HC Deb 10 June 2004 vol 422 cc496-500W
Mr. Austin Mitchell

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how much was paid per home to each local authority by the organisation taking over responsibility for housing where a large-scale voluntary transfer has taken place since 2001; and how many homes were involved in each case; [176707]

(2) what (a) the total amount paid to the local authority and (b) the average payment per house by the registered social landlords taking over the stock in each large-scale transfer in the last four years is. [177006]

Keith Hill

To reflect the intended continued use of the properties for social housing and the need for capital investment, the price paid to each local authority per council house accords with a tenanted (TMV) rather than an open market value. The following table shows the price paid per dwelling, the gross

Local Authority Date of Transfer Number of

dwellings

 Price per dwelling Gross transfer price

(£ million)
LB Richmond 17 July 2000 7,139 8,335 59.50
Coventry CC 22 September 2000 20,125 2,460 49.50
Fylde BC 2 October 2000 1,905 6,300 12.00
Chester CC 27 November 2000 7,096 6,341 45.00
Horsham DC 11 December 2000 4,650 14,462 67.25
LB Tower Hamlets Poplar 1 12 February 2001 1,859 0 Grant 35.22
East Northamptonshire DC 19 February 2001 3,495 6,150 21.49
Torbay BC 19 February 2001 2,947 6,480 19.10
Staffordshire Moorlands DC 23 February 2001 3,132 6,290 19.67
Calderdale MBC 6 March 2001 12,759 2,825 36.00
Chichester DC 13 March 2001 5,321 14,752 78.50
Mendip DC 19 March 2001 4,326 8,091 35.00
West Wiltshire DC 26 March 2001 3,284 6,423 21.00
West Oxfordshire DC 26 March 2001 3,643 13,972 50.90
East Staffordshire BC 26 March 2001 5,637 3,643 24.50
Manchester CC Handforth Estate 26 March 2001 659 535 0.37
Sunderland CC 26 March 2001 36,356 6,045 219.80
Blackburn with Darwen BC 28 March 2001 9,886 4,195 35.40
Shrewsbury and Atcham BC 1 October 2001 5,500 11,527 63.40
Mid-Bedfordshire DC 5 November 2001 3,084 10,159 31.33
Derbyshire Dales 4 March 2002 3,287 7,616 24.80
Chelmsford BC 11 March 2002 6,902 11,530 79.60
East Hertfordshire 18 March 2002 2,687 11,937 32.10
East Hertfordshire (two transfers to

separate RSLs)

 3,237 13,725 44.40
Erewash BC 25 March 2002 5,847 6,460 38.10
Reigate and Banstead BC 25 March 2002 4,846 13,212 64.00
St. Edmundsbury 24 June 2002 5,947 7,489 45.10
Vale Royal BC 1 July 2002 6,813 7,462 51.07
St. Helens MBC 1 July 2002 14,632 1,974 28.90
Redcar and Cleveland BC 15 July 2002 11,625 5,180 60.20
Knowsley MBC 15 July 2002 17,090 1,794 30.66
LB Waltham Forest 30 September 2002 2,242 832 1.87
LB Hackney CC sheltered stock 14 October 2002 954 0 0.00
LB Harrow 14 October 2002 518 0 0.00
Manchester CC Langley Estate 18 November 2002 3,360 0 0.00
County of Herefordshire C 25 November 2002 5,696 6,945 39.56
Carlisle CC 9 December 2002 7,198 1,803 12.98
Rushcliffe BC 20 January 2003 3,445 12,934 44.56
Liverpool CC eastern fringe (south) 23 January 2003 2,833 1,800 5.10
Liverpool CC eastern fringe (central) 30 January 2003 3,702 0 0.00
City of Bradford 24 February 2003 24,764 2,831 70.10
Amber Valley BC 24 February 2003 5,632 5,077 28.57
Crewe and Nantwich BC 10 March 2003 5,515 6,181 34.10
Liverpool CC eastern fringe north 10 March 2003 6,183 0 0.00
Oldham MBC Limeside (Hollins/the Avenues) 17 March 2003 634 0 0.00
Walsall MBC (majority of stock) 27 March 2003 22,971 1,026 24.00
Walsall MBC (tenant managed stock) 27 March 2003 1,828 0 0.00
Craven DC 31 March 2003 1,541 5,201 17.60
Forest of Dean DC 31 March 2003 3,577 6,849 24.50
North Hertfordshire DC 31 March 2003 8,570 3,128 27.00
Manchester CC (east Manchester) 8 September 2003 2,823 0 0.00
Scarborough BC 15 December 2003 4,632 5,232 24.25
Maidstone BC 2 February 2004 6,810 5,685 35.82
Teignbridge 4 February 2004 3,647 3,651 12.90
Oldham MBC Fitton Hill 15 March 2004 1,285 0 0.00
Cherwell 29 March 2004 3,656 7,397 42.85
Bromsgrove 29 March 2004 3,096 5,218 16.50
Hartlepool 29 March 2004 7,509 427 3.20
Liverpool (Kensington) 29 March 2004 289 0 0.00
Worcester 31 March 2004 4,714 1,128 5.31
South Norfolk 17 May 2004 4,214 7,499 31.60

transfer price and the number of dwellings involved in large-scale voluntary transfers in the last four years. The amounts were calculated in accordance with this valuation method.

Mr. Austin Mitchell

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much has been paid in dowry and gap funding to local authorities to undertake large-scale voluntary stock transfers since 1999. [176758]

Keith Hill

Estates Renewal Challenge Fund dowry payments of £165.264 million and £81.142 million were made in 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively.

Mr. Austin Mitchell

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidelines he gives to registered social landlords taking over council property in large-scale voluntary transfers; and what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of tenant representation in existing registered social landlords. [177008]

Keith Hill

The Housing Transfer Manual 2003 Programme provides guidance on housing transfer and sets out the procedure by which an authority should make an application to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. We require Registered Social Landlords to discuss the implications of transfer with the Housing Corporation who published their new registration criteria registration with the Housing Corporation in April 2004. This gives guidance which covers stock transfer applicants seeking to become registered social landlords.

The Housing Corporation sets out the requirements and expectations for tenant representation in existing Registered Social Landlords in paragraph 2.5 of its Regulatory Code and Guidance. Failure to meet these requirements will be reflected in the Housing Corporation assessment of the Registered Social Landlord.

The need to ensure effective tenant representation has been further emphasised in the recent Housing Corporation publication, "Involvement Policy for the Housing Association Sector". This came into effect in April 2004 and brings together two of the Housing Corporation's previous documents—"Making Consumers Count" and "Communities in Control."

This revised resident involvement policy sets out clearly what residents, and the Housing Corporation as regulator, can expect from housing associations, i.e.: all housing associations should clearly show how their services have been influenced by comments and feedback from the people living in their homes; all associations are expected to be able to show that responsiveness to residents' views runs through all their activities. That it is part of their culture and the way they deliver services; and all associations are expected to work with their residents to decide the best ways of involving them, taking account of their preferences and circumstances The Housing Corporation seeks residents' views on emerging policies in a variety of ways: working with a wide range of representative bodies of tenants and residents; maintaining a database of 'interested tenants' who have indicated that they are prepared to be involved in giving feedback on the Housing Corporation's developing policies and on the consultation papers issued from time to time; conducting a major national tenants' survey every three years covering 10,000 tenants. The next survey is due this year; providing grants to support conferences of residents at both national and regional level; and holding regular meeting with the Housing Ombudsman.

The Corporation has asked the Audit Commission, as part of its joint programme of research, to look at the costs and benefits of resident involvement and to consider the evidence that involvement does in fact make good business sense. A report of the study, "Improving Services Through Resident Involvement", will be launched at the Chartered Institute of Housing conference in June 2004.

Mr. Austin Mitchell

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of the costs of(a) consultation, (b) publicity material and (c) surveys connected with (i) successful and (ii) unsuccessful tenant ballots on large-scale voluntary transfer or establishment of an arm's length management organisation was met by (A) local government, (B) housing associations, (C) arm's length management organisations and (D) central Government. [177015]

Keith Hill

All local authorities are required to produce Business Plans that set out medium/long-term plans for addressing the investment needs of their council housing and Improving the quality of services provided to tenants. The guidance provided to authorities highlights the importance of carrying out robust option appraisals as a part of this, to ensure that resources are used effectively and, where additional resources are needed, that the best option for delivering decent homes is identified. Therefore, the cost is met by local authorities, as all work on options appraisals including consultation, publicity material and surveys etc. is funded by the heal authority, as the work should be undertaken as part of their Business Plan.

Arm's Length Management Organisations and housing associations are at the end of the process of options appraisal undertaken by local authorities, and so do not fund any of the consultation with tenants on the three options.

Mr. Austin Mitchell

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will estimate the total cost to central Government of transferring council housing to registered social landlords and Arm's Length Management Organisations in the financial years(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04, separately identifying (i) the total debt written off, (ii) the cost of dowry and gap funding, (iii) the cost of paying tenant housing benefit by social security, (iv) the cost of consultancies, literature, videos and surveys and (v) the cost of staff time at (A) national and (B) regional levels; and how many houses have been transferred. [177153]

Keith Hill

In 2002–03, £440 million of debt was written off for local authorities transferring their housing stock; there was no dowry or gap funding in this year. 167,000 homes were transferred to registered social landlords. Arms Length Management Organisations received £10 million funding that year.

In 2003–04, £90 million of debt was written off for local authorities transferring their housing stock; there was no dowry or gap funding in this year. 42,000 homes were transferred.

Arm's Length Management Organisations received £45 million funding that year.

The additional information requested is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.