A cash windfall from the Home Office and Department for Transport is not a bad way to start a crucial week for housing.
Business secretary Lord Mandelson has revealed that spending will be shifted within and between departments when the government publishes its policy department later today.
Speaking on the Today programme he singled out housing as a main beneficiary of the process. ‘He [Gordon Brown] will be announcing a major boost in the provision of social and affordable housing over the next two years,’ he said. ‘That reflects a shift in spending both within the relevant department and between the Home Office and Department for Transport to the department.’
Whether Building Britain’s Future really will amount to anything major on new homes remains to be seen but reports suggest it will also include anti-BNP measures on allocations. What seems more certain is that it will be the last spending announcement for a year - Mandelson also revealed that the next spending review will not be held until after the next election.
Housing’s crucial week is expected to continue with publication of the review of the housing revenue account (HRA) - the timing probably linked to the Local Government Association conference.
The LGA started its campaign to build up to 300,000 new homes in the next ten years earlier this month. Disappointingly, though, only 40 MPs have so far signed an early day motion backing the campaign - 22 Labour, 13 Lib Dems, two Democratic Unionists, an independent and just two Tories.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (1)
michael barratt council tenant | 29/06/2009 3:05 pm
The present HRA system is unfair on all local authorities retaining their housing stock and particularly on those authorites in a negative subsidy situation. However, this EDM may not get the support it would appear to deserve because of the concern that unless monies were ring fenced many local authorities would use rent surpluses merely to keep council taxes down or embark on voting catching projects that have nothing to do with public housing.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment