---

Housing and Regeneration Bill

moved Amendment No. 108ZBE: 108ZBE: Clause 165, page 70, line 36, leave out ““properly”” The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 108ZBE probes the term ““properly”” in Clause 165, which relates to a winding-up petition by the regulator. One of the grounds is because the, "““provider is failing properly to carry out its objects””." When I read that, I wondered why it did not simply state that the ““provider is failing to carry out its objects””. I wondered where on the spectrum between failing just a little bit and failing substantially, materially or other words of that sort properly falls. It may be somewhere in the middle. As we are talking about winding up, it is appropriate to understand what will trigger the regulator’s powers. Amendment No. 108ZBF would insert a new clause. I may well be told that the protection already exists. I have provided for the regulator who has discharged liabilities—in other words, made payments—to have a charge over the land to the value of the amount paid out. I know that this is not technically correct. It does not deal with other charges that there might be on the land. However, this is public money, and the regulator should have some security, in the non-technical sense of the word, for that money, although it may come from another mechanism in the Bill. I beg to move.