Supplementary Memorandum from the Department
of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (EST 98G)
ENVIRONMENT SUB-COMMITTEE: TUESDAY 30 JUNE
I promised you in my letter of 9 July to let
the Committee have an update on progress relating to Eland House
and Ashdown House once we had received further information from
the Property Advisors to the Civil Estate (PACE).
As you are aware PACE are the Project Sponsors
for the Eland House and Ashdown House scheme and as such have
full responsibility for the project in accordance with Treasury
guidance notes relating to the duties of project sponsors to fully
protect government and discharge all necessary duties.
The Department asked John Locke, the Chief Executive
of PACE, for the information requested by the Environment Sub-Committee.
PACE's response of 10 July emphasises that it could be some time
before final liability and costs are known and therefore the Committee
is asked to take into account, in producing their final published
report, the sensitivity of the information in view of its possible
impact on impending legal proceedings (Annex A).
I also undertook in my letter to you of 16 July
to let you have some indication of the pace at which we expected
the backlog of renovation work in the local authority housing
stock to be tackled. [Question 262.] The Government have
announced today the outcome of the Housing and Regeneration Reviews.
I enclose a copy of the full statement by the Deputy Prime Minister
which has been deposited in the House Library and the Vote Office.[2]
This follows the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer
on the Comprehensive Spending Review in the House last week and
explains in more detail the implications for housing and regeneration.1
I also enclose a note which explains our estimates of the need
to spend on local authority housing and the likely outputs over
the next three years from the additional investment in housing
that has been announced [Question 289] (Annex B).
The Committee asked for an explanation of how
the previous Administration's 1999-2000 spending plans for DETR
programmes compared with the plans for that year to emerge from
this month's Comprehensive Spending Review. A table is attached
which seeks to make that comparison. It is not altogether straightforward
but we have tried to ensure it as clear as possible. The explanatory
notes set out where the figures come from but the comparison is
essentially between the spending plans in the CSR White Paper
and those agreed in Autumn 1996 and set out in the 1997 Annual
Report of the Environment and Transport Departments (Annex C).
I shall be writing to you in the autumn with
the information on the budgets for the Regional Development Agencies
and with any further details we have on the progress on Eland
House and Ashdown House.
John Ballard
2 Ev. not printed. Back
| 
