Social Housing Bill (Fifth sitting)

Edward Argar Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Public Bill Committees

Although oversight of registered providers is important, it is my view that it would be disproportionate to require a senior officer of a registered provider to attend a local authority’s overview and scrutiny committee meeting. We are bringing forward an enhanced scrutiny regime through schedules 4 and 5 to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, which makes provision for local scrutiny committees for mayoral strategic authorities. Those will have the power to require a key person to attend meetings or provide information where required. A “key person” can mean the mayor, deputy mayor, mayoral commissioners, officers of the authority and members of the authority with policy responsibilities, as well as others who will be specified in regulations.

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

The Minister is being typically generous in giving way. What provision is he putting in place to replicate those arrangements where there is no mayoral authority?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The right hon. Gentleman’s point is well made; the set of arrangements that I have just specified apply to mayoral strategic authorities. It is worth making clear, though, that where there are concerns that a registered provider is not meeting the outcomes in the regulatory standards, it can be referred to the independent Regulator of Social Housing, so this is not the only route. I am talking just about the new measures on local authority scrutiny that are coming forward through the 2026 Act, but the right hon. Gentleman tempts me to debate an issue that is much wider than the scope of the new clauses.

New clause 51 would require all registered providers to publish specified information on their performance every three months. The Government are committed to ensuring that tenants have clear and meaningful information about their landlord’s performance and are able to hold them to account. I also recognise the importance of continuing to improve the quality of the data available and ensuring that it is used effectively to identify emerging risks and drive better outcomes for tenants. However, there is already an extensive framework in place to achieve this.

All registered providers are required annually to publish tenant satisfaction measures, which cover many of the areas identified in the new clause, including repairs, complaints, antisocial behaviour and tenants’ overall satisfaction with their landlord. Those measures sit alongside a much wider range of regulatory, financial and statistical information collected by the regulator, including information on providers’ stock and rents. The regulator’s transparency, influence and accountability standard also requires all registered providers to collect and provide information that supports effective scrutiny by tenants of their landlord’s performance.

I am mindful of the need to keep reporting requirements on registered providers proportionate and to minimise administrative burdens. It is my view that the current framework strikes the right balance. For those reasons, I do not believe that prescribing a further quarterly reporting regime in primary legislation is necessary or proportionate. I therefore hope that the hon. Members for Orpington and for Newbury will not press their new clauses.