You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles
An increased level of good regulation is good for us
Good quality, balanced, apolitical regulation will help the housing association sector and tenants, writes Tony Stacey
I was asked to speak at the Housing 2018, the Chartered Institute of Housing’s annual conference, about the future of social housing regulation.
On my way into the hall I bumped into Mike Gahagan (former director of housing at the communities and local government department and chair of Transform South Yorkshire.) He knows a thing or two about housing.
He asked me what I was going to say and I said that I was going to argue for increased regulation. He looked at me disbelievingly. “You’re not are you?” he asked.
I stuck to my guns. I argued that the grading for social housing providers should include a third category – G1/V1/T1 anyone?
When the Social Housing Green Paper finally came through earlier this month I put together a presentation for our management team here at South Yorkshire Housing Association.
“You just have to look at what happened when the government over-relaxed banking regulation in the name of freeing up the market”
I made a broad division between the unalloyed good news and the disappointments.
I hesitated for only a few seconds before deciding to put the green paper’s proposals in relation to tenant engagement and the regulation of social housing down as good news.
I like regulation. I should amplify that by saying I like good quality, balanced, brain-engaged and apolitical regulation.
It should not be the government’s way of passporting political ideology.
Good regulation is good for us. It is good for social care, it is good for health and safety, it is good for the financial sector and it is good for customers.
You just have to look at what happened when the government over-relaxed banking regulation in the name of freeing up the market.
A brief flirtation with the potential for eliminating (or at the very least substantially reducing) the regulation of social housing – driven by the think tank Policy Exchange – fortunately came to nothing.
It is a universal law that what we focus on grows. Put another way, what gets measured gets done.
I am about to state the blooming obvious in this paragraph, but I can’t resist it. There are many, many wonderful examples of fantastic practice in relation to customer engagement in our sector.
“What gets measured gets done”
We are very well served by Jenny Osborne, John Giesen and the Tpas crew. We have some great tenant activists, Nic Bliss, Rob Gershon, Leslie Channon and many more. There is some great practice in housing associations.
I won’t begin to name them but the Placeshapers group of housing associations is teeming with examples. But we all know that this is not universally the case.
Putting this firmly on the regulator’s radar will drive standards up across the sector and we need this to happen.
By inviting contributions from across the housing sector and all stakeholders, the Green Paper gets this exactly right.
This change of direction was one of the best things about the green paper – government has largely resisted finger-wagging, and the green gaper is a genuine consultative document in many respects.
“The green paper is a genuine consultative document in many respects.”
There is just one bonkers idea in there. This is the suggestion that league tables be drawn up covering tenant satisfaction, engagement, complaints etc.
Altogether now – league tables drive perverse behaviour, compare apples with pears and inevitably lead to “gaming”.
They also run the risk of providing a false security blanket – we have a league table, we have ticked the box and now we can move on.
Brain-engaged, please Minister.
Tony Stacey, chief executive, South Yorkshire Housing Association
