Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I thank the three noble Lords who have addressed this issue, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for the way in which he addressed the several deletions. I am told that reference to housing finance did not enter the ranks in Second Reading and that there were no amendments the like of that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in Committee. It is interesting that we have got to Report and the fundamentals are being raised by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
If the Minister will permit me to intervene, amendments were tabled in Committee dealing with Clause 158. The noble Lord, Lord Best, had one that we put our name to.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
Indeed, but there was not the wholesale abolition of the entirety of the clauses in the Bill on this whole issue of housing finance. I know that the amendment was moved in a probing way—I accept that—but it was not done at that point.
I understand the sense that there is a fundamental change here, and there is a need. I undertake that a document will be provided that sets out the change in simple terms. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is asking for. He is saying, “I can’t cope with all this lot—what’s it all about?”. So there is a need for a simple document explaining that change. However, if we accepted his amendment, we would be stuck with a discredited and underfunded system for financing council housing instead of moving to self-financing, which is the culmination of a long-held ambition held by local government for councils to take full responsibility for their rental income and the management of their housing assets for the benefit of their tenants. It has been overwhelmingly supported in two public consultations, was originally a Labour Party policy and enjoys broad cross-party support.
Under the current system, Whitehall makes a series of complex annual decisions about what councils should raise in rents and what they should spend on their homes. Government then redistributes income between councils with an increasingly large profit being made for the Exchequer in the last few years as the methodology assumes that rents are rising significantly faster than costs. The result is that councils have no certainty about future income and no ability to plan long term as well as insufficient funding to maintain their houses to a decent standard. Through the Localism Bill, we will replace that subsidy system with one in which councils keep their own rents, thereby providing a direct link between the rent that councils charge and the services that they deliver. Tenants will, therefore, be able to hold their landlord to account. Councils will on average have 14 per cent more to spend on their stock than under the current system. This increase in funding is to meet the real costs required for management, maintenance and major repairs as identified in independent research.
I have some notes here that refer to a later amendment, but it is perhaps appropriate to deal with points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Best, about Clause 158. It is not a minor or technical part of these reforms, but instead is integral to protecting the Government’s central fiscal priority to bring public borrowing under control. I appreciate that many councils do not like that restriction, but our reforms must support national fiscal policy. Self-financing will give local authorities direct control over a large income stream, which could potentially be used to finance a large increase in public sector debt. Prudential borrowing rules have been effective to date in ensuring that local authority borrowing is affordable locally, but in the current fiscal context it must also be affordable nationally.
I am aware that the borrowing cap will place pressures on some councils in the early years of self-financing. These pressures, however, should be seen in the context of a deal that significantly increases funding for all council landlords at a time when other parts of the public sector are facing a very tight fiscal position.
I think that that covers the point that has been raised. It really is a case of the national position and the problems of the fiscal position affecting local authorities in terms of the restrictions that we have with our national economic situation. I hope, particularly on the basis that we will be able to produce a simple document of explanation, that this will be acceptable to the noble Lord to enable him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Before the Minister sits down, could he deal with the point about the existing powers that the Government have under the 2003 Act, for national economic reasons and by regulations, to limit borrowing by local authorities? Why do they need the additional provisions of Clause 158? Do they not have those powers, or why are those powers insufficient?
Lord Shutt of Greetland
I am afraid that I will have to write to the noble Lord about that. I do not have a firm answer as to why that should be the case, although it may well be that someone is sending me a document on that. It is suggested that the existing power in the Local Government Act 2003 allows central government to,
“by regulations set limits in relation to the borrowing of money by local authorities”,
in order to ensure that the local authority does not borrow more than it can afford. While this power provides powers to cap local authority debt, it links local caps to local affordability. Our concern is not that councils will act in ways that are imprudent locally but that on aggregate these borrowing decisions may be unaffordable nationally. That is the situation there. If that does not cover the point, though, as I indicated earlier, I will write.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his offer to explain all this to me in simple language. I now understand that this is all about self-financing, which I have supported in the past and therefore continue to support. It is just that, due to the way the clause reads, it seemed to me that the one-off payment was not the result of a deal but was by the unilateral decision of the Secretary of State. Maybe that is the way that it has to be expressed in legislation, but I am grateful for the offer of a paper clarifying that. I still think that the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Best, need a fuller riposte, and maybe the Minister could come up with that as well. In the mean time, though, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.