HC Deb 20 February 1986 vol 92 cc334-6W
Mr. Ian Lloyd

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements the Government have made for the future management of the seaside and country homes presently owned by the Greater London council.

Sir George Young

We have decided to adopt an initiative prompted initially by the London Boroughs Association, supported by the Greater London council and the Association of London Authorities, that arrangements should be made for the GLC's seaside and country homes to be owned and managed by a housing association. They will not therefore transfer, as previously proposed, to district councils. Vacancies arising in these properties therefore would continue to be reserved exclusively for London's elderly.

We understand that two housing associations that specialise in the care of the elderly have expressed an interest in taking over these homes. But in case these arrangements are not finalised by 31 March 1986, we have asked the London Residuary Body to become temporary landlords until the transfer is completed.

Anyone occupying these properties on 1 April 1986 will continue to enjoy security of tenure to their homes and controlled rents. The financial basis of transfer will enable the housing association broadly to maintain GLC levels of rents and management and maintenance expenditure.

Mr. Tony Banks

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will direct the London Residuary Body on how it should identify that debt associated with the repayment of principal on former Greater London council mortgages; and if he will make a statement.

Sir George Young

No.

Mr. Tony Banks

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if capital receipts from Greater London council mortgages will be distributed as cash to the London boroughs by the London Residuary Body after the Greater London council is abolished;

(2) whether, after the Greater London council is abolished, extra borrowing approval will be distributed to the London boroughs in association with the distribution by the London Residuary Body of housing capital receipts from Greater London council mortgages.

Sir George Young

I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) on 11 February at columns396 and 397.

Mr. Tony Banks

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, in the treatment of capital receipts from Greater London council mortgages, he will make it his policy to seek to ensure that there is no net loss of housing investment resources to local authorities in London as a result of the abolition of the Greater London council.

Sir George Young

This is already my right hon. Friend's policy.

Mr. Tony Banks

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if there will be any net loss of borrowing power to local authorities in London as a result of the abolition of the Greater London council.

Sir George Young

The amount of borrowing which local authorities are permitted to undertake is linked to the amount of their capital allocations and of their expected revenues. It will therefore vary from year to year and no direct comparison can be made.

Mr. Tony Banks

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what direction he proposes to give to the London Residuary Body about the timing of its notification to each London borough as to the amount it can expect to receive in housing capital receipts under section 77 of the Local Government Act 1985 in respect of the financial year 1986–87.

Sir George Young

An order under section 77 of the Local Government Act 1985 will be laid before the House in due course.

Mr. Tony Banks

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what liabilities the London borough of Hillingdon will inherit as a result of the abolition of the Greater London council in relation to transferred Greater London council housing in its area, as opposed to housing associations in its area; what proportion the liabilities on transferred housing stock in Hillingdon represent of the total outstanding repair bill on transferred Greater London council housing in London; and what proportion Hillingdon will receive of the Housing capital receipts to be distributed to the London boroughs by the London Residuary Body as a result of the abolition of the Greater London council.

Sir George Young

According to the GLC, £146,000; the proportion of the liabilities as estimated by the GLC is 0.01 per cent. Hillingdon will receive 1.4 per cent. of the capital receipts and they will be able to use this to fund housing associations formerly funded by the GLC, or for other housing needs in the borough.

Mr. Tony Banks

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to the reply of 31 January, Official Report, column 652–3, the gross provision for housing capital expenditure by local authorities in England for 1986–87 and his estimate of the aggregate spending power available to local authorities in 1986–87 includes provision or spending power relating to receipts accumulated and unspent by the Greater London council or to the non-prescribed proportion of receipts which have accrued to the Greater London council or which will accrue to the London Residuary Body; and if the method of construction of his estimate of such spending power depends in part on information previously provided by individual local authorities on their capital receipts.

Sir George Young

The gross provision for housing capital expenditure by local authorities represents the level of expenditure planned nationally, and is not related to the accumulated capital receipts of individual local authorities.

Assumptions about the spending power available at the national level from accumulated receipts have been based partly on information provided by individual authorities and partly on national estimates. Detailed information is now being sought from all local authorities about their accumulated receipts. Because such information has not hitherto been available, it has not been possible for any Department to make reliable estimates of the spending power available to individual local authorities from that source.

Mr. Wareing

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the implications for Government policies for which he is responsible of the proposals in the document, "A Note on the Employment Implications of the Abolition of the County Council", published by the Merseyside Churches Unemployment Committee, a copy of which has been sent to him.

Mr. Kenneth Baker

The Merseyside Churches Unemployment Committee report calls for action to retain the economic and employment initiatives funded by Merseyside county council after its abolition. Government have provided the means and mechanism to enable the successor authorities (the district councils) to take over such projects, but it is for them to decide either jointly or singly their own priorities, though it is a matter of regret that the district councils on Merseyside have so far failed to come to any co-ordinated view.

The promotion of economic and employment initiatives is an important local authority function. Many initiatives have been supported by my Department through the partnership and urban programmes in recent years. There is no reason why this should not continue.