Mr.
Kilfoyle: I am quite sure that the Minister will speak for
herself, and eloquently too, but I have to say that the hon. Gentleman
is simply trying to score political points out of a straightforward,
cogent and coherent small measure that we all agree needs to be passed.
It is sensible. We all understand that its conception was accidental,
but there is no evidence, other than the argument about semantics in
which he is now indulging, to suggest that the problem is more
widespread.
Dr.
Starkey: Does my hon. Friend not agree that the
implication of what the hon. Member for Surrey Heath was suggesting was
that we should leave the Housing Corporation in an irregular situation
while we trawl around each NDPB in case it might be in the same
position, before we formulate another measure covering everybody? In
the meantime, the current situation would
continue.
Mr.
Kilfoyle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because she
reminds me that many on the Opposition Benches have that wild and
wide-eyed attitude whereby they are always looking for problems that do
not exist. When problems do not exist, they are often prepared to
invent them to preoccupy Ministers who have got better things to do
with their time, as has happened with this
Bill. Mr.
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD): It is indeed a
pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Benton. I am somewhat
bemused by the direction that our discussions have taken, but I take it
that that is down to the time pressure under which we are
operating. I shall
address my remarks primarily to subsections (1) and (2). Subsection (1)
gives the board of the Housing Corporation the power to delegate
decision making to appropriate levels, which seems sensible. The
capacity to delegate some decisions to committees, officers or
employees of organisations is common, and it is an effective way of
carrying out business. Local authorities are a prime example. I believe
that they were mentioned on Second Reading, which I was unable to
attend as I was in Committee scrutinisingthe Commons Bill, to
which I had tabled several amendments.
I have always supported the
principle of devolving power to the lowest level possible. The
delegation of powers within the Housing Corporation will facilitate
greater opportunities for its officers and employees to engage in
debate with people throughout the country, so that not everything will
have to return to the national body for discussion. As such delegation
has been in practice in the organisation for several years, although it
might have been outside the letter of the previous legislation, it
seems sensible that such powers be granted. Subsection (1) makes a
great deal of sense.
Subsection (2) refers
to the need for retrospective legislation, which has been a problem for
hon. Members; the hon. Member for Wellingborough has mentioned it
several times today. Given the substantial housing investment secured
through the corporation, any questions about earlier allocations could
give and may have given unnecessary cause for concern to investors,
housing associations and perhaps ultimately to tenants, too. I should
be interested to hear what steps the Department took in the period
preceding the Bill’s entry to the House to reassure the public
that there was no need to panic.
The need for the Bill arose
through a change in the accepted working practice of organisations. As
the hon. Member for Wellingborough said, the reason was a gradual
change in the working of such organisations during the period in which
the Housing Corporation has existed, rather than poorly drafted
legislation. However, I would hate to be generous to previous
Conservative Governments, despite the fact that the hon. Member for
Surrey Heath has generously pointed out that it was my hon. Friend the
Member for Carshalton and Wallington who raised on Second Reading the
point about auditing other organisations, which has allowed us such a
fruitful diversion this
afternoon. As such
delegation has become commonplace, it is understandable that it was
assumed to be lawful. Most other organisations dealing with the Housing
Corporation would customarily have worked in that way and would have
expected the corporation to have had such powers. From time to time,
situations crop up in local government whereby customer practice has
developed and it is assumed that at some point an agreement was made
allowing it. As employees move on, new members of staff take it as read
that the organisation’s operating practices are based on its
original founding principles, without thinking to question whether
there were any holes in the underlying framework.
It is to be welcomed that the
error in respect of the Housing Corporation has been brought to light
and that Ministers and officials have sought to clarify the position.
As the hon. Member for Surrey Heath said, allowing such an uncertainty
to continue might have jeopardised future investment. I am sure that
all members of the Committee want such uncertainties brought to an end
and confidence in the process
restored. The
reluctance to countenance retrospective powers is a natural initial
response, but in this case it is retrospective action that confirms
past decisions and seeks to bolster confidence, rather than action that
might call into question the basis on which other decisions have been
taken. Given that the measure will
increase confidence rather than alter the position, it seems sensible,
and I hope that it will allow a line to be drawn under the past use of
delegation by the
corporation. I am
grateful to the Minister for drawing attention to the underlying
purpose of subsections (3) and (4), which is to ensure that
retrospective action to which they refer will cover only action taken
lawfully and in the spirit of the original
Act. On that basis, I
am happy to support clause 1. I do so not out of a generous desire to
underline the compassionate nature of my party, although it does have
such a nature. I find it a little odd that members of the Conservative
party have now felt the need to qualify their conservatism at every
opportunity. I can conclude only that that relates to the experience of
most people, which is that conservatism has been very different from
compassion. I am grateful for being allowed to deviate slightly from
the text of the Bill, and I support the clause standing
part.
Mr.
Bone: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman
who, apart from his last few sentences, has made some powerful points.
I draw attention to my interests as recorded in the Register of
Members’ Interests and the fact that I am a member of Rockingham
Forest housing association, which is an unremunerated
position. Can the
Minister tell us whether the bright spark that found out from the
seminar that the corporation was acting ultra vires has been promoted
or relegated? Obviously, the person has started something that is both
serious and important, and which should be examined.
On Second Reading, much of the
debate was about disposals. I said that general consent under section 9
would cover such matters, so we would not have to pass retrospective
legislation. The Minister said earlier that other areas are not covered
by general consent and that that is the real reason why we need
retrospective legislation. Such a matter needs to be spelled out in
some detail so that the House can make a proper decision about
it. I am always
worried about being asked to pass retrospective legislation. This is a
rushed Bill, and quick retrospective measures are usually bad
legislation. I have read statements that the Housing Corporation has
been issuing since the turn of the year and nowhere in them was a sign
of panic that, if the House of Commons did not pass an Act, things
would go pear-shaped. Considering that the merger with English
Partnerships is very much on the cards, I wonder why we could not have
waited a little longer, considered the matter in great more detail and
perhaps have improved the
situation. The hon.
Member for Liverpool, Walton made the point about regulation and cost.
We must first bear in mind the board of directors. If I were on a board
of directors and my organisation was disposing of assets worth a
considerable amount and creating high charges, I should expect such
matters to be board decisions. I accept that the work would be done by
an official or a sub-committee, but I would expect the legislation to
come to the board. The Bill will remove that requirement, and that is
what I am worried
about.
5
pm It is even
worse because it is not the Housing Corporation but the housing
association that works on disposals and charges. The housing
association doesall the work and preparation, exercises all
thedue diligence and then reports to the Housing
Corporation. The
Housing Corporation costs more than £40 million a year to run.
Its board collects a remuneration of around £250,000 a year.
Would not the Bill have been an opportunity to consider whether the
Housing Corporation needs to approve such disposals? If we could have
removed the new measure—the Housing Corporation does not do
anything but rubber-stamp, and it has never turned down a request from
a housing association—and a layer of bureaucracy and red tape,
that would have been worth while. We could have saved a great sum of
that £40 million a
year. We have missed
an opportunity. It is a bit of a knee-jerk reaction. Will the Minister
take on boardthe possibility of considering, when and if the
mergerof English Partnerships happens, whether that
requirement could be removed from the Housing Corporation, perhaps
saving millions of pounds a year? I understand how the Government
started on the Bill—they were under pressure from lawyers and
stakeholders—but if they had looked at it a bit more carefully
and waited a little longer, they could have come up with a better
Bill.
Angela
Eagle: I shall take a small amount of time to support the
Bill and clause 1. It has been rare during my time in Parliament to
come across a piece of Government legislation so thankfully short.
After working on various Finance Bills and all sorts of other humongous
300 and 400-clause Bills, something so simple is a
joy. Given the nature
of the problem, the Government were quite right to introduce a quick
Bill to remove the legal flaws discovered by the lawyer doing the
seminar at the Housing Corporation. The hon. Member for Wellingborough
speculated on what might have happened to that lawyer. I hope that he
or she was granted an immediate post in the office of parliamentary
counsel, so that we can ensure that future Bills are drawn up with the
same rigour that the lawyer brought to that seminar at the turn of the
year. It is clear that
once some such thing has come to light, it is important—for the
sake of the lenders and potential creditors of the social housing
system provided by the Housing Corporation and its 1,800 housing
associations—to put right that legal flaw quickly if stability
is to be maintained and uncertainty banished. That is why I believe,
unlike some Opposition Members, that it is important that the
Government have acted quickly to get rid of legal
uncertainties. As
always, retrospectivity is an issue, but my hon. Friend the Minister is
right to point out that the retrospectivity implied in the Bill will
shore up the status quo as it was understood before the infamous
seminar. It will ensure continuing stability and confirm
in law something that everyone thought was already the case. It will not
disadvantage anyone. The key point about the
Government’s quick move is that it will not only remove
uncertainty and ensure that lenders do not change their attitudes to
lending housing associations money at particular interest rates but
will avoid all sorts of potential mischief with litigation, which can
sometimes arise in such circumstances. In answer to my question about
the important decisions that might be affected by the uncertainty, my
hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the registering of housing
associations; such decisions might also involve the transfer of
ownership or the taking out of loans at a reasonable interest rate that
will not suddenly be put up. The Bill is technical and has important
practical consequences for ensuring stability, because it recreates a
legal certainty that had suddenly been
lost.
Mr.
Bone: Is the hon. Lady not concerned at the prospect of
removing the requirement for the board to scrutinise the registering of
housing associations? Does she not think that that should be done at
board
level?
Angela
Eagle: Not necessarily; the hon. Gentleman should remember
that a great deal of the experience of how housing associations work,
operate and run themselves was not there 40 years ago when the
legislation was first written and the idea of housing associations was
new. The removal of the requirement is not necessarily a problem at
all. Lenders would not be remotely interested in lending to dodgy
organisations or dodgy housing associations. The hon. Gentleman alluded
to his entry on the register; he will have experience of such issues,
and I am sure that he will agree with my
assessment. To come
back to the point that I was making,2 million tenants live in
this part of our social housing system. I was interested to hear the
hon. Member for Surrey Heath confirm that social housing was a
necessary public service. That reassures us somewhat about the general
evolution of the Conservative party; having realised that social
housing is back on its agenda, we shall sleep a bit better in our beds.
The key thing is that the sudden throwing into doubt of the legal
position when 2 million tenants have their housing well-being looked
after by 1,800 organisations is not desirable, even if it is due to
technical reasons. That is why it was important that the Bill was
discussed quickly. I
am afraid that I do not go along with the “but” question
introduced by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. The question was more
one of setting the hares running. It is important for us to have
confidence in our NDPBs and how they work, and not to worry that
because one flaw has been found—one of the oldest, as it
happens—it will somehow be reproduced all over the place.
Setting such hares running can cause uncertainty where there is none
and create needless adverse responses. Although such things may be fun
for the Opposition, there can sometimes be consequences. I hope that
the hon. Gentleman will forget about his scaremongering on those issues
and be reassured that the problem is not a recurring
one. In conclusion, I
support the Bill and commend my hon. Friend the Minister for acting so
quickly on an
issue that, although technical, could have had adverse effects if
allowed to run on. I commend her for deciding to introduce the Bill
rather than waiting until some time in the future and letting the
uncertainty play havoc on the financial markets or, even worse, provoke
malicious or mischievous challenges to decisions that may well have
been made a long time ago. It is important that such
loopholes are closed quickly in the interests of good governance and
the security of the 2 million housing tenants who rely for their homes
on housing associations. I support the Bill and commend my hon. Friend
the Minister for bringing it to us so
quickly.
| 
