Housing and Regeneration Bill

This amendment, in the context of Welsh housing, probes the extent of the Bill and the separation between the functions of the regulator in England and the Welsh Minister in Wales. It would help if I set out clearly the position on the territorial extent of Part 2 of the Bill. Part 2 sets out a new system of housing regulation for England only. It replaces Part 1 of the Housing Act 1996 which set out a system of housing regulation for England and Wales. That system is currently operated by the Housing Corporation for England and the Welsh Ministers for Wales, reflecting the devolution settlement. The new system of regulation that we set out in Part 2 is therefore for England only. This means that we need to preserve the existing system, as set out in the Housing Act 1996, for Wales only. Clauses 63 to 65 achieve that. In particular, Clause 63 distinguishes between ““English bodies””, which may register with the regulator, and ““Welsh bodies””, which may not because they are more properly dealt with by the Welsh Ministers. English bodies must be established in England and Welsh bodies must be established in Wales. In order to be eligible for registration in Wales, a Welsh body must own housing, "““only or mainly in Wales””," or undertake its activities principally in respect of Wales. The amendment limits that definition so that a Welsh body must own housing ““only in Wales””. The effect of that is that a Welsh landlord who owned a single property outside Wales could not register with the Welsh Ministers, and could therefore not receive a social housing grant from the Welsh Ministers under Section 18 of the Housing Act 1996. We obviously want to ensure that landlords are subject to the right form of regulation and that tenants in England and Wales have the protection I have described. However, it would be impractical to legislate so that new providers of social housing are excluded from registering in Wales if they have any properties at all across the border in England. I know that the noble Baroness has concerns about English tenants of Welsh landlords, who would not be accountable to the regulator even if English homes comprised 49 per cent of the stock. ““Stock””, as she has demonstrated, means properties rather than tenants. In practice, however, this situation is unlikely to materialise. We must bear in mind that the criteria for registration affect only new providers. Existing RSLs in England will automatically be registered with the new regulator, whereas existing RSLs in Wales will continue to be registered with the Welsh Ministers. I am not aware of existing RSLs with significant cross-border operations. Other parts of the Bill ensure that landlords of new rented social housing funded by the HCA must be registered with the regulator. Here, I am referring to Clause 34, which provides that where the HCA builds or funds housing that is to be low-cost rental accommodation, the HCA must ensure that the landlord of that housing is either a local authority or a registered provider. Being registered with Welsh Ministers would not suffice. I cannot see a situation in which the problem would arise; whereas the amendment would be disabling. The noble Baroness also asked two questions about the vocabulary that we use. There is no distinction between ““mainly”” and ““principally””. There is no material difference in that context. ““Housing activities”” means housing activities as defined in the Housing Act 1996. That does not really address her question, so I will write to her about that and about any other aspects of the relationship that she feels I have not explained fully enough.