Three choices is not enough

The National Audit Office's finding that taxpayers pay £1300 more for each council house renovated through stock transfer than they would if councils were given the funds to do the repairs raises questions about value for money – even though the report also finds that transfer schemes have "brought about much-needed improvement in tenants' homes" and that "most tenants have also benefited from improved housing services" (21 March, page 8).

Few would object to private borrowing bolstering public subsidy in addressing the backlog of disrepair caused by decades of social housing under-investment. Public money will always be limited by the priorities and pledges made by central government on taxation and public spending.

Progressive registered social landlords are forming innovative partnerships with local authorities and others and delivering the cutting-edge agenda on joined-up thinking in community regeneration and grassroots participation. Many councillors are finding that their old role as near-monopoly social landlord is being replaced by a different one of regeneration partner, enabler and newly emboldened voice for the consumer of housing services.

Given these developments, if the government is so confident about the appeal and strength of its arguments and if the objective is to widen tenant choice, why are such restricted and weighted options imposed on tenants and councils? Ministers have announced explicitly that there are only three routes to additional investment in council-owned housing: stock transfer, arm's-length management organisations and the private finance initiative. Councils or tenants preferring the status quo are warned not to expect increased investment, beyond the paltry Housing Investment Programme.

Many such councils are in areas where investment is most needed. Without access to private finance and with the recent axing of the local authority social housing grant further diminishing the local authority role, the supply of social housing for those who need it could crumble, along with the concrete sink estates of the 1960s and 1970s.

Just because councils are not the only form of social landlord guaranteeing affordable rents and tenants' rights in a "not-for-profit" framework, this does not justify marginalising and eliminating the council role as housing provider – or undermining the principle of local democracy