Clause 63
Restriction
of “registered social landlord” system to
Wales
2
pm
Mr.
Wright:
I beg to move amendment No. 163, in
clause 63, page 29, line 42, leave
out subsection (7) and
insert—
‘( ) The table sets
out substitutions which have effect throughout the Part (except section
51 and Schedule 2); and where necessary in consequence of those
substitutions, for words in the singular substitute appropriate
corresponding words in the plural.
|
Expression
|
Substitution
|
|
“the
Relevant
Authority”
|
“the
Welsh
Ministers”
|
|
“the
Authority”
|
“the
Welsh
Ministers”
|
|
“the
Relevant
Authority’s”
|
“the
Welsh
Ministers’”’.
|
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendment No.
164.
Mr.
Wright:
We are now on the track of part 2, which will
establish the office of tenants in terms of regulating social housing.
I wanted to start with some grand rhetoric about how we are raising
tenants’ services for social housing, but I thought better of
it. I shall start with what I am best at, which is technical
amendments.
The new
regulator will cover England, not Wales. Clauses 63 to 65 amend the
Housing Act 1996 so that the provisions in part 1 of that Act will
apply only to Wales in future. This means that references to the
Housing Corporation or the Secretary of State will be replaced with a
specific reference to Welsh Ministers.
The
amendments simply ensure that substitutions are made everywhere where
they need to be. Amendment No. 163 amends subsection (7). The 1996 Act
used the term “the relevant authority” for the Housing
Corporation and Welsh Ministers. We are replacing that term with
“Welsh Ministers.” The amendment ensures that where the
1996 Act uses the term “the authority” or “the
relevant authorities” suitable substitutions are made. It also
replaces singular pronouns and verb endings and ensures that the
changes are not made in section 51 and schedule 2 of the 1996 Act,
which cover the housing ombudsman. That is because the ombudsman does
not cover Wales and these sections of the 1996 Act will still be
relevant to England. We want to be sure that any reference to the
relevant authority there is not
substituted.
Amendment
No. 164 amends clause 64, which substitutes “Welsh
Ministers” for “Secretary of State” in a specified
list of provisions of the 1996 Act. The amendment simply ensures that
where that Act says the “Secretary of State makes”, it
should say “Welsh Ministers make”. I hope that I have
explained the technical amendments and that the Committee accepts
them.
Lembit
Öpik:
To avoid a further stand part debate, I shall
ask the Minister the same question that I asked about the
interrelations between the powers of the Secretary of State for
Wales—whoever that may be—and the Welsh Assembly. The
specific question that I hope he can also write to me about is to what
extent could the Secretary of State for Wales overrule decisions made
by the Assembly Ministers in the event of a disagreement. Once again, I
do not necessarily expect him to have the information now—I
would be stunned if he did. If at some point in the next week or two,
he could write to me, that would be helpful, and I will pass on the
information to colleagues in the
Assembly.
Mr.
Wright:
I hope the hon. Gentleman that is ready to be
stunned. Since devolution took place in around 1998, housing has been a
devolved matter. Any change to social housing regulation in Wales is a
matter for the
Welsh Assembly Government, not the Secretary of State for Wales. I will
clarify that and write to the hon. Gentleman and other members of the
Committee to confirm that, but it is my strong belief at the
moment.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 63,
as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
64
References
to Welsh Ministers
Amendment
made: No. 164, in
clause 64, page 30, line 4, at
end insert—
‘( ) for
“Secretary of State makes” substitute “Welsh
Ministers make”,’.—[Mr.
Wright.]
Clause
6
4
, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
65
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
66
Dissolution
of Housing
Corporation
Mr.
Wright:
I beg to move amendment No. 165, in
clause 66, page 31, leave out lines 14 to
18 and insert—
‘(2) The
Secretary of State may by
order’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Government amendments Nos. 166 and
167.
Government new
clause 34—Transfer
schemes.
Government
new clause 35—Interim
arrangements.
Mr.
Wright:
These amendments and new clauses provide for the
effective and smooth transition from the Housing Corporation to the new
regulator, Oftenant, and the Homes and Communities Agency. Amendment
No. 165 will amend subsection (2) to allow the Secretary of State to
make orders either before or after the dissolution of the Housing
Corporation. The existing subsection as currently drafted may only have
allowed for a single
order.
Government new
clause 34 will replace subsection (4) and make provision that the
Secretary of State may make one or more schemes for the transfer of the
Housing Corporation’s properties, rights or liabilities to the
regulator, the HCA or the Secretary of State.
Government
new clause 35 will replace subsection (3) and enable the Secretary of
State to require the Housing Corporation to provide staff, premises,
facilities or other assistance—for example, by providing
information to the HCA or the regulator. I suggest that that would ease
the transition to the new regulator, which, depending on the passage of
the Bill, we aim to have operational from April 2009. It is important
that both the regulator and the HCA can pick up where the Housing
Corporation leaves off in terms of regulatory interventions and grant
payments. The amendments and new clauses will assist in that process,
so I hope that the Committee will accept them.
Sir
George Young (North-West Hampshire) (Con): I wonder
whether I might press the Minister a little on what he said. As I
understand it, he will be able to wind
up the two components of the Housing Corporation on different dates. Is
it possible to wind up the bit that deals with the regulator on one
date and the bit that will hand over to the HCA on another date? If so,
can he say that the date on which the relevant part of the Housing
Corporation is wound up will be the same as the date on which the
successor bodies take over, or does he envisage establishing the two
bodies and then, at a later date, winding up and dissolving the
relevant part of the Housing Corporation? In other words, is there a
big bang? Is there one day when the Housing Corporation is dissolved
and the HCA takes over and another day on which the regulator takes
over? Or will the order in clause 66 enable the Secretary of State to
dissolve the Housing Corporation after the two other bodies have been
established?
Mr.
Wright:
No, there is no intention to have a big bang. We
want to make sure that we have a seamless transition. As the right hon.
Gentleman rightly suggests, the regulatory part of the Housing
Corporation could move at a slightly different pace to that of the
investment function. The clause will provide the flexibility to do
that.
I
anticipate, although I do not want to box anyone in, that all that will
be done on the same day, but that might not be the case. I also want to
point out to the Committee that we have recently appointed Kate
Barker—a Housing Corporation board member and a member of the
Monetary Policy Committee—to chair the Oftenant transition
programme board. That group comprises staff from my Department, the
corporation, the Audit Commission and elsewhere. It is working to
ensure operational readiness for regulatory system, staff,
accommodation and that sort of thing. As I said, I imagine that the two
bodies will come into play at the same time, but the clause will
provide flexibility in circumstances that might not
happen.
Sir
George Young:
Can the Minister assure me that two
regulators will not be in existence on the same
day?
Amendment
agreed
to.
Amendments
made: No. 166, in
clause 66, page 31, line 21, leave
out subsection
(3).
No. 167, in
clause 66, page 31, line 23, leave
out subsection (4).—[Mr.
Wright.]
Question
proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab): I rise only
to ask a question that has puzzled me for some time. Why is the title
of clause 66 “Dissolution of Housing Corporation”, as
against “abolition”, which was used in titles relating to
the Urban Regeneration Agency and the Commission for the New Towns in
clauses 51 and 52? What is the significance of the different
terminology?
Mr.
Wright:
As my right hon. Friend will know, I have not got
a clue. I will endeavour to find out and to provide the information to
him and the
Committee.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause
66
, as amended,
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
67
Basic
principle
Sir
George Young:
I beg to move amendment No. 134, in
clause 67, page 31, line 27, leave
out from ‘means—’ to end of line 29 and
insert
‘Housing that is
in direct receipt of Government Capital Grant
Funding.’.
Clause
67 defines social housing in broad terms, and clauses 68, 69 and 70
tighten up that definition. My amendment seeks to focus the definition
of social housing more narrowly, and to do so in terms of the receipt
of public funds. My concern is that the definition of social housing in
clause 67 and the subsequent clauses is broader than the Housing
Corporation’s current remit.
As I
understand it, the Housing Corporation finances, regulates and
facilitates the proper performance of housing associations. It also
pays grants to unregistered bodies. So a registered housing association
comes within the embrace of the Housing Corporation, and it is almost
certainly in receipt of some public funds. The receipt of the public
funds gives Parliament the right to supervise how that money is spent.
Bodies that are in receipt of public funds are rightly exposed to
greater scrutiny than the private landlords that we were talking about
this morning.
My
concern about clause 67 is that it goes wider than housing
associations. For example, if someone decided to set up a charity, the
purpose of which coincided broadly with what we see in clause
68—in other words, they wanted to provide homes at below market
rate for people in housing need—they would be supervised by the
Charity Commission. However, they would not come into contact with the
Housing Corporation, because they might not be a registered housing
association and so would not get any money. Under clause 67 and the
subsequent clauses, that operation would fall under the new social
housing regulator, but it would not have fallen within the embrace of
the Housing Corporation.
Likewise, if a philanthropic
company, such as Rowntree, had some land and wanted to make it
available for exactly the purposes laid out in clause 67 and subsequent
clauses, it could give the land for no cost at all to a company, which
could then provide low-cost homes for below-market rent or, as laid out
in clause 69, low-cost home ownership. At the moment, such a company
would not be regulated by the Housing Corporation, but under clause 67,
it would be. That could result in the emergence of our old friend the
perverse consequence.
Organisations that might want
to do exactly what the Minister and the Committee want—namely,
provide more affordable homes—would be deterred because they
would come within a regulatory framework under which they would not
come at the moment. Places for People has briefed all members of the
Committee. It
states:
“The
definition currently in the Bill could have the adverse effect of
preventing this sort of product coming to the market.”
The sort of product that it has in mind
is low-cost rental and low-cost home ownership. Therefore, is this a
broader definition than the one that we have
currently? Will it catch the well-meaning organisations that are not so
regulated at the moment? If so, we have to ask
why.
Mr.
Raynsford:
I rise to oppose the amendment, because I feel
that it fails to understand the implications of the Cave review, which
is for domain regulation, and would result in a number of very perverse
consequences for the oversight of social housing. Cave’s
proposal for a domain regulator obviously has a wider remit than the
narrow remit that was accorded to the Housing Corporation. We know that
it is intended that the provision of local authority housing and
arm’s length management organisation housing should be brought
within the domain in due course.
Clearly, the examples that the
right hon. Gentleman cited are of philanthropic organisations, such as
Rowntree. Incidentally, Rowntree’s housing association is
registered, and I see no reason why a similar one should not be
registered in future. However, if it were not registered, it would
still be appropriate for it to be regulated, because it is in the
interests of tenants that they should have broadly comparable
protection.
The right
hon. Gentleman will understand, however, that under the regulatory
provision, there can be private providers, profit-making providers and
non-for-profit providers, all of whom can provide housing that would
come within the ambit of the regulator. On the first point—I
will come to the second in a moment—I feel that the right hon.
Gentleman’s proposal is not
appropriate.
2.15
pm
Sir
George Young:
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why
the philanthropic body that I described should come under the embrace
of the social housing regulator, when some of the unscrupulous
landlords that we talked about this morning would
not?
Mr.
Raynsford:
Another interesting question is whether the
entire rented sector should be regulated. That is a separate debate,
but I take as my starting point the fact that we are to give effect to
the Cave review recommendations, which propose that the whole social
housing sector should be a domain subject to regulation. That is the
first reason why I oppose the amendment.
My second reason for opposing
the amendment is that it will have some very perverse consequences.
Landlords are increasingly looking to subsidise social housing through
housing for sale. London and Quadrant—one of the more innovative
housing associations, which is based in my constituency and has a large
number of properties all over the south of England—is involved
in an extremely exciting new development at Stratford that overlooks
the Olympic site. The profits from the sale of some of the units will
subsidise other units that will be available for social
renting—something that would otherwise not be
possible.
Would it
really be sensible that tenants in properties that are subsidised by
profits from sales should not have the benefit of the regulatory system
that applies to
others? Similarly, if as a result of a section 106 agreement, land was
made available at less than best value and therefore houses could be
provided at a rent appropriate for social housing, should that be
excluded from the regulatory purpose? I do not see how we can encourage
a more innovative approach from landlords and housing associations,
cross-subsidising and making the most of the planning system, if we
then say that the people who occupy the housing that is the product of
such developments should not have the benefits received by others whose
homes have been in receipt of public
subsidy.
Sir
George Young:
Does the right hon. Gentleman want to bring
within the embrace of regulation organisations that fall outwith it at
the
moment?
Mr.
Raynsford:
No, it is not my wish to do that—other
than for the providers of social housing. However, it is my wish to
prevent those who are within the ambit now going outside it. I suspect
that the amendment would make that possible, and Places for People
could well end up—possibly, this is their ambition—as a
large development company. The language that it uses in its publicity
describes it as a development company, not a housing association, and
it has certain elements that are entirely outwith the regulated
sector.
I am not sure
whether that is a sensible way forward. I see real benefit in the
housing association movement being entrepreneurial and providing a
range of products, including housing for sale, while being part of the
same movement and subject to the same regulations. I would be rather
opposed to changes that made it possible for some to opt out of the
framework, simply because they did not receive money for a certain
development.
I
discussed the matter with chief executive of Places for People
yesterday, and I made it clear that I have no sympathy for the
amendment, so it will come as no surprise to him to hear that I oppose
it. I hope that the Minister will take a similar
view.
Lembit
Öpik:
I have more expansive comments to make about
the clause, Mr. Gale, and I hope that you will permit me to
do so in a clause stand part debate. I believe that that will make more
sense. If I do so now, I will be going slightly wide of the
amendment.
My concern
relates to definitions. I have to thank Shelter for highlighting the
issue, which relates to clauses 67 to 70, although I do not intend to
make the same comments on clauses 68, 69 and 70. Shelter recommends
that the definitions should be amended to put it beyond doubt that the
Government intend social renting to retain its key characteristics of
affordability and security, and even more importantly, that it is kept
separate from low-cost home ownership. In other words, the social
renting sector should not be confused with low-cost home ownership or
any other kind of so-called affordable housing by coming under the same
definition.
Shelter’s concern is
that, if there is a confusion of those two definitions, it could result
in “social housing” becoming the standard term to
describe both low-cost rental and low-cost home ownership. It would be
unfortunate if that happened, because the definitions are not merely
notional; they also make a practical difference to how we organise
affordable housing in this land. The characteristics of social rented
housing are clear. First, it is let on an affordable rent. The
definition of that already exists very clearly in other Government
documents. Secondly, it offers security of tenure for life. The new definition in the Bill
seems to put those characteristics at risk and change the nature of
social housing. The wording leaves the door open for a loss of security
and affordability, not only for new entrants to social rented housing,
but for those people already living in it. That might be an unintended
consequence, or the Government might be consciously seeking to make
that change. The difficulty is that it erodes current protections for
residents in social rented housing. That seems a rather serious
change.
Low-cost home
ownership is a relatively new concept, and it was introduced on a very
small scale in the 1980s and 1990s. Recently, there has been a more
rapid rise in house prices. Home ownership becoming more desirable and
more difficult has led to an increase in low-cost home ownership. The
obvious problem is that private developers prefer to discharge their
obligations to include affordable housing in their developments under
section 106 by building low-cost houses, rather than rented houses. In
Shelter’s submission to the comprehensive spending review in
2007, it pointed out that the situation is serious. Data on completions
indicate a shift away from rented accommodation towards low-cost home
ownership.
The
present definition of social rented housing is very important. In the
current climate, when social rented housing is desperately needed, it
seems that the situation is militating away from that type of
accommodation and towards low-cost housing. The Government have
acknowledged some of the issues that relate to definitions in their
planning policy statement of 2006, in which definitions that sought to
clarify what social rented housing actually is were published for the
first time. That leads me to the key point.
At a time when the Government
are evidently committed to building specific target amounts of social
rented housing, it seems counter-productive to introduce a new
definition of social housing that could encompass low-cost home
ownership, as well as low-cost rental. The easier it is for builders to
construct premises intended for low-cost home ownership, the more
likely they are to do that instead of constructing low-cost rented
houses.
There is also
a problem with rents. It is not currently clear how future rents in
social rented housing will be set. For some time, a rent restructuring
regime has specified maximum rents and annual rent increases in social
rented housing. The definition of social rented housing under PPS3
refers specifically to controlled rent as a defining characteristic of
social rented housing. The Bill seems to change that and discontinue
the rent regime. I therefore ask the Minister whether that is the
intention and a correct understanding of what the Bill will
do.
Until that matter
is resolved, there is a risk to the affordability of social rented
housing. In fairness, clause 68 states that rent should be
“below the market
rate”, but it does not guarantee that that rent will be
affordable. For example, in London, even fairly basic tenancies are
extremely expensive. There is a lot of latitude beneath the free market
for very high rents. I hope that the Minister can give some clarity on
that issue. The
definitions of low-cost rental housing under the Bill appear to change
the security of tenure guarantee. Clause 68(c), which we will come
to—I will not make the speech again at that point—states
that low-cost rental housing is to have
“rules for eligibility designed to
ensure that it is occupied by people who cannot afford to buy or rent
at market rate.”
By
making reference to those who occupy social housing, rather than to
those to whom social housing is being allocated, the Bill implies that
assessments of eligibility could be ongoing for existing tenants and
take place not just when the property is being allocated to a tenant.
The implications of that are fairly
clear.
My second
explicit question to the Minister is whether that is a correct
understanding of what the Bill does. He may want to comment on that
issue when we discuss clause 68, but if he wants to do so now, that is
fine. If that is a correct understanding of the Bill, will he consider
making a modification to tighten up that
definition?
I have one
more question on the fundamental issue of definitions. Does the
Minister understand that bringing rental housing and low-cost home
ownership together will lead to the potential problems that have been
described? Will he consider that between now and Report? The Housing
Minister has made a point of saying on a number of occasions that there
is no threat to the security of tenure, but it is curious to put that
together with what will happen under the definition in clauses 67 to
70. To avoid doubt and confusion, I should be grateful if the Minister
clarified what is intended. Does he share any of the concerns that
Shelter and I harbour in regard to these
definitions?
Grant
Shapps:
I know from conversations with the Minister before
the Bill came to Committee that he was as concerned as I was that the
definitions might cause confusion for all of the reasons that we have
heard about. Clause 67 is the starting point for a series of clauses
that goes up to clause 70 and deals with these definitions. This is the
right place to tighten up the definitions, so that everybody is clear
about the meaning of the descriptions in these
clauses.
The Minister
has written to you, Mr. Gale, and has been kind enough to
copy me in, to point out that amendments have been tabled to address
the issues raised by the definition of social housing. Although we are
discussing clause 67, those amendments have direct relevance in clauses
68 and 69. I raised those issues with the Minister for Housing in the
evidence session to seek reassurances that, by broadening the scope of
the definition of social housing, we will not be playing tricks with
claims about the amount of social housing that is being
provided.
The
Minister and his colleagues are sensitive to the accusation that they
have built less social housing in every year of the past 10 years than
in any of the years under Thatcher and Major. If we are to resolve the
issue in a way that satisfies Shelter and other members
of the Committee, we should adopt the amendment tabled by my right hon.
Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire that says simply that
housing “in direct
receipt of Government Capital Grant
Funding”
should be
considered as the style of housing that we think of as social
housing.
It seems to
me that, in recent years, the definitions of social housing and
affordable housing have been made much clearer by things such as PPS3
and the descriptions that we have been hearing about. Now is not the
time to muddy those definitions. I appreciate that the Minister will
almost certainly explain that amendments have been tabled to the
clauses that we are about to debate—clause 68, in
particular—to clarify some unnecessary muddying of the water and
confusion. I ask the Minister to seriously consider, either now or on
Report, accepting a much clearer definition that all hon. Members would
be much happier
with.
2.30
pm
Mr.
Andy Slaughter (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush)
(Lab): I wish to comment briefly on what was said by the last
two speakers. A little bit of mischief is being made—but not
very well. It was rather like watching incompetent magicians, who I
always find more entertaining than real ones.
It is not that there was no
substance in what was said by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, but
it would have had a little more credibility if the Minister had not, as
I understand it, already given assurances on security of tenure.
Concerns about the subject were raised over the past year or two, but
that ghost has now been laid to rest; at least, I hope it has. I would
have a little more sympathy on rental targets if it were not for the
fact that Liberal Democrat councils in London singularly failed to meet
London plan targets in relation to rented housing.
Of course, London authorities
have good targets, well set out by the Mayor—50 per cent. social
housing, and within that a 35 per cent. and 15 per cent. split between
rented housing and shared ownership or intermediate housing. We should
all support that, and nationally I think that the Liberal Democrat
party does, but it is honoured more in the breach than in the execution
at local level. However, that is not why I want to speak. I want to
make a brief point, probably as much on the amendment as what the hon.
Member for Montgomeryshire said—so I shall pretend that it
is.
I mentioned on
Tuesday, when we were debating clause 272, a concern that I and others
have in relation not to the breadth but to the narrowness of the
definition. I understand that the Minister does not intend the basic
principle set out in clause 67 to apply to local authority and
registered social landlord Gypsy and Traveller sites. I take the point
made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich that
it is the intention, in due course, for the regulator to cover local
authority housing, and if the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the
Member for West Ham and me to clauses 109 to 111 are
successful—I hope they will be—that will happen sooner
rather than later. In any event, it will happen.
In my opinion,
it is appropriate that the regulator should be given a remit for Gypsy
and Traveller sites, whether RSL or local authority sites. In our
debate on clause 272, we touched on the fact that often, and
regrettably, the management of Gypsy and Traveller sites is not up to
the standard even of much other social housing. As this part of the
Bill is meant in part to improve the quality of management of social
housing, it is entirely appropriate that the regulator should be given
such a remit. The very fact that we need clause 272 to bring security
of tenure on to an even keel is indicative of the fact that we have
some way to go to ensure that Gypsy and Traveller sites are treated by
local authorities in the same way as they treat other
tenants.
The reason
why I did not table an amendment is that it is not necessary, as clause
71 gives the Secretary of State the ability to widen that definition by
regulation. Indeed, clause 71(2) specifically states that it may be
done
“where the Secretary
of State thinks the accommodation is of a kind, or is provided in
circumstances, that serve the needs of a group whose needs are not
adequately served by the commercial housing
market.”
That is almost a
definition of what local authority and RSL Gypsy and Traveller sites
provide. I shall not press the point further now, except to say that I
would like the Minister to indicate in his reply that he will consider
the matter for subsequent regulation and that the Government will look
at it if they believe that regulation should be extended in that way,
as I believe it is a clear
case.
Mr.
Wright:
Members have raised an awful lot of issues about
the definition of social housing and I will respond with regard to the
group of amendments that relate to clause 68. A number of things need
to be mentioned. I will touch upon definition, security of tenure and
other such issues when considering that group of amendments because
they are incredibly important.
On the point made by the hon.
Member for Montgomeryshire about rent restructuring, I do not think
that there is anything in the Bill that undermines rent restructuring.
The Bill actually gives the regulator power to set standards, and I am
looking forward to the debate on clause 173, which deals with that. It
gives the regulator power to set standards on rents and gives Ministers
power to direct, so in that respect, I do not think that there is an
issue or that the measure undermines rent
restructuring.
Lembit
Öpik:
Shelter’s concern is that the
provision distinctly removes the security of tenure, albeit subtly. I
will come back to that point in relation to clause 68. With regard to
the rental point, I was persuaded, having looked at the Bill and spoken
to Shelter, that the provisions would weaken the confidence tenants
currently enjoy that rents will be reasonable. That might be a
difference of opinion, so I will certainly have another look at the
provisions and hope that the Minister will as
well.
Mr.
Wright:
I am clear that the Bill maintains a clear
distinction between rented housing and low-cost home ownership. This
and subsequent clauses have a definite
purpose—to regulate social housing to raise standards, and that
important distinction
remains.
With regard
to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and
Shepherd’s Bush about Gypsies and Travellers, I attended a
meeting of the all-party group on Gypsy and Traveller law reform on
Wednesday, at which the issue was raised. I hope that I reassured my
hon. Friend when I was there, but I reiterate for the Committee that
sites and accommodation provided by registered social landlords for
Gypsies and Travellers—there are relatively few of them at the
moment—come under the responsibility of the regulator. We will
shortly have an interesting debate on cross-domain regulation. There is
a little bit of work to be done with regard to local authority sites
and Gypsy and Traveller accommodation, but his interpretation is
exactly the same as mine, which is that that could be regulated under
clause 71, and I hope that reassures him
further.
I have a lot
of time and respect for the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire,
who moved the amendment, and my respect and admiration for him have
grown since working with him on the Bill. However, I fundamentally
disagree with the amendment. I do not think that its intention is clear
and do not know what its full effect would be. That is partly because
it would have an impact on the other aspects of the definition that we
have touched on throughout our considerations, yet they have not been
reflected in other amendments. In part, too, getting the definition of
social housing right is not easy. I am a good example of that: I
certainly do not seem to have got it right although I have tried to
reassure hon. Members about that. It is true that any changes that are
made have wide implications and there may be unintended perceptions, as
I have experienced when attempting to define social
housing.
However, one
effect of the amendment is clear—because it says so on the face
of the amendment: it would exclude from regulation new social housing
that has not been in direct receipt of Government grant funding. Under
the Housing Act 1996, the whole stock of a registered social landlord
can be subject to regulation, no matter how it is funded. The amendment
would change that position fundamentally. In particular, tenants of
social rented housing funded by planning gain, by section 106
obligations, and without grant—my right hon. Friend the Member
for Greenwich and Woolwich is right to note that we have been talking
about a diversity of people coming to social housing—would not
be protected by standards set by the regulator. Local authorities, when
negotiating such planning gain agreements, would not be able to rely on
regulations as they do now, and would seek to replicate some of those
terms in what would probably be an unwieldy way.
Conversely, not all grant used
to provide housing is for social housing. In future—we touched
on this point a lot during our consideration of part 1—the Homes
and Communities Agency will not only fund social housing but in some
places may bring about market housing. I have said before that we would
not want those market homes to be social housing under this definition
and thus subject to regulation, nor would we
want to require that their owners be registered providers. We had an
interesting stand part debate on clause 35 on that
point. It all comes
down to my fundamental concern, which is that the amendment defines
social housing as the means by which it is achieved rather than by its
characteristics. I stress to the right hon. Member for North-West
Hampshire and the Committee that we want to amend the provision; we are
about to discuss those amendments. We shall amend the wording used to
define the characteristics to make clear what we mean by social
housing. I believe strongly that this philosophical policy
point—that social housing should be defined by means of its
characteristics—is the right approach. I therefore ask the right
hon. Gentleman to consider what I have
said.
Lembit
Öpik:
The Minister has, in a sense, answered my
question. I was about to ask him whether it was accidental or
intentional that the distinction between rented and low-cost home
ownership is blurred. He says that he is happy to get rid of that
definition. I cannot remember his exact words, but it is clear that he
wants to blur the distinction. Is my understanding correct? Are the
Government consciously blurring the distinction between rented
accommodation and local-cost home
ownership?
Mr.
Wright:
No. In response to an earlier question, I told the
hon. Gentleman that the Bill provides a clear distinction. We have
experienced difficulties with the definition. We want to define what
needs to be regulated, but the difficulty is defining what is social
housing. I am very clear that there is a large distinction between
rented housing and low-cost home ownership. I hope that I have answered
the hon. Gentleman.
In
response to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, I hope that
I have made my position clear. I hope that he will withdraw the
amendment.
Sir
George Young:
Let me begin by saying exactly what the
Minister said about me. As these proceedings go on, I develop my
respect for him—but.
I draw two conclusions from
what the hon. Gentleman said. He will be pleased with the first, which
is that my amendment has too narrow a definition. The second is that
his definition is too wide.
I accept what was
said by the Minister and the right hon. Member for Greenwich and
Woolwich—that because it would exclude section 106 and planning
gain, the amendment defines social housing too narrowly. On that
ground, it ought to be resisted. I also accept that housing
associations that are currently regulated should not fall outwith
regulation because of the definition. However, the definition in the
clause will catch organisations that would not be caught at the
moment.
What the
Minister said convinced me that what I said at the beginning was right.
As an example, I take a philanthropic organisation that is seriously
considering entering that market and wants to provide homes at below
market rent and homes to meet the needs set out in the clause. If it
goes down that road without applying to anyone for money—no
section 106 money, no grant—but then discovers that under clause
173 an
outside body can come along and fix its rents, fix its allocation policy
and fix its method of handling tenants’ complaints, it might
draw back and say, “If I do not provide houses for people in
need, and houses at below market rent, but go for full-cost houses and
houses that I can let at market rents, I do not get any of this
regulation.” Faced with that scenario, will
the Minister not concede that as currently defined it might pull
against the thrust of the Bill, which is to provide more low-cost
affordable homes? There is a risk of over-regulation and perverse
consequences if he introduces the very broad definition that we see in
clause 67.
I beg to
ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause 67 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
2.45
pm
| 
