Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [HL]

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 6th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I will introduce my three amendments in this group. First, Amendment 6 is supported by the National Housing Federation and the Local Government Association. It would amend Clause 2 to ensure that there is diverse regional representation among the members of the proposed advisory panel and that those members can then provide the regulator with information and advice on issues that may arise or vary at a regional level.

The LGA has further suggested that the Bill could also ensure diversity of councils on the panel in terms not just of region but of authority size, the quantity and quality of housing stock and social housing management arrangements. We agree with the LGA that it is vital that the membership of the panel comprises a diverse range of councils so that consumer issues right across the sector can be effectively represented. However, although we support the panel, we are disappointed that the proposals stop short of making it a permanent national representative body for tenants. Why has the decision been taken not to make this permanent? Do the Government intend to review this at some stage?

Improving tenant engagement and listening to what tenants say is clearly one of the most important lessons from the Grenfell Tower tragedy, so tenants need to be right at the heart of the advisory panel. This is why I have put forward Amendment 7, which says that the panel must be chaired by a tenant with responsibility for agenda setting. I hope that the Minister understands why it would make a huge difference to tenants’ trust and belief if the panel were to really give them a voice.

I thank the noble Lords who supported my Amendment 30: the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and my noble friend Lord Whitty. It seeks to create a power for the Secretary of State to require managers of social housing to have appropriate qualifications and expertise. The fire at Grenfell Tower in 2017 was a stark example of what underregulated and unprofessional management in social housing can lead to. Bringing some level of professionalisation into the housing sector has been argued for consistently and cogently by members of Grenfell United. I thank them for their continued work and persistence and for the time they gave to discuss their concerns in this area with me.

Grenfell United believes that a more professional housing sector is one of the main ways by which to create a fitting legacy for the 72 lives that were so needlessly lost on 14 June 2017. In the social housing White Paper, the Government said that they would

“Review professional training and development to ensure residents receive a high standard of customer service.”


But the Bill introduces no measures that would enable professional standards to be mandated in law. Poorly managed and maintained social housing can cause serious harm to renters’ health and well-being—yet there are no requirements to be properly qualified or to undergo professional development.

Ministers have described social housing as the first social service. Well-managed social housing, offering adequate levels of support to residents, takes pressure off health and social care service as well as early years and school support services. But, first and foremost, we believe that professional qualifications and development should be mandatory for senior managers working in social housing. Qualifications and training should aim to provide housing management staff with the skills and knowledge needed to do the job, as well as instilling the values and ethics needed to deliver a care-centred service for residents.

Having senior staff with the appropriate skills and qualifications would ensure that the teams of housing officers and other junior staff that they manage are professionally run, thereby delivering a quality service for all residents. This would balance the need for professionalisation, while not creating barriers to housing associations and councils finding enough staff. We do not intend this amendment to be prescriptive: it requires regulations to define what types of work would require a qualification.

The Minister will no doubt be aware that the Government are currently conducting a review into professional standards within the social housing sector. We believe that there should be legislative backing to ensure that its conclusions can be implemented and upheld effectively. It is also important that the review is published in time for its recommendations to be considered as part of the development of this legislation, so can the Minister confirm that it will be available during the progress of the Bill?

Since the fire at Grenfell Tower, survivors and thousands of tenants of social housing have demonstrated time and time again that they do not have trust in the regulator on its own. The Government rightly recognised the need for action and accountability following the fire and promised a new deal for social renters. This amendment would allow for the monitoring and enforcement of professional standards in the social housing sector, including clear government direction and accountability. Surely this is an area in which the Minister could agree with us, and perhaps we could work together to take some of these issues further forward.

Finally, I am aware that my noble friend Lord Whitty has Amendment 47 in this group. I assure him that we support what he is trying to achieve with it, and I look forward to hearing more detail from him.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will add a brief footnote to the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, who spoke to Amendment 30, to which I have added my name, as she said. As we have been reminded throughout the debate, Grenfell Tower was a tragic reminder of the need for professional management in social housing. Unlike private tenants, social tenants have few options to move to an alternative landlord if they do not get the service that they are entitled to.

During the passage of the Bill on social care, I urged the Government to do more to drive up professional qualifications in the social care sector so that it could compete more effectively with the health service in the recruitment of staff, develop a proper career structure with improved conditions of service and, as a crucial outcome, drive up the quality of care received by the customers. Much of that argument applies equally to social housing, where many of those employed will come across vulnerable families and where those managing social housing need the capacity that comes with relevant training to ensure that those families get the support that they need.

I am well aware of the counterargument that was deployed in the debate on social care and that may well be deployed against this amendment—namely, that there are many committed people working in the sector who have no professional qualifications but none the less provide a first-class service, and we do not want to lose them. We also do not want to introduce barriers to entry for a service that often finds it difficult to recruit. But I believe that the amendment addresses those objections by requiring those managing social housing to have appropriate professional qualifications or satisfy specified requirements. There is sufficient flexibility, not least in proposed subsection (3), which refers to a

“specified qualification or experience of a specified kind”.

Of course, the amendment only applies to those in a managing role, not others involved in the sector.

Now I believe that the Government are aware of this need to drive up standards and quality of management in the sector, as their White Paper said they would undertake to:

“Review professional training and development to ensure residents receive a high standard of customer service.”


I am sure that the Chartered Institute of Housing, which represents those employed in the sector, would help develop the appropriate modules of training, building on its existing expertise—as indeed would the National Housing Federation. However, at the moment, the Bill is simply silent on this issue, which is highly relevant to the regulation of social housing. As the noble Baroness said, the department has set up a working group to review professional standards, but that is no substitute for the clear statement of intent set out in the amendment. As the noble Baroness said, we need to know when that working group will publish its report.

So what I think we are hoping for from the Minister in response to this amendment is a clear restatement of the principle set out in the White Paper, coupled with some identifiable milestones so we can monitor progress towards that destination, and a commitment to a serious and sustained dialogue with the professional bodies concerned so that we get the details right. I look forward to my noble friend’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 4 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot help thinking that the government amendments seem to have had an easier time than the amendments from the rest of the Committee.

I want to oppose the proposition that Clause 4 should stand part of the Bill. This is a probing suggestion, following up a point I made at Second Reading about the potential overlap between the role of the Housing Ombudsman on the one hand and that of the Regulator of Social Housing on the other. I am all in favour of empowering social tenants and enabling them to drive up the quality of the housing in which they live and the quality of the management of the social housing stock. However, there is a risk of confusion as the roles of the ombudsman and the regulator begin to merge.

In response to my concerns, when winding up the Second Reading debate, the Minister said:

“I point out that there is a long track record of close working between the regulator and the ombudsman, and we are ensuring effective information sharing between them. The proposals in the Bill will reinforce and strengthen the co-operation that already exists. We are also delivering a communications campaign to tenants so that they know where to go and are well informed”.—[Official Report, 27/6/22; col. 469.]


The department then sent me a document, headed Regulator of Social Housing and Housing Ombudsman’s Roles and Responsibilities. It is some six pages long, indicating that there is clearly a need for a detailed explanation. This document complements a five-page memorandum of understanding, published two years ago.

There are two sentences in the recent document which set out what I thought the respective roles were. One says:

“The regulator does not intervene in individual complaints or mediate in disputes between tenants and landlords.”


This statement simply is not true. The Regulator of Social Housing can intervene in individual complaints. The social housing White Paper expects the Regulator of Social Housing to

“undertake specific, reactive investigations and/or inspections where appropriate. This could be when a serious potential compliance breach has been brought to its attention by tenants”.

The briefing notes that accompanied the Queen’s Speech reinforced this by referring to the powers of the regulator to arrange emergency repairs to a tenant’s home following a survey. By definition, the regulator can do this only if he has intervened in an individual complaint. The regulator also has the means to rectify these complaints himself, as is contained in Clause 24. It is clear from that that the regulator can move from the systemic down to the detailed.

The other sentence is about the ombudsman. The document says that his role is to resolve disputes between tenant and landlord. It would be fine if it stopped at that but, again, his role is far wider and begins to encroach on the role of the regulator. He can move up from the detailed to the systemic. The social housing White Paper says that his remit includes the powers to investigate potentially systemic issues arising through complaints. He has issued a code, setting out good practice for landlords; he can initiate investigations of his own if an individual case is indicative of wider failure, again trespassing on the role of the regulator; he can use insight and data to identify trends in complaint type; he can carry out thematic investigations into issues affecting the sector, producing regular spotlight reports; he can share expertise, insight, experience and learning to influence the sector to drive a positive complaint-handling structure, again overlapping with the role of the regulator. The objectives I have just mentioned are emphasised in the corporate plan for 2022 to 2025 and in Clause 31 of the Bill. It seems that there is a clear risk of confusion, duplication and overlap between these two bodies.

The Explanatory Notes to the Bill refer diplomatically to the overlap to which I have just referred:

“The regulator and the housing ombudsman both have a role in overseeing the performance of social housing landlords”.


Exactly. I note that the memorandum is to be revised—in the words of the document to which I referred earlier—

“to provide clarity following the passage of the Bill.”

I hope we can find some clearer demarcation of the roles which avoids mission creep by both, but also ensures that there is not a gap between the two. One could argue, as the memorandum effectively does, that these two individuals are grown-ups, can work amicably together and can sort out who does what—and I am sure they do. However, I still do not think it right to leave potential overlap and duplication to the good will of two individuals.

My second concern is for the tenants who now have two bodies they can turn to if their complaint to the social landlord is not resolved: the Housing Ombudsman and now the Regulator of Social Housing. The ombudsman can make awards and recommendations, but he cannot, for instance, enter premises to remedy specific failures. If I were a tenant—and particularly if there were a backlog of complaints to the Housing Ombudsman—I would probably head for the Regulator of Social Housing since he has more powers. Is he geared up to cope with this?

In its briefing for this debate, Shelter says it is vital that the regulatory roles of the ombudsman and the Regulator of Social Housing are clearly defined, that tenants and tenant groups understand how to complain and that any complaints process or system is easy to use, accessible and effective. That leads me back to what my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh said at Second Reading:

“We are also delivering a communications campaign to tenants so that they know where to go and are well informed”.—[Official Report, 27/6/22; col. 469.]


This is crucial. Can my noble friend the Minister say a little more about this, as the briefing from Shelter indicates that a tenant with a complaint about his or her social landlord may not know who to go to?

As I said, my opposition to the clause is probing, and I hope that my noble friend can assure me that these concerns will be taken on board.

I have also added my name to Amendment 29, which will be spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and which deals with the frequency of inspections. The social housing White Paper says that large providers should be inspected every four years, but there is no commitment to this in the Bill. I just want to make one point about this.

When I discussed the amendment with Shelter, before I added my name, I asked it to contact the National Housing Federation, as this obviously affects its members and, as we have heard, has financial implications for them. Shelter replied:

“We were able to meet with the NHF to discuss the amendments last week. They do not have a formal position on the amendments themselves. This is largely because they are a large membership body, and it would require posing the question to all their members.”


However, it did say that it had no real concerns about the amendments and is generally supportive of them, and agrees that more scrutiny and monitoring standards are needed. Its main priority is ensuring that its members are informed of what is in the Bill, to ensure that they are best prepared to implement the changes when they happen.

Its only potential issue was the inspections amendment applying to smaller social landlords. But with the amendment being a regulation-making power and not prescriptive, Shelter continued,

“we feel that it allows the Government/regulator flexibility to have different requirements on inspections for social landlords of different sizes.”

Basically, the National Housing Federation is broadly supportive of this amendment.

Against that background—and with, I am sure, the compelling oratory of the noble Lord, Lord Best—I hope that the Government will respond positively to Amendment 29. In the meantime, I beg to move that Clause 4 be not added to the Bill.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Following these reassurances, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part in this debate. As this is the last debate, can I say that my noble friend the Minister deserves commendation for how she picked up this Bill at relatively short notice, has dealt sympathetically with a whole range of issues, and has undertaken to go back to the department with some of our concerns? I am a great fan of my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh, but her style is certainly somewhat different and more user-friendly.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, made the case for Amendment 29. He made two points: that this was the primary request of the Grenfell survivors; and that this was simply holding the Government to their own commitments. We both listened to what my noble friend the Minister said about the importance of not pre-empting anything, that there is no risk of the regulator not doing what was necessary and that it was important that it had operational independence. However, looking at the body language of the noble Lord, Lord Best, during the Minister’s response, it struck me that this might be an issue that he wanted to return to on Report.

Finally, turning to my own objection to Clause 4 standing part of the Bill, I was grateful for what my noble friend the Minister said. She went through the process, whereby a tenant should complain in the first instance to the landlord, and in the second instance to the Housing Ombudsman, and that is quite right. My concern and, I think, the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, was that the tenant might skip the Housing Ombudsman stage and go straight to the regulator, because of the increased powers that it has. Listening to the noble Baroness, I wondered whether the tenant could take the regulator to the ombudsman if the tenant was not satisfied with what the regulator had done.

Again, I am grateful for what my noble friend said in response to our debate. I quote her when she said, “More clarity is required”. I think she said that after the memorandum of understanding has been revised in the light of this Bill, it will then be made statutory. She also said that there is more to be done to inform tenants about how to seek redress, and there are remaining issues about clarity and communication that she will take back to the department. Against those assurances, I have no hesitation at all in withdrawing my objection to Clause 4 standing part and I am more than happy to see it added to the Bill.

Clause 4 agreed.