---

10 Jun 2004 : Column 496W—continued

Housing Stock Transfers

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
 
10 Jun 2004 : Column 497W
 
investment, the price paid to each local authority per council house accords with a tenanted market value (TMV) rather than an open market value. The following table shows the price paid per dwelling, the gross
 
10 Jun 2004 : Column 498W
 
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.

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

 
10 Jun 2004 : Column 499W
 

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.

 
10 Jun 2004 : Column 500W
 

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 local 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.
 
10 Jun 2004 : Column 501W
 

---