HC Deb 29 April 1996 vol 276 cc796-811

'. The Corporation shall ensure that every registered social landlord at all times guarantees—

  1. (a) the maximum democratisation of the management of the landlord's property required by the tenants, and—
  2. (b) that a democratic and accountable structure of the management of the landlord's property shall at all times exist at least at the level of the local housing authority in which the property is based.'.—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 23—Complaints and appeals— '. The Corporation shall ensure that every registered social landlord at all times has a satisfactory and nationally recognised—

  1. (a) complaints procedure, and
  2. (b) independent procedure for appeals against decisions made by the registered social landlord.'.
Government amendment No. 29.

Mr. Hughes

The new clause follows the tenor of the previous debate, of which I heard part. I entirely endorse all the arguments put by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock). We want to ensure that housing policy reflects, first, the views of the users—the people who are in housing or who need housing—and, secondly, the needs of our different communities. The two new clauses specifically concern social housing management.

I declare an interest as a founder member, and member, of the management committee of a small housing association in my constituency—the Bermondsey and Rotherhithe housing association. I also have a constituency interest in the subject. The House of Commons Library has produced a report, from census returns, that shows the amount of housing that is entirely bought or owner-occupied by virtue of a mortgage and the amount that is social housing or local authority housing.

My constituency, under its new boundaries—that is the way in which the census returns were carried out—is one of the top 10 authorities in England and Wales in terms of social housing, with a figure of 11.6 per cent. It is surrounded by many constituencies that are in the top 25. The issue we are discussing strongly—although not, of course, exclusively—affects London tenants because, in the top 25, come the new constituencies of Regent's Park and Kensington, North; Cities of London and Westminster—the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) is in his place—Holborn and St. Pancras; my neighbouring seat of Vauxhall; Islington, North; Hackney, North and Stoke Newington; Hackney, South and Shoreditch; Ealing Acton and Shepherd's Bush; Camberwell and Peckham, which is to the south of my constituency and is in the borough of Southwark; Hammersmith and Fulham; Battersea; Brent, East; Islington, South and Finsbury; and Bethnal Green and Bow. There is a huge concentration of social housing and housing association housing in London. The way in which it is managed matters greatly to our constituents.

The converse is that we have—and, for economic reasons, are bound to have for the foreseeable future—one of the lowest rates of owner-occupied housing. My constituency has the lowest rate of owner-occupied housing in England and Wales—18.4 per cent.—either by means of a mortgage or fully bought. The next lowest figure is in the new Camberwell and Peckham constituency, which is next to my constituency and also in the borough of Southwark. Many of the 25 constituencies that have the least owner-occupied housing are in London.

My constituency has the lowest number of properties that are owned outright in England and Wales—just 2.5 per cent. Social housing and council housing are, and will continue to be, the principal forms of occupancy in areas such as mine.

For half their period in office, the Government said, in effect, "We are not interested in providing any new general council housing at all. We will permit councils to build an absolute minimum of housing and then only for special needs." For a period, the Government said, "We believe that social housing should be provided by housing associations." That was the tenor of debates in the 1980s.

I remember when that period came to an end. The present Secretary of State was Minister of State and there was a debate not long before the public expenditure announcement—that was three or four years ago. One Conservative Back Bencher after another said, "We do not like all this social housing because all our communities are disrupted and it is planted on us." As a result, in the following public expenditure statement, having cut the council housing budget, the Government cut the social housing budget as well. However, it is still, in theory, Government policy that, if we provide social housing, we should provide it through housing associations rather than through local authorities.

Whatever my complaints may be about local authority management—I have many complaints about Southwark's management of its housing stock, the largest in London, which is often very poor—at least local authority housing is democratically managed. Every four years, people vote for those who will run the council and the local authority has neighbourhood committees and neighbourhood forums. Tenants' representatives go to a central housing forum, they express their views and they are consulted on council policy. The council may not take the blindest bit of notice of what the tenants say and the tenants may get frustrated, but the process has often changed what happens for the better. In my experience, the idea of democratic accountability in social housing is still in its early infancy. I do not think that that is good enough, and my constituents who are tenants in housing association properties agree.

Some housing management associations, such as Peabody, are based in my constituency. It tries to do a good job, and it is certainly not the worst offender, but many others need a kick up the backside and to be told that they must become democratic bodies. I would go further than the Government would ever go in democratising social housing, but we must be careful not to create a two-tier, self-perpetuating management structure. I serve on a management committee, and plead guilty to playing my part in the system, but we must be careful that social housing is not managed by people who, effectively, appoint themselves. All those involved come up for rotating elections which—unless we are careful—can result in the same people being re-elected for another four years. When someone dies or retires, provision for tenant representation may be introduced, but that can be pretty thin.

The situation is worse in large housing associations. I cannot recall the relative positions in the league table, according to the number of properties that each owns, of social housing landlords. Some landlords—such as North British—have about 28, 000 properties, while those at the bottom of the league have perhaps a dozen. Many now have bigger stocks than most local authorities. My local authority has 56, 000 properties, which is the largest stock in London. There are few larger housing stocks in England—Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester may provide examples.

5.30 pm

Many social housing landlords have expanded. For example, the South London Family housing association was a small association that moved from one borough to another, although its focus has remained in south London. Many similar associations can now be found all over the country. I am proposing the new clause with the utmost sincerity because I believe that something is rotten in the state of housing association democratic management, and I speak with more than 13 years' constituency experience of dealing with the issue.

I have not sought to be a technical purist about the way in which the new clause is drafted. That was not my intention. I did not serve on the Committee, but I have read sonic of the debates. I do not claim to have read every word—that would not be believed—but I have read the key parts. The Government amendment in this group shows that they have conceded some of the points made in Committee and in and out of the House. I want to see whether we can push the Minister to go further.

The Minister may say that we must not be over-prescriptive in the Bill and that there are many things that the Government can do by secondary or delegated powers. We are discussing the part of the Bill that says that the Housing Corporation "may issue guidance". That is a good wheeze by the Government—they delegate the guidance to someone else to issue, or do so themselves. I want to know whether the Housing Corporation will provide adequate guidance and—more important—whether that is mandatory. I understand how the Housing Corporation works. We must have a procedure that has teeth. We do not want a procedure that takes so long to implement, and which involves so much negotiation, that it becomes nothing that housing associations need be afraid of.

I have included the word "guarantees" in the new clause for a reason. I should like the law to state that the Housing Corporation shall ensure that every registered social landlord at all times guarantees— (a) the maximum democratisation of the management of the landlord's property required by the tenants. It is not for me to say what tenants should have, but if they want to be consulted and to have an input on the allocations policy and the next type of property to be built, they should be able to do so.

I went to a meeting the other day called by the community worker for Hyde housing association—one of six associations developing the old Bricklayer's Arms goods yard, one end of which is outside my home in Bermondsey. We were discussing community facilities and youth facilities on the estate. At the meeting, the woman worker handed around a document inviting tenants to take part in a consultative structure for tenants. It looked as enticing as running from here to John O'Groats on the worst day of the year. The document had been duplicated, contained no detailed thought and did not look as if those involved were keen to receive a response—but it was an effort to provide some form of tenant participation.

A lot of effort has been made to try to interest people on the estate in community action. It is hard work. We must require housing associations to have structures that allow tenants to have their say. As in every form of democratic management—whether it be Parliament or housing associations—the fact that some people do not want to have their say is not a reason for preventing the rest from doing so. A third of the British electorate and half of the American electorate do not vote in general elections, but that does not mean that we should not have elections. If 10 per cent. of people participate, that is 10 per cent. more than in many places at the moment.

If housing associations are given more responsibility, they will continue in that way—whatever my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and I may want—for the next few years. It is not possible to turn the housing policy of Britain around in two seconds.

Mr. Raynsford

We can try.

Mr. Simon Hughes

It does not take two seconds—it takes a Parliament at least. If the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) were responsible for the matter, he would find that out. The policy can be changed over five years, and I would expect the policy to be aimed in a radically different direction within that time under a new Government. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and I will end up on the winning side of the argument, probably in collaboration with others. Whereas in the past the majority of social housing has been council property, housing associations are now an equally large player. There is no reason why associations should not have the same sort of democratic accountability as councils.

Many people who become tenants of housing associations do not positively elect to become such tenants—they are nominated by the local authority from the waiting list. They do not opt into something they think will have less management because that is what they want—they simply want a home—but once they are in their home, they want to have a say in how it is run.

I have been a private tenant. It was a frustrating experience because I had a remote landlord who operated through a managing agent. To get anything done was a nightmare. That was neither the worst managing agent nor the worst landlord by any means. All people in social housing ought to be treated alike in terms of opportunities to influence what goes on.

Another issue is the level at which accountability should be based. I have tried to be fairly precise. The new clause says: a democratic and accountable structure of the management of the landlord's property shall at all times exist at least at the level of the local housing authority in which the property is based. I shall give the example that I cited earlier. One of the large players in the social housing market in my constituency is the South London Family housing association. London and Quadrant is another. The offices of the South London Family housing association are on the other side of Crystal Palace, over the top of the hill. They are not in Southwark. When I had occasion, with one of my councillor colleagues from Surrey docks, to argue the case of a shared-ownership occupant who faced repossession, we had to go to Crystal Palace to see the director of the housing association. That was fine for me—I have a vehicle and I could organise it—but it would not have been fine for a single parent with two children who relied on public transport or for a family out of work who would have had to hike around south London.

The management must be at least in the borough or district where the housing is—and I really mean management, not a letter box. Nor do I mean an office at which the housing officer is in attendance once a week. Even if the housing association has only 20 properties in Southwark, Lewisham or Greenwich—or in any other district, such as Hereford, Christchurch, North Devon or Huntingdon—people should not have to go outside the borough boundaries to get to the forum in which they can talk with other tenants about what is going on. That is the issue.

You will know perfectly well from your city, Madam Deputy Speaker, that even if the offices are within the city boundary, they may still be a long way away. They could be half an hour or an hour's journey each way. In rural areas, it could be a real hike. There should be access to management within each local authority area. Some districts are small, but the boroughs in metropolitan England and London and the Welsh unitary authorities are very big. They should be the minimum management areas, although I hope that it will be possible to go further. I hope that the Minister can be encouraging about that.

New clause 23 makes two points, one of which the Government have to a certain extent accepted in their amendment. I am grateful for that. The Government have argued—I have supported them—that there should be national and independently recognisable standards; people should be able to complain about public authorities, have their complaints dealt with and have their cases adjudicated independently. Amendment No. 29 would require the Housing Corporation to bring forward the procedures to be adopted to deal with complaints by tenants against a landlord that are nationally recognised. It is important that tenants should know the procedures.

It has been argued that people may end up in a place where they did not intend to be. They should not be disadvantaged when they complain about where they end up. We must have a citizens charter-type standard for tenants' right to complain, whether the complaint is about delays in repairs or about a housing officer not doing his job properly—although I do not say that that is a regular occurrence. The tenant must know that the complaints procedure will work.

The Government have not responded to the second point made in new clause 23. I have tabled another amendment, which relates to local authority housing. Social landlords and local authorities can take categorical and definitive decisions which can have fairly conclusive effects on people's lives. A few weeks ago, I went with a councillor colleague to see a housing association director about some constituents of mine. They were a young couple with a youngster and they could not keep up the payments on a shared ownership property—part buy, part rent. If they managed to pay the rent, the building society threatened repossession and if they managed to pay the mortgage the housing association pressed them for the rent. The husband had lost his job, so the expected income had not been sustained.

5.45 pm

There came a time when the housing association told the couple that they had to go. That was understandable. Before people get into costly litigation, sometimes without legal aid—although not in this case—there must be a chance for someone to ask whether the decision was justified and reasonable. That should happen independent of the landlord. There is a strong case, which applies equally to local authorities, for saying that the person who makes the decision should not be the person to whom the appeal is made.

One of the most frequent complaints—it is made more strongly about councils than about social landlords—is that, when people appeal against a decision, they have to appeal to the same officers who made the original decision. People do not feel that their appeal has been properly heard. They may be offered a property that is not suitable for them. The two most obvious complaints are made to me every week at my surgery. For 13 years, at no surgery have I not had those complaints. Goodness knows how many surgeries that is, but it is an enormous amount.

One complaint is, "I have been offered a property and it is not in a fit state for me to move into. It needs work done so I have turned it down and I have been told that that is an unreasonable refusal. I have appealed, but it has gone to an internal committee and the decision has been upheld."

The other complaint is related to personal circumstances. Someone may say, "It is a lovely flat, but it is six miles away from where my children have just settled in primary school." Someone else may say, "It is a lovely flat, but I am a carer for my mother-in-law and she lives half a mile from where I now live and she would be two or three bus journeys away from where I am being offered a place." Someone else may say, "It is a lovely flat, but it is round the corner from my ex-husband, against whom I had an order when the marriage was coming to an end." The Minister knows that such real issues arise.

What may be a subjective view may not be upheld by the landlord. The landlord has the job of letting the property. The appeal may not go to the allocations officer, but to the manager, the deputy manager or even to a few people. Even so, it does not look fair and people do not believe that it is fair. Appeals have to be heard by someone outside the management. Independent appeals procedures exist for everything else, including police complaints, insurance, banking and the ombudsman service. On behalf of hundreds, probably thousands, of past, present and prospective tenants in my constituency alone and, I am sure, in every other constituency in England and Wales, I am asking for an independent procedure for appeals against decisions made by the registered social landlord.

It follows from what I have said that the amendment in the name of the Secretary of State is welcome. I shall support it, as will my hon. Friends. It meets part of new clause 23, but not the other part. I hope that I shall receive a sympathetic response to both new clause 22 and new clause 23 and that the Minister will see fit to give tenants the democratic rights that some of them may want and many do not have. I hope that he will give the Housing Corporation, the housing associations and all registered social landlords a kick up the backside in the direction of democracy and make sure that we have an independent complaints and appeals procedure.

Mr. Curry

Amendment No. 29 gives effect to the commitment given in Committee to broaden the list of topics on which the Housing Corporation may issue guidance to tenants of registered social landlords. The amendment will enable guidance to be issued on the services that may be provided to tenants and in relation to the landlord complaints procedures.

The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has pointed out that his constituency is dominated by council housing, not by social housing, and that problems occur in his constituency that may not occur with quite the same intensity elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman wished to draw the attention of hon. Members to the problems that arise in an area that has those characteristics—and he has done us a service in doing so. The Government are concerned—as is the hon. Gentleman—that there should be effective consultation within the context of effective management.

There is nothing worse than a local authority that does not carry out the necessary management tasks effectively—such as filling in the voids, ensuring that there is a proper turnover of social housing and responding to complaints about what happens on the estates. No doubt the hon. Gentleman followed the debates about anti-social tenants and the problems that arise on estates. As we will discuss tomorrow, this has become one of the prime concerns of social landlords.

New clause 22 seeks to establish in statute the guarantee that every registered landlord has a framework in place whereby all decisions affecting the management of the landlord properties reflect the views and the wishes of the tenants. It also requires that accountability structures be introduced at the same level as the local authority in whose area the homes are based. I have some difficulty with the wording of the new clause, and the hon. Gentleman has said that he would not go to the stake over the wording.

The concept is open to several interpretations, which indicates that it is a difficult one with which to grapple. However, we must pin it down to some form of legislative language—we have no choice. One of the things that united the Committee was the feeling that lawyers should not be given unnecessary work—and even my hon. Friends who are lawyers subscribed to that view, no doubt out of solidarity. I would not wish to go down a course that is too complicated.

I share a lot of the sentiment that is behind the proposal. Tenants have an important part to play in the management of their homes. However, the degree to which they will want to get involved will vary—some people wish to be consulted rather than to be involved in the day-to-day management; it is a question of different habits and traditions. To some degree, it is a reflection of the sorts of problems that emerge and the size of the estate.

We have supported this concept and we have tried to take it forward for many years. Tenants should be able to make their views known and ensure that they are reflected in the decisions that affect their properties. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey recognised, there are many ways in which this can be achieved. We cannot draw up a blueprint because arrangements will need to reflect local and wider circumstances. The Housing Corporation is committed to tenant participation, and I have emphasised that matter in my meetings with it.

The tenants' guarantee requires registered social landlords to keep tenants fully informed on all aspects of the management of their homes. It also requires landlords to seek the views of tenants and to give them the fullest consideration when taking decisions on the management of their homes. Landlords have been actively encouraged to establish forums through which tenants can express their views and can comment on housing management policies and practices.

Many landlords have gone further than that and they have appointed tenants to their management committees, which has been welcomed. Tenants have an opportunity to influence decisions. They are represented on the boards of all large-scale voluntary transfer associations and I am sure that the new local housing companies will wish to follow that practice. Tenants are an important group whose requirements need to be recognised and whose views must be taken into account.

Hon. Members on the Committee who went through the tergivisations of the funding of housing associations will know that they are not the only interest group. The funders, be they private or public, need to be satisfied that their investment is being protected. The wider local community and prospective tenants also have an interest to ensure that their needs are protected. Given these wide-ranging interests, it is important that no single group should be in the majority in the management of registered social landlord stock. The hon. Gentleman is not pushing in that direction—he is concerned about the general experience of consultation.

The clause talks about the maximum democratisation of the management. As I have said, it would be difficult to enshrine this in legislation. The important point is that tenants should be encouraged and able to see that their views are taken into account when decisions are taken. One way of doing this is by enabling them to have a positive input to local management decisions, and the arrangements that we are encouraging will do that.

The second part of the clause calls for a democratic and an accountable structure—at least at the level of the local authority in whose area the property is based. This is open to a number of interpretations. If it means that registered social landlords should have tenant consultation schemes equivalent to local authorities, it assumes that all local authorities have such schemes in the first place. Some local authorities may have such schemes—and they may provide a framework to follow—but other local authorities may not. There are still a number of local authorities with a poor track record in this regard.

If that means that the management arrangement should be tailored to fit local authority areas, it would be difficult for housing associations whose stock straddles local authority boundaries. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Peabody Trust which, as it is one of the largest housing associations, would experience precisely that circumstance.

Mr. Simon Hughes

I referred to the fact that the Peabody Trust and other housing associations straddle many boroughs. Therefore, it is unfair and unrealistic to expect people to participate with people who have no commonality of interest, other than the fact that they have the same landlord. It would be the same as asking people who are Barratt's homes purchasers, but at the opposite end of the kingdom, to be in the same group. It is about having people in a sense of community, where the landlord is the same and where they are within a boundary that they understand and recognise.

Mr. Curry

I recognise the point that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey is making. As he would acknowledge, it is a difficult concept to enshrine in legislation. I am quite willing to draw the attention of the Housing Corporation to the need to get a level of consultation that reflects a commonality of interests—a focus on things that matter to a group of people and that is not dissipated by being so general that it loses any practical purpose and becomes a token institutionalised process rather than something that means something.

The question of accountability for a registered social landlord is a different concept from that for a local authority—the hon. Gentleman will accept that point because he is widely experienced in this field. The management needs to be accountable, it needs to listen to the different interest groups to find out their views and it needs to explain the reasons behind its decisions. It also has to consider all the interest groups.

While I agree with the sentiments in the amendment—and I am grateful that we have narrowed down the purpose behind it—I find it difficult to accept that the concept should be put into law in this way. If the hon. Gentleman does not persist with the amendment, I shall undertake to discuss with the Housing Corporation how it can try to incorporate his message in the discussions it has with the housing associations.

Mr. Hughes

Does the Minister happen to have on him, or could he lay his hands on, figures that show the percentage of associations that have the forms of consultation to which he referred—such as tenants on their management committees or regular constitutional forums that tenants attend? If the Minister does not have that information to hand, will he acquire it and let us have it in due course?

Mr. Curry

I do not have that information on me, but I shall do my best to acquire it and let the hon. Gentleman have it in due course.

I believe that new clause 23 is unnecessary. Under the tenants guarantee—which was issued under section 36A of the Housing Associations Act 1985—the corporation already requires landlords to operate and publicise fair and accessible complaints procedures for tenants and applicants. Procedures are also in place to provide for appeals to the landlord committee of management or a group of members not involved in the complaint.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about wishing to have some completely independent recourse, and that is why we will provide in the Bill for complainants to have access to a statutory independent housing ombudsman. We are filling a deficit. It is a final recourse that will be utterly independent and beyond reproach. It is therefore sensible to try to get the complaints dealt with independently and in-house, and to provide for there to be a further appeal beyond that if it does not work. I suggest that, in those circumstances, the hon. Gentleman might not have to persist with his amendment.

Mr. Simon Hughes

rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I thought that the Minister had finished his speech. Is that correct, or is he giving way?

Mr. Curry

If it would help the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, I am sure that I could construct a further sentence that would mean that I had given way.

Mr. Hughes

I am grateful for the Minister's co-operation.

The one problem with the ombudsman procedure is that it might reasonably be expected to take so long that it was too late to influence the decision. Someone might complain about the allocation of a property, for instance, and by the time the ombudsman had ruled in that person's favour the property might have been allocated to someone else, making the complaint a lost cause. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that again.

6 pm

Mr. Curry

I will certainly do so, but the hon. Gentleman will know that we are currently reviewing the ombudsman's service to local authorities generally, and one aspect that we wish to consider is the time that it takes to obtain results for people. When we have established the arrangements, our priority will be to ensure a rapid service. The complaints that are raised in this context, being more specific, may be susceptible of more rapid treatment than the more general matters dealt with by the local authority ombudsman. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be content with that.

I commend the Government amendment, which fulfils the commitment given to the Standing Committee.

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford, South)

The Minister always sounds plausible. He tells us eloquently that everything is all right, that we should not worry, that matters are developing in the way that we want and that everyone will be happy; but the Government are making a major change in their housing policy.

I should like more councils to be able to build social housing. I am a product of a council estate. The rent collector would come along and make sure that everything was fine, and if we had any problems we could tell him about them. Those who were not happy with his response could go to the tenants' association, which would consider the issues that had been raised; if that did not work, people could go to their local councillor. We had democratic accountability. The Government, however, are moving towards the private rented sector, and into realms into which the pendulum swings in favour of the private landlord and against the tenant. Tenants may well be fully informed of their rights, but will often be very fearful because of the time scale applying to some tenancies.

There is a difference between being informed and being involved. I am glad that we are having this debate, and I accept that the Government amendment deals with the position in some small respects, but tenants feel vulnerable none the less. No choice is involved in the move from local authorities to housing associations. They need to feel that they have the same rights as they would have if they had been with a local authority—the same ability to make their voices heard in regard to the development of their community.

Although there has been a move from local authorities to housing associations, there has been a cut in housing association grant. Because of that, some of the smaller associations have had to become part of the larger ones, and that has removed the point of accountability. As has been said, if people are to be involved, they must be close to the decision-making level. Democracy works only if it is meaningful and enables tenants to be involved.

I do not think that the parameters set by the Government will help private tenants, and I want stronger guarantees to ensure that they are involved. Many enlightened local authorities have devolved tenants' rights to estate offices and local tenants' associations, and are well versed in the development of policy to secure greater involvement; but we are now seeing a shift towards a body that has no such experience. Safeguards should be built into the legislation. We are talking not about increasing the regulation of private landlords, but about trying to create the environment that the Government say they want to create—an environment in which people are involved in democratic institutions, and taking responsibility for their lives in the neighbourhoods that they will inhabit. We have already observed the democratic deficit caused by the number of people who do not become involved in either local or general elections. How will a move to the private rented sector secure the greater involvement that we want?

The Government would not support what I consider to be the ideal solution. What is wrong with returning the main aspect of housing policy to local authorities, and enabling them to build more houses? There are more than 9, 000 names on the waiting list in Bradford, and there is no guarantee that the private rented sector will meet that need, particularly through the Bill. I am not entirely satisfied that the Government's proposals meet the requirements in new clause 22. I do not think that tenants will be able to participate fully, although they can be involved to an extent. They will feel more isolated than they did before.

Mr. Raynsford

I broadly agree with the thrust of the argument of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who tabled new clauses 22 and 23. I do not agree with every point that he made, but he probably would not expect me to. He is right to highlight the case for increasing tenant involvement.

Let me correct an earlier omission by declaring an interest that appears in the Register of Members' Interests and which I declared at the beginning of the Committee stage. I am a consultant to HACAS, the social housing agency.

The case for increasing tenant involvement is obvious. It is based on justice—on the assumption that those occupying homes have every right to be consulted and involved in key decisions about how their homes are designed, built, maintained and managed. It is also based on efficiency, however. There is considerable evidence, developed over recent years by the many organisations that work with tenant groups, that active tenant participation can achieve a better-managed, more efficient performance in many areas—including some where there have been huge problems—than more traditional housing management structures. For those reasons, it is in everyone's interests for us to try to promote the case for more active tenant involvement and participation. We should give tenants more opportunities to participate to the degree that they wish in decisions affecting their homes. To that extent, I agree whole-heartedly with what the Minister said.

This is where I part company with the Minister. The Government have acted in a way that entirely contradicts those principles in rejecting, in Committee, an amendment that we tabled to make it clear that tenant-led organisations would not be debarred from being registered as social landlords under the new regime that the Bill would introduce. I find it extraordinary that the Government should take such a stance. There are a number of examples of tenant-led organisations that have been registered as social landlords, and have proved highly successful.

There is an obvious example north of the border. I am not one of those who believe that we can concentrate on a hermetically sealed part of the United Kingdom, and ignore what goes on elsewhere. I believe that there is a great deal of good practice in Scotland, from which we should seek to learn. The Glasgow housing co-ops are a fine example of such good practice: they are tenant-led, tenant-managed organisations that have taken over housing stock and are running it well. Closer to home, in the constituency represented by the right hon. Member for the City and Westminster—who was an assiduous member of the Committee—is the example of the Walterton and Elgin community housing project.

Mr. Brooke

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his felicitations, but that housing association is in the constituency of Westminster, North.

Mr. Raynsford

I am grateful for that correction. It is in the borough that the right hon. Gentleman represents. It took over the management of some 900 properties from Westminster city council. It is a successful tenant-led organisation.

Across the border in Kensington and Chelsea, the Government have recently given their blessing to the proposal to pass responsibility for housing management to a tenant management association covering that borough's housing stock. There are many other illustrations from all over London and the whole country. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey knows of the activities of several housing co-ops in south-east London with which he has been associated and with which I am associated. They are fine examples of tenant-led organisations doing an excellent job.

It is extraordinary that a Government who pay lip service to tenant participation should have voted down an amendment that said that nothing should prevent an organisation that is controlled by a majority of tenants from being registered as an approved social landlord. We do not say that every organisation must be so constituted, or even that that should be the norm, but that such bodies should eligible to be registered. Of course, the Housing Corporation will want to examine them to find whether they are efficiently run and properly constituted before deciding whether to register them, but they should not be ineligible for registration simply because they have a majority of tenants on their committees. That was the effect of the Government's vote against our amendment in Committee.

We were given several specious arguments. We were told that because new social landlords set up under the Bill would be predominantly bodies interested in taking over local authority housing, it would be inappropriate for them to be tenant-led. Walterton and Elgin community homes, which is tenant-led, took over Westminster city council's housing. There is no reason why others should not do the same.

We were told that there needed to be a balance of different interests on management committees. There was even a hint that tenants would not be able to take responsibility for all the finances. What nonsense; lenders would not lend money to organisations in which they did not have confidence. They would consider them closely to find whether they have proper business plans and sound managements in place. The Housing Corporation, the regulatory body, is also there to ensure that such bodies are properly run. There are lots of safeguards. The inference that tenant-led organisations cannot be trusted is unfortunate and we wholly repudiate it. It is wrong and a mistake. The Government have made a serious error of judgment in taking that line.

The Minister told the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey that he would discuss with the Housing Corporation ways in which good practice could be encouraged. The problem is that the Housing Corporation is constrained by the Government, who are refusing to let it register tenant-led bodies. On the one hand, the Minister offers consultation with the Housing Corporation to solve the problem, but, on the other, he is creating a problem by not allowing it to register tenant-led organisations.

Mr. Curry

When I suggested that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was not focusing on tenant-led organisations, he nodded his agreement. He is more concerned about the consultation of tenants and their landlords in general and about local authorities in particular. In respect of the Housing Corporation, we would obviously want to consult the local authority associations.

6.15 pm
Mr. Raynsford

I take that point, but if the Minister articulates, as he did earlier to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, the view that there should be an option for tenants to participate to the degree that they choose and that they should be free to decide and not constrained within rigid patterns—that is my understanding of what he said—why is he not prepared to allow tenant-led organisations to be registered? We are not saying that that would become the norm or that it will happen very often, but where tenants wish it, have the ability and commitment to do so, and where lenders are happy to lend, why should not such bodies be eligible to be registered?

That is significantly inconsistent with other Government approaches. They gave council tenants the right to manage. If they believe that council tenants should have the right to manage—I have mentioned already the Kensington and Chelsea tenants who were enabled to take over the management of their council housing under this arrangement—why is it inconceivable that a tenant-led organisation should be able to own its homes? What is the distinction? The Government's position on the right to manage is profoundly suspect because while they support in theory a right to manage for council tenants, as we will point out tomorrow when we discuss leasehold, Ministers are seeking to take away the right to manage that we gave leaseholders in Committee.

Irrespective of whether tenants are in charge or in a majority on the committee, we need to increase their opportunities to play a role in the management of their homes and to influence the practices and policies of the organisations that provide their housing. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey mentioned housing associations in south-east London. He referred to some by name and I hope that he was not referring to them when he said that he thought that there were a lot of problems and that something was rotten in the management of some housing associations. My experience of those that he mentioned in south-east London—the London and Quadrant, Hyde, and South London Family housing associations—is that they are highly responsible, well-run organisations that are, in general, responsive. I do not claim that they get everything right; every big organisation makes mistakes. They are good examples of reputable organisations trying to do an excellent job. However, the key point is that they are getting large—some very large. It is important that they should always be thinking about ways of listening more carefully to the views and concerns of their tenants so that they keep in touch.

Mr. Simon Hughes

The rottenness is in the fact that in the sector that is growing most quickly, there are no guarantees of democratic representation. It is still a patrician system that depends on the housing association concerned deciding to do it. It is led from the top down rather than from the bottom up. That is why it is down to legislation and the policy of the Housing Corporation to set the rules with which, I am sure, housing associations would willingly comply.

Mr. Raynsford

I am grateful for that clarification. I am sure that it is his experience, as it has been mine, that the associations that he mentioned have been in many ways exemplary in their operation. They are getting larger and it is important that they should always be thinking of ways in which they can ensure that they remain responsive to their customers.

I received a splendid testimonial for Hyde housing association when I was visiting Southampton, which is some 70 miles from its headquarters in south-east London on the edge of my constituency. I got positive feedback about its work because it has an effective local committee and takes consulting and involving tenants locally seriously. There is no reason why size should be a bar to good tenant involvement. It is a question of good practice and it is important that we should encourage that. We should ensure that social housing agents of whatever size or sort are, wherever possible, reminded of the need to be as responsive as possible to the aspirations and hopes of their tenants.

The Minister briefly referred to Government amendment No. 29 as responding to concerns expressed in Committee. We raised in Committee the importance of the Housing Corporation giving good guidance to housing associations on the standard of housing management, not least in relation to tenants with special needs. We were talking especially of vulnerable tenants and those who are housed under the care in the community policy. We had quite a debate on the subject in Committee and the Minister agreed to take it away, think about it and come back to us. He has come back with an amendment that refers to management and services to tenants. I hope that he will confirm that those services will cover the whole range, including those necessary to help some of the most vulnerable tenants who require support and care, as well as simply a home over their head in the sense of the normal housing management service.

Mr. Curry

Yes.

Mr. Raynsford

I am grateful for that confirmation, which resolves the dilemma. I welcome the Government's response to our amendment and the Minister's confirmation that it will have as broad a remit as we intended.

Mr. Simon Hughes

The Minister was helpful and conciliatory in what he said. I shall take him up on the more explicit offer that he made and ask him to talk matters through with the Housing Corporation. I will also pursue that route separately and, with the leave of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock), I will come with her to talk through the ways in which we can make practical differences. The best way to proceed would be for the Minister to do what Ministers are always willing to do and keep the matter under review. Ministers are willing to do that because it is not normally a party problem as they are not in the same job at the end of the period to which they commit themselves.

The test is whether housing associations respond to the mood clearly expressed in all corners of the House. They must set standards that allow the maximum participation, the maximum good practice and the maximum belief on the part of the tenants that the system is, independently, in their interests and in their favour.

On that basis, I shall not put my new clauses to the vote, although I anticipate that the Minister will want to put his amendment to the vote, when I shall vote for it.

Question put and negatived.

Forward to