---

Housing and Regeneration Bill

My hon. Friend is right. Money is being taken out of the pocket of council tenants and out of the housing revenue accounts that should be used for the improvement of their housing. Indeed, it has not only been taken in the form of the £1.5 billion —soon to be £1.6 billion—that is taken out of housing revenue accounts to be recirculated through subsidy or to pay off historic debt, but my hon. Friend the Minister admitted in a parliamentary answer last December that, on top of all those extractions, the national housing revenue account will go into surplus in the coming year. Effectively, that is another tax of £180 million from housing revenue accounts taken out because, with the increase in rents, the fund has moved into surplus. That surplus will go on growing, and it will reach £1 billion by 2022 if nothing is done about it. Huge sums are being taken from council tenants, who are being unfairly treated. Interesting light has been shed on that and on the financing of council housing by the study of six authorities opting out of the housing revenue accounts. The study, which is the reason for the new clause, was conducted by the Department and published only last week. The review concludes that"““the business plans for all authorities indicate they need a level of investment over 30 years which is higher than the spending needs assumed in the HRA subsidy . . . In other words, their plans for basic sustainability would not be deliverable within the HRA subsidy system if current policies are maintained.””" Steve Partridge, the Housing Quality Network consultant who was advising the inquiry, tells us that"““the major repairs allowance across the country””" is"““40 per cent. short of what most people would estimate is a minimum investment need over 30 years””." He also said that the report identifies the fact that current allowances undercut"““basic investment needs by 43 per cent. over 30 years””." The Government and the Bill cannot go on in this fashion. They must do something to help and support councils that are struggling to maintain their stocks and to achieve a decent homes target, but are being penalised by the Government in this way. That is not good enough. The new clause offers a chance to do something about it, which the Government should take because they need sustainable council house funding. It is no use saying, ““We will review these matters next year when the report comes in.”” There is pressure on councils now. Perhaps a couple of hundred councils will be forced to conduct large-scale voluntary transfers, or to attempt to do so, and will put the proposal before the elections, possibly for a second time, or in some cases a third, unless they get help from the Bill now. It is no use saying, ““Next year we will look at the whole thing again and give councils a fairer deal.”” The need exists now and the Government must do something. That is the purpose of our amendments.