Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 29 November 2022.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if Members could email any speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. All the normal rules apply.

Today, we will consider the programme motion on the amendment paper and then a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication. I am sure we can take those matters formally, without debate. I first call the Minister to move the programme motion standing in her name, which was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee for the Bill.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room and circulated to Members by email.

We will now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. A selection and grouping list for today’s sittings is available in the room. It shows how the clauses and selected amendments have been grouped for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or similar issues. Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order they are debated, but in the order that they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment and on whether each clause should stand part of the Bill are taken when we come to the relevant clause.

A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments in that group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate. At the end of the debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or to seek a decision on it. If any Member wishes to press another amendment in the group to a vote, they will need to let me know in advance.

Clause 1 - Fundamental objectives

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, at end insert—

‘(aa) after paragraph (a) insert—

“(aa) to ensure the provision of care and support services in supported exempt accommodation and in temporary accommodation are adequate, well-managed, safe, and of appropriate quality,”’.

This amendment would ensure that support services provided to residents of supported exempt accommodation and temporary accommodation for those properties that already fall within consumer regulation are adequate and of an acceptable quality.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 8—Standards relating to supported and temporary accommodation—

‘(1) The Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 192 (Overview)—

(a) in paragraph (a), after “social housing” insert “, supported exempt accommodation and temporary accommodation”

(3) In section 193 (Standards relating to consumer matters)—

(a) in subsection (1), after “social housing” insert “or accommodation to which subsections (1A) to (1D) applies”

(b) after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State, after consultation with the regulator, may by order bring into consumer regulation accommodation managed or in the control of a registered provider that falls within subsection (1C) or subsection (1D).

(1B) An order under subsection (1A) may apply to either subsection (1C) or (1D) only or to both and orders commencing either can be made separately at different times and for any part of England.

(1C) The accommodation to which this subsection applies is supported exempt accommodation as defined by regulations under subsection (1E).

(1D) The accommodation to which this subsection applies is temporary accommodation as defined by regulations under subsection (1E).

(1E) The Secretary of State may by regulations set out the classes of accommodation that fall within subsection (1C) or subsection (1D) and may define each class by reference to the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 or the Universal Credit Regulations 2013.”

(c) in subsection (2), after paragraph (2)(d) insert—

“(da) standards relating to supported exempt accommodation or temporary accommodation,”’.

This new clause would ensure that providers of supported exempt accommodation and temporary accommodation who are registered with the regulator and charge market rents covered by housing benefit are brought within the scope of the new consumer regulatory regime.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

It is a pleasure to begin our line-by-line consideration of the Bill with you in the Chair, Sir Edward, and in a Committee with a considerable amount of housing expertise, which I hope will put us in good stead for further improving the Bill. The Opposition have consistently maintained that the Bill is uncontroversial legislation, and we welcome it and the measures it contains.

We desperately need to build more social homes, but we also need to ensure that our existing stock is of good quality and well managed. Almost half a million social homes fail to meet the Government’s decent homes standard and, as that standard is not a requirement, it is almost impossible to enforce.

The Regulator of Social Housing can and does react to systemic failings among registered providers—for example, the request for evidence issued in relation to damp and mould following the coroner’s report into the death of two-year-old Awaab Ishak in 2020—but at present it has no proactive way of regulating consumer standards. The spotlight of media attention, tenant campaigning or intervention by individual hon. Members should not be required to trigger the appropriate response to substandard conditions in social housing, yet that is all too often the case.

To ensure that tenants are properly protected by a robust, effective system of regulation, major reform is needed. Indeed, it is long overdue, and the Secretary of State was right to concede, in the wake of Awaab’s untimely death, that the Government have been too slow to toughen regulation in this area.

Despite its limited number of clauses, the Bill is therefore of real significance for millions of social housing tenants across the country. That is why the Opposition regret how long it took the Government to bring it forward, and it is why we want to see it on the statute book as soon as possible. To that end, we want to see the Committee to sit no longer than is absolutely necessary. However, we are determined to see the Bill strengthened in a number of areas, so that standards in social housing markedly and rapidly improve, tenants are able in practice to pursue and secure effective redress, the collective voice of tenants is heard more audibly and they have a greater role in shaping national policy, and we are better able to respond to pressing issues affecting some of those living in social housing, such as serious violence.

We owe it to the bereaved and the survivors of Grenfell, Awaab’s family and all those social tenants currently living in appalling conditions to pass the most robust legislation that the House can possibly deliver. To that end, we have tabled a limited number of amendments in key areas, the intention of which is to persuade the Government to reflect sincerely on how the Bill might be improved still further. Although we intend to work constructively with Ministers to secure the Bill’s speedy passage out of Committee, we expect the Government to give serious consideration to the arguments that we make in respect of those amendments.

Amendment 13 and new clause 8 relate to supported exempt accommodation and temporary accommodation. The new clause would provide the Secretary of State with the power to bring properties let at market rents by non-profit making providers of supported exempt or temporary accommodation registered with the regulator into the scope of consumer regulation. It would allow Ministers to do so at a time of their choosing and on an area-by-area basis as required. The amendment would extend the regulator’s fundamental objectives to the care and support services provided by supported exempt and temporary accommodation in relation to properties that already fall within the scope of consumer regulation.

I want to be clear at the outset that these proposals do not seek to extend the scope of the regulatory framework provided for by the Bill to all non-registered supported exempt and temporary accommodation providers in a way that could place unreasonable burdens on the regulator. Rather, they would apply only to those landlords who are registered, or entitled to register, with the regulator as non-profit making providers because they let some properties at below market rents—that is, social housing.

The purpose of these two related proposals is to address an existing loophole that, unless addressed, will remain a problematic gap in the consumer regulatory regime after the Bill has come into force. It is that non-profit making providers of supported exempt or temporary accommodation can let properties at market rents that are eligible for housing benefit support on the basis that “more than minimal” care, support or supervision is being provided, without those properties coming within the scope of consumer regulation.

We know that the regulatory gap is currently being exploited by unscrupulous providers. The three biggest registered providers of non-commissioned exempt accommodation in Birmingham last year, Reliance Social Housing CIC, Ash-Shahada Housing Association Ltd and Concept Housing Association CIC, received £159 million in housing benefit payments for 16,370 market rent properties that fell outside consumer regulation. They were able to operate those properties free from the fear of intervention on consumer standards grounds, because they collectively operate 310 properties—in Reliance’s case, it is just six—at below market rents.

As a result of the regulator being unable to enforce against poor performance by providers in relation to market rent properties that they operate on the basis of consumer standards, the regulator can enforce against bad practice in such cases only on grounds of economic viability. It has done so—for example, it found the large, Birmingham-based Reliance to be non-compliant with the governance and financial viability standard in October last year. However, Opposition Members struggle to understand why the Government have not enabled the regulator to take action against supported exempt and temporary accommodation providers letting units at market rents who fail to meet expected standards, using the tools provided for by the new proactive consumer regulatory regime introduced by the Bill, given that permitting it to do so would simply provide an additional weapon in the regulator’s arsenal when it comes to clamping down on unscrupulous providers.

It is true that clause 8(d) tightens the definition of what constitutes a non-profit making provider. That should help to ensure that some of the most flagrant abuses, such as out-of-balance portfolios, can be clamped down on. However, it will not end all instances of rogue providers gaming the system by letting some properties at below market rents, registering as non-profit making providers on that basis, and then operating far larger numbers of substandard market rent properties outside the scope of consumer regulation. For example, those with more balanced portfolios—presumably even if that were achieved on the basis of a split of 51% of properties let non-profit and 49% for profit—will escape the provisions of clause 8 that I just referred to.

We recognise that the Government support, as we do, the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Harrow East. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is on the Committee with us. His Bill will enhance local authority oversight of supported housing and thereby enable local authorities to drive up standards in their areas. However, it does not contain provisions to close the particular loophole that is the focus of amendment 13 and new clause 8. As such, if the Government do not accept our amendments or bring forward their own to tackle the loophole in question, enforcement action on the part of the regulator in these cases will be confined to matters of economic regulation.

One element of our concern about the gap in the proposed consumer regulatory regime that the amendments seek to address is that, once the hon. Gentleman’s Bill has received Royal Assent, rogue providers of supported exempt accommodation will be incentivised to exploit this loophole further, as it will be one of the last remaining loopholes because their operations will be hampered by the range of measures in the hon. Gentleman’s Bill. Using the Bill before us to address the issue of supported exempt and temporary accommodation landlords who are already partially regulated would also close down the loophole more quickly than would be possible by doing so through the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill, because it will be some time before that Bill is in Committee, and the detailed regulations required to give it full effect will take some time to be passed.

If the Government were persuaded of the merits of the argument underpinning amendment 13 and new clause 8, they could determine to deal with supported exempt accommodation and temporary accommodation separately. We ultimately decided that the amendments should cover both, because there is good evidence to suggest that the loophole is being increasingly exploited by private temporary accommodation providers, in particular those providing nightly paid temporary accommodation, who often describe themselves as social landlords but who are exempt from consumer regulation in relation to substandard properties they let at market rents at great cost to the taxpayer.

Dealing with supported exempt accommodation and temporary accommodation together is also an attempt to pre-emptively address the scenario in which the Government accept that properties let at market rents by registered non-profit making providers of supported exempt accommodation should be covered by consumer regulation and legislate to that end, but, by setting aside market rent temporary accommodation let by registered non-profit providers, ensure that that becomes an obvious target for rogue providers seeking to escape consumer regulation standards.

I appreciate fully—I expect that the Minister will respond along these lines—that the Government will be reluctant to re-open at this stage of the Bill’s proceedings what and who falls within the ambit of the new consumer regulatory regime, but surely they cannot believe that the Bill as drafted ensures that support services beyond general management that are provided to residents of supported exempt and temporary accommodation will be of acceptable quality, or that non-profit making registered providers can simply ignore consumer standards when it comes to those properties let at market rents eligible for housing benefit support.

The issues that are the subject of these two amendments will need to be addressed if the Government are serious about clamping down on rogue providers who take public money while failing vulnerable people. I hope that the Minister can signal that the Government are minded to act either by accepting the amendments or by bringing forward their own in due course.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Edward. I am incredibly grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, for the constructive way he has embraced this debate, for the Opposition’s broad support for the Bill, and for his commitment to ensuring that the regulator is as robust as it can be. On that point, we have certainly found some early agreement.

As the hon. Member outlined, amendment 13 would extend the remit of the regulator to the care and support provided to residents in supported exempt accommodation and temporary accommodation, while new clause 8 would extend the remit to those types of accommodation when they are not social housing but are held by a registered provider.

Temporary accommodation and supported housing that meets the definition of social housing is already regulated under the regulator’s standards, and the Care Quality Commission already regulates the provision of personal care in supported housing. The support needs of people in supported housing are wide, varied and often complex compared with those living in general needs accommodation. That is why we are supporting targeted measures in the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, to tackle the issues we are seeing in supported housing. I echo the shadow Minister’s comments; I am very grateful that my hon. Friend is bringing his incredible expertise to the Committee.

While there are many excellent supported housing providers, the Government recognise that there are some rogue supported housing landlords. Let me be completely clear for the record: any abuse of the supported housing system will not be tolerated. The Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill will introduce national standards to be applied to supported housing and to give local authorities new powers to introduce licensing schemes and other enforcement powers.

Temporary accommodation is a key safety net for homeless households in this country. The homelessness code of guidance is clear that, at a minimum, temporary accommodation must be free from all category 1 health hazards, as assessed by the housing health and safety rating system, and it must be suitable for all members of the household. Households have the right to request that the council reviews the suitability of their accommodation.

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

On temporary accommodation for homeless families and the code of guidance, who enforces the code? Who knows whether councils are living up to it? Who inspects the accommodation with a third eye to see whether it meets the standards?

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

I will follow that up with the hon. Member in writing after our sittings today.

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

The answer is nobody.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

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 (Conservative, Harrow East)

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 (Conservative, Walsall North)

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 (Conservative, Harrow East)

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 (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

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.

Sarah Owen (Labour, Luton North)

My hon. Friend is making excellent points. That is the human impact of the lack of regulation and enforcement on rogue providers that are making millions out of very vulnerable people. Their impact is felt not only by the individuals who are being harmed, but by entire communities. Does she agree that although we do not want regulation for regulation’s sake, we need not just regulation but enforcement for those who are getting away with this scot-free right now? We do not just need legislation; we need the ability to enforce and act.

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. If there is no regulation, this will just grow and grow. As mortgage interest rates go up and business for buy-to-let landlords becomes less profitable, more people are going to look at providing this style of housing, because they can exploit the housing benefit system. If that is not happening in the constituencies of all the hon. Members of this Bill Committee, it will be coming to them soon.

Eddie Hughes (Conservative, Walsall North)

The point I am about to make is non-political, given that I am going to use the example of Labour-led Birmingham Council. That council did pilot work, and its scrutiny committee, which was chaired by a Labour member, subsequently published a report. It was able to identify a number of improvements that it could make within the existing legislation. I fully appreciate that legal challenge is an option for landlords who have their claims turned down. However, the council was able to reduce the number of people coming through the pipeline to provide this type of accommodation, and it was able to improve the quality of that accommodation. There is some room for councils who are prepared to focus on this, to improve outcomes for local people within the framework of the existing legislation.

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

I turn to Aves housing association, which was run by a man who was exposed by the BBC for running a former supposed housing association that is in fact a commercial enterprise. It specialises in parts of Pollards Hill and Longthornton in my constituency, which neighbour Croydon, and it routinely takes very vulnerable people to live in houses that are simply not big enough for conversion. It accesses people’s universal credit accounts and takes their money. When the housing benefit department at Merton Council discovered that, it decided not to pay housing benefit to Aves residents. That might seem sensible to most Committee Members. However, that then meant that 92 vulnerable people were not having their rent paid, so were vulnerable to eviction—at which point, Merton Council’s housing department and adult social services departments would have collapsed. Local authorities are in a bind. Do they take notice of what is going on—in which case, they get responsibilities they cannot meet—or do they turn a blind eye because, in the end, that is the only way they can manage?

Bob Blackman (Conservative, Harrow East)

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 (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

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.

Sarah Owen (Labour, Luton North)

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. The pilot work that the hon. Member for Harrow East just spoke about is fantastic. We will take whatever we can from that and learn, but the point is that the councils and authorities that did that work had to have extra resources to use their existing powers. This is not just about legislating and enabling local authorities to have more powers; it is also about them having the funds and resources to use those powers.

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

Absolutely, and I know the hon. Member for Harrow East will be aware of how few London councils ever prosecute anybody under their current powers. It is about regulation, but it is also about local authorities being able to use their powers. In the light of the recent Budget, local authorities’ powers will become even less well used if their finances continue to be squeezed.

Let us go back to Aves in Pollards Hill and Longthornton. I met the regulator and spoke about Aves and my concern about the exploitation of tenants. The regulator said to me, “We completely agree with you, but there is nothing we can do. We do not have the power to do anything.” Either we give the regulator the powers and do something about it, or we go on talking about it in a well-meaning way while the problem exponentially grows. I, for one, want to see some action rather than none.

Maggie Throup (Conservative, Erewash)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I think this is an important Bill. Amendment 13 and new clause 8 relate to supported exempt accommodation and temporary accommodation when provided by providers that are the subject of other parts of the Bill. The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich made a very good case.

The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden made a passionate speech, and I think we can all relate to what she was saying, because we all have examples in our constituency of providers who sound very legitimate and credible, but after they are looked into, it turns out that they are not. They are fly-by-nights who are just taking the opportunity provided by the loophole in regulations. We can all cite examples of HMOs that have been passed by councils because the councils do not have the powers to stop them. The impact on neighbourhoods is quite dire, and it really does destroy local communities.

While I appreciate the intentions behind the Opposition’s amendments, I think the better place to close the gaps in regulation would be in the Bill from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East. This measure is obviously needed, but I think this Bill is the wrong place for it. I hope to speak later about some of the specific issues in my constituency and the importance of regulating the providers and ensuring the provisions of the Bill are met, because they are so needed.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

That was an incredibly informed and helpful debate. I just want to say at the outset that we fully appreciate how complex an area of law and regulation this is. I have done enough of these Committees to know that the Minister is not going to simply stand up and accept the amendments we have cobbled together just on the basis of my speech, however good it might have been.

I will try to respond to the points made, which I take in the constructive spirit they were offered in. I do not think many of the points made get to the heart of what the amendments are driving at. I agree with the hon. Member for Harrow East: there is a plethora of regulators in housing and planning generally, and I am concerned that we are creating overlap and confusion in various ways. I will come to how that might be true in relation to the ombudsman and the regulator when we discuss clause 5, but that is absolutely a point.

The Minister made the point well: the private Member’s Bill of the hon. Member for Harrow East, the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill, includes a range of targeted measures to address the scandal—we all agree it is a scandal—of rogue providers of exempt accommodation and temporary accommodation in many cases. However, as I made clear, that Bill does not address this gap. The hon. Member for Erewash said that if it is not covered by these amendments, it can be done via the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill, but it is not in that Bill. Perhaps it will end up in that Bill after Committee stage, in which case we will be entirely happy with that being a vehicle for it rather than this Bill, but it needs to be addressed.

The hon. Member for Walsall North has been at pains to make the point that we should not do anything that makes the lives of good providers more difficult, and we recognise that. We have been very conscious, in approaching the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill, of the need for that not to be the case, but I fail to see how bringing market rent properties that are run by partially regulated providers within the scope of consumer regulation burdens good providers. It simply allows the regulator to apply the standards that we all agree need to be applied to the odd case of providers who, because they have some social properties, can operate many, many more properties at market rent outside the scope of consumer regulation.

These amendments are trying to address two slightly separate issues. First, via amendment 13, we are asking: are the support services for those in exempt accommodation and temporary accommodation that already fall within consumer regulation of appropriate quality? I am not sure that they are. The consumer standards cover general management, but such is the scandal over recent years that there is a case—I hope the Minister will take this away—for updating standards and guidance for this particular set of providers and the properties they run.

Secondly, there is the more general point about the loophole I have described. The hon. Member for Harrow East is absolutely right: these rogue providers are canny and ruthless, and they will look to exploit any gap or alternative way of securing the huge proceeds they make as a result of the exemption from housing benefit provisions. This is one of the ways that we know they are already doing that, and the point I have been at pains to stress is that this loophole already exists and will still exist if the Bill is passed without these amendments or if the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill is not amended.

The Minister said, understandably, that this Bill is not the right vehicle. I understand that the Government do not want to reopen this Bill, but they will have to address this issue either via the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill or another means, because it remains a loophole that is being exploited, and it will continue to be exploited. Actually, we think it will probably be worse once the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill is enforced, because this is one of the significant loopholes that will remain. I will not press this amendment to a Division, but I hope the Minister is sincere in taking this away and finding some other way to plug the gap that these amendments draw attention to.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

Absolutely, we will take this away. I would be grateful for the expertise of all on the Committee, including the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden, who made an incredibly passionate case. Let us have a roundtable discussion about how best we can take this forward following Committee.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

Clause 1 relates to the fundamental objectives of the Regulator of Social Housing and adds safety and energy efficiency of tenants’ accommodation and transparency. New clauses 2 and 3 seek to take that further and expand the role of the regulator into new areas.

New clause 2 relates to monitoring the remediation of unsafe cladding and other fire safety defects in the social housing sector. I want to make clear from the outset that nothing is more important to this Government than making sure people are safe in their homes. The tragic, horrendous case of Awaab Ishak, which we are all unfortunately now familiar with, has highlighted the crucial role of registered providers of social housing in making sure that happens.

The Bill sits alongside other key reforms that we have introduced in response to the Grenfell Tower fire, including the Building Safety Act 2022 and the Fire Safety Act 2021. New clause 2 is incredibly well intentioned, given what it seeks to achieve, but the Bill is not the correct vehicle for it. A duty should be placed on the Regulator of Social Housing to undertake such monitoring. The regulator is not a specialist fire or building safety body. The proposed new clause would be a significant expansion of the regulator’s remit. Currently, the regulator does not have the expertise to fulfil that function effectively.

The question of who should undertake that kind of role is, however, an important one for Government. The Department is evaluating options on how best to monitor and report on the progress made in remediating unsafe cladding and other fire-safety defects. It is important that the work is done at pace, but thoroughly. I understand that hon. Members will be keen to study its outcomes and implications for future policy, but I must reiterate that it would be improper to pre-empt it while it is ongoing by allocating responsibility for that highly important function without the benefit of fully understanding the options. We need to ensure that that work is undertaken by those with the correct skills, expertise and capacity. My concern with new clause 2, therefore, is that it would make for a hasty decision that might mean we do not achieve the desired outcomes in the optimal way.

I turn to new clause 3. The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich is right to draw attention to the importance of increasing the supply of social housing. In the levelling-up White Paper, we made it clear that we want to

“increase the amount of social housing available over time to provide the most affordable housing to those who need it.”

Our £11.5 billion affordable homes programme will play an important role in achieving that aim, as will the measures we have taken to support increased council house building.

For its part, the regulator has an objective to support the provision of sufficient social housing. It discharges that role through its work to ensure that private registered providers are financially viable, efficient and well governed. In turn, that helps providers to obtain funding to enable them to deliver more social housing. However, I do not agree that we should make the regulator responsible for assessing the adequacy of social housing provision in England or, indeed, in Wales. I am concerned that such an additional role could divert resources away from the activities that should be the focus for the regulator, which is setting standards for social housing so that landlords are clear about expectations on them to deliver quality of housing, to monitor compliance with those standards and, where necessary, to undertake relevant enforcement action.

Organisations outside Government often publish their own analysis of the level of need for social housing. There are a number of different approaches to assess that, and not necessarily a single right answer. I am therefore not convinced that the regulator stepping in to provide its own assessment is the right approach. It should focus on the task at hand and on standards, quality and enforcement. On that basis we would not want to accept new clauses 2 and 3.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I thank the Minister for her explanation of the clause and for the response to the two new clauses tabled by the Opposition. As the Minister has made clear, with a view to providing for a stronger and more proactive consumer regulatory regime, the clause expands the regulator’s fundamental objectives as set out in the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 to include those of safety, transparency and—following the well-deserved success of Baroness Hayman’s amendment in the other place on standards relating to energy demand—energy efficiency.

My response to the case that the Minister made against new clauses 2 and 3 has, thankfully, pre-empted a number of the points she has just made. New clause 2 seeks to ensure that in meeting its fundamental objective to support the provision of social housing that is well managed and of appropriate quality, under proposed new subsection (3)(a) of the amended 2008 Act the regulator would also be required to report to the Government on the progress of building safety remediation in the social housing sector.

According to the Department’s own figures, every one of the 160 social sector buildings identified as having unsafe aluminium composite material—ACM—cladding, similar to that which covered Grenfell Tower, have been remediated through the social sector ACM cladding remediation fund. When it comes to buildings in the social sector with unsafe non-ACM cladding systems, we know that, as of 31 October, 251 have applied for Government funding for remediation. Alarmingly, as things stand, not a single one of those 251 buildings has been remediated.

Perhaps more worryingly, we have no estimate of the total number of social sector buildings with unsafe non-ACM cladding systems, because social landlords can apply for Government funding only if the costs of remediation are unaffordable or if there is a threat to their financial viability. We have no idea whatsoever how many social sector buildings have other non-cladding building safety defects.

There is a wider debate to be had outside this Committee about social landlords’ restricted access to funding for non-ACM remediation work, given the impact that has on social tenants, whose rent payments are contributing to the costs of the works required, and on providers in terms of upgrade and maintenance works, services provided such as welfare advice and the supply of new social homes.

However, all new clause 2 seeks to achieve is to make the regulator—which, as a result of the Bill will now have to perform its functions with a view to supporting the provision of social housing that is safe—report to the Secretary of State on the progress of remediating unsafe external wall systems and other historical fire safety defects in social housing, and provides it with the opportunity to make recommendations to the Secretary of State on further action required.

Speaking for the Government in the other place in response to a similar amendment in the name of Baroness Pinnock, Baroness Scott of Bybrook argued, as the Minister just has, that the type of monitoring sought by new clause 2 would not be “appropriate” for the regulator to undertake because

“it is not a specialist health and safety body.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 September 2022; Vol. 824, c. 114.]

I am afraid that we find that argument wholly unconvincing.

New clause 2 does not seek to impose a duty on the regulator to carry out inspections of social sector buildings that are either potentially unsafe or identified as unsafe and in need of remediation or to physically monitor the progress of remediation works. As such, it does not require the regulator to possess the relevant professional skills, expertise and capacity necessary for assessments of that nature. All it would require is that the regulator be responsible for reporting to the Government on the progress of remediation in respect of social sector buildings—on the overall number of such buildings identified as having defects and the progress of whether they have started and completed remediation.

Given that the regulator already collects data from registered providers to inform its regulation of standards, and that the Bill ensures that one of the regulator’s new fundamental objectives will be the safety of buildings, we believe it is entirely reasonable and appropriate to task it with reporting to the Government along these lines.

As the Minister made clear, the Government have been at pains over recent months to stress they are examining options for monitoring and reporting remediation progress in future. Yet, as we consider the Bill today, neither the Department nor the new Building Safety Regulator is providing accurate data with regard to the scale of the building safety challenge in the social housing sector, or progress toward meeting it; no firm proposals have been brought forward by the Government to address that gap; and we have no guarantees that appropriate measures will be forthcoming any time soon, although I take at face value what the Minister has just said.

The Bill rightly ensures that the provision of safe, high-quality social housing will be integral to the function of the regulator’s role. There can be no more important task in respect of social housing—I think we are agreed on this point—than to ensure that buildings that are either covered in combustible material or riddled with other non-cladding safety defects are made safe. New clause 2 would ensure the regulator monitors progress to that end and reports to Government. I urge the Minister to rethink. If the Government are not minded to amend the Bill as new clause 2 seeks, I urge them to bring forward other proposals for monitoring this important element of the remediation drive in the near future.

I turn to new clause 3. In a similar way to how new clause 2 seeks to place additional requirements on the regulator in relation to its fundamental objective to support the provision of social housing that is well-managed and of appropriate quality, new clause 3 seeks to ensure that, in meeting its fundamental objective under the 2008 Act to support the provision of social housing that is sufficient to meet reasonable demands, the regulator would also be required to report to the Government on the adequacy of social housing supply.

The problem to which this new clause relates is well known. While more people than ever are struggling to afford a secure place to live, nowhere near enough social homes are being built. Almost 1.2 million households in England are now languishing on a housing waiting list. The Green Paper that foreshadowed the Bill stated:

“Social housing remains central to our supply ambitions.”

Despite that, the Government are doing nowhere near enough to deliver the volume of social homes our country needs.

Not only are the Government failing to build the volume of social homes that we need, but by means of reduced grant funding, the introduction of the so-called affordable rent tenure, increased right-to-buy discounts and numerous other policy interventions, we would argue that they have actively engineered the decline of social housing over the past 12 years. The result is that not only were fewer than 6,000 social homes constructed last year but over 21,000 were sold or demolished—a net loss of 15,000 desperately needed genuinely affordable homes.

Last year was not an aberration that could be written off as a result of global factors outside the Government’s control. Over the past 12 years, the Government have presided over an average net loss of 13,000 social homes a year. The Minister said that the Government aim to deliver 32,000 social rented homes over the five years of the affordable homes programme, but she will know as well as I do that that is woefully short of what is required to meet the need across the country. It is based on data from 2015-16, but the 2019 analysis carried out by Professor Glen Bramley for the National Housing Federation and Crisis remains the most robust estimate that we have of the need. It suggested that 145,000 new affordable homes were needed each and every year for a period of 15 years to address the present stark mismatch between affordable housing supply and demand, with 90,000 of those 145,000 units needing to be new homes for social rent. If anything, I would argue that in the three years that have elapsed since that study was published the annual estimate of 145,000 will have increased.

While the need for social housing in England continues to increase as social house building is at its lowest rate in decades, the Government maintain that there is no way to calculate a net annual figure for social housing. For reasons of transparency and accountability, there is a strong case for making available more accurate data on the delivery of social housing—the actual annual change in social housing stock—not least given the significant number of conversions to affordable rent and right-to-buy sales over recent years, and levels of social housing need.

Given that one of the regulator’s existing fundamental objectives is to support the provision of social housing sufficient to meet reasonable demands, we believe that the regulator is well placed to provide that information as part of a duty to provide timely reports to Government on whether the supply of social housing in England and Wales is sufficient to meet reasonable demands, with the option of also making recommendations relating to how to ensure that that is the case.

Responding for the Government in the other place, Baroness Scott of Bybrook agreed that it is appropriate that the regulator should have an objective to support the provision of social housing but opposed its having a role in assessing the adequacy of that provision or making recommendations relating to it. The reason given was:

“There are many other organisations, such as the Chartered Institute of Housing, Savills and Shelter, which publish reports on these important issues at regular intervals.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 September 2022; Vol. 824, c. 126.]

We do not, of course, deny that organisations such as the CIH and Shelter publish outstanding research and analysis relating to affordable housing need and supply, but is it really the Government’s contention that, because they do, the regulator’s existing fundamental objective in respect of the support of the provision of social housing cannot be augmented with a requirement simply to assess whether that provision is sufficient to meet reasonable demands?

The other objection that the Government raised in the other place to an amendment in the name of Baroness Pinnock that sought to achieve the same outcome as new clause 3 was that giving the regulator responsibility for assessing the adequacy of social housing supply would divert resources and attention away from other important responsibilities, such as setting standards in social housing, assessing risks across the sector and carrying out enforcement action where required. That is a more legitimate concern than the one I just mentioned.

Unrelated to the issue that new clause 3 seeks to address, we are concerned that the regulator may not have the resources that it needs to carry out the enhanced role that the Bill demands of it. However, not only is ensuring that the regulator is adequately resourced within the Government’s gift but we are sceptical about the Government’s claim that assessing the adequacy of social housing provision will be an unduly burdensome duty on the regulator or one that would divert resources and attention away from its other duties to any meaningful extent.

We completely recognise that the issue of social house building, and the fact that England’s social housing stock is nowhere near large enough to meet existing need, cannot be solved by the Bill, but neither can the supply of social homes be divorced from standards and social landlord performance—not least because some of the worst housing standards experienced by tenants are the result not of disrepair but fundamental issues with the structures of social sector buildings that need replacing with new, high-quality, sustainable equivalents.

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 (Conservative, Harrow East)

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 (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

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.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

I will be brief and just say that I recognise the arguments made by the shadow Minister, but I hope he recognises the arguments that I made in my opening statement. I have made a commitment to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East that before Report we will sit down to discuss the issues further and make sure the regulator has the teeth it really needs.

Clause 2 - Advisory panel

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 2, page 1, line 18, at end insert—

“(2A) The Panel may provide information and advice to the Secretary of State about, or on matters connected with, the regulator’s functions and wider issues affecting the regulation of social housing (whether or not it is requested to do so by either the regulator or the Secretary of State).”

This amendment would enable the Panel to provide information and advice and to proactively raise issues affecting social housing regulation more generally directly to the Secretary of State.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 15, in clause 2, page 2, line 17, at end insert—

“(8) The Panel must be chaired by a tenant of social housing.

(9) The Chair is responsible for setting Panel meeting agendas.

(10) The majority of persons appointed to the panel must be tenants of social housing.”

This amendment would ensure that tenant representation on the advisory panel is mandatory and that tenants are able to influence effectively what information and advice is presented to the regulator in respect of issues affecting social housing regulation.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

For all its technical complexity, the Bill is ultimately about those who live in social housing and overhauling regulation to ensure that they are treated fairly by landlords who are well run, responsive, transparent and accountable. In considering the detail of the Bill, we must never forget that the impetus for it was the deaths of 72 men, women and children in the early hours of 14 June 2017. Those 72 human lives were ended in an inferno fuelled by the highly combustible cladding system installed on the outside of the tower block in which they lived, despite the fact that tenants had repeatedly sounded the alarm about the building’s safety defects and the fact that warnings were going unheeded.

I have met and spoken to Grenfell United, as I assume the Minister and many other Members have. I once again pay tribute to them and the wider Grenfell community. I know that what the survivors and the bereaved are determined to achieve is not only justice, but lasting change in how social housing is regulated and the power that tenants themselves can exercise. We firmly believe that the empowerment of tenants must be at the heart of the Bill, and we believe that a key test of its robustness is whether it establishes mechanisms that will enable tenants to influence in practice the regulator’s approach to regulating standards; to shape any future changes to regulatory standards and codes of practice; and to proactively raise wider issues affecting social housing regulation and policy, not just with the regulator but with Ministers.

The Government ostensibly agree that tenants are at the heart of the Bill, and Ministers have repeatedly assured us that one of its primary objectives is to give social housing tenants a voice and ensure that it is listened to. Yet when it comes to providing ways in which tenant representatives can exert a measure of control over the work of the regulator, shape the future direction of the regulatory arrangements that the Bill establishes and proactively influence national regulation and policy so as to shape the services that tenants receive from their landlords, we feel that the Bill is somewhat lacking in ambition.

Clause 2 provides for the establishment of the advisory panel. We very much welcome its establishment as a means of providing independent and unbiased information and advice to the regulator about matters relating to the regulator’s functions, and the fact that it can do so without the regulator making such a request. However, the advisory panel established by clause 2 is neither independent nor able to meaningfully influence the setting of national regulation and policy, because the Bill provides only for the panel to supply information and advice to the regulator—the same body that controls the panel’s membership and functioning.

Amendment 14 seeks to press the Government to reconsider whether the Bill should provide a means for the panel to provide information and advice directly to the Secretary of State in circumstances in which it feels that it is necessary to do so. An example of such circumstances would be where the panel had identified an issue or issues affecting social housing regulation that it believed warranted the Secretary of State considering further legislative or non-legislative change.

There is clear precedent when it comes to non-departmental public bodies having the ability to raise key sector issues and risks directly with Ministers. For example, as well as advising persons exercising functions or engaged in activities affecting children on how to act compatibly with the rights of children, the Office of the Children’s Commissioner can bring matters directly to the attention of the Secretary of State or either House of Parliament.

We believe that the change proposed by amendment 14 is proportionate and sensible. The occasions on which the advisory panel is likely to feel the need to issue information and advice directly to the Secretary of State are likely to be rare—no doubt extremely rare—but we believe that it is important that the option be available to the panel should it feel that such a course of action is warranted. By amending the Bill to provide that option, we would at least ensure that the panel was given a limited degree of autonomous action by providing it with the recourse to bring matters of concern directly to the attention of Ministers, despite the fact that it is ultimately controlled by the regulator. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to this amendment.

Turning to amendment 15, I mentioned a moment ago that the advisory panel provided for by clause 2 cannot in any way be considered independent. That is because it is the regulator that will establish the panel and choose which persons are appointed to it. Although proposed new section 96A(4) of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, inserted by clause 2 of the Bill, states that the regulator must appoint persons

“appearing to the regulator to represent the interests of”

among others

“tenants of social housing”,

there is nothing in the Bill to guarantee that tenants themselves will form part of the panel’s membership, let alone be able to influence its work or shape future social housing regulation or policy. We believe that that is problematic and we want to see the Bill more effectively empower tenants.

The Opposition believe that in principle there is a strong case for establishing, as the last Labour Government did with the National Tenant Voice, a body to act as the authentic voice of social tenants, one that is independent of both Government and the regulator and that is truly representative of tenants across the country. Such a body would enable tenants to address the stigma and stereotyping—much of it based on ignorance—that they are so frequently subject to, rather than relying on benevolent others in positions of authority to do so for them, and it would allow tenants to speak for themselves, nationally, regionally and locally, on a more equal footing with other interests, not least when it comes to policy making and regulation.

The Government have established the social housing quality resident panel—I note the hon. Member for Walsall North’s involvement with that—which allows tenants to share their views about their landlord’s services, as well as the Government’s efforts to improve the quality of social housing, directly with Ministers, but the existence of that panel is time-limited and, in its composition, remit and functioning, it falls far short of the kind of independent body that would truly empower tenants and enable them to have their voice heard on issues outside the Government social housing quality programme.

We recognise that the establishment of the kind of body that I have outlined is absolutely outside the scope of the Bill. Its consideration will almost certainly await the election of the next Labour Government. However, that does not mean that we cannot strengthen the advisory panel to ensure that tenants are adequately represented on it and can influence effectively what advice and information is provided to the regulator. Amendment 15 seeks to do that, requiring the advisory panel at least to be chaired by a tenant, who would be given responsibility for setting panel meeting agendas, and that a majority of persons appointed to the panel be social tenants.

The response to the Green Paper made clear the support for stronger representation of resident tenants at a national level, with 71% of respondents supporting measures that would achieve that. By ensuring that tenants formed a majority of the panel’s membership and could play a significant role in determining what issues it should focus on at any given time, amendment 15 would enable social tenants to exert real influence on the regulator’s approach to regulating standards, future changes to regulatory standards and codes of practice, and wider issues affecting social housing regulation and policy.

The advisory panel will rightly also contain those representing the interests of resident providers, local housing authorities and other organisations listed in clause 2(4). But if the Government are truly committed to putting tenants at the heart of the Bill, we believe they should think again about how the advisory panel will be constituted and function, with a view to ensuring that tenants are at the centre of the national conversation about how we drive up standards in social housing. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s view on the amendments.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for making his case for amendments 14 and 15. Amendment 14 seeks to enable the advisory panel to provide information and advice and to raise issues affecting social housing regulation directly with the Secretary of State. The social housing White Paper made it clear that the purpose of the advisory panel was to provide independent and unbiased advice specific to the regulator on matters connected to regulation. Clearly, the views of tenants are central to that objective.

As the hon. Gentleman outlined, in parallel we also established the social housing quality resident panel, which will provide an opportunity for us to hear from tenants. The aim of the resident panel is to enable tenants to share their views directly with Government and Ministers on their approach to improving the quality of social housing, and on whether the Government’s interventions will deliver the changes that they want to see.

The resident panel is made up of 250 social housing residents from across the country and from diverse backgrounds. They met for the first time last week on 26 November, and will meet approximately monthly over the coming year, with opportunities for the agenda to be shaped by panel members. At that meeting, residents told the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), that the most important issues to them were how repairs are dealt with, how landlords are held to account and how complaints are handled by their landlords and the housing ombudsman. The Department’s resident panel and the regulated advisory panel have a specific role and remit to ensure that tenants’ views are properly represented to both Ministers and the regulator.

Amendment 15 seeks to require a social housing tenant to chair the advisory panel and have responsibility for setting the agenda that the panel considers. It also seeks to ensure that social housing tenants comprise the majority of panel members. We share the notion that it is vital that tenants’ voices are heard, but it is important that the advisory panel considers the full range of regulatory issues that the regulator has to tackle. That means that we need to allow a diverse collection of voices to share their knowledge and opinions with the regulator.

Consumer matters are rightly at the forefront of the Bill but, equally, working to resolve some of the economic issues should not be diminished. Legislating for a tenant to chair and set the agenda and requiring the majority of the panel members to be tenants would not support what we are trying to achieve with the advisory panel. I am concerned that being too prescriptive in legislation about how the advisory panel must operate may prevent the panel from having the flexibility to decide how it best operates. In practice, I expect that all members of the advisory panel, along with the regulator, will shape how it works and what it considers.

We are committed to ensuring that tenants can effectively engage with the Department and the regulator, and that tenant voices are at the heart of social housing regulation and policy, but we do not feel that amendments 14 and 15 are necessary to achieve that so I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw them.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I thank the Minister for that helpful response, and I take on board the concerns she raised about the amendments.

I am slightly concerned about the lack of what we would consider to be true tenant empowerment. The quality resident panel is important, but it only lasts a year, so how will we get ongoing tenant engagement with the work of the regulator to inform how it operates, to shape future regulation, which is part of its remit, and to raise future issues of concern to tenants nationally, in terms of social housing regulation and policy? We do not think the Bill allows for that, and in all honesty I cannot understand the Government’s objection to allowing the advisory panel to notify Ministers directly, rather than the regulator, in certain rare circumstances. As the Minister said, the panel is at present constituted by the regulator, which appoints its membership, and it can only provide views directly to the regulator. We think there are some circumstances in which it may need to do otherwise. I hope the Minister takes away those points.

Eddie Hughes (Conservative, Walsall North)

Although there might be some deliberation about this mechanism, there are several mechanisms through which resident organisations are able to engage with Ministers and the regulator. I am delighted to see representatives of Grenfell United in the Public Gallery. There is a regular opportunity to meet Ministers, although it is not prescriptive and perhaps not as frequent as many would like, but the Government are certainly determined to build on it.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

We recognise that Ministers meet tenants and tenant representatives frequently. My concern is that if tenants on the advisory panel have an issue that they feel is sufficiently serious that they need to bring it to the attention of Ministers, rather than the regulator, they should not have to rely on attempting to get a meeting with Ministers. There should be a mechanism through which they can put serious issues on the desk of the Secretary of State or the Minister if they feel that they, as well as the regulator, need to know about them. That is the point we are trying to address with amendment 14.

On amendment 15, I understand the Minister’s concerns about being too prescriptive, but I urge the Government to go away and think again about the membership of the advisory panel. I appreciate fully the need to have a diverse panel, but as I read clause 2(4), there is nothing on the face of the Bill to prevent the Government from putting one tenant or tenant representative on the panel and leaving it at that. There is no minimum quota for tenants, and we want tenant voices to be properly represented.

Bob Blackman (Conservative, Harrow East)

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 (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

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.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

Clause 2 makes it a requirement that the regulator will engage with a wide range of stakeholders, including tenants and landlords. It also sets out expectations about who should be represented on that panel. It is not just about the regulator asking a group of people for views once it has already made up its mind about what it wants to do. The panel is designed to be used to test and shape the regulator’s thinking. For example, we expect the regulator to engage the panel on the design and implementation of new consumer standards. The clause also empowers the panel to raise issues directly with the regulator that its members consider important. I hope the Committee will support the clause.

Clause 4 - Power to charge fees

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 4, page 3, line 40, leave out “follows” and insert

“set out in subsections (2) to (6)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 2.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 2.

Clause stand part.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

Clause 4 and Government amendments 1 and 2 deal with the regulator’s fee-charging powers. As we heard from a number of hon. Members on Second Reading, the Regulator of Social Housing must be provided with the necessary funding to enable it to deliver the outcomes the Bill is designed to achieve.

Once the new consumer regime is implemented, the regulator will see substantial growth in its regulatory activity, which means its costs will increase significantly. It is Government policy to maximise the recovery of costs of arm’s length bodies, so clause 4 will refine the existing fee-charging power to allow for the cost of some additional functions to be recovered, and to charge fees that cover costs of activities that may not be connected to the specific fee payer, such as the cost of investigation and enforcement. Any significant changes to the design of the regime will be consulted upon and require ministerial approval.

Government amendments 1 and 2 also address the regulator’s fee-charging powers. The amendments remove specific provision allowing the regulator to charge following the completion of inspections, if authorised by the Secretary of State by order. The existence of that special provision relating to fees for inspections is no longer necessary given the changes we are making to the regulator’s general power to charge fees. That power will now allow it to cover the cost of inspections in its fees for initial and continued registration.

Leaving the provision in legislation erroneously risks causing confusion and casting doubt on the regulator’s ability to set fees to cover inspections as part of its general fee-setting power. As such, the change serves to ensure that there is greater clarity and consistency in this legislation.

Clause 4 establishes the parameters to the regulator’s fee-charging powers and makes clear that it can charge the sector for costs that may be unconnected to the specific fee payer. Government amendments 1 and 2 support clause 4 by delivering a technical change that will ensure there is no confusion over the powers available to the regulator to deliver maximum cost recovery. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee and beg to move the amendments.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I thank the Minister for that explanation of Government amendments 1 and 2. As she makes clear, clause 4 amends section 117 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 to clarify the extent of the regulator’s fee-charging powers. New subsection (4A) adds to the 2008 Act and makes it clear that the regulator has the power to recover the cost of activities it does not currently charge social housing providers for.

If I understood the Minister correctly, Government amendment 2 revises section 202 of the 2008 Act because the powers in new subsection (4A) are sufficiently broad to cover charging providers fees for inspections. In short, as I hope she agrees, this is just a tidying-up exercise, the rationale for which is that the power is being omitted from section 202, concerning inspections only, because it more properly fits within section 117, concerning fees generally, to ensure that references to fee charging are all in one place in the 2008 Act. If that is the case, and amendment 2 in no way prevents the regulator from charging fees for inspections, we take no issue with it, because it is important that the regulator is able to charge fees to cover the significant costs involved in overseeing the comprehensive and rigorous Ofsted-style inspections regime that the Bill introduces.

The amendment raises wider issues relating to the resourcing of the regulator. Since the Bill’s publication, we have consistently expressed concern about the very real risk that the regulator will struggle to discharge its new functions and that it will not be adequately resourced to perform its enhanced role, in particular in relation to inspections. Prior to the Bill’s publication there were already concerns, expressed by the Select Committee and others, as to whether the regulator had the resourcing, skills and capacity to continue to regulate economic standards adequately, given the complex financial and corporate structures proliferating in the sector.

The new consumer regulatory regime will impose significant burdens on the regulator. The Minister stated on Second Reading that the Government are

“firmly committed to ensuring that the regulator has the resources that it needs not only to deliver the new consumer regulation regime but to ensure that it continues to regulate its economic objectives effectively.”—[Official Report, 7 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 83.]

She also suggested that the Government were potentially minded to introduce changes to the fee regime to ensure that the regulator is funded appropriately. We accept that the Government have made limited additional funding available this financial year to support the new regime, but we are concerned that there may still be a resourcing challenge for the regulator. I would welcome any further assurances from the Minister that the regulator will have all the resources it needs to discharge the enhanced functions that the Bill requires of it.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for raising the question of resourcing. We touched on this on Second Reading, as he highlighted. He is right that in this financial year we are providing £4.8 million to aid the regulator in its vital work, but this is why it is so important that we get the fee charging regime right—to ensure that the regulator is properly resourced. As we have discussed today, on Second Reading and in the other place, the regulator needs the teeth to be able to do its job, and a huge part of that is resourcing. He is right that, effectively, we are tidying the legislation up to make it a bit neater and ensure further clarity, so I hope he will support these amendments.

Clause 5 - Relationship between regulator and housing ombudsman

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I will be brief, but there is an issue that we want to highlight in relation to clause 5, which is about the relationship between the regulator and housing ombudsman. Clause 5 amends the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 and the Housing Act 1996 to add measures on the relationship between the two bodies, so that they can exchange information quickly and effectively to provide better protection for tenants, all of which is entirely to the good and uncontroversial. However, consideration of the clause provides me with an opportunity to seek clarification from the Minister about the precise role of each body in the reformed regulatory regime that the Bill establishes.

Taken at face value, the role of each body is clearly delineated: the regulator regulates registered providers in England, while the housing ombudsman seeks to resolve complaints from individual residents about their registered provider. The regulator operates on a top-down basis, and the housing ombudsman operates on a bottom-up basis. However, when one considers how the reformed regulatory regime will operate in practice, things start to appear somewhat more complicated.

First, if my reading of the Bill is correct, the regulator appears to be able to intervene in individual complaints. Clause 31, for example, enables the regulator to arrange for an authorised person to take emergency remedial action in respect of individual premises following completion of a survey. Presumably, it is therefore necessary for the regulator to receive a complaint from a tenant who fears they are at risk of an imminent serious health and safety risk. Otherwise, how could the regulator order the necessary survey of a given premises? It may be that that is not the case, and it will be for the ombudsman to refer an individual complaint to the regulator to allow them to make use of the provisions in clause 31; if that is the case, it is not clear from the Bill.

Secondly, following revisions to the housing ombudsman scheme enacted in September 2020, the ombudsman has a responsibility to publish a complaint handling code, enjoys a new power to issue complaint handling failure orders that can relate to a landlord’s overall complaint-handling policy and, crucially, has the ability to investigate beyond an initial complaint to establish whether evidence might indicate a systemic failing by a registered provider. It may be that the ombudsman can address such systemic failings on the part of registered providers on the basis of suggested changes to their policies only with the regulator responsible for exploring whether changes to their systems are necessary, but again that is not immediately clear in the Bill.

Eddie Hughes (Conservative, Walsall North)

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but it is based on the premise that these bodies operate in a completely siloed fashion. The relationship between them is a fluid one; they speak regularly and consider complaints and points that have been raised, which come to them from either direction. They work in a collaborative fashion and are then able to identify who should best proceed with a particular case. Obviously, it is governed by a memorandum of understanding, but it is a much more fluid and collaborative arrangement than that.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I fully understand his point. I met with senior staff from the housing ombudsman yesterday, and we were talking precisely about the ways in which the respective roles operate and how they could be clarified. What these examples seek to illustrate is that there is still an obvious risk of overlap and duplication of roles in respect of these two bodies. One could argue, as the hon. Gentleman just has, that those issues can be resolved by means of updating the non-statutory memorandum of understanding that already sets out the functions of both organisations and how they work together, but that throws up two distinct issues in and of itself.

First, is it appropriate for us to leave these matters to the two bodies themselves to resolve, rather than clarifying on the face of the Bill the precise role of each body in the new regulatory regime, so as to avoid the duplication of functions and potential gaps in coverage—even if only in the short term, before they update that memorandum of understanding to reflect the new regulatory system of proactive consumer regulation?

Secondly, I am sure that hon. Members have been contacted by tenants who are aware that the Bill is progressing through the House. The expectations around the Bill are such that, after it receives Royal Assent, tenants who feel that they have not secured appropriate redress by means of a standard complaint to their landlord and believe that their grievance might be systemic in nature will understandably be uncertain about whether they should approach the ombudsman or the regulator with their complaint. I appreciate that the Department is alive to the risk, has produced guidance in the form of a fact sheet and is apparently delivering a communications campaign to tenants so that they know where to go and are well informed but, without greater clarity prior to Royal Assent about the precise roles of each body in the regime established by the Bill, I fear that neither will be sufficient to prevent a large degree of confusion. When debating this matter in the other place, Baroness Scott of Bybrook conceded that fears about confusion of the kind that I alluded to are legitimate, and that greater clarity is required as a result; yet, despite her promise to take the matter back to the Department, the Government are not amending the Bill to provide greater clarity or committing to take any further concrete steps—that I am aware of, at least—to ensure that confusion will be avoided.

As Shelter and others have argued, it is essential that the roles of the regulator and the housing ombudsman are clearly defined, that tenants and tenant groups understand the appropriate way to make complaints and that any complaints process or system is easy to use, accessible and effective. I would be grateful if the Minister provided greater clarity today and, if not today, in writing. I hope that, in general terms, she will assure me that the issues that I have highlighted will be both considered and acted on by the Department before the Bill receives Royal Assent.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for raising his concerns and giving me the opportunity to provide some clarity. We will take it from the experience of one particular tenant, if we may. If a tenant has a complaint, they should first go to their landlord but, if that complaint cannot be resolved between tenants and the landlord, it can be escalated to the housing ombudsman to investigate individual complaints from tenants. If the ombudsman’s investigation finds instances of maladministration on the part of the landlord, the ombudsman can issue orders to that landlord to put things right for the complainant. That can include requiring the landlord to pay compensation to the complainant or to undertake repairs.

If an investigation raises a potential breach of a regulatory standard or there is evidence of systemic failure by the landlord, the ombudsman can refer the matter to the regulator. In situations where the regulator has concerns that the provider is failing to maintain the premises in accordance with the regulatory standards, it can conduct a survey and, following the implementation of this Bill, arrange for emergency repairs to remediate the issue in cases where there is a risk of serious harm to tenants that is not being addressed by the landlord.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

That is useful clarification. If I have correctly understood what the Minister is saying, emergency remedial action under clause 31 of the Bill stems, in the first instance, from a referral from the ombudsman. Let us think about that process in detail. To get to the ombudsman, a tenant would have to exhaust all stages of their resident provider’s internal complaints process, which is three stages in most cases. It takes about a year to get through it. They would then have to go to the ombudsman, who has a huge backlog. Clause 31 is about emergency remedial action that poses an imminent threat to health and safety. I urge the Government to think again about how, in particular, clause 31 operates because tenants will need to give notice to the regulator about specific clause 31 failures far quicker than the process she has just described.

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

The situation gets even more complicated when a tenant exasperatedly says, “I want to go to a lawyer” and then the whole thing closes down.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

We are testing the patience of Sir Edward and the rules, but the point my hon. Friend highlights is a genuine one about the complication of legal matters and whether tenants abandon complaints at whatever point, which I hope adds to the weight of the point that I have just made. It is not immediately clear, and we have to be clear with, most importantly, tenants once this Bill is in force about where they go and how they can seek redress under the provisions of the Bill as quickly as they need to. As I said, in the case of clause 31, the process the Minister has described does not seem like it is fast enough to ensure that emergency remedial action of the kind provided for by clause 31 will happen. I hope the Government will take this and those other points away.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

Again, I am grateful to the shadow Minister and to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden. On the shadow Minister’s point about communications ensuring that tenants know where to go and how this process works, we have been working with organisations that represent landlords, social housing residents and the housing ombudsman service. We delivered communications and marketing campaigns in 2021 and this year to ensure that social housing residents were aware of how to make a complaint and how to seek redress where appropriate. We are putting in the work through communications to ensure that tenants understand the process, but I have heard his points on timeliness and I will endeavour to take that away.

Clause 10 - Appointment of health and safety lead by registered provider

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Clause 10 is not contentious, and we broadly welcome it, but I would appreciate some clarification from the Minister on a specific issue arising from it. At present, proposed new section 126B ensures that

“The functions of the health and safety lead”

are to

“monitor the provider’s compliance with health and safety requirements”

and to notify the provider’s responsible body of any material risk to or failures of compliance, and to advise on steps to ensure the provider addresses them.

As Ministers may be aware, the Local Government Association, among others, has inquired what—if any—channels of communication or reporting mechanisms will exist between the health and safety leads of registered providers and the regulator itself. The LGA also highlighted the obvious need for sufficient new burdens funding in the case of local authority landlords. Will the Minister provide answers today or in writing to the following questions? First, did the Government intend to establish any direct permanent relationship between the regulator and RP health and safety leads? Secondly, what is the rationale for not requiring health and safety leads to report any material risks or failures of compliance directly to the regulator, as well as the responsible body, as a matter of course? Thirdly, can the Minister guarantee that the Government will make sufficient new burdens funding available to local authorities to fully implement the provisions in the clause?

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

I will follow up in writing with a bit more clarity and specific detail on the questions the shadow Minister has raised.

Clause 11 - Electrical safety standards

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

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 (Conservative, Harrow East)

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 (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

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.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

The shadow Minister is right to highlight the consultation, which concluded in August. It included a call for evidence seeking views on whether leasehold properties in mixed tenure social housing blocks should have mandatory five-year checks. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East was right to say that we need to get this mechanism right to ensure that people living in mixed-use blocks are protected. I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his pragmatism on this point. We are still assessing the responses to the consultation, so it is a bit too early to say what the outcome will be and we do not wish to pre-empt it. However, we will announce further details as the work progresses, and I will endeavour to keep the shadow Minister informed.

Clause 21 - Standards relating to competence and conduct

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 4—Persons engaged in the management of social housing to have relevant professional qualifications—

“After section 217 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (accreditation) insert—

‘217A Professional qualifications and other requirements

(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, provide 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.

(2) Regulations specifying work for the purpose of subsection (1) may make provision by reference to—

(a) one or more specified activities, or

(b) the circumstances in which activities are carried out.

(3) Regulations made under this section may, in particular, require—

(a) the possession of a specified qualification or experience of a specified kind,

(b) participation in or completion of a specified programme or course of training, or

(c) compliance with a specified condition.

(4) Regulations may make provision for any of the following matters—

(a) the establishment and continuance of a regulatory body;

(b) the keeping of a register of qualified social housing practitioners;

(c) requirements relating to education and training before and after qualification;

(d) standards of conduct and performance;

(e) discipline and fitness to practise;

(f) removal or suspension from registration or the imposition of conditions on registration;

(g) investigation and enforcement by or on behalf of the regulatory body, and appeals against the decisions or actions of the regulatory body.”’

This new clause would require managers of social housing to have appropriate qualifications and expertise.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

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 (Conservative, Harrow East)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Eddie Hughes (Conservative, Walsall North)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

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

Bob Blackman (Conservative, Harrow East)

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 (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

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.

Eddie Hughes (Conservative, Walsall North)

Anyone who has listened to the Grenfell Tower inquiry—especially the podcast, which provides a great summary of the challenges that were faced—will know that a number of tenants encountered members of staff who simply were not appropriately qualified to carry out their role. As a result, the tenants did not get the experience, support and help that they so rightly deserved. So, while I fully appreciate that it is appropriate to recruit for aptitude—this is a vocational area for many—it is incredibly appropriate to make sure that staff are trained for their role.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His expertise on this matter is welcome to all of us, and I thank him for all the work that he did as Minister on this really important body of work. He is right. That is why we have taken this away and are looking at what more we can do around professional qualifications, without that risk of reclassification. I hope that, following Committee stage, I will be able to report on what progress we have made before we reach Report stage.

It is important that we get this process right. We will continue the dialogue that we have already started with key stakeholders such as Grenfell United, Shelter and the CIH before we issue a statutory consultation on the direction itself. The regulator will then also consult on its draft standard before it comes into force. This Committee can be assured of our intent to take on board fully the views of both tenants and providers in developing the way forward. I have already spoken a little about compliance and sanctions if standards are not complied with, so I will leave that point there.

To summarise, the Government’s ambition is to build an empathetic, qualified and skilled social housing workforce. We want to bring about a wholesale organisational and cultural change, which we all recognise is desperately needed. We remain firm in our belief that our approach and the clause will deliver the professionalisation of the social housing sector, but we will of course continue to explore options for qualification requirements that would not trigger reclassification and would deliver the right outcomes for tenants. I commend the clause to the Committee and, on the basis of what I have outlined, I ask the shadow Minister not to move his new clause.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

We welcome the concession made by the Government in the other place on professional training and qualifications, and the resulting inclusion of the clause in the Bill. However, if we are to be certain that this legislation will expedite the professionalisation of the sector, we are absolutely convinced that the Government need to go still further.

As the Minister said, the clause amends section 194 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 by adding a proposed new section allowing the regulator to set regulatory standards on the competence and conduct of social housing managers, and making it clear that such standards may require providers to comply with specified rules relating to knowledge, skills and experience. However, the clause as drafted includes no requirement for those involved in the management of social housing to meet objective professional standards. We therefore agree with, among others, Grenfell United and Shelter, that it therefore risks introducing an insufficiently high bar for registered providers in respect of the professional training that they implement.

New clause 4 seeks to strengthen the Bill in relation to professionalisation by amending section 217 of the 2008 Act, concerning accreditation, to require managers of social housing to have appropriate objective qualifications and expertise.

Sally-Ann Hart (Conservative, Hastings and Rye)

On professional qualifications, I completely understand that we need to have properly qualified people overseeing those in social housing and giving them support, but most professions—whether lawyers, accountants, firemen or police—have a professional body. What professional body does the hon. Gentleman propose should be behind social housing, because I do not think that there is one, is there?

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I will touch on that. The Chartered Institute of Housing does a considerable amount of work in this area. For reasons I will come on to, however, the review that it is undertaking perhaps does not go as far as we need in the ways in which we think this legislation must be amended to drive professionalisation along the lines that many groups are calling for.

As I was saying, we think it is vital that those requirements should be put on the face of the Bill. As a result of the progressive residualisation of social housing over the past 40 years, it is now overwhelmingly let to those most in need. According to the latest English housing survey data, half of social renters are in the lowest income quintile, compared with 22% of private renters and 12% of owners; more than half of all households in such tenure have one or more members with a long-term illness or disability; and more than a quarter are 65 or over. We also know—this is certainly the case from my own post bag—that many social tenants find themselves facing intimidation by criminal gangs, domestic abuse and racial harassment, and that a minority are in desperate need of urgent moves to escape serious youth violence. We will return to that point when we debate new clause 1 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood.

As a result of frequently having little voice or power, and because there is a chronic shortage of social housing, tenants have few if any options to move if they receive an unprofessional service from their landlord. They face significant barriers when it comes to challenging poor conditions. We therefore must do more to ensure that those managing the homes of social tenants are properly qualified to do so and that they have undergone the necessary training, for example in anti-discriminatory and anti-oppressive practice, to ensure that they are treating tenants fairly and providing them with the necessary support. We rightly expect those working in other frontline services, such as education and social care, to have the professional qualifications and training necessary to carry out their work effectively, and to undergo continuous professional development. We should expect no less for those managing social homes.

Of course, any requirements placed on social housing managers in relation to mandatory qualifications and expertise would have to be introduced carefully and sensitively so as not to exacerbate existing challenges in the sector, such as those the Minister mentioned already around recruitment, retention and diversity. It is entirely feasible for the Government to ensure that that would be the case by implementing the provisions of new clause 4 or a Government new clause introduced on Report over an extended period of time, in incremental phases depending on the nature of the particular roles in question, or by providing a range of pathways to accreditation, as is the case in teaching and other professions. Not only that, but professionalisation could itself help address the challenges the sector faces by increasing the attractiveness of working within it, and making it a more valued profession.

In resisting attempts to ensure that those carrying out direct housing management functions are required to maintain certain objective professional standards, at previous stages the Government have offered all manner of reasons why doing so is unnecessary and potentially harmful. The arguments have included: that there is no clear evidence that specified qualifications in and of themselves lead to more professionally delivered services; that there is no single qualification that adequately meets the sector’s diverse requirements; and that landlords need flexibility to determine the right mix of qualifications and training for their staff.

The Minister has repeated some of those arguments today. As the right hon. Member for Maidenhead persuasively argued on Second Reading, those arguments are “extraordinary” and ones that we would rightly dismiss if they were applied to any other frontline social profession.

Arguably the most prominent objection advanced by Ministers has been that giving the Secretary of State the ability to set mandatory qualifications in social housing management would lead to the automatic reclassification of housing associations as public bodies by the Office for National Statistics, thereby bringing up to £90 billion of debt on to the public ledger, as the Minister said. While we do not in any way dismiss the risk, no hard evidence has been presented as to why the Government are certain that mandatory qualifications for specified social housing management roles would lead to reclassification. We have certainly seen no correspondence between the Department and the ONS or the Treasury to corroborate the assertion. If it exists, why do the Government not publish the information, and we can move on to a different discussion about professional qualifications and training?

We are far from convinced by the arguments that have been advanced by Ministers to date—not this Minister; other Ministers—in resisting the incorporation of a requirement for mandatory, objective qualifications and expertise into the Bill. Moreover, even if we received confirmation from the ONS that the inclusion of a requirement for mandatory qualifications for certain direct housing management functions would lead to the reclassification of housing associations, there would still be a case for strengthening clause 21 in terms of setting clearer expectations for what the regulator’s standard on conduct and competence should include—for example, registration with professional bodies, such as the one I mentioned earlier, and continuous professional development.

As the Chartered Institute of Housing, the UK’s main training and accreditation body for housing professionals, has argued that

“in relation to direct housing management functions, including resident involvement and anti-social behaviour work, there is a case for setting certain expectations of skills, knowledge and behaviour to ensure that staff provide good services and work well with and in response to residents.”

We appreciate fully that the Government did initiate a review of qualifications and professional training with a view to ensuring that social housing staff are better equipped to support tenants, deal effectively with complaints and make sure homes are of good quality, but that review in and of itself is not enough. The issues in question need to be properly addressed in the Bill. That is our view, the view of Grenfell United and the view of senior Members on the Government Benches.

The reason we are even debating this matter today, and why we feel so strongly that the Government must give serious consideration to strengthening clause 21, is that we know that far too many social housing tenants feel like they are not listened to or treated with respect, and a minority feels that they are actively discriminated against by the staff who oversee the services they are provided with. One need only look at the circumstances—the Minister has rightly made reference to this—surrounding the death of Awaab Ishak from respiratory arrest as a result of prolonged exposure to mould to recognise that poorly managed and maintained social housing can literally kill.

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 (Conservative, Harrow East)

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.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I do not want to engage the hon. Member in a prolonged discussion about “may” and “must”—we had enough of that with his private Member’s Bill. We are open to a discussion about how to proceed, but what we need at this stage is a commitment from the Minister that the Government are going to move on objective professional qualifications and training, rather than leaving the Bill as is. If that requires regulations to be moved in due course, we would be open to that, but let us see what the Government bring back on Report.

We will press our new clause to a vote at the appropriate moment to underscore how strongly we feel that this is one of the areas on which the Government must move by Report stage, to ensure that the legislation is as robust as it can possibly be.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

I will keep this brief. I am grateful to the shadow Minister for outlining his concerns, which were mentioned on Second Reading. The commitment I can give is that we are seriously looking at the issue and seeing how far we can go without that risk of reclassification. I appreciate his reasoning behind wanting to push the new clause to a vote; I hope in the meantime that he will be inclined to change his mind before we get to that point.

Clause 22 - Standards relating to information and transparency

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 9—Application of Freedom of Information Act 2000 to registered providers—

“(1) Within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must by order designate registered providers of social housing as public authorities for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.”

This new clause would bring registered providers of social housing within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

It is essential that social housing tenants should be able to access relevant information about their landlords and their homes. Greater transparency will empower tenants and drive providers to improve service delivery. Clause 22 extends the standard-setting powers of the Regulator of Social Housing to cover information and transparency. The clause will enable the regulator to deliver key social housing White Paper commitments, including setting standards relating to the new access to information scheme. We also expect information and transparency standards to include requirements for registered providers to share information on how landlords spend their income, executive pay and breaches of the standards.

When a provider is failing to meet these standards, the clause ensures that the regulator can take strong enforcement steps, including penalties, compensation and requiring changes in the management of the provider. Extending the regulator’s power to set regulatory standards to include standards on information and transparency will empower tenants to hold their landlord to account and strengthen overall consumer regulation.

New clause 9 seeks to require the Secretary of State to extend the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to registered providers of social housing, via statutory instrument, within six months of Royal Assent. I do not believe the amendment is necessary or advisable. The Government have worked closely with stakeholders to agree plans to deliver the access to information scheme for tenants of housing associations and other private registered providers, as promised in the social housing White Paper.

The new scheme will enable tenants of private registered providers and their representatives to request information from their landlords in a way similar to that available under the 2000 Act. It will also impose similar obligations on private registered providers. Tenants of private registered providers will be able to request information from their landlord on anything relating to the management of their homes. The new scheme will be integrated into the regulatory environment, tailored to the needs of tenants, and enforced as part of the regulator’s consumer standards.

If a tenant is unhappy with how a landlord has dealt with their request for information, they will be able to take their complaint to the housing ombudsman. The process will be the same as for other complaints, ensuring ease of use and accessibility for tenants. The ombudsman also has a strong understanding of the social tenant and landlord relationship, and an established relationship with the Regulator of Social Housing. Additionally, local authority providers, which would fall under the new clause, are already subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as public bodies.

Finally, extending freedom of information to registered providers would increase the level of Government control exercised over the sector. We are back to the potential argument around reclassification, which we are keen to avoid. The access to information scheme that we have laid out does not carry the same reclassification risk. On that basis, although I commend the excellent clause, I ask the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich to consider not pressing his new clause to a vote.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

At the outset, I should thank the Greater Manchester Law Centre for its support in drafting the new clause, the purpose of which is to probe the Government’s rationale for not using the Bill to bring registered providers of social housing within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act—other than local authorities, which, as the Minister rightly said, are already subject to it—and to press the Government to reconsider.

As the Minister is no doubt aware, this matter has been a perennial cause of concern. In 2011, the coalition Government announced that they would consult housing associations on bringing them within the scope of the Act; however, no further action was taken—almost certainly as a result of housing associations objecting. The issue resurfaced in the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire as a result of the Information Commissioner’s Office reporting to Parliament that it had experienced difficulties in accessing information relating to social housing and to the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation because the information was not covered by the Freedom of Information Act. The Information Commissioner at the time, Elizabeth Denham, made it clear that

“housing Associations are currently not subject to Freedom of Information Act because the Act does not designate them as public bodies. It is clear to me that this is a significant gap in the public’s right to know”.

We believe that she was right to highlight that gap, which remains to this day.

It is not simply that the public do not enjoy rights that they have never had; in the cases of housing associations that have had local authority stock transferred to their management, tenants and the public have lost freedom of information rights that they previously enjoyed when those homes were under local authority control. As I expected, the Minister has made the case that the issues are addressed by the provisions in clause 22 relating to information and transparency; however, those provisions are limited both in scope and specificity in terms of who may request the disclosure of information—it would appear that only tenants themselves have access to it, while journalists and others would not—and how the scheme will operate in practice.

Eddie Hughes (Conservative, Walsall North)

Perhaps the Minister can clarify this, but I understood that it was not just tenants, but people who were acting on their behalf. Can we confirm that? [Interruption.]

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Order. There is a Division in the House, so we will have to break for 15 minutes or so. We will resume as quickly as people can get back.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Before we suspended, the hon. Member for Walsall North pressed me on what he felt was an inaccuracy in my statement that journalists were not covered by the provisions. The Division has given me a chance to look at both the Bill and the explanatory notes. Unless he can find one, I see no mention of tenants or their representatives in the Bill. The provision in question, on page 18 of the Bill, merely states:

“the provision of information to their tenants of social housing”.

If it is the case that tenant representatives, including a broad definition of what that entails—including journalists—can access the information in question, that would be welcome.

However, not only is clause 22 limited to tenants themselves, but it provides no guarantees that an information and transparency scheme will be established. All it specifies is that the regulator “may set standards” for RPs in relation to those matters.

Although we can debate the efficacy of clause 22 in terms of whether the regulator’s ability to set standards relating to the provision of information and transparency will significantly increase RP accountability, it is clear that the clause does not provide for anything akin to that facilitated by the freedom of information regime. As the Information Commissioner’s Office put it, on welcoming the commitment to provide some information to tenants, the scope of the proposed access to information scheme

“appears narrower than FOI in a number of significant ways”.

The arguments against bringing housing associations within the Bill’s scope have been that it would inevitably result in reclassification by the Office for National Statistics and that RPs would be overwhelmed with FOI requests. However, the Scottish Government’s decision to extend coverage of Scotland’s freedom of information legislation to registered social landlords there, following a 2017 consultation—despite opposition from a majority of the housing associations affected—appears to undermine both those counter-arguments. A 2021 report by the Scottish Information Commissioner following the changes made there found that social landlords had responded well to being covered by the legislation, with a significant majority of organisations surveyed making it clear that they were responding effectively, were publishing more information as a result of FOI and were not overwhelmed with requests, with 57% reporting a small impact on staff workload. Importantly, despite being subject to the Freedom of Information Act, Scottish providers remain classified as private non-financial corporations by the ONS.

There are numerous examples from across the country of RPs either ignoring or refusing outright to respond to reasonable requests from tenants for information on a range of issues, including fire safety and health hazards, on the basis that they are not covered by the Freedom of Information Act. I note what the Minister said about tenants’ ability to take such concerns to the housing ombudsman, but we have already discussed what a lengthy and time-consuming process that is. Given that local authority RPs are already covered by FOI, we cannot understand why non-local authority RPs are not brought within the scope of that Act. Given that one of the central aims of the White Paper and the Bill is to engender a culture of transparency and accountability among RPs and that clause 22 is far narrower in scope than FOI, we believe it would be beneficial to the public if housing associations that are not publicly owned are brought within the scope of the 2000 Act. The UK Information Commissioner’s Office agrees, stating as recently as January 2022:

“The ICO believes that housing associations that provide social housing should be covered by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in the same way as housing provided by local authorities. We believe access to information laws should remain relevant and appropriate to how public services are delivered.”

I hope that the Minister has listened carefully to the arguments about the new clause, in particular the Scottish experience, and I look forward to her response. I will not press the new clause to a Division at this stage. Depending on her reply, we may return to it on Report.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for outlining his case so coherently. I go back to points that I made earlier. On the point about tenant representatives, it is certainly the intent that they will be able to make those requests on behalf of tenants. In some cases, that could include journalists—the hon. Member specifically commented on them. I hope that provides some assurance about intent. I am grateful to the hon. Member for not pressing the new clause to a Division for now.

Clause 24 - Standards relating to energy demand

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

The Government indicated an intention to vote against the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill by tabling an amendment to leave out the clause.

Clause 27 - Performance monitoring

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The proposed tenant satisfaction measures scheme, as outlined in the social housing White Paper and underpinned by the provisions in the clause, has the potential to be an extremely useful tool for tenants, both in gaining a better understanding of their landlords’ performance and in providing feedback that can assist in driving up standards. We support it.

Given the diversity of providers across the social housing sector, however, a sufficient degree of standardisation of the collecting, processing and presenting of the information relating to the new tenant satisfaction measures is crucial. If steps are not taken to ensure a prescribed collection method for obtaining the information in question so that, when published, it allows for rigorous like-for-like comparison, the obvious risk is that the TSM scheme will struggle to facilitate an accurate and fair comparison of performance between RPs, and its use as a means of informing regulation will be compromised. The regulator itself has acknowledged the potential limitations of the scheme, owing to the variation in methods of data collection and sampling across different organisations.

The question, therefore, is what might be done to address those potential pitfalls to ensure that the TSM scheme works as effectively as it can. I will be grateful if the Minister could give us a sense of how the Government believe that a degree of standardisation might be imposed upon the TSM process to facilitate an accurate and fair comparison of performance between providers. Also, she might ask her officials to consider whether it would be appropriate for the Government to commit to asking the regulator to review the method of collecting, processing and presenting the information in question within a certain timeframe, following any directions issued under proposed new section 198C coming into effect.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

I will write to the shadow Minister following our sitting to give him further clarity about the clause.

Clause 28 - Surveys

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 28, page 22, leave out lines 3 to 8 and insert—

“(8) Equipment or materials taken onto premises by virtue of subsection (7) may be left in a place on the premises until the survey has been carried out provided that—

(a) leaving the equipment or the materials in that place does not significantly impair the ability of an occupier to use the premises, or

(b) leaving the equipment or the materials on the premises is necessary for the purposes of carrying out the survey and it is not possible to leave it or them in a place that does not significantly impair the ability of an occupier to use the premises.”

This adjusts the power to leave equipment etc on premises so that it can only be left in a place that significantly impairs the ability of occupiers to use the premises if there is no other place on the premises it can be left which doesn’t impair such use.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 5 to 11.

Clause stand part.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

The regulator has an existing power to arrange for a survey of a premises where it suspects that a landlord may be failing to maintain the premises in accordance with its standards. The clause takes steps to ensure that those important surveys can take place more promptly by reducing the notice period required from 28 days for landlords and seven days for tenants to 48 hours for both parties. These are minimum requirements, and in the majority of cases the regulator would seek to give more than the minimum notice period, but the changes ensure that the regulator can act quickly in the most serious cases.

The clause also includes a power for the regulator to seek a warrant for entry when necessary, meaning that surveys can take place when required to ensure that the regulator can identify problems and take appropriate action. In the most serious cases, following a survey the regulator will be able to arrange for emergency remedial action to take place, as set out under clause 31, to address an imminent risk to the health and safety of tenants if the provider fails to take action required by the regulator.

Committee members may be aware that we have stipulated in the Bill that equipment or materials can be left on the premises only if it is necessary for the survey or emergency remedial action to go ahead, or otherwise if that does not significantly impair an occupier when using the premises.

Government amendments 4 to 11 are common-sense amendments designed to ensure that regulatory activities do not unnecessarily obstruct or inconvenience residents of social housing. Our changes are slight and intend to strengthen the Bill’s provisions to the benefit of tenants. They require that even if it is necessary to leave equipment or materials on the premises for surveys or emergency remedial action, they must not be left in a way that causes significant inconvenience to occupiers if they can be left in another place where this inconvenience does not occur. This means that thought must be given to minimising the impact of a survey or works on occupiers, including the impact on a tenant’s use of the common parts.

Those small, technical changes are intended to ensure that a survey or emergency remedial action can be conducted, but in such a way that is mindful of the impact on tenants and courteous to them. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Clause 29 - Inspection plan

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 29, page 23, line 36, leave out lines 36 to 39 and insert—

“(a) the inspection of every registered provider within four years of the commencement of this Act,

(b) the inspection of every registered provider at intervals of no longer than four years thereafter, and”.

This amendment would ensure that the regulator is required to carry out regular inspections of every registered provider.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

We strongly support the introduction of routine inspections of social landlords. We therefore welcome clause 29. I would like to take the opportunity once again to commend the efforts of Lord Best in the other place and the perseverance of Grenfell United, which ensured that the Bill was strengthened.

Routine inspections of social housing landlords must be central to the new consumer regulatory regime introduced by the Bill if tenants are to have confidence that landlords will be monitored appropriately and deterred from risking breaches that could undermine health and wellbeing. The welcome removal of the serious detriment test in its entirety through the provisions in clause 26 legally allows the regulator to adopt a proactive approach to monitoring and enforcing consumer standards.

In our view, such an approach should be premised on inspections that are at short notice, rigorous, thorough and that include direct engagement with tenants who can highlight issues of concern, thereby helping the regulator determine whether a given provider is meeting the enhanced consumer standards introduced by the Bill.

Clause 29 amends section 201 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, adding a new section 201A to require the regulator to make, and take appropriate steps to implement, a plan for carrying out inspections. The plan must be published, kept under review, and revised or replaced where appropriate. However, the nature of the plan and issues such as the types of RPs that should be subject to regular inspections, the frequency of those inspections, and the circumstances in which RPs should be subject to ad hoc inspections are not prescribed on the face of the Bill, instead being left to the regulator to determine in due course.

While we recognise the need for the regulator to have a significant degree of discretion when it comes to formulating the inspections plan, we believe that the Bill should be more prescriptive in two important respects. First, we believe it is essential that the Bill make clear that all RPs, large or small, will be subject to inspections by the regulator. Secondly, we believe it is essential that the Bill ensures that each RP will be subject to routine inspections.

Amendment 16 seeks to achieve both those objectives by specifying which landlords will be inspected and the maximum duration of time between each inspection they are subject to. It does so by replacing proposed new section 201A(1)(a) and (b) of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, as inserted by clause 29—for those following in the Bill, that is lines 36 to 39 on page 23—with a requirement that every RP must be inspected within four years of the commencement of the Act and then inspected at intervals of no longer than four years thereafter.

We believe it is entirely reasonable to detail in the Bill the minimum expectations for the regulator’s inspections plan. The policy paper published alongside the Bill in June made clear that it would enable Ofsted-style inspections of social housing providers by the regulator. The Education Act 2005 that introduced those inspections specified that every school in England would be subject to them and that they would be inspected on a routine basis at least once every three years. Amendment 16 takes that arrangement and applies it to RPs, subject to the enhanced consumer standards introduced by the Bill.

The amendment deliberately does not specify the precise frequency of inspections, merely requiring that they take place at least once every four years—the timeframe proposed by the Government in their 2020 White Paper in relation to the largest landlords. In doing so, the amendment would allow the regulator to determine the precise frequency and nature of individual inspections based on the size of the landlord and its risk profile as determined by means of desktop review.

We believe amendment 16 would preserve the regulator’s operational independence and flexibility when it comes to formulating and implementing the inspections plan now required by clause 29, while strengthening the clause to ensure that key minimum expectations are specified and that tenants can have real confidence in the new inspections regime as a result. I hope the Minister will consider accepting it.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

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 (Conservative, Harrow East)

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.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

Absolutely—this is all about driving up standards. The plan is that the regulator will aim to inspect landlords with over 1,000 homes at least every four years, and those at highest risk could be subject to more frequent inspections. As I say, the regulator is doing detailed work to see how best to implement the measure, and it is important that we let it get on with that work before putting anything into the Bill. On that basis, I hope that the shadow Minister will withdraw the amendment.

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

I rise to support amendment 16 on the basis of 17 years’ experience of Ofsted. We know that unless a school knows that Ofsted is coming, problems begin. A substantial proportion of outstanding schools that were not inspected for five years have recently been graded as needing improvement. Organisations need to know that somebody is coming, and coming in a reasonable time.

I simply do not understand why we would oppose registered providers being inspected once every four years, or why we would choose to inspect large housing associations but not smaller ones. Are housing associations with 1,000 tenants or fewer not just as susceptible to poor standards, and are those residents not entitled to live under the same inspection regime?

If regulation just requires looking at the paperwork, things can be made to look brilliant. Who here has not been told by their housing provider that it does not have a problem because 80% of tenants say that its repairs system is fantastic? When we dig into the detail, we appreciate how few people respond to customer service requests and just how hard some of our constituents find it to complain or get themselves heard. We need a clear and strong inspection regime.

Eddie Hughes (Conservative, Walsall North)

The hon. Lady makes a valid point. That is why we will do customer satisfaction surveys that have been agreed with the regulator. The format has been agreed. We will be able to compare housing associations and their relative performance in order to drill down and improve that performance. I understand her point, but the Government are making significant strides with the regulator to try to drive up customer and tenant engagement to ensure that we are genuinely getting the opinion of the majority, rather than a minority.

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

That is not possible. We cannot construct a customer survey as emphatic or successful as that, because we have a broad span of residents and tenants, with different lives that determine whether they fill in forms. We as politicians, and people who deliver leaflets and get others to do so on our behalf, know that some people will always respond and others never will, even if, objectively speaking, they need to do so.

Sara Britcliffe (Conservative, Hyndburn)

Surely, if a tenant is aggrieved with the process, they are likely to fill in the survey response.

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

I have been an MP for 25 years and a member of the Labour party for 42 years. I am really interested in political communication and getting people to respond. I have to tell the hon. Member that a substantial number of people will never respond, and it is often those who live in the most dire circumstances. If we are serious about improving standards, we need the most structured inspection system that we can afford—I appreciate that it is public money.

I do not deny that anything done in the Bill is a step forward and an improvement, but if we are going to spend public money on behalf of some of our most vulnerable constituents, we want to make it the best-spent money that we can. Let us get it right. We are not starting with a clean piece of paper; we are starting with 17 years of experience with Ofsted and years of experience with the Care Quality Commission. We know a great deal about how inspection regimes work.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

On the point about making sure we get the system right, the hon. Lady mentioned public funds, which is clearly a crucial issue. That is precisely why the regime is being designed so that those who are most at risk will be inspected more frequently. That includes not just larger landlords but smaller landlords where there is a clear indication of issues that have been found previously. Inspections can also be done on a more reactive basis. If a report goes to the regulator to suggest that there is a specific issue with a smaller landlord, the risk profile will be there and the landlord could be inspected much more frequently.

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

I am glad that there will be reactive inspections. I am not suggesting that there should not be. What I am saying is that, along with reactive inspections, there should be a regular and rigid routine of inspections. That way, everybody knows that they will have an inspection once during a four-year period. That does not seem to me to be over-regulation, certainly given recent events in social housing stock.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I have to say that I am slightly disappointed with the Minister’s speech. I am not convinced by her arguments. There is clearly a debate here about how prescriptive we should be in the Bill as to the regulator’s functions. I am convinced that we need to be slightly more prescriptive. I say that for a couple of reasons.

First, my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden made a good point on the size of providers. It has certainly been my experience that some of the smaller providers are the most egregious when it comes to standards, partly because they do not face the reputational risk, or the extent of investigations by Members of Parliament or others into their activities, that some of the larger providers do. I do not think the size of providers should play a part in who is inspected.

We think it is important that all providers are inspected within the four-year period. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend: it is not enough to base a reactive inspections regime, to the extent that that is a part of the process provided by the clause, on surveys or desktop studies alone. We do not leave schools out of the Ofsted inspections process because we are not getting complaints about them. We inspected all schools routinely within a certain period.

Secondly, to the extent that the amendment is prescriptive, I do not think that it is particularly onerous on the regulator. All we are asking for is an inspection within four years of the Bill receiving Royal Assent and every four years thereafter. That four-year timeframe was proposed by the Government in their White Paper; we did not pluck it out of thin air. I think it is entirely reasonable to ask for an inspections regime to take place on that basis. If the regulator needs the resources to carry out those inspections, let us ensure that it has them. However, I struggle to understand why the Government do not feel they can add an element of prescription to the inspections plan in the way that amendment 16 proposes. We will therefore press the amendment to a Division.

Clause 30 - Performance improvement plans

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

We welcome the introduction of performance improvement plans as a sensible measure to drive up standards where registered providers are falling short. I would, however, like to raise a few issues in relation to how these plans will work in practice.

We note that the tenant is provided with a copy of the performance improvement plan, which is drawn up where a registered provider has failed to reach a statutory standard for properties under their responsibility, only if the tenant makes a written request for one. Given the strong case for ensuring that all affected tenants know how their landlord is performing and what decisions they are making, we question whether that is sufficient. We note that this matter was also explored during Committee stage in the other place.

In the material it supplied in relation to consideration of the Bill, the Chartered Institute of Housing argued:

“Consideration should be given as to how tenants will be alerted should any poor performance lead to the regulator requiring a performance improvement plan”.

The Local Government Association has also put on record its desire to see the publication of guidance on the regulator’s requirements and timescales for preparing and implementing performance improvement plans.

In the light of these points, I hope the Minister could clarify, either today or in writing—I am happy to take another letter from her—the operation of the provisions in this clause in relation to the following. First, how will tenants be notified if the poor performance of their registered provider leads to the regulator initiating the process of preparing an improvement plan? Will tenants, for example, have the chance to input their views about the problems identified and the measures specified for improvement in these plans?

Secondly, what is the rationale for specifying that tenants can only request a copy of the plan if they require one, rather than being provided with the plan as a matter of course along with any information about what it is, why it came about and what changes they can expect to see as a result—an arrangement that strikes us as more in keeping with the aims outlined in the Government White Paper? Thirdly, is the Minister able to tell us when the guidance on the regulator’s requirements and timescales for preparing and implementing performance improvement plans will be published? Lastly, does the Minister expect that performance improvement plans will be used as a first resort to give underperforming landlords the chance to improve before the regulator considers more punitive measures?

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his questions. I will follow up in writing and provide some more clarity. Where there is a performance improvement plan in place, the provider is required to publish that, so it will be freely available to tenants and, indeed, to members of the public.

Clause 31 - Emergency remedial action

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 31, page 27, line 28, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would ensure that emergency remedial action takes place on every occasion where the conditions in subsections (2) to (4) of section 225B inserted by clause 31, are met rather than being discretionary.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Amendment 17, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North, is extremely straightforward, and I will therefore be very brief in speaking to it.

Clause 31 relates to emergency remedial action. It amends section 225 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, adding new sections 225A to 225H, which enable the regulator to arrange for an authorised person to take emergency remedial action in instances where a tenant faces an imminent health and safety risk. We strongly support it. The purpose of amendment 17 is simply to ensure that emergency repairs of the kind proposed must take place, rather than may take place—with apologies to the hon. Member for Harrow East, we return to the “may” and “must” distinction—on every occasion where the relevant conditions have been met.

It is worth briefly touching on what those conditions—as set out in proposed new section 225B(2) to (4)—are, because they are stringent, which is why we think that the regulator should be required to act in all instances. For the premises of a social housing provider to be considered appropriate for possible emergency remedial action under clause 31, a survey of its condition must have been completed; the premises must have been found to be improperly maintained; its condition has to have been found to cause an imminent risk of serious harm to the health or safety of the tenants who reside in it or neighbouring residents; and the provider has to have failed to comply with an enforcement notice requiring it to take action to bring the premises up to standard.

Our contention is that any premises managed by any provider found to have satisfied all those tests should automatically receive emergency repairs, rather than merely be considered for them. As such, we think the replacement of the offending “may” with a “must” is vital. I hope the Minister will give the issue considered thought.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

It is the responsibility of every registered provider of social housing to ensure that they provide safe and decent housing to their tenants. That means maintaining properties in accordance with the Regulator of Social Housing’s standards and addressing problems issues quickly where problems are identified.

Where a provider cannot or will not address issues that risk the health and safety of tenants, it is essential that the regulator can act. The clause therefore allows the regulator to authorise persons to enter a property and conduct emergency remedial works in cases where failings risk causing serious harm to tenants. For the regulator to do so, it must first conduct a survey of the premises, be satisfied that the provider has failed to maintain the premises in accordance with relevant standards and that the failure poses a serious health and safety risk, and give an enforcement notice requiring those failures to be addressed. If those grounds are met, the regulator may step in and take emergency remedial action. The amendment moved by the shadow Minister would mean that the regulator must take emergency remedial action when the relevant grounds are met.

I have made it clear several times that nothing is more important to the Government than keeping people safe in their homes. Sadly, however, I cannot accept the amendment, because we feel it is essential that the regulator retains the independence and flexibility to determine where it is appropriate to use the power set out in the clause. That reflects regulatory best practice, whereby the regulator has the operational independence to regulate the sector effectively by deciding which of its enforcement powers to use in any given case.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

If a provider has failed all the tests in the clause, what other powers might the regulator use if it did not feel that emergency remedial action was necessary? What other things might it do to address a series of failings that triggered its ability to act along the lines we have discussed?

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

We have talked, for example, about enforcement notices and possible fines, which are clearly measures available to the regulator. One of the things that we are concerned about at this stage—this has been drawn out at various points today—is binding the hands of the regulator. We do not want to commit it to one course of action.

Maggie Throup (Conservative, Erewash)

Does the Minister agree that we are providing the framework for the regulator? As politicians, we should not be telling it how to do its job. If we make the regulations and powers strong enough and give the regulator teeth, whether the word is “may” or “must” becomes irrelevant, because it will take action anyway.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

My hon. Friend makes the point extremely well and much more strongly than I did. She is absolutely right. We are setting out the framework of what the regulator can use and will have access to. It will have a full suite of powers available to ensure that it is looking out for tenants and that they are in the best possible housing.

To summarise, we do not wish to bind the hands of the regulator too stringently. We want to give it a suite of powers and the operational independence to choose which powers to use. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich to consider withdrawing his amendment.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I appreciate the Minister’s concern about binding the regulator too rigidly. I push back slightly against the point made by the hon. Member for Erewash: I think it is wrong to say—the experience of recent years shows this—that just because we give a regulator a power, it necessarily uses it, and certainly not in a proactive way. At this stage, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 44 - Short title

New Clause 1 - Regulator duty to ensure continuity of secure tenancy in cases of threat to safety

Helen Hayes (Labour, Dulwich and West Norwood)

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. The new clause proposes a small but significant amendment to housing law to give additional security to social housing tenants who suffer the consequences of a threat of serious violence. The clause arises from my experience of representing my constituent Georgia, an NHS worker whose teenage son was threatened by gang members. Georgia was a housing association tenant who had lived in her home for nine years. She and her children were happy in their home, which she had recently redecorated—then her neighbours told her that one afternoon, while she was at work, they had heard loud banging on her door. Georgia eventually coaxed out of her son the information that he had witnessed something that local gang members had not wanted him to see, and they had come to her home looking for him. Georgia contacted the police, who told her that she had to move immediately for her family’s safety. She got in touch with her housing association, which told her that it was the council’s responsibility to provide emergency housing. The council placed Georgia and her children in temporary accommodation, which was in another borough, of poor quality and expensive. Georgia’s children did not have enough space, the flat was damp and dirty, it was hard for her children to do their homework and Georgia started to suffer from panic attacks that affected her work.

By the time that Georgia’s friend got in touch with me because she was worried about Georgia’s health and the wellbeing of her children, they had been in the temporary accommodation for six months, and her housing association had started the process of ending her tenancy because she was no longer living in her flat. The consequence of this, in the context of the UK’s housing crisis, would have been Georgia and her children being added to the statistics of homeless households, in temporary accommodation—potentially indefinitely—and at the bottom of the housing waiting list. No one should become homeless because their child is threatened.

In one London borough, 47 housing association tenants—at the time that I did this research, earlier this year—have required homelessness assistance from the council as a result of a threat of violence since 2019. Across the country, that means that thousands of families have had to leave their home each year, with their secure tenancies potentially at risk, on top of having to rebuild their lives in a new area. Homelessness is fundamentally destabilising, involving the loss of a sanctuary and a place in one’s community. It is deeply traumatising to have to make an emergency move because of a threat of violence and start again somewhere else. Our housing system should do everything possible to help families in such circumstances to make the transition to a new, permanent home as soon as possible to limit the harm caused by that threat.

I am delighted that the new clause has the support of both Shelter and the National Housing Federation. Shelter has also highlighted the case of Corey Junior Davis, or CJ, whose mum had asked her housing association for an urgent move after her son had been threatened and told her that he feared for his life. CJ’s mum had done everything possible to keep her son safe, including sending him to stay with relatives in a different area, but six months after her initial request, while they were still waiting for a move, CJ was shot and killed. I have also met several constituents who have sent their children away to keep them safe, because they know what the consequences of an emergency move to temporary accommodation would mean and they fear those consequences. That is not a choice that any parent should have to make.

The new clause would have the effect of requiring social landlords to protect the tenancy rights of secure tenants who have had to move due to a threat of serious violence, and would place a duty on social landlords to co-operate in a situation in which the tenant’s current landlord does not hold stock in an area that is considered safe for the tenant to move to. The threshold for these new duties to be triggered is that the police consider an emergency move to be necessary. Georgia was troubled by what had happened to her son, but it had not occurred to her that she would have to move out of the home that she loved until the police said that that was necessary to safeguard her child’s life. The group of people who would be protected by the new clause are not net additional demand on the social housing system; they are already secure social tenants, and the current social home that they are vacating would of course be returned to the landlord to be let to a new tenant.

There are many reasons why people become homeless due to no fault on their part. The clause will not protect all of them, but I am tabling this new clause for two reasons. The first is that the loss of a secure social tenancy, and effectively going to the bottom of an impossibly long housing waiting list, is far too high a price to pay for being the victim of a threat of violence. Georgia and her children suffered a grave detriment, simply because some violent gang members decided to threaten her son. The second is that serious violence is a scourge on the lives of all those that it affects. Far too many young people are living with the deep trauma of things that they have witnessed or friends that they have lost to knife or gun crime. We have a duty to do everything possible to stop the cycle of violence and the trauma that it causes in our communities. Supporting the victims of threats of violence to regain stability and move on with their lives is one way in which we can do that. Plunging victims into the unstable, often appalling, world of temporary accommodation has the opposite effect. We have the opportunity to change that.

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 (Conservative, Harrow East)

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?

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Order. This is a very long intervention.

Bob Blackman (Conservative, Harrow East)

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

Helen Hayes (Labour, Dulwich and West Norwood)

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.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I rise briefly to support my hon. Friend’s new clause, Georgia’s law. She made an extremely powerful case for it. I believe that it is sensible and proportionate, and will have a significant impact. I am sure that many hon. Members present have dealt with the kind of cases that she outlined—I certainly have. We are talking about a small but significant minority of tenants in England, but they find themselves, as the hon. Member for Harrow East said, in the exceptional circumstances of a police referral. All the new clause asks for is the protection of their tenancy rights, which should not be lost when they are forced to move, and greater co-operation between registered providers.

It is no surprise that the new clause is supported by organisations such as the NHF and Shelter. I think this is a very strong new clause, and I very much hope that the Government are minded to act on this issue, if not today then on Report. It is a crucial provision and will benefit the lives of many of our constituents.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood for tabling the new clause and for her engagement on the issue some weeks ago when we met to discuss it. I am grateful to her for raising the case of Georgia and her boys, and that of CJ. They are both horrendous cases, which give us all food for thought. I thank her for her words on the need to reduce violence more widely. That is something I am incredibly passionate about on a personal level too.

Before I begin, I want to clarify some technicalities. The new clause would provide protection where registered providers have granted their tenants secure tenancies. Secure tenancies are only granted by local authorities, so we will talk to the intention of the new clause, which is I believe around assured tenancies, as well as those in secure tenancies given by local authorities that are registered with the regulator.

We do not expect anyone who is threatened with violence to feel like they cannot move to safety for fear of losing their security of tenure. There are already a number of policies in place that seek to protect people at risk of violence who are in need of urgent rehousing. If a local authority grants a victim of domestic abuse, for example, a new tenancy for reasons connected with the abuse, it is required to give them a secure lifetime tenancy, rather than a tenancy with a fixed term.

Local authorities are also required to give people who need to move for their safety reasonable preference for social housing under section 166A(3) of the Housing Act 1996. Chapter 4 of the statutory guidance encourages local authorities to give additional preference or high priority to those fleeing violence, including intimidated witnesses, those escaping serious antisocial behaviour and people fleeing domestic violence.

By extension, those protections can be applied to private registered providers through duties to co-operate with their local authority in housing people with priority. Most private registered providers let 50% to 100% of their tenancies via nominations from their local authority. The current approach, which considers applicants for social housing on a case-by-case basis, and retains some flexibility, is the most appropriate means of determining whether a household should be granted a new tenancy.

The new clause would have the effect of requiring registered providers to relocate tenants and provide them with a new tenancy agreement. As we know, there are sadly many people with urgent housing needs who need to move immediately—for example, families who are living in conditions that pose a serious risk to their health. Going further than the existing protections by requiring registered providers to prioritise people fleeing violence above others would undermine some of the flexibilities given to housing providers to respond to the specific requirements of those in urgent need of social housing locally.

It is a fundamental right of the landlord to determine who they grant a tenancy to and who lives in their property. Retaining that right is key to registered providers being able to achieve their goal of creating safe and stable communities. It is therefore important to retain some flexibility for social landlords to decide their policy on allocations and who to house. That is integral to the effective functioning of the wider system.

Finally, as I am sure the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood will be aware, we are taking steps to reform tenancy law to protect the security of tenure for social tenants. After section 21 is removed, all tenancies given by private registered providers will have greater security of tenure.

On that basis, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the new clause. I am very willing to work with her to see what more can be done in this area to prevent any more cases like that of Georgia and her boys emerging.

Helen Hayes (Labour, Dulwich and West Norwood)

I thank my hon. Friend the shadow Minister for his support for the new clause. I am grateful to the Minister for her engagement and discussions prior to Committee stage, and for her comments just now. I would be more than happy to work with the Minister to resolve any drafting clarifications and on the intention of the new clause.

The Minister mentioned existing protections, but surely if they were working as they should, cases such as Georgia’s would simply not be arising in their current number. When I first spoke to the local authority that covers the part of my constituency where Georgia was resident, it said that registered providers, housing associations, fall back on the local authority’s duty to provide emergency accommodation. It says that happens all the time, and that there is no regard for what happens to the tenant, given all the destabilisation that comes from a very long time in temporary accommodation.

Certainly in London, on paper the local authority has a duty to provide emergency accommodation and then to rehouse that resident. There is nothing in the priority need criteria, however, that would have given Georgia or her family any significant level of priority need—certainly not a sufficient level of priority, because the violence would not have been taken into account. She was housed with a roof over her head in another borough, where it was thought it was safe for her to be. As it turned out, it was not safe for her, but it was judged to be a borough distant from where the initial threat was made. There was nothing in her circumstances to give her a level of priority band above about band C. She was never going to be rehoused, and because of the consequence of a threat to her son, she went from being a secure tenant in a very stable situation to facing, realistically, an indefinite period of time in temporary accommodation.

I simply do not believe that that situation is fair, and the current system is not functioning as it should. I acknowledge that there are many people who need to move and that our housing system is absolutely full of people who have a pressing and real need to do so. We also have a duty as a society to prevent harm from serious violence, and that is why that additional protection is needed over and above the current protections in law outlined by the Minister. I am happy to withdraw the new clause, but it is my intention to re-table it on Report, when I will divide the House if there is insufficient evidence of progress, because I strongly believe that this needs to get on the statute book. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 4 - 217A Professional qualifications and other requirements

New Clause 5 - Arrangements for boards of registered providers

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

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

This is, quite consciously, a probing amendment. As a result of the Regulation of Social Housing (Influence of Local Authorities) (England) Regulations 2017, the amount of local authority influence over private registered providers was reduced through the loss of local authority voting rights and restrictions on the percentage of officers a local authority may nominate as board members. The rationale for that reduction of influence was that it was necessary for the Government to relinquish sufficient control to allow the Office for National Statistics to reverse its 2015 classification of housing associations into the public sector following the Cameron Government’s decision to force registered providers to cut social sector rents by 1% a year for four years, with all that that entailed for the ability of social landlords to fund essential services, spend on repairs and maintenance, carry out retrofit work and build new social homes. If you recall, Sir Edward, it was done as a means of slashing the housing benefit bill.

While we are not making a case for local authority influence over private registered providers to return to what it was prior to late 2017, we believe there may be value in considering once again whether the right balance is being struck when it comes to representation on boards of registered providers. New clause 5 seeks to probe the Government on this matter by proposing to enable the regulator to set standards in relation to the representation of both tenant and local councillors on boards of registered providers.

Ensuring that there are minimum levels of tenant and elected councillor representation on the boards of registered providers could improve landlord governance and decision making. It could help ensure that the new proactive consumer regulatory regime introduced by the Bill operates effectively. Free from the conflict of interest that employees of registered providers would face, tenant and councillor representatives could assist the work of the regulator in ensuring that consumer standards are adhered to by identifying specific issues of concern as part of the routine inspections provided for by clause 29.

I was glad to hear the Secretary of State, in his appearance before the Select Committee on Monday 21 November, recognise that the role of local representatives and tenants in the management and governance of providers was a “live issue” and that improvements were needed with regard to it. In proposing this amendment, we simply wish to ascertain the Government’s view as to the potential merits of enabling the regulator to set standards in relation to the representation of both tenant and local councillors on boards of registered providers. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

As the shadow Minister rightly outlined, new clause 5 seeks to ensure representation of tenants and councillors on the board of registered providers. While I agree with the sentiment behind the amendment—that we must ensure that the voice of social housing tenants is heard loud and clear in matters that affect them—I am afraid I must disagree that it is the best approach to take.

Tenants speak from their lived experience, which can bring a different and valuable perspective to that of other board members. They should be listened to at all stages of decision making. However, we do not think that mandating the inclusion of a tenant board member is necessarily the best way to achieve that aim.

Eddie Hughes (Conservative, Walsall North)

I have some experience of this, having been a councillor representative on the board of Walsall Housing Group at a time when it was a prescribed position. I distinctly remember a couple of instances prior to my being on the board when the Conservative spot was decided by random voting or people having been coerced into filling it. That seemed completely inappropriate.

When I became chair of the board of that group, we took a different view—to adopt a skills-based approach, determining that some of the skills would be best met by those who had experience of being a tenant. It was not prescribed that we were saving places for tenants; it just became a natural order of business that they would have the appropriate skills and experience to fill some of the vacancies on the board. Speaking from personal experience, too prescriptive an approach can sometimes lead to unintended consequences: people filling a place just because they need somebody under a certain heading to fill it.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

I thank my hon. Friend for setting out his own experience. It is an area the Government are very concerned about, and it comes back to the Committee’s debate today about how prescriptive we should be in the Bill.

Some housing providers already have tenants on boards, and they have been effective in championing residents’ voices, but this is not the case for everyone. Tenant board members are required to put their legal duties as a board member before their role as the representative for residents, which can cause confusion and conflict. Other structures can be just as successful and involve a more diverse range of tenants in decision making. That can range from formal consultations, focus groups and local events to appointed board observers and membership of panels focused on scrutiny, procurement or complaints that feed in at all stages of the decision-making process. We want to retain a flexible approach that promotes tenant empowerment and engagement for all tenants without forcing the statutory duties of a board member on a single individual.

The Regulator of Social Housing already sets standards for the outcomes that landlords must achieve in respect of tenant engagement. It will review, consult and update them as part of the new consumer regulation regime. The regulator will also ask landlords to demonstrate how they engage with tenants and require them to report on tenant satisfaction measures, as part of their assessment and inspection of landlords in the new regime. That is important because for the first time it makes tenants’ experiences a measure by which housing providers will be judged and held to account by the regulator.

There will also be improved transparency measures for tenants to be able hold their landlord to account. They need to know how it is performing and what decisions it is making. That information needs to be easily available. Earlier today we touched on the access to information scheme that we will introduce. That will enable tenants of private registered providers to request information from their landlords.

In addition, we have made funding available for a residents’ opportunities and empowerment programme, which will provide training to residents across the country on how to engage effectively and hold landlords to account. I hope that I have provided enough reassurance for the shadow Minister to withdraw his new clause.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I thank the Minister for that useful response and the hon. Member for Walsall North for his contribution. The Minister touched on an interesting issue when exploring the details of the Bill before today. There is not only potential for confusion but potential conflict about the role of a board member, particularly in the case of an elected councillor.

I was interested to read when looking into the death of Awaab Ishak that two councillors were removed by the board of Rochdale Boroughwide Housing for drawing attention to their concerns about buildings being pulled down—I am not saying that was anything specifically related to his death, but it related to concerns they had about a particular decision by the provider that was in conflict with their role.

In general terms, I understand the concern about being too prescriptive. This area should perhaps be kept under review. Whether it is best practice by some registered providers, guidance or whatever it might be, it is important to keep under review how to ensure that we can get the most representative and effective board of registered providers. As I said, this is a probing new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 6 - Standards relating to consumer matters

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

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

In rising to speak to the final new clause, I thank hon. Members for their indulgence. They have listened to me a lot today.

Eddie Hughes (Conservative, Walsall North)

Quality stuff!

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Absolutely right.

We finish with an important new clause. It relates to what comes under the rubric of consumer standards as defined by the Bill. Since its initial publication in June, the Bill has been improved in several important respects. Today we have urged the Government to go further in relation to some areas and we will continue to do so, but we welcome the introduction of the consumer standards in relation to safety, transparency, competence and conduct.

However, there are other matters of real importance to social tenants that the Bill, as drafted, does not extend new consumer standards to. They include major repairs or improvement works, estate regeneration, service charges, advice and assistance in relation to the prevention of homelessness and urgent moves resulting from the risk of domestic abuse or serious violence.

New clause 6 simply seeks to ensure that the regulator has the freedom to set standards for registered providers in respect of each of those areas of housing management by amending section 193 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 to include them within the scope of what is considered a consumer matter.

There is arguably a need for the regulator to carry out a thorough consultation about consumer standards to better understand what housing management issues currently matter most to tenants. However, we know both from organisations providing housing support, guidance and expert advice services and, I would argue, from our own postbags, that the issues covered by new clause 6 are important to tenants. There is an arguable case for placing them in the Bill to at least allow the regulator, which has probably consulted and developed them, to set consumer standards in relation to some of these issues at a later date. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

As the shadow Minister outlined, the new clause seeks to amend the Regulator of Social Housing’s powers to set consumer standards in a number of ways. All the issues that he raised are important. Although I cannot accept the amendment, I will seek to address the issues raised in turn.

On major repairs and improvements, all social housing landlords should be delivering decent social housing and prioritising repairs and improvements that need to be made to ensure that housing is up to standard. The regulator is already able to set standards relating to the nature, extent and quality of accommodation, and the facilities and services, provided. That can include specified rules about maintenance, which would cover major repairs.

The regulator’s current homes standard already requires registered providers to provide a repairs and maintenance service that meets the needs of tenants, with the objective of getting repairs and improvements right the first time. The regulator will consult on and revise the standards following the passage of legislation and the issuance of Government directions.

On estate regeneration, let me be clear that I agree that landlords should be adequately planning for major regeneration projects and delivering planned maintenance. However, including that area as part of the regulator’s standard-setting remit is not necessary. As I have noted before, the regulator already has the powers required to set standards required relating to maintenance and repairs. Those standards apply to all homes, regardless of whether they are part of a regeneration project.

Existing legislation also enables the regulator to set standards relating to the contribution of landlords to the environmental, social and economic wellbeing of the areas in which their property is situated, which relates closely to the intended outcomes of regeneration projects. The regulator already sets expectations about neighbourhood management in its consumer standards and will be consulting on revised expectations under the proposed new standards, once the Bill has been passed.

It remains the responsibility of landlords to effectively manage their stock and deliver decent housing for their residents. We believe that a specific standard-setting power for regeneration is unnecessary. Effective asset management is already a focus of the in-depth assessments that the regulator conducts, which mean that landlords have to demonstrate to the regulator that they are able to maintain adequate levels of investment in the homes that they are responsible for.

I turn to service charges. The Government’s policy statement on rents for social housing encourages registered providers of social housing to keep any service charge increases within the consumer prices index plus 1% per year—the current limit on annual increases in social housing rents—in order to help ensure that charges stay affordable. Following our recent consultation on social housing rent increases, the Chancellor announced as part of his autumn statement that the Government will cap the increase in social rents at a maximum of 7% in 2023-24. In line with the proposal set out in our consultation, we will amend the policy statement to encourage providers to apply the 7% limit to any service charge increases in 2023-24.

Our policy statement also states that tenants should be supplied with clear information on how service charges are set; in the case of social rent properties, providers are expected to identify service charges separately from the rent charge. The new clause is not necessary to facilitate the regulator’s requiring that transparency from providers.

Furthermore, service charges are already governed by legislation in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which states that service charges can be charged only to the extent that they are reasonably incurred and that enforcement of that is via the courts. Consequently, it is not appropriate or necessary to add to the Bill a specific standard-setting power relating to service charges.

I move on to the issue of homelessness. Let me be crystal clear: the Government are committed to preventing homelessness, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North on the incredible work he did on that as a Minister. Since the introduction of the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, more than half a million households have been supported into secure accommodation. We are investing £2 billion over the next three years into addressing homelessness and rough sleeping, and in September we published our bold new strategy “Ending rough sleeping for good”. We have also provided £316 million this year for the homelessness prevention grant, which local authorities can use flexibly to meet their homelessness objectives—including to work with providers to prevent evictions.

I am not in a position to accept the new clause, as I believe the existing legislation is sufficient to achieve the outcome that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich is seeking. The regulator’s existing tenancy standard already requires social landlords to develop and provide services that will support tenants to maintain their tenancy and prevent unnecessary evictions. The regulator’s standards will be consulted on and updated following the passage of legislation and the issuance of Government directions. Consequently, homelessness prevention is already a priority for providers; the regulator plays a vital role in support.

I move on to the urgent transfer of tenancies in cases of domestic abuse and violence. Again, to be absolutely clear we do not expect anyone who is threatened with violence to feel that they cannot move to safety for fear of losing their security of tenure. A range of measures are therefore already in place to protect people at risk of violence and in need of urgent rehousing, some of which I have already outlined that in earlier contributions.

Chapter 4 of the statutory guidance encourages additional preference to be given to those fleeing violence, including people fleeing domestic violence, and private registered providers have a role in housing such people through their duties to co-operate, as I outlined earlier.

I will not rehash any more of the arguments that I made in response to the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood and her new clause 1. However, I should add that in schedule 5 to the Bill, we are already amending the regulator’s standard-setting powers to include policies and procedures in connection with behaviour that amounts to domestic abuse within the meaning of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.

For all the reasons I stated, I do not believe that the amendments to the regulator’s standard-setting powers are necessary. I ask the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich to withdraw his new clause.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I thank the Minister for that response. I am somewhat reassured by it, to the extent that she has laid out—in considerable detail, in some cases—the ways in which some of the issues of concern flagged in the new clause are appropriately covered by the standards, guidance, policies and procedures. My reservation is about whether those existing processes have the effect that would be achieved by allowing the regulator itself to set standards and consumer standards.

Given how complex an issue this is, I will take away the Minister’s response and look at it in more detail, but I reserve the right to come back to the issue on Report. We think it is important that some of these real issues of concern to tenants be given due consideration when it comes to whether they are brought within the new regulatory regime to be established by the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

I have my Oscars-style speech of thanks to give before we finish today. First, a huge thank you to you, Sir Edward, for chairing the Committee so successfully and professionally, and for keeping us all in check. We are MPs; we always need someone to keep a good gaze over us to ensure that we are behaving.

I thank all members of the Committee for a constructive debate. One of the most reassuring things has been that there is such cross-party consensus in recognising that the Bill is absolutely needed and that we can all very much get behind its aims.

I thank the Clerks for their stellar work and my officials, who have been brilliant at speedily giving me all the information that I need. I thank the fabulous Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford, again for keeping us in check on the Government Benches.

I also say a huge thank you to Grenfell United, Shelter and others for their engagement on this important legislation. As the Minister, I feel grateful to have had the opportunity to take the Bill through Committee. I look forward to its coming back on Report; as I said, I will engage with Members before that point.

In my final breath, I say a massive good luck to both teams tonight. I am sure most people know which one I am supporting.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Briefly, Sir Edward, I thank you for your chairmanship of the Committee and the Clerks for all their work to prepare us. I thank the Minister for the constructive tone in which she approached the debate, and all hon. Members for the considerable amount of expertise and insight put forward in our debates. I, too, thank all the organisations, not least Grenfell United, that sent us their views and engaged with us on what they see as important in how the Bill could be strengthened.

As I said at the start, the Bill is uncontroversial and we welcome the vast majority of measures. We want to see it strengthened and we have made the case for that today. We will continue to make the case on Report for those areas of the Bill where we want to see further improvement, but I am glad that it can make swift progress to its next stage.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I thank you for being so expeditious. My fellow Chair, who is a Scot Nat, has had an easy ride.

Written evidence reported to the House