Housing and Regeneration Bill

I shall deal with the amendments together. As the noble Lord has explained, Amendment No. 90B would require the HCA to consult on the events which might lead it to exercise its powers in relation to the recovery or recycling of social housing assistance and to publish the outcome of that consultation at least one month prior to it taking effect. The same requirements for consultation and publicity apply to the principles under which the HCA will act in dealing with these issues. The amendment is not necessary. Consultation arrangements in relation to general determinations under this clause are set out in Clause 37. The HCA is required to consult the regulator and other interested parties and to seek the Secretary of State’s consent. ““General determinations”” is defined in the clause as a determination which does not relate solely to a particular case. The noble Lord’s amendment would apply his proposed consultation procedure to all determinations, both general and those relating to a particular case. A three-month consultation period and a month-long pre-implementation publicity requirement is perhaps over the top and rather extreme in relation to a determination affecting one provider. It would be unduly bureaucratic and an inefficient use of time and resources. The current arrangement for the Housing Corporation enables it to issue special determinations that relate solely to a particular case. However, they are rare, and are generally in response to a request from a provider, usually because it wishes to use recycled funds for a scheme that is broadly in line with the general determination but which in some way does not meet the precise requirements. In those circumstances, providers have to apply to the corporation for a special determination. Current practice is for that approval to be signed off by the corporation's board. The Bill provides for a suitable level of consultation on general determinations. The noble Lord’s amendment would be unduly burdensome as it would apply to the smallest of determinations made under this clause, which would be unreasonable. I now turn to the other two amendments and will deal with Amendment No. 94B first because that deals with a point similar to the one made by the noble Lord. In circumstances where interest is a relevant matter relating to a determination made under Clause 35, this amendment would require the HCA to consult for three months, again, on rates of interest, payable dates and provision for suspended or reduced interest rates, publicising the outcome from such a consultation at least one month prior to it taking effect. This amendment is similar to the earlier one and it may not surprise the noble Lord to hear that we do not agree in similar terms. The consultation arrangements in relation to general determinations under this clause, like Clause 35, are set out in Clause 37. The same safeguards apply: the HCA is required to consult the regulator and other interested parties and to seek the Secretary of State’s consent. Again, the amendment would apply to all determinations, both general and those relating to a particular case. It might help if I outline the type of event which currently occasions the Housing Corporation’s use of a special determination relating solely to a particular case. These are made rarely and are generally in response to a request from a provider. It will normally be because a provider wishes to use recycled funds for a scheme which is broadly in line with the general determination but has a small variation. In order to use recycled funds for such a scheme, the provider would have to apply to the corporation for a special determination. Again, current practice is for that approval to be signed off at board level. As with the previous amendment, a three-month consultation period and a month-long pre-implementation publicity requirement would be overkill in relation to the level of determination affecting an individual and particular provider. It would engender an unnecessary level of bureaucracy in relation to the issue that it seeks to deal with. Amendment No. 94A would prevent the HCA from specifying matters in a specific determination made under Clause 36 which conflicted with principles which are applicable in the case of a general determination made under that clause. We can understand the motivation behind the amendment but we want to see the new agency acting in a consistent fashion. The amendment is perhaps an overreaction to the wording of subsection (7)(b). Specific determinations to a provider will, by their very nature, be out of the ordinary. A specific determination is therefore likely to be required precisely because the circumstances are unusual and consequently it is possible, although unlikely, that the HCA will in these limited cases need more flexibility than would be provided for by the principles set for general determinations. As was referenced in the debate on Amendment No. 90B, these determinations are made rarely and are generally in response to a provider’s request. Where a provider wishes to use recycled funds for a scheme that is broadly in line with the general determination but is not precisely the same, it will have to apply to the corporation for a special determination to use the recycled funds. Current practice is, as I said before, for that to be signed off by the corporation's board. The reassurance that I offer the noble Lord is that subsection (7)(b) is not a charter or a blank cheque for setting aside the principles governing determinations made under Clause 36; it is a means of providing for flexibility to be exercised in relation to specific determinations that are few and far between. I hope that the noble Lord will find that arrangement and the way in which it operates to his satisfaction.