Housing and Regeneration Bill

I can see how the debate fits in with that which we have just had on directions. I stress to the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that this is an important clause. It gives the Secretary of State the power to grant consent to the HCA when it proposes to exercise sub-powers that are subject to the Secretary of State’s consent; for example, giving financial assistance, forming or acquiring companies, or the disposal of land for less than best consideration. The safeguard is necessary to restrict or control certain important activities. Similarly, we would want to ensure that the financial assistance, for example, was invested only in activities that warranted it. However, we could issue a general Secretary of State’s consent that provided that financial assistance below a specified limit did not need specific Secretary of State’s consent. This limit has not been determined, but we would expect it, if issued, to be contained in the agreed financial memorandum of the agency. I hope that that would introduce proportionate control. In another place, general consents—particularly, as we anticipated the other day, in relation to the disposal of land at less than best consideration—were the subject of extensive debate. It is entirely sensible to give the HCA sufficient freedom to operate in the way it considers will best deliver its objects. That includes having the ability to sell land at less than best consideration as long as the transaction is to the public benefit and delivers good value for money. We want to ensure that the HCA seeks the Secretary of State’s consent when it matters, but not on every occasion that it wants to sell land at under-value. Therefore, we intend to issue a general consent to enable the agency to act without having to seek the Secretary of State’s consent for every disposal and to consult stakeholders about the terms of that consent. We have begun working on the consent. We will consult on the detail but it has to meet the following tests. First, it has to meet the objects of the agency, which incorporate a public benefit test. Secondly, it must under land-value sales meet the value-for-money tests set out in Managing Public Money and the Green Book, which are Treasury publications. Thirdly, the disposal must not constitute state aid under Article 87 of the treaty of the European Community. To provide further protection for the public sector, I am minded to suggest that the consent should require the HCA to obtain the permission of the Secretary of State if the unrestricted market value of the land in question is above a certain limit and that this limit should be lower where the land is not to be disposed of through an open and transparent bidding procedure. Those are the principles on which we are working in relation to that specific issue. The noble Viscount also referred to the ability to vary or revoke consent. The Secretary of State needs that ability, otherwise we will not be able to take account of changing circumstances—we need that flexibility. Subsection (3) makes it clear that variation or revocation does not have effect until a notice has been given to the HCA. That safeguard is built in. Therefore, we do not expect to withdraw or change consent without consulting the HCA. I dispute that the balances are belt and braces; they are absolutely necessary. However, there are conditions which reflect the necessary flexibility without being too onerous or too easy to introduce.