Housing and Regeneration Bill

moved Amendment No. 104: 104: Clause 148, page 63, line 31, leave out from ““moratorium”” to end of line 33 and insert ““a disposal of the registered provider’s land requires the regulator’s prior consent.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, this large group of amendments makes a number of changes to the disposal provisions in the Bill. Amendments Nos. 104 and 107 address a concern raised in Grand Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the effect of the moratorium provisions, which are triggered when a registered provider becomes insolvent, on a third party who had agreed but not completed a purchase of land from a registered provider. Noble Lords will know that a moratorium is triggered only in the most serious circumstances, when a registered provider becomes insolvent. There has been only one moratorium in the history of the Housing Corporation, which occurred when the housing association Ujima became insolvent last December. The effect of a moratorium is that the registered provider's land may be disposed of only with the regulator's prior consent. As noble Lords will be aware, disposals of social housing by a registered provider require the regulator's consent at any time. There are two differences during a moratorium. First, the requirement to seek the regulator's consent extends beyond the provider itself by preventing secured creditors enforcing their security and repossessing land. Secondly, the requirement to seek consent extends to all land, not just to social housing. For the majority of disposals by the provider, there will be no change. Disposals of social housing continue to require consent as before, and disposals under the right to buy and the right to acquire continue to be exempt as before. In theory, however, that means that a registered provider could have agreed to, but not completed, a disposal of land that was not social housing and therefore did not require consent under Clause 171, but could find that the disposal required consent under Clause 148 once a moratorium was triggered. The sale then could be delayed or even prevented. I accept that this is a strong power, which could disadvantage a third party, but we believe that it is necessary to provide protection in most cases. A moratorium is extremely rare. It arises only when the provider is insolvent and the future of the homes is therefore at serious risk. In this situation, tenants’ homes will be at risk, as will public investment and the investment of secured and unsecured creditors. Following the concerns raised in Grand Committee, we have considered what the effect of these provisions might be on an individual homebuyer. We agree that it seems disproportionate to block the sale of a single home to an individual who intends to use the property as their primary residence. These amendments, therefore, make similar provision in the moratorium clauses to those in the main disposals clauses. Disposals of a single home to an individual homebuyer exempt such disposals from the provision that they are void when made without the necessary consent. The regulator still would have the power to prevent large-scale or commercial disposals which are not in the best long-term interests of the provider, but individual homebuyers will not be affected. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this strikes the right balance between protecting individuals and protecting the long-term interests of tenants and public investment. Amendments Nos. 105, 106, 110 and 111 amend Clauses 147 and 172, which set out exceptions to the requirement to seek disposal consent. Clause 147 relates to disposals during a moratorium, whereas Clause 172 relates to the normal course of business. In both clauses there is an exception for disposals which require consent under other legislation, mainly stock-transferred homes. Although the responsibility for those consents will, in future, be given by the regulator rather than the Secretary of State, the consents are still given under the original legislation; that is, the Housing Act 1985 and the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. They still need to be excepted from the main disposal consents regime, otherwise registered providers would theoretically be required to seek consent twice. These amendments correct an error in those exceptions, which, at present, refer only to the consents required under the Housing Act 1985. Those required under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 are missing. Amendment No. 114 closes a potential loophole opened up by the changes we made in Grand Committee which limited the requirement to seek disposal consent to only social housing. The potential for providers to evade the requirement to seek disposal consent by changing the use of a property is largely limited by the protection in Clause 70 that accommodation which becomes social housing remains social housing except in very specific circumstances. There is a theoretical possibility, however, that this protection could be avoided if the land was no longer accommodation; that is, if the home had been demolished. This amendment ensures that, if consent is required for the disposal of a dwelling, it continues to be required even if the land has ceased to be a dwelling. Amendment No. 115 again relates to changes made in Grand Committee, which limit the requirement to seek disposal consent to social housing. It was achieved through amendments to Clause 171. That change did not, however, affect those disposal consents which are required under other legislation via Clauses 188 and 189. These clauses mainly apply to stock transferred homes. This omission would have meant that registered providers may still have been required to seek disposal consents for land other than social housing where the land was part of a stock transfer, but not otherwise, which was not our intention. Amendment No. 115 corrects that omission by clarifying the requirement to seek consent under Clause 189, which does not apply to land that is not social housing. Finally, Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 are technical and ensure the clauses are consistent with similar powers elsewhere in the Bill. I hope noble Lords will agree that, while technical, these amendments are important to ensure that the system works in a simple and effective way, ensuring the protection of tenants and investment where needed, while minimising bureaucracy for providers. I beg to move.