Housing and Regeneration Bill

moved Amendment No. 108ZA: 108ZA: Clause 144, page 60, line 38, at end insert— The noble Baroness said: These are technical amendments that address a technical anomaly between the moratorium provisions in Clause 145 and the regulator’s power to wind up a provider in Clause 165. The two powers are quite separate and are not intended to be related, but the Bill does not make this clear. The amendments ensure that it does. The moratorium process offers an important protection for tenants and investment in the most serious of situations: when a provider is insolvent. Once the process is triggered, there is a moratorium on the disposal of a provider’s land for 28 working days. This provides an opportunity for the regulator to agree proposals with secured creditors and to put in place a rescue package. These are strong powers for the regulator, and it is an important feature of the moratorium system that they are triggered only by steps that are taken independently of the regulator; that is, normally by the provider or its secured creditors. It would not be appropriate for the regulator to be able to trigger these powers itself. One of the steps in Clause 145 that triggers a moratorium is the presenting of a petition for winding up a registered provider. There are certain circumstances in which the regulator may present a petition for winding up. That power is most likely to be used when, following a statutory inquiry, the regulator has directed the registered provider to transfer all its land to another person. This allows the regulator to ensure that the provider, which no longer has any land, is closed down in an orderly manner. These powers have distinct and separate purposes and they should not interact. If the regulator presents a petition for winding up, it should not trigger a moratorium. The amendments make this quite clear. I beg to move.