APPENDIX 3: LOCAL GOVERNMENT (TRANSPARENCY
REQUIREMENTS) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2015 (SI 2015/480)
Additional information from the Department for Communities
and Local Government
Q1: The Explanatory Memorandum states that: "Between
11 July and 8 August 2014, the Government consulted on delivering
greater transparency on the value of local housing authorities'
housing stock". The Local Government (Transparency Requirements)
(England) Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/2680) were laid before Parliament
on 9 October 2014, and related to the Local Government Transparency
Code 2014 issued on 3 October 2014 - two months after the LA housing
stock consultation had ended. Why did DCLG not include in the
transparency requirements information about the value of local
housing authorities' social housing assets then, rather than now?
A1: Transparency requirements about the value of
social housing assets were not included in the Local Government
Code 2014, published on 3 October, as at that time the Government
was still considering its response to its consultation, particularly
in relation to the specifics of what local authorities would be
asked to publish and the publication model.
In analysing the consultation responses, the Government
considered that publication of data should be done by postcode,
as this would enable a better understanding of volume of social
housing stock and value within any given area. However, this required
careful consideration in order to be satisfied that there were
no data protection issues, including the need to consider ways
to mitigate the possibility of individual property values becoming
disclosive.
This required consideration of the implications at
different levels of postcode specificity, as well as some further
testing in relation to council areas where postal code sector
gives a number of households lower than 2,500 households. This
work allowed us to form an opinion as to whether, in particular
areas, the postcode level should be set higher.
As result of this extra work, we were not ready to
publish the Government response to the consultation until 26 November.
Q2: The consultation process in relation to transparency
on the value of local housing authorities' housing stock ran from
11 July to 8 August 2014, a period of 4 weeks overlapping the
traditional August holiday period. The Cabinet Office's consultation
principles say: "Timeframes for consultation should be proportionate
and realistic to allow stakeholders sufficient time to provide
a considered response and where the consultation spans all or
part of a holiday period policy makers should consider what if
any impact there may be and take appropriate mitigating action."
Did DCLG consider taking mitigating action in this case? If not,
why not? Did DCLG receive any complaints about the timing of the
consultation process?
A2: A four-week consultation was deemed sufficient
given the very specific nature of the matter under consideration
and that this was of relevance only to local housing authorities
in England.
The consultation exercise ran from 11 July until
8 August, only partially into the August holiday season. As such
it was considered that it provided sufficient time for interested
parties (housing and other officers responsible for the Housing
Revenue Accounts within local housing authorities) to provide
a considered response.
Of the 34 responses received only one, from Birmingham
City Council, considered that the timing of the consultation was
unfortunate.
No complaints have been received from any party regarding
the timing or length of the consultation period.
Q3: The Government analysis of responses of November
2014 says the following: "A large proportion of respondents
(about 40%) were supportive of the proposal to introduce a mandatory
requirement for local authorities to publish their stock valuations
through a transparency code. However, some (55% of respondents
were of the view that the Housing Revenue Account (Accounting
Practices) Direction 2011 already requires them to publish their
valuation of the social housing stock (including the total balance
sheet value of their land, houses and other property and the vacant
possession value of dwellings within the authority's Housing Revenue
Account). Hence, they questioned the need and added value of introducing
a new mandatory requirement through a transparency code. In their
view, this will lead to duplication of information, with the attached
administrative burden and costs." Is it the case that, when
the EM refers at 8.4 to the fact that "there were some views
raised by respondents about the need to have a separate mandatory
requirement", this is a reference to the 55% of respondents
mentioned in the quotation from the analysis of responses? If
so, does DCLG consider that the statement quoted from 8.4 of the
EM is an accurate account of consultation responses?
A3: Respondents to the consultation largely agreed
with the Government's aim to increase transparency in the value
of local housing authorities' social housing stock, even among
those respondents that raised concerns about the need to introduce
a new requirement.
In the Government consultation response, we set out
that 55 per cent of the respondents were of the view that the
Housing Revenue Account (Accounting Practices) Direction 2011
already requires them to publish their valuation of the social
housing stock and therefore a transparency code mandatory requirement
would lead to duplication of information, with an associated administrative
burden and cost. This was based on those respondents who answered
the specific question and referred to the existing Accountancy
Practices in their response.
However, as is often the case with consultations,
the numbers are not clear cut when looking at the details. Of
the 34 responses:
· 2
responses did not answer this specific question;
· 4 responses
can be summarised as being unclear about the purpose and/ or value
of the proposal but without specifically opposing it;
· 7 provided
narrative responses that were not easy to categorise, for example
''does it need to be if Government issue a directive to do so?'';
· 9 responses
supported a new mandatory requirement, for example citing the
benefits for benchmarking; and
· 12 responses
opposed a new mandatory requirement, with nine citing the existing
accounting practices.
From this detailed breakdown, it would also be accurate
to say that 38 per cent did not give a yes/no response, 35 per
cent of respondents were specifically opposed and 26 per cent
were specifically in support of the proposal.
On balance, we therefore feel it is fair and appropriate
to say ''some views'' in the explanatory memorandum.
Q4: The November 2014 analysis of responses contains
the following: "There was a mixed view regarding the proposed
start date of 1 April 2015 for local authorities to publish their
stock valuations. Although some respondents recognised that they
already publish stock valuations as part of their Annual Statements
of Accounts and could therefore meet the proposed date, they felt
this was conditional on having more clarity on the type and level
of information required. About 42% of the respondents indicated
1 April 2016 as a more realistic date given the technical nature
of the proposals." How many consultation respondents explicitly
supported the proposed start date of 1 April 2015? Why is there
no mention in the EM of 42% of consultation respondents who wanted
a later start date?
A4: Around 48 per cent of the respondents indicated
that, as they already publish stock valuations as part of their
Annual Statements of Accounts, they could therefore meet the proposed
start date of 1 April 2015. However, they indicated that this
was conditional on having more clarity on the type and level of
information required. About 42 per cent of the respondents indicated
1 April 2016 as a more realistic date given the technical nature
of the proposals.
Given the numbers, the Government considers that
a first publication by 1 September is a balanced approach. We
have therefore made this the first publication date for the new
dataset, following commencement of the regulations on the 1 April.
11 March 2015
| 
