Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

I turn first to the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi. She raises some very pertinent questions and rightly probes for more clarity. It gives me an opportunity to remind noble Lords that the clause seeks to create a national tenant voice, one of Martin Cave’s recommendations in his review of social housing regulation, Every Tenant Matters. Tenants speaking for themselves has a long and honourable history. There are many tenant representative organisations at local and regional level, but I would like to mention specifically the three national organisations: TAROE—the Tenants and Residents Organisations of England—the National Federation of Tenant Management Organisations, and the Confederation of Co-Operative Housing. All three do commendable work representing their members, and some might have thought it reasonable to have asked one of those bodies to become the National Tenant Voice. The noble Baroness rightly raised that issue. It is worth making it clear that the National Tenant Voice will not seek to represent tenants individually but, rather, give them—more than 8 million of them—a collective voice. There is therefore no question of the National Tenant Voice replacing these organisations. Secondly, the National Federation of Tenant Management Organisations and the Confederation of Co-Operative Housing do not seek to represent all social housing tenants and while TAROE does, it is still in development and it would have been unwise and unfair to expect it to take on this role as well. Thirdly, all three organisations agree the need for a separate National Tenant Voice. They have been active in helping us form it and will be represented on it. They recognise that it will complement, not replace, the work they do. The amendments would do three things. First, the National Tenant Voice would not be a newly created body; secondly, funding would be restricted to activities relating to social housing tenants and not tenants in the private sector; and, thirdly, any government assistance would be confined to non-financial assistance. I should like to address each issue to explain why the Government are resisting the amendments. I hope that that clarification will reassure the noble Baroness. First, why should we have a new stand-alone body? I have already explained why an existing tenants’ group would not have been appropriate. Martin Cave suggested that the National Tenant Voice be located within the new National Consumer Council, and we originally concurred with that. However, the project group we convened to advise us on the National Tenant Voice, which includes representatives of the three national tenant organisations, was of the unanimous view that the National Tenant Voice should be established as a new, stand-alone, independent body. The group was of the view that locating the National Tenant Voice within another body carried two risks: first, that the interests of tenants might become lost in an organisation with other purposes and intentions; secondly—and perhaps far more importantly—the group felt that to have any credibility with tenants, the National Tenant Voice would have to be clearly tenant-led, tenant-dominated and tenant-orientated. The group felt that only a stand-alone body could achieve this. The project group consulted tenants across the country before putting its advice to us, and tenants supported these proposals. We were happy to take the advice of the group, which continues to support us as we make preparations for establishing the National Tenant Voice. The group is providing advice on the best way to ensure that tenants across the country have a chance to be involved in the National Tenant Voice either as part of an overseeing national council or with a seat on its board. We are looking at a board of around 15 members, at least nine of whom are currently tenants, probably with a full-time staff equivalent of half a dozen. Approximately £1.5 million per annum is in the spending review period. As with any NDPB, it will have financial accountability to the Secretary of State and accountability to Parliament. The recruitment process will be through the Cabinet Office, as per the code of practice. I now turn to why we do not wish to limit the National Tenant Voice to providing a voice only for tenants of social housing and the issue of limiting financial assistance. The creation of a national tenant voice is part of our wider reform of social housing regulation, as informed by Martin Cave’s review. It is quite right—and it is our wish—that its initial and core focus be on tenants in social housing. The National Tenant Voice will play a role as yet unmet, given that it will be run and dominated by tenants, not people acting on their behalf. It will therefore be able to act as an advocate and provide a voice for millions of tenants, not least enabling a direct dialogue between tenants and Government and tenants and the new social housing regulator. It will commission research into issues that affect tenants because, as tenant-led, it will know best what these issues might be. It will also be active in promoting better representation of tenants at regional and local level and helping other tenants engage more effectively with each other and their landlords. We do not wish the benefits of the National Tenant Voice to be confined to social housing tenants although, I repeat, such tenants must be its core focus. However, the National Tenant Voice will be an independent body and, once it is established, it will be for it to decide whether at some later date it will give advice to tenants in the private sector who face similar issues to their social housing neighbours. This is a decision for the National Tenant Voice and we want the legislation to be flexible enough to permit such a decision. In any event, the clause does not envisage that the National Tenant Voice will represent private sector tenants alone. Where private tenants are represented, the body must also represent tenants of social housing. The amendments seek to rule out that option by preventing any financial support for such activity. We do not believe that to be right. Nor is it practical, as any assistance provided to the National Tenant Voice will inevitably have a financial implication. Amendment 150A seeks to ensure that activities are not confined solely to matters affecting all tenants but could include activities relating to specific groups. I wholeheartedly agree with the intention but we feel that the amendment is not necessary to achieve this. Subsections (2), (3) and (4), which set out the key functions, are not restricted; in other words, the current wording already permits activities that concern all tenants or just some. As to the social housing definition including lower-cost home ownership being confusing, yes, it does include lower-cost home ownership but it will also include different tenancies such as shared ownership, equity percentage arrangements, and so on. I hope that the full response I have provided will reassure noble Lords and that they will not press their amendments.