Localism Bill

My Lords, as regards the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Shipley, I recognise the strength of local feeling in the case that he highlighted. We have looked at his proposal extremely carefully and have discussed it with the social housing regulator, the Charity Commission, the National Almshouse Association and the National Housing Federation. We have also received helpful representations from the United St Saviour’s Charity and from residents of the Hopton’s Almshouses in Southwark. I fully understand the reasoning behind the proposed amendment. However, we are concerned that the amendment seems to require an increase in bureaucracy and potential state interference in the proper exercise of charity trustees' discretion. Currently, the identification of a new trustee is a matter for the existing trustee to decide and we are not convinced that new regulatory controls should be applied. The proposed amendment would apply only where the corporate trustee of an almshouse happens to be a registered provider of social housing. It is not clear that there is a strong rationale for requiring that these almshouse trustees, but not others, seek consent. Registered providers are subject to a regulatory requirement to consult tenants on changes to management arrangements, and the Charity Commission’s consent is required for changes to charities’ objects. My noble friend tempted to me to say something about Third Reading, but I am not convinced that there is anything more that we can do with this Bill, so I shall resist that temptation. However, I suspect that this will be a live issue for some time to come. Our expectation is that, as a matter of good practice, housing associations should and would consult any residents affected by significant management changes that they are proposing to make. Amendment 65 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark. A transitional provision is already in place that allows non-stock-owning group parents to remain on the regulator’s register, despite the fact that they are not social housing landlords as defined by the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. In order to minimise uncertainty, I am happy to confirm that the Government have no plans to withdraw this provision. However I am not convinced that the regulator should be able to register new bodies that do not meet the landlord test provided by the 2008 Act. It is not clear that there is anything fundamentally wrong with the principle that regulation should apply to the landlord of the stock. This approach is consistent with wider legislation, which usually imposes legal obligations on landlords rather than on any parent companies they may have. Amendment 67 was tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Kennedy of Southwark. The existing legislation provides that the regulator may not normally appoint more than a minority of the officers of a registered provider. I am not convinced that removing this restriction and replacing it with a prohibition on the regulator appointing more than four officers would strengthen housing association independence. In fact, it could well have the opposite effect. It is entirely possible that a housing association may have seven or fewer officers and, where this is the case, the amendment would effectively give the regulator the power to appoint a majority of the association’s officers. I am also concerned that this change could reduce the effectiveness of the regulator’s response to a serious problem in an association. For example, where an association has no officers, as has occurred in the past, but its constitution does not specify a minimum number of officers, the amendment would permit the regulator to make up to four appointments only. That may not be sufficient to put things right and protect tenants and the taxpayer.