---

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 33 [Community services]:

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 44:

Clause 33, page 15, line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 25 and insert “facilitate activities and the provision of services which it considers appropriate for the creation, regeneration or development of communities or their continued wellbeing.”

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is to Clause 33, “Community services”, which caused more intrigue the more we discussed it in Grand Committee. The Government’s two amendments in this group are confined to anti-social behaviour, fear of anti-social behaviour and crime. My amendment is considerably wider because it seeks to approach the matter in a different way.

The Minister’s letter to Peers invited us to make suggestions for alternatives. Having been very critical of this clause in Grand Committee, I thought that it would be churlish not to have a go. In Grand Committee, the Minister said that,

“the list is both flexible enough to allow for the sort of innovation and social enterprise that the HCA would be very good at encouraging ... and broad enough to be able to do the sorts of things that I suggested in terms of the environment, such as ... design”.—[Official Report, 10/6/08; col. GC 159.]

It is not just a peculiar list. In particular, the direct provisions, such as employment and health services, of the HCA are not what I envisaged it would provide or would be within its immediate remit. These days, one would not expect local authorities, which I think are the comparator here, to provide these, although they may be expected to facilitate. My amendment possibly does not adequately deal with the technical provision

7 July 2008 : Column 603

on cremation or burial services generally, but otherwise it would cover the situation and would,

“facilitate activities and the provision of services which it considers appropriate for the creation, regeneration or development of communities or their continued wellbeing”.

Those last words are not original. The Minister will recognise them from elsewhere in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, it would be difficult to forget our debate on this clause. I also recall the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, participating. We had a quite substantial linguistic debate on ambiguity. I recall volunteering to assist the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who I should like to congratulate on the substitute text that she has found. I am not fussed about the ambiguities of social and religious services having been dispensed with in the revised text. Had I not been, in alphabetical and chronological order, in Canada and Cardiganshire since Grand Committee, I would have added my name to her amendment in terms of its responding to the invitation which the Government gave us.

I am not quite clear on whether, if one wishes to ask a question about the government amendments, one does so now before the Minister has spoken. Under the rubric, I am assuming that I do. I have a purely technical question on the government amendments. If Clause 33(1)(e) and (f) is left out, as is recommended under Amendment No. 45, we would proceed to Amendment No. 46, which adds another subsection. In the existing text, if paragraphs (e) and (f) disappear, paragraphs (g) and (h) would become paragraphs (e) and (f). Am I right to assume that technically that is regarded as happening automatically or does it require an amendment to achieve that objective?

9 pm

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I hope that this is not going to sound churlish. We did issue an invitation to see whether the noble Baroness could improve on what we have set out in Clause 33. Having considered her suggestions carefully, we consider that the original formulation was better. Replacing a specific list with a general provision could leave room for doubt as to what the HCA can provide, and it is therefore important to have the capacities regarding the encouragement and development of new businesses, the provision of employment and of safe and attractive environments and so forth spelt out directly. They reflect the characteristics of what comprises regeneration in many areas, whether carried out under the New Deal for Communities or otherwise. It is important that there should be no doubt about the nature of the community services that the HCA will offer.

I appreciate that the noble Baroness has struggled with this, but I suggest that the clause is sound because, while it retains the specific elements that leave people in no doubt, they are balanced by the provision in paragraph (h) to “provide other community services”. That will cope with the breadth of what she is aiming to do in her amendment without losing the specific instruction, as it were, set out in the other paragraphs.

I hope that the noble Baroness is not too disappointed or maddened by this response, but perhaps there is some solace in the government amendments we are

7 July 2008 : Column 604

bringing forward in response to an important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. He said that things often sound bizarre if you turn the wording around, and that it is sometimes useful to see whether the wording makes sense when turned into a negative. He concluded, as did the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that the wording of paragraphs (e) and (f) is flawed. While I do not think that anyone would disagree that the sentiment of the original wording of these two paragraphs is right, we have reflected on the point. It seems entirely sensible in terms of both the legislation and the English language to bring forward the amendments. They provide that the HCA “may assist in” preventing or reducing anti-social behaviour and crime and the,

“fear of anti-social behaviour and crime”.

That makes better sense than the previous incarnations by making it clear that the HCA will have a role to play in combating these problems, but of course the agency could not achieve those goals on its own. That goes to show how careful one has to be in drafting legislation.

As we considered in Grand Committee, as part of creating sustainable communities, it will be important to ensure that, whenever possible, anti-social behaviour and crime are positively designed out in the first instance. But it may also be necessary for the HCA to undertake activities of this nature in established communities, and thus contribute to sustainable development in what are living communities. I hope that we can agree that we have improved the clause, and I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, that there is an automatic process that will swing into action when the amendment replaces the previous wording. It will happen as if by magic, and neither he nor I has to do anything about it. I hope that that will bring some comfort to him.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am neither saddened nor maddened; it would be impossible to go on if one were saddened or maddened by almost every point in this process, but I log it. I come back to my concern about what reads as the direct provision of not just services, but more. The clause states that the HCA “may”—when the Government say “may”, we are intended to understand it as “will”—“provide employment”. It will employ people, but I am sure that that is not what is intended. Of course I accept that employment is central to regeneration but I find it very hard to understand what the HCA will do that equates to “providing employment”. That is an extreme demand on it.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I interpret that—I am thinking aloud—to mean the sort of work that was partly possible for English Partnerships but the HCA, because it has the function of developing communities, will be able to be much more interventionist. I imagine that in the course of a regeneration project, it will be able to invest its own money to build, for example, a training or skills centre—there may be a link to a local hostel—where it can offer employment for trainers or those who progressively move upwards through a qualification route. It would be able to do innovative things. It is difficult to be definitive at this

7 July 2008 : Column 605

point but I could find out from officials and talk to Sir Bob Kerslake about what, of an innovative nature, he envisages being able to do, and come back to the noble Baroness.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am grateful for that. Without wanting for a moment to inhibit regeneration, it is important to be clear about what the powers cover. I have had problems with the terminology in the clause before. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and I were puzzled by the phrase “social services”; the letter that we received says,

“in this context, we mean the HCA is empowered to provide or facilitate the provision of services which contribute to the smooth running of a society such as education facilities or civic amenity sites”.

That is hugely broad stuff. At the Bill’s previous stage, I said that I could understand the building of health facilities or education facilities—I know that regeneration is much more than bricks and mortar—but that is a world away from the service provided in them. As of this moment, I am neither saddened nor maddened but determined; I may well table this amendment or something similar at the next stage to get this defined on the record so that we are very clear about the clause’s full meaning. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Andrews moved Amendments Nos. 45 and 46:

Clause 33, page 15, line 16, leave out paragraphs (e) and (f)

Clause 33, page 15, line 25, at end insert—

“( ) The HCA may assist in—

(a) the prevention or reduction of anti-social behaviour or crime, or(b) the reduction of fear of anti-social behaviour or crime.”

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 34 [Duties in relation to low cost rental accommodation]:

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 47:

Clause 34, page 15, line 29, at end insert “or regulated low cost home ownership accommodation”

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 are, to put it in a rather illogical way, consequential on Amendment No. 90, which comes after them; but consequences can be written backwards. That is in effect what we are doing. The same consideration applies to Amendment No. 117.

We rather take the view that the definition of low-cost home ownership accommodation is inadequate because it misses out a small, narrow sector. I refer to accommodation that is in partial ownership that is made available to elderly people or vulnerable people, as defined by the regulator. Amendment No. 90 refers to,

“the coming into effect of section 277, by a landlord included on the register by virtue of that section”.

We thought that we ought to explore this a little further to ensure that these people were not left out. This seems to have collected a host of government

7 July 2008 : Column 606

amendments and I am sure that the Minister will tell me that wrapped up in those amendments is the answer to the conundrum of a consequential matter preceding that which makes it consequential. I beg to move.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I will address the wider question that the amendment poses as well as the specific question raised by the noble Lord. However, I will not be able to untangle the conundrum and I am going to pretend that he has not asked the question.

Essentially, the amendments address the HCA’s powers to fund unregistered bodies for the provision of low-cost home ownership accommodation. This issue came up in Committee and I am happy to return to it and to offer the noble Lord the further assurances that he asked for. Government Amendments Nos. 49 to 52 respond to the concerns and I shall treat them as being all in the same group.

The noble Lord raised concerns in Grand Committee that the HCA’s powers to fund low-cost home ownership schemes could give unregistered profit-making providers a competitive advantage over registered providers, who would be subject to the regulator’s standards. The National Housing Federation was also concerned about this at the time. But that has never been our intention and the amendments I have tabled will, I hope, reassure the noble Lord and clarify the issue.

On the general background, noble Lords will know that we are not requiring the profit-making sector to register with the regulator unless it provides rented accommodation. When finding new low-cost rental accommodation, the HCA is required to ensure that the landlord is a relevant provider, either a registered provider of social housing or a local authority. The same is not true for low-cost home ownership, which can be provided by an unregistered provider. I explained in Grand Committee that there is a successful established practice in this field through the Housing Corporation’s grants to the non-RSL programme. In that programme, the Housing Corporation has replicated, through funding conditions, the key elements of the regulatory system for low-cost ownership, which has a much lighter touch than that for rented homes.

I was clear that this alternative route for unregistered providers does not mean lower standards or fewer controls—it is simply an alternative route for the delivery of similar standards—and I argued that it did not give unregistered providers a competitive advantage. However, I recognise that there are significant concerns within the RSL sector about this and I want to make it clear that it is most definitely not our intention to disadvantage registered providers. The concern among stakeholders which needed addressing was how we would ensure that the HCA’s conditions of funding were not significantly less burdensome than the regulator’s standards for low-cost home ownership. Using their words, how will we ensure that there is a level playing field?

The Bill already offers some protections. The HCA and the regulator have mutual duties to co-operate, and that is backed up by the Secretary of State’s powers to direct the HCA and to set objectives for the regulator to have regard to when setting standards. It is unlikely therefore that the regulator’s standards and

7 July 2008 : Column 607

the HCA’s funding conditions would be widely divergent. However, I am happy to give further assurance and the proposed amendments require that when awarding funding for the provision of low-cost home ownership the HCA must consult the regulator about the proposals. This should ensure that the two bodies work closely together and develop systems which will ensure comparable outcomes for purchasers, thereby providing the level playing field on which the National Housing Federation is very keen. I am assured by the NHF that these changes meet the points that it raised, so it has been a useful opportunity to revisit that debate.

We have to think slightly differently about elderly and vulnerable people. We agree that some schemes should be regulated, and those are the source of conditions and situations that we think need to be directed. We accept that there might be some schemes—for example, specialist schemes for elderly or disabled purchasers—where we might want purchasers to have a higher level of protection. In these cases, it could be a condition of HCA funding that the provider be registered with the regulator. We will ensure that that happens, where appropriate, through the Secretary of State’s power to direct. We will ensure that if we have cases where there are vulnerable people, the Secretary of State can exercise that power. We must remember that the HCA’s power to fund unregistered providers is simply that—a power. It is a flexibility that the HCA will use with care. I hope that will answer both the noble Lord’s broader question and his specific question about vulnerable people.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. It looked as though there was either a competitive gap or a gap. Now she has said that the Secretary of State will have power to direct so that when the Homes and Communities Agency is considering a problem in this field, it will consult the regulator. That assurance has been worth pushing for. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]

Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 49:

Clause 34, page 16, line 13, at end insert—

“(8A) Subsection (8B) applies if the HCA is proposing to give financial assistance on condition that the recipient provides low cost home ownership accommodation.

(8B) The HCA must consult the Regulator of Social Housing about the proposals.”

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Andrews moved Amendments Nos. 50 to 52:

Clause 34, page 16, line 15, after “accommodation” insert “or low cost home ownership accommodation”

Clause 34, page 16, line 16, after “accommodation” insert “or (as the case may be) low cost home ownership accommodation”

Clause 34, page 16, line 21, at end insert—

““low cost home ownership accommodation” has the meaning given by section 72”

On Question, amendments agreed to.

7 July 2008 : Column 608

Clause 35 [Recovery etc. of social housing assistance]:

Baroness Andrews moved Amendments Nos. 53 to 57:

Clause 35, page 16, line 40, after “purposes” insert “of the recipient”

Clause 35, page 17, line 4, leave out “to the person” and insert “in respect of that grant”

Clause 35, page 17, line 5, leave out “interest” and insert “amounts”

Clause 35, page 17, line 6, leave out “is” and insert “are”

Clause 35, page 17, line 16, at end insert—

“( ) The HCA must notify the Regulator of Social Housing at least 14 days before exercising, in relation to a registered provider of social housing, any of the powers conferred by subsections (2) to (4).

( ) Events determined by the HCA under subsection (1), and principles determined by the HCA under subsection (8), must be determined on or before the time the HCA gives the social housing assistance concerned unless they are determined subsequently with the agreement of the recipient of the assistance.”

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 36 [Section 35: interest and successors in title]:

Baroness Andrews moved Amendments Nos. 58 to 62:

Clause 36, page 17, line 28, leave out “of an amount with interest” and insert “, in addition to the specified amount, of one or more of the following—

(a) interest on the specified amount,(b) an amount calculated by reference to any increase in the market value of any housing or other land acquired, constructed, converted, improved or repaired as a result of the grant, and(c) interest on the amount falling within paragraph (b).”

Clause 36, page 17, line 29, leave out “such direction” and insert “direction falling within subsection (1)(a) or (c)”

Clause 36, page 17, line 43, at end insert—

“(4A) Any direction falling within subsection (1)(b) must specify—

(a) the housing or other land concerned, and(b) the method of calculating the amount concerned.”

Clause 36, page 18, line 7, after “(c)” insert “or (4A)”

Clause 36, page 18, line 12, at end insert—

“( ) Principles determined by the HCA under subsection (7)(a), and determinations by the HCA under subsection (7)(b), must be determined on or before the time the HCA gives the social housing assistance concerned unless they are determined subsequently with the agreement of the recipient of the assistance.”

On Question, amendments agreed to.

---