Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2010

My Lords, we on these Benches do not intend to vote against the orders but we have some issues with their practicalities. First, we agree that the TSA should cover local authorities. However, we are cautious about its ability to be an effective asset to the housing system, given what we know so far about its past financial management. We know that the Department for Communities and Local Government spent a total of some £230,000 appointing board members for the new Homes and Communities Agency and the Tenant Services Authority, despite 10 of the 22 appointees coming from the two organisations’ predecessors, the Housing Corporation and English Partnerships. We also know that a typical council has to spend £2.6 million a year reporting performance information to central government. What a waste of money. Could it not be spent better on front-line services? The cost of the Audit Commission soared from £93 million in 1996-97 to £205 million in 2008-09. It is clear that the TSA is going to create more red tape and inspection, if only to justify its existence. This is neither helpful to, nor necessary for, an already struggling housing market. We do not see why more power could not be given to the Local Government Ombudsman to tackle individual complaints. What assurances can the Minister give us that bureaucracy will be kept to a minimum and that the work of the TSA will not become entrenched in a culture of duplication involving the Audit Commission? Secondly, we understand that the reason behind renaming registered social landlords as registered providers of social housing is that RSLs are not-for-profit and that the Housing and Regeneration Act allows for profit providers to register with the TSA too, thereby needing to rename them all. However, it seems that in reality this may be unlikely to be hugely necessary. Why cannot different types of RSL simply register as either profit-making or non-profit-making? Can the Minister tell the Committee what the overriding justification is for the complete overhaul? The orders amend the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, so I am surprised that the Government do not use this opportunity to amend their new homes building target. At Second Reading of the Bill, the then Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, said that the Prime Minister had announced that they would, ""deliver 3 million additional new homes by 2020 … a national target of delivering 240,000 new homes a year".—[Official Report, 28/4/08; col. 41.]" If only. At the time, this wild and over-optimistic target was challenged. My noble friend Lord Patten said: ""I predict that the maximum number of new homes built in 2008 will be no more than between 100,000 and 110,000. That will not meet demand. The number in 2009 is unlikely to be much higher".—[Official Report, 28/4/08; col. 76.]" Sadly, even those figures of my noble friend seem generous. Let us not forget that these warnings were made after the housing and building market had started to decline. At Second Reading, I said of the Government: ""Sadly, during their 11 years, they have built only a pitiful 145,000 houses per annum … This is yet another example of the Government failing to meet their own targets".—[Official Report, 28/4/08; col. 110.]" Would not today be a good opportunity for the Government to come up with a more realistic target? They want us to believe that, because they talk about more and better housing and regeneration, they will deliver it. This is quite clearly not the case. Measures have to be introduced that make the taxpayer’s money go further and not go to waste. Given the vast amount already wasted on setting up the TSA, what assurances can the Government give that these orders will improve the housing system, provide real benefits and provide taxpayers with real value for money?