---

Housing and Regeneration Bill

The noble Lord has kindly explained the amendments together. Amendment No. 107D would introduce a new clause requiring all registered providers to prepare a policy statement showing how they will account to residents for the performance of their functions in relation to social housing. It would oblige that to be published and a copy supplied to the regulator. Amendment No. 110X seeks to do something similar for managers who do not own homes and are selected through a management accreditation scheme. These are highly creditable amendments which seek to focus on the key issue in social housing regulation—the relationship between landlord and tenant. The main goal of regulation is to ensure that this relationship works well and to make suppliers more accountable to consumers. In those terms, we welcome the amendments, but they must be carefully looked over. We need to know what exactly the statements would do, how they would be enforced through the regulatory system and how we would ensure that they complemented the regulator’s standards. We would also want to be sure that they did not impose too great a burden on providers. We are happy to discuss these issues further when considering whether to amend the Bill. I would like to know what an accountability statement is, and what it might include. I can imagine statements which were very bland and unhelpful, or ones which were detailed and perhaps even unrealistic. What sort of issues would the noble Lord seek to include? I would also want to know more about the process of issuing the statement. Those issues could be addressed in the regulatory system. Does the noble Lord intend that the regulator should set standards on the outcomes that an accountability statement should seek to achieve? Providers could play a useful role in developing such standards, so it need not be a top-down process. The regulator could also issue a code of practice on how it might work. It would be helpful to know a bit more about what is intended. We would also need to consider how that mechanism differs from what is already required in the Bill, except in that it is a direct statutory requirement on registered providers, which is something that we would normally try to avoid in favour of a regulatory solution. We are setting up a regulator that can set standards on social housing management issues, including, under Clause 191, on methods for consulting and informing tenants and enabling them to influence or control the management of their accommodation or environment. In doing so, the regulator must follow the objectives, including enabling tenants to have choice, protection and the opportunity to be involved in the management of their homes. Those standards must be consulted on and may be enforced. They should be outcome-based. I cannot imagine that they will not include requirements on a minimum level of accountability to tenants. The effect of the amendment, I think, could be simply to fix in law a process by which landlords might meet those standards. I have mainly focused on Amendment No. 107D, but there is also Amendment No. 110X, which seeks similar policy statements from managers selected by an accreditation scheme. We have not yet got to Clause 214, which seems a long way off given the speed of our progress on the Bill, so I will summarise the aim of that clause. Martin Cave identified a need for more competition for social housing management services to improve management quality. Historically, housing associations have usually managed homes in-house. Some do it well, others less well—and, in some cases, it might be better if they found a specialist manager instead. If there is to be a change of management, whether voluntary or forced, there need to be good managers ready to take over quickly. We are allowing the regulator to run or approve schemes to accredit managers or accept schemes run by others. The regulator may require a scheme to include certain requirements, for example, that the manager must meet the standards and that there be provision for withdrawing accreditation. Many of the same issues and arguments apply to this amendment as to Amendment No. 107B. There may also be a risk of confusion if both the owner and the manager have to issue policy statements on accountability. I would prefer as far as possible to leave decisions on what is required through an accreditation scheme to the regulator. In conclusion, we would be grateful if the noble Lord expressed some further views on this issue, not only on the principle, which we can see has positive benefits and is good, but on the pros and cons of the proposed mechanism. We are not saying yes to this, but we are not saying no either. This needs to be an iterative process. If the noble Lord wants to write to us, for a change, or set out in some sort of schema a response to what I have said, we may well find ourselves in the happy position of agreeing on an amendment or on a form of words that satisfies the points that have been properly and pleasantly made in the amendment.