Localism Bill

In moving Amendment 52A, I shall speak in favour of amendments in the same group, particularly Amendment 68, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty and myself, and of similar principles as set out in Amendment 69, which appears in my name and in the names of my noble friend Lord Kennedy and the noble Lord, Lord Best. Clause 167 introduces what is called a ““democratic filter”” as regards the housing ombudsman. What it means is that all complaints that currently go to the housing ombudsman would instead have to be taken to an MP, a councillor, or a tenant panel member for a hearing. Not only that, but a tenant would not be able to take their case to the ombudsman unless agreed to by one of these people, giving them a veto over these citizens’ access to the housing ombudsman. I would like to go through seven reasons for resisting this clause. The first is the role of MPs untrained in this area and the conflicts of interest that might be involved, which I think are fairly obvious. It would be a brave MP or councillor who rejected a complaint maybe three weeks before an election. The councillor could, of course, be the provider of housing, which would be a serious conflict of interest. What if that MP or councillor had already heard of the complaint in their surgery in their role of representative? How could they then adjudicate de novo on a complaint? If the councillor happened to know the local housing official, it would hardly be seen as an independent hearing of the complaint. Furthermore, our MPs and councillors, wonderful though they are, are not trained in alternative dispute resolution or complaints handling, or in the accurate recording of such findings and giving the reasons thereof; nor indeed are most of them well-versed in some basic rules of natural justice and fairness and the handling of evidence. They will not be accustomed to awarding redress and they will not have the authority to enforce their awards. There could also be a threat to a tenant’s privacy if they had to reveal some personal circumstances to an elected officer who was not under a code of conduct to respect confidentiality. There could be a lottery between the findings of different councillors and MPs. At present the housing ombudsman deals with about 5,000 cases per year, with a high measure of consistency to add to the centrality of fairness. It could, of course, also be a very heavy burden on an MP and councillor. I have to confess that I have been neither, but I do wonder whether they are ready for this extra little task. It would also make MPs adjudicators. They would therefore lose their role as champions on behalf of their constituents, quite unable to advise them on how to formulate a complaint if they themselves were the people to hear the complaint. Furthermore, having rejected the complaint, how could they then promote it to the housing ombudsman? So the first of the seven problems is about the role of the councillor and MP. Secondly, the British and Irish Ombudsman Association strongly opposes the proposed filter in the Bill. The association believes: "““Public service ombudsmen form an integral part of the administrative justice system and it is essential that citizens’ access to justice should be unfettered. Any restriction on access is counter to the principles upon which the ombudsman institution is founded””." Indeed, one of the principal conditions for being an ombudsman is that citizens should have direct access. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman regards their MP filter as restricting access to their service. Thirdly, let me quote from others. The Law Commission says that this clause as it stands could hinder investigations and it calls for the filter in this clause to be scrapped. The commission prefers a dual system whereby complainants could either go through a local representative or direct to the housing ombudsman, which is what these amendments set out. The National Housing Federation believes that MPs and councillors should only be involved at the discretion of the complainant, not at the insistence of the Government. The federation strongly opposes the proposal in the Bill to deny access to the ombudsman without the MP or councillor’s permission. It also notes that similar requirements have been abolished elsewhere, such as for the Local Government Ombudsman. Coming from Kentish Town, perhaps your Lordships will excuse me if I also refer to the Camden Association of Street Properties and Kentish Town District Management Committee, which have said that they are angry at the proposed block on tenants’ rights to access the ombudsman, which in their view has worked so well. The consumer organisation Which? also supports the amendments in this group and, as a matter of principle, is opposed to the proposal in the Bill. It believes that consumers are empowered when they can take action themselves. It therefore wants a complainant to be able to go to the Housing Ombudsman. It is for the ombudsman to decide whether to accept that complaint, not a go-between. As Which? has said, given that the Government have a big agenda on consumer empowerment, it finds it very odd that the CLG is disempowering consumers in this way. Which? has said, "““It is our view that requiring complainants to refer any complaint via a MP completely undermines genuine consumer (or citizen) empowerment””." Which? points out that an MP filter goes against the grain of what the Government themselves would like to see, and refers to the Government’s report, Better Choices: Better Deals, which is all about how people can help themselves. In that report, the Minister in the other place, Ed Davey, wrote: "““we want to see confident, empowered consumers able to make the right choices for themselves””," and being able, "““to resolve problems when things go wrong””." Which? believes that complainants should be able to take their complaint directly to the ombudsman, as this will help complainants resolve problems themselves. As it says, tenants do not need a filter to double-check on their case. Incidentally, Which?’s opposition to the Bill is predicated on access to the ombudsman being possible only once a complainant has exhausted the relevant in-house complaints procedures. If I may refer to tenants, an ICM survey shows that 73 per cent preferred either to go direct to the ombudsman or at least to have the choice of whether to use an MP. Councillor Stacy, leader of Islington Liberal Democrats, said, "““I believe it should be the tenant's choice as to whether they involve me or not””," and he noted that the proposal was in neither the Liberal Democrat manifesto nor the Tory manifesto nor, indeed, in the coalition agreement. I hope therefore that the Liberal Democrats will be supporting us in the Lobbies on this. The Housing Law Practitioners Association is against the removal of the right which tenants have had. It says that the Housing Ombudsman, "““has proved … a valuable source of alternative remedies””." The Cabinet Office’s own guidance requires that the term ombudsman ““must be avoided”” unless there is accessibility in addition to fairness and public accountability. Fourthly, the July 2011 Open Public Services White Paper emphasises the role of redress where choice is not available. The new framework for choice in services will also give additional rights to individuals, but the Government have acknowledged that there needs to be a means to enforce these rights. They set out that that power of redress should sit with the ombudsman, who can specify remedial action. The White Paper even names the Housing Ombudsman covering social housing for this role—yet the Bill would neuter this very body so that most complaints would not come to it. Fifthly, on the learning from the quantum of cases, knowing the similarity of complaints that have been made and what redress should be awarded gives a much better idea of whether complaints are likely to be frivolous or better dealt with elsewhere. There is a body of expertise that builds up, such that generic lessons can be learnt and fed back to legislators or providers. My last two points are simple. No reason has been given for this: it was not in a manifesto. There is no evidence of a problem from the right of direct access to the Housing Ombudsman. There has been no consultation with tenants, landlords or their representatives. The Minister in the other place said that the measure was meant to re-engage politicians with social housing. It will do no such thing. Councillors and MPs can advise tenants, champion their causes and assist in disputes but they are representatives, not adjudicators. Finally, the measure is wrong in principle. Why should we deprive tenants of a right that they have enjoyed—access to free, professional dispute resolution? Why should they be denied such access without the say-so of a councillor? The amendments in this group would allow a complaint to be heard locally by the MP or councillor if the tenant so chooses but would retain the right to go to the ombudsman. Without these amendments tenants will lose that choice and will lose access to justice. Residents who just happen to be in social housing will be further stigmatised. No other category of citizen is having their right to an ombudsman removed in the course of remedying a perceived democratic deficit. In the light of that, I hope we can retain the right of direct access to the Housing Ombudsman. I beg to move.