Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Best and Lord Whitty

Committee stage
Tuesday 6th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree in part with what the noble Lord, Lord Young, says, but we need some degree of clarification. Therefore, I hope that the Government will be able to produce more complex and clear regulations as to the relationship between the two organisations.

It is slightly incongruous that my Amendment 11 is also in this group. It is a simple amendment, and I shall be brief for obvious reasons. It would add, in the designation in Clause 9 of the role of the designated health and safety officer, that mental health and well-being should be taken into account in terms of their duties. It is clear from many of our personal experiences and from the media coverage which the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson of Welton, recently referred to, that failures to deal with problems in social housing both cause and aggravate mental health problems and cause anguish and distress among tenants and their families. For that reason, we need to write it in the Bill because, in terms of prioritisation on issues with which the designated health and safety officer will be faced, it is important that he or she takes into account the mental anguish and the consequential mental health problems of tenants who are, regrettably and deplorably, in these circumstances.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 29, in my name and the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Thornhill, and of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who has already spoken; I am grateful for his comments. The amendment obliges the Regulator of Social Housing to carry out regular, routine inspections of the registered providers of social housing.

The principal justification for regulation at present—with extensive regulation of governance and financial affairs—has been to protect the taxpayer, who has paid for a significant, although much diminished, proportion of the spending by these bodies. But, as the Bill recognises, the very valid justification for effective regulation today is to protect the consumer—the tenant, the resident. This aspect of regulation has been seriously neglected.

Even though most housing associations are charities, and all except the strange new breed of so-called for-profit registered providers exist for the public good rather than their shareholders’ returns, the interests of the consumer still require all these organisations to be subject to the watchful eye of an external, independent agency. Sadly, no organisation is immune to making mistakes or becoming complacent, insensitive, deaf to the voice of their consumers, customers, citizens. This can be an increased hazard for the housing associations that have grown dramatically over recent years, to which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made reference; several now own and manage over 100,000 homes, accommodating a population equivalent to that of a major city. This brings accusations of registered providers being out of touch with their residents, lacking local knowledge, and becoming remote and uncaring. Reporting by ITV and others, which has been alluded to already, has uncovered very poor performance in some of the largest housing associations.

Meanwhile, being a relatively small organisation, and supposedly with shorter lines of communication between provider and consumer, is not a guarantee of good practice. After all, in the most serious case of the Grenfell tragedy, the organisation—a tenant management organisation within the council—was relatively small and entirely locally based, but it failed its residents disastrously. An ombudsman service can play a vital role—as the Housing Ombudsman does—in responding to tenants’ complaints. However, this is no substitute for a regulator with the remit and powers to enforce proper standards and good practice in every social housing organisation.

So, given that effective regulation—particularly consumer- orientated regulation—is necessary and valuable, how can we ensure that the new regime introduced by the Bill actually succeeds in delivering decent standards, good management and maintenance services, and sensitive engagement with tenants and leaseholders? Amendment 29 seeks to address this.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Best and Lord Whitty

Monday 5th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 38 I shall speak to the other amendments in the group. We have come to the housing revenue section of the Bill and my amendments would delete the lot. I suspect that if the Chief Whip were in her place she would say that I am using Committee procedures because potentially I am using a clause stand part Motion to get some clarification of the Government’s intentions. In other words, this is a probing amendment and I do not expect to seek a vote on it. Indeed, I think I probably support the general direction of government policy in this area. However, it is an area that was not discussed at all in Committee and is one in which, to my knowledge, in all the copious material that the Minister has provided for us, we have not had a comprehensive statement of the Government’s intention. Perhaps I missed it, but I have not seen a clear statement of where we are going on housing revenue.

Housing revenue means two different things. It means the allocation between housing authorities so that some are losers and some are winners in a national reallocation process that seems in part to be reproduced in these provisions, and it is a protection at the individual local authority level to ensure that rental and other income received for housing purposes is actually recycled for those purposes. That protection is not always quite adequate, but nevertheless it is part of the long-existing provision. On previous occasions when housing revenue stipulations have been significantly changed, there has been a whole Bill that has gone through a number of procedures. Here we are squeezing them into a very large Bill in which, to my mind at least—although again I should say that I may have missed it—the Government have not spelt out their intentions. The last Government made a start on this, and by and large I approved of the Minister’s approach, but I have not seen a similar comprehensive statement of where we wish to end up.

There are a lot of complicated provisions here, particularly in regard to the formal abolition of subsidy to the balance between what the Secretary of State allocates to different authorities. No new formula has been proposed, but neither is it clear that the old formula will still operate. One has to say that the old formula was pretty opaque and gave rise to some disgruntlement in a number of local authorities. The Government owe us a clear explanation of where we are going on the housing revenue account, and if it already exists I would be grateful for it. If not, I am happy for the noble Baroness to write to me in the interval between now and Third Reading, but I do not think that this House should let what could be a major strategic redirection on housing revenue provisions pass without comment.

Some of my colleagues have tabled detailed amendments, but my amendments are intended to give the Government an opportunity to explain what their strategy is. At least the position will then be clear so that by Third Reading we can decide whether we agree with it or not. Given the way I am trying to use these amendments, I hope that the noble Baroness will take them as they are intended, in a spirit of inquiry, and give us greater clarification. I beg to move.

[Lord Best]

My Lords, the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, would leave out a whole series of clauses that relate to the housing revenue account. I have added my name to Amendment 46, which would leave out just one of those clauses. That implies that I am happy with the others, as indeed I am.

The housing revenue account is regarded in local government circles as well past its sell-by date and there is general acclaim for its abolition. It is a significant aspect of the localism agenda that financial responsibility for council housing is to be put back into the hands of councils. In place of pooled debt and pooled rents, each council involved will henceforth assume direct responsibility for housing debt according to its ability to repay it, and it will keep all the income from rents for managing and maintaining its own council stock. Efficiency gains on its rented account will go back into improved housing provision. These are helpful reforms, but they stop well short of giving councils the full financial independence that could enable proper asset management of their housing resources and harness significant prudential investment in new homes. These freedoms are enjoyed by even the smallest housing association.

Amendment 46, in leaving out Clause 158, would remove the restriction on councils that want to borrow prudentially—knowing that they can repay what they borrow—for housing purposes. When councils move to a self-financing regime with the housing revenue account buyout on 1 April 2012, they will face new restrictions on borrowing for housing purposes—a new capping regime—despite the continued presence of the prudential code that has operated perfectly well since 2003. The chairman of the Local Government Group points out that it has demonstrated on many occasions that councils have a strong record of sound financial management and manage borrowing responsibly in accordance with the prudential code. He says that local government’s view is that these rules to which it adheres provide sufficient protection that councils will undertake only borrowing that is affordable, and that imposing a cap on councils’ ability to borrow for affordable housing will severely restrict their ability to invest in an increased number of affordable homes, which government wants to see. Paradoxically, housing associations are being encouraged at exactly the same time to borrow a lot more to replace the shortfall resulting from smaller grants. A lot of housing associations are borrowing more, but not councils, which must accord with the new cap. The Local Government Group says that it hopes that if government will not remove the new cap, Ministers will at least consider committing that local government will be properly consulted in determining the level at which the cap is to be set for each authority to allow some crucial further investment on a sustainable basis. I support the removal of the clause as proposed by Amendment 46.