Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Dehenna Davison]

As I have just outlined, I will write to the hon. Member to pick up her point following today’s sittings.

The focus of the Regulator of Social Housing is on regulating the standards for registered providers of social housing. I believe that the regulator should remain focused on that vital role, and that greatly expanding its scope to include temporary accommodation could be a significant risk to its expertise. I do not believe that expanding the scope of the regulator into those areas, as proposed by the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, is the right way to address them. The regulator should continue to focus on ensuring that registered providers provide safe and high-quality social housing for tenants and on delivering the new consumer regime.

On that basis, I ask the shadow Minister to consider withdrawing his amendments today, but with a commitment from me to follow up with him before Report to see whether anything more can be done.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister for their compliments about me and my Bill. No doubt we will be debating it in one of these Committee Rooms in the not too distant future.

One concern about the position on supported housing is the number of regulators that get involved already. There is almost a confusion of regulation. There is another problem: as we legislators seek to plug gaps, the rogue landlords seek alternative ways of making huge amounts of money. We already know that nearly £1 billion in housing benefit was paid out last year on supported housing in exempt accommodation. Clearly, that was for people who are vulnerable and need help and support. They are from a wide variety of different backgrounds. They might be recovering drug addicts; they might be people who became temporarily homeless or people who have had mental or physical health problems. I could go through a long list of people, but they are vulnerable and need help and support.

However, I have a concern about the proposed amendments. They seek to plug a gap, but are they comprehensive enough? We need more discussion to make sure we have a comprehensive measure that includes everything and makes it clear who the regulator is. Given the interventions by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden, we want to make sure, as a Committee and as legislators, that the laws we introduce are actually enforced.

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

The shadow Minister made a very interesting point, and I believe his case has some merit. We have invested in pilots in several areas of the country so that we can explore the case more fully. When the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee looked at the procedure, there was some frustration on the part of Members about the fact that we cannot easily compartmentalise the breadth of people who are supported in the accommodation, so a range of organisations have oversight of the quality of the accommodation provided, supported or otherwise. We need further work to be done through the pilots to make sure that any intervention we make does not have unintended consequences for the providers who provide excellent quality supported accommodation.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Clearly, while the amendments may have good intentions, he makes a good point. We do not want the good providers, who are doing a fantastic job in supporting people to rebuild their lives, to face unnecessary burdens and regulation. It behoves the movers of amendments such as these to ensure that we have covered all those bases.

We must therefore ask: even though the amendments look superficially beneficial, do we have a comprehensive series of measures that plugs all the loopholes and does not burden good providers? Rogue providers are smart; they will look at any gaps in the law and for all opportunities to exploit the system and vulnerable people. The sensible thing would be to withdraw the amendment and have further discussion so that, together, on a cross-party basis, we can make sure that the Bill ends up in the right place.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. At the moment, we have two things going on. First, we have exempt accommodation, where private property developers access vulnerable people and place them in houses in multiple occupation, cream off large amounts of housing benefit and provide no support to those individuals. They are exploited and left until the police, in many cases, or mental health services come along and take them away. Secondly, neighbourhoods are completely terrorised by people who are vulnerable but unable to control their behaviour, and absolutely nobody regulates that.

I represent a suburban south-west London constituency. Do not get me wrong; properties are not cheap, but they are cheaper than in other bits of London. Companies such as Stef & Philips are exploiting wholesale every loophole and making large amounts of money to bring fear and distress to neighbourhoods and to the residents who occupy those premises.

Last week, a lady who lives in the Pollards Hill area came to my surgery. The 1930s semi-detached house next door to her had been converted into an HMO for five vulnerable tenants. There were no bins to collect the rubbish and no facilities to ensure people could live adequately. She lives next door and has cancer. One of the residents in that home had pulled a knife on her only the day before, and all the other vulnerable tenants in the house had to stay locked in their rooms to avoid that individual. Stef & Philips are making hundreds or thousands of pounds every week from that property.

In Ravensbury, another ward in my constituency, on Malmesbury Road, the same company had a man who was so vulnerable that the police raided the property and had to withdraw because he had a crossbow and they needed firearms support. The whole street was blocked off. That is St Helier estate, for any hon. Members who may know it. It is a beautiful local authority estate built after the first world war to provide homes fit for heroes. The house is beautiful, but not as an HMO for five vulnerable people. People in the street are terrified. Who knows how terrified the other residents in the property are? The company’s balance sheet goes up and up while people go out to work to pay ever-higher tax rates to sustain that company in exploiting people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

The hon. Member is making a very clear case about the problems in her constituency. One problem that local authorities face is that they have no powers to prevent such properties from being turned over in this way. Does she agree that one issue we have to deal with, which is not addressed in this amendment, is that local authorities need powers? Those powers might be around planning permission to do with HMOs and HMO regulation, to control the type of housing that she quite rightly describes as being a challenge in her area; or they might be over a licensing system to make sure that the operators of supported housing projects are fit and proper persons who will not exploit their position.

Further, data-sharing should be spread across the country. These rogues might well jump from Merton to Croydon to somewhere else, because they know that the local authority does not know about them. However, that is not within the scope of the amendment, although it is in the scope of my Bill, which I will be debating later. Although we would all agree that the issues that the hon. Member has raised are a scandal and need to be addressed, we must be clear that that is not within the scope of the amendment.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I believe that the regulator should have power to look at this area of housing. It is all very well for councils to get more powers, and I would be the first to agree with that, but many councils already have a lot of powers that they cannot use because they cannot afford to. They do not have access to social housing units. They do not have access to the level of environmental health officers that they need. They do not have access to the number of planning officers they need in the area of planning enforcement.

--- Later in debate ---

Given the social housing deficit that exists in the country and the need for more accurate data to properly address whether the supply of social housing in England and Wales is sufficient to meet reasonable demands, we believe there is a strong case for placing this additional duty on the regulator. I hope the Minister will rethink the Government’s position on this issue and new clause 2, or at least take away the arguments I have made and give further thought to how we might address the issues raised by both the new clauses.

[Bob Blackman]

I agree with the shadow Minister that the provision of affordable social housing in this country is far too low. It has been far too low for far too long. That has been the case not just under this Government, but under successive Governments for more than 30 years.

The shadow Minister has put forward his case, and he quoted one report claiming that 145,000 units are required per year. The Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee and I have always taken the view that 90,000 units per year would be required just to get us back to where we should be. From that perspective, it is clear that there needs to be more investment in affordable social housing, and we need to get to a point where people have a place they can call home, a rent that they can afford, and the option to buy when their circumstances allow.

The new clauses seem to put extra burdens on the regulator, for example by requiring them to report on the amount of social housing there should be in this country. I do not think that is an appropriate role for the regulator. It is right that organisations, such as those the shadow Minister quoted—Shelter, Crisis, CIH and others—should be reporting and commenting to Government, but I do not think it is the role of the regulator to report to Government.

I think the role of the regulator is quite clearly to report on the condition of social housing. I hope as we go through the Bill—and I will challenge the Secretary of State on this particular issue—we will see some amendments that strengthen the role of the regulator to ensure that social housing providers are performing as they should be. That means providing a high-quality standard of accommodation. We have heard about what has happened in Rochdale, but the issue of the condition of property is not confined to Rochdale. It goes up and down the country.

We need to see dramatic improvements in the provision of not only the quantity of social housing, but the conditions within those units. It is a sheer scandal in this country that we are paying huge salaries to social housing providers who are pocketing the money while providing a very poor service for their tenants. We need to call them to account. I believe that comes through the role of the regulator. That is the way it should be. I hope we can see some strengthening of the Bill on that point through Government amendments, at least when we get to Report stage.

On safety defects, there is clearly an issue about data, performance and the funding of removing unsafe cladding and dealing with fire safety defects. The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will know that I have been on this case for quite some time—since before Grenfell. One of the key issues here is about whether the regulator should be reporting on it, but frankly I think the regulator should be enforcing it. They should be making sure the providers actually do their job of providing safe accommodation for people.

While I recognise that the new clauses are well-intentioned, I do not think they hit the nub of where we need to be going. I hope the Government will come forward with some new clauses to strengthen the Bill when we get to Report stage, particularly in light of the scandal in Rochdale and the conditions people are facing up and down the country.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

Thank you, Sir Edward, for your generosity in calling me. I realise I registered quite late that I wanted to speak.

Why are we sitting here in this Bill Committee today? We are sitting here because, under the coalition Government’s bonfire of the quangos, we set fire to the housing inspectorate and the Audit Commission in the belief that no regulation of damp or mould growth in properties was required, that all the adjudicator had to do was look at the financial structure of housing associations, and that that would be enough. What a terrible error that has been.

In my constituency, the largest social housing provider is Clarion Housing Association. After an ITV news programme about some of its standards, it was referred to the regulator. The regulator’s decision was that it could not investigate because there was not a systemic problem. That is where we have got to. How many of us were distressed by Awaab Ishak’s death? How many of us know that we have plenty of social housing units in our constituencies with the same damp and mould growth problems? At the moment we have no form of regulation that can tackle that.

The adjudicator does not go out and look at properties or inspect procedures. The adjudicator is interested in the financial structures. I would never argue that we should not look at the financial viability of a housing association, but I also want to know what it does when it has problems of damp and mould growth. I want to know that a Government inspector goes out and sample-tests and looks at properties.

We would never accept an Ofsted that did not inspect schools or a Care Quality Commission that did not go in and inspect hospitals, care homes or local authority social services, but we have accepted that the regulator has no responsibility for going into social housing properties and inspecting their conditions.

When we look at reducing regulation, we must remember Awaab Ishak, and remember that we do not have a regulator in our country that would do anything about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

The shadow Minister is making a good point. We want to empower tenants, but his proposal could have an unintended consequence. Supposing tenant representatives on the board cannot agree among themselves who will be the chair, the panel could meet, but obviously that would be a difficult situation. There may potentially be social tenants from various parts of the country, representing different organisations. It is therefore not appropriate to prescribe a chair on the face of the Bill; that would defeat the objective. It might well be that we could find some suitable wording about the number of representatives, but I do not think we should force the panel to have a particular individual or representative as the chair.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The point about obvious issues around tenant representation and selection is well made, although those issues exist for the quality residents panel and the 250 members it selects. They have existed every time we have tried to create a body that gives voice to residents, so I do not think they are insurmountable. I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman thinks a minimum level of tenant representation on the panel is a good thing, and I urge the Government to think again about that.

We ultimately want to achieve tenant empowerment on the advisory panel so that tenants can be confident that, when the advisory panel gives information and advice to the regulator about the new system of regulatory standards, its voice is properly heard and it can bring issues to the attention of Ministers if required. I hope the Government will take away the points we have made about the amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

We welcome the Government’s decision, in response to concerns raised during the passage of the Building Safety Act 2022, to carry out a consultation on the introduction of mandatory checks on electrical installations for social housing at least once every five years and to include measures within this Bill to partially implement such checks—only partially, because the section of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 that this clause seeks to amend is concerned with properties let by landlords, not owner-occupier leaseholders. That is an important distinction, for reasons I will explain.

As we know, there is currently no legal requirement in England for social landlords or leaseholders to undertake electrical safety checks of their dwellings. The situation is distinct from that in the private rented sector, where the Housing and Planning Act introduced mandatory safety checks on electrical installations at least once every five years.

We know that fires in numerous tower blocks, including Grenfell, Shepherd’s Court, and Lakanal House, were caused by electricity. Home Office fire data shows a consistently high level of accidental electrical fires in high-rise buildings with 10 or more flats. Campaign groups such as Electrical Safety First have been at pains to stress that those buildings were mixed-tenure buildings containing an assortment of owner-occupier leasehold and social rented units and that there is therefore a case, given that the fire safety of a building depends on the safety of all the units within it, for ensuring parity in electrical safety standards across all tenures in high-rise residential blocks.

The Government’s own consultation on this issue noted that the National Federation of ALMOs supported introducing electrical safety requirements for owner-occupiers in mixed-tenure blocks and highlighted that properties being considered by authorities for London’s right to buy-back programme often have electrical installations that are

“in a state of significant disrepair.”

Given that we know that many high-rise social housing blocks contain owner-occupied flats owned on a leasehold basis, it surely cannot be right that a leaseholder living next door to a social renter will not have their electrical installations mandated to be checked every five years. To put it another way, what good is having the electrical installations of two thirds of a building checked every five years if the other third is not? The risk of a potentially life-threatening fire obviously does not discriminate by tenure.

[Bob Blackman]

This is a very significant point, particularly with what happened at Grenfell. We should reflect on that carefully. Who does the hon. Gentleman suggest should carry out the inspections and how would they be enforced? One of the problems that is clearly still relevant is people buying second-hand white goods that are not safety checked, which could then be faulty and cause electrical fires. In his research, has the hon. Member come up with any proposals as to how this measure could be implemented and work could be undertaken?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point—it is a point well made. I do not have a comprehensive answer to hand. There are provisions in this clause that apply to mandatory electrical safety checks for social rented properties. There are similar requirements in place for the private rented sector. My instinct is that it would seem obvious that those could be applied to the owner-occupier sector in a way that the provisions in the clause perhaps could not be. Whatever way we cut it, what we want to see are mandatory checks on all electrical installations in all units in high-rise buildings, because, as I said, fire does not discriminate between tenure. I hope the Minister will take the points away for further consideration.