Housing and Regeneration Bill

I greatly enjoyed the restrained contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on what he described as modest amendments. It was a useful beginning to a discourse on the philosophical underpinning to the issue. I congratulate him on that, because we sometimes lose sight of where the whole notion of social housing comes from and it is helpful to be reminded. His observations about the impact of the right to buy on some council estates were very interesting. I recognise some of them from my experience of my time on my old local authority. The council estate adjacent to the university has in part become studentified, which is an issue; there is no question about that. It was a strange spin-off from a policy that was put into place by Conservatives in an earlier Government, from motives that one well understood at the time. That Government certainly believed that they were taking a measure that would provide a greater social mix in many of the council estate areas in which the right to buy was taken up. In general, the amendments return to the definition of social housing, which has been the subject of running debates not only in your Lordships’ House but in the Commons Committee. They follow on directly from that and seek to provide, as the noble Lord has argued, further instances of where the clauses operate. I can offer the reassurance that the clauses do not introduce any element of means-testing into social housing, if that is a concern, and that his amendment to Clause 70 explicitly refers to promoting mixed and sustainable communities as a criterion for allocations. The noble Lord has explained his amendment to Clause 71, which attempts to address a number of important social housing issues, such as the affordability of rent levels for those on low incomes. He referred particularly to how that affordability might vary, as he sees it, in different parts of the country, and to the importance of creating mixed and sustainable communities. Amendment No. 97S intends to influence allocations policies so that they promote more mixed communities within social housing estates. However, these clauses do not affect allocations policies. They refer to the existence of allocations policies simply because they are one of the features that define social housing. The amendment would therefore have no impact on day-to-day allocations, but may have a perverse impact on regulation. It might mean that some new homes for rent could not be classified as social housing, because the allocations policies were not in line with the definition. If, for example, a registered provider was operating an allocations policy that was not in line with the regulator’s standards, any new homes that were built would not be defined as social housing, and those homes would therefore fall outside the scope of regulation. The effect would be precisely the opposite of what is intended. The homes need to be defined as social housing so that the regulator can enforce its standards. Amendment No. 97T makes a similar amendment to the definition of low-cost home ownership accommodation. It includes a similar reference to promoting mixed and sustainable communities and refers to, "““affordable for those on low incomes””." That language is unhelpful, because most low-cost home ownership purchasers often can afford to rent at a market rate. This would in fact restrict low-cost home ownership to very marginal purchasers and would seem to go against the main purpose of bringing about more mixed communities with a range of incomes. However, we agree that the amendments probe some pertinent issues. For example, the question of how we can achieve more mixed and sustainable communities in social housing goes to the core of what the department does on a day-to-day basis. Our concern is that these issues cannot be addressed by these clauses and that the amendments seem to be attempting to achieve policy outcomes that the clauses have little or no impact on. It may be helpful therefore if I set out again the purpose of these clauses. The clauses define which new homes become social housing. I reiterate that all existing homes owned by existing registered social landlords are automatically defined as social housing unless they are specifically excluded, such as care homes, for example. Once a home is classified as social housing, it remains social housing unless a specific event occurs, for example the tenant exercising a right to purchase. In terms of the amendments, the clauses do not affect how homes are allocated. They do not affect the tenure of the tenant, and they do not make it possible for homes to leave the social housing stock. These clauses refer to allocations policy, for example, because that is one feature which defines social housing and therefore helps us to identify which homes need to be regulated. The clauses do not have any impact on allocations policies in their own right. While the regulator will play an important role in ensuring that rent is affordable for people on low income, through its ability to set standards on rent and the Secretary of State’s ability to direct on rent standards, the clauses are not the right place for these important issues to be addressed and they will have no impact on long-term rent setting. I have some sympathy with the aims of the amendments, but I do not believe that they would achieve these aims and, in some instances, they may even be counterproductive. To protect tenants, it is important that all new publicly-funded social housing falls under the scope of the regulator. In particular, the amendments might mean that some new homes could not be classified as social housing, for example, because the local allocations policies were not in line with the definition. That would leave tenants vulnerable and would leave the regulator unable to enforce standards. I understand what the noble Lord is trying to achieve, and he has raised some important issues in the amendments, but I rather fancy that the amendments do not achieve their objectives and that they might have perverse consequences.