The noble Lord’s interpretation is correct. Because there is a third-party asset against the expenditure, it shows as debt on the Government’s balance sheet, but it does not show as deficit spending. That was the means by which the Government were able to rapidly expand the Help to Buy initiative; it does not score as expenditure in the traditional way. If the Government were to fund this initiative, they could either take a view about how much they are likely to spend on Help to Buy—and as I said last time, something like £3.8 billion of the £10 billion has already been committed in terms of Help to Buy, so there is still some headroom there—or, alternatively, they could look at whether they would take additional debt on to the balance sheet. Those are the two choices. We are between a rock and a hard place here. We are tying together two policies which, on the face of it, at best, it is a struggle to add up. The alternative is to go straight on to deficit. That is a third option which allows the Government to deliver the opportunity in a way that does not destroy the Chancellor’s intentions in relation to the deficit.
Housing and Planning Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Kerslake
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 8 March 2016.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Housing and Planning Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
769 c1270 
Session
2015-16
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2016-04-12 14:21:01 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2016-03-08/16030880000010
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2016-03-08/16030880000010
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2016-03-08/16030880000010