Housing and Regeneration Bill

moved Amendment No. 108ZC: 108ZC: Clause 170, page 72, line 8, at end insert— ““(1A) But a non-profit registered provider may dispose of the landlord’s interest under a secure tenancy only to another non-profit registered provider.”” The noble Baroness said: We have come to a group in which the majority of the amendments are government amendments. I will deal with Amendments Nos. 108ZC, 108ZD, 108ZE, 108ZF, 108ZG, 108ZH and 108ZJ. The amendments vary in length and complexity; so look sharp, even though it is 7 pm. Amendment No. 108ZC is a technical and precautionary amendment to ensure that if a non-profit registered provider wishes to sell a home that is let under a secure tenancy, it can only do so to another non-profit registered provider. Secure tenancies are slightly different in law to the assured tenancies that are typically issued by registered social landlords. I know that noble Lords understand those differences. Some of the protections of a secure tenancy rely on the status of a landlord as a public-sector landlord, a registered social landlord or non-profit registered provider in future. We would therefore not wish to see a home let under a secure tenancy transferred to a profit-making registered provider. We would not expect the regulator to consent to such a disposal, which would be inconsistent with its objective to protect tenants. The amendment makes absolutely certain of that by explicitly prohibiting such a disposal. Amendment Nos. 108ZD, 108ZE, 108ZG and 108ZH are related. They represent a significant reduction in the regulatory burden on non-profit providers of social housing by removing the requirement on them to seek consent for the disposal of land except where that disposal is of social housing. It brings the requirement on non-profit providers into line with that for profit-making providers. Those who have followed this debate in the other place will know that, initially, we took a very cautious approach over non-profit providers of social housing—the successors to RSLs. We retained the requirement for them to seek consent for any disposal of land. That requirement has a long-standing history as part of the regulatory system and reflects an historic situation. In the past, RSLs were concerned almost exclusively with social housing. Now, quite rightly, they are involved in mixed-tenure developments and in wider community services and have a wider range of assets that are not social housing. In addition, until now, there has not been a legal definition of social housing, so we had no way to distinguish in statute between social housing and other assets. Given all this, we accept that times have changed. We have listened to the concerns of stakeholders and were careful to balance the risks. We are now proposing to limit the requirement to seek disposal consent to social housing only under Amendment No. 108ZD. It would ensure that social tenants and investment in social housing are protected while giving registered providers more freedom to manage their other assets. In practice, this power is hardly ever used. Many disposals of land that are not social housing are covered by the Housing Corporation’s general consent. This change will effectively bring that practice into legislation, thereby minimising the burden of regulation. It has been welcomed by the Housing Association. I believe that this strikes the right balance between protecting tenants, protecting public investment and giving landlords freedom to manage their own affairs. Amendment No. 108ZH would place a requirement on non-profit providers to notify the regulator when they make a disposal for which consent is not required, although the regulator is free to give a direction dispensing with that requirement. At present, the information received by the Housing Corporation about disposals is an important part of its understanding of the financial standing of landlords. We do not believe that it is necessary for the regulator to have power to withhold disposal consent for land other than social housing, but that it should have access to important financial information about major transactions. We have therefore provided this requirement to notify the regulator, which would probably be dispensed with for large numbers of minor transactions. It is about minimising the regulatory burden while ensuring that the regulator can maintain good information about providers’ financial standing. Again, it is about balancing risks. Amendment No. 108ZF corrects a drafting error in Clause 172, which sets out the exceptions to the requirement to seek consent to dispose of social housing. The first exception is for disposals under the types of residential tenancies most commonly used by registered providers. At present, this exception applies to non-profit registered providers only, which is an error. It would mean that profit-making registered providers would need to seek the consent of the regulator before letting a home to a social tenant. That would obviously be absurd and a serious impediment to their normal business. The amendment therefore deletes the words ““non-profit”” so that this exception applies to all registered providers. Finally, Amendment No. 108ZJ is a technical amendment to ensure that the existing system of a disposal proceeds fund for the proceeds of right-to-acquire sales is preserved under the new arrangements. It may help if I set out the background. The disposal proceeds fund is an important part of the legal framework of the right-to-acquire scheme. By requiring providers to place the proceeds of sale, along with any grants for discounts, into the disposal proceeds fund and then requiring the fund to be spent in line with the regulator’s direction, this system enables us to ensure that stock lost through the right-to-acquire is replaced. Although the Bill makes no substantive changes to the right-to-acquire itself, this group of clauses is necessary to ensure that the system of reinvesting proceeds is maintained under the new organisational framework. The amendment is needed because of the regulator’s greater independence from government, compared to the Housing Corporation. Obviously, the key feature of this Bill is that we are giving the regulator statutory independence with the Government’s powers to direct limited to a few very specific areas. Unlike with the Housing Corporation, the Government cannot rely on a general direction power to require the regulator to achieve government policy. In the vast majority of circumstances, that is quite right. However, it is important that the Government have the power to direct the regulator on the use of the disposal proceeds fund because it is a key feature of our policy on the right to acquire that proceeds will be reinvested in replacement social housing. That has been achieved until now through the Housing Corporation’s control of the disposal proceeds fund. In future, it will be achieved through the regulator’s control of the disposal proceeds fund. The greater independence means that we need to spell out the Government’s role more clearly. If we are to ensure that the right to acquire remains unchanged, the Secretary of State must have a power to direct the regulator in this very limited area. I am grateful for the Committee’s patience as I ploughed through that. I beg to move.