George Young (North West Hampshire, Conservative)

I refer the Minister to an exchange that took place on 11 December when the Council of Mortgage Lenders appeared before us and was exposed to some questioning from the Committee. In particular, I refer to column 65, which deals specifically with clause 36. Mr. Richard Hughes, the CML representative, stated:

“On our reading, clauses 36 and 37 seem to say that the HCA can demand its grant back and a return on it—we assume some sort of equity-style return.”——[Official Report, Housing and Regeneration Public Bill Committee, 11 December 2007; c. 65.]

I have to say that I did not share the CML’s concern, but I will not be lending any money. It is important that the CML is confident that the security their members have when they advance funds is such that they will continue to lend. Has there been any dialogue since that exchange on 11 December between the Minister’s Department and the CML that indicates that the organisation is no longer concerned about clause 36 and that it does not want the amendment it sent to members of the Committee but which no one tabled—a proposed new subsection (4)(c) to clause 36, which deals with the recovery of social housing assistance—and that the sort of difficulties that were envisaged in the exchange will not, in fact, occur if clause 36 goes through without its amendment?

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

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that line of questioning. I do not have the Hansard for 11 December in front of me, but I seem to recall from my genning up for this debate that the right hon. Gentleman was extraordinarily helpful to me in respect of this matter. I believe he realises, because I think he made the point in December, that the provisions are not, in essence, a change in policy terms or in the legal framework. He mentioned in December that the Housing Corporation operates a similar system under the Housing Act 1996, and I believe he agrees that it is not unreasonable to require repayment of more grant than had been originally understood would go unchallenged.

On the direct point about dialogue between officials and the CML, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that my officials have been discussing the matter with the organisation. The discussion is ongoing, because we are keen to reassure the CML of the nature of the clause and subsequent relevant clauses, and to ease its concerns. I believe that the dialogue has proved fruitful, and I hope that I have reassured the right hon. Gentleman in that regard.