---

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 129:

Page 22, line 14, leave out subsection (7).

The noble Baroness said: The amendment seeks to take out subsection (7) of Clause 36, which provides that the corporation may have regard to the extent to which guidance has been followed when considering action to secure the proper management of the affairs of a registered social landlord, or whether there has been mismanagement. I wonder whether using guidance to decide whether there has been mismanagement is giving too much scope for abuse. That may be putting the matter a little high but I believe that it compromises the independence of housing associations.

Clause 36(2) provides that guidance may, in particular, deal with the demands for which provision should be made and how; the allocation between individuals; and the terms of the tenancies and rents set in principle. Subsection (7) provides that the Housing Corporation may have regard to the extent to which that guidance, as well as other guidance, has been followed. Might that not give inappropriate scope for government views, for instance, to be given rein to; perhaps views on allocation to asylum seekers?

We must remember that the voluntary housing movement comprises independent bodies, most of which are charities. I suggest that government interference should be resisted and kept to the minimum that is necessary to deal with oversight. If there has been actual mismanagement there has been mismanagement, but choosing whether or not to follow Housing Corporation guidance should not put an association in fear of Housing Corporation intervention. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas: I appreciate what the noble Baroness said. It is true that the clause provides only for the issue of guidance on various matters. However, the issues to be covered by such guidance are of considerable importance. They include allocation policies; services to tenants; terms of tenancies and calculation of rents; standards of maintenance and repair; complaints procedures for tenants; and consultation and communication with tenants.

It does not appear to us acceptable to say that when considering whether or not to use these important powers the corporation cannot have regard to the extent to which a registered social landlord is following the guidance issued under this clause. The guidance represents accepted good practice. Failure to follow good practice could have major implications for tenants. It could also have implications for taxpayers where, for instance, there is inadequate maintenance and repair. These are clearly matters of relevance to the management of public stock.

This is not a matter of the independence of registered social landlords. The proper independence of the social housing sector will be recognised in the guidance which

11 Jun 1996 : Column 1608

is issued. The provision is about the failure to follow that guidance. I understand the noble Baroness's anxieties but I hope that she will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: I do not believe that I should push my luck. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 37 [Powers of entry]:

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 130:

Page 22, line 30, at end insert--
("( ) Proceedings for an offence under subsection (3) may be brought only by or with the consent of the Corporation or the Director of Public Prosecutions.").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 46. I beg to move.

[Amendments Nos. 130A and 130B, as amendments to Amendment No. 130, not moved.]

On Question, Amendment No. 130 agreed to.

Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 38 [Penalty for obstruction of person exercising power of entry]:

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 131:

Page 22, line 45, at end insert--
("( ) Proceedings for such an offence may be brought only by or with the consent of the Corporation or the Director of Public Prosecutions.").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 46. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.

5.15 p.m.

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 132:

After Clause 38, insert the following new clause--

Standards of performance of the Corporation
(". The Corporation shall, after consultation with persons or bodies appearing to it to be representative of registered social landlords and any other persons or bodies that it thinks fit, from time to time--
(a) publish a statement of the standards of performance that it intends to achieve in connection with its duties under sections 30 to 38 of this Part;
(b) arrange for publication, in such form or manner as it considers appropriate, of the standards so determined;
(c) arrange for publication, in such form or manner as it considers appropriate but at intervals of no more than one year, of a comparison between its actual performance and the standard of performance determined under paragraph (a), and a statement of the action that it is taking to correct any shortfalls in its performance.").

The noble Baroness said: The amendment inserts a new clause to provide for the Housing Corporation and its equivalent in Wales to be required after consultation to publish from time to time a statement of the standards of performance which it intends to achieve and to arrange for that publication.

11 Jun 1996 : Column 1609

The amendment addresses a fundamental anxiety which I can express without in any way making pejorative remarks about the Housing Corporation as it exists. It is not intended to be an attack; it is intended to be a positive move to make the corporation more accountable to the public and to registered social landlords for the way in which it carries out its routine regulatory functions.

The Bill re-enacts and extends the powers of the corporation to regulate, to give guidance on and to monitor the activities of housing associations and, in the future, all registered social landlords. I do not seek to challenge that role. It is, of course, a counterpart to the channelling of public funding through the corporation. I appreciate too that private lenders who invest in housing associations need the reassurance that monitoring is being properly conducted.

However, any system of supervision and regulation should have a basic principle that is transparent to all concerned. That allows decision makers and those who are affected by regulation to assess the risks involved and also to understand the way in which their performance is being measured. One of the anxieties about the increasing use of performance indicators is that they can be read out of context and it is important to make measures of performance clear.

The amendment would require the corporation to publish a statement drawing the links between the risks that are envisaged and the actions that it will carry out to guard against or to mitigate them. Social landlords have costs imposed upon them by regulation. The regulatory decisions affect their day-to-day activities. They have a need to know. The amendment provides for procedures and timescales and it also requires the corporation to compare its intended performance with its actual performance.

Since the Bill was published I have received, as no doubt have other Members of the Committee, the Housing Corporation paper entitled Changing Responsibilities: The Housing Corporation's Priorities and Targets for the period 1996 to 1999. It may well be that the Minister will tell me that the fact that such a document is published should allay my fears. Of course, it does not do so because arrangements can change. However, it is useful to point to two or three words in the document. In talking about the achievements since the 1988 Housing Act, the report refers to the corporation's tasks as having increased in both scale and complexity and refers to its business responsibilities. It also has a section on administration and efficiency. That is rightly a very businesslike approach to what is very big business. But it is big business conducted on behalf of the public. It is public sector money, public sector business. I believe that, accordingly, public sector accountability to the relatively limited extent I am proposing is the minimum which the public is entitled to expect. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Elvel: I support the amendment. As I said on Second Reading, one of the fundamental problems in the Bill is in relation to the accountability of the Housing Corporation. This amendment addresses that problem. It may not do so in words which the

11 Jun 1996 : Column 1610

Government like and it may be that there are other points which we should wish to build in. But there is a fundamental principle which at present is not observed that the Housing Corporation should be treated, as I think I said on Second Reading, like any other government department. In other words, it should produce an annual report, and that annual report should be scrutinised by Parliament. It should produce an annual report, in the words of the amendment,

"after consultation with persons or bodies appearing to it to be representative of registered social landlords and any other persons or bodies that it thinks fit from time to time".

It must publish a statement of standards of performance. It must justify its existence and how it operates, and Parliament must approve.

The amendment covers a large part of my argument. I hope very much that the Government will not simply brush it aside. As I said on Second Reading, the Housing Corporation is to be given massive powers. Our discussions on Clause 30 have shown them to be even more massive than I had originally expected. If that is so, it is only right that the corporation should come under proper parliamentary control and be properly accountable. For that reason, on this side of the Committee, we strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.

---