Housing and Regeneration Bill

My Lords, I was interested to hear the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Filkin. I would agree with him. We certainly agree that encouraging the resolution of disputes at a local level is sensible and preferable. It is far more efficient for everyone involved to resolve any differences without allowing them to escalate. Indeed, his amendment might also bring a change in culture to registered landlords. I also have amendments in this group that deal with disputes. Amendments Nos. 118 and 119 were raised in Grand Committee. I brought them back not to be difficult, but because I feared that I did not express myself as clearly as I might have done and the Minister responded on a slightly different tack from the one that I was on. Amendment No. 118 is designed to allow procedures to be developed so that landlords have recourse against troublesome tenants. At present, the Bill is silent on that point. We should not be so simplistic as to imagine that big, bad landlords will always behave badly towards tenants; the landlord may occasionally have perfectly reasonable and legitimate complaints to make about a tenant. Although the amendment in no way diminishes the rights of tenants, it is sensible to recognise that complaints—we use the word ““differences””—may go both ways. The amendment would be a simple way of recognising that. Amendment No. 119 would remove ““or control”” from the relationships that tenants have with their management. I do not think that the phrase is appropriate. We do not give a company’s shareholders control over the day-to-day management functions, as that is the job of the management team. However, if the shareholders—or, in the case of the Bill, the tenants—are unhappy with the management, there should be clear but quite separate mechanisms for dealing with the problem. There is a clear difference. I am concerned that by including the words ““or control”” in Clause 191, the Bill is muddying the waters. I now move to Amendments Nos. 136, 137A and 138A, to which the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, referred. These amendments are a set, with each one explaining the one before. The Bill makes no clear provision for tenants to apply to the regulator for a change of manager or transfer of some management functions. It does make clear provision for the regulator to force a change of manager or to put the service out to tender, but not for that initiative to come from the tenants. Tenants should be able to initiate change. That principle is fundamental to tenant empowerment. Amendment No. 136 would insert into Clause 247 the words, "““or an approved application from tenants””." This would provide an additional route to follow in transferring the management services of registered providers. Amendment No. 137A defines an approved application, and Amendment No. 138A would insert a new clause that specifies the guidelines for such an application. These amendments were inspired by the National Federation of ALMOs. The Government’s policy is to offer choice to tenants, but that needs to be comprehensive and applied to social housing tenants too. These amendments would empower tenants to apply for a change of management. It was reported in the Cave review that all tenants felt that they should be able at a collective level to call for a change in the provider of management services. Without these amendments, there would be no clear mechanism for allowing tenants to trigger such a change. Amendment No. 138A suggests criteria that the regulator should apply to applications. The aim is to be sure of establishing a fair and transparent process. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said that he tabled a similar amendment in Grand Committee. If the Government do not accept this one, we would be interested to know how they will deal with the issue. These amendments would neither provide a right for tenants directly to sack their manager nor—and I emphasise this in case a worry should arise—mean that a transfer of management would affect the ownership of property in any way. I simply wish to build on the mechanisms already in the Bill to allow the regulator to enforce a transfer where there has been a breach of standards or mismanagement. If the Government are serious about offering choice to tenants then empowering them in this way should raise no objections. I have looked at the Government’s amendments in this group. Although I am sure that the Minister will answer all my questions when she responds, I have two queries. Several amendments propose inserting the words, "““the interests of local housing authorities””," in parts of the Bill where there is already mention of ““registered providers””. I am not sure why we must put that in. Is this a loophole that the Government have spotted and are now trying to close, or is there a more substantive reason for adding consideration of those interests at this stage? Are they not just registered providers? Government Amendment No. 96 proposes including in the regulator’s annual report a general description of the complaints made and how they were dealt with. I hope that the Minister will explain what is meant by ““general””. How general is ““general””? Does it mean a general description of every complaint, which sounds frightfully bureaucratic, or a general description of all the complaints received? If it is a matter of, ““The regulator received 100 complaints and dealt with 90””, there would not be much point. I hope that the Minister can tell us how she envisages this measure working in practice.