Clause 36
Housing and Regeneration Bill
9:45 am
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?