclude any approvals originally made in relation to expenditure in 1986–87; and what arrangements he has made to ensure that the total amount withheld from local authorities is spent during 1987–88.
§ Mr. John PattenThe additional resources being made available to local authorities in 1986–87 relate to expenditure to be carried out within the current financial year. My Department is allocating resources on the basis of local authorities' contract tender information, and on councils' advice on the spending profile of their particular schemes. Similar arrangements will apply in 1987–88. Where schemes are planned to continue in future years, we shall take account of their needs in allocating any extra resources available in those years.
§ Mr. Raynsfordasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what special arrangements have been made for London authorities in 1986–87 for housing investment programme allocations available for distribution by the urban housing renewal unit; and what special arrangements will be made for 1987–88.
§ Mr. John PattenNo special arrangements have been made for local authorities in London and none are planned for next year. They will be invited to submit applications for additional resources in the same way as other authorities.
519W
§ Mr. Raynsfordasked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what will be the criteria for the approval by the urban housing renewal unit of schemes in relation to targeted housing investment programme allocations in 1987–88;
(2) what are the criteria for the approval of schemes by his Department's urban housing renewal unit for targeted housing investment programme allocations; and if those criteria have changed during the financial year 1986–87.
§ Mr. John PattenThe urban housing renewal unit (Estate Action) has been promoting a wide range of innovatory approaches to revitalising rundown council housing estates. These are described in detail in the unit's annual report, which I have placed in the Library.
Estate Action takes a flexible approach, and each application for additional resources is considered on its merits. In general it gives priority to schemes which offer the residents greater choice and control over their lives and environment, and which take full advantage of any opportunities for combining public and private sector skills and resources. In July we launched the UHRU homelessness initiative to give local authorities additional resources to help bring vacant dwellings back into use to benefit homeless people.
We propose to apply the same general priorities in 1987–88.
§ Mr. Raynsfordasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if works to provide central heating and modern kitchens and bathrooms are eligible for approval by his Department's urban housing renewal unit for targeted housing investment programme allocation for local authorities.
§ Mr. John PattenAny capital works needed to tackle specific problems identified on council housing estates can benefit from Estate Action's additional resources—provided they form part of a coherent package of measures which give value for money, and which offer long-term and sustainable benefits.
§ Mr. Raynsfordasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he or his Department have received concerning the withholding from local authorities of housing investment programme authorisations for distribution by his Department's urban housing renewal unit in 1987–88.
§ Mr. John PattenWe have not withheld resources from allocation through local authorities' housing investment programmes in 1987–88, although we have received representations based on this misconception. In fact, we are proposing to give councils additional allocations for important, urgent, well-thought-out schemes they choose to bring to the attention of my Department's urban housing renewal unit (Estate Action).
§ Mr. Raynsfordasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many schemes approved by his Department's urban housing renewal unit for targeted housing investment programme allocation in 1986–87 include any element of private sector involvement (a) in Greater London and (b) in England; and what proportion they represent respectively of total approvals.
§ Mr. John PattenNearly all the 86 schemes so far approved involve private contractors in carrying out refurbishment and improvement works. Twenty schemes involve disposals of land or housing for refurbishment and520W resale. Two of these are in London and 18 in authorities in the rest of England. These represent 23.25 per cent. of total approvals.
§ Mr. Raynsfordasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been (a) the shortest, (b) the average and (c) the longest period between the submission by a local authority of a bid for targeted housing investment programme allocation for 1986–87 to his Department's urban renewal unit, and its approval by the urban housing renewal unit.
§ Mr. John PattenThere is no simple approval/rejection process in the work of allocating extra resources to local authorities through the urban housing renewal unit. Estate Action schemes are developed collaboratively between the Department's regional office, the unit, and the council concerned. The number and length of the discussions needed depend crucially on the complexity of the problem, the readiness of the authority to consider novel solutions and the ability of the authority to marshal the relevant information. Once agreement has been reached, and a final proposal prepared and submitted, approval follows within days.