My Lords, the housing revenue account is often compared to the Schleswig-Holstein question. Of the only three people who understood it, one had committed suicide, one was in a madhouse and one was in a monastery. Following the debate on the housing revenue account today has been a bit like that.
I am very grateful to noble Lords who have spoken on this. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made two fundamental points. First, if only we had kept the receipts during the past 30 years, we could have built a lot of houses and renovated a lot more. That money has evaporated. If we could get that changed henceforth, that would be thoroughly commendable. The noble Lord also made the point that if local authorities had been able to sell vacant properties on some of their estates on the open market, they could have introduced people on different incomes and created mixed-tenure estates, which would have been better socially for everyone concerned. However, there is absolutely no reason why local authorities would do that, because they would lose all the money that they received from the sale and could not then replace the home that they had sold. I am very grateful for that intervention and for those of the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord McKenzie.
I shall certainly bank the very important point that in respect of sales outside the right to buy—the voluntary sales by local authorities—the intention is that in future the levy will be lifted. That could be quite a significant change in the future. The leader of the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham, Councillor Stephen Greenhalgh, is very much in favour of this. He explained to me that he has properties which, going back to the days of municipalisation, are scattered in some streets and are now in need of substantial repairs or improvements, although they are also very valuable. Rather than spend a great deal of money on some of those properties when they become vacant, it would be much better for Hammersmith & Fulham to sell them on the open market and not spend the money on the repairs. That money would be recycled, getting two or three flats elsewhere for the price received for those properties in Parsons Green or wherever they happened to be in Hammersmith & Fulham. Therefore, the Minister’s concession here may open some opportunities for councils to take in receipts to recycle in a very meaningful way, and I am very grateful for that concession.
In relation to the right to buy, we live to fight another day. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 41 withdrawn.
Clause 156 : Further payments
Clause 156 : Further payments
Amendment 42 not moved.
Clause 157 : Further provisions about payments
Clause 157 : Further provisions about payments
Amendments 43 and 44 not moved.
Clause 158 : Limits on indebtedness
Clause 158 : Limits on indebtedness
Amendments 45 and 46 not moved.
Amendment 47
Moved by
Localism Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Best
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 7 September 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Localism Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
730 c293-4 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 18:35:21 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_766908
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_766908
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_766908