Examination of Witnesses (Questions 280
- 288)
MONDAY 22 JANUARY 2007
MR DENNIS
REES, MR
MIKE OWEN
AND MS
GWYNETH TAYLOR
Q280 Mr Betts:
If ALMOs are going to provide services there is a sense in which
ALMOs may well become the manager of the public realm, for example,
rather than just narrow managers of housing and the public realm
has those wider benefits. Is there a general debate going on in
the ALMO movement about the funding of that?
Mr Owen: Yes. For us, we believe
there should be some contribution from the general fund. We provide
all the playgrounds on all the council estates which obviously
every child can use irrespective of their tenure, but it is only
paid for out of rents, and those continue to be tensions within
the housing revenue account. They are discussions that are always
ongoing with the general fund.
Q281 David Wright:
Are there any authorities that have performed that more effective
split?
Mr Owen: I am sorry?
Q282 David Wright:
I am trying to determine whether anybody has secured resources
from the general fund or whether the profile is different in different
ALMOs.
Mr Owen: Yes. Other ALMOs do get
general fund resources, I know.
Mr Rees: Bolton is an example.
Ms Taylor: ALMOs carry out a diversity
of functions according to their local authority needs. In some
cases they will carry out general fund functions and, therefore,
be paid through the general fund; it really depends on the local
scenario. The other potential opportunity would be to charge for
services, potentially carry out functions on behalf of—
Q283 David Wright:
What I am driving at is there is no national formula on this,
it is very much down to local negotiation?
Ms Taylor: Local negotiation,
yes.
Mr Olner: So what is the local accountability?
Chair: Can we ask you whether, afterwards,
you can drop us a note listing a few examples of ALMOs around
the country which are doing some of this wider work and if any
of them are managing to get their funding contribution from non-tenants.
That would be very helpful.
Q284 Mr Olner:
It concerns me somewhat because I worry about the local accountability
if you are taking on all of these other things. Obviously the
only people who voted in favour of the ALMO were the tenants and
not the leaseholders, yet you are taking over duties that affect
the leaseholders. I wonder where the democratic input is for the
whole of the community.
Mr Owen: The leaseholders voted
in our ballot at Carrick and they can stand for the board. Many
tenants and residents' associations have leaseholder chairmen,
members active in the community.
Mr Rees: Our leaseholders voted
for the ALMO and we have got the Chairman of the leaseholders
on the Derby Homes Board.
Chair: I think the greater problem would
be owner-occupiers, which is completely different.
Q285 Mr Olner:
Sorry, it was the owner-occupiers. Sorry, Chair, you are right.
Ms Taylor: If ALMOs offered services
to owner-occupiers as opposed to leaseholders?
Mr Olner: To communities.
Q286 Chair: In
which there are a load of owner-occupiers.
Mr Owen: Obviously they have their
democratic accountability through local members which still own
the ALMO.
Mr Olner: How can they have that if you
are doing it? Where is the accountability if you are doing it?
Q287 Chair: If
you are doing it and not charging them, they are not going to
be complaining, are they?
Mr Owen: I was just about to say
it is usually the subsidy the other way.
Chair: It probably is, yes.
Q288 Mr Olner:
I do not think that is the case.
Ms Taylor: I think you have got
to distinguish between where you are delivering services that
would be local authority services that the local authority would
otherwise deliver, which may well be funded through the general
fund, or if you are talking about offering individual services
to owner-occupiers, which potentially ALMOs could do, and then
charge them, for example, if you were able to offer to owner-occupiers
the ability to carry out Decent Homes work at a cost rate. There
are different potential mechanisms.
Mr Owen: I will give you an example
of something that was run on one of our estates last half-term,
which was a football scheme for children and young people to keep
them off the street, and had a massive reduction in anti-social
behaviour on that estate. It was paid for out of the housing revenue
account with us and Plymouth Argyle running it. There were huge
benefits for owner-occupiers.
Chair: Thank you very much indeed.
| 
