Mr.
Wright: I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon.
Gentleman is trying to do. I pay tribute to the manner in which he has
outlined his case. As he said, the new clause would provide for a code
of conduct covering payments and benefits to officers in place of
existing statute. The Government share his aim, which they agreed to
following the 2006 Elton review. However, I suggest that the same
outcome could be achieved in the Bill without the new clause, and
arguably in a less centralised
manner. With clause
118, we are repealing paragraphs 2 and 3 of schedule 1 of the Housing
Act 2006, for England. Clause 63 ensures that schedule 1 will apply
only to
Wales. The Bill reintroduces some parts of the schedule; for example,
paragraph 1 comes in as clause 118, but paragraphs 2 and 3 do
not. The regulator may set
standards on payments and benefits in clause 174, following
consultation. It could choose not to do so if it trusts the sector to
get it right and wants to minimise burdens. The Secretary of State will
not be able to direct on those measures, and I anticipate a fierce
debate about the role of the Secretary of State with regard to
directions and standards when we debate clause 173. We do not think it
necessary or appropriate to give the Secretary of State a role in
relation to such standards, given the greater independence we envisage
for the new regulator. That is a fundamental point and we must protect
the regulator’s independence as much as possible.
The regulator will be
explicitly permitted by amendment No. 238 to clause 178 to set
standards referring to documents produced by others, such as a code of
conduct produced by the sector. If the regulator wanted the standards
to follow a code of conduct, it could set standards accordingly, but
that would be a matter for the regulator not the Secretary of
State. The new
clause leaves an unfortunate gap in regulation in Wales, as it would
repeal paragraphs 2 and 3, which are concerned with Wales, without
providing for an alternative. I doubt that is what those tabling the
amendments, including the hon. Gentleman and the Welsh Assembly
Government would want. I have sympathy with the argument, but I hope
that the hon. Gentleman will recognise the central thrust of my
argument—that we are trying to move away from centralised diktat
from the Secretary of State that is in nobody’s interests with
regard to the new regulatory regime. On that basis, I hope that he will
not move new clause 4.
Grant
Shapps: I am grateful for the Minister’s response,
in particular the admission that he recognises the problem that new
clause 4 seeks to correct, or prevent. I am also satisfied with his
explanation of how the Bill might help to deal with those issues. As he
has put on the record his agreement with the principles, if not the
wording, of the new clause, I ask leave to withdraw the
motion—oh, I do not need
to.
The
Chairman: There is no need to withdraw the motion because
it has not been moved, but I will take what the hon. Gentleman says as
an indication that he does not wish to move the motion formally when we
reach it.
Question put and agreed
to. Clause
118 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 119
ordered to stand part of the
Bill. 11.45
pm
Clause
120Complaints
Mr.
Wright: I beg to move amendment No. 198, in
clause 120, page 49, line 8, at
end
insert— ‘“Housing
Corporation” | “Regulator
of Social
Housing”’. |
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendments Nos. 199, 304 and
306.
Mr.
Wright: These are minor and consequential amendments. They
will make sure that clause 120 has the desired effect, which is to
require registered providers to be members of the housing ombudsman
scheme, as RSLs are at present.
Amendments Nos. 198 and 199
make further changes to schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1996 to remove
references to the Housing Corporation and replace some of them with
references to the regulator of social
housing. Amendments
Nos. 304 and 306 simply add to the schedule of provisions to be
repealed the references to the Housing Corporation in schedule 2 to the
Housing Act 1996 and schedule 16 to the Government of Wales Act 1998,
which are to be omitted by amendment No.
198. The amendments
are very technical and very minor. On that basis, I hope that the
Committee will accept them.
Amendment agreed
to. Amendment
made: No. 199, in clause 120, page 49,
line 8, at end
insert— ‘( ) In paragraph
11(4) of Schedule 2 to that Act (grants),
omit— (a) “or the
Housing Corporation”,
and (b) “or, as the case
may be, the Housing
Corporation”.’.—[Mr.
Wright.] Question
proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the
Bill.
Sir
George Young: The clause carries forward the housing
ombudsman, and we are all pleased to see that. What will happen,
however, when we reach our goal of having a single domain regulator,
and local authority housing comes under the regulator’s remit?
Will complaints by local authority tenants continue to go to the local
government ombudsman, while complaints by housing association tenants
will go to the housing ombudsman, or does the Minister envisage some
harmonisation of the ombudsman
service?
Mr.
Wright: I anticipate that the former suggestion will be
the correct one and that matters regarding housing will be subject to
scrutiny by the local housing ombudsman. Having said that, the
situation is fluid, and we will certainly explore it as we move forward
over the next two years. However, that is certainly how I currently
anticipate that things will be.
Question put and agreed
to. Clause
120, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 121 and 122 ordered
to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
123directions
Lembit
Öpik: I beg to move amendment No. 77, in
clause 123, page 49, line 25, leave
out ‘non-profit’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 78, in
clause 124, page 50, line 11, leave
out
‘non-profit’. No.
79, in
clause 125, page 50, line 22, leave
out
‘non-profit’. No.
80, in
clause 126, page 50, line 41, leave
out
‘non-profit’.
Lembit
Öpik: We have discussed the possibility of treating
profit-based registered providers in the same way as non-profit
registered providers on several occasions. The amendments would simply
create a level playing field between the two in terms of accounts and
regulation. It is important that the regulator can address the accounts
of profit-making registered providers in the same way as those of
non-profit-making registered providers. I seek the Minister’s
perspective on that view.
The
Chairman: The question is that the amendment be
made—sorry, I call Mr.
Wright.
Mr.
Wright: You did have an early start today, Mr.
Gale, as I can testify.
The
Chairman: Order. The Minister tells me that he was still
in bed, when I was broadcasting to the
nation.
Mr.
Wright: I did not say that I was in bed—I was
reading the clauses of the Bill. [Laughter.] Can
we move swiftly
on? Amendment No. 230
will amend clause 174, which will allow the regulator to set standards
for profit-based organisations. As we have said, we need to make it
clear that given the absence of shareholders, and with the real
economic interest in the activity of a business, the non-profit sector
should have regulation to fill the gap and make what is going on
transparent. That is essential, which is why we propose that the
regulator should be able to direct non-profit providers as to the
preparation of their accounts, just as the Housing Corporation does at
present under the Housing Act 1996.
Given the assets with which
profit-making registered providers will be entrusted, we will consider
whether it is sensible to extend the regulator’s powers in
relation to accounting directions to profit-making providers in the
interests of transparency, as proposed by amendments Nos. 77 and 78.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire has made a good case for amendments
Nos. 77 and 78.
Having said that, amendments
Nos. 79 and 80 do not make much sense. The clauses that they seek to
amend apply to industrial and provident societies, which are referred
to under clause 125, and registered charities, which are referred to
under clause 126. By definition, such organisations cannot be
for-profit. Clause 111(2) explicitly provides
that “A body
is a non-profit organisation if it is a registered or non-registrable
charity.” So even if
amendment No. 80 were accepted, it would have no practical effect,
because there would not be any registered providers that were
registered charities and profit making. As I have stated, I want to
consider the appropriate role for the regulator in relation to
accounting requirements for profit-making providers.
On that basis, I hope that I have moved some way towards the hon.
Gentleman’s argument and that he will withdraw the
amendment. Lembit
Öpik: First, I apologise to you, Mr.
Gale, for affecting you with my own doziness, as displayed by
amendments Nos. 106 and 107. [ Hon. Members:
“Ooh.”] I blame myself, Mr. Gale—it was
entirely my fault and I am glad to see that you have made a full
recovery. Moving
swiftly back to the amendments, Government amendment No. 230, which
relates to clause 174, seems to address the same point, although I had
not realised that that is the case. It seems that the Government are
giving the regulator the powers that I am trying to provide under
clause 123 in a different way. When we get to clause 174, I hope that
the Minister will expand on how Government amendment No. 230 relates to
the clauses. On that basis, I am reassured that the Government have
considered the matter, albeit by way of an amendment.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw
the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Wright: I beg to move amendment No. 200, in
clause 123, page 50, leave out line
5. The hon. Member
for Montgomeryshire is a far braver man than me, because I would never
accuse you of being dozy, Mr.
Gale.
The
Chairman: You are very
wise.
Mr.
Wright: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is brave
or stupid, but I shall leave it to the Committee to
decide.
Lembit
Öpik: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. I
apologise to one and all in the Committee for my moment of madness. As
I heard the words coming out of my mouth, I knew that I had made a
dreadful mistake. I seek the forbearance of the Committee and crave
your forgiveness, Mr. Gale. It will not happen
again.
Mr.
Wright: I am sure that the Committee would like to discuss
amendment No. 200, which is an example of how the new regulatory
framework in the Bill differs from the current position, as defined by
the Housing Act 1996. Amendment No. 200 will remove the Secretary of
State’s role in agreeing to accounting directions that apply to
more than one registered provider. That position is much more in
keeping with an independent regulator bound by statutory objectives. It
would be wrong for the Secretary of State to be involved in such
day-to-day regulation. That is a change from the position as defined in
schedule 1 to the 1996 Act and fundamentally further emphasises the new
regulator’s greater independence from central Government. I am
keen to highlight that, and no doubt we will touch on it later
today. Amendment
agreed
to. Clause
123, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses 124 to 130
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
131Charity:
auditor’s
powers
Mr.
Wright: I beg to move amendment No. 201, in clause 131,
page 53, line 8, leave out ‘social housing’
and insert ‘its housing
activities’. We
were on a roll, which I have chosen to
stop. Clause 131
covers the powers of an auditor or reporting accountant undertaking
either a normal audit or producing an accountant’s report under
clause 127 or an extraordinary audit under clause 130 in relation to a
registered provider that is a charity. The charity must grant the
auditor or reporting accountant access to its records, and its officers
must provide such information or explanations as the auditor or
reporting accountant think
necessary. The
triggers for what is termed a normal audit are when income or assets
from a charitable registered provider’s housing activities, as
opposed to social housing activities alone, exceed certain thresholds.
The amendment enables the auditor to access information about all
housing activities. If the income or assets from the body’s
social housing activities are below the specified thresholds, an
accountant’s report is required under clause 127(3), although an
extraordinary audit can be ordered under clause
130. An
auditor’s report must state whether the revenue account gives a
true and fair view of the charity’s income and expenditure, so
far as they relate to its housing activities. Amendment No. 201 is
needed simply because the social housing activities of a charity may
not encompass all its housing activities; for example, student hostels,
which are explicitly excluded from the definition of social housing.
The effect of the amendment is to enable access to a sufficiently wide
range of information. Otherwise, only a partial picture would be given,
and a comprehensive audit or accountant’s report would be
inhibited. The amendment aligns the access to information with matters
to be examined by the reporting accountant or auditor. It applies the
current position in schedule 1(18) to the Housing Act 1996. I hope that
hon. Members accept my explanation of the
amendment. Amendment
agreed to.
Clause 131, as
amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 132 to 136
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
