Clause 27
Housing and Regeneration Bill
6:14 pm

Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)

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.

Iain Wright (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government; Hartlepool, Labour)

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.

Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)

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.

Iain Wright (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government; Hartlepool, Labour)

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, Labour)

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.

Iain Wright (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government; Hartlepool, Labour)

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.