---

Housing and Regeneration Bill

I do not think that it is because these clauses are not worthy of more fundamental changes; I think that it is because these clauses are right that we have not had debates on huge issues. But every debate that we have raises interesting issues and enables us to probe a little under the structure of what we are trying to do. It is all extremely useful and certainly keeps the Government on their toes. To recap, Clause 191 is very important, as it covers the standards that the regulator can issue on housing management issues and which providers would need to comply with. It includes a list on which standards might be issued, and all four amendments address different aspects of that. I appreciate the intention behind the noble Earl’s first amendment. Procedures for addressing differences between landlords and tenants certainly sound less confrontational than addressing complaints, but I reassure him that there is no practical difference between procedures for dealing with complaints and procedures that address differences. They are all swept up in that same notion, so putting this in the Bill would have no effect. The list of issues in Clause 191 is purely indicative in the sense that the regulator is not obliged to set standards on those issues and is not prohibited from setting standards on other issues. The combination suggests that good intent is not necessary. Amendments Nos. 109ZB and 109ZC cover other items on the list of areas where standards might be set. They seek to remove the words ““or control”” from Clause 191(2)(g), which states, "““methods of enabling tenants to influence or control management of their accommodation and environment””." In some ways, I am sympathetic to this, because the intent of the first amendment, as the noble Earl described it, is to avoid standards being set that force landlords to let tenants take control of management through regulation. I certainly support tenant management organisations as a really good way—in fact, sometimes the best way—of ensuring the high quality and inclusive management of stock. The regulator may well also support them. I do not believe that housing associations should be compelled to accept them either by statute or by regulation. This is possible under the standards, which are outcome-based. In essence, tenant management is a process to achieve outcomes of good management and tenant involvement. Any standards that we set on tenant control might well address circumstances in which tenants had control, but they would not force the regulator to take any particular route to give them control. In any case, the regulator can set standards on anything that meets the criteria in Clause 191(1), which limits issues covered to the nature, extent and quality of accommodation, facilities and services provided in connection with social housing. On the next amendment, the question is what ““environment”” means in this context. This is an important question. I reassure noble Lords that this is not about setting standards on housing association voluntary activities. Under Clause 191(1), the standards are restricted to accommodation, facilities and services provided in connection with social housing. ““Environment”” in this context is intended to mean the immediate environment: the shared facilities and the grounds of an estate. It is right that tenants have some say about such facilities. Amendment No. 109ZD, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would reword the items in the list of standards so that it referred to registered providers rather than to landlords. She is correct that ““registered providers”” is the legal term used in the Bill; ““landlord”” is not defined. In this context, however, the terms are interchangeable. I think that that answers her main question. I am sorry to say that I missed the other questions that she asked. I will be happy to answer any supplementary questions, but I am afraid I did not hear what she said at that point.