Clause 40 - Loans by Public Works loan commissioners
Local Government Bill
10:00 am
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
No doubt my hon. Friend would prefer to debate the entire Bill in one sitting and go home. Sadly, the Committee would not be seen to be doing its job if we did that.
The clause refers to overhanging debts and some large sums. In a written answer to me, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), said that, under the clause, the
''Provision for 2003–04 is currently £616 million.''
In last Thursday's proceedings of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) quoted a figure of £800 million for the same year. That is some difference. Will the Minister clarify what figure is involved?
To set the matter in context, we know that some significant sums have already been paid in writing-off overhanging debt in relation to housing stock that is transferred, when debt has been accrued that is larger than the proceeds from the transfer. Some large payments have been made almost exclusively to
metropolitan boroughs. For example, I was told in a written answer that, in 1999–2000,
''£20.99 million was paid to Burnley. In 2000–01 payments were made to Coventry (£111.68 million) Calderdale (£64.59 million) and Blackburn with Darwen (£78.9 million). In 2002–03 payments have been made to St. Helens (£87.2 million), Redcar and Cleveland (£25.4 million) and Knowsley (£126.13 million).—[Official Report, 3 December 2002; Vol. 395, c. 707W.]
Large sums of debt are being written off. That is why amendments Nos. 112 and 113 would be appropriate. Subsection (1) states:
''The Secretary of State may, if he thinks it appropriate, make payments to the Public Works Loan Commissioners so as to reduce or extinguish such debt (whether then due or not) of a local authority in England to those Commissioners as he thinks fit.''
It seems to me that when one is dealing with such an important matter and with such large sums, payments should not be just at the whim of the Secretary of State; they should be made by order, which would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I look forward with interest to the Minister's explanation and to him clarifying what sums he has laid out in his budget.
I fully understand that that will depend on which authorities succeed in making a stock transfer. Nevertheless, in line with the previous Government's policy, the Government are seeking to encourage local authorities to make stock transfer to registered social landlords. Presumably, they are using the provisions to encourage that transfer. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister how much he expects that to cost, and for how many more authorities such huge sums are in the pipeline.