Clause 35
Housing and Regeneration Bill
9:30 am
Iain Wright (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government; Hartlepool, Labour)
I have a great deal of sympathy with the sentiments behind the amendment. It is probably far too early in the morning for me—I am being far too amenable for my own good—and I prefer the later sittings. The hon. Gentleman is on to something and the motivation behind the amendments is sound. He is trying to give the agency more flexibility while protecting tenants.
However, that is where it stops. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that there are certain key aspects of regulation that can fall only on the owners of the property. Regulation, as he will accept, protects public investment in social housing by requiring owners to seek disposal consent from the regulator or the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government before selling a property. It also, for example, requires the owners of a home sold to the tenant under the right-to-acquire scheme to reinvest the proceeds through the statutory disposal proceeds fund. Those are key protections, which it is essential to maintain.
Registered providers can appoint a manager to carry out day-to-day management of their properties. The regulator can operate or approve accreditation schemes for such managers, and if a commercial developer, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, wanted to appoint a manager or indeed another registered provider to carry out that detailed work, that would be perfectly possible within the existing framework. However, the fundamental point is that the owner must still be registered to ensure that investment from the public purse is protected. So, while I am sympathetic to his concerns, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.