Holocaust Memorial Day

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson). I pass on my congratulations to the new hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western) on his maiden speech. He will remember it forever, because we all do. We all do it once, and he will remember it forever. He is clearly going to be an asset to this House as well as to his party, and I look forward to debating housing issues with him over the time he is here. I wish his team every success tomorrow night.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) for securing this debate, as we remember the 78 years since the end of the holocaust. For me and for most of us, it is incredible to think of 6 million people being murdered because they were people, and it is important to remember that the holocaust was not an isolated event. It was systematic state-sponsored persecution by the Nazi party and its affiliates. It began in 1933, when the Nazis came to power in Germany, and went all the way through to 1945, when the second world war concluded. I hope to take a bit of a different tack during this speech, because if we ask how we can understand how ordinary people could do such atrocities to ordinary people, we need to understand what led to it in the first place.

Antisemitism is not new, and it was not new in the 1930s. Jewish people have been subjected to antisemitism throughout Europe since the middle ages. The hatred escalated significantly after the great war, when the reparations on Germany and its allies were extreme, and we had the Wall Street crash and the depression, which led to rampant inflation in Germany and the collapse of the Weimar republic. This led to the rise of Hitler and the Nazi party as he assumed control of Germany.

It is unclear to me what was behind Hitler’s hatred towards Jews. Why did this man decide that he hated Jews? However, it is quite clear that Hitler held the Jewish community responsible for the defeat of Germany in world war one. Why? It is because someone had to be to blame. That was clearly what we now call fake news —vicious propaganda, enabling the national feeling to be against the Jewish population of Germany and beyond. It was completely wrong, given that Jews were fighting on the side of Germany in defence of their country during world war one, including Otto Frank, who fought at the battle of the Somme.

After Hitler came to power, he wasted no time in using the Government to target and exclude Jews from German society, claiming they were inferior. Any book that contained ideas threatening to the Nazis was banned, and a concentration camp was immediately created for political prisoners, initially holding 200 communists. By 1935, the anti-Jewish movement had gained momentum. Jewish newspapers could no longer be sold, and Jews were stripped of their citizenship and other basic rights. In September 1935, the Nuremberg laws were passed by the German Parliament, which meant that many of the Nazis’ radical theories were institutionalised, and legal grounds were created to justify the prosecution and persecution of the Jewish community.

It is unimaginable in this day and age how the vast majority of Germans were coaxed into believing that Nazi ideology, but members of the general public were clearly unaware of the growing indoctrination until it was too late. They had adopted a strong stance against the entire Jewish community, and therefore could justify Hitler’s actions. Despite the shocking morals, Hitler was a calculated and systematic man, carefully thinking through his long-term plan before enacting it. He was able to persuade the German people by providing free radios that played only antisemitic programmes, ensuring that all children’s books depicted the villain as a Jewish character, showing posters blaming the Jews for every evil, and introducing strong censorship on all anti-Nazi media.

On 9 November, Kristallnacht, or the “night of broken glass”, took place. That was the terrorisation of Jews throughout Germany and Austria, which had recently been annexed by the Nazis. Hundreds of synagogues were destroyed and thousands of Jewish-owned businesses ransacked. The deaths of nearly 100 Jews took place on that dreadful night, which is often seen as the turning point in the persecution of German Jewry. The aftermath of Kristallnacht saw dozens of further discriminative restrictions. Jews now had to carry ID cards at all times and have the segregating “J” stamped on their passports. They could longer head or own businesses, and they could not attend concerts or theatres. They had their driver’s licences removed, and all Jewish children had to be taken out of their schools to attend “Jewish-only” institutions. They had to be in certain places at certain times—all dictated by the Führer. Furthermore, more than 30,000 Jews were arrested on that night.

The whole House will be aware that in 1939 world war two was declared, as Germany took over Czechoslovakia and began the invasion of Poland. Simultaneously, the Jewish restrictions became even more constraining and discriminatory. By 1940, the Nazis had begun deporting German Jews to Poland, where they were forced into ghettos and concentration camps. They were brutally tortured and their human rights completely violated. Devastatingly, 1940 saw the first of an onslaught of mass murders of Jewish people.

The situation became graver and graver, and in 1942, the Nazis’ discussions were centred around their “final solution”, a despicable plot to kill every European Jew. At that point, Jews were not allowed to own pets, leave the house without police consent, buy newspapers and eggs or attend school, among all sorts of further restrictions. Once Hitler took control of Hungary, a year before the end of world war two, he began deporting 12,000 Jews to Auschwitz every day to be killed. That continued until 1945, when Auschwitz-Birkenau was liberated. Sadly, 6 million Jewish people—two thirds of European Jews—had lost their lives. That shattered communities, and provided the few who outlived the war with experiences that scarred their lives for ever.

But before we get too comfortable, we should remember what was going on in this country. The British Union of Fascists was around before world war two, led by Oswald Mosley, an MP in this House, and he modelled it on Nazi Germany. The BUF was fuelled by antisemitism, inspired by the Nazis, and Mosley held huge rallies in this country, pushing a strong nationalist and fascist agenda. Unemployment was very high, poverty widespread, and homelessness rising. Someone had to be to blame, and Mosley blamed the Jews. It could have happened here. Sensible action took place by the Home Secretary, and once war broke out the BUF was banned and its members became enemies of the state. But we must never be too comfortable that this could not happen again, even in this country. I will end with one line from Zigi Shipper, who made this important point: do not hate.

Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th January 2023 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch off electronic devices or put them on silent. No food or drink other than water is to be consumed during the Committee’s sittings. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if Members email their speaking notes to [e-mail]. The selection of amendments is online and on paper in the room, on the table in front of me.

Clause 1

Supported Housing Advisory Panel

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Efford. I thank colleagues from across the House for agreeing to sit on this Bill Committee and enabling us to scrutinise the Bill in some detail.

The Bill is centred around the report on exempt accommodation produced by the Select Committee on Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. The Chair of that Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East, has agreed to serve on this Committee, and several other colleagues who sit on that Select Committee are here.

From the outset, I want to make clear that what we are seeking to do is to drive out rogue landlords, not hinder the really brilliant work being done by thousands of organisations across the country who provide supported housing for vulnerable people. To achieve that, clause 1 sets out the advice that needs to be provided to the Secretary of State. It is clear that this is a complex policy area and we want to make sure that we do not have unforeseen, inadvertent consequences that inconvenience the good people who provide an excellent service. I believe the clause is non-controversial. It requires the Supported Housing Advisory Panel to be set up; the rest of the provisions are permissive.

In formulating the Bill, we have sought to detail the sorts of expertise we believe are required. The panel the Secretary of State is required to set up will provide information to housing authorities, social services authorities and so on, so it needs expertise from people involved in social housing, local housing authorities and social services, as well as someone who has the interests of charities at heart and someone who has the interests of residents at heart, which often gets overlooked. If more expertise is required, the clause permits the Secretary of State to appoint to the panel people other than those specific representatives, but it could well be that someone who is nominated to the panel is expert in more than one field, so one representative from each of those areas is not a requirement.

The clause then sets out in some detail what the panel should do and what advice should be given to the Secretary of State. Obviously, the main purpose of the panel is to ensure that the Secretary of State is informed when action is required to be taken under later clauses. I commend the clause to the Committee and I look forward to contributions from colleagues.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I will not refer to your abject failure at the weekend to defeat Sheffield United in the cup. That would be very unfair of me.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank all Members who have joined us this morning, including my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, whom I congratulate on reaching Committee with the Bill. I agree with both what he said in his introduction and the comments from the hon. Member for Sheffield South East.

Supported housing is a vital safety net for many people, enabling them to live independently with some support. There are many excellent examples of supported housing providing support for people experiencing homelessness, older people, people with a disability and those suffering from mental ill health, to name but a few, but as we are all aware, there are rogue landlords operating supported housing schemes. Those landlords are exploiting the vulnerable people they are supposed to be helping. This is completely unacceptable. We must continue to deliver a clear message to those providers: their time is up.

This Bill, which the Government support, includes a range of measures to drive out rogue providers and drive up the quality of supported housing. It is a very important measure that comes after many Government interventions. In October 2020, we published the national statement of expectations setting out the Government’s vision for quality supported housing. In the same month, we launched the pilots, and in March 2022, following the evaluation of the pilots, we announced our intention to bring forward regulations. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East has come forward with his Bill. We have also announced that over the next three years we are expanding the pilots to 22 new local authorities, with a further £20 million programme of support. The Government are sending a clear message: we will not tolerate abuse of the supported housing system. Time is up for rogue landlords.

Clause 1 places a duty on the Secretary of State to set up a new advisory panel and to appoint a chair to the panel through consulting the members. The new panel will advise on the design and implementation of the measures in the Bill. It will be able to take a strategic view of our plans, as well as undertake its own work related to supported housing. This is an excellent opportunity to bring together key stakeholders to share their expertise and to advise the Government. The advisory panel will give Government direct access to stakeholders and their knowledge of the sector at a crucial time when we will be consulting on how best to deliver and implement the measures in the Bill. The panel will consist of those with an interest from across the supported housing sector, including but not limited to those who represent the interests of registered providers, local housing authorities, charities providing supported housing and residents of supported housing. I look forward to convening the panel at the earliest opportunity.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the Minister for her remarks and her support for the Bill generally. I also thank the hon. Member for Sheffield South East, the Chair of the Select Committee, for the inquiry we jointly conducted. This is a very important element of getting the advice that the Secretary of State will need on policy. The one area where there was discussion was the appointment of the chair of this panel, which I think it is important. It is now down to the Secretary of State to make the appointment, but the chair could be a member of the panel who already has expertise and is quite capable. I think enough has been said about this clause, but I will have more to say as we proceed.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Local supported housing strategies

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Bob Blackman]

Clause 2 builds on the advice to be provided to the Secretary of State and covers local housing strategies. One of the things we established during the Select Committee inquiry was, as has been said by the Chair of the Committee, that it is a bit of a wild west show out there in terms of how supported accommodation is provided. There is a lack of regulation and scrutiny, and even in local authorities such as Birmingham, which has introduced its own scheme, the rogue landlords refuse to comply.

The clause requires local authorities to review the exempt accommodation in their area, so that we can establish exactly how much there is out there. One of the problems that has been encountered as we have had discussions on the progress of the Bill is the lack of data. This issue is not limited to Birmingham. It is spreading out all over the country, in some quite strange places. I know it is the case in, for example, Scarborough, Blackpool and Southwark.

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I welcome his Bill. In a former life I was cabinet member for public protection, and under that came the environmental health service. I was always shocked when I got my monthly reports about the shocking housing conditions in the private rented sector. Does my hon. Friend agree that this Bill will hopefully do something to give tenants the confidence to go to local authorities and show that they are living in dreadful conditions, so that councils can then go after these landlords? Too often tenants do not feel that they should go and speak to a councillor or their council, because they fear being evicted by their landlords.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. One of the challenges here is that we are talking about some of the most vulnerable people in society. They may be mentally ill, physically ill or recovering from drug addiction or a gambling addiction. They may have left the armed forces or prison. There are all sorts of reasons why someone would be in supported accommodation. I will reflect on that as we go through this part of the Bill.

One of the things we established during the Select Committee inquiry was that often tenants are scared stiff to speak up for themselves for fear of being evicted. Rogue landlords will typically say to people, “If you don’t conform and do what you’re told, you will be out on the streets. And by the way, the local housing authority won’t house you, so you could end up rough sleeping and being very vulnerable.” That is the sort of intimidation they face.

The clause goes into some detail about making sure that local authorities review the need in their area, including the type and extent of accommodation. Without that data, it is very difficult to exercise any form of control. That is why the clause gives the local authority a duty to carry out a review and produce a strategy. It may be that certain areas of the country do not have a need—I doubt that, but some may claim they have no need for any supported housing.” None the less, almost all local authorities will be required to produce a plan and make sure that they interact with social services and set out what is going to be provided and to what standards, because no one should be forced to live in substandard accommodation, particularly people in these circumstances.

I have had the opportunity of speaking to many providers of accommodation of this type. They recognise the vulnerability of people, but often they have no interaction with the local authority because they provide the services directly. We are seeking here to make sure that the local authority establishes how much need there is in its area, and then makes sure that that need is met. Without a strategy, an overall view cannot be provided.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I am very supportive of the hon. Gentleman’s aims overall with the Bill, and with this clause in particular. It is important that local authorities have an absolutely clear picture of the need or demand in their area. Does he accept that—this point is not in the clause, but will have to be entertained if the clause is to achieve its aims—having identified the need, there has to be a clear and concerted effort to assist local authorities to provide suitable accommodation? That suggests that we need some sort of targets, both on housebuilding and on identifying appropriate amounts of accommodation in the private sector.

[Bob Blackman]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s view that we need to meet the need, but we first have to establish what the need is. Many local authorities are working together with not-for-profit providers on both the social services and other elements to provide the accommodation required, and making sure that they are working jointly. Where that process happens, it works very well. What we are seeking to do is to prevent the position whereby rogue landlords set up operations and bring people in who are literally just provided with accommodation and no support whatever—the Chair of the Select Committee talked about that situation earlier. Those people are unknown to the local authority as tenants and are therefore not supported.

That is one of the reasons why this Bill is so important: to regulate the entirety of the sector. Many organisations have continued on, happily providing the sort of service that we would hope to see everyone receive, but unfortunately there is now a large minority of people who are not providing any form of service whatever. That is why we need local authorities to establish the level of need and then, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak says, to establish how much housing needs to be provided and what type of housing and facilities are required, so that that need is met.

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I rise to agree with much of what has been said. We should not focus the entire debate on what is happening in Birmingham, but I have experience of what was happening in Birmingham 10 years ago because I worked for YMCA Birmingham.

We provided exempt supported accommodation. I had a number of unscrupulous people approach me and have a discussion about how we could manage accommodation on their behalf. When we told them how much it would cost to provide the service and what we thought was a proportionate and appropriate level of support, they were not interested. They wanted to go somewhere else—to find the people who were doing the “shout up the stairs” approach, which the Chair of the Select Committee commented on earlier. That was 10 years ago.

Although I raised some concerns at the time, for various reasons, partly because of the size of Birmingham’s local authority, it feels to me that the situation got to a point where the local authority was overwhelmed by the amount of accommodation required. Once that door is opened, and people realise there is a very lucrative business model here, more and more people rush in, and it is then very difficult for Birmingham to stem the flow. I commend the work that Birmingham has done, partly with money from the Government’s pilot scheme, and the report of its scrutiny committee, which shows how well the authority has collectively worked to get a grip on the issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Felicity Buchan]

I absolutely agree with my predecessor, and I thank him for all his work on the Bill. I agree that we need better data. I reassure him that we are working alongside the DWP so that we are much more in touch with where supported housing is and where housing benefit is being paid to it.

The DWP has already made changes to the way local authorities provide housing benefit data on supported housing claims by including flags in the collection system. That is for new housing benefit claims, so it will take time for this to work its way through the system and have data over time.

We are collectively in agreement that data needs to be improved. The supported housing strategies will be vital in maintaining a clear picture of supported housing provision and future need across England. When combined, these improvements in data and the introduction of strategic plans will help to create a clearer national picture of the supported housing provision across the country.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the Minister for setting out the position that the Government will take. Clearly, as Members have said, the most important thing here is to gather the data and information and ensure that we have a strategy for dealing with the type of appropriate accommodation.

One thing that escaped me during my introduction is that there are certain aspects—for example, those vulnerable people fleeing domestic abuse—where we must be cautious about what data is released and made available. That is one reason why it must be clear that guidance from the Secretary of State can be issued to local authorities appropriately. That, of course, would then be a requirement on a local authority to take certain actions.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

Order. Before we move on to clause 3, I should say that we are nearly 30 minutes into the sitting. We have a hard stop at 11.25 am, and a few amendments need to be debated. We can organise another sitting to complete the Bill; if that is the will of the Committee, that will obviously take place. Proper scrutiny must take place, but I remind the Committee that 11.25 am is a hard stop.

Clause 3

National Supported Housing Standards

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Betts]

Thank you, Mr Efford; I take your strictures to heart. I have two amendments. The first one recognises the need for standards to be set down and for a discussion about how that might best be done. I am happy to hear what the Minister has to say. We all want to see standards effectively laid down and followed through; the current lack of standards is a real problem in the sector.

I move on to my second amendment. I am not doubting the good intentions of the Minister in any way, but we have, of course, had one or two changes of Minister; by the time we come to implement this, someone else might be there. I am trying to get on the record what happens if the powers that may be exercised by Ministers are not exercised in practice. Is there a mechanism for whoever the Minister is at the time to report back to Members about what progress has or has not been made? I would be happy to hear the Minister’s response.

[Bob Blackman]

I should say from the outset that I agree with the thrust of the amendment, but we need to look at the issue in some detail to ensure that it reflects exactly what we are seeking to do in the Bill. I hope that the hon. Member for Sheffield South East will not press this to a vote. We will seek assurances from the Minister about what can be done to ensure that we enforce these regulations on local authorities and that we have proper standards.

[Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

The Chair of the Select Committee is right to raise the issue of how housing standards can be enforced in this important area, particularly as they affect vulnerable people. I ask the Minister to consider whether the connection of the financial payment—that relationship with DWP extra support payments, which my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North rightly raised—could be part of the mechanism. We know that local authorities, even with resources, have struggled with rogue landlords and to really enforce housing standards in other ways. I encourage the thinking about financial as well as enforcement powers.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. There are a number of different existing models. Many local authorities pay the rent through housing benefit for a tenant to live in supported accommodation. There can then be a discretionary social services element, provided under a contract by the local authority to the housing provider, in order to provide support. It is a very complex area, as my hon. Friend knows. We must get this right; there could be unforeseen circumstances if we are too prescriptive at this stage. It may well be that the detail has to be set out in regulations as the consultation process and the regulations that follow from the Bill go through. I do not think it would be sensible at this stage to agree to the amendment. I trust we will get some assurances from my hon. Friend the Minister in that respect.

The clause requires appropriate supported housing standards to be followed, introduced and enforced by the local authority. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North said—his points were well made—people should be living in reasonable accommodation suitable to their needs. That is part and parcel of setting out what the standards should be. That does not mean the sort of things we saw in Birmingham, with its scandalous elements: where a three-bedroom house is suddenly turned into an eight-bedroom house, with a small kitchen and small living area, and people are crammed in without any support whatever; where there is no control over the type of people put into these houses or their needs; and where someone fleeing domestic violence, a recovering drug addict, someone who has left prison for sexual offences and others can all be accommodated within the same unit, without any consideration of their separate needs and responsibilities. We need to set the standards out.

Amendment 2 relates to the Secretary of State reporting back. We look forward to the Minister still being in place by the time we get the Bill on the statute book, although I notice that here we have an ex-Minister, who began the process, and another ex-Minister, who is now my Whip—we have had three Ministers already, during the course of the Bill’s proceedings. We need to make sure that we are making progress and that we are implementing the provisions. I look forward to some warm words, a firm contribution and a commitment from my hon. Friend the Minister, to make sure that we get action in this area quickly, expeditiously and appropriately as well as a commitment that, if we do not get that action, Ministers will come back and tell us why.

[The Chair]

I call the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 3, in clause 5, page 5, line 45, at end insert—

“(e) conditions relating to the assessment of the needs of persons who are residents or potential residents of supported exempt accommodation.”

This amendment sets out that assessing the needs of people who are residents or potential residents of supported exempt accommodation is a condition that may be attached to a licence.

Clause 5 stand part.

Amendment 5, in clause 6, page 6, line 29, leave out “statutory”.

Amendment 6, in clause 6, page 6, line 38, leave out “statutory”.

Amendment 7, in clause 6, page 6, line 40, leave out “statutory”.

Amendment 8, in clause 6, page 7, line 3, leave out “statutory”.

Amendment 9, in clause 6, page 7, line 4, leave out “the Local Government Association” and insert “local authorities in England”.

Clauses 6 and 7 stand part.

[Bob Blackman]

Clauses 4 to 7 are the heart of the Bill, because clause 4 sets out the licensing regime that we wish to introduce. The measure is permissive and will allow local authorities to introduce the licensing scheme if they so choose. There is a great deal of detail in the clause, which leads on to the further provision in clause 5 and the provision in clause 6 about the need to consult, as the Minister has set out. Consultation is mightily important, because this is where all the good providers need to give the Government feedback on how they are operating and what needs to happen.

I should explain the amendments that I have tabled in respect of consultation. In the draft Bill, we put the Local Government Association down as a statutory consultee. Following that, the LGA came back to us and said, “We don’t want to be a statutory consultee, but we generally want local authorities to be.” The LGA does not want to act on behalf of all local authorities because this is a permissive measure and not all local authorities will want to introduce a licensing scheme. Therefore, the amendments are sensible tidying-up amendments. I think our explanation yesterday may have caused Ministers and officials some confusion, but I hope that the amendments can be made to ensure that the legislation is appropriate.

The key is making the licensing scheme, if it is introduced, common across local authorities. One of the things that has been brought home to me loud and clear by a number of organisations that operate across a number of local authorities is that they do not want a licensing scheme to be different from one authority to another, so as far as possible it needs to be a common practice across local authorities. It also needs to be compulsory. Birmingham Members know that Birmingham tried to introduce a voluntary scheme; all the good providers signed up, but funnily enough the rogue landlords said, “Well, we don’t have to, so we won’t.”

In debates on previous clauses, we talked about the standards to be provided and the requirements on local authorities and the Secretary of State, but the heart of the Bill is a licensing scheme that is fit for purpose and ensures that fit and proper persons operate in these areas and provide accommodation. We must ensure that not-for-profit originations are not completely inconvenienced and that the fees are not so high that organisations are impoverished and driven out of providing accommodation in the first place.

Exempt accommodation can be provided only through a not-for-profit organisation. The scandal at the moment is that unscrupulous landlords buy a property, expand it to the maximum possible under permitted development, provide a small living area and a small bathroom, stack the house with as many people as they physically can, and then claim housing benefit on an enhanced basis for vulnerable people. Members might say, “Well, hang on. That’s a private landlord operating that way,” but what the private landlord does is set up a not-for-profit organisation alongside that, to which they lease the property. The not-for-profit organisation runs the service and provides the rent to the landlord, but the landlord is also running the not-for-profit organisation.

That scam has to be dealt with, which is one of the reasons why a licensing regime needs to be introduced so that we have a fit-and-proper person test and ensure all the aspects of what needs to be provided. We must ensure that accommodation is decent and that the services for vulnerable people are provided in the way they should be. We cannot have a situation in which vulnerable people are exploited and almost retained as prisoners within their own accommodation. That is extremely important.

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I wholeheartedly agree with this Bill. We have seen on the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee some of what the hon. Gentleman has outlined and some of the scandalous places people are forced to live. The leverage that rogue landlords have over them is absolutely appalling and at times life-threatening. Is he talking about landlord licensing only for exempt accommodation, or right across the board? Should private landlords be part of the landlord licensing scheme? A pilot was successful in Liverpool, but it has ended.

[Bob Blackman]

Generally speaking, licensing schemes for private sector housing are outside the scope of this Bill. We are looking particularly at supported housing and exempt accommodation. We have had some discussions about extending the scope of the Bill to all supported housing. I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to a very different licensing regime, which of course can be introduced, but we are concentrating on vulnerable individuals who are provided with accommodation.

The problem is that exempt accommodation is just that: it is exempt from all the regulations relating to houses in multiple occupation and all other aspects, and enhanced housing benefit can be claimed as a result. There have been some financial scandals. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby knows, during the Select Committee inquiry we uncovered a number of scams; whether we can fix them all in this Bill is another matter. What we can do—what we are doing—is lay out a whole series of things. When the Bill was first drafted this section was a great deal longer. We were convinced—I cannot remember by which Minister, but one of the three—that we should remove a large section and put it in regulation, because it is then easier to change and amend as the market changes.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Fortunately, I can allow people to speak more than once, but whether the Minister will answer questions is not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Member for Sheffield South East has got his points across. Bob Blackman, your body language said to me that you did not want to get up again.

[Bob Blackman]

I was just wary about who else was standing up.

[The Chair]

You should be in my position!

[Bob Blackman]

In relation to the amendments, the most important thing to remember is that with the vulnerable people we are talking about, every case is unique; individuals have unique needs. Good supported housing organisations will provide an initial assessment of what those needs are so they can build a support network. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East, the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, requires that to happen.

At the moment, rogue landlords do not provide any assessment of needs whatsoever. The only need they are interested in is how much money they can get from the housing benefit regime. I agree that we need to look at this in more detail to make sure it is correct, but it is in the spirit of the Bill and there is a need to specify that this will be a requirement for providers. They must assess the needs of the individuals they are responsible for housing.

Let me turn to my amendments. I accept the Minister’s strictures to look at tidying up this area. As I have said, the Local Government Association does not want to be a statutory consultee. Therefore, we could tidy the wording up a bit in relation to housing and social services authorities to ensure the language is consistent. I agree we could do that on Report.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 5 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Planning

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 9 stand part.

[Bob Blackman]

Clauses 8 and 9 deal with two aspects of the Bill. One prevalent problem in the planning system is that in local authority areas there is no control whatever over someone setting up a supported housing unit. We have had a lot of discussion about whether we could have some sort of saturation test, so that we do not get whole ghettos of supported housing units being set up, driving out other people. We are now looking at whether we will need to go further, which clause 8 specifically addresses.

If licensing does what we require it to—that is, control the way in which supported housing is provided across the piece—that will be fine. However, during the Select Committee inquiry we established that when a property is purchased for use as supported housing, that should go through the planning process and the local authority should consider a planning application for a change of use of that property; I believe that will be required. That is the only means by which a local authority can exercise control before the unit is brought into operation. It would then allow local people and councillors to have their say, and ensure that we control the number of units being set up before they are set up, rather than try to deal with the situation afterwards.

Clause 8 is permissive, so that if we have clear evidence that the change of use is required to take place through the planning process, the Secretary of State can introduce that process. It is not a requirement from day one; my personal feeling is that that is the best way of controlling the setting up of supported housing units, but I completely understand the position we have reached with the Department. There is concern that that requirement may not be necessary.

[Mrs Hamilton]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman: that was the issue in the area in which I was a councillor prior to becoming an MP. When HMOs were being set up in the area, we had to go through planning, but when rogue landlords realised that HMOs needed planning permission, they switched tack and went for these exempt supported living accommodations. The problem is that we would struggle to get the numbers once they had been set up, and the ghettos are already there in places like Birmingham. I absolutely agree that the issue needs to be considered, because rogue landlords have a way of knowing how to get around the rules, and we need to tighten them up.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. It is clearly outrageous that if someone set up an HMO, they would be regulated, but if they said, “No, this is supported housing and exempt accommodation”, they would not be. That just cannot be right, and it is one reason that we have looked at the licensing regime as a process of enforcing the law. It may work, but my personal view is that I would much rather see a position where planning takes place. Clause 8 allows the Secretary of State to say, following a review of the operation of the licensing regime, “We haven’t gone far enough. We must now introduce a position whereby the change of use requires planning permission.” It is a warning shot, as it were, and then further powers can be introduced if necessary.

Clause 9 is an important clause for vulnerable people. At the moment, landlords routinely say to their vulnerable tenants, “Do what you’re told or else you’ll be on the streets, and if you go on the streets, the local authority will deem you to have left a secure property. Therefore you have made yourself homeless and they have no duty to house you whatsoever.” It is a threat for keeping individuals in that situation.

[Eddie Hughes]

I agree about just how pernicious the impact of this issue is. We are talking about vulnerable people, and therefore those who are likely to take that threat of being made homeless very seriously and so keep quiet and continue to endure dreadful accommodation. I appreciate that this is not really the purpose of this debate, but we also see that in social housing generally, where we have seen some dreadful cases of damp and mould and the landlord continues to expect that rent be paid, even though the accommodation they are providing is dreadful. We must absolutely ensure that this issue does not hang as a threat over vulnerable people.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Clearly, this is one of areas that was a concern when we produced the Bill—that, in the end, someone could be classified as being intentionally homeless if they object to the conditions that they are in, or anything else.

The other aspect that we have not brought out during this process but needs to be spelled out is that rogue landlords have a direct incentive for the individuals in their services not to improve their lot. If they were to have the temerity to actually go and get a job and get some income, they would be forced out, because they would no longer be entitled to enhanced housing benefit. We must address that scandal as well.

The key point is that tenants can be assured that if they have a complaint to make, they should go ahead and make it and draw to the attention of the local authorities, or the individuals operating the licensing regime, that their position is that their accommodation is not acceptable and needs to be improved. The landlords should not be holding them literally to ransom.

Clause 9 gives the reassurance that someone can go to their local authority and leave the premises they are in on the basis of it not being suitable to their needs—it is damp, mouldy, or in whatever condition—and that the local authority will then need to look at their circumstances appropriately. They would then be dealt with under normal homelessness legislation, so would not be “intentionally homeless” and would be able to gain support from the local authority.

I commend these two very important clauses to the Committee.

[Mrs Elphicke]

I am grateful for the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I want briefly to explore the new provision on homelessness, the intent of which I wholeheartedly support.

The Bill has been introduced with a focus on the outrageous examples of rogue landlords, who must be dealt with. However, as we have explored in the Select Committee review, and in my own experience, some of the more mainstream providers, who we would otherwise think would be good providers in this space, have had situations in which they did not provide the right level of supported care for very vulnerable people. I want to explore with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East whether, in respect of the provision about whether the standard of care support and supervision is provided, the issue would be in the opinion of the person to whom the support or care is provided, rather than in the organisation’s opinion.

Let me give two brief illustrative examples. First, in my prior life I volunteered with a homeless night shelter. I worked in homeless support for a number of years. In the Dover Outreach Centre, which is a fantastic example of this kind of support, in a number of cases people found themselves back in homelessness because a respected local organisation that supports drug, alcohol and other situations found that those people were not suitable for their programmes and removed them from that accommodation after incidents of repeated alcohol or drug abuse. In such a situation, people need additional support or other organisations to help them; they are still in need, still vulnerable and still homeless. I am keen to ensure that the obligation to support would extend to situations where the programme that has been provided has not achieved the outcome of keeping that person from homelessness and has not got them on the road to being in a home.

My second point is that the son of a constituent of mine recently committed suicide, having been thrown out of supported exempt housing—again, in a situation where they had both physical and mental health needs. It was a complex situation, as is not unusual, and the case is subject to a coroner’s investigation, so I will not comment on the detail further, except to say again that if we are looking to ensure that there is a safety net of support for people in vulnerable housing and care situations, can we make sure that the legislation deals with those sorts of real-life situations, which can occur even in the best organised supported housing provider?

--- Later in debate ---

[Felicity Buchan]

Yes, and that is precisely why we have decided to opt for a local licensing regime; we strongly feel that local authorities know their areas best and know where there is need.

Let me turn to the issue of homelessness. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dover for her comments. I send my sympathies to the family involved. I think that everyone, from all parties in the House, will agree that if vulnerable people find themselves in poor-quality supported housing, they should not be afraid to look for help. Residents should not fear being penalised for leaving poor-quality supported housing, whether it is poor because of the accommodation itself or because of the level of the support provided. The Bill clarifies the position for both residents and local authorities. The examples that my hon. Friend gave show the importance of consultation, which is fundamental to the Bill, because through consultation we will be able to set the national supported housing standards in such a way that they are applied fairly to all cases.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dover in particular for her intervention. I give her the assurance that the intention is that the individuals involved will determine whether they are leaving a property under those circumstances. The key is to prevent the local authority from automatically refusing someone accommodation or assistance. The Bill dovetails with the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which I piloted through some seven years ago now, to ensure that local authorities act appropriately when dealing with people who are homeless through no fault of their own. The whole point is to make it clear that they are not at fault by exercising this position. I thank the Minister for making clear her position on the planning issue. As I have said, my personal view is that we will require provision going forward, but let us establish the position.

On local licensing, we need to see a great deal of consistency across the country in the type of licensing policies that are implemented, so that national organisations are not having to cope with different licensing arrangements in different local authorities.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Sharing of information relating to supported exempt accommodation

[Mr Betts]

I beg to move amendment 4 in clause 10, page 8, line 26, at end insert—

“(8) If, at the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the power in subsection (1) is yet to be exercised, the Secretary of State must publish, in such manner as the Secretary of State thinks fit, a report setting out the progress that has been made towards doing so.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to explain why they have not made provision about the sharing of information relating to supported exempt accommodation, if they have not done so within a year of Royal Assent of the Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

Effectively, the purpose behind clause 10 is as I outlined at the beginning. We are talking about some of the most vulnerable people in society. The people we are talking about are normally women, such as those fleeing domestic violence. We are talking about people that are mentally or physically ill; they may be recovering from all sorts of addictions. There can be a whole plethora of reasons why people are in supported housing. Data on that is sensitive and personal, so we must be very careful about how that data is shared and with whom it is shared. Often, we are talking about people who may have moved around from one authority to another. Essentially, clause 10 sets out the regime that will operate and the requirement that the Department will introduce regulations on how this should be handled.

This is going to be one of the most difficult areas of the regulation that will follow the Bill because it will have to cover a range of different types of information and of circumstances under which information can be transferred. It is absolutely vital to protect vulnerable individuals in society in this way.

[Felicity Buchan]

As with amendment 2, which was about a reporting requirement for housing standards, I am prepared to give a commitment in this Committee: if we are required to report on licensing regulations after 12 months, we will include an update on the progress on information sharing powers. I agree with the hon. Member for Harrow East that we need to be sensitive about the sharing of information, given the involvement of people such as domestic abuse survivors. Information about their current residence is very sensitive, so, again, consultation is key. We may have to exempt certain groups, but it is an important clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 13 and 14 stand part.

[Bob Blackman]

Clauses 12 to 14 simply adapt the definitions for the Bill. I think they are uncontroversial and appropriate. Clause 13 is about other interpretations and clause 14 about the Bill’s commencement, extent and short title. They are essential clauses, but not controversial.

[Felicity Buchan]

I agree with my hon. Friend that clauses 12 to 14 are relatively straightforward, but I want to make one point about clause 12, on the meaning of “supported exempt accommodation”. Several overlapping definitions of supported housing include two in housing benefit regulations: those for “exempt accommodation” and for “specified accommodation”. The Bill refers to the broader supported housing definition—of specified accommodation—as “supported exempt accommodation”.

Existing evidence points to the issues in supported housing typically occurring in housing provision that meets the “exempt accommodation” definition, so that is the current focus of the licensing scheme regulations. As I stated, there is a risk of loopholes, so we will consult on whether to expand the licensing scheme to cover all supported housing. The broader definition of “supported exempt accommodation” applies to the other elements of the Bill, including local authority strategic planning, information sharing and the national supported housing standards.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the Minister for the information on consultation. This is a key area. The sort of people we are trying to drive out of business will use every and any loophole there is, so getting the exact wording right is vital. I accept completely what my hon. Friend has said about the consultation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 13 and 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 2

Charter of Rights for residents of supported exempt accommodation

‘(1) A local housing authority in England must publish a Charter of Rights for residents of supported exempt accommodation (“Charter of Rights”).

(2) A Charter of Rights under subsection (1) must be published—

(a) within three months of the date on which this Act comes into force, and

(b) annually thereafter.

(3) A Charter of Rights under subsection (1) must contain—

(a) a statement of the rights of residents of supported exempt accommodation,

(b) a statement of the responsibilities of providers of supported exempt accommodation,

(c) information about support services for residents of supported exempted accommodation.

(4) In preparing a Charter, the local housing authority must consult—

(a) residents of supported exempt accommodation,

(b) providers of supported exempt accommodation, and

(c) civil society organisations.

(5) The Secretary of State must by regulations require a provider of supported exempt accommodation to—

(a) ensure that its staff are aware of the Charter of Rights published by the local housing authority,

(b) provide a copy of the Charter of Rights to every resident in the supported exempt accommodation it provides,

(c) have regard to the relevant Charter of Rights in exercising its functions.

(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (5) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’—(Kate Hollern.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Betts]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I am moving the new clause on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Kate Hollern), who tabled it. I will not spend long on this, but I promised that I would move it so that the Minister could respond.

The intention of the new clause is simply to put the needs and rights of those resident in supported exempt accommodation at the heart of our debate in Committee. In the end, that is what we are trying to do: provide better accommodation for people who are often in desperate and real need. I will not press this to a vote, but I want the debate to be about how the Minister might think the issues raised in new clause 2—on having the rights of residents recognised formally—will be best addressed in the Bill.

Called-in Planning Decision: West Cumbria

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The inspector makes it clear in his report that, by sourcing coal from this mine, there will be a beneficial effect in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Cumbria planning committee, after careful consideration, approved this planning application. The Secretary of State then called it in for an independent review. The independent planning inspector, after careful consideration of all the evidence, recommended approval. Given my confidence that my right hon. Friend is a rational man, does he not agree that it would be completely irrational to override the recommendations of the planning inspector and refuse this planning application, which has great benefit to the United Kingdom?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend has a matchless knowledge of the planning process. Again, I urge all colleagues to read my decision letter and also the inspector’s report, which gives a full account of all the evidence that was placed before him. As I said in my statement, this planning application has given rise to strong feelings on both sides, but the inspector’s report lays out a particular case and, as I read the inspector’s report and saw the conclusions that he drew, so my decision letter followed. I hope that all colleagues will have the chance to read the report and make their own judgments.

Social Housing and Regulation Bill [ LORDS ] (Second sitting)

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Dehenna Davison)]

As I said on Second Reading, the Government are fully committed to driving up housing management standards by improving the professional behaviours, skills and capabilities of all staff in the sector. The Grenfell tragedy and our subsequent social housing Green Paper consultation highlighted the fact that many staff did not listen to or treat residents with respect, provide a high-quality service or deal appropriately with complaints. The circumstances surrounding the death of Awaab Ishak have once again shown the tragic consequences that can occur when staff lack empathy and when tenants are not listened to. That is why clause 21 makes provision to enable the Secretary of State to direct the regulator of social housing to set standards for the competence and conduct of social housing staff. Registered providers will be required to comply with specified rules concerning the knowledge, skills and experience of social housing staff. They will also be required to comply with specified rules concerning the conduct expected of such individuals when dealing with tenants. Those factors are crucial in determining the quality of services provided to tenants.

Our approach offers a holistic solution to the issue of professionalisation. It champions the value of skills, knowledge and experience, and maintains landlords’ flexibility in choosing the most appropriate training programmes and qualifications to equip their workforces. The standards set under this clause will ensure that social housing staff develop the core skillsets and behaviours required to treat tenants with the empathy and respect that they deserve. They will also empower staff to take appropriate action to support tenants.

New clause 4, tabled by the shadow Minister, takes a different approach to achieving professionalisation. It gives the Secretary of State the power to stipulate, through regulations, that a person

“may not engage in the management of social housing or in specified work in relation to the provision of social housing unless he or she—

(a) has appropriate professional qualifications, or

(b) satisfies specified requirements.”

As both myself and the Secretary of State set out on Second Reading, there is a real risk that mandating qualifications for all housing management staff would lead to the reclassification of housing associations to the public sector. The sector is close to the threshold for reclassification, and we saw that happen in 2015. Since then, a number of deregulatory measures have had to be taken before housing associations could be reclassified back to the private sector.

To make this point very clear, reclassification would bring around £90 billion of debt and all housing association annual spending on to the public ledger, and would likely reduce the ability of housing associations to improve the quality of their stock and build new homes. We have to be mindful of that risk and that outcome, which could be harmful to tenants.

However, we have listened carefully to the arguments made both in this House and the other place in support of mandatory qualifications. As I committed to do on Second Reading, I met with my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) to discuss this issue before the Bill reached Committee stage. We are continuing to look at whether there is any scope to include qualifications requirements in the competence and conduct standards without triggering reclassification. If we can identify a solution, then we will be able to bring that forward on Report.

We continue to believe that the existing provisions in the Bill, which will enable us to direct the regulator to set standards for the competence and conduct of all staff, will be an effective means of professionalising the sector. Our approach has been informed by the findings of our professionalisation review, which we will publish in full early next year. There is no doubt that housing management qualifications are an important aspect of professional development for some staff. Our review heard no clear evidence that such qualifications in and of themselves lead to better staff behaviours or improved tenant experiences. Qualifications such as those offered by the Chartered Institute of Housing will be an important part of how landlords ensure their staff have the skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours they need to deliver professional services, as required by the competence and conduct standards. Qualifications will sit alongside external and in-house training and more informal developmental tools such as staff supervision, mentoring and reflective practice.

Our review findings echoed what we heard after the Grenfell tragedy and more recently in relation to the death of Awaab Ishak—that what tenants most want and need is for all of the staff they deal with, whether housing managers, officers, or contact centre staff, to treat them with respect and empathy, to listen carefully and take appropriate and timely actions in response to their issues and concerns. We heard that these behaviours, and the interpersonal skills and attitudes that underlie them, are more likely to be achieved through a combination of organisational culture change led by senior executives and boards, adoption of codes of ethics and values, delivery of bespoke on-the-job training and effective supervision by experienced staff, than they are necessarily by formal qualifications.

The review also highlighted how important flexibility is in designing staff development programmes, given the sector’s diverse structures, operating models, role types, and breadth of service provision. Mandating qualifications for all housing management staff could hinder landlords in delivering the right mix of qualifications, training and development for their staff. Through the review we also heard that mandating qualifications for all staff would likely add to the recruitment and retention challenges faced by many landlords. Recruiting staff who have the right attitudes and aptitudes is more important to building a caring and empathetic workforce than employing people who possess formal qualifications. So we are concerned about the recruitment issues in that regard.

The standards that we are bringing forward will drive a holistic and organisation-wide approach to professional development, and deliver the empathetic, forward-looking and professional housing services the sector deserves, with staff who treat tenants with respect and act swiftly to remedy issues.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dehenna Davison]

Two to choose from—I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East.

[Bob Blackman]

The clause refers to the standards and competence that we expect to be achieved in this sector, and the amendment goes further and expands on them. However, it is silent on sanctions when they are not achieved. It is all very well having qualified people, but, if they do not perform properly, sanctions have to be available and directions by the Secretary of State should be possible. I wonder whether my hon. Friend will look at how we might strengthen the position when we get to Report stage.

[Dehenna Davison]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I will respond to him and then perhaps I will have answered the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North wanted to ask. It is right that the regulator must have the right powers in place to deal with breaches of its standards. With regard to competence and conduct, the Bill enables the regulator to require providers to produce and implement a performance improvement plan to be approved by the regulator. If a provider fails to implement a plan, the regulator can issue an enforcement notice and levy an unlimited fine if that notice is not complied with. So the regulator will have teeth to ensure the kind of conduct that we expect. I hope that that answers the question from one hon. Friend.

--- Later in debate ---

The Government did the right thing in inserting clause 21 into the Bill, but they must go further. The Minister says the Government are in listening mode. I suspect that Ministers are minded to push much further on this matter. We look forward to seeing what they bring back.

[Bob Blackman]

The shadow Minister is applying quite a long list of prescriptions, and I think Members on both sides of the Committee would probably agree with much of what he is saying. One of the problems with putting such provisions into the Bill is that they are very difficult to amend at a future time. I accept that what he is proposing now is that regulations “may” be made; I wonder whether a better approach might be for a Government amendment to set out that regulations may be made. The prescription he has put in his new clause could then be made under regulation and, therefore, be easier to amend in the event that matters change. Otherwise, we would have to introduce primary legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dehenna Davison]

Clause 29 commits the regulator to the delivery of regular inspections by providing it with a duty to publish, and take reasonable steps to implement, a plan for regular inspections. The clause will reinforce the regulator’s commitment to deliver the policy objective set by the social housing White Paper, while ensuring the regulator has the freedom to design the inspections regime following engagement with the sector.

As members of the Committee know, a key part of our efforts to drive consumer standards is the introduction of routine inspections by the regulator for the largest landlords. Inspections will help the regulator to hold landlords to account and intervene where necessary, ultimately driving up the quality of homes and services provided to tenants. That measure is integral to the success of the proactive consumer regime facilitated by the Bill.

However, I cannot accept amendment 16, which seeks to introduce a specific duty for the regulator to conduct inspections of all RPs every four years. As I have said, clause 29 puts the Government and the regulator’s shared commitment to inspections into legislation, through requiring the regulator to publish and take reasonable steps to implement an inspections plan. The clause also ensures that the regulator maintains a level of operational flexibility to allow it to respond on a risk basis to significant developments in the sector.

The regulator is committed to developing a robust approach to inspections, and continues to develop the details of how it will manage consumer inspections via a process of targeted engagement with the sector and social housing tenants. I do not feel that we should bind the regulator’s hands by putting into legislation detailed requirements about inspections that would pre-empt the work it is currently undertaking.

The system of inspections will be based on a risk profile to ensure that those landlords at greatest risk of failing, or where failure might have the greatest impact on tenants, are subject to greater oversight. As part of that provision, the regulator will aim to inspect landlords with more than 1,000 homes every four years. We will, of course, hold the regulator to account to deliver and implement its inspections plan, and the regulator continues to be accountable to Parliament for the delivery of its statutory objectives.

[Bob Blackman]

Clearly, the providers with the most complaints against them to the regulator will be placed most at risk. In my view, some could be subject to an annual inspection, while providers that are doing a really good job and do not warrant an inspection could be left, although, clearly, if there were complaints, the inspection could be brought forward. Is that my hon. Friend’s understanding of how this will work? Obviously, the regulator will have limited resources to ensure that standards are improved.

--- Later in debate ---

I was pleased to work with the hon. Member for Harrow East on his Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 in a previous Parliament. As members of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, we saw evidence that a change in the duties on councils could make a real difference to the prevention of homelessness. I was also pleased to have his support for Georgia’s law, as I am naming the new clause, when I introduced it under the ten-minute rule earlier this year. This is a similar situation. A small change in duties could make a big difference to a very vulnerable group of people who need more support.

[Bob Blackman]

Does my hon. Friend—I classify her as my hon. Friend because we have co-operated on so many other things—not accept that one of the problems is the shortage of suitable accommodation? I had a similar event in my constituency: a family was encouraged by the police to seek alternative accommodation, the registered social landlord said, “We don’t have any,” and naturally there was a problem as a result. Does she accept that providing suitable accommodation within a reasonable distance that allows children to go school, perhaps, and the tenant to get to work will be very challenging? I wonder whether she has considered that she is putting the onus on the registered social landlord to provide that. They may not operate within suitable areas, or may not be able to get co-operation from another registered social landlord. Would it not be better to have a range of potential organisations that might provide accommodation in what are, as she said, exceptional circumstances, rather than putting the onus on the registered social landlord?

[The Chair]

Order. This is a very long intervention.

[Bob Blackman]

I understand that, Sir Edward, but this is an important issue that merits further explanation.

[Helen Hayes]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. The new clause would impose a duty of co-operation on registered social landlords, which is designed to deal exactly with such a circumstance, where accommodation cannot be found that is safe for the tenant within the area in which the current landlord holds property. These are of course very challenging cases. I have certainly come across constituency cases in which the tenant simply cannot bring themselves to move from their home because the consequences are so dire for them, even when an offer has been made in an area that is considered by the police to be safe for them.

The new clause will not resolve every single circumstance, but in Georgia’s case, when I phoned a senior director in her large registered housing provider she was provided with a new tenancy in a safe borough, and signed that tenancy within a week. With greater will on the part of registered providers, and I believe that placing a duty would prompt that greater will, much more can be done to stop the cycle of violence in our communities.

Social Housing and Regulation Bill (First sitting)

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Committee stage
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.

Social Housing and 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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

I echo my hon. Friend’s praise of the Sanderson family and their commitment to the local area, and I welcome them to the House of Commons today. I am delighted that Government funds are helping Skegness thrive. I know that officials in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and other Departments continue to work closely with local partners to ensure that, as the Skegness town deal programme enters its important next phase, the vision for the new local college that he mentions and the wider gateway can be realised.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

7. What steps he is taking with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to increase the supply of homes for older people including housing-with-care.

[The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lucy Frazer)]

I know that my hon. Friend has considerable expertise in this area as a member of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee. As our population ages, we are committed to increasing the supply of specialist elderly accommodation, including housing-with-care. We work closely with the Department of Health and Social Care to incentivise supply through capital funding, such as through the affordable homes programme. We have also announced an older persons housing taskforce to examine this area and I hope to have more details of that in due course.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for her answer and welcome her to the Dispatch Box in her new role. The “Levelling Up” White Paper, released in February, promised this taskforce to build more homes for people who need care. I wonder when we will see it come into operation and start the important work of providing that accommodation.

[Lucy Frazer]

As a new Minister in post, I wish to reassure my hon. Friend that I am committed to taking forward the taskforce and I have already spoken to the Minister for Care about re-establishing it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

No.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

T5. I thank my hon. Friend for her support on Friday in the debate on my private Member’s Bill. Has she seen in today’s Inside Housing that last year exempt accommodation cost 174 of 333 councils a staggering £883.5 million, with 100 authorities who provide it not reporting anything? Given that huge amounts of money are going out the door—potentially to rogue landlords—will she commit to closing the loophole as fast as possible?

[Felicity Buchan]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his Bill passing its Second Reading on Friday. This is clearly an important sector and there is no question that we need to put in place the licensing regime, on which I made a commitment that we would lay regulations within 18 months. However, it is critical that the taxpayer gets good value for money.

Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Friday 18th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

With the leave of the House, I would like to respond to the debate. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

At the outset, the aim of this Bill is to ensure that vulnerable residents in supported housing are provided with proper support and care where they need it, and to drive out the bad providers. As such, we have had to strike a balance in the Bill as we do not want to burden the good providers with excessive regulation at a time when they are struggling to make ends meet.

One of the gaps that several colleagues have emphasised is the lack of data about the number of supported housing units and their extent. One reason why the Bill has many “may” provisions that enable the Secretary of State to introduce regulation is precisely so that we can get the data and take the necessary action so that we do not drive the good providers out of the market while driving out the poor providers who are exploiting vulnerable people.

There are two levels of regulation in the Bill. There is the regulation of providers. One issue that we discovered on our visit to Birmingham was that a voluntary scheme had been introduced, but, of course, the good providers register for the voluntary scheme, and the bad providers do not. That is why we need to make the licensing arrangements appropriate and mandatory. That is a key issue that must be looked at as we take these measures forward in regulation. We should be clear that this Bill is a start; it will require a huge amount of regulation to be introduced on the back of it. As my hon. Friend the Minister has said, there will be a great deal of consultation with the sector to make sure that we get this right. The benefit of that is that it enables the Government to be more nimble if these bad providers try some other tricks. Therefore, we can change the regulations accordingly.

I thank the 13 hon. Members who spoke in the debate. At some stages, they were competing over their fulsome praise for me. Just to update the House, I have now entered my 37th successive year of directly elected representation. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] One benefit of doing that as a councillor and an MP is that one can specialise in particular areas and bring expertise where, possibly, Ministers keep changing.

I sincerely thank all hon. Members for their contributions. Many points were raised during the debate and I will be looking at them subsequently, so that, as we take the Bill through Committee, we can look at whether there is a need for any changes in the legislation and, equally, whether we are striking the right balance. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), and the Opposition for their support of the Bill. We need to take the Bill forward on a cross-party basis, because that will enable us to demonstrate to these rogue landlords that, really and truly, their time is up and that they should get out of the market now, so that we can make sure that the innocent people, who just need our help and assistance, are given what they need, which is the ability to rebuild their lives in a safe and secure environment. I hope that the House will pass the Bill, so that we get on to the Committee stage to look at it in much more detail.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).

Social Housing Standards

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman articulates a fair concern, and it is striking that Awaab’s parents were told that paint in itself would be an answer to the mould problem. In some circumstances anti-mould paint can help to alleviate the problem, but it does not tackle it at root. On the broader issue of whether we will see a flurry of performative activity rather than fundamental change, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is why the new powers for the regulator are so important, and why it is my commitment to ensure that we review those powers, review the decent homes standard and, if for any reason there is backsliding, take further action.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on making a statement so quickly after the tragic events that took place. Awaab’s death was preventable and a tragedy, but I am afraid that the advice given to his parents is the normal advice given up and down the country when people inspect damp and mould: “It’s your lifestyle, not the condition of the building.” Will my right hon. Friend look closely at appropriate amendments to the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill, and consider what we can do to strengthen it and ensure that this tragedy leads to a sea change, so that we do not see it repeated time and again up and down the country?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend—few people in this House have done more to shine a light on poor housing conditions and introduce legislation to improve the conditions of tenants. He is absolutely right: the housing ombudsman made clear in its October 2021 report that damp and mould could never be considered a lifestyle issue. That is both an abdication of responsibility on the part of landlords and, as we have heard, sometimes a mask for prejudice, which we need to call out. He is also right that we need to look at our legislation to ensure that appropriate lessons are learned. I look forward to working with him and other colleagues to ensure that the legislation is fit for purpose in every respect.

Private Rented Sector White Paper

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my co-chair on the all-party parliamentary group for ending homelessness, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi). I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) said, the private sector rental market in this country has expanded not just to cover what it was intended to provide—a way for people to let out houses as they choose—but to take into account what is needed for social rented housing. I will start with our biggest problem, which is that all political parties have failed for 30 years to build enough socially rented homes in this country. The reality is that we need to build 90,000 socially rented homes a year to provide what is required. At the moment, we expect the private rented sector to pick up that slack, so we have to then interfere with the market.

I counsel my hon. Friend the new Minister to ensure that we do not look at the issue in a piecemeal way, because we need to reform the whole market, not just bits of it. As I have said on many occasions, the biggest cause of homelessness in this country is the end of a private sector tenancy through the serving of a section 21 notice. However, if someone gets a section 21 notice now, they can, thanks to the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, at least approach the local authority and seek help and assistance, whereas previously they could not.

We have the challenge that, if all we do is abolish section 21, we will force private sector landlords to move to section 8 evictions and all that involves. The problem then is that it not only becomes an expensive process across the board, but lands the tenant, who is probably completely innocent, with county court judgments against their name, and when they go for another private sector tenancy, they get told, “Sorry, you’re a bad risk and we’re going to up the deposit or impose conditions on you to get the private sector tenancy.” That is wrong in principle. What we have to do is to look at the complete area of the market.

One other issue, which my hon. Friend the Member for Dover mentioned, is the changes that have taken place in the promotion of the private rented sector by previous Governments. When Gordon Brown was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he promoted the concept of buy to let, which has of course continued to expand across the piece. When George Osborne was Chancellor, he put brakes on the incentives to do that, which of course did not kick in for several years after he proposed them. The result is that many private sector landlords are leaving the market because it is no longer as profitable as it once was. Where do they go? They go to the Airbnb market or the completely unregulated sector, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) mentioned.

The risk is that, unless we look at the whole ambit of this, all we will do is reduce the size of the sector, increase rents overall and make sure that tenants are put in a worse position than they were in the first place. So there has to be a complete revolution in this regard. I commend the White Paper for offering a menu of choices, but I think we still need to go further in looking at the entirety of the sector to prevent that from happening.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) made the point about a landlord being able to sell a property with a sitting tenant. Why not? Many mortgage providers will now allow that to happen—not enough, I would accept, but many do. As we have heard, 94% of landlords have one or two properties, and they dominate the market. Most landlords want the position of having a good tenant, who pays their rent and does not misbehave. If that happens, why should they not continue on that basis?

The model in this country is a six-month assured shorthold tenancy, with limitations on renewing that tenancy and, indeed, conditions on both sides that the landlord and the tenant should honour. My view has been this. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee—the predecessor to the current Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee—did an inquiry on this, and we recommended long-term tenancies of three years or more, so that people had security of tenure. A capability was enshrined within that about how rents could be increased—in other words, once per year and in line with inflation—so that both sides knew, with predictability, how that should be. That, to me, is a way forward.

We also suggested having a specialist housing court. Rather than have the expensive processes we currently have, we could have a housing court that would concentrate purely on these subjects. We have to face up to the fact that, every single day in this country, there are 300,000 people sofa surfing who cannot get anywhere to live. Also, 7%, at least, of private sector tenants are in severe rent arrears. Some people say, “Well, 7% isn’t too bad”, but that means 300,000 people or families in severe rent arrears who face eviction through the courts at any one time.

Unless we address this problem—I have warned successive Ministers, and we have mentioned how many Ministers we have had—we are going to face a homelessness crisis the like of which this country has never seen before. The reality is that the moratorium on evictions during the covid pandemic was the right thing to do—without question. There were people who could not afford to pay the rent during that time. Perhaps their jobs disappeared, or the benefits system did not catch up with them or they did not apply properly. Others just refused to pay because they knew they could get away with it. I have no sympathy for those people. I have several examples in my constituency where tenants just refuse to pay their landlords; from their perspective, they are reprehensible.

As things have unwound and the economy is coming back into fruition, we are seeing rents and pressures on tenants rise, and a rush by certain unscrupulous landlords to try to increase rents dramatically before the renters’ reform Bill comes into play. We need measures immediately to counter those issues. I have a question for the Minister. I understand that she is new to the job, but there were strong rumours that the renters’ reform Bill would be delayed and postponed, and perhaps even kicked into the long grass. I hope that the Bill will be published and brought forward as rapidly as possible, with, if necessary—I do not normally agree with this—retrospective measures to prevent what could happen while the Bill completes its passage through Parliament; in other words, unscrupulous landlords evicting tenants or hiking their rents to get them out, and causing further problems. We must include within that Bill what to do for the entirety of the market: both the Airbnb market and short-term lets. If we do not, we will drive private sector landlords to the more profitable end of short-term lets without any regulation, and without anything to assist people who desperately need accommodation.

I welcome my hon. Friend to the Front Bench. One quiz question I often have is, “How many Housing Ministers have we had since 1997?” I think we are up to 32 in 25 years. I am afraid that demonstrates the problem we have in this country: a lack of long-term planning in terms of the Ministers at the Department. I welcome the Minister to her position and hope she can give us some good news.