Clause
69
Low
cost home
ownership
Amendments
made: No. 170, in
clause 69, page 32, line 13, leave
out ‘for
eligibility’.
No.
171, in
clause 69, page 32, line 13, leave
out from ‘is’ to end of line 14 and insert
‘made available to people whose
needs are not adequately served by the commercial housing
market.’.—[Mr.
Wright.]
Clause
69, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
70
Shared
ownership low cost
rental
Amendment
made: No. 172, in
clause 70, page 32, line 42, leave
out ‘shared’ and insert
‘home’.—[Mr.
Wright.]
Clause
70, as amended,
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
s
71 to 73
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
74
Leaving
the social housing stock: disposal with
consent
Mr.
Wright:
I beg to move amendment No. 173, in
clause 74, page 34, line 6, after
‘with’ insert ‘—(a)
’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendments Nos. 174 to
176.
Mr.
Wright:
These are technical amendments to ensure that
clauses 74 and 75 have their intended effects. Those clauses are part
of a group of clauses that sets out circumstances in which homes can
leave the social housing stock. As the Committee
knows,
clause 67(2) provides that once a dwelling is classified as social
housing, it remains social housing until one of the events specified
under these clauses takes
place.
The clause
covers homes that leave the social housing stock with consent. The
regulator’s consent is described as being
“in accordance with Chapter
5.”
That chapter sets out
the disposal consents regime. Government amendments Nos. 173 and 174
will add references to other provisions under which registered
providers may require consent for disposals of land, namely section
171D of the Housing Act 1985 and sections 81 and 133 of the Housing Act
1988. Those provisions refer to homes subject to the preserved right to
buy and homes originally owned by housing action trusts or local
authorities, where the Secretary of State’s consent was required
for the original disposal. Currently, those provisions require
registered social landlords to seek the Secretary of State’s
consent for subsequent disposals. However, we propose to amend the Bill
to pass to the regulator responsibility for consenting to onward
disposals by registered
providers.
Government
amendment No. 175 clarifies that a dwelling does not cease to be social
housing if a disposal is made with the regulator’s consent as
part of shared ownership or equity percentage arrangements. Under such
arrangements, purchasers can buy their home in several stages. Each
stage could, in theory, constitute a disposal with the
regulator’s consent. However, the home will leave the social
housing stock only when the purchaser buys the final share of his or
her home. That event is covered in clause
72.
Government
amendment No. 176 is a very technical amendment to clause 75, the
current wording of which is somewhat ambiguous. It allows the regulator
to direct that a specified dwelling is to cease to be social housing if
it has
“ceased to be low
cost rental accommodation or low cost home ownership
accommodation”.
Under the
strictest possible interpretation, it cannot cease to be low cost
rental or low cost home ownership accommodation until it ceases to be
social housing. The amendment will simplify the wording so that the
regulator can direct that a specified dwelling is to cease to be social
housing. I hope that I have clarified those matters and that the
Committee accepts the
amendments.
Amendment
agreed
to.
Amendments
made: No. 174, in
clause 74, page 34, line 6, at
end insert—
‘(b) section
171D of the Housing Act 1985 (c. 68) (consent to certain
disposals of housing obtained subject to the preserved right to buy),
or
(c) section 81 or 133 of the
Housing Act 1988 (c. 50) (consent to certain disposals of
housing obtained from housing action trusts or local
authorities).’.
No.
175, in
clause 74, page 34, line 6, at
end insert—
‘( ) Subsection
(1) does not apply to a disposal in pursuance of shared ownership
arrangements or equity percentage
arrangements.’.—[Mr.
Wright.]
Clause
74, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
75
Leaving
the social housing stock: regulator’s
direction
Amendment
made: No. 176, in
clause 75, page 34, line 13, leave
out
‘, which has ceased
to be low cost rental accommodation or low cost home ownership
accommodation,’.—[Mr.
Wright.]
Clause
75, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
76
Housing
stock under Housing Act
1996
Amendment
made: No. 177, in
clause 76, page 34, line 32, at
end insert—
‘( ) Exception
1A is accommodation made available only to students in full-time
education or training.’.—[Mr.
Wright.]
Clause
76, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 77
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
78
English
bodies
Alistair
Burt:
I beg to move amendment No. 307, in
clause 78, page 35, line 19, at
end insert—
‘(e) a local
housing authority under sections 1 and 2 of the Housing Act 1985,
and
(f) a person controlled by
a local housing
authority.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Amendment No. 308, in
clause 79, page 35, line 24, column 2, after
‘landlord’, insert
‘or a person controlled by the
landlord’.
Amendment
No. 309, in
clause 79, page 35, line 25, column 2, after
‘landlord’, insert
‘or a person controlled by the
landlord’.
Amendment
No. 310, in
clause 86, page 38, line 7, leave
out
‘registered’.
Amendment
No. 311, in
clause 86, page 38, line 9, leave
out
‘registered’.
Amendment
No. 312, in
clause 86, page 38, line 11, leave
out
‘registered’.
Amendment
No. 313, in
clause 93, page 39, line 34, leave
out
‘registered’.
Amendment
No. 314, in
clause 93, page 39, line 34, at
end insert ‘of social
housing’.
Amendment
No. 315, in
clause 104, page 42, line 27, leave
out
‘registered’.
Amendment
No. 316, in
clause 104, page 42, line 27, at
end insert ‘of social
housing’.
Amendment
No. 317, in
clause 104, page 42, line 29, leave
out
‘registered’.
Amendment
No. 318, in
clause 104, page 42, line 29, at
end insert ‘of social
housing’.
Amendment
No. 319, in
clause 105, page 43, line 12, leave
out ‘registered’.
Amendment No.
320, in
clause 105, page 43, line 12, at
end insert ‘of social
housing’.
Amendment
No. 321, in
clause 105, page 43, line 13, leave
out
‘registered’.
Amendment
No. 322, in
clause 105, page 43, line 13, at
end insert ‘of social
housing’.
Amendment
No. 323, in
clause 105, page 43, line 14, leave
out
‘registered’.
Amendment
No. 324, in
clause 105, page 43, line 14, at
end insert ‘of social
housing’.
Amendment
No. 337, in
clause 111, page 45, line 8, at
end insert ‘, or
(c) a local
housing authority within the meaning of section 1 of the Housing Act
1985 (c. 68), or
(d) a person
controlled by a local housing
authority.’.
Amendment
No. 338, in
clause 163, page 65, line 20, at
end insert—
‘(6) Exception 5
is that consent is not required by local housing
authorities.’.
Amendment
No. 325, in
clause 195, page 74, line 19, at
end add—
‘(b) shall not
apply to local housing authorities and persons controlled by local
housing
authorities.’.
Amendment
No. 339, in
clause 223, page 82, line 25, at
end insert ‘, or
(c) the registered
provider is not a local housing authority or a person controlled by a
local housing
authority.’.
Amendment
No. 340, in
clause 225, page 83, line 40, at
end insert ‘, or
(d) the registered
provider is not a local housing authority or a person controlled by a
local housing
authority.’.
Amendment
No. 333, in
clause 235, page 89, line 10, at
end add—
‘(7) The
definitions of “subsidiary” in subsections 235(1) to (5)
and “associate” in subsection 235(6) shall not apply to
persons controlled by local housing
authorities.’.
New
clause 60—Regulatory powers: local housing
authorities
‘(1) The regulator
shall regulate local housing authorities and persons controlled by
local housing authorities using powers provided under the Local
Government and Public Involvement in Health Act
2007.
(2) The powers of the
regulator as set out under sections 172 to 193 shall not apply to local
housing authorities and persons controlled by local housing
authorities.’.
Clause
110 stand
part.
Alistair
Burt:
This is an important section, but I think that we
will all try to be concise, because, having discussed the matter in an
evidence session, we know what we are about. In tabling the amendments
and in the sentiments behind them, I am delighted to be joined by the
hon. Member for West Ham. We will be as succinct as possible in putting
forward our
arguments.
The
Committee will be aware that a discussion is taking place in the
housing world about domain regulation and whether all social housing
should fall under the same process of regulation, as recommended in the
Cave review. The amendment probes the Minister about the extent to
which his discussions have proceeded with those involved in the housing
world to ascertain whether the Bill could be used to bring together
under one domain the necessary regulation. I
am speaking principally from a brief presented by the Local Government
Association and the Chartered Institute of Housing, which supplements
the evidence that they gave during the evidence-taking
sessions. The
memorandum sets out all those who helped to put the note
together:
“The
policy position in this note has been shaped and agreed by the LGA
Environment Board, a group of expert council officers in housing and
corporate performance roles, and the CIH Policy and Practice Board, a
group made up of senior figures from across housing associations, local
authorities and ALMOs. No one in either of our memberships has
expressed any disagreement with it. It is also supported by the
National Federation of ALMOs, the National Housing Federation, National
Federation of Tenant Management
Organisations”,
and
others from that part of the housing world. All those groups and people
have significant day-to-day experience of what the effect of the
amendment would be, and they believe that it is worth doing, is
practical and can be
done.
The memorandum
continues:
“We
welcome very much the
Minister’s”—
the
then Minister for Housing, now Chief Secretary to the
Treasury—
“statement
in her oral evidence session that ‘If there were consensus on
the matter and everyone felt that we could get far enough fast enough,
we would obviously be happy to look at amendments’ to enable
regulation to operate domain-wide without the need for further primary
legislation.”
It
continues:
“We
also agree with her that the regulation of council landlords could not
operate identically to housing associations”.
That point is covered in new
clause 60 as a consequential
amendment.
The key
point that the LGA and the CIH make is that there exists sufficient
recognition, across the housing sector, of the import of bringing
regulation under one domain for the Government to risk introducing it
into this legislation, if not by accepting the amendment, but by
undertaking seriously to consider the possibility of introducing an
equivalent amendment in the Lords. The LGA and CIH accept that there is
a risk in amending legislation, and that it must be as right as
possible. However, they and we point out that a significant number of
Government amendments—118 in part 2—have been tabled
which we will deal with fairly late in our proceedings. That is a lot
of Government amendments to get through and it will take up time. We
acknowledge that that is part of the process, but as so many Government
amendments are to be considered, why not think seriously about my one,
on which there is such strong
consensus?
3.30
pm
The LGA and CIH
believe that there
are
“serious risks in not
providing for the establishment of domain regulation in the current
legislation.”
They state
that, first, the achievement of the objective set out in the Cave
review and agreed by the Government will depend on further primary
legislation, for which, as we all know, there is not always time.
Secondly, they
state:
“Even if
time for further legislation were available in the 2008-09 session, it
is impossible to see how it could be enacted, necessary secondary
legislation put in place, and the regulator’s operating approach
defined and started simultaneously with the
start of the new regime for housing associations in April 2009. There
must be a serious risk that the new regulator will be set up and
commence operations with a focus on housing associations...and
that it would struggle to develop the necessary equivalent competence
and focus on local authority
landlords.” They believe
that the risk of not including such regulation under the same domain at
the same time outweighs the risk of accepting the
amendment.
Finally,
the LGA and CIH put forward a joint view as to how the regulation of
local authority landlords should operate. First, they
say:
“In line
with the recommendations of the Cave Review, the approach, across the
whole domain, should be customer-driven but deregulatory in
character.”
Secondly,
they
state:
“Regulation
should only apply to the landlord functions of councils and
ALMOs”.
They believe the
other strategic roles, allocations and private sector regulations
should be included in the comprehensive area assessment, which is the
import of new clause 60, and be taken up under the Local Government and
Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. Thirdly, the
say:
“The
regulator's approach to information requirements, inspections and
intervention must be consistent with the local performance
framework”,
and
fourthly:
“Regulation
can and must respect other characteristics of councils as
institutions.”
I
know that the hon. Member for West Ham wishes to speak, and I have done
my best to prĂ(c)cis the arguments. The bottom line is to ask the
Minister what his intentions are. When we dealt with the matter in the
evidence session, the general consensus was that if it could be
achieved, it would be a good thing to do. Those closely involved have
considered it further and think that it can be done. Having spoken this
morning to someone representing the Local Government Association, I
think that the Minister can be confident that his officials have not
offered any chink of light that the Department believes it can be done,
so I am not putting his officials on the spot. However, the view of
those with whom the Government have negotiated in the housing sector is
plainly that it can be done, and I hope that the Minister can give us
some hope that an appropriate amendment can be made, if not here then
in the other
place.
Lyn
Brown:
May I ask your advice, Mr. Gale? I have
only just realised that amendments to clauses 111, 163, 223, 225 and so
on, seem to be part of the same argument as those in this group. I am
happy to speak to them now, or I could do so
later.
The
Chairman:
I am sorry, but the hon. Lady must tell me which
amendments she is talking
about.
Lyn
Brown:
I have only just realised that the amendments to
clauses 111, 163, 223, 225—most importantly, amendment No.
344—appear later on the agenda.
The
Chairman:
We are going to discuss all the amendments that
are grouped under clause 78, irrespective of the clause to which they
are relevant. As
and when the other clauses on the selection list are reached, there may
be an opportunity for a stand part
debate.
Lyn
Brown:
I will just go on, and you will rule me out of
order if necessary, Mr. Gale.
The
amendments are intended to ensure that meaningful protection is offered
by the regulator of social housing to all tenants and residents living
in social housing, as defined in clause 67. At present, the measures in
the Bill do not give the same level of protection to tenants and
residents living in social housing that is owned and/or managed by
local authorities and ALMOs as they do to those whose landlord is a
housing association or a private sector social housing manager.
Standards should be the same for all providers. As the hon. Member for
North-East Bedfordshire stated, that concept is supported by the
Chartered Institute of Housing, the Local Government Association and
the National Federation of ALMOs, the National Housing Federation, the
National Federation of Tenant Management Organisations, the Tenant
Participation Advisory Service, the Tenants and Residents Organisations
of England and Shelter. All these organisations share the view that
social tenants, whatever the type of landlord, deserve and should be
able to expect the same
protections.
[Sir
George Young
in the
Chair.]
The
exclusion of local authorities and ALMOs from regulatory oversight by
Oftenant would mean that not all tenants would get the same protection,
and it might well send the message that tenants are not the primary
consideration of the House and that a focus on tenants will not be the
new regulator’s primary characteristic. The case for domain
regulation was clearly made in the Cave review
which—notably—is called “Every Tenant
Matters”. That philosophy is at risk of being lost if half the
social housing tenants have reduced levels of protection.
I cannot see that the inclusion
of local authorities and ALMOs is problematic for the Government, as
the Bill already enables different treatment for non-profit and
profit-making providers within an overarching framework of standards
and regulatory objectives that apply to all. The Bill could equally
differentiate between the detailed treatment of local authorities and
of ALMOs while realising ambitions for domain-wide objectives and
standards. For example, there are differences between ALMOs, local
authorities, housing associations and for-profit providers that mean
that enforcement mechanisms would need to be different according to
provider type. Domain regulation needs to fit into the local government
performance framework and the proposed comprehensive area of
assessment. Surely, that is no barrier, as it does not need to be dealt
with in this legislation, and can be addressed later through protocols
and terms of reference negotiated between Oftenant, the Audit
Commission and other relevant bodies. If the Bill does not establish
domain regulation, I understand that we would be dependent on further
primary legislation, so I would welcome the Minister’s view on
the matter. There is always intense competition for parliamentary time,
and it is easy to see how future legislation to tidy up housing
regulations could be pushed aside in favour of higher
priorities.
I am concerned
that if Oftenant begins its work dealing only with housing associations
of whatever ilk, the organisation’s structure and mechanisms
will be tailored, quite understandably, to working with housing
associations rather than across the social housing sector. Many of my
constituents would benefit from a simple and readily identifiable
regulator that could deal with their problems and complaints in a
uniform manner. The diversity and range of providers, particularly in
areas of London such as my constituency, only makes this issue more
important. Amendment No. 307 would allow housing associations and ALMOs
to be subject to the new housing regulator—the Office for
Tenants and Social Landlords—in a similar manner to other social
landlords.
[Mr.
Roger Gale
in the
Chair]
I
am still going—is that alright?
The
Chairman:
If the hon. Lady is out of order, I will tell
her.
Lyn
Brown:
Thank you, Mr. Gale. Amendments Nos. 308
and 309 are necessary to ensure that as well as local housing
authorities, ALMOs are considered providers of social housing for the
purposes of part 2, chapter 2. As an ALMO is not legally a landlord of
a property, it is important that the Bill recognises that a person may
operate social housing on behalf of a landlord eligible for regulation.
That is again necessary to enable a single regulatory body to be set up
for all social tenants. The deletion of clause 110 would complement
this package of amendments, as it specifically ensures that local
authority bodies and ALMOs are unable to register with Oftenant, and
therefore prevents it from regulating them.
The amendment
to clause 111 is designed to bring both local authorities and ALMOs
within Oftenant’s remit, but, at the same time, to maintain the
distinction between profit-making and non-profit-making landlords. That
is crucial to ensure that later stages of the Bill do not conflict with
the organisational and constitutional arrangements governing ALMOs and
local authorities. Clause 163 simply ensures that Oftenant would not
regulate the disposal of property and assets by local authorities that
are already overseen by other appropriate bodies. The amendments to
clauses 223 and 225 would ensure that if Oftenant’s remit
extended to local authority properties, the rights of local authority
tenants to make decisions about the management of their homes would be
protected.
I recognise
that the Government fully intend to extend the remit of the regulator
to cover local authority and ALMO properties. It is important that
allowance is made in the Bill for the different governance and
financial arrangements within social housing provision, but I hope that
the Minister will consider the suggestions outlined in the amendments
as a mechanism to achieve full regulation of the social housing sector
in the Bill. Even if the Bill included both ALMOs and local authority
sectors within the remit of the regulator, it would still neglect a
method of social housing provision that, especially in areas such as
mine, provides considerable levels of
housing.
Almost 6,000
families are housed in temporary accommodation in the London borough of
Newham.
Some £67 million per year of public money is spent paying private
landlords in the form of housing benefit. That, as I am sure all hon.
Members will appreciate, is a significant sum of money, and it affects
a significant number of families. Those people, in the main, are among
the most vulnerable in our communities. People in temporary
accommodation are there because the council’s statutory duty to
house them cannot be met within the current housing structure. It does
not have enough council or housing authority homes to house those
families. The families can remain in temporary accommodation for a
number of years due to the acute shortage of social
housing. I
would argue strongly that those properties should be subject to
regulation by the regulator. A significant amount of public money is
expended on purchasing temporary accommodation, but without the
equivalent regulatory framework within which housing associations and
local authorities operate. I believe that, if private landlords want to
access the often lucrative temporary accommodation market on behalf of
local housing authorities, they should be willing to accept the
responsibilities that being a social landlord should
involve.
As
the Minister will appreciate, I have received many reports of extremely
sub-standard temporary accommodation supplied by the private rented
sector, and have heard of numerous cases of families desperate to
secure alternative social housing, as their temporary accommodation is
appalling. I appreciate that the use of temporary accommodation
provides local authorities with flexibility, and that additional
regulation may reduce the number of properties available for temporary
accommodation, but I believe that the proposed provisions would help to
cool the housing market in my area, and possibly enable more
owner-occupiers to purchase property. I am surely not alone in
believing that the vast sums of money spent on accommodation should
ensure that the services provided are effectively scrutinised and of a
certain quality.
To
return to my previous point, standards should be the same for all
providers of allocated housing from the public purse. Public money
should mean public accountability, which is why I tabled amendment No.
344 to clause 109. It would add to the list of organisations eligible
for registration with the regulator any provider of secure
accommodation under section 7 of the Housing Act 1996. I accept that
the amendments, particularly amendment No. 344, may be difficult to
accede to on the hoof, but I urge the Minister, at the very least, to
take those matters away and to consider them
further.
The
Chairman:
Just for the record, amendment No. 344 is not
part of this group of amendments. Apart from that, the hon. Lady got
through it extremely well. I will have a chat with her
later.
3.45
pm
Dr.
Blackman-Woods:
I have one question for the Minister. The
Local Government Association and the Chartered Institute of
Housing—I might need to register an interest in the institute
because I have some sort of membership with it, although I cannot
remember which category it falls into—have made a convincing
argument. In particular, they say that whether someone who is
allocated social housing ends up in a housing association or in council
property will often come down to chance and where a suitable home is
available. They therefore ask, perfectly reasonably, what justification
there can be for fundamentally different approaches to regulations. As
all hon. Members will recognise, there are significant differences in
governance and financial arrangements between local authorities in the
different parts of the domain, but it is not impossible to overcome
those to ensure that we have a similar system of regulation. Does the
Minister intend to table an enabling amendment to allow Professor Ian
Cole’s work to be considered in detail in secondary
legislation?
Mr.
Slaughter:
There appears to be some consensus on the issue
of cross-domain regulation, which I will endeavour to breach, although
I might not succeed. I have subscribed to amendments Nos. 336 and 337,
which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham and would
have much the same effect as those tabled by the hon. Member for
North-East Bedfordshire. I very much support the earliest possible
extension of regulation to ALMOs and local authorities.
On Second Reading, I was highly
critical of the performance of some RSLs in my constituency and
elsewhere in west London and I may well be again later in our
proceedings. However, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the
gander, and I am pleased that the LGA and the National Federation of
ALMOs, which has been in contact with me on these and similar
amendments, are keen to suffer, or be rewarded with, an equivalent
degree of regulation.
Rather that detaining the
Committee with general arguments, I want to give a telling example from
this week. As we have heard, the ALMO for the London borough of
Hammersmith and Fulham has just been awarded one star and has poor
prospects for improvement. That means that it has failed its inspection
and that there is the prospect of the bulk of the decent homes
money—£114 million—not being made available to
improve 17,000 council homes in the borough.
[
Interruption.
] Well, I will pursue the issue a
little more because it shows that whatever our opinion of some
RSLs—as I have said, they, like some ALMOs, are generally less
democratically accountable than local authorities—the management
of council housing is highly variable in its quality, and there is no
less reason for it to be regulated in the generally excellent way
proposed in the Bill.
I speak with some experience on
this issue and I know, because I ran it, that Hammersmith and
Fulham’s council housing department used to have an excellent
record. The tenants went in deputation to the then Secretary of State
to ask not to become an ALMO, because they wished to remain under local
authority control. They did not take the nuclear option that people in
Camden did, and they were right not to do so, because they saw the
problems they would have accessing funding. Nevertheless, it was clear
that tenants were happy with the subsequent arrangements. Funding was
granted to the tune of £192 million, and the first tranche of
£178 million has been paid on the basis that it was better to go
ahead and have the necessary works done.
What has happened since has
been a tragedy. The department has gone from a three-star ALMO to one
that is in the worst possible position. Almost all of that has happened
in the last 18 months. During that time the administration of the local
authority and the managing board of the ALMO changed and fell into the
hands of Conservative councillors, which has had the effect of
marginalising the role of the tenant representatives. A combination of
neglect and detrimental policies has meant that the quality of service
provided to tenants has gone from excellent to appalling over a very
short period. The
decent homes programme is more than a year behind schedule. The quality
of work is, in many cases, appalling. There are 5 per cent.
year-on-year cuts in the Budget, so matters that are not covered by the
decent homes programme, such as the renovation of marginal areas, are
not dealt with. Yet a surplus of more than £20 million has been
accumulated. The purpose of that surplus is for non-state schemes,
which are directed at providing housing for those on incomes that are
two or three times the average. In other words, people who are on very
low or no income are being asked to subsidise people who are on two or
three times the average income.
It is also the case that any
plot of land on estates, whether it be tenants’ halls or ball
courts, is being sold off for commercial gain. Generally speaking, the
only way in which council tenants and their assets are being regarded
by the Conservative council is for the purposes of asset
stripping.
The
Chairman:
Order. I have been trying to follow the hon.
Gentleman’s arguments very carefully. However, what we are
listening to is a Second Reading debate. I have tried to allow quite a
lot of latitude to hon. Members this afternoon, because these issues
are complex and interrelated. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will indicate
to me, and to the Committee, which particular amendment he is speaking
to.
Mr.
Slaughter:
I am speaking to amendments Nos. 337 and 336,
and explaining why it is necessary for local authorities and ALMOs to
be regulated.
I—
The
Chairman:
Order. Before we go any further, amendment
No.336 has not been called. Amendment No. 337 has, so perhaps we could
stick to
that.
Mr.
Slaughter:
I take your point, Mr. Gale, and I
am bringing my remarks to a close. I often feel that concrete examples
are better than theory when it comes to explaining why protection is
needed for tenants in social housing. Frankly, the division between
those in RSL housing and those in ALMO or council housing is not an
official one and should be removed as quickly as
possible.
Mr.
Love:
I will be brief, Mr. Gale.
When Sir Simon Milton appeared
before us on behalf of the Local Government Association, he was glowing
in his wish to have the regulator regulate local authorities as well as
all the other sectors that are included in the Bill. He also accepted
that there were some onerous provisions. However, as my hon. Friend
the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham has already said, provisions are
needed in many local authority areas to ensure that tenants are
properly protected. Sir Simon Milton accepted those onerous provisions
and said that they were something that local government could accept
straight away. Therefore, if the Minister gets up to say that it will
be two years before the regulations take effect, we will be in the
unusual position of having the organisation, which the Government does
not want to regulate, asking to be regulated. While I accept that there
may be issues that the Government will want to consider very carefully
before they bring local government into the Oftenant regulations, it
would be sensible to try to reduce the time scale for the
measure. The second
important issue that must be raised is that Sir Simon Milton made it
clear that the motivation for the Local Government Association’s
decision was that it did not want to be excluded at the beginning of
the set-up of Oftenant. It is important, for all the reasons we know,
that the local authority voice and the ALMO voice should be heard
within Oftenant from the word go, or as early as possible. If the LGA
is not to be part of the regulatory coverage from the beginning, I hope
that the Minister will suggest ways in which it may be consulted on how
Oftenant should develop until it is part of the
process.
Mr.
Wright:
I have detailed briefing notes on the amendments,
but I thought that I would spare the Committee my reading them out,
because—hon. Members will shout me down if I am wrong—I
have interpreted the amendments as being more about probing than
amending the Bill.
Lyn
Brown
indicated
dissent.
Mr.
Wright:
It is interesting, Mr. Gale, that my
hon. Friend does not show impatience with your good self when seeking
your advice—quite rightly, too—but she is certainly
showing her impatience with
me.
The
hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire himself said that we would be
taking a risk in accepting the amendments—or something along
those lines. That is at the heart of my opposition to them and to the
general movement on cross-domain regulation. Accepting the amendments
would mean taking a somewhat premature decision on defining the
framework under which the future regulation of local authority housing
management functions would operate. The amendments would also run the
risk of introducing a flawed framework that fails to provide what we
all want: a sensible and effective regulatory regime.
Let me repeat our firm
intention. Our long and medium-term aims are for a single regulatory
framework for existing registered social landlords and local authority
landlords of social housing. I cannot be much clearer than that.
However, I think that hon. Members appreciate that bringing local
authority landlords within the regulatory framework is a complex
job.
Alistair
Burt:
I want to see whether we can help. I do not think
that we need a line-by-line repudiation of the amendment, although the
hon. Member for West Ham
may speak for herself. Time scale is at the nub of this issue; I use
that wonderful political phrase, “If not now, when?”
People want to know precisely what the Minister means by the long and
medium-term. We tabled the amendment on behalf of the housing sector,
and there is strong consensus in the sector and in this Committee that
the relevant conditions already exist. What is the Minister’s
time scale? If it is too long-term and too much in the distance, that
will cause concern. People wonder whether the medium term might include
the other place.
Mr.
Wright:
We have been clear in saying that the time scale
is within two years. People talk about two years, but I do not expect
it to take that long, because there is no policy difference or
philosophical aspect on which we disagree. We are simply trying to
overcome practical, governance-related obstacles. That is why we have
created an advisory group to advise on this matter. I may have to
disappoint the hon. Gentleman on his question, “If not now,
when?” It will be when the advisory group considers that the
barriers have been overcome. Before I talk more about the group, I give
way to my hon.
Friend.
Lyn
Brown:
Has the Minister considered my point about setting
up an organisation and establishing it with the housing associations?
Slotting local authorities and the private sector into that system
might cause problems, given that organisations tend to mould themselves
to their tasks. Bringing in others at that later point might cause
difficulties.
Mr.
Wright:
In order to have the seamless transition from the
Housing Corporation to the new regulatory body, the regulator will work
very closely with organisations such as the LGA. I do not want to box
the regulator in, but given that our policy intention is to have
cross-domain regulation, it makes sense to ensure that, when the time
comes, and when the barriers that the advisory group have been set up
to look at are overcome, we move to that cross-domain regulation as
quickly as possible.
On the advisory group: I want
to give a flavour, I do not want to go over it amendment by amendment,
giving technical reasons why I oppose them, but it is important to give
hon. Members some reassurance about what we are looking at. The
advisory group is chaired by Professor Ian Cole from Sheffield Hallam
university.
Ms
Angela C. Smith (Sheffield, Hillsborough) (Lab): I know
him.
Mr.
Wright:
A good Sheffield MP—I am glad that my hon.
Friend knows him. We have talked about stakeholders, and they
contribute to the process. The advisory group includes representatives
from all the major stakeholders, including the LGA, as well as a number
of individual local authorities, the Housing Corporation, the Chartered
Institute of Housing and other umbrella groups that represent the
interests of tenants—the Tenants and Residents Organisations of
England for example. I understand that the panel has
held its first meeting and is due to meet again in February to discuss
what are known as first order
issues.
4
pm
I do not want
to pre-empt the work of the advisory group. There are complex matters
involved that I cannot sum up easily in this debate. However, I have
been advised, and must convey several points to the
Committee.
The panel
has identified three issues of what it calls first order importance:
matters that it wants to consider in depth over the next few weeks.
Those are: standards; information requirements; inspections and their
triggers; and intervention and enforcement powers. I hope that
reassures hon. Members. Work is ongoing, there are practical obstacles,
and those are being looked at by the advisory group. However, I am well
aware of the frustration among stakeholders that we have not provided
for cross-domain regulation as the Bill stands.
Let me point out to the hon.
Member for North-East Bedfordshire, my hon. Friend the Member for West
Ham and others, that to rush to legislate and to have that risk when we
still need to determine practical solutions to a range of complex and
difficult issues, would be foolhardy and benefit no one. It would be
detrimental to tenants of local authorities. I want to reassure
colleagues that we are not dragging our heels or seeking to
over-complicate matters. I would like to see the measure brought in as
quickly as possible, as soon as the advisory group is satisfied that
the barriers have been overcome. I hope that that reassures hon.
Members.
Alistair
Burt:
When I saw the brief from the Local Government
Association and the Chartered Institute of Housing, I knew that when it
got to the paragraph dealing with “a degree of risk”,
officials’ eyes would light up. I knew how the brief would then
be constructed—talk about giving something away. Those who have
put the case to us have been honest in their approach, wanting to take
things forward and recognising the risk, but also recognising the risks
of not moving at the same speed. Of course I accept what the Minister
has to say. I know that the advisory panel has had its first meeting,
and I wish it well.
I
am slightly puzzled as to why, between colleagues who know the area
well, there appears to be a gulf between those who believe that the
conditions are right now and think that it can be done, and those
responsible for making the change who think that it may be as far as
two years away. I am genuinely puzzled by that. I have no wish to press
the amendments to the vote, although I may return to the matter on
Report from the Back Benches. I would like those who have been dealing
with us to look at what the Minister has said and perhaps press a
further case to try to move him on the issue.
For the avoidance of any doubt,
and to help the future progress of the Committee, I say to the hon.
Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush that we get his
point. He does not like Hammersmith and Fulham council, and he is
engaged in a very long campaign against it, despite its local
electorate voting
Conservative. Amusing though his local pamphlets are to the Committee,
and although we know about the rhetoric and understand his points, it
may get a bit tedious if he takes every opportunity to beat those
concerned over the head with the same stuff. For the sake of progress,
may I say that my hon. Friends and I take his point, although we do not
agree with him. We understand where he is coming from. No one in the
area would say that he was not a doughty opponent of the council,
wrong-headed though he may be. Nevertheless, perhaps if we could from
now on be spared hearing the same stuff again, that would help us to
move on. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
The
Chairman,
being of the opinion that the principle of the
clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in
the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put
the Question, pursuant to Standing orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the
clause stand part of the Bill.
Question agreed
to.
Clause 78
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses
79 and 80 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
