By Roger Jarman, HQN Associate

The Commons last debated the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill (the ‘Bill’) on 29 November. That debate was opened by two of the ‘big beasts’ of parliament. The secretary of state, Michael Gove, opened for the government and the response from Labour was led by Lisa Nandy, his shadow.

The report stage did not attract such star performers.  The debate, held on 1^st March, was opened by Dehenna Davison, a minister from DLUHC, while the opposition’s response was led by their housing spokesperson, Matthew Pennycock.

The transcript of the debate can be found here.

The debate enabled the government to introduce four new clauses to the Bill and make 55 amendments to the previous iteration of the draft legislation. There was also a final opportunity for opposition parties to raise issues they considered should be integral to the new approach to regulating social housing in England.

Having already introduced a new clause covering Awaab’s Law on 9^th February, the four government clauses presented to the Commons on 1^st March covered the following:

• An obligation on social housing providers to address hazards occurring in dwellings let on relevant leases
• A requirement that managers and others in the social housing sector have a minimum set of professional qualifications
• The Regulator of Social Housing (RSH) to set standards for providers on the handling of complaints
• The Housing Ombudsman to be granted powers to issue and publish guidance on good practice in the sector

Opposition parties vainly pressed for their own clauses to find favour amongst ministers and the government’s back benchers. The first such clause sought to place housing associations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which applies to local authorities and other public bodies. Ministers responded by indicating that a similar scheme was being developed for housing associations. Also any direct application of the FOI legislation to housing associations could threaten the private status of these providers.

A clause was also tabled that would have enabled tenants to retain their tenancy status when allocated alternative accommodation. This would occur in cases of tenants fleeing, for instance, gang violence or domestic abuse. This clause too was rejected by ministers.

Another clause introduced by an opposition MP sought a specific role for the RSH in regulating so called ‘exempt’ and temporary accommodation.  Ministers noted that a Private Members’ Bill had been laid before parliament which addressed many of the points in the amendment. Therefore, the government rejected the inclusion of this amendment in the legislation.

Other opposition clauses rejected for inclusion in the Bill by government included:

• A review of the impact of the legislation a year after enactment
• A requirement of the RSH ‘to safeguard and promote the interests of persons who are or may become homeless’
• An obligation of the RSH ‘to report to the secretary of state at least every three years whether the provision of social housing in England and Wales is sufficient to meet reasonable demands’
• RSH reporting of progress made by providers in removing unsafe cladding and, more generally, the performance of providers in remediating fire defects in their housing stock
• For the Social Housing Quality Resident Panel to be chaired by a tenant
• The inspection of all housing providers every four years (not just those with over 1,000 homes)

The actual debate at the report stage was largely confined to contributions from MPs pushing for their amendments to be accepted by ministers and placed on the face of the Bill. However Clive Betts MP and influential chair of the DLUHC select committee did express some concern about the likely approach of the RSH to its inspection role. He was worried that the RSH would ‘simply inspect the framework of the organisations instead of going into properties and looking at what is done’.  He also used his intervention to complain that ministers had still not responded to his select committee report on the government’s reform of regulation in social housing. The government’s response was now several months overdue.

The Bill now proceeds to its third reading.   This happens soon after the report stage. Amendments cannot be made to a Bill at third reading in the Commons. Following this stage of the legislative process the Bill will return to the Lords where its parliamentary journey started back in June. Here peers will debate the amendments that the Commons made to the legislation. Only then can the Bill go the monarch for royal assent. Nevertheless, there must be good chance that the Bill will become law by the Easter recess.