Housing and Regeneration Bill

moved Amendment No. 78: 78: Clause 34, page 15, line 29, at end insert ““or regulated low cost home ownership accommodation”” The noble Lord said: It sometimes appears that the Bill does not reflect the fact that housing associations are not-for-profit corporations. So if they have a surplus of funds, and many of them do, that money is recycled into additional social housing and provides a useful supplement to any money that they would get, which in future will be through the Homes and Communities Agency. Essentially, this is government funding. Clause 34(1) states: "““Subsection (2) applies if the HCA acquires, constructs or converts any housing or other land for use as low cost rental accommodation””." We want to add to that, "““or regulated low cost home ownership accommodation””." Amendment No. 79A is somewhat similar. Subsection (2) states: "““The HCA must ensure that a relevant provider of low cost rental accommodation is the landlord of the accommodation””," to which we would add, "““and responsible for its management””." There are circumstances in which there is one type of ownership, but someone else is doing the management. If the housing association is the owner, but someone else is managing, matters could fall between two stools. Both ought to be mentioned in the clause. On Amendment No. 98, we have to whip through the Bill a long way to reach Clause 71, where we find a somewhat similar situation. That clause defines the categories of low-cost home ownership that require regulation; namely, accommodation for the elderly and so on. We need to pick up this matter and define the low-cost accommodation more fully, because the definition in the Bill is not satisfactory to cover all the appropriate categories. We then whip through the Bill with a vengeance and proceed to Clause 191 on social housing at page 81, line 22. Amendment No. 109, also in this group, relates to definition. We think that, "““low cost rental accommodation and regulated low cost home ownership accommodation””," would be more appropriate wording. These are not attacking amendments intended to limit the Bill; they are intended to make it more precise and more understandable, and make sure that both categories—social ownership that is tenanted and social ownership that involves part-ownership by the tenant—are included in all the relevant parts of the Bill. These are not huge changes, but the Bill would be better if they were written into it. I beg to move.