Clause
27
Power
to charge for certain activities
Question proposed, That
the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Raynsford:
Clause 27 covers the power of the HCA to charge
for certain activities. It is obviously appropriate that, where the
agency provides services and research, there should be the capacity to
make a reasonable charge for that. Indeed, I understand that the
existing bodies, the Housing Corporation and English Partnerships,
currently do that. My concern is that the power as defined in the
clause, certainly in subsection (1), appears to be limited to anything
done by virtue of clauses 41, 42 and 47. Clause 42 covers training and
advisory services and it looks sensible and straightforward.
Clause 47 needs closer
examination because it states
that:
“The HCA
may provide services in support of a
project.”
It
defines those services as seconding staff; providing consultants or
other manpower resources to a project, or; lending or providing
technical, property or other resources. That is all fine in theory, but
what is the definition of “a project”? Could that be
unduly restrictive? Does a project refer simply to a single housing
scheme supported by the new agency, following on from the ability of
the Housing Corporation to provide funding for a particular housing
scheme, or does it go wider? Could it cover new regeneration
initiatives that perhaps will apply in a number of different areas or
projects—I am using the plural—that will have different
outcomes in different parts of the country? Might that fall foul of a
definition that appears to be limited to anything that is done in
support of “a project”? I do not know the
answer.
I
am puzzled by that matter and slightly worried that when we see the
agency operating, the definition of “a project” might
unduly restrict its ability to offer technical support, consultancy,
advice and other assistance to enable worthwhile regeneration or other
initiatives to
take place. We might all support and regard them as sensible and
admirable activities, but they might be prevented if the definition
of “in
support of a
project”
proves unduly
restrictive. I am simply seeking guidance on whether that definition
provides for the full range of circumstances in which it would be
appropriate for the HCA to provide support and to charge for it in
order to defray the
costs.
Mr.
Wright:
Personally, I think that the clause is important
because it empowers the HCA to charge. In doing so, we get a bit of a
sneak peek into what it will do and how it will help local authorities
and others to step up to the plate. I would like to refer you to the
objects of the HCA, Mr. Benton. It is tasked with
supporting
“in other ways
the creation, regeneration or development of communities in England or
their continued
well-being”.
It will do
that by working with local authorities and other stakeholders by being
an expert delivery partner. The expertise and experience that already
exist within English Partnerships and the Housing Corporation will
transfer to the agency. That means that the new agency has the
potential to be incredibly innovative in the way in which it takes
regeneration forward. That could be in providing advice, training and
consultancy services to drive forward projects that otherwise would
never get off the
ground.
Additionally,
something that I am interested in and that we do not talk about often
enough is the Academy for Sustainable Communities, which will go into
the agency and effectively act as an operating arm of the HCA.
That will carry forward its work to improve the skills, knowledge and
behaviours that are needed to deliver and to maintain sustainable
communities. The power in the clause will enable the academy, and then
the agency, to charge for the information, advice, education and
training support services that they
provide.
The clause is
intended to enable the HCA not to make a profit from providing those
services, but to make reasonable charges to recover the costs that it
incurs as a result of providing advice or operating a particular
service. It would be unreasonable to require the agency to provide such
services without allowing it to recover costs, where it considers it to
be appropriate. If the agency were to provide these types of services
free of charge, it could lead to it being exploited. We do not want
that to happen. It was suggested earlier that we do not want private
sector developers and others to see this as a green light and a cash
cow. We believe that the agency should be able to make a reasonable
charge for those services. That is only right and
fair.
I want to come
on to an intriguing point that my right hon. Friend the Member for
Greenwich and Woolwich made with regard to the power to charge under
clause 47, and the reference to “project”. We may return
to that matter when we consider clause 47, but my understanding is that
the word “project” is used to suggest a time-limited
involvement. To remove that word may suggest that the HCA would be
involved indefinitely, and that is not the best use of resources. The
intention—this will be true for a range of things that the
agency does—is that the agency will provide support to schemes
to enable them to get to a position where they are either complete or
self-sufficient. The duration of that will vary quite widely depending
on
the scheme, but “project” is deliberately not defined, so
as to ensure that it has its natural meaning, which suggests a
time-limited span with particular
outcomes.
Mr.
Raynsford:
I accept the point about the time-limited
nature of “project”, but I was also asking about
geographical spread, because a “project” could be
interpreted as referring only to a particular area. If there were an
initiative that involved projects in several different areas which
depended on an input of consultancy from the agency, and that were
interpreted as going beyond the remit because it was not a single
project, but a series of projects in different areas, might that be a
problem? I ask only because I want to be quite certain that this will
not prove unduly restrictive as an interpretation. I entirely accept
all the points my hon. Friend has made, but I would ask him to give a
little further thought to the question of geographic spread, and to
whether a number of different projects might fall foul of the
definition.
Mr.
Wright:
Let me look at that matter
again, because my right hon. Friend makes an important point. We had an
interesting debate on Thursday on community land trusts. I imagine that
he agrees that community land trusts’ expertise would be
disseminated to relevant local authorities. I certainly see that as
being within the clause. Let me look at the matter afresh. We may come
back to it shortly when we deal with clause
47.
Margaret
Moran (Luton, South) (Lab): When my hon. Friend reviews
the measure, can he look at its scope? The Centre for Research and
Market Intelligence is the research and innovation part of the Housing
Corporation and I assume that it will be subsumed by the new agency. It
deals with some innovative work. It has done work around procurement
and around best practice in equalities, for example, which is not
project-specific, but more wide-ranging. It is leading edge in terms of
best practice, which I know my hon. Friend will want to see from the
new agency. I am a little concerned that the wording here may be a
little restrictive and may inhibit that kind of best practice project
from going
forward.
Mr.
Wright:
I appreciate the comments of my
hon. Friend. I think that she agrees that one of the things that we
want to see is the dissemination of good practice. The agency will be a
repository of that, and I do not want to see anything within the Bill
to prevent that from happening. I ask her and my right hon. Friend the
Member for Greenwich and Woolwich to let me look at the matter again. I
am fairly confident that, with the definition of
“project” as it is, that would be allowed to happen. One
of the arguments that has been teased out of the Conservative party is,
and I paraphrase, that they do not want homes, and one of the reasons
they do not want homes is that we do not have the relevant
infrastructure. I suggest that dissemination of good practice would be
the bread and butter of what the agency will be doing, working in
conjunction with local authorities. I reiterate that I do not want
anything that would compromise that within the Bill. I hope
that we can come back to that during consideration of clause
47.
Question put
and agreed
to.
Clause 27
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 28
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
29
Duty
to act as agent in respect of regeneration and
development
Question
proposed,
That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Alistair
Burt:
I have a couple of questions in relation to the next
two clauses. First, will the Minister say in what circumstances the
Secretary of State will appoint the HCA to act as agent in the manner
described in clause 29?
Secondly,
when talking of the HCA’s power as agent of the Secretary of
State on matters of regeneration, I wish to raise a particular issue. I
understand that the Housing Corporation does not provide finance to
schemes in which there is no net increase in affordable housing. In
areas that have the potential to increase housing supply and that
already have an over-concentration of council housing, making a more
mixed community would involve a net loss of council housing. Although
it would result in a much more balanced community, which is the desire
set out in the Green Paper, such a scheme would not attract financial
support.
Will the
Minister say whether the HCA might take a more flexible approach? I am
talking of a situation in which there was not necessarily a net
increase in affordable housing. Would it still be possible for
financial assistance to be given to a scheme whose objects were within
the terms of the HCA’s remit—within its wider powers over
regeneration, rather than simply its powers to act as an agency to
deliver more housing
units?
How will the
HCA use its powers, and will it be more flexible than the current
provisions as they affect the Housing Corporation? I should be grateful
if the Minister gave us some indication on
that.
Mr.
Syms:
I, too, would like a little
clarification on clause 29. I may be wrong, but it seems that the
Secretary of State can give the agency a role—for instance, to
dispense grants. Does that mean that grants that would now be given
directly to local authorities will go to the agency to be dispensed? As
someone who spent 14 years in local government, my concern is that it
should not be used to get around directly funding local authorities or
boroughs.
Mr.
Wright:
Let me provide some clarity.
Sections 126 to 128 of the Housing Grants, Construction and
Regeneration Act 1996 give the Secretary of State the power to give
financial assistance in respect of expenditure on activities that
contribute to the regeneration or development of an area. In simple
terms, that means that the agency can step into the shoes of the
Secretary of State and give financial assistance in support of
regeneration or development activities in particular areas; it is
appointed as an agent by the Secretary of State.
However—I
return to this point time and again—the agency must act in
accordance with the terms and conditions of its appointment, as set out
by the Secretary of State, and crucially it will still need to act
within the confines of its objects as stated in clause 2. In practice,
the agency will be enabled to administer regeneration funding
programmes, which are currently delivered by
the Department for Communities and Local Government. The power will
enable the Secretary of State to appoint the Homes and Communities
Agency to perform a number of functions that are currently performed by
the Department. On
Thursday, we had a debate about the vision of the Department and it
providing a strategic role on what is needed in respect of housing and
regeneration, with the HCA being one of the delivery agents. Many of
the delivery functions currently performed by the Department are being
transferred to the agency. We are doing something similar in clause 19
in order to build on that. The Government believe that it is vital that
investors have clarity on the arrangements for delivering those
commitments, and I hope that we have provided that clarity.
I hope that I have provided
some certainty for the hon. Member for North-East
Bedfordshire—but he looks slightly
confused.
Alistair
Burt:
I just want an answer on the points about the
flexibility of finance and about the Housing Corporation not funding
schemes in circumstances in which there is no net increase in
affordable housing. Will the new agency take a different view on
that?
Mr.
Wright:
I am furiously looking for clause
2.
Alistair
Burt:
Some inspiration is
needed.
Mr.
Wright:
No; I am fairly happy with the inspiration here,
although I could now be contradicted. Clause 2 states that the objects
of the HCA are:
“to
improve the supply and quality of housing in England...to secure
the regeneration or development of land or infrastructure in
England...and to support in other ways the creation, regeneration
or development of communities in England or their continued
well-being.”
Those
objects are important, and the hon. Gentleman’s points would
satisfy those
criteria.
6.30
pm
Alistair
Burt:
May I understand that the Minister
is answering “Yes,” and that he does not expect the
current restriction operating through the Housing Corporation to
continue under the new agency in the specific circumstances that I
mentioned? If so, I am happy to hear that. As my point is very
specific, I am perfectly content if he wants to write to the Committee.
I do not know where his inspiration is leading him at the
moment.
Mr.
Wright:
I understand that I am intervening on the hon.
Gentleman, Mr. Benton. Will he clarify the
particular circumstances that he means? He mentioned affordable housing
and the housing market renewal area; which particular areas is he
concerned about and what would he like me to
clarify?
Alistair
Burt:
My understanding, from an expert
who works in the regeneration field, is that the Housing Corporation
will not supply finance to a scheme in which the overall end result
will be fewer affordable
houses. In some development areas, there is opportunity to expand the
housing supply in the round, including more mixed
developments—more private housing and home ownership—by
taking out some council housing in places where there is an
over-concentration, such as on the monolithic-type estates that we are
trying to get rid of.
The
Government’s Green Paper supports the development of more mixed
communities, but money is not available through the Housing Corporation
if a point of principle on affordable homes is breached. The thinking
is, “There will be fewer affordable homes, so how can we give
money to this?” If the Government’s aims and objectives
were slightly broader than simply building more homes and units, which
is the charge that has been levelled against the agency, and if there
were an allowance to supply finance to that sort of scheme if a more
balanced community were being created, even though there would be a net
loss of affordable homes, would that restriction be
lifted?
Mr.
Wright:
That helps an awful lot and
clarifies the question. The agency’s objects are wider than the
Housing Corporation’s, and I do not want to pass judgment
regarding the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman mentions. I
mentioned the housing market renewal area because I have ministerial
responsibility for it, and I have been to your constituency to have a
look around, Mr. Benton, and really enjoyed my
time there. A relevant consideration might be an over-preponderance of
two-up, two-downs and that we need to lower the density. In such
circumstances, that would be entirely reasonable. However, the whole
objective is to improve the supply and quality of housing in England. I
hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman.
The housing market renewal area
and possible phased and planned demolitions are a good example of how
we need to improve the housing stock. That might mean fewer houses in
that particular area; in that respect, I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
I hope that I have clarified matters.
Question put and agreed
to.
Clause 29
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
