If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.

Clause 18 [Regional planning]:

moved Amendment No. 73G:

The clause refers to regional authorities, with which I have a slight problem. In the past we have spoken about local views being valued, but the decisions by regional authorities are anything but democratic because the authorities are unelected. The electorate can just about grapple with parish, district and county councils, but regional authorities are beyond their radar. Is it not time that they were elected so that they can be accountable to the electorate for the decisions they make?

Before I get to this debate itself, I should say that both myself and, in particular, my noble friend Lady Andrews as the lead Minister on the Bill are going to be as telegraphic as we can in our responses. The Committee will be aware that we are running out of time in which to consider the Bill and we need to give it fair consideration across the piece. If noble Lords enter the debate in that spirit we will make greater progress and still try to answer the points. If any points are unanswered in our responses we will, of course, fulsomely correspond with noble Lords to ensure that questions are answered.

We are grateful for the amendment. I can see that the noble Lord is trying to make the language clearer, which does not conflict in any way with our policy intent. If he is happy with that observation, I should like to give a little thought to the wording of the amendment and come back to this issue—perhaps with some jointly agreed words—at a later stage.

I should say to the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, that I am intrigued by this new development in Conservative Party policy and thinking and the call for elected regional assemblies. I shall await developments with great interest. It is, of course, our party’s policy to try to ensure that we have democracy at each tier and level of government.

Would the Minister like to comment on the government amendment in the group?

Yes. Sorry; I was so enthused by the question. Our Amendment No. 74 clarifies the circumstances in which a regional planning body might be required to seek the advice of the Homes and Communities Agency. We intend that it be only when the agency has had the functions of local planning authorities conferred on it in relation to all or part of the designated area that its advice should be sought by the regional planning body. As the Bill is drafted, that would not be the position—the regional planning body would be required to seek the advice of the HCA in relation to any designated area, irrespective of whether local planning authority functions had been conferred on it in relation to that area or any part of it. That is not our intention. The HCA’s advice should be sought only where the functions of a local planning authority have been conferred on it. That is the proper position and it is what the amendment achieves.

I am delighted to accept what the Minister said on my Amendment No. 73G and hope that he agrees that I moved it in the spirit of trying to make some progress on the Bill, although we have one or two meatier amendments to come.

Like everyone else, I was intrigued to hear what the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, said about elected regional authorities. I am a passionate believer in regional government in England with a great deal of devolution from this place and the centre generally. I think that that is still the policy of my party, although the whole thing is a bit on the back burner now. I look forward to debates on the subject.

I am in some difficulty about whether we can accept the government amendment today, because I am speaking on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who is detained at some conference that she is chairing. She will be along later and apologises for not being here. It is her suggestion that, were the amendment to be carried, debate on some planning aspects of the Bill on Report or at Third Reading would be pre-empted and we might be in some difficulty. On that basis, she asked me to indicate that we did not support it today. However, perhaps I can have a clear assurance that there would be no pre-emption of any debate at all on the planning aspects of the Bill, other than the details of this provision. I think she is worried that if Amendment No. 74 were passed today, it might pre-empt discussion on amendments on Report to take out the whole question of the HCA taking over from a local authority in an area as the planning authority, if there were any. If I have an absolute assurance that that is not the case, I will proceed on that basis.

This is a technical amendment. I assure the noble Lord that pre-emption does not prevail in this instance. I have taken the opportunity of checking that with officials, and they see it that way. We do not see a problem. I am sure that the noble Baroness will be able to do whatever she wants on Report, and we do not see Amendment No. 74 as fettering that.

That will be written down in Hansard and will have to satisfy my noble friend, because it satisfies me. I hope she agrees. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 73G.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 74:

moved Amendment No. 75:

I shall describe why the amendment is unnecessary and how the clause works. However, the noble Lord’s questions are right and proper, and I am sure that with his long involvement in the farming industry and so on he is very familiar with landowning. Of course, he is right that people should be clear about why they are on someone else’s land and for what purpose, and I had better write to him on that and explain how we see the authorisation working. I hope that that will satisfy him and I shall obviously share the information with other Members of the Committee.

The clause allows an authorised person to enter a person’s land in connection with a proposal by the agency to acquire land. There are only two reasons why the agency is empowered to enter a person’s land: the first is to carry out a survey and the second is to value the land. In both cases, it may do so only in connection with a proposal for it to acquire that or other land or to assess the amount of compensation to be paid in respect of the acquisition.

The clause has been amended since it was debated in another place. The phrase “and subject as follows” has been added to make it clearer that Clause 19(1) is to be read in the light of what follows. Clause 19(2)(b) now refers to “land” rather than “occupied land” and to both owners and occupiers, making it clear that the provision applies to all cases of intended entry. Clause 19(3)—a new subsection—requires that a notice of intended entry must,

“state the purpose for which entry is required, and … inform the person to whom it is given of the person’s rights under this section”.

Therefore, there is a clear obligation for information to be provided, but the other points that the noble Lord raised require an answer for good reasons.

The amendments that have been made to Clause 19 clarify and strengthen it. They now make it clear that this amendment is unnecessary and I hope that, following my explanation, the noble Lord will withdraw it.

I am very grateful to the Minister for the explanation and even more grateful for the fact that he intends to write to me and all Members of the Committee with detailed answers to the questions that I have asked. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 19 agreed to.

Clause 20 agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 75A:

This amendment seeks to restrict the power of the HCA to serve a connection notice on the local highway authority to require that authority to connect a private street to an existing highway only to those circumstances in which the HCA has carried out the development which includes the private street.

Clause 21 enables the HCA to serve a connection notice on the local highway authority which will require it to connect a private street to an existing highway. There are several reasons why the HCA may require this. The local authority may be undertaking a major regeneration project and may be working in partnership with a private developer and the HCA. To secure the full regeneration potential of the project it may well be necessary for highway networks to be linked. In those circumstances, I am sure that all noble Lords want the HCA to be able to exercise its power to require the local highway authority to connect the private street to an existing highway.

In reality this power provides a means of certainty whereby road networks can be linked where necessary, and that would almost always be done by negotiation. Subsection (4) requires that before serving a connections notice the HCA must consult the highways authority on the contents of the notice, and subsection (5) provides for an appeal procedure. The HCA will be required to consult the highway authority on the connection. The role of the HCA in such circumstances will generally be to facilitate the development by working in partnership with the local authority, the private developer and other agencies.

Even in cases where the agency served a notice on the highway authority, Clause 21 sets out the requirements of the notice, who should be consulted and how appeals can be made to the Secretary of State. These requirements, consultations and the ability to make appeals would apply whether the HCA undertook the development or not. Given that those safeguards are in place and given the fact that the requirement to connect a private street to a local highway authority would usually be expected to result from a major regeneration or housing project led by the local authority itself in order to build a sustainable community, I hope the noble Lord will be reassured that this power is designed to facilitate a local authority’s objective.

I turn to the amendment. There will of course be circumstances in which the HCA may undertake a development which results in a requirement for a private street to be connected to a local highway. However, the agency would most likely undertake such a development in partnership. It would be unwise to restrict the power of the HCA to request the connection of a private street to an existing highway in those limited circumstances rather than those that I have described.

It may be suggested that the HCA could, in theory at least, seek to connect all private streets to existing highways, whether or not they were involved in activities near those streets. It is perhaps worth taking one’s attention to Clause 21(8), which states that,

“the local highway authority … may recover … expenses reasonably incurred”,

by making the connection. It would serve no practical purpose for the agency to seek connection of a private street in which it had no interest as it would be paying for connections which were not linked to any of its development activities. In practical terms, we expect the HCA to seek connection only where it would provide a benefit that contributed to regeneration overall.

This is a reserve power; first and foremost, matters will be sorted out by agreement. In a very few cases, this procedure might be necessary. A right of appeal for local highway authorities is built in. We do not expect the power to be used very often, but it is needed to ensure that developments give a full return to potential.

I am even more mystified as to why the power is required. The Minister confirmed the circumstances in which it could be used, but it is difficult to envisage them. How are developments connected now with the highways network without these powers? Well, it happens. Huge housing estates, new towns, eco-towns, new factories, power stations, bus stations and railway stations are not built without a connection to the highways network; they are all connected to the highways network without these powers. I do not understand why they are needed. I assume that they are legacy powers carried forward from previous Acts. How often have they been used within living memory? If the Minister cannot tell me now, perhaps somebody can write to me with the answer. The Bill is full of stuff carried forward from the past which does not represent the real world today.

The Minister talked a lot about projects working in partnership with the local authority for regeneration, even those led by the local authority. If the local authority is working in partnership with the HCA and leading projects, it will not refuse to link them up to the road network. That is not the real world.

I am utterly mystified and ask the Minister to let me know in due course how often the powers have been used. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 21 agreed to.

Clause 22 [Financial assistance]:

moved Amendment No. 75B:

I have considerable sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is saying. This is a classic example of the increasing and increasingly detailed interference that has occurred for local authorities over the past decade in particular; in fact, it began before that. I do not like the term “council housing” in the modern context—it is discriminatory—but the issue behind all this is whether council housing is social housing. It is, and there is no getting away from that. In other respects, we will look later in the Bill at creating what is called the single domain, under which housing, whether owned and managed by councils, ALMOs or housing associations, will all be subject to the same regulatory regime and we will get some unification. I well understand that that is complicated because the basis of funding for local authorities is dramatically different from anything else. However, we are talking about social housing and there is a case for having all social housing treated in the same way, with regard not just to regulation but to access for funding. There is a quid pro quo to that argument, which is that some of the privileged positions that council houses might enjoy—there have been such constraints that they no longer enjoy them—would have to go, even if they are only theoretical advantages. I am not sure whether the amendment would get us to where we probably need to be, but it is certainly a subject worthy of further exploration.

This is an important area of debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, there was a serious debate on it in another place. He rightly described it as controversial. It is not something that has simply divided parties; I acknowledge that some people in my own party take a similar view to the one that he took today. I agree that council housing, or social housing as we now know it, has been a fantastic success without which we would never have been able to house the sorts of people who could not have afforded a home of their own. It is a very proud tradition. We must recognise that, but times and aspirations change, as do challenges. The increasing challenge on the Government to enable people to buy their own homes and provide additional social housing has required us to look at things in a different way. I will come on to that.

There are a lot of issues in and around the future of social housing and the issues raised by the Hills report and so forth that are worthy of a serious and long debate. They are outside the scope of this Bill but nevertheless relevant. I will address the wider issues raised by the noble Lord before I get on to the amendment. He raised many issues about the funding of the HRA system such as the implications of incomes, transfers, rents and so forth. I would like to put on record that we are engaged in a major review of council housing finance as a whole. It is looking at all aspects of this area, including issues around investment. I will write to the Committee with details of that review—its terms of reference and the issues that it is addressing. Without going into a detailed response to those parts of the noble Lord’s speech, I can answer many of the issues or at least address them in the context of what we are doing in that review.

The amendment itself needs to be addressed because the notion is that it might clarify the issue or at least prompt a change by making it clear that local housing authorities may be given financial assistance by the HCA. Quite simply, the problem with the amendment is that Clause 22 is drafted broadly so that the HCA may provide financial assistance to any person, in any form, with Secretary of State consent. By “any form” we mean grants or loans. If we were to name local authorities and specify them above any other body or organisation, that could lead to the beginning of a list with all sorts of other bodies attempting to add themselves to that privileged position. We all know how we feel about lists in legislation. The broader point of whether local authorities themselves should be eligible for social housing grants, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, goes to the heart of the debate that we have had over the past few years.

Because local authorities have not been treated as eligible for social housing grants, the bare numbers are rather dramatic. It is undoubtedly true that the vast majority of new social housing has been built by housing associations, and local authorities have built fewer than 300 new council homes in England in each of the past nine years. Part of the context is that the housing authorities and local authorities themselves have become different sorts of agencies, moving away from providing and managing to becoming place-making organisations where housing policy—the assessment of need and the distribution of resources—has become a more important and clear role.

The reason we have looked to housing associations for investment in social housing has nothing to do with ideology or discrimination. The noble Lord said that we have treated local authorities unfairly, but we have been fair to those people who need homes. The simple fact is that housing associations have been able to deliver 30 per cent more social housing for the same amount of public grant because they have been able to lever in private borrowing and reserves. That is not to do with excluding local authorities from housing, but about getting value for money and getting the maximum output for the people in need. Indeed, that ambitious target of 70,000 more social homes by 2010-11, would be at risk without that leverage.

The noble Lord may ask why the Government do not do both. Why do they not enable local authorities to build and at the same time develop the housing association sector in that way? However, with scarce resources and with another major investment in the Decent Homes funding, for example, one has to get as much impact for limited resources as possible. Using the RSL sector in this way has been hugely effective.

I ask a small technical question. The Minister referred to subsection (1), which relates to a very wide power to give financial assistance to any person. I have been brought up on the assumption that in such circumstances Treasury approval would be required. I have pursued this briefly in other Committee sessions and I dare say that I shall pursue it again. Where has the Treasury gone?

As a result of what the noble Baroness said, perhaps I may raise a point that I have raised previously. As one stage she definitely implied that some of the funding allocated by the Government was competed for by the local authorities or housing associations. I have no difficulty with that as a means of selecting those who will make the best use of that funding. But what happens next? In other words, presumably they cannot apply again for similar funding for the next 40 or 50 years, or however long it takes, to give all the other authorities who might have failed at first a chance to get access to that funding. Otherwise, if funding goes only to the most efficient, smartest and—perhaps I will not say most loquacious—most plausible authorities, you could have a situation in which some social housing was extremely well maintained and some, through no fault of those who managed it, became effectively neglected. I am sure that the Government have thought that through, but I would like the noble Baroness to tell me how they have done it.

I will deal first with the Treasury point. The answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, is exactly the same as the answer we gave in our previous discussion. Modern advice from parliamentary counsel on legislation is that we do not need to specify the Treasury on the face of the Bill, because that is implicit in the whole business of accountability.

As a matter of curiosity, when did this change in behaviour occur? Were it to have occurred during the chancellorship of the present Prime Minister, it would be a salient fact.

I cannot answer that, I shall check with my officials and come back and write a letter to the noble Lord. On the second matter, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, which I was not trying to evade, I was not certain whether he was talking about housing associations bidding for Housing Corporation funds or local authorities, which, as I said, are not eligible to bid for social housing grant funds; but we have changed the conditions—

The question related to funding for social housing. If that excludes local authorities, so be it, but the principle is the same wherever it is applied. If only the best keep getting the funding, what happens to the rest?

The bidding process for housing associations is conducted on an annual basis and there are rolling programmes. Some housing associations bid very regularly for the funds as they come forward. Local authorities have not been eligible to bid for social housing grant, which was a change in policy. However, we have made changes to allow ALMOs and local companies to bid when local authorities are working through them, which is slightly different because they are at arm’s length, and that is why we are piloting such schemes. The other money available to local authorities has been for the Decent Homes programme for the repair and modernisation of council housing stock. Perhaps it would help if I set out these processes, which are complex, and how they relate to each other, in a letter to the noble Lord.

I am grateful to everyone who has taken part and to the Minister for setting out government policy. I did not expect her to do other than that, but she rightly reminded us that a major review is taking place, which is precisely why I used the phrase “in the next couple of years”, during which there may well be changes in policy. There is an increasingly major debate taking place on this matter and, as the Minister said, it is taking place very much within the Labour Party, as it is everywhere else. There is hope that perhaps minds are being changed a little and my reason for tabling the amendment was partly to contribute to that process and to the debate. I accept that for technical reasons the amendment cannot be accepted in its present form; it is a means of facilitating our debate.

I deliberately moved it in a fairly low-key and non-political way. In other forums, we might have had a bit more of a go at one another—I would certainly have had a go at the Government and the Labour Party—but this is not the place to do it. Nevertheless, expectations have been raised by what senior politicians have said, particularly the Prime Minister, and there is considerable dismay among people who are finding out that it perhaps does not mean what they thought—I shall put it no more strongly than that.

The fundamental question is: will it be possible for local authorities that still have traditional council housing to build new council housing to contribute to the 3 million target? At the moment, the answer appears to be, “No, it will not, except in very special circumstances in a very few places”.

The Minister spoke about additionality that comes from building by RSLs and housing associations, and there is no doubt that there are schemes where that is the case. There is no doubt also that finding it is more difficult for them and that, in many cases, housing associations cannot build without social housing grant as part of the package. It is therefore quite clear that local authorities, too, will not be able to build without social housing grant.

The Minister raised a much wider debate about local authorities and what she called place-making—it is not a word that I would use, but I recognise that it is part of the new Labour jargon. I think that I understand what it means; that is: “rather than being providers”. This is a much wider debate about the role of local authorities, which some of us think that Nicholas Ridley started off a long time ago when he thought that local authorities should have just one meeting a year to enable everybody else to do things. I am not suggesting that the Government are in any way going as far as that, because in many areas they are giving local authorities more powers and resources.

Enabling and providing are not alternatives; it is possible to do both. The mix should depend on what the people in each area—that is, the electors, the residents and the elected councillors—want. That would differ, which is fine. However, that is part of a much wider debate into which I shall not go any further.

The Minister touched on the important issue of where the extra resources would come from. If the social housing sector is going to make a significant contribution to the 3 million houses, and perhaps an increasing proportion given the state of the private housing market, extra resources will be needed. That is a question to which the Government will simply have to face up. If they do not provide the extra resources, they will not get the extra houses and many of us think that they will not hit the 3 million target.

I am grateful to the Minister for what she said. We look forward to her detailed explanation of how the system and the financing will work. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 76:

I am grateful to the noble Lord for the explanation. I thought that that was the intent behind his proposal, because of the changes that would be introduced by the amendment. I understand why he has pressed the point, but I shall explain why we need the flexibility that we have.

The wording of the amendment is largely taken from the corresponding power that was given to the Urban Regeneration Agency in the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. That provision, by the use of the term “may”, allowed the URA to attach specific terms and conditions when providing financial assistance. This amendment, by changing “may” to “shall”, does not give that necessary flexibility.

Why is it important to have that flexibility? First, Clause 22(1) requires the HCA to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State to the giving of financial assistance, which is taken over from previous legislation. We need flexibility in practice because, when one considers the great spread of RSLs and housing associations—some of them very small and specific, catering for special needs and communities, while others are extremely large operations—we need to be able to cover all eventualities in contractual arrangements that reflect special circumstances, objectives and tasks. Clause 22 allows the necessary flexibility for those terms and conditions to be tailored to the different circumstances in each instance.

The noble Lord asked me whether I could assure him that the contractual arrangements that would be made would specify and address the particular issues—and I can. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Dean has had a lot to do with the contractual arrangements with the Housing Corporation and could confirm that they are not entered into lightly and are specific and clear.

The second reason is that we have moved away in drafting legislation from including items that amount to standard terms and conditions that would be enforceable under contract anyway. This is in fact a matter of good practice in framing legislation.

Finally, the agency is accountable to the Secretary of State. That has always been clear. I have just spoken on how it handles the finances; it is expected to account properly for its financial transactions. That, together with the requirement to obtain the Secretary of State’s consent, is the safeguard that we build into the Bill.

I hope that on those grounds noble Lords can rest content that we have done things in an appropriate way.

I am grateful for the explanation. It comes as no real surprise to me, but I am grateful to the Minister none the less, even if I assumed that she would say what she said. Since I can now read that with care and study it to my heart’s content, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 22 agreed to.

Clauses 23 to 25 agreed to.

Clause 26 [Financial limits]:

On Question, Whether Clause 26 shall stand part of the Bill?

I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. She is not in her place because she has not yet returned from a conference.

The reason for my opposition to the clause standing part of the Bill is to enable me to question whether it is appropriate for specified amounts of money to appear in primary legislation rather than in secondary legislation, as it states in Clause 26(2) that:

“The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (1) so as to specify a greater amount than that for the time being specified there”.

The limit can be increased to £3,000 million. Nowadays people refer to that as £3 billion. I am not sure that it should be, but that is being old fashioned.

Is it appropriate for specified amounts to appear in primary legislation that may last for considerable time, during which inflation may occur? People try to keep inflation down to what is thought to be a reasonable level but some of us can remember when it was over 20 per cent. I am not suggesting it will get back to that level but many people feel that it may run at 4 or 5 per cent for a while. You would soon run away with large amounts of money if inflation stayed at that level for a number of years. That is the basic question.

A subsidiary question is to probe how £3,000 million, or £3 billion, compares with the current borrowing levels of the component organisations of the HCA. It will be interesting to know the amounts if the Minister can give them.

Finally—this is a more trivial probing—it is not clear how subsections (1), (2) and (3) relate to each other and why they are necessary. Why cannot the Secretary of State simply have the power to make an order stating what the maximum amount is at any given time? It is clear that, at some time or other, the amount will have to be increased if this legislation and the HCA survive for a reasonable time. If the HCA does not survive, the legislation will not have succeeded anyway.

I am happy to respond to this because one needs to explain why it is important to have this in primary legislation. In principle, it is important that Parliament understands what is proposed when one is discussing the borrowing powers of any public agency. This provision has been inherited from the Housing Associations Act 1985 and the limits are set at the same level as those available to the Housing Corporation. It is very much a standard provision for contingency powers. The current level is up to £2,300 million unless the Secretary of State provides for an increase to this limit, by order, up to a maximum ceiling of £3,000 million.

These amounts were increased from those originally allowed in the Housing Associations Act 1985 by the Housing Act 1988. Essentially, the reason for the increase is because the Homes and Communities Agency will be bigger than the Housing Corporation for all the reasons that we know. It does not seem reasonable to expect the new agency to do more than the combined roles of its constituent parts while restricting its ability to borrow to less than one of its constituent parts, so, as I have said, the amounts are those applicable to the Housing Corporation. Retaining access to this amount of borrowing would seem reasonable, given the breadth and wide variety of the work that the agency will undertake. Those limits will provide the scope for the agency to borrow such amounts as it considers appropriate, but it will be restricted to the terms of Clause 23; that is, the agency can borrow only from the Secretary of State or the European Investment Bank over the longer term, or from any person over the short term, in order to manage its finances. We expect amounts such as these to be borrowed over the longer term rather than the shorter.

I hope that clarifies why the clause is there and what it is intended to do, and that the noble Lord will be able to reassure his noble friend that everything is above board.

It seems somewhat odd to refer to an Act from 1985. That Act says,

“shall not exceed £2,500 million or such greater sum not exceeding £3,000 million as the Secretary of State may specify by order made with the consent of the Treasury”.

The value of money in 2008 is not exactly the same as it was in 1985. I would have thought that any modern calculations about financing would have to take into account where we are today and the experience of the Housing Corporation over that intervening period when circumstances have dramatically changed.

I have a slightly different concern. Curiously enough, it is rather a relief to see those limits there. The Homes and Communities Agency is going to have a broad spectrum of functions in the property field. It will be able to purchase and sell property. In a sense, if we are not careful, we will be establishing a plc—by which I mean not a private limited company but a government-supported company—with a capitalisation of up to £3 billion. If it was used in that way, that would be quite extraordinary, but I know that that is not the Government’s intention. However, I am not wholly convinced of where the safeguards are, even in this Bill, that will prevent it happening. They may exist, but I am not sure that I detected them in the form in which I have put the question.

I hope that the suggestion that the clause does not stand part of the Bill is not pursued. The organisation is going to be huge and it will need some clear traffic lights about how it does its business. It will be a public organisation, although it is going to work with the private sector, so it has that kind of accountability. Clause 2 says that the Secretary of State may, by order, specify a greater amount from time to time. So there is a minimum, but there is also the coverage. To take the whole clause out of the Bill would take away one of the compasses that the new organisation is going to have. It is sound to have that clause in. I question whether £2.3 billion is going to be enough in the future, but I am consoled by the fact that subsection (2) will cover that. The Secretary of State still has to have a handle, even though it is at arm’s length, on an organisation that is going to be investing substantial amounts of public sector funding.

I am grateful for that intervention from my noble friend. We might have had a bit more argument in Committee if we had come back with a greatly inflated attempt to borrow. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, says, £3 billion is an awful lot of money, however you describe it—for example, £3,000 million. In answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, I say that the borrowing limits seem to us to be sufficient. Our assessment is based on the experience of the past 20 years, and there is no need to change the limits; they are proportionate and right. The arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, were very sensible in that context. But accountability is built in, not only in how we inherited powers from previous organisations and how they operate but in the set of relationships that we have between the Secretary of State, the corporation and the new agency. Indeed, if the HCA wants to borrow on a long-term basis, it can borrow only from the Secretary of State or the European Investment Bank. Short-term borrowing can come from any person if it should be needed, but it is short-term borrowing only. So we have checks and balances in the borrowing arrangements there, which are very sensible.

I am grateful again for the Minister’s detailed explanations. She asked me to give reassurances to my noble friend, who has now arrived and is in her place; I shall anyhow draw her attention to Hansard for what has been said, and she can make up her own mind on whether she is reassured.

Clause 26 agreed to.

Clause 27 [Power to charge for certain activities]:

moved Amendment No. 76A:

It is very nice to see the noble Baroness in her place. I am sure that she drew on the forensic scrutiny of this Committee to impress her conference.

I can give the noble Baroness a short answer on the FOI point. She has drawn attention to the regulations made under the FOI Act, which applied to the provision of information under the Act by public authorities. Those regulations cover how a public authority should estimate the cost of complying with a request, for example, for a piece of information. These regulations include provision as to what a public authority can take into account in determining charges for dealing with an FOI request, and include, for example, how easily or not the public authority could determine whether it held the information, how it could take account of the costs that it expected to incur to locate or retrieve information and so on. These are very sensible principles in relation to charging for the provision of information when responding to a request under the Act.

The regulations will certainly apply to both the new HCA and the regulator, so the noble Baroness’s amendments are redundant in that sense. There are consequential amendments in Clause 87 and Schedule 8, which also provide for the FOI Act to apply to the HCA and the regulator. I hope that she will be satisfied with that.

I suspected the worst but then, after I had tabled amendments saying that the FOI Act should apply, I found that it did. I am grateful for the Minister’s assurance and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 27 agreed to.

Clauses 28 to 30 agreed to.

[Amendment No. 77 not moved.]

Clause 31 [Business]:

On Question, Whether Clause 31 shall stand part of the Bill?

I query what seems to be the extraordinarily far-reaching nature of this clause. It is very short and reads:

“Business

(1) The HCA may carry on any business.

(2) In subsection (1) ‘business’ includes undertaking”.

I take it that this has nothing to do with assisting us all in our transition to the next world or wherever we may be going; nevertheless, I am not sure what,

“In subsection (1) ‘business’ includes undertaking”,

means, why it is necessary and what the drafting purpose is of having it in the Bill. When I read the words,

“The HCA may carry on any business”,

I am reminded of Clause 3 concerning principal powers, which we debated several days ago. It states:

“The HCA may do anything it considers appropriate for the purposes of its objects or for purposes incidental to those purposes”.

We had quite a debate about the words “anything it considers appropriate”. Nevertheless, there the HCA is clearly constrained by,

“the purposes of its objects or for purposes incidental to those purposes”,

whereas here we are saying that it can carry out any business at all. I am intrigued by this and look forward to the Minister’s explanation.

I share the curiosity of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. Some years ago, when my wife and I were in Sri Lanka, there was a hotel which had been run by the Dutch for well over 200 years. My wife asked whether she could see the literature advising potential clients of the facilities at the hotel and was given what appeared to be a cricket fixture card. It stated the name of the hotel, which was the New and Oriental Hotel, on the front cover. On the inside page, in the bottom right-hand corner of what I think is known as the centrefold—there were only two pages—was a notice saying, “Prices may be secured on application to the management”. However, the best sentence of all was the one just inside the second page which started with the words, “The New and Oriental Hotel is neither new nor oriental”.

I anticipate the Minister’s response with some curiosity. His fellow Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, has alluded to changes in references to the Treasury that are now contained in all legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, is, again, unusually not in his place on this occasion, but it looks as though we may be looking at a new form of legislative architecture—a fashion trend within the Government towards minimalism in legislation. I have no problems at all with the nature of it—it may well be a good thing—but I think it is better that it happens with an explanation from the Government rather than by sleight of hand.

Perhaps I may make a simple observation. Clause 31 is the precise reason why, on the previous issue, I raised the relationship to the financial limits.

Clause 31 enables the Homes and Communities Agency to engage in any business, including commercial undertakings such as public/private partnerships, but such activities must be in support of its housing and regeneration objects. I can tell good Conservatives who are concerned about this that these powers are modelled on those of the Urban Regeneration Agency, which was established by their own legislation back in 1993.

These powers will be needed to allow the agency to carry on any business, including commercially established partnerships or funds or other such activities currently undertaken by English Partnerships, and to allow the HCA to continue to develop similarly innovative schemes, perhaps with the private sector, to support its broader objects. We do not want to inhibit the activities of the HCA when it works in the commercial field by failing to give it adequate powers. The noble Lord, Lord Mawson, who is not here today, asked of this Bill at Second Reading:

“Will it make the job of those of us who are seeking to innovate and enable residents to take more local control of their destinies easier or harder?”.—[Official Report, 28/4/08; col. 99.]

That was a good question. This clause is part of the way that this agency through this Bill is empowered to make it easier. The noble Lord, Lord Mawson, also stated:

“If the Government are serious about regeneration, then innovation, entrepreneurs and business are key components”.—[Official Report, 28/4/08; col. 101.]

I do not think that anyone in this Room would disagree with that. We certainly do not, and this clause, along with Clauses 32 and 46, forms an important part of our empowerment of the HCA to innovate and engage with entrepreneurs and businesses to help deliver its objects.

Will the agency be able to operate any business that it sees fit? No, it is not intended through this provision to authorise trading activity on the open market in competition with private sector operators or suppliers, and the activity must fall clearly within the objects of the agency. So the agency would not be able to open a fast-food restaurant, a new oriental hotel or any other sort of organisation, but the provision is intended to ensure that the agency can secure regeneration purposes and those involving community activity and innovation. That is what this is about. It is not a wider, more sweeping power. I hope that that helps the noble Lord, Lord Greaves.

I thank the Minister although I am not sure that that helps. The power seems very sweeping indeed. Time and again we have Ministers who say, “It is not intended to do this or that. We are a benign Government and we have benign Secretaries of State and we do not do things which all you people with your inquiring, occasionally cynical, minds might think might happen”. We are making legislation, which is not for the present Government. The present Government may last for ever, or they may not. Who knows? The response of Ministers that, “We do not intend to do this or that”, goes a certain distance in reassurance, but only that distance, because the legislation will be on the statute book for someone else to come along and perhaps do other things.

It is reasonable for the Government to say that anything at this stage of the Bill has to be within the objectives set out at the beginning of the Bill—I agree to that extent. I am intrigued by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, about the clause being minimalist. The Bill is hardly minimalist—it is a 220-page, expanding-all-the-time, maximalist Bill. Nevertheless, it is always curious to see in which areas the Government want to tie everything down to detail and in which areas they want simply to provide general powers. There never seems to be any overall sense to why this happens in different places. However, I have received an answer and I will read it again.

Clause 31 agreed to.

Clause 32 [Powers to form companies etc.]:

On Question, Whether Clause 32 shall stand part of the Bill?

Clause 32 concerns the power to form companies and, to a degree, I understand more why this is in the Bill than the previous wide clause. Nevertheless, the noble Lord referred earlier to believing the HCA will be a plc, and one wonders whether the clause would allow it to convert to a plc. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister the extent to which the Government believe it will be involved in the corporate sector and in forming companies. Perhaps he will give two or three examples of where this might be a sensible way forward.

Part of my concern, again, is that this is minimalist legislation, to use the terminology of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. The clause consists of two lines. It is the kind of legislation that used to be passed 70 or 80 years ago when Bills consisted of five or six pages. Nowadays we expect to see laid out the circumstances in which the provisions can be used. I accept that the phrase,

“with the consent of the Secretary of State”,

is used, but we expect to see phrases such as “regulations will determine it”, “they will set out the principles in which it will happen” or “some of the principles set out in the Bill”. There is nothing here; it is more minimalism. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has anticipated, the explanation in this case is similar to the previous one. The ability to establish a company or to acquire an interest in one is subject to the Secretary of State’s consent. That ability is required to enable the agency to operate more effectively in implementing a policy or innovating activity through the medium of a company to which it, central government or other agencies could give financial assistance. It would also enable and allow the agency to participate indirectly in joint ventures if that was the most effective method of delivering its objectives.

Again, these powers are modelled on the Urban Regeneration Agency powers. The ability of the agency to establish or acquire an interest in a company will be important in allowing the agency to operate as an equal partner in its dealings with the private sector when undertaking housing and regeneration work. The company would operate as a separate entity. As I am sure the noble Lord will know from his work in local government, such special purpose vehicles can often provide the most effective route for implementing commercial schemes. The greater flexibility and separate accountability that this allows are very useful in enabling effective negotiations with private sector partners.

Before the agency can establish a company or acquire an interest it will need the Secretary of State’s consent and the agency will have to demonstrate why a company or an interest in a company is needed. The functions that the company will have will relate directly to its objects. For example, the current arrangements under which the Urban Regeneration Agency works as English Partnerships have enabled it to carry on a business by virtue of Section 160(1)(g) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. So this is not a new power; it was there previously. Using these powers, English Partnerships currently runs joint ventures including the English Cities Fund, Priority Sites Ltd and Network Space. English Partnerships is joining with the Housing Corporation to form one single entity and these powers will be required for that work to continue. The joint ventures that I have described have enabled English Partnerships to carry out its work.

The power is there for that practical reason and the need to create special vehicles to fulfil the agency’s objectives in the future.

Clause 32 agreed to.

Clause 33 [Community services]:

moved Amendment No. 77A:

Once again, I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. Essentially, Clause 33 is in two parts, but paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (g) of subsection (1) very much parallel the functions of the regional development agencies and I wonder what the relationship between those bodies and the Homes and Communities Agency will be. On paragraphs (e) and (f), the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is perfectly correct in saying that the wording is slightly peculiar. I assume that the Homes and Communities Agency itself will probably do neither of those things, and the wording permits housing associations or ALMOs to do them. But we should not have to assume anything about legislation; the legislation should be clear so that we can understand it. The wording, particularly of paragraphs (e) and (f), is flawed.

The one word in the long list of provisions in Clause 33 that mildly surprises me is “religious”, with reference to services. I can see that the other services concerned could well fall under a body of this sort, but religious services imply that some outside organisation would be involved in providing that particular activity. I ask about this only in order for the Minister to tell me that my fears and apprehensions are totally unfounded and it is quite appropriate for the organisation to be providing that service as against enabling somebody else to do it.

What an interesting short debate that was. I take the noble Lord's point. It takes us back a little to some of the debates we had—it seems a lifetime ago—in the opening stages of our deliberations when we discussed the ability of the HCA to provide directly and the need for it to have that power, as opposed to simply enabling other people to do things. In a way, this is partly a continuation of that sort of debate. One of the objects of the HCA, which makes it clear and different from the Housing Corporation, is the explicit requirement for the agency to support regeneration, the development of communities in England and their continued well-being.

We have a clear idea of what we mean by community services and I know that the noble Lord knows that extremely well. Some of those ideas are clearly set out in this list, such as “new businesses”, providing “employment”, providing “business or employment”, providing “safe and attractive environments” and so forth. I will return to anti-social behaviour and reducing the fear of crime in a moment. This is a necessary power and this is a necessary way to express that power in the form of the HCA’s ability to provide directly, because it will be able to do that. Those types of services, essentially created by the HCA but in partnership with local authorities, will make communities viable, sustainable and indeed enjoyable in the future.

I understand on one level, quite rightly, that the noble Lord wants to make it clear that these services are provided appropriately and where reasonable either by the HCA or by any other person or organisation. To address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, the provision of religious services means communities and community facilities rather than buildings for worship, as I understand it. But when we come to how these services will be provided, what is important is that we must be realistic. We want to retain the power to provide, hence the direct language in the clause, but no community service will be imposed on any local authority. It will be part of the partnership about which we have already spoken a great deal in this Bill between the HCA and the local authority. What does the community need in order to be regenerated, renewed and properly planned and resourced for the future?

It is important that the HCA has the ability to provide directly, because we know that the capacity of local authorities and local agencies will simply not be sufficient for the task in hand. It is therefore perfectly appropriate for the HCA to boost local resources and provide directly what the local authority agrees will make a difference, be it to young people or others. That is very much at the behest of the local authority.

I wonder whether I can press the Minister a little further. She has not explained the need to provide or facilitate religious services. She has not justified the inclusion of cremation and burial services. I am confused by the term “social” in this context—“recreational services”, one understands. Does “social … services” mean social interaction or social services in the sense to which we are all accustomed in the local authority context?

We might be told that English Partnerships had some of these powers and that they should therefore be translated to the new agency. As my noble friend asked, what is the justification for a list rather than a well-being power similar to that held by local authorities? The list is a mixture of services and presumably the physical environment for them—I do not think that it is suggested, for example, that the HCA will undertake or facilitate health, district nursing or chiropody services. Yes, it will facilitate the provision of buildings for them, but why not mention also, for example, buildings for educational services provided by other authorities? It is a very peculiar clause.

Perhaps I may add to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I apologise if drawing on one’s personal experience is not always a brilliant idea; it is better to get on to the general propositions. I have been the chief executive of a sizeable non-departmental public body and the chairman of a similar body. When you look at an Act of Parliament, particularly as a chief executive, you do not want to read things and then go to your board and say, “I hope you will forgive me, chairman, but I won’t be able to do this. This is an aspiration of a department, of the Secretary of State or of a political party, but frankly I will not be able to do it. If, as the months roll by, you find that I am not doing it, I hope you will understand”.

I am beginning to wish that the noble Baroness had been detained longer at her conference. She has certainly raised some interesting issues. Again, the problem of having a list has arisen. The overriding principle behind these items is that, when there has been question of partnerships building regeneration across the country—that is, in the work of English Partnerships in relation to local authorities and in other ways—these are the sorts of things that local authorities have said they want and they are things that make a real difference. They are clearly not to do with statutory services or providing educational institutions; rather, they are about putting in place things that make a real difference to a place. They are what makes a place safe, attractive and thriving.

The term “social” does not mean social services; it means social provision. That could be community provision; for example, a community hall or somewhere for the voluntary sector to meet and get on with the things that it can do best. It fits alongside recreational activity. In that context, “religious” does not mean building places of worship; it means enabling religious organisations, which sometimes need space for religious community activity. There are many examples of that. Again, it is about meeting the needs of the local community and about what can be agreed between the local authority and the HCA in its partnership.

On that basis, the list is both flexible enough to allow for the sort of innovation and social enterprise that the HCA would be very good at encouraging—that is, providing employment or training opportunities—and broad enough to be able to do the sorts of things that I suggested in terms of the environment, such as attending to proper design. Frankly, people will always be able to point out flaws and criticise this type of set of definitions, but here we have something that is fairly robust and flexible.

With regard to cremation or burial services, my understanding is that, when you are involved in shaping places, whether they are new or old, you have to think of those essential parts of community provision. It may look a bit odd to include that type of service but I think that it makes sense if you are looking at the needs of the whole community.

I am afraid that I cannot do better than that. I suspect that we will have a long debate on this matter at some other point. If I were to write to noble Lords, I could explain in a little more detail some of the rationale behind this provision and the way in which we expect these elements to combine together to fill the picture of community provision.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for having linked me to her observations. I congratulate her on having picked up the ambiguity of “social services”. Notwithstanding what the Minister said, that term continues to contain a serious ambiguity, at least to a man from Mars.

As to religious services—the gravamen of my observations—I should be entirely content if the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, felt any inclination to intervene to say whether he regards what is currently in the Bill to be entirely normal or whether I am being unduly pedantic. If the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is considering bringing forward amendments on Report to tighten up this language, I would be happy to co-operate with her.

The more I listen to noble Lords the more I believe there are curious things in this clause that I did not understand when I tabled my amendment. There are some curiosities in it which need bottoming.

There is no fundamental difference between the Minister and other Members of Committee on the need for the HCA to do some of these things or, preferably, to facilitate and support other people to do them. Although there are questions about the religious side of it, I do not believe there is a problem about cremation or burial services. If the agency is going to be involved in building a new town, it may need a burial ground, a cemetery and a crematorium. These are expensive to produce and, left to its own devices, the private sector will not provide them. Local authorities are usually shocked by the cost of providing crematoria nowadays.

There is no argument about the basic need for a clause which allows the HCA to provide or support a broad range of services. Whether the list is correct—or whether putting “community services” down as a catch-all is more minimalist—I do not know, but there are some curiosities in relation to religion and social services. The wording has a meaning. It is okay for the Minister say, “It does not mean social services; it means social provision”—but it says “social services”.

Returning to paragraphs (e) and (f), I am not sure whether the Minister picked up the point I was trying to make. Some of the activities on the list are practical things to do which also provide outcomes. For example, if you provide employment you are doing something actual and practical and you have the outcome of more people in jobs. But with health services—if that is not a statutory service I do not know what is—you are providing something that is not the outcome. If you were putting the outcome in the Bill you would not write “health services”; you would say, “The HCA may improve the health of people in an area”. The point I am making about anti-social behaviour or crime is that what is written down is just the outcome and not the process or the practical action which has to be taken. That is why it is a nonsense to put those two paragraphs into legislation.

I am not arguing about the need to tackle these problems or about some of the things that work that the Minister mentioned—although if anyone knew how to do this perfectly we would be a much better society than we are—but huge and increasing work on the ground is going on to prevent and reduce anti-social behaviour and crime and to reduce the fear of them. There is no doubt about that. In some places it is extremely successful; in other places it is not so successful. The point I am trying to make with the amendment is that the clause should be rewritten to refer to the process and practical action rather than the predicted outcome. If you state that the outcome will be achieved it will be nonsense legislation because, in the words of my granny, it might or it might not.

I do not think we will need a long discussion on this clause on Report. That would be a complete waste of everyone’s time when we may want to debate more fundamental matters. However, if we can get a meeting of minds in the mean time about a more sensible wording of the clause, we will probably reach a consensus. I hope the Minister will think in those terms. With that hope, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 77B not moved.]

Clause 33 agreed to.

We are ahead of schedule, in that we are more than half way through the list of amendments. Perhaps we may have a comfort break, which we are supposed to have.

The Committee stands adjourned for 10 minutes.

[The Sitting was suspended from 5.29 pm to 5.39 pm.]

Clause 34 [Duties in relation to low cost rental accommodation]:

moved Amendment No. 78:

Until now I have taken a vow of silence to hasten the passage of the Bill, but this is a point on which I wish to express some views and, indeed, some support for these amendments. At the moment, the Bill distinguishes between low-cost rental housing and low-cost home ownership housing. If a non-profit-making organisation is doing either of those it gets regulated but, if a profit-making body—a developer or a housebuilder—is doing the low-cost home ownership schemes, a much lighter touch regulation follows from the role of the HCA in this clause.

My proposal to oppose Clause 34 is included in this group. Some of the comments made just now by the noble Lord, Lord Best, are valuable because there is no doubt that the renting and home ownership markets are closely interrelated, particularly in low-cost property, whether it is designed as low cost or whether it is low cost because of local market conditions. I have two points to make. The first concerns the definition of low-cost rental accommodation in this clause.

What is low-cost rental accommodation as opposed to rental accommodation generally? The housing market is not as buoyant in some parts of the country as in others—I am talking not about the past few weeks, but generally—and market rents are not all that high. People having to pay them may think that they are high, but compared with other parts of the country they are on the same level as the rent you would pay as a tenant of a housing association or local authority. The difference between those rents and private sector rents may not be great or exist at all. If “low cost” is being defined according to the circumstances of the local housing market, there may be a problem. What is desperately required in some of these areas is decent rented accommodation as opposed to a lot of the rented accommodation that exists in the private sector. Some of it is okay and there are good landlords and property companies, but a lot of it leaves a great deal to be desired.

For people who need to rent, the real need is not necessarily low-rent accommodation in the local market, but decent accommodation. That means housing associations and local authorities, because the housing market in these areas is simply not going to provide a lot of rented accommodation—certainly not that people can afford. There may be a small amount of more expensive accommodation catering for a different market altogether. Coming from an area where the housing market has been depressed for a long time, I am wary of talking about low-cost accommodation. Decent accommodation is required for renting.

My second point relates to one made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, about the relationship between renting and buying, particularly in the case of individual households and individual houses. In some areas, complex regeneration partnerships or packages—call them what you will—are being put together to regenerate the area. They might be regenerating existing properties or clearing properties and building new ones. In many areas, you will be involved in the private sector with development companies. That may be desirable or undesirable but that is the real world we live in and therefore you have to put together partnerships or packages. The houses that they provide will be for sale; whether they are low-cost accommodation for home ownership is a matter of opinion, but some of it will be deliberately low-cost accommodation in relation to the local circumstances. In any case, because of the market it is aimed at, it will have all to be sold at a reasonable price.

My problem with the clause is that public subsidy will in many cases go into those regeneration packages. It will go directly to the developer in return for their selling the houses for less than they would have to if they were funding them themselves. It might be the land or, in some cases, the houses and the land to be regenerated which is provided either for less than market price or for nothing. That is not a grant in the sense that the noble Lord meant it, but it is a direct public subsidy which will come from a public body. That might be English Partnerships and therefore the HCA under the new legislation. In some circumstances, it might be sensible for some of those houses to be provided for rent rather than for ownership. It might be sensible for the development company to be the body which rents them out. The clause might get in the way of that.

It may be a case of the clause being designed for very specialist situations in some parts of the country or of me asking too many “what if” questions, but I can see some problems here. I know of at least two circumstances in which development companies are coming in on exactly that basis; that is, they are being subsidised so that they can provide the houses at a price which might be saleable in the local market. If one does not provide that subsidy, it will be a case not of their trying to sell the houses for a lot more money but of their not coming in, because they would not be able to sell them at what would be the commercial price if they were doing it just as a spec builder. There may be a problem which the Minister might look at.

I broadly agree with almost everything that the noble Lord, Lord Best, said and a lot of what my noble friend Lord Greaves said. The Minister knows of my concerns. I hope that we will have an opportunity to reflect on this matter and that she will come back with her views slightly changed.

The amendments have important implications. I shall break the golden rule that seems to have been adopted today and speak at a little greater length than has been the case to explain the background and implications of the clauses and the amendments.

The amendments are technical and deal with a complex issue. I stress that we share the objectives that they underpin. In response to the question whether Clause 34 should stand part of the Bill, I say that the effect of the clause is to ensure that low-cost rental accommodation provided as a condition of Homes and Communities Agency funding, infrastructure provision, land disposal or direct provision is owned by a relevant provider—which means a registered provider of social housing, an English local housing authority or a county council in England—when it is made available for rent. The clause ensures also that, where the landlord is not a local authority, the tenants and the stock are protected by the stock being subject to regulation by the regulator of social housing. That is a bald statement of what the clause does.

Perhaps I may define low-cost rental accommodation, because it is important to provide a context to the rest of what I am going to say. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked what the definition was. It is set out in Part 2 of the Bill, in Clause 70, and includes not just rent being below the market rate but refers also to the other defining characteristics of social housing; that is, that it,

“is made available in accordance with rules designed to ensure that it is made available to people whose social needs are not adequately served by the commercial housing market”.

He is right that the value of homes and the market rate vary a lot according to which part of the country one is in, but that definition essentially serves the purposes of all forms of low-cost rental housing, irrespective of the relative differences in the market.

I am reassured that the Minister will bring something back on Report. I am sure that on careful inspection there will turn out to be some tweaks and improvements to be made to what we have at the moment, not least bearing in mind my point that sometimes there is a need for flexibility to move from one kind of housing, low-cost home ownership, to another, low-cost rental. Drawing that distinction may prevent that, which would be disastrous for people, particularly if we are moving into an era of a lot of mortgage repossessions.

I will come to those words in a moment. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Best, an acknowledged expert in this field, for his support in principle for what I was rather inadequately trying to describe. It is important that we optimise every possible avenue to get both flexibility and a broad spectrum of choice in this field. We do not like to hear that awful segregationist term “council housing” nowadays. One of its problems was that it was seen as a form of tightly defined community within a community that was different and not bound with the wider field. Although one could perhaps regret the reduction in the number of council house sales, it has been a great social opening for the whole of that community and the community at large has benefited as a consequence.

I am grateful for what has been said. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, about “low cost” as a local definition, it had jolly well better be a local definition. Pendle and Paddington are worlds apart, but both have a need for social housing. Not least of the difficulties for this big national organisation will be that it has to make that kind of differentiation and to make what it does in Paddington relevant to Paddington and not to Pendle, and vice versa. That is one of the big difficulties for the organisation we are creating.

I am particularly grateful to the Minister for what she has said. It seems that we have struck a chord. If she is now going to consider this field to see whether she can come back to us on it on Report, that is enormously encouraging and helpful. I draw strength from that. I hope that she will take the suggestion that when she has come to a conclusion it might make the proceedings on Report easier if she wrote to us to let us know what is going on, otherwise we might feel tempted to return to the subject unnecessarily and we have spent long enough on the Bill in Committee. In my view—wholly to the benefit of the subject with which we are dealing—when we reach the next stage we should be rather more expeditious, in large part because of the work we have done at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 79 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

[Amendment No. 79A not moved.]

[Amendments Nos. 80 to 86 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Clause 34 agreed to.

Clause 35 [Recovery etc. of social housing assistance]:

moved Amendment No. 87:

I wonder whether I could ask about the direction, which is the subject of the amendments and of Clauses 35 and 36. I find it a curious term, and I should like to understand whether it is intended that the HCA can give a direction retrospectively. I am not quarrelling with the concept of a deal between the HCA and a recipient which enables the HCA to share in the uplift in value and so on. However, I argue that it is improper for the HCA to come back five years later and say, “Do you know? This parcel of land is proving to be much more valuable than we thought when we did the original deal. We direct that”. I think that, as in the fully private sector, two parties should make an agreement whereby one provides finance to the other and, as part of that agreement, the provider of the finance says, “We will have interest. We will have a share of the capital when the property is disposed of” and so on. That is a matter for agreement between the parties when the finance is made available. It is perfectly proper that they should come to whatever agreement suits them both but, frankly, for there to be any lack of certainty about what the HCA will require at the end of a process of development seems wrong.

We also have concerns, in particular with Amendment No. 91. If the Homes and Communities Agency is planning to take part in enhanced values, presumably it is planning to pay the increased subscription if the values go down. That might be rather interesting in the present circumstances. You cannot have one without the other. If there is to be a system of grant which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, is fixed and finite at the point it is agreed, that is fine, but if a grant is subsequently variable if values are enhanced in one direction, there has to be variability if the values happen to go the other way, and that is certainly not written into this provision. That situation would be very dangerous and I do not think that we should go down that road. So far as I can see, it would create a whole new architecture for grants in this field. We know that if housing associations find themselves with surpluses, those surpluses are reinvested in more housing, which is surely what one wants. If there were a threat of some of the value being creamed off and being put back into the middle again, that would destroy any incentive that associations might have to try to produce a surplus for more housing. Therefore, we cannot agree to this group of amendments and to Amendment No. 91 in particular.

It seems rather curious that the Bill as it stood went through the other place and then Amendment No. 91 came up. The amendment seems to have been thought of at a time when the financial situation for housing associations, and indeed for anyone who was involved with housing, was rather different from how it is now. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, the principle that the taxpayer should get an equitable return is perfectly fine and fair. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that there had been discussions with the RSL sector, but those discussions certainly do not seem to chime with discussions that some of us have had with the same sector, in which concerns were raised.

The attitude of those in the sector is that they take a risk at a given point in certain circumstances in the financial environment that exists at the time of taking the risk. If, many years down the road, there is a change in the climate, that will not necessarily have been predictable at the time that people were deciding what risks to take. You find yourself in a situation where there is a target of 3 million homes by 2020. It is going to be a jolly difficult target to achieve in the present climate, we all know that, but the idea that we then hamper the ability of a sector that provides nearly half of that housing—social affordable housing, the housing that the Government want to put through with the Bill—and create a hurdle for it, or at least create greater risk adversity in their decision-making than might be in the original Bill, seems quite odd. I hope the Government will think again on this one.

I hear what Members have to say on this issue. In its broadest terms, I can see why there might be concern. The situation has been exacerbated by the uncertainties that we are all observing in the housing market and the way in which housing finance is moving.

I did not wish to imply, in anything that I said, that I did not accept the principle that is being put—that you should not do this retrospectively. I wanted to correct for the record that I was not conceding that principle in any sense.

I am grateful for the clarification. It does not affect greatly what I was going to say, but it was important for the record.

I would like to take away the Committee’s concerns, and to write to Members setting out how we see this working. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will appreciate this point: there has to be the overwhelming principle of reasonableness in the way the clauses work, and we need to set out how that would operate in this case. I am grateful for the support for the principle because it is important for the way this part of the Bill operates.

To save time later, I want to say that I would not accept the principle—

Ah.

No, I accept the principle that I said I accepted. However, I would not accept a principle that included an element of retrospectivity and tweaked it by being reasonable when one came to it. In the commercial world—there are large amounts of money and big commercial interests here as well as everything else; they are all for community benefit, but they are big interests—you would not have an agreement that said, “A reasonable amount will be repaid at the end of the day”.

I was trying to describe the way that the powers would work. Perhaps I was not as precise in my use of language as I should have been, and I apologise to the noble Baroness and the Committee for that. We probably need to set out our case here with more clarity, and perhaps that would assist the Committee. In the mean time, I beg to move the amendments.

No!

Let me be clear: if the Government move these amendments, we shall be obliged to put amendments down on Report.

We cannot do that.

No, we cannot. The Minister should withdraw.

In that case, it would be wisest for us not to move the whole group rather than just one amendment. Then we can reintroduce them, perhaps after some further discussion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 88 and 89 not moved.]

[Amendment No. 90 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

[Amendment No. 90A not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 90B:

I shall deal with the amendments together. As the noble Lord has explained, Amendment No. 90B would require the HCA to consult on the events which might lead it to exercise its powers in relation to the recovery or recycling of social housing assistance and to publish the outcome of that consultation at least one month prior to it taking effect. The same requirements for consultation and publicity apply to the principles under which the HCA will act in dealing with these issues. The amendment is not necessary. Consultation arrangements in relation to general determinations under this clause are set out in Clause 37.

The HCA is required to consult the regulator and other interested parties and to seek the Secretary of State’s consent. “General determinations” is defined in the clause as a determination which does not relate solely to a particular case. The noble Lord’s amendment would apply his proposed consultation procedure to all determinations, both general and those relating to a particular case. A three-month consultation period and a month-long pre-implementation publicity requirement is perhaps over the top and rather extreme in relation to a determination affecting one provider. It would be unduly bureaucratic and an inefficient use of time and resources.

The current arrangement for the Housing Corporation enables it to issue special determinations that relate solely to a particular case. However, they are rare, and are generally in response to a request from a provider, usually because it wishes to use recycled funds for a scheme that is broadly in line with the general determination but which in some way does not meet the precise requirements. In those circumstances, providers have to apply to the corporation for a special determination. Current practice is for that approval to be signed off by the corporation's board. The Bill provides for a suitable level of consultation on general determinations. The noble Lord’s amendment would be unduly burdensome as it would apply to the smallest of determinations made under this clause, which would be unreasonable.

I now turn to the other two amendments and will deal with Amendment No. 94B first because that deals with a point similar to the one made by the noble Lord. In circumstances where interest is a relevant matter relating to a determination made under Clause 35, this amendment would require the HCA to consult for three months, again, on rates of interest, payable dates and provision for suspended or reduced interest rates, publicising the outcome from such a consultation at least one month prior to it taking effect. This amendment is similar to the earlier one and it may not surprise the noble Lord to hear that we do not agree in similar terms. The consultation arrangements in relation to general determinations under this clause, like Clause 35, are set out in Clause 37. The same safeguards apply: the HCA is required to consult the regulator and other interested parties and to seek the Secretary of State’s consent. Again, the amendment would apply to all determinations, both general and those relating to a particular case.

It might help if I outline the type of event which currently occasions the Housing Corporation’s use of a special determination relating solely to a particular case. These are made rarely and are generally in response to a request from a provider. It will normally be because a provider wishes to use recycled funds for a scheme which is broadly in line with the general determination but has a small variation. In order to use recycled funds for such a scheme, the provider would have to apply to the corporation for a special determination. Again, current practice is for that approval to be signed off at board level. As with the previous amendment, a three-month consultation period and a month-long pre-implementation publicity requirement would be overkill in relation to the level of determination affecting an individual and particular provider. It would engender an unnecessary level of bureaucracy in relation to the issue that it seeks to deal with.

Amendment No. 94A would prevent the HCA from specifying matters in a specific determination made under Clause 36 which conflicted with principles which are applicable in the case of a general determination made under that clause. We can understand the motivation behind the amendment but we want to see the new agency acting in a consistent fashion. The amendment is perhaps an overreaction to the wording of subsection (7)(b).

Specific determinations to a provider will, by their very nature, be out of the ordinary. A specific determination is therefore likely to be required precisely because the circumstances are unusual and consequently it is possible, although unlikely, that the HCA will in these limited cases need more flexibility than would be provided for by the principles set for general determinations.

As was referenced in the debate on Amendment No. 90B, these determinations are made rarely and are generally in response to a provider’s request. Where a provider wishes to use recycled funds for a scheme that is broadly in line with the general determination but is not precisely the same, it will have to apply to the corporation for a special determination to use the recycled funds. Current practice is, as I said before, for that to be signed off by the corporation's board.

The reassurance that I offer the noble Lord is that subsection (7)(b) is not a charter or a blank cheque for setting aside the principles governing determinations made under Clause 36; it is a means of providing for flexibility to be exercised in relation to specific determinations that are few and far between. I hope that the noble Lord will find that arrangement and the way in which it operates to his satisfaction.

I thank the Minister for that reply. I think that I am satisfied, although his last point took us back to the “it will happen only rarely and we are all reasonable people” argument. However, I am suitably worn down on that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 35 agreed to.

Clause 36 [Section 35: interest and successors in title]:

[Amendments Nos. 91 to 94B not moved.]

Clause 36 agreed to.

Clauses 37 and 38 agreed to.

Clause 39 [Information in relation to social housing]:

[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]

Clause 39 agreed to.

Clause 40 agreed to.

Clause 41 [Information services]:

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 95A:

moved Amendment No. 95F:

My name is on the amendment in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I had to negotiate with Northern Electric for the removal of pylons and the undergrounding of cables to create a site suitable for family housing on the edge of York. I discovered to my astonishment that is perfectly possible to build right underneath power lines despite the risks that the medical evidence has shown. It means that any other developer—not a social landlord such as Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust—is able to pay a higher price than we in the trust might be able to pay for the same piece of land. We need to create a level playing field in which everyone understands that risks are involved, even if the science does not absolutely prove the connection between those overhead lines and childhood leukaemia. It is an anomaly in the system that it is extremely important to remedy at this stage of the Bill. I appreciate that it is possible that either the Planning Bill or the Energy Bill will take this matter on board, but, wherever it appears, I think that there will be considerable support for an amendment to this effect.

As the noble Lord concluded, there is indeed scope for this sort of amendment to other Bills, but I am glad that we have an opportunity to address the matter now. It is a change from what we have been discussing so far in this Committee and it is none the worse for that. It is a pleasure to see the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, dignifying the Committee’s proceedings, even on an occasional basis.

We take this matter very seriously, and I cannot possibly improve on the summary that the noble Baroness gave of the Draper report and the research. She was clear that the biological mechanisms are not understood but that nevertheless there is sufficient evidence to give pause for thought about what exposure implies. As the noble Baroness knows, guidelines are already in place in this country to protect people from exposure to ELF EMF, and they are based on the established effects of exposure in these fields. In addition, we are currently considering the need for additional practical precautionary measures to reduce exposure to ELF EMF. I shall say a little more about that but, first, I shall set out the background to this issue.

As noble Lords know, we take our advice from the Health Protection Agency, including on the matter of limiting exposure to ELF EMF. In 2004, following a comprehensive review of the available scientific evidence, the National Radiological Protection Board—the NRPB, now part of the Health Protection Agency— recommended the adoption of guidelines set by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, known as the ICNIRP guidelines. They are based on the established health effects of exposure to ELF EMF and set values for workers, building in a significant level of protection. The guidelines for public exposure to power frequency magnetic fields incorporate a further fivefold safety margin from those for workers in recognition of the fact that the general population includes individuals who may be more sensitive to adverse health effects than the working population.

In addition to the established health effects of exposure to ELF EMF, there is also some scientific evidence to suggest a link between childhood leukaemia and EMF exposure below the guideline levels, although, as the noble Baroness said, there is no accepted consensus on a plausible biological mechanism to explain the association. In view of those uncertainties, the Health Protection Agency also recommended that the Government should consider the need for further precautionary measures in respect of people’s exposure to ELF EMFs.

We have a stakeholder advisory group, known as SAGE, which includes academics, people from the electricity industry and pressure groups. It reported in April 2007, setting out what it thought were practical precautionary measures to reduce exposure to ELF EMF. One option was to introduce a moratorium on the building of new homes and schools within at least 60 metres of high-voltage overhead lines and on the building of new high-voltage lines within 60 metres of existing homes and schools. That is known as the “corridor approach”.

The HPA responded to the SAGE report, noting that the corridor option that SAGE considered for separating new dwellings from high-voltage power lines and vice versa was not supported by the cost-benefit analysis, even assuming a causal link between exposure to ELF EMFs and childhood leukaemia. Therefore, it is sensible that a decision to implement this precautionary option should be weighed against other health benefits obtainable from the same resources. Nevertheless, the HPA recommends that, within the existing government planning framework, the attention of local authority planning departments and electricity companies be drawn to the evidence for a possible small increase in childhood leukaemia which may result from siting new buildings very close to power lines or new power lines very close to existing buildings. I am referring to the report there.

Noble Lords can be assured that we are giving careful consideration to the HPA’s advice in conjunction with other government departments and the devolved Administrations. We expect to respond to the SAGE report, and later this year will set out any practical precautionary measures that we think are justified. We believe that any measures which are appropriate in limiting the exposure of the general public to ELF EMFs should apply at the national level. It is not appropriate in this Bill to place individual responsibilities and duties on the HCA or the regulator, as they will be subject to the same statutory controls, regulatory frameworks or guidance concerning exposure to ELF EMFs as any other body.

I hope that with those assurances regarding our intended response to the report and the inappropriate nature of the amendment in relation to the Bill and the agency, the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.

Before the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, responds, I would like to ask the Minister about the point she made about drawing the attention of local planning authorities to the issue. To put it bluntly, what good would that do? If a local planning authority turned down an application because it was concerned about it would that stand up on appeal? I assume not. Will the Minister explain what she meant?

My understanding is that although to my knowledge there is no planning guidance per se, it would be a material factor in any planning application and it would be brought by the planning authority. I would like to pursue that because I am not sure in what form that advice has been taken forward. I will certainly write to the noble Baroness about it.

I am most grateful to the Minister for her response and I recognise that other Bills may better fit this amendment. I am reassured that the precautionary measures as outlined are being considered seriously and that the corridor option is not being pursued because, as I said in my introductory remarks, that land could be used very well for other people. It is only in relation to children, schools and social housing into which families may be housed that there is a concern. Those who wished this amendment to be tabled will be reassured by the Minister's remarks, but I am sure that they will want us to take this further and we will probably do that on another Bill. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 95G not moved.]

Clause 48 agreed to.

Clause 49 [Directions by the Secretary of State]:

moved Amendment No. 96:

We very much support what the noble Viscount just said. I simply make the point that providing for general directions seems to us to be very close to providing an order-making power without calling it that.

This is an important debate and I hope that I can reassure the noble Viscount and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The description that the noble Viscount gave of the HCA’s character and of its separate paths coming together to form the new body was absolutely right. He was also right to conclude that, as we have said many times, essentially we hope to create an agency that helps other agencies to do their work better. Therefore, one is looking for facilitation and balance in the use of powers and in the enabling mechanisms that are available. This is not a top-down agency with powers to impose or direct. We have had many variations on that debate as the Committee has proceeded.

Perhaps I may address the central point about the power of direction. Essentially, we are looking at powers which are similar to those that were available to the Urban Regeneration Agency and the Housing Corporation. Indeed, as the noble Viscount knows, similar powers are in place for the vast majority of non-departmental public bodies. The power of direction is a necessary safeguard to ensure that the agency delivers its objects effectively. However, as the noble Viscount will also know, the important point is that the power of direction, whether it is specific or general, is likely to be used sparingly because it is such a powerful tool for ensuring that the agency delivers effectively against its objects.

Although related to the powers of the Secretary of State to issue guidance, there is an important difference in how this power will be used. The power of direction is separate and independently necessary. While the guidance that the Secretary of State is likely to issue will probably be mainly about how the agency works, directions are more likely to be about what tasks the agency carries out. Both powers should be able to be used generally or specifically; the Secretary of State should be able to specify the general set of circumstances in which the HCA would have to abide by directions. The amendment would restrict the ability of the Secretary of State to influence the behaviour of the HCA by requiring her to issue only specific directions.

The majority of direction issued is likely to be specific in nature, but even those specific directions have been extremely sparing; there are no more than a handful. The noble Viscount has identified some used by the Housing Corporation to dispose of certain loans and to issue an annual accounts direction, which directs the Housing Corporation to include certain financial information within its annual accounts, over and above that required by the Companies Acts.

Directions have also been issued to English Partnerships in the past—and I have four examples of how that has happened, but only four since 1997. There was the direction to English Partnerships to purchase land on the Greenwich peninsula; in July 2000, the direction to dispose of relevant land, together with the Millennium Dome; in 2001, there was the direction revoking the July 2000 direction and instructing English Partnerships to enter into agreement with Legacy plc; and, in November 2005, the direction to purchase the freehold of the Stratford City site, to comply with the terms of agreement with the Secretary of State for Transport.

Those directions are very specific indeed. The noble Viscount is right in the sense that issuing a general directive would be extremely rare. The Secretary of State is likely to issue specific directions in fairly limited circumstances, as I have suggested, to focus the agency on a particular government priority in a more immediate, formal and public manner than would be achieved through adjusting the agency’s tasking framework. It may be that these circumstances will always be addressed perfectly well by a specific direction; however, there may be occasions and circumstances in which there would be a need for a general direction.

The noble Viscount asked me whether there have been historical instances, whether I could name them and how we envisaged that power being used in future. To my knowledge, the general power of direction has not actually been used, but the sort of thing that we might see—and it is extremely important that we keep the power—is a general direction that is necessary so that a Secretary of State could envisage the HCA exercising specific powers contained in the Bill. That might be a use of a general direction, but I assure the noble Viscount that we have no current plans to issue any general directions. As I have said, the power that the general direction implies is an important safeguard for the Secretary of State, but it does not imply that there is in any sense a top-down overriding intention to use this in such a way that would be undemocratic or inappropriate. This was a useful opportunity to clarify that and put it on the record.

I would not contest for a moment that there have been similar powers in many Acts of Parliament. However, there is a creeping process going on; powers of direction are being added in a way that moves them from purely administrative matters on the one hand and moments of crisis on the other to being drafted so as to enable their use for other things. I was concerned when the Minister mentioned tasks, as the minute you get into tasks you are moving from policy into day-to-day management. If one goes right the way back to Herbert Morrison, that was the greatly beneficial distinction that he drew in the difference between the Government’s role in the public sector and the role of non-departmental and other public bodies. I shall read the examples very carefully. It sounded to me as though English Partnerships had asked for directions in these situations. It said, “The Dome is not really our problem. Perhaps you had better direct us as to what to do about it because we do not know”.

I shall be brief. Clause 50 is another example of belt and braces. In Clause 10, consents are needed for compulsory land purchase and disposal and a consent is needed for disposing of things for less than best consideration. In Clause 22, a consent is needed for the making of financial provision. The HCA is primarily attractive because it has a great deal of money, and that is why people will go to it and want to deal with it. We had a debate on Clause 32 and the HCA’s interest in bodies corporate and a debate on Clauses 35 and 36. I confess to the Committee that I do not understand Clauses 35, 36 and 37, and I cannot see what they are trying to do.

When I was striking deals as the chief executive of a public body, we tried to think what was going to happen or what could happen and we put in rise and fall clauses. We had no power to renegotiate contracts except where we could achieve agreement; we could not change them in any other way. In Chapter 5, headed “Supplementary”, Clauses 48 to 50 provide a belt-and-braces circumstance which will not be good for the index of confidence among those who recognise that they need successful partnerships with the HCA.

I support my noble friend. Clause 50(2) states:

“The Secretary of State may vary or revoke any such consent”—

which really means that any consent given may be worthless because it may be varied or revoked—

“except in the case of anything already done, or agreed to be done, on the authority of it”.

That would cover things that had already been done, but if aspects of the consent remained, they could be changed. The consent could be half implemented and, all of a sudden, the other half made invalid. My noble friend has a point. The wording needs to be thought about. I shall be very interested in what the Minister says.

I can see how the debate fits in with that which we have just had on directions. I stress to the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that this is an important clause. It gives the Secretary of State the power to grant consent to the HCA when it proposes to exercise sub-powers that are subject to the Secretary of State’s consent; for example, giving financial assistance, forming or acquiring companies, or the disposal of land for less than best consideration.

The safeguard is necessary to restrict or control certain important activities. Similarly, we would want to ensure that the financial assistance, for example, was invested only in activities that warranted it. However, we could issue a general Secretary of State’s consent that provided that financial assistance below a specified limit did not need specific Secretary of State’s consent. This limit has not been determined, but we would expect it, if issued, to be contained in the agreed financial memorandum of the agency. I hope that that would introduce proportionate control.

In another place, general consents—particularly, as we anticipated the other day, in relation to the disposal of land at less than best consideration—were the subject of extensive debate. It is entirely sensible to give the HCA sufficient freedom to operate in the way it considers will best deliver its objects. That includes having the ability to sell land at less than best consideration as long as the transaction is to the public benefit and delivers good value for money.

We want to ensure that the HCA seeks the Secretary of State’s consent when it matters, but not on every occasion that it wants to sell land at under-value. Therefore, we intend to issue a general consent to enable the agency to act without having to seek the Secretary of State’s consent for every disposal and to consult stakeholders about the terms of that consent.

We have begun working on the consent. We will consult on the detail but it has to meet the following tests. First, it has to meet the objects of the agency, which incorporate a public benefit test. Secondly, it must under land-value sales meet the value-for-money tests set out in Managing Public Money and the Green Book, which are Treasury publications. Thirdly, the disposal must not constitute state aid under Article 87 of the treaty of the European Community.

To provide further protection for the public sector, I am minded to suggest that the consent should require the HCA to obtain the permission of the Secretary of State if the unrestricted market value of the land in question is above a certain limit and that this limit should be lower where the land is not to be disposed of through an open and transparent bidding procedure. Those are the principles on which we are working in relation to that specific issue.

The noble Viscount also referred to the ability to vary or revoke consent. The Secretary of State needs that ability, otherwise we will not be able to take account of changing circumstances—we need that flexibility. Subsection (3) makes it clear that variation or revocation does not have effect until a notice has been given to the HCA. That safeguard is built in. Therefore, we do not expect to withdraw or change consent without consulting the HCA. I dispute that the balances are belt and braces; they are absolutely necessary. However, there are conditions which reflect the necessary flexibility without being too onerous or too easy to introduce.

I thank the Minister for her answer, and for her answer to the previous amendment. I will read them both carefully. I shall finish by saying that non-departmental public bodies operate most successfully when they have a high degree of independence within the terms of their Act of Parliament. The more that there is in the Bill that makes their position clear—and does so to everyone who deals with them—the better. The more there is an opportunity for the rules of the game to be changed in the middle of play, the less successful the body will be.

[Amendment No. 97ZA had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Clause 50 agreed to.

Clause 51 [Abolition of Urban Regeneration Agency]:

[Amendment No. 97ZB not moved.]

Clause 51 agreed to.

Clause 52 [Abolition of the Commission for the New Towns]:

[Amendment No. 97ZC not moved.]

Clause 52 agreed to.

Schedule 5 [Amendments of the New Towns Act 1981]:

moved Amendment No. 97ZD:

I am grateful for the explanation, but the Minister missed out the explanation for Amendment No. 117K.

He has got you there. I am sorry, but I have some short questions and if they cannot be answered now perhaps they can be answered later. On Amendment No. 97A, there should be some justification for reducing the numbers. The Minister introduced Amendment No. 97G as simply substituting the new agencies for those that are going, but I have a question about the tax provisions. On page 13 of the Marshalled List there is a reference to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, and I have a similar point that I will explain separately.

I was not clear why it was necessary to substitute the HCA for the Housing Corporation rather than adding it. A similar point arises on page 17 of the Marshalled List relating to omitting provisions in the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. The short point, which may come up in other places, is that in tax legislation one is often able to offset payments and use them to reduce tax liability in years going forward as well as in the year of payment. This is a technical point, but I want to be assured that there is no prejudice to anyone by omitting the old agencies rather than simply adding the new ones.

Amendment No. 97P relates to making the HCA a local planning authority, which was a point made earlier. I would be happier if that were not proceeded with at this stage. Clearly, we will have a debate about the role of the HCA as a planning authority or not at the next stage. This is an old point about pre-emption.

I can deal with Amendment No. 97A, but I will have to write on the tax issues because the noble Baroness is an acknowledged expert on—

No, I am not.

Well, it sounds as though the noble Baroness is. We need Amendment No. 97A, simply because many of the functions and assets of existing bodies will be transferred to the HCA. We anticipate that only a skeleton body may be left in place pending dissolution, so there is not much point in having a fully staffed board in those circumstances or requiring the Secretary of State to replace members who have resigned or left the board. Therefore, we seek to include a provision to reduce the minimum number of members of the board of the URA. It currently consists of such a number as the Secretary of State appoints and has to have a minimum of six. I ask Members of the Committee to agree that we may reduce the minimum number of members required to two. That is the logic.

On Amendment No. 97P, I think that the noble Baroness’s noble friend Lord Greaves made the same point while she was not in her place, and that we gave assurances then that there was no issue about pre-emption. Actually, we will take her advice and not move it, just in case we accidentally disadvantage noble Lords by leaving it where it is.

That is kind and I am grateful. I simply record my disagreement about reducing the number from six to two, even though the body is on its way out. Any residual public organisation should have more than two members, but there we go; I shall not pursue it further.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 53 agreed to.

Schedule 6 [Transfer schemes]:

moved Amendments Nos. 97ZE to 97ZG:

moved Amendment No. 97A:

moved Amendments Nos. 97B to 97N:

I was exhausted listening to that. I think that this may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until tomorrow at 3.45 pm.

The Committee stands adjourned until tomorrow at 3.45 pm.

The Committee adjourned at 7.39 pm.