Housing and Regeneration Bill

I am grateful to the noble Lord for the explanation. I thought that that was the intent behind his proposal, because of the changes that would be introduced by the amendment. I understand why he has pressed the point, but I shall explain why we need the flexibility that we have. The wording of the amendment is largely taken from the corresponding power that was given to the Urban Regeneration Agency in the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. That provision, by the use of the term ““may””, allowed the URA to attach specific terms and conditions when providing financial assistance. This amendment, by changing ““may”” to ““shall””, does not give that necessary flexibility. Why is it important to have that flexibility? First, Clause 22(1) requires the HCA to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State to the giving of financial assistance, which is taken over from previous legislation. We need flexibility in practice because, when one considers the great spread of RSLs and housing associations—some of them very small and specific, catering for special needs and communities, while others are extremely large operations—we need to be able to cover all eventualities in contractual arrangements that reflect special circumstances, objectives and tasks. Clause 22 allows the necessary flexibility for those terms and conditions to be tailored to the different circumstances in each instance. The noble Lord asked me whether I could assure him that the contractual arrangements that would be made would specify and address the particular issues—and I can. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Dean has had a lot to do with the contractual arrangements with the Housing Corporation and could confirm that they are not entered into lightly and are specific and clear. The second reason is that we have moved away in drafting legislation from including items that amount to standard terms and conditions that would be enforceable under contract anyway. This is in fact a matter of good practice in framing legislation. Finally, the agency is accountable to the Secretary of State. That has always been clear. I have just spoken on how it handles the finances; it is expected to account properly for its financial transactions. That, together with the requirement to obtain the Secretary of State’s consent, is the safeguard that we build into the Bill. I hope that on those grounds noble Lords can rest content that we have done things in an appropriate way.