Childcare Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
On a point of order, Ms Dorries, may I seek your advice on the tabling of Government amendments, please, in the light of an occurrence overnight in the Housing and Planning Bill Committee? The Government tabled amendments for the last day of consideration that will fundamentally change the structure of the Bill and bring great insecurity to social housing tenants with the ending of long-term secure tenancies. Is it in order for me to seek an assurance from the Government that no such stunts will be pulled in this Committee? If the Government intend to table amendments that will fundamentally change the nature of the Bill, perhaps we will be given time to consider them properly, rather than doing so on the last day of consideration.
The Chair
That is not an issue for the Chair; the issue for the Chair is that amendments will be accepted for this, or presumably any other Bill Committee only if they are tabled three full working days before the next sitting. If the Minister wishes to table an amendment for Tuesday, as long as it is tabled by the rise of the House today, which will be three full working days before the Committee’s next sitting, he is quite within his rights to do so, as the hon. Gentleman or the Opposition spokesman would be. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.
Clause 3
Non-compliance in the labour market etc: interpretation
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 3, page 3, line 14, at end insert—
“(bb) make provision to enable priority to be given to qualifying children who are also assessed as being disadvantaged in the allocation of childcare places in childcare settings that have been classed as outstanding (or equivalent) following inspection;”
To require priority to be given to children who have been assessed as disadvantaged in the allocation of childcare places in childcare settings that have been classed as outstanding (or equivalent) following inspection.
Many of us have sat on Bill Committees before, but I have never led on one before. As with so much in life, I actually understand what is going on now—at the end.
When I first came into Parliament in 2010, given my background of working in education for 25 years, the former Member for South Shields, David Miliband, used to send me his speeches on education occasionally, asking me to have a look at them. After the first couple of times of me going back to him and saying, “You know, this is really important, but it is not the most important issue in education”, he stopped sending them to me.
The most serious problem in education today is not the limited number of children from disadvantaged homes who are making it into Oxford and Cambridge, or even into Durham University, wonderful institution though it is; it is not the perception of grade creep at GCSE, whether real or not; and it is not how many of our children are achieving at grade A or A* at GCSE, or at the C-D or B-C borderline, undoubtedly serious as those issues are.
The most serious problem in education today is not even the number of children who get five A to Cs at GCSE; it is the number of children who do not. Decreasing, but still significantly large, numbers of children of average, close-to-average and above-average ability in this country are failing to achieve five good GCSEs, and an even larger number are failing to achieve five good GCSEs including English and maths. The most serious and worrying issue in education today is the percentage of those children who are on free school meals, and the percentage of those children who are assessed as having special educational needs, even the most minor SEN. I am not talking about children who have profound or even serious or moderate SEN; I am talking about those who fall in the wide band between close to average and above average. They can and should achieve five good GCSEs.
The attainment gap has narrowed slowly. It was narrowing slowly in the period 2007 to 2010 and continues to narrow marginally, but the rate at which it is closing has slowed down significantly. If that is not addressed, it will start to go the other way quite soon. That gap leaves us without the trained and experienced workforce that we need in industries such as engineering, construction, childcare, catering and many others. It is creating a widening gap in productivity between the UK and the rest of Europe and the far east. If the gap is not addressed, history tells us that it will lead to serious and costly social problems throughout society.
I already talked on Tuesday about the Ofsted report that was published last week, in which Sir Michael Wilshaw expresses concern about the number of disadvantaged two-year-olds who are still failing to access early education. He is concerned that even if disadvantaged two-year-olds are accessing early education, a large percentage are not getting access to the best and most outstanding provision.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I have heard it said that the higher the income a person has and the more articulate they are, the sharper their elbows are when it comes to fighting for their children. Parents at the other end of the scale, however, do not have the sharp elbows and they certainly do not have the income. That might be all the more reason why we have to give them and their children a helping hand at the earliest point in their lives.
Pat Glass
I do not think the sharp elbows are necessarily linked to income. I have met some very sharp-elbowed parents at the bottom of the income scale, and I certainly do not blame any parent for trying to get their child into the best provision that they can. However, too many of the children who need access to the best provision and the best teachers are simply not getting such access. Even in secondary schools where there is a particular issue—I know we are talking about early years—one of the arguments I used to have with headteachers, particularly in schools that required improvement, was about the tendency to put their best teachers at key stage 4 and not at key stage 3, which is where they need to be.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Sam Gyimah)
The hon. Lady makes the excellent point that early years provision is absolutely vital to give children the best start in life and to narrow the gap. Does she agree that introducing 15 hours of free early education for disadvantaged two-year-olds is a big step in that direction?
Pat Glass
I absolutely agree, but it is equally important that the children who need access to the best teachers are not pushed out of the system, or not pushed into provision that is not good or requires improvement. I do not know whether the Minister has had a chance to look at the Ofsted report, but the chief inspector of schools clearly says that far too many of our disadvantaged children are not getting access to the best provision and too many end up in childcare settings and schools that require improvement.
If we want to narrow the gap—clearly, we all do—it is not enough for the Government to simply will this. They have to will the means as well as the ends. Admissions is a key factor in making that happen. As somebody who has managed admissions over the years, I know they are tricky, but they came under one of the areas that I managed and quite liked. I understood why parents got really angry if they could not get their child into the school that they wanted. I had a huge amount of sympathy for them. When I managed admissions, I always tried to get a balance between having not too many surplus places but enough to give parents the access that they needed to the schools that they wanted. So I understand how tricky admissions can be.
Parental choice is a myth that continues to be talked about a lot. It is really parental preference, but in far too many cases it is not parental preference that presides, but school choice. Schools make choices about children.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point: the sentiment is an honourable one. However, has she thought through the practicalities of the issue that she raises? I represent a rural constituency where there may be only one provider. We are operating in a sector in which many nursery providers are private providers. The Bill is permissive; it is not mandatory. People do not have to provide for 30 hours if they do not want to do so. Is not the answer to her point that we need to level up standards and ensure that all nurseries and all schools are good or outstanding? The Government have made significant progress, ensuring that 1 million more students are now getting outstanding or good education. Is not that the answer?
Pat Glass
I would not disagree with the hon. Lady. She needs to make a speech, because she makes some good points. I am not for one moment underestimating the difficulties of doing this, and I will address the issue of admissions in early years. Such admissions are not statutory, which makes it even trickier. However, just because it is tricky, it does not mean to say that we should not at least try to address it.
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Lady has referred to Ofsted’s latest annual report a number of times, and I draw the Committee’s attention to what it says:
“Children in England now start their lives with a high chance of spending all of their early educational experiences up to the age of 11 in a good or outstanding early years provider and primary school.”
The report also says:
“Early education has never been stronger”.
Pat Glass
I am sure the report does say that, and I am sure I could go through the report, which is very thick, and pick out all kinds of things that support my argument. If the Minister goes straight to the main recommendations at the front, he will see that the chief inspector’s No. 1 recommendation—I have not had to scour the report to support my argument—is about disadvantaged two-year-olds getting access to the best provision. That is so much of an issue that the inspector has put it right there on the front page.
Pat Glass
I accept that. The issue of admissions is tricky, but that is not a reason to ignore it. I entirely accept that it becomes more complicated in the early years, pre-school and childcare sectors because there is no statutory requirement. Where there is a shortage of provision, such as in areas with just one provider, effective provisions choose children, and provision operates on a first come, first served basis everywhere else.
The most able, advantaged and well organised usually get their children’s names down first for outstanding provision, and it is equally true that the disadvantaged and less well organised tend to lose out. That is borne out by the Ofsted report. Children who would be assessed as disadvantaged do get access to provision that is good and outstanding—we are not saying that they do not—but far too many children from such disadvantaged homes end up in provision that is judged to be requiring improvement or failing, and the cycle of disadvantage and failure begins all over again. We accept the difficulties, but we have to intervene somewhere. We have to look at the best triggers for intervention to stop that cycle.
Pat Glass
I am using exactly the same definition of “disadvantage” as the Department does when it looks at disadvantaged two-year-olds. The amendment would require childcare providers to give priority for admission to children who have been assessed as disadvantaged in the allocation of childcare provision. We know who those children are. Health visitors and social workers are already identifying and assessing disadvantaged two-year-olds, so it is simply about taking that forward. Extending it to childcare provision for four and five-year-olds would require little effort. If the Government are serious about narrowing the gap, if they want to get the acceleration in narrowing that gap going again—the acceleration is slowing—if they are serious about making the step change that is needed to raise the achievement of all children and if they want more and more children to be educated in outstanding childcare provision, hopefully the Minister will support this amendment.
The Chair
Order. Ms Glass, do not beat yourself up too much about what happened on Tuesday. Although you strayed from the parameters of the debate, it is accepted practice to give whoever opens a debate, no matter which side of the Committee they are on, more leniency in setting the tone of the debate.
Alex Cunningham
I am pleased to support amendment 14, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham has outlined, would require children assessed as being disadvantaged to be given priority in the allocation of childcare places in settings that have been classed as outstanding. Members will recall from the Committee’s sitting on Tuesday that there is substantial evidence to show that high-quality early education and childcare have a positive impact on children’s development. Importantly in the context of amendment 14, that is particularly true for children from low-income families, who are more likely to fall behind. There is overwhelming evidence that children assessed as being disadvantaged are less likely to be able to access outstanding childcare provision, as my hon. Friend has said. Instead, they are much more likely to be able to access childcare that requires improvement.
We face the sorry reality of knowing that children from disadvantaged backgrounds are much more likely to fall behind. My hon. Friends and I have spelled out the facts in earlier Committee sittings. One in four children in England arrive at primary school without good early language development, and that figure rises to one in three for children from disadvantaged backgrounds, who, as I mentioned in support of new clause 1, start school on average 15 months behind their peers in language and vocabulary skills.
Many organisations with expertise in the sector have agreed that action is needed to close the attainment gap between the most disadvantaged children and their better-off peers. Closing the gap has been an aspiration of successive Governments over the last 20 years or so, but despite record levels of spending on education between 1997 and 2010, some of which the current Government have built on—a little, at least—that gap is still much in evidence. The Government will have the support of all Opposition Members if they can narrow it over the Parliament. The Minister knows, as does everyone else, that closing the gap has to start with our youngest. If he gets that right in the Bill, he will go down as a success, but if he does not, he will simply end up with a report card that says, “Could do better.”
Alex Cunningham
Yes, and that is good news, but there are still 15% who are not. The organisations that we speak to and that brief us tell us that the most disadvantaged are still the most likely to lose out on the best provision. In the testimony given to the House of Lords Affordable Childcare Committee, published in February this year, there was strong consensus on the evidence for the persistence of the gap and its effects. Barnardo’s, for instance, noted the
“consistent and large gap in educational attainment in the UK, based on income”.
The Early Childhood Research Centre noted a
“19 month vocabulary gap at age 5 between children from the poorest and most affluent families”.
The Child Poverty Action Group spoke of intergenerational poverty being far greater in the UK than elsewhere, with children
“far more likely to follow in their parents’ footsteps in terms of income and educational level.”
For context, 53% of children in the 30% most deprived areas of England in 2014 achieved a good level of development in the early years foundation stage profile, compared with 65% of children in other areas. As the Minister knows, that gap of 12 percentage points has remained unchanged since 2011. That hiatus should be all the evidence we need to convince us that positive steps are required actively to address the sorry situation and revitalise efforts to close the attainment gap.
I am clear that the only route to resolving this unacceptable situation, and righting the inequality of opportunity that many children and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds face growing up, is to take action to level the playing field from the outset. We all accept that early education has a crucial role to play in helping disadvantaged children to catch up with their most advantaged peers. The Minister has accepted that as the case for investment, and he has made that clear. I do not need to remind him that in the light of the evidence of the difference to school readiness that early education makes, he suggested that
“being able to invest in it early, especially for the disadvantaged”
was key to narrowing the attainment gap. Indeed, the House of Lords Committee recommended that the Government consider targeting more resources at the most disadvantaged children because that is where the strongest evidence of the impact of high-quality education lies. It is not, however, clear that the Bill addresses that recommendation. I am therefore pleased to support the amendment to correct that oversight. It would give priority for high-quality childcare provision to those children identified as being from disadvantaged backgrounds and who are more likely to fall behind. Such a step would not only be a move towards closing the attainment gap, but would contribute to raising overall attainment levels. It is the right thing to do and I hope the Minister will join me in supporting the amendment.
Mr Gyimah
Once again, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. At the start of the line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, I said that there were three aims behind our childcare policy: to enable parents to work more hours; to help parents with the cost of living; and to give children the best start in life with high-quality early education.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Does the Minister recognise that a mother’s education is the single biggest factor in how well her children go on to achieve? As we are focusing on children’s attainment, does he agree that helping women in education to access this childcare provision would be a step towards one of his three aims?
Mr Gyimah
Obviously helping women in education is a broad aim of the Government, but those are the three objectives of this particular Bill. The amendment addresses the third objective of giving children the best start in life, and I am grateful to hon. Members for tabling it, as it draws attention to the importance of closing the gap in achievement between disadvantaged children and their peers. I am pleased to say that more children, including those in receipt of free school meals, are now achieving a good level of development at the end of the early years foundation stage. In 2015, 66.3% of children achieved a good level of development. That figure was up from 51.7% in 2013. In 2015, 51% of children on free school meals achieved a good level of development compared with 45% in 2014. That is the equivalent of an extra 5,800 children. The gap in achievement between disadvantaged children and other children has narrowed from 18.9 percentage points in 2014 to 17.7 percentage points in 2015, which is welcome news. However, the gap is still too large and the Government are absolutely committed to narrowing it.
Alex Cunningham
As the Minister says, that development is very much to be welcomed. I appreciate that the current Government and the previous coalition Government built a little bit on what Labour achieved in government when we funded education properly for the first time in a generation. However, there is still the same attainment gap that there has been since 2011. There has been a slowdown. What will the Minister do about that? Backing the amendment would help.
Mr Gyimah
I will come to the practicalities and issues of the amendment, which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire pointed to so deftly in her comments. The hon. Gentleman asked what we are doing to help to narrow the attainment gap. That is the reason we extended the pupil premium into the early years with the introduction of the early years pupil premium this year, providing £50 million of additional funding to support the early education of disadvantaged three and four-year-olds. The extra funding, worth 53p an hour—about £300 a year—goes directly to providers to help them to increase the quality of their setting. I am pleased that the feedback from local authorities is that providers are using the additional funding to achieve exactly that.
Pat Glass
I thank the Minister; that was exactly what I was going to ask about. There is a lot of evidence currently emerging that shows that, when the pupil premium is being used and targeted at specific children and specific programmes, it is making a difference. When it is simply backfilling funding, as it appears the Minister is doing with this, it is not making any difference at all. Why is he so convinced that it will make a difference in the early years?
Mr Gyimah
The pupil premium is not backfilling funding. To re-hash the funding debate, the £300 million uplift that was provided by the Chancellor in his spending review excludes the pupil premium. The pupil premium is not being used to backfill core funding. It is a new initiative—I think it started earlier this year. I will be the first to admit that there is some way to go to ensure providers are using it for the right interventions. Regarding the amendment specifically, however, what the pupil premium does is to put a higher price on the heads of disadvantaged children. If someone is a provider and they take on disadvantaged children, they get more money as a result, so there is already an incentive built into the system for good and outstanding providers to take on more disadvantaged children. There are more funds attached to those children.
Pat Glass
I do not want to burst the Minister’s bubble at all, but the additional pupil premium is not convincing schools to take on more children in receipt of free school meals, so what makes him think it will convince providers of early years? If it is not working with schools, do we not need something else to ensure good providers take on disadvantaged children?
Mr Gyimah
On good providers taking on disadvantaged children, specifically in the early years, we must acknowledge that the early years setting is very different. Schools are in the maintained sector, but here we have private providers. There are parents who have different ideas of where they want their children to take their early education. Some parents prefer childminders because they want their children to have their early education in a domestic setting; some would prefer a private nursery; and some would prefer a nursery in a school. In practice, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire mentioned, making this proposal work would be tremendously difficult, because we would have to compel a private provider to take a specific type of child rather than operating on a “first come, first served” basis, which is how the system currently works.
The important news is that there are many good examples of how the pupil premium is working.
Alex Cunningham
I thank the Minister for giving way. However, even if his figures from the former Deputy Prime Minister’s pupil premium initiative are correct, we have got to concentrate on what is happening long before the pupil premium kicks in for young children. We need to be kicking in at the offer for two, three and four-year-olds. That is where we need the quality and the funding.
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Gentleman is talking about having an intervention long before the early years pupil premium, which is for three and four-year-olds, kicks in. This is the Government who introduced for the first time ever early education for disadvantaged two-year-olds, spending something like £750 million a year on that. I would argue that we are already making that intervention. However, the Bill is about providing 30 hours for three and four-year-olds. I will just mention a few examples of how the early years pupil premium is helping disadvantaged three and four-year-olds.
In one nursery, the funding has been used for staff training and equipment, to help children achieving below their age-related averages on entry in mathematics, and in communication and language skills. Another provider has been able to employ a dedicated early years special educational co-ordinator and language specialist, to help children to develop attention skills, turn-taking and speaking in sentences. Another provider has put the funding towards the recruitment of specialist staff to communicate with the families and children who have English as an additional language, as well as to support their other learning needs. These are the sorts of interventions that really make a difference in narrowing the gap, and we will look to roll them out across the sector.
I am sure that hon. Members will share my view that the additional help and support can make a real difference to the most vulnerable children in our society, particularly as they get ready to start school. That is why the Conservative-led Government introduced the two-year-old entitlement, which has been maintained in the spending review. In June, local authorities reported that around 167,000 two-year-olds were already benefiting from a funded early education place, and that figure continues to rise.
That is an achievement for an entitlement that was only introduced as recently as three years ago, I think. We have seen rapid increases in take-up in local authorities that had initially struggled, with some remarkable increases in London, for example. However, we must remember that the offer to parents, as far as the education for two-year-olds is concerned, is voluntary. Parents do not have to enrol their two-year-olds in a nursery setting, and one of the projects that I worked on when I was first appointed as the childcare Minister was to consider how we can encourage more parents to take up the offer for two-year-olds.
Pat Glass
The Minister said right at the beginning that the Government had three aims in introducing the Bill: enabling parents to work, helping with the cost of living and giving children the best start in life. I think the amendment would fit in very nicely with that. This is the most serious issue in education today, and I remind the Minister that I said that it is not sufficient for the Government to will the ends; they have to will the means. The amendment would have been a useful way to do that. I accept the difficulties in achieving the aim, but this is about the sentiment rather than the amendment, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Pat Glass
I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 3, page 3, line 14, at end insert—
“(bc) make provision to enable parents to use their total entitlement to free childcare per year flexibly for the purposes of reflecting variations in need effectively (for example school holidays).”
To allow parents to use their entitlement to 30 hours of free childcare flexibly throughout the year.
Pat Glass
Amendment 15 is a probing amendment. I hope that when the Minister gets to his feet, he will support my call for flexibility and deliver what I am asking for. I just have a feeling in my water that that will not be the case.
The need for childcare is different for different families. It is clear that most working families can find ways of boxing and coxing their childcare provision during the week. However, we have heard about the variable levels of occupancy, ranging from 75% to 95%. There is heavier childcare occupancy on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, and lighter occupancy on a Monday and Friday as families find other solutions on those days.
Family solutions are as different as the families themselves. Some parents work part time, some work in job shares and, in many families, one parent works a regular pattern of nine-to-five or thereabouts—often the higher earner—while the other works an early morning or a late shift to ensure that there is childcare at the beginning and end of every day. That was the pattern in my home when I was growing up. My dad was pretty rubbish at breakfast, but we got used to it. [Laughter.] He was really rubbish at breakfast, but it allowed both parents to work, and that is what many families do. Some family solutions are dependent on grandparents from both sides of the family taking a share of the childcare. Indeed, in many families today, grandparents are the childcare. Other families do not live close enough to grandparents for that to be a regular, reliable solution.
Whatever childcare solutions families find from birth to the age of three, and from Monday to Friday, many parents tell me—I am sure they tell the Minister the same thing—that the biggest problem is how to manage school holidays. There are holidays at Christmas and Easter and half-term holidays in February, May and October, but what parents really worry about are the six-week summer holidays. Two working parents with 25 days of holiday entitlement each, and understanding and flexible colleagues, could theoretically cover all but three weeks of the school holidays, but that would mean giving up all their holiday entitlement and in most cases never having one day when all the family is on leave together. Many other families find themselves in situations that are not even as fortunate as that, and not all employers are accommodating. Most parents work alongside colleagues who also want time off during the school holidays, so they cannot depend on taking their full entitlement in the school holiday period.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
My hon. Friend describes the situation for a family with two parents in work. The situation is far, far worse for lone parents, not all of whom have local family support, particularly if they have had to move house to find somewhere affordable to live.
Pat Glass
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I will touch on the situation of single-parent families in a moment. Even in the most flexible and helpful of employment situations, parents tell me that if they each take two weeks’ leave, that still leaves them with two weeks in the summer to cover, and they have to prevail on wider family or friends or other solutions for those remaining two weeks. Parents tell me that they dread that time, and that should not be the case. The six-week summer holiday should be a time when parents and children can be together, and it should be a good time, not something that parents dread. I have even been told by some parents that after struggling to put childcare solutions together—prevailing upon their friends, family and acquaintances to the point where those people avoid them—they have still had to take unpaid leave, or in some extreme cases give up their job to cope with the summer holidays.
While for many couples it is a case of misery being better shared, single parents do not even have that, as my hon. Friend said. There is no one to share the childcare management with and no one to share the worry and the stress. The last Labour Government introduced a childcare vouchers scheme that was based on employment. Parents and employers could buy into the scheme, but I understand that the Government are phasing out the scheme and not allowing new applicants, and that is a shame. Those who used the scheme have told me that what they liked best about it was its flexibility.
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that the childcare vouchers scheme is being phased out, to be replaced with tax-free childcare. There were deficiencies in the childcare vouchers scheme. People had to have an employer that was willing to do the vouchers, which meant it was often only large employers. Self-employed people did not qualify, nor did people on the minimum wage. However, people who earned £1 million a year could still get the vouchers. Tax-free childcare strikes the right balance in focusing things on the parents who need it, while also having the same level of flexibility in the providers that parents can use and allowing different professions to use it. That means it applies to the self-employed and those on the national minimum wage.
The Chair
Order. Could we please keep the interventions a bit shorter, or we will never get to the end?
Pat Glass
The Minister is right. I am not pretending for one moment that the voucher scheme was perfect. It was far from perfect, but I am using it to illustrate what parents said they liked about it. Large employers that used the scheme, such as the John Lewis Partnership, said that they liked the flexibility.
The amendment would put flexibility into the system. We have already heard of many parents who use their childcare entitlement on certain days of the week and not on others. For many families, other childcare solutions can be found for Mondays and Fridays. The idea of being able to spread the childcare entitlement across 52 weeks, rather than 38 weeks, would take away an extreme worry for an awful lot of parents. They see the summer holidays coming, and they absolutely dread it, because they just do know what they are going to do.
Ultimately, all of us—including the Government, I presume—want to see a system in which childcare is not seen as an ever present worry and problem, so that parents can feel secure about going out to work knowing that there is sufficient good provision for their children irrespective of their needs. The amendment is intended simply to give parents some control over their childcare allocation. It would put some of it in the hands of parents so that it was not exclusively in the hands of providers, and it would enable parents to use it flexibly to meet their wider family needs.
We have already talked about changing patterns of work, such as part-time work, job shares, shift work, seasonal work, self-employment and zero-hours contracts. We are working very differently now, and the amendment would ensure that parents who have problems with childcare over the long summer holidays and the other school holidays could use their entitlement flexibly.
Alex Cunningham
I am pleased to support amendment 15, which would ensure that parents were given the flexibility to use their 30-day entitlement to free childcare throughout the year. It would ensure that they were not restricted in when and how they take the additional 15 hours.
As my hon. Friend said, the concept of flexibility is central to the success of the 30-hour offer. All children aged three and four are currently eligible for 15 hours of free early education each week, or 570 hours each year. That offer can be taken over the 38-week academic year or be stretched over the calendar year to provide roughly 11 hours of free childcare a week. Although those 15 hours are of some help to parents, we are all too aware that they are often available only in inflexible morning or afternoon sessions, and that they frequently do not correspond to parents’ child caring needs.
We have already heard that the availability of affordable and flexible childcare is widely recognised to be a central issue for families across the country. According to figures published by 4Children earlier this year, nearly one in five parents are considering reducing their hours or giving up work altogether because of the cost of childcare.
Mr Gyimah
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Bill doubles the entitlement to 30 hours, and that parents will be able to stretch it across the year and take it alongside tax-free childcare or the childcare element of universal credit—whichever applies to them? We are giving parents a lot more flexibility than he is acknowledging.
Alex Cunningham
That is extremely helpful. That is the reassurance we seek, but we need it to be spelled out in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will say that in his speech.
When the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the summer Budget that the Government would extend free childcare, he said that there would be a pilot in 2016 and that it would be rolled out from 2017. The Minister has just said—this was not clear at the time—that there is elasticity around the additional provision. I hope he will reiterate that in his speech and tell us how he is going to spell it out in regulations—preferably, he will do it in the Bill—to give parents the flexibly that they need.
The 30-hour offer must account for parents who work atypical hours, irregular patterns and inconsistent shifts. The Family and Childcare Trust highlighted that 29% of mothers routinely work at atypical times, such as during the evening or at weekends. Childminders are the principal means through which flexibility is offered in formal childcare provision. Other parents—my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham referred to some of them—work full-time hours but are on zero-hours contracts, so they require even more flexibility in accessing childcare because they do not know when they will be working from one week to the next. I would welcome further clarification from the Minister on that issue.
There is also the challenge of ensuring that childminders have a role in providing flexible care. The Government’s proposals are not straightforward. Because of the increased competition from centre-based providers and the low levels of remuneration commonly available to childminders —often due to reduced fees from local authorities following central Government cuts—less than 1% of free early education for three and four-year-olds is currently delivered by childminders. If the Bill is to succeed in allowing parents to enter and stay in the kinds of jobs that are available to them, it is self-evident that childcare must be available to cover the hours they work. For that reason, it is important that free places are offered flexibly. The Minister has said that that is possible, but the sector must provide places when shorter or longer sessions are required. Parents must not be required to pay top-up fees because of when they need childcare.
It is also essential to get the balance right and ensure that quality is maintained as the free entitlement is extended. That means that the quality of the existing 15-hour entitlement should not be compromised by the reforms in the Bill. At the same time, questions remain on the pressing issue of how sessional and maintained providers will be both funded and supported to extend their offerings from part-time to full-time hours.
As the Committee has heard previously, 73% of three and four year-olds accessing free childcare at any one time are attending a school-based setting or sessional pre-school. Those schools and sessional pre-schools face barriers in extending provision to 30 hours each week.
The Chair
Order. Mr Cunningham, could you please stay within the scope of the amendment?
Alex Cunningham
I thought I was staying within the scope of the amendment, about the flexibility required for 30-hour provision.
For instance, if pre-schools are to extend childcare across the full day, they face having to dramatically reduce the number of places they can offer. Similarly, there are core logistical hurdles that need to be overcome. Many sessional pre-schools, for instance, use shared community premises for part of the day at vastly reduced rates of rent. Those institutions would need to move to new premises and access additional funding to extend their offerings and provide the flexibility that is needed, unless the funding is available to keep complexes accessible. In the same vein, nursery class facilities in schools may not be suitable for day care, with many lacking vital rest areas and requiring significant adaptation to cater for children across a full day.
It is important to be absolutely clear that the 30-hour offer is valuable, at least on the face of it, because it significantly increases the potential flexibility available to parents to go out to work or progress towards work. Certainly, the extension of the free childcare entitlement can play an important role in providing parents with the support they need to balance work and childcare responsibilities. However, the extent to which that potential is realised is, of course, dependent on the degree of support and malleability the Government offer providers.
It is therefore imperative that we do all we can to ensure that the Bill delivers provision that is inclusive, high-quality and supports good outcomes for all children. That, in my view, necessarily entails a comprehensive package that gives parents a realistic option of using their 30-hour entitlement flexibly. Of course, it is all very well being able to use entitlement flexibly, provided the facilities and the offer are there for the community to access.
Mr Gyimah
The amendments are focused on ensuring that the 30-hour entitlement delivers sufficient flexible childcare for working parents. I completely agree with the principle of the amendments tabled in the other place and by the hon. Members for North West Durham, for Birmingham, Yardley and for Stockton North, which is that the extended entitlement should be delivered flexibly to support working parents.
However, delivering flexible provision is not simply about ensuring that childcare is available outside the hours of nine to five, as the amendment made in the other place suggests, or during the school holidays, as suggested in this debate. Each parent has different needs. Some parents will need childcare to cover the period between leaving work and picking up their child, while a number of parents of children with special educational needs want their child to spend part of their time in a mainstream setting and part of their time in a special educational needs setting.
Real flexibility, therefore, is about responding to the specific requirements of working parents, and I am passionately committed to delivering that. I feel strongly that setting out in primary legislation a requirement for local authorities to secure provision to meet each parent’s individual needs will not work in practice.
Alex Cunningham
I am interested in the school-based settings for nurseries. What work is the Minister planning across Government, and with local government in particular, to see how the provision and facilities that exist can be utilised during school holidays, thus offering flexibility to parents?
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Gentleman is alluding to the announcement we made earlier this week on wrap-around care, which will allow private providers to bid to use a school site to provide care for school-age children during the holidays. So we are already working on that. I will come later to what we can do for children under five.
Local authorities depend on the market to supply childcare places. We want them to work with local providers to transform the market and increase flexible childcare provision for parents with out-of-hours working patterns. It would not be reasonable to place a statutory duty on them to guarantee out-of-hours or holiday provision for every parent who wants it, since their local childcare market may not be able to deliver that.
Returning to the hon. Gentleman’s point about school nurseries, there are a number of local authorities, particularly in the north-east, where the majority of childcare is delivered by sessional providers such as maintained schools or nurseries. A large number of those providers cannot offer out-of-hours or holiday provision. As Lord Sutherland said in the other place, for those providers
“to continue provision outside their normal hours may well stop them operating completely”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 October 2015; Vol. 765, c. 265.]
Placing a duty on local authorities will not change that overnight. It is also important to note that local authorities, rightly, cannot require private providers to deliver the free entitlement. Therefore it is simply not right to give them a legal duty to secure flexible provision for every parent in their area.
In my view, the way to promote flexible provision is to work with local authorities and providers to look for innovative ways to meet the needs of parents, and to encourage new providers to enter the market to give parents more choice. We should encourage provision to respond flexibly to demand. It does not make sense to require every local authority to secure a particular type of provision when parental working patterns and the type of demand for childcare will vary from area to area.
I reassure the Committee that there is already flexibility in the system used for the existing 15-hour entitlement, and we intend to build on that flexibility in delivering the extended entitlement. There is no requirement that free entitlement places can only be in line with school term dates, or during the hours of nine to five.
In fact, the previous Government changed the statutory guidance to enable local authorities to fund providers to allow parents to access places between 7 am and 7 pm, so that parents can drop off their children earlier in the day or collect them later. Providers can also stretch their entitlement across the full year rather than limiting them to term-time only provision, and a number already do that.
The Bill is very carefully drafted at clause 2(1) to say that the free childcare must be available for a period
“equivalent to 30 hours in…38 weeks”
so that the primary framework allows for the stretched offer. Some local authorities are already promoting flexible childcare provision, including Brighton and Hove City Council, where 82% of year-round nurseries offer a stretched entitlement; Blackpool local authority, where nurseries and childminders work in partnership to offer out-of-hours provision, including weekends and evenings; and Bradford Council, which offers a community nanny scheme, providing flexible childcare for lone parents struggling to access work or training. In Tuesday’s discussion of eligibility I mentioned the great work that Swindon Council is doing to offer weekend sessions from January 2016. In addition, we will set up a flexible funding model to support providers to deliver flexible provision to meet the needs of parents.
Although it is great that some local authorities are already delivering flexible provision to meet parents’ needs, I want more local authorities to deliverthe 30-hour entitlement in that way. I have been clear that the extended entitlement needs to support parents to work. We have been working with the Local Government Association to set up an expert local government working group in the new year, to build on existing flexible provision and make the extended entitlement even more flexible.
Jess Phillips
Is there anything to stop private providers just setting off a block of time within their timetable and saying that the free hours can be claimed in that time? That was certainly my experience of what happened under the 15-hour provision. They could say, “You can use your free hours only between nine and five.”
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Lady makes a good point—what sort of restrictions can private providers impose on parents taking the free entitlement? We want providers to deliver this more flexibly. Now that the offer is moving to 30 hours from 15 hours the scope for providers to say, “You can take it only at this time,” is significantly limited, because if a child is taking all of the 30 hours, that is most of the week.
The Department for Education will be working with the Local Government Association to enable the sector to take a leading role in expanding existing provision and responding effectively to emerging demand as the extended offer is rolled out. We will also review the statutory guidance to remove any barriers to the flexible delivery of childcare, such as those the hon. Lady mentioned. We will set out work that local authorities can do to enable parents to take the current entitlement in a pattern of hours that best meets their needs.
Ruth Cadbury
I appreciate the care that the Minister is taking in responding. How would the provision work for my constituents who work at the airport, for example, and have different work patterns, such as early mornings, normal days and late days, while working four days on and four days off? If they were only able to claim their 30 hours during the normal working day and could not claim the full amount, would they be disadvantaged because of the nature of their working patterns?
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Lady raises an important point. First, it is difficult to use legislation to clearly define flexibility. Indeed, doing so in primary legislation is almost a contradiction; it cannot work. Secondly, she points out why our approach is the right one. It allows local authorities to work with providers to deliver the sort of flexibility that works in their local area. The flexibility that her constituents will need will be quite different from that required by parents in a rural area, which is why we cannot define it in primary legislation. However, we want to ensure that the 30 hours is equally accessible by all parents, which brings me on to my next point.
It is clear that the market will need to adapt to support a flexible childcare offer in the extended entitlement, and we will encourage different types of providers to offer the additional hours. The hon. Member for Stockton North mentioned the role of childminders in flexibility, and I agree that they have important part to play. There are currently over 46,000 childminders on the early years register, but not all offer the free entitlement due to local authorities’ payment terms, for example. We want to consider that carefully to see how they can be encouraged to offer the entitlement, because they can contribute to flexible delivery. For example, some parents could use a school nursery and have a childminder either pick their children up or drop them off. A shift-worker at the airport might use a childminder during evening or weekend work alongside some nursery provision.
I have said to the Professional Association for Childcare and Early Years, which represents childminders, that there is a big opportunity for childminders to work with nurseries and schools to deliver a full offer of the 30 hours. In the previous Parliament, we allowed childminders to operate outside their domestic premises for 50% of the time. Childminders can now team up with schools to offer after-school provision. If a child does a morning session, they can be looked after by a childminder on school premises for the afternoon to allow parents to pick them up. That flexibility for childminders will come into force from January 2016 and will open up many new opportunities.
I also recognise that a number of parents already use multiple childcare providers, such as sending their child to a nursery and then getting someone else to pick them up, as I have said. I want to ensure that the system continues to allow parents to make the right decisions for their children and will encourage information sharing between different providers so that there is continuity for the child and that their best interests are taken into account when multiple providers are involved in childcare delivery. On Tuesday, we discussed the Government’s plans to introduce the 30-hour entitlement early in some areas, and flexibility will be a focus. The early implementers will look at ways to encourage different providers to enter the market, including childminders who are not currently offering the free entitlement.
I hope that Committee members are reassured that the Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that parents have access to flexible childcare to fit their working patterns. I would therefore encourage Committee members to support Government amendment 4 and urge the hon. Member for North West Durham to withdraw amendment 15. I emphasise that the Government are committed to delivering flexible childcare for children of all ages, as I said in response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Stockton North. That is why we will consult on parents having the right to request wraparound and holiday care at their child’s school, as the Prime Minister announced on Monday. Providers will also have a right to request use of a school’s facilities when the schools are not using them. That will help local authorities to ensure as far as possible that there is sufficient childcare in the area that responds to parental demand.
Alex Cunningham
What will happen when an agreement cannot be reached with a local school or local authority, or when the private provider is not prepared to be more flexible in its provision? How do we ensure parents’ needs are met if the system in their particular area is not flexible enough?
Mr Gyimah
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North made an interesting point on Tuesday: we have significant additional investment in the sector which should be attractive to many new providers. If a provider does not want to offer flexible childcare to all parents in an area, they will struggle to find business somewhere else, because the majority of parents of three and four-year-olds will be entitled to the 30 hours of childcare. Providers that refuse to respond to parental demand may therefore struggle to stay in business.
Alex Cunningham
Government Members have talked about the particular challenges in rural areas, where there might be very little provision. Here we face a situation in which there might be 20 children in a local community who access care; all of a sudden the amount of available care will need to double, and yet there may not be the capacity in that small rural area to do so. How will we cope with that?
Mr Gyimah
As the hon. Gentleman knows, local authorities have a sufficiency duty. I hope that what we will do to encourage providers on the early years register that currently do not offer the free entitlement—such as childminders, who he pointed to—will work. We will also use £50 million of capital investment to target areas where there is a need for more places. Finally, local authorities can fund providers in a way that incentivises flexible provision, so a number of levers can be used to deliver flexible provision for parents.
Pat Glass
I am willing to listen to many of the arguments that the Minister makes, but he has singularly failed to convince me on this one. He gave us lots of examples of local authorities operating flexible systems, but this is not about the best authorities; it is about the worst. The amendment would go some way towards addressing the authorities that need incentivising.
I accept the Minister’s point about the wording of the amendment. It is not possible to require every local authority to provide every kind of flexibility for every child, but education legislation is littered with the word “reasonable”, and to ask local authorities to make reasonably flexible provision is not beyond the wit of the Minister.
I find myself in an unusual situation: I stand here as the person saying there are opportunities here for the market. We need to allow new entrants into the marketplace, and in my view, the best way to do that is to put some control in the hands of parents, who can then choose the best providers for their children. At the moment, we have an incredibly inflexible system that we need to move away from in order to help parents with things such as summer holidays.
Although it does not exactly fall within the scope of the amendment, I welcome what the Minister said about wraparound childcare and getting schools to open their incredibly expensive capital buildings, which often stand empty from 3 o’clock in the afternoon, all weekend and during summer holidays. It is amazing that someone has not done that long before now. Clearly, we will have to see the details, but it is a really good idea to open those buildings up to the marketplace. I understand the Minister’s concern about creating chaos in the market, but providers are making exactly the same arguments to him that providers made to previous Governments about things such as respite care and social care. We were told that putting the control in the hands of parents, disabled people or elderly people would create chaos in the market, and local authorities said the same, but there was not chaos, and it is a better system as a result.
Pat Glass
I am not saying that we should do that, but if we say that local authorities must provide “reasonable flexibility”, that forces those who are not doing anything about that now to start to do something. Unless the Minister tells me that he is prepared to look at that flexibility in regulations, we may need to make an issue of this.
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that councils as public authorities have a duty in law to act reasonably, so the insertion of the word “reasonable” into legislation is superfluous?
Pat Glass
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks at the Education Act 2005, which has “reasonable” in every third sentence. It is not superfluous. It makes the point that this measure is not about giving everyone what they want or what they think they need; it is about giving something that is reasonable to the taxpayer and to the parent or child.
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Lady asked for assurance on what the Government will do in respect of flexibility. As I mentioned earlier, statutory guidance already enables providers to stretch hours across the full year and deliver provision from 7 am to 7 pm. We will work with the Local Government Association and local authorities to revise the statutory guidance to remove any perceived or actual barriers to flexible provision.
Pat Glass
I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 3, page 3, line 32, at end insert
“and in connection with the unreasonable refusal of a childcare place to a qualifying child with a disability”.
To ensure that a disabled child is not refused a childcare place on the grounds of their disability.
The amendment would make it clear that a place could not be refused to a disabled child on the grounds of their disability. Members of the Committee will know that 41% of parents of disabled children cannot access the current 15 hours of provision and that of them 25% cannot do so because their child has been refused or excluded from a place purely on the grounds of their disabilities. I have gone on and on about this and I am probably boring members of the Committee, but it is important. It is illegal under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, yet it happens again and again. The stories I have heard from parents of disabled children have made me angry enough to want to take every opportunity to do something about it.
I welcome the Minister’s offer to work with me on this. His office has been in touch and we have set up a meeting early in the new year. I welcome that and I absolutely accept his commitment to change this. I know that the Minister for Children and Families is also keen to change this. This is clearly the direction of travel and we are all focused on this now. So I am hopeful for the future, but mindful of the past. I am sure the Minister will say the amendment is unnecessary because the issues are covered adequately in other legislation, and yet the situation for many parents of disabled children remains the same. It is covered, but it does not change anything.
Alex Cunningham
Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the vast majority of childcare providers do their very best, some will benefit from specifically knowing that discriminatory behaviour against children in the care setting will see them prosecuted?
Pat Glass
The situation is so bad that we need to send out a strong message, which is why I want the amendment included in the Bill.
I will read from the parliamentary inquiry into childcare for disabled children. A parent told us:
“Even now, at age 3, we have only managed to secure 6 hours a week at a nursery, during term-time”.
One said:
“I feel like the 15 hours scheme at the moment is really invented for normally functioning kids”,
but it could be easily turned into something that could help children like hers. Another parent said:
“This is a nightmare. I have tried for a year to find an out of school provider that is suitable for my daughter...and...have not been successful.”
One told us:
“We have contacted every single private childcare provider (childminders, holiday clubs, day care nurseries etc) yet no one is willing to take on a disabled child”.
Another parent said:
“I have tried to access childcare. I contacted many child-minders and had a very negative experience. Some of the things they said were very hurtful and eventually I gave up as it was so demoralising.”
Lucy Frazer
In the previous sitting, the hon. Lady highlighted all the risks of creating criminal liability for a parent who might not satisfy the income threshold at a later date. Does the same principle not apply when she talks about criminal penalties on childcare providers?
Pat Glass
I am not creating criminal penalties. What I am describing is illegal now, yet it continues. All I want to do is to send out a very strong message in whatever way we can. At the moment, we have is a Bill—if I could find any other way of helping the situation, I would. It is illegal at the moment, and I am not seeking to create anything new.
Pat Glass
I apologise if it is carelessly worded; that was not my intention. I simply want to make clear in the Bill that it is illegal to refuse a place on the grounds of a child’s disability, in exactly the same way as it is under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005. I do not know whether there is a criminal penalty attached to that, but that is the current legislation, and that was my intention.
Pat Glass
Before I give way, can I make it clear that we do not want to put anyone in prison? As I said to the Minister, if the amendment is carelessly worded, I am happy to change it. The current situation cannot continue and I simply want to change it, however that may be possible, so that it is line with Disability Discrimination Act.
James Berry
The examples the hon. Lady gave are horrific. However, if the measure is already on the statute book, should she not call for proper implementation of the legislation we already have, rather than duplicating it?
Alex Cunningham
I do not believe that the vast majority of care providers want to discriminate against children with disabilities. They do it possibly because they are ill equipped and do not have the experience, understanding and skills to cope with disabled children. Perhaps the answer is, as we discussed earlier, an upskilling programme across all situations, so that staff can feel confident that they can take on and deal with disabled children.
Pat Glass
I agree. I also think there is an element of childcare providers and even maintained settings not being aware of the law regarding refusal to take a child on grounds of disability. It is not absolutely clear to them.
I want to talk about the evidence given by one young couple. They had a lovely baby girl who had severe and multiple learning difficulties. The mother told me that she had approached every provider in her London borough. As soon as she explained the extent of her child’s problems, they were suddenly full. This young woman told me that she was attending mother and toddler groups with her child, and other mothers, who approached the same providers later, found they were not full. That is awful. One needs to sit face to face with this mother to understand how deeply she was disturbed and upset by that. It is wrong and should not be happening, but it is happening time and time again.
I appreciate that the childcare providers might be frightened. They will feel that they do not have the skills, knowledge or training to admit such children. However, when a child is born with a major disability the parents do not magically acquire skills and expertise. The NHS does not give parents special training.
Lucy Frazer
On a point of order, Ms Dorries. In my reading, the amendment should be to paragraph (h), which starts with the words
“create criminal offences in connection with”.
If the hon. Lady’s amendment were accepted it would create a criminal liability, which she states she does not intend to do. Given that the amendment would not achieve her objective, is it appropriate?
The Chair
It is up to the Opposition spokeswoman to request where she wants the amendment to be made. It has been accepted, and it is in order.
Pat Glass
Thank you, Ms Dorries. I think I have made my intentions perfectly clear.
Parents who have a disabled child do not magically acquire special skills and knowledge. The NHS does not give them special training before they leave hospital with their baby, when they are often in shock and grieving for the child they were expecting but did not get.
We need to ensure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North said, that childcare providers can access the training that will give them the confidence they need. However that is done, the Government need to put down a huge marker that the current situation cannot continue.
Mr Gyimah
The amendment would ensure that a disabled child is not refused a childcare place on the grounds of their disability. As I highlighted on Tuesday, I absolutely agree that children with special educational needs or a disability should not be put at a disadvantage and that they should have the same access to high-quality childcare as children without disabilities. The Government are committed to ensuring that all families have access to high-quality, flexible and affordable childcare, and I am delighted that the hon. Lady has agreed to meet with me and the Minister for Children and Families to look at how we can improve access to childcare for children with special educational needs and disabilities.
As I pointed out in my intervention, the amendment would create a criminal offence if a disabled child were unreasonably refused a childcare place. Although I agree with the principle behind the amendment, and agree that all children should be able to access childcare, I do not agree that would be the right approach. I have been clear in our debates so far that local authorities are already required by law to secure free entitlement places.
Ruth Cadbury
One of the ways of encouraging childcare providers to be open and welcoming to children with disabilities is to ensure that funding is available for additional support—in large childcare settings, a disabled child might need one-to-one support—as well as for specialist training and, occasionally, specialist equipment. Will funding be available in the programme over and above the normal funding per child for the 30 hours?
Mr Gyimah
We covered the issue of funding on Tuesday, when I made it quite clear that the £5 billion high needs funding block applies to ages nought to 25. Funding will also be available to parents who have access to tax-free childcare up to £4,000. They can access that for children from the ages of nought to 18.
Amendment 13 is about what providers do when confronted with a child with special educational needs or disabilities. It is important that we are clear that the Equality Act 2010 sets out the legal obligations that early years providers and local authorities have towards disabled children and young children in their care. Refusing to admit a disabled child may amount to unlawful discrimination, if that refusal is as a direct result of their disability or something arising in consequence of their disability. The Equality Act applies to all early years settings, whether or not they are in receipt of Government funding.
If a parent of a disabled child believes that their child has been discriminated against by a school setting, they can appeal to the first-tier tribunal or, in certain cases, to local admissions panels. Where the case involves a provider that is not a school, a discrimination claim is heard in the county court.
I take on board the comment made by the hon. Member for North West Durham that she does not intend to create a criminal offence through the amendment. I therefore suggest that when we look at the model agreement that local authorities have with providers delivering the free entitlement, we make the situation quite clear to them and draw their attention to the Equality Act requirement.
The hon. Lady raised a point about the confidence of the workforce to deal with the situation, which is not strictly a legal matter. We intend to look at that as part of the workforce strategy that I committed to on Tuesday. That will build on the requirement that already exists in the early years foundation stage. The significant funding that we give to voluntary and community service organisations can support providers in the workforce to develop confidence and skills.
On that basis, and given that the hon. Lady’s amendment would not really achieve what she wanted to achieve, I urge her to withdraw it.
Pat Glass
I am happy to do that. I have made my point. We are going to talk about this collectively, and we will find a way forward. I just want to point out very clearly that the unreasonable refusal of childcare places for children with disabilities is covered in the Equality Act 2010 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, yet it still happens. We would not accept that if the child were black, or for any other kind of child. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 4, in clause 3, page 3, line 46, leave out subsection (3).—(Mr Gyimah.)
This amendment removes the provision which requires the Secretary of State to make provision, in regulations, to ensure that childcare is made available for parents who have alternative working patterns and during the school holidays.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Margot James.)
Childcare Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Sam Gyimah)
I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 5, page 5, line 30, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
“(4) A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision) regulations mentioned in subsection (5) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(5) The regulations referred to in subsection (4) are—
(a) the first regulations made under section 2;
(b) the first regulations made under section 3(1);
(c) any regulations under section 3(7);
(d) any other regulations that amend or repeal provision made by an Act.
(6) Any other statutory instrument containing regulations is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”
This amendment removes the provision which subjects all regulations made under clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill to the affirmative procedure on every occasion they are made. Regulations made under clauses 2 and 3(1) would instead be subject to the affirmative procedure the first time they are made, and the negative procedure thereafter
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Hanson. As currently drafted, clause 5 provides for all the regulations under clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill to be subject to the affirmative procedure every time the regulation-making power is exercised. That is as a result of an amendment made in the other place, and it provides a level of parliamentary scrutiny beyond the original intention behind the Bill.
We are in complete agreement with the intention behind the amendment made in the other place, and the Government welcome the opportunity for both Houses to have proper prior scrutiny before the regulations can be approved and added to the statute book. However, we do not believe it necessary or reasonable to make the regulations affirmative every time. That is why amendment 5 will allow the regulations to be debated the first time the powers are exercised, while subsequent changes will be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
The exception to that will be any instances where regulations seek to amend or repeal primary legislation, or in the case of regulations seeking to update the maximum level of any financial penalty set out on the face of the Bill. Any regulation made for those reasons will continue to be subject to the affirmative procedure and must be approved by Parliament each time the powers are exercised.
I will set out why we do not believe it necessary for the regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure each time they are made. First, since we introduced the Bill over the summer, we have provided much more detail about how the Government intend to deliver their manifesto pledge and who will be eligible. That includes a recent policy statement and further details about eligibility as a result of the spending review announcement on 25 November. That additional information provides further clarity about what will be included in the regulations and addresses many of the concerns raised previously.
Secondly, we are committed to undertaking a formal public consultation on the draft regulations in 2016. Feedback from parents and providers will be taken into consideration as we develop the regulations, which will be revised as necessary in response to the consultation before they are laid before Parliament.
Thirdly, our proposal to make the regulations subject to the negative procedure reflects the precedent of parliamentary scrutiny adopted for comparable childcare and education legislation. We believe it is important to maintain the arrangements for approval used for the existing entitlement, which has been subject to the negative procedure since it was introduced in 2008.
The affirmative approval process requires the full involvement of both Houses and for time to be found for debates in both Houses, no matter how small the change. The Government being required to timetable a debate in both Houses when details need to be amended in regulations is likely to have a detrimental impact on the successful delivery of the new entitlement. We want the Secretary of State to be able to respond efficiently and effectively where it may be necessary to support local authorities, providers, parents and their children without seeking and receiving the approval of Parliament to do so.
Once the fundamental principles have been agreed, we do not believe it would be a good use of the parliamentary timetable to make changes that would ordinarily be dealt with under the negative resolution procedure. For example, consequential changes were made to the current entitlement to reflect the introduction of the education, health and social care plans and the replacement of residence orders with child arrangement orders. Those types of changes, which are straightforward and not controversial, can be made under the negative resolution procedure.
If the regulations under the Bill were to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which would be the case without my amendment, the types of consequential changes that I am talking about could not be made unless time was found for a debate in both Houses. We do not believe that that would be an appropriate use of the parliamentary timetable. I hope that I can reassure the Committee further by confirming that the Department will continue to consult on any material changes to the regulations under the negative resolution procedure, as it has done with the current entitlement. By the time they are laid, the regulations will have undergone a vast amount of scrutiny. We are confident that we will deliver a set of regulations that fairly delivers on the Government’s manifesto pledge to support hard-working families.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
Their lordships included this clause because they were concerned about the lack of detail in the Bill in relation to funding, workforce capacity, physical capacity, eligibility, accessibility and other areas. They were concerned that there would not be full and frank debate in relation to all those areas and that the regulations would simply be laid before Parliament—slipped out under the cover of darkness, as I think they said. However, the Minister has given assurances on that on Tuesday and today. He is an honourable man. I do not intend to detain the Committee on this matter. The Minister has given assurances for the first time that the regulations will get full debate in both Houses, and the negative procedure is normal practice in other areas, so I am happy with that.
Amendment 5 agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Commencement
Amendment made: 6, in clause 8, page 6, line 8, leave out from beginning to “come” in line 10 and insert—
“(1) The following provisions come into force on the day on which this Act is passed—
(a) section 2(4A);
(b) section 7;
(c) this section;
(d) section 9.
(2) The remaining provisions of this Act”.—(Mr Gyimah.)
This is consequential on amendment 3. HMRC’s power to carry out functions in connection with the making of determinations as to a child’s eligibility will come into force on Royal Assent.
Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Short title
Mr Gyimah
I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 9, page 6, line 19, leave out subsection (2).
This removes the provision which was inserted to avoid infringing the financial privileges of the Commons. Now that the money resolution has been passed this amendment can be removed.
This will be a very short speech. This technical amendment removes the privilege amendment made in the other place. As the Committee will be aware, this standard formula is incorporated in the Bill before it leaves the other place to avoid infringement of Commons financial privileges. A money resolution has now been passed conferring parliamentary approval of financial expenditure incurred as a result of the Bill, and the removal of the privilege amendment is a mere formality. I therefore hope that the Committee will accept the amendment.
Amendment 7 agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 2
Early years SEND co-ordinators
“(1) Relevant childcare providers of a size prescribed by Regulations must designate a member of staff at the setting (to be known as the “Early years SEND co-ordinator”) as having responsibility for co-ordinating the provision of childcare for children with special educational needs and/or a disability.
(2) Regulations may require relevant childcare settings to ensure that Early Years SEND co-ordinators have prescribed qualifications or prescribed experience or both.
(3) For the purpose of this section, relevant childcare providers are those funded to deliver early education or childcare provision free of charge under section 7(1) of the Childcare Act 2006 or section 2(1) of this Act.” —(Pat Glass.)
This amendment would require all early years providers of a certain size providing childcare under this Act to designate a member of staff to be the early years SEND co-ordinator, and to ensure that they are suitably experienced and/or qualified.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 3—Childcare inclusion plan—
“Local authorities must produce and maintain a childcare inclusion plan that sets out a strategy for how disabled children and those with special educational needs will be assisted to access childcare under this Act.”
This amendment requires local authorities to produce a local childcare inclusion plan that sets out how disabled children will be assisted to access childcare under this Act.
New clause 4—Number of SEND co-ordinators—
“(1) A local authority must secure there are sufficient SEND co-ordinators in the area to provide advice and guidance to childcare providers providing free childcare under this Act on how to provide inclusive childcare for disabled children and those with special educational needs.
(2) Area SEND co-ordinators must have prescribed qualifications or prescribed experience or both.
(3) A local authority must secure, so far as is reasonably practicable, one early years SEND needs co-ordinator for every 20 non-maintained childcare providers.”
This amendment requires local authorities to provide advice and guidance to childcare providers by providing sufficient Area SEND co-ordinators.
Pat Glass
New clauses 2, 3 and 4 all relate to children with SEN and therefore, I will speak to all of them at once.
The previous Labour Government’s early years strategy included provision to ensure that all early years providers of a certain size had a designated early years SEN co-ordinator who was able to work with staff and parents to identify, monitor and meet the needs of children with special educational needs in childcare settings, particularly in the private and voluntary sector. They were generally area special educational needs co-ordinators, who would provide advice to something like 20 providers. Local authorities were required, although by regulation and not by statute, to designate a suitably qualified SENCO to support providers in the discharge of that duty.
New clause 2 would put existing good practice on a statutory footing. It would enable all childcare provision of a certain size to have a suitably qualified SEN co-ordinator who would, on behalf of the provider, identify, monitor and meet the needs of children who are admitted with SEN or who, it subsequently becomes apparent, have SEN.
It is accepted wisdom, supported by a mountain and decades of empirical evidence, that children with SEN need to be identified at the earliest possible opportunity, if they are to make suitable progress and have any chance of reaching their potential. I think that everybody, on both sides of the Committee, would agree with that.
One in 20 children will be identified as having SEN at some time in their educational career. For many children, it will be a temporary issue. If a child breaks their leg and cannot get to school, in a sense, that is a temporary SEN; they have a special educational need that the local authority or the school has to meet. For many children, however, it will not be temporary. Not all children with SEN will be identified at the point of birth—very few are. If a child is born with profound and multiple learning difficulties, it is fairly easy to identify. If a child is deaf, that is usually identified within a couple of days, but for many other SEN, that happens when they get to school, and that is much too late. We should have been intervening much earlier.
We have talked a number of times in the Committee about the barriers that disabled children and their parents face in gaining admission to childcare provision. Some of that, as we have discussed, is the lack of confidence from providers that they will be able to meet the child’s needs. They are just worried—for many of them, it is about being really frightened. This is about finding a way of delivering what we have all said that we think needs to be there: access to the appropriate training and the confidence that providers need to admit children with SEN. It therefore makes sense that at the earliest point, childcare providers have access to the skills and abilities to identify SEN, and that is what this proposal seeks to provide. To leave children until they start school is too late; it damages their ability to make progress and will ultimately result in far greater problems down the line.
A suitably qualified member of staff in a childcare provider, or to which the childcare provider has access, can open up lines early with the appropriate medical staff, health visitors, speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, educational psychologists, specialist learning support teachers, child and adolescent mental health workers—in some cases, although I know from experience that that is often very hard to access—clinical psychologists and a range of people who can make a real difference, particularly if they have access to the child at the earliest possible point. This person—the SENCO, or whatever we choose to call them—can secure the training that is needed to give confidence to staff working with and caring for children with disabilities, and can make all the difference in the long term to their development.
Mr Gyimah
The new clauses are about special educational needs in the early years setting. The hon. Lady must be congratulated on the ingenious and persistent way in which she has focused our attention throughout the scrutiny of the Bill on children with special educational needs and disabilities. I agree with her that that is the right thing to do as far as the Bill is concerned.
We have heard a lot in this debate about access to the free entitlement for children with special educational needs and disabilities. The hon. Lady’s amendments seek to propose that all childcare providers have access to suitably qualified SEND co-ordinators and to place a requirement on local authorities to produce and maintain a childcare inclusion plan. I agree with her that early identification of additional needs is extremely important. It is central to the SEND reforms, and it includes specific requirements in health to refer children who might have SEND to the local authority, recognising that in the early years, especially before age three, health visitors or GPs can pick up concerns before anyone else.
With that in mind, I reassure Members that we all want childcare that meets the needs of working parents and their children, including those with SEND. It is therefore the Government’s intention to ensure high-quality childcare that meets the needs of all children. We recognise that staff need to have the right skills and knowledge to deliver that care.
The Government continue to support the development of the early years sector with a broader self-improvement education system, to which I alluded during our discussion on an earlier amendment. We invested £5.3 million through our voluntary and community sector grant scheme in 2015-16, of which about £4 million was invested in early years projects to support SEND reform implementation. A number of those programmes deliver SEND training to the early years workforce. In particular, the National Day Nurseries Association’s current SEND champions grant has proved very popular among the workforce.
We have also provided £5 million to support partnerships between teaching schools and PVI providers, which have also enabled good practice in supporting children with SEND. For example, the Solent Teaching School Alliance is delivering support for PVIs that includes a focus on children with SEND. It is leading to improved identification of children and better tracking of their progress towards more aspirational targets.
Obviously, local authorities have a key role to play. As I mentioned, the Children and Families Act 2014 sets out how the needs of children with SEND must be met. As is set out in the code of practice, in order to fulfil their role in identifying and planning for the needs of children with SEND, local authorities should ensure that there is sufficient expertise and experience among local early years providers to support those children.
Local authorities often make use of area SENCOs to provide advice and guidance to early years providers on developing inclusive early learning environments. The area SENCO helps make the links between education, health and social care to facilitate appropriate early provision for children with SEND and their transition to compulsory schooling. A recent SEND reform implementation survey that received responses from 104 local authorities indicated that 78% already have an area SENCO that early years providers can access. We are confident that that number will continue to grow as the reforms are embedded.
I do not believe that the number of area SENCOs needs to be required, as set out in new clause 4. I believe that it would be more appropriate to consider how we can learn from local authorities with area SENCOs and encourage other areas to follow that example, building on the model of the local authorities from which we heard in our recent survey.
As we heard at Tuesday’s session, the early years market is diverse; it is made up mostly of small, single-site private, voluntary and independent institutions. It would be challenging to require every provider to have a suitably qualified member of staff, or a SENCO, as set out in the new clause.
As I have said, we require every provider delivering the early years foundation stage, regardless of their size, to have arrangements in place to support children with special educational needs and disabilities. Under the Children and Families Act, a maintained nursery must ensure that there is a qualified teacher designated as the SENCO in order to ensure the detailed implementation of support for children with SEND. In addition, the EYFS framework requires other early years providers to have arrangements in place for meeting children’s special educational needs. Those in group provision are expected to identify a SENCO. Childminders are encouraged to identify a person to act as SENCO, and childminders who are registered with a childminder agency or who are part of a network may wish to share that role between them.
I recognise that the new clause would allow the Government to set a prescribed size for a childcare provider that must have a SENCO, but I am concerned about the potential perverse incentives that it could create if we placed requirements on different sizes of providers. For example, it could create incentives for a provider not to take more than 49 children if at 50 children the regulations would become more burdensome.
SENCOs are already a valued part of the landscape, but we want to develop and test other innovative ways of meeting the needs of children with SEND, in particular through the early implementer areas, as I have said a number of times. We do not want to prejudge the learning that we will gain from the early implementers, and I hope that the Committee will understand why we do not want to close down other potential options by settling on a single solution now.
New clause 3 seeks to place a requirement on local authorities to produce and maintain a childcare inclusion plan. I recognise that the intention of the hon. Member for North West Durham is to assist disabled children to access a further 15 hours of free childcare under the Bill. As I have stated clearly in Committee, I agree that all families should have access to high-quality, flexible and affordable childcare. I also agree that parents with disabled children should have the same choice and access to high-quality childcare. We want our early years to be inclusive—for children to learn and play together—but I do not agree that the answer is to place a new duty on local authorities to produce and maintain a childcare inclusion plan that sets out a strategy for how disabled children and those with SEN will be assisted to access childcare under the Bill.
The Children and Families Act already requires local authorities to have a local offer, which includes information as to the special educational provision that a local authority expects to be made available to children in its area by relevant childcare providers, and information as to how those providers tailor the childcare on offer to meet the needs of children with SEN. In preparing their local offer, local authorities must consult with the children and young people with SEND and their families to find out what sort of support and services they need. To ensure that the local offer is made available to all, local authorities must publish their offer on the internet and ensure that those families without access to the internet can also see it. The local authority must also tell children and young people and their families how they can find out more about the local offer.
I hope that I have made it clear that I absolutely agree that all eligible children should have access.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Speaking as quite a sharp-elbowed mum of children with SEN, I did not know that any of what the Minister read out existed, so it is clearly not working. My children have been through all sorts of different provision. Wanting this is a bit like Miss World wanting world peace. If the Government actually want it, why do we not do something about it?
Mr Gyimah
The Children and Families Act which came into force in 2014 was the biggest reform to SEND for 30 years. It is still being embedded in the system and that is precisely my point: we have made significant reforms, which are being embedded. I hope that what I am saying reassures Members. Rather than having another duty on SEND provision for local authorities, let us ensure that the reforms already passed on a cross-party basis become embedded and truly work for children, so that the parents, whether sharp-elbowed or not, may feel reassured that their children will get access to the childcare they need. I therefore hope that the shadow Minister will withdraw her new clauses.
Pat Glass
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley is right. We have all recognised here that there is a problem. We are not going to change things unless we do something to change them. At the moment, the system simply is not working for parents. The Minister and I agree that the role of SENCOs is crucial. The SENCO in the school and the area SENCO have crucial roles. They are almost the translator between the child and their difficulties and the rest of the provision. They work in relation to access and admission, to the training of staff and getting access to trained staff, to inclusive practices and, more importantly, to provisions to the curriculum in schools and in childcare. The SENCO is the translator of the curriculum for those children who have difficulties.
Pat Glass
The Minister misunderstands what I am saying. I am saying that the system is not working for disabled children if they are not getting access. I am not criticising the role of SENCOs or area SENCOs. The confidence I have is because I have seen that the role is crucial and huge, not only in translating the curriculum and so on, but in supporting parents. SENCOs have a strong role in supporting parents.
The Minister said that 78% of local authorities have a plan. That means that 22%—that is more than a fifth—do not. I worry about the children living in those local authorities that do not have a plan. I take on board his point on perverse incentives. I would hate to see a situation in which childcare providers, particularly those that are good or outstanding, suddenly decided not to take more children because of a cut-off point. I understand that concern, but I am not sure that that is sufficient reason not to have a requirement in the Bill to ensure that there is at least someone who is suitably trained in a provision or someone who knows where to go to get help.
I have been at it quite a long time, and I remember taking over SEN in an authority where SEN was failing badly. I had absolutely no experience in that. I had worked in school improvement and other areas of education, and I was suddenly asked to take over SEN. SEN has always been and remains something of a secret garden in local authorities. It is the province of all those professionals, such as educational psychologists and clinical psychologists, and is not for people like me.
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Lady is making an eloquent case, as she has done throughout our scrutiny of the Bill and this issue. While we both agree on the problem we are trying to solve, if she thinks that an Act that came into force a year ago is not sufficient, why would another Act address the problem?
Pat Glass
If I can finish the point I was making, I took over SEN. I feel ashamed that I sat in meetings at that time—it was quite a long time ago—and said to parents things like, “Do you know what? Your child will be better in this special school”, when they were fighting to have their child in mainstream education. I went along to a conference somewhere—I cannot remember what conference it was—and there was a disability discrimination officer who had severe cerebral palsy. He got up on the stage, and it was almost a road to Damascus moment. He said something like, “People like you made me special by making me different”, and I can remember thinking, “Oh my God.”
I set off from there to find out about inclusion. We were right at the beginning of things. If a child fell off a step, they were placed in a special school. It was that bad in those days. No one was being included. I learned an awful lot of things along the way, such as that pushing children through the door and having them there is not the same as having them included. There is a great difference between having them there and having them welcomed and wanted. That is what inclusivity is. The point that, in a very long-winded way, I am trying to make to the Minister is that we have to start somewhere, and forcing something is the first step towards making the system much more inclusive.
Mr Gyimah
Once again, the hon. Lady makes a very strong point. Is she aware that, in addition to the requirement to publish a local offer for children with SEND, in the case of a provider that “requires improvement” or is “inadequate” the local authority must provide information and advice training specifically on meeting the needs of children with SEND? Given that that measure is in place, should we not make sure it works rather than putting more stuff into legislation?
Pat Glass
I take the Minister’s point, and I appreciate that his colleague introduced major reforms in this area a year ago. We want them to work, because they are long overdue. We want to move away from a system in which statements took forever to one in which there is much more co-ordination between health, education and social care. We want that to happen. I worry about the cuts to local authorities’ budgets, because they must be able to deliver this. I am aware of the local offer, but in too many local authorities it is not a proper offer to parents, but a list of what is available if they bother to ring around, so we are some way from what the Government want to realise.
Mr Gyimah
I would just like to draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the section in the EYFS that states:
“Each child must be assigned a key person…The key person must seek to engage and support parents and/or carers in guiding their child’s development at home. They should also help families engage with more specialist support if appropriate.”
Once again, does the hon. Lady think that what she is proposing will lead only to more law? There is enough law already to make what she wants happen.
Pat Glass
I am aware of that, but if the key person measures were working, children with disabilities would not be being refused admission to childcare providers. We know that the SENCO role works incredibly well, and I just want to build on what works. I understand that we need to embed the things that are in the SEN legislation. We want them to work. I am happy not to press the new clauses if the Minister agrees to monitor this area and revisit it if it does not improve.
Mr Gyimah
By way of reply to the hon. Lady’s concluding remarks, I assure her and the Committee that this will be a priority in the early implementers. We will also put in place an evaluation system to ensure we are learning the right lessons, not only from that but afterwards, to improve the system. I think the hon. Lady agrees that this is a practical, rather than a legal, problem. We have got to work with local authorities to ensure this works for parents, and I assure her that that is our priority.
Pat Glass
The Minister is absolutely right. The amendments that I tabled about disabled children do not require a legal response; they require funding to be put in to ensure that this is monitored and policed. Something must be done to make the changes that will have to happen, because the current situation is unacceptable. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Mr Gyimah
Thank you for your expert and expeditious chairmanship of our proceedings, Mr Hanson. I thank the officials, who are seen but not heard, and who have worked incredibly hard since the start of this Parliament to turn our manifesto pledge into a Bill and into reality for working parents. I thank my colleagues, who have been very supportive, and the Opposition for ensuring that we focused not on the party-political knockabout but on what we can do to help children and families.
A lot of points have been made. As the hon. Member for North West Durham said, not all of them require a legal response, but a lot of them require a practical response. I thank hon. Members for raising those issues, and I look forward to working with them over the next weeks and months to make this Bill work for parents.
Pat Glass
I, too, thank both Chairmen for their excellent chairmanship. I thank the Clerks and officials for supporting us. They supported me, in particular—I struggled a little, because this is my first Bill Committee. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the Committee. There was very little to disagree with in this Bill. It is a good Bill and we want to make it work for parents. I think I have made my point about disabled children.
The Chair
I thank hon. Members for finishing early, because I have the opportunity to see the pupils of Ysgol Rhos Helyg of Rhosesmor, who have come 220 miles from north Wales to see their MP. I shall see them very shortly.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Housing and Planning Bill (Sixteenth sitting)
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
I welcome the Committee to the final day of its consideration of the Housing and Planning Bill. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I remind Members that, under the programme motion, the Bill has to be out by 5 pm.
New Clause 2
Revocation or variation of banning orders
“(1) A person against whom a banning order is made may apply to the First-tier Tribunal for an order under this section revoking or varying the order.
(2) If the banning order was made on the basis of one or more convictions all of which are overturned on appeal, the First-tier Tribunal must revoke the banning order.
(3) If the banning order was made on the basis of more than one conviction and some of them (but not all) have been overturned on appeal, the First-tier Tribunal may—
(a) vary the banning order, or
(b) revoke the banning order.
(4) If the banning order was made on the basis of one or more convictions that have become spent, the First-tier Tribunal may—
(a) vary the banning order, or
(b) revoke the banning order.
(5) The power to vary a banning order under (3)(a) or (4)(a) may be used to add new exceptions to a ban or to vary—
(a) the banned activities,
(b) the length of a ban, or
(c) existing exceptions to a ban.
(6) In this section ‘spent’, in relation to a conviction, means spent for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
This amendment allows a banning order to be revoked or varied in certain circumstances.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 3
Offence of breach of banning order
“(1) A person who breaches a banning order commits an offence.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 51 weeks or to a fine or to both.
(3) If a financial penalty under section 17 has been imposed in respect of the breach, the person may not be convicted of an offence under this section.
(4) In relation to an offence committed before section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes into force, the reference in subsection (2) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to 6 months.”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
This amendment makes it an offence to breach a banning order.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 4
Offences by bodies corporate
“(1) Where an offence under section (Offence of breach of banning order) committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, an officer of a body corporate, the officer as well as the body corporate commits the offence and is liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
(2) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (1) applies in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with the member’s functions of management as if the member were an officer of the body corporate.”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
This amendment ensures that officers of a body corporate can be prosecuted for offences committed by it under NC3. “Officer” is given a broad definition by clause 48 of the Bill.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 5
Power to require information
“(1) A local housing authority may require a person to provide specified information for the purpose of enabling the authority to decide whether to apply for a banning order against the person. It is an offence for the person to fail to comply with a requirement, unless the person has a reasonable excuse for the failure. It is an offence for the person to provide information that is false or misleading if the person knows that the information is false or misleading or is reckless as to whether it is false or misleading.
(2) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine.”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
This amendment allows a local housing authority to require a person to provide information for the purpose of deciding whether to apply for a banning order. For example, the number of properties that a landlord has may be relevant to whether an authority applies for a banning order. The power would allow the authority to require the landlord to provide that information.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 6
Removal or variation of entries made under section 24
“(1) An entry made in the database under section 24 may be removed or varied in accordance with this section.
(2) If the entry was made on the basis of one or more convictions all of which are overturned on appeal, the responsible local housing authority must remove the entry.
(3) If the entry was made on the basis of more than one conviction and some of them (but not all) have been overturned on appeal, the responsible local housing authority may—
(a) remove the entry, or
(b) reduce the period for which the entry must be maintained.
(4) If the entry was made on the basis of one or more convictions that have become spent, the responsible local housing authority may—
(a) remove the entry, or
(b) reduce the period for which the entry must be maintained.
(5) If a local housing authority removes an entry in the database, or reduces the period for which it must be maintained, it must notify the person to whom the entry relates.
(6) In this section—
‘responsible local housing authority’ means the local housing authority by which the entry was made;
‘spent’, in relation to a conviction, means spent for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
This amendment allows a local housing authority to remove an entry in the database of rogue landlords and property agents or reduce the time for which the entry must be maintained in certain circumstances. See also NC7. There is no mention of clause 23 as an entry under that clause is maintained for as long as the banning order has effect.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 7
Requests for exercise of powers under section (Removal or variation of entries made under section 24) and appeals
“(1) A person in respect of whom an entry is made in the database under section 24 may request the responsible local housing authority to use its powers under section (Removal or variation of entries made under section 24) to—
(a) remove the entry, or
(b) reduce the period for which the entry must be maintained.
(2) The request must be in writing.
(3) Where a request is made, the local housing authority must—
(a) decide whether to comply with the request, and
(b) give the person notice of its decision.
(4) If the local housing authority decides not to comply with the request the notice must include—
(a) reasons for that decision, and
(b) a summary of the appeal rights conferred by this section.
(5) Where a person is given notice that the responsible local housing authority has decided not to comply with the request the person may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against that decision.
(6) An appeal to the First-tier Tribunal under subsection (5) must be made before the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice was given.
(7) The First-tier Tribunal may allow an appeal to be made to it after the end of that period if satisfied that there is a good reason for the person’s failure to appeal within the period (and for any subsequent delay).
(8) On an appeal under this section the tribunal may order the local housing authority to—
(a) remove the entry, or
(b) reduce the period for which the entry must be maintained.” —(Mr Marcus Jones.)
This amendment allows a person to request a local housing authority to use its powers to remove or vary an entry in the database of rogue landlords and property agents (see NC6). If the local housing authority refuses, the person may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 8
Meaning of “property manager” and related expressions
“(1) In this Part ‘property manager’ means a person who engages in English property management work.
(2) In this Part ‘English property management work’ means things done by a person in the course of a business in response to instructions received from another person (‘the client’) where—
(a) the client wishes the person to arrange services, repairs, maintenance, improvements or insurance in respect of, or to deal with any other aspect of the management of, premises on the client’s behalf, and
(b) the premises consist of housing in England let under a tenancy.”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
This and related amendments are intended to ensure that a banning order can be made against any person who engages in property management work, not just letting agents who engage in such work.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 17
Default powers exercisable by Mayor of London or combined authority
“(1) After section 27 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 insert—
‘27A Default powers exercisable by Mayor of London or combined authority
Schedule A1 (default powers exercisable by Mayor of London or combined authority) has effect.’
(2) Before Schedule 1 to that Act insert, as Schedule A1, the Schedule set out in Schedule (Default powers exercisable by Mayor of London or combined authority: Schedule to be inserted in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004) to this Act.
(3) In section 17 of that Act (local development documents), at the end of subsection (8) insert—
‘(c) is approved by the Mayor of London under paragraph 2 of Schedule A1;
(d) is approved by a combined authority under paragraph 6 of that Schedule.’”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
This new Clause and NS2 make provision for the Secretary of State to invite the Mayor of London or a combined authority to prepare or revise a development plan document for a local planning authority in their area that is failing to progress the document.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 18
Amendments to do with section 111 to 117
“Schedule (Right to enter and survey land: consequential amendments) amends legislation conferring rights of entry relating to the acquisition of an interest in or a right over land in England and Wales.”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
This amendment, together with amendment 257 and new Schedule (Right to enter and survey land: consequential amendments), clarifies how the new right of entry in clause 111 will interact with a number of existing rights of entry.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 23
Procedure for redeeming English rentcharges
“(1) The Rentcharges Act 1977 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (5).
(2) Before section 8 (but after the italic heading before section 8) insert—
‘7A Power to make procedure for redeeming English rentcharges
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision allowing the owner of land in England affected by a rentcharge to redeem it.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may not make provision in relation to—For the purposes of subsection (2)(d) a rentcharge is variable if the amount of the rentcharge will, or may, vary in the future in accordance with the provisions of the instrument under which it is payable.
(a) a rentcharge that could be redeemed by making an application under section 8(1A),
(b) a rentcharge of a kind mentioned in section 2(3) or section 3(3)(a),
(c) a rentcharge in respect of which the period for which it is payable cannot be ascertained, or
(d) a variable rentcharge.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular—
(a) provide for the owner of land affected by a rentcharge to be able to redeem a rentcharge by taking specified steps, including making payments determined in accordance with the regulations;
(b) require a rent owner or other person to take specified steps to facilitate the redemption of a rentcharge, such as providing information or executing a deed of release;
(c) where the documents of title of the owner of land affected by a rentcharge are in the custody of a mortgagee, require the mortgagee to make those documents or copies of those documents available in accordance with the regulations;
(d) permit or require a person specified in the regulations to design the form of any document to be used in connection with the redemption of rentcharges under the regulations;
(e) provide for a court or tribunal to—
(i) determine disputes about or in relation to the redemption of a rentcharge;
(ii) make orders about the redemption of a rentcharge;
(iii) issue a redemption certificate;
(f) make provision corresponding to any of the provisions of section 10(2) to (4).
(4) Nothing in this section prevents the redemption of a rentcharge otherwise than in accordance with regulations under subsection (1).’
(3) In section 8—
(a) in subsection (1)—
(i) after ‘land’ insert ‘in Wales’;
(ii) for the words from ‘a certificate’ to the end substitute ‘a redemption certificate’;
(b) after subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) The owner of any land in England affected by a rentcharge which has been apportioned to that land by an apportionment order with a condition under—
(a) section 7(2) above, or
(b) section 20(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927,
may apply to the Secretary of State, in accordance with this section, for a redemption certificate.’
(4) In section 12—
(a) in subsection (1), after ‘this Act’ insert ‘, apart from regulations under section 7A,’;
(b) after subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) Regulations under section 7A are to be made by statutory instrument.
(1B) A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 7A may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’
(5) In section 13(1), in the definition of ‘redemption certificate’, for the words from ‘has’ to the end substitute ‘means a certificate certifying that a rentcharge has been redeemed’.
(6) The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 is amended in accordance with subsections (7) and (8).
(7) In section 8(4)(b), for ‘8’ substitute ‘7A’.
(8) In section 11—
(a) in subsection (6), after ‘1977’ insert ‘or the amount that would have to be paid to secure the redemption of that rentcharge in accordance with regulations made under section 7A of that Act’;
(b) in subsection (7)(a), after ‘specified’ insert ‘or required’;
(c) in subsection (8), for ‘8’ substitute ‘7A’.”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
This amendment will permit the Secretary of State to make regulations allowing the owner of land in England that is affected by a rentcharge to redeem that rentcharge without making an application to the Secretary of State as the procedure in section 8 of the Rentcharges Act 1977 would involve.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Gray, it has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship these past few weeks, and it remains so today. With your permission, before I speak to new clause 23, I would like to inform the Committee that last night I sent the Clerks an updated assessment of the Bill’s legislative competence, following the amendments agreed so far and those being discussed today. I trust that it will help to inform Mr Speaker when he comes to re-certify the Bill at the appropriate time.
New clause 23 give the Secretary of State a power to make regulations setting out a new statutory redemption procedure for rentcharges, excluding those specified in new section 7A(2) of the Rentcharges Act 1977, as inserted by subsection (2) of the new clause. Currently, a rent payer can apply to the Secretary of State under section 8 of the 1977 Act for a redemption certificate. The rentcharge team will carry out the necessary checks and advise the rent payer on the amount needed for redemption. Once that amount has been paid, the team will issue a certificate of redemption.
We do not believe it appropriate in this day and age, and especially in the current financial climate, for the Government to continue to have a role in the redemption of rentcharges. The clause will allow the current procedure to be replaced with a mechanism that will be set out in regulations. The new procedure will no longer involve the Secretary of State in the redemption of rentcharges. Instead, the rent owner and the rent payer will be required to take certain steps for the redemption of a rentcharge. [Interruption.]
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Gray. I am trying to listen to the Minister with great interest, but there is clearly a conversation going on elsewhere within the room that is preventing me from listening to what feels like an excellent contribution.
The Chair
I am grateful for that point of order from the Opposition Back Benches. The Government Whip might like to take note—[Interruption.] I repeat: the Government Whip might like to take note of the point of order, which is that there are too many conversations—mainly involving the Government Whip—happening on the Back Benches.
Mr Jones
Thank you, Mr Gray.
It will still be possible for the parties to reach a private agreement on redemption voluntarily outside the statutory regime. The existing redemption procedure is set out in primary legislation. The power to set out the new procedure in regulation provides the flexibility to make changes with greater ease than would otherwise be the case. The new regime is likely to contain a level of detail not suited to primary legislation, as the regulations will be concerned with substantive matters, such as the property rights of both the rent payer and the rent owner, and will include provision on dispute resolution. It seems appropriate for the regulations to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I do not wish to say too much about the new clause at this stage, because I am conscious that much of the detail will come in regulations, and I am partly assured by the fact that the regulations will be affirmative. Presumably, we will get an opportunity at a later stage to consider the implications of the new clause in more detail.
Mr Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. On the basis of the assurance that we have provided to her, I commend the new clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 23 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 32
Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life
“Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) changes the law about secure tenancies, introductory tenancies and demoted tenancies to phase out tenancies for life.”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
A secure tenant can currently live in a property for life. This amendment and NS4 phase out lifetime tenancies. In future secure tenancies will generally have to be for a fixed term of 2 to 5 years and will not automatically be renewed. Towards the end of the term, the landlord will have to do a review to decide whether to grant a new tenancy or recover possession.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 33—Succession to secure tenancies and related tenancies.
Government new schedule 4—Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life.
Government new schedule 5—Succession to secure tenancies and related tenancies.
Mr Jones
New clause 32 and new schedule 4 together prevent local authorities in England from offering secure tenancies for life in most circumstances. They deliver on a commitment in the July Budget to review the use of lifetime tenancies, with a view to limiting their use. Currently, the vast majority of new social housing tenancies are offered on a lifetime basis, meaning tenants have the right to live in their social home for the rest of their lives, provided they keep to the conditions of their tenancy.
Since April 2012, following changes introduced by the coalition Government’s Localism Act 2011, local authorities have been able to offer so-called flexible tenancies—tenancies of a fixed term of no less than two years. However, they are not taking advantage of that flexibility. In 2014-15, only 8% of social tenancies granted by local authorities were flexible tenancies. That is only just over than 9,000 in all. At present, 236,000 social tenants are forced to live in overcrowded conditions due to the lack of suitably sized properties, while 380,000 households occupy social housing with two or more spare bedrooms. Under those circumstances, we believe that continuing to offer social tenancies on a lifetime basis is not an efficient use of scarce social housing.
The new clauses will significantly improve landlords’ ability to get the best use out of social housing by focusing it on those who need it most for as long as they need it. That will ensure that people who need long-term support are provided with more appropriate tenancies as their needs change over time and will support households to make the transition into home ownership where they can. In future, with limited exceptions, local authority landlords will only be able to grant tenancies with a fixed term of between two and five years, and will be required to use tenancy review points to support tenants’ move towards home ownership where appropriate.
Let me be clear: we are not taking away security of tenure from existing lifetime tenants who remain in their home. Moreover, these amendments will ensure that where existing lifetime tenants are moved by their landlord—for example, as part of an estate regeneration—they will retain their lifetime tenancy. We want to ensure that fixed-term tenancies do not act as a barrier to mobility.
Where lifetime tenants choose to move, local authority landlords will have limited discretion to offer further lifetime tenancies. We will prescribe the circumstances in which local authorities may exercise that discretion in regulations. We expect that such circumstances will include tenants downsizing to a smaller property and moving for work. We will obviously ensure that we develop the regulations in discussion with local authorities. Outside those limited exceptions, if local authorities try to offer a lifetime tenancy or one that is shorter than two years or longer than five, whether deliberately or by mistake, the tenancy will default to a five-year fixed term.
In the main, the statutory protections that the amendments provide for those granted a fixed-term tenancy are similar to those currently enjoyed by flexible tenants. A person who is offered a fixed-term tenancy by a prospective landlord may request a review of the landlord’s decision on the length of term offered. The landlord will be required to look at their decision again and explain how it was reached in the light of their published tenancy policy.
Mr Jones
The hon. Gentleman raises a good question, which I will come to later in my remarks.
Tenants will usually be able to terminate their tenancy at any stage, while enjoying protection from eviction during the fixed term. The local authority landlord will need to demonstrate to the court that one or more of the grounds for possession is proven and that they are acting reasonably in seeking possession.
The amendments will introduce an important new statutory protection. Local authority landlords will be required to carry out a review of the tenant’s circumstances between six and nine months before the end of the fixed term, so that they can take an appropriate decision about the household’s housing need and advise the tenant on their housing options. That will include moving into home ownership where that is a realistic option. The new review process will also apply to existing flexible tenants unless they have less than nine months to go on their tenancy agreement.
Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
I am intrigued by what the Minister means when he talks about having the same rights. We have heard a lot in the past few weeks about how the Government want all social tenants to have the right to buy, but is it not the case that social tenants who have less than a three-year tenancy will not have the right to buy? Is that not a clear difference between those two different types of social tenant?
Mr Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She makes a very good point, to which I will return.
We are including protections for existing introductory and demoted tenants at the time that the Bill comes into force. Where tenants have a legitimate expectation that they would be granted a lifetime tenancy at the end of the tenancy—because, in the case of demoted tenants, they were previously lifetime tenants, or because, in the case of introductory tenants, the tenancy would otherwise automatically convert to a lifetime tenancy—they will still be given a lifetime tenancy.
I believe that, taken together, the amendments strike the right balance between stability and quality for tenants—new and existing—flexibility for the landlord and a move towards home ownership.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Will the Minister clarify the previous point? If a tenant is currently a local authority tenant with a lifetime tenancy and they move within the stock, does the lifetime tenancy move with them or will they then have to be offered a two to five-year tenancy?
Mr Jones
In my comments earlier, I set out clearly that that can be the case, but that will depend on the circumstances of the tenant at the time and the policy of the local authority.
We want housing association landlords and tenants to reap the benefits from shorter-term tenancies as well. However, we clearly need to consider any changes to housing associations in the light of the recent decision of the Office for National Statistics on classification. We are working through the ONS reclassification decision and considering the options but, given the complexity of the matter, careful consideration is needed. We will continue to work closely with the housing association sector, the social housing regulator and other stakeholders to finalise the deregulatory package, and we will consider any changes to lifetime tenancies in the context of that work.
New clause 33 and new schedule 5 change the rules on succession to secure tenancies and make equivalent changes for introductory and demoted tenancies. Currently there are significant differences between the succession rights for secure tenancies granted before April 2012 and those for tenancies granted after the date when changes under the Localism Act 2011 came into force.
For secure tenancies granted before April 2012 there is a limit of one succession. Spouses and civil partners qualify to succeed automatically, while other family members, including cohabitees, also qualify but only if they have lived with the tenant for at least 12 months immediately before his or her death.
Since April 2012, only spouses, civil partners and those living together as spouse or civil partner have a statutory right to succeed. However, local authorities can provide any additional succession rights that they think appropriate, including to people who have already succeeded, and to non-family members such as live-in carers.
We do not think that there is a justification for retaining the inconsistency of approach between pre-2012 and post-2012 local authority tenancies. We therefore propose that the succession rights for secure tenancies granted before April 2012 be aligned with those granted after that date. The amendments will deliver a consistent approach across all secure tenancies and ensure that common-law partners are put on an equal footing with married couples and civil partners.
Other family members who may have had an expectation of succeeding to a secure tenancy granted before April 2012, having lived with the tenant for at least 12 months, will lose their statutory right to succeed. We do not think that it is right that those who may not need social housing, because, for example, they can rent or buy privately, should have the automatic right to succeed to a social home when nearly 1.4 million households are on council waiting lists.
Mr Jones
As I said a few minutes ago, we clearly need to consider any changes that we might want to make. As I intimated, we would consider that, but we need to make any changes in the light of the reclassification. That is why we are saying that we want to consider the position extremely carefully. We expect to work closely with the housing association sector and the social housing regulator, and other stakeholders, to finalise any deregulatory package. We will consider—and we are considering—changes. That will happen in the context of the work I have mentioned.
I was explaining that family members other than common-law partners, married couples and civil partners will lose any statutory right they may have had to succeed to a secure tenancy granted before April 2012. Instead, local authorities will have the discretion to grant them succession rights, which must be written into the tenancy agreement. Where local authorities grant additional succession rights, we expect they will apply the same rules to tenancies granted before and after April 2012. However, we will provide guidelines to assist local authorities to exercise their discretion.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
As you know, Mr Gray, I listen avidly to what the Prime Minister says on these matters. In August 2010, in a speech in Birmingham, he said of this proposal that
“not everyone will support this and there will be quite a big argument”.
Well, he is right on that one: there will be a big argument. More importantly, however, he also said that the proposal would help with social mobility. It would be helpful if the Minister, in the absence of the Prime Minister, could explain why it will help with social mobility in any way whatever.
Mr Jones
The measure will help with social mobility—all the policies in the Bill are aimed at helping with social mobility. We want people who are able to purchase their own property—to exercise the right to buy—to do so and to exercise what we see as a right to social mobility. Within this policy, in many cases, the circumstances of tenants will be reviewed; in certain cases, it may prompt people who may otherwise not have thought about purchasing their own home to do so where they feel they are able to. That is an important thing for everybody to have the opportunity to do if they are able to.
Mr Thomas
Does the Minister envisage any exemptions for households where there are young children? One thinks, for example, of the need to offer young children stability of schooling, allowing them to go through primary school or to complete their passage through GCSEs. Might there be flexibility on secure tenancies in that situation?
Mr Jones
When a housing authority is doing a review of the circumstances of tenants who are in that position—where their bedrooms are fully occupied, and where they have children at schools—we would not expect it to assess their circumstances in the context that they have changed significantly enough to mean that those people would not be able to take a further tenancy from that authority. It is important to stress to the hon. Gentleman that this is all about trying to free up social housing for the people who really need it; this is not about taking away social housing from people whose circumstances have not changed significantly.
To come back to the point I was making about succession, even where family members do not benefit from additional succession rights, the landlord will still be able to issue them with a new tenancy in the same or a different property if they have had sufficient priority under the council’s allocation scheme. That will ensure that landlords take account of particularly hard cases. That feeds into the point made by the hon. Member for Harrow West.
The proposals ensure that spouses, civil partners and those who live together as such continue to have an automatic right to succeed to a lifetime tenancy. That seems only fair, particularly as, in many cases, they will be joint tenants. However, it is difficult to justify why other people should succeed to a lifetime tenancy, particularly when most new tenants will receive a five-year fixed-term tenancy. The proposals ensure, therefore, that anyone other than a spouse or partner will no longer be able to inherit a lifetime tenancy. Instead, if they qualify to succeed, they will be given a five-year fixed-term tenancy. At the end of the fixed-term period, the landlord will be required to carry out a review of their circumstances, as they would need to do for any new fixed-term tenant. If the tenant is still in need of social housing, the landlord will be able to grant a further fixed-term tenancy of between two and five years. We think that, taken together, the amendments strike the right balance between protection for the tenants and their families, and flexibility for landlords.
Mr Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. There are people who have certain needs, and he mentioned somebody who is disabled and in a property that has been specially adapted to deal with that disability. He needs to realise that the amendments are not couched in terms of automatically asking somebody in those circumstances who comes to the end of a fixed-term tenancy to move on. They are about reviewing circumstances. If, after that review, it is found that the disability of the person in question has not changed and that they still need that type of property with the housing adaptations that have been made, the local authority should not do anything other than renew the tenancy, as long as the person who is occupying the property has fulfilled the obligations under their tenancy agreement.
Let me come on to one or two of the questions that were asked during the debate. A question was asked about the impact assessment. We will publish a revised Bill impact assessment, and this will certainly be included in that.
Mr Jones
I assure the hon. Gentleman that it will be published before the Bill goes to the Lords.
On the right to buy, the answer is yes, the tenant will still be able to exercise their right to buy. They must have had three years in social housing to be eligible. That is the same for flexible tenancies. Part of the purpose of the review at the end of the tenancy is to consider whether a person can exercise the right to buy if they are eligible to do so.
Teresa Pearce
Will the Minister explain something? If somebody has less than a three-year tenancy, they will not have the right to buy. If they have a two-year tenancy, then a break and then another two-year tenancy, they will not have the right to buy. Is it possible that some local authorities will not grant longer tenancies as a way of not extending the right to buy to some tenants? Has the Minister looked at that to see whether it is a possible loophole?
Mr Jones
I am trying to think carefully about the hon. Lady’s logic. I think that the circumstances she mentioned would apply to people who have a lifetime tenancy. If a person does two years and, by their own volition, whether they are on a lifetime tenancy or a fixed tenancy, moves into private rented accommodation and then comes back to the local authority for rehousing, they would not have built up the three years that makes them eligible to take on the right to buy.
This issue has come up several times. The hon. Lady is saying that the local authority moves them out of the property after two years, but at the end of the two-year fixed tenancy, the situation is reviewed and the people’s circumstances are taken into account. I cannot see that this policy will stop people being able to take up right to buy.
The provisions also align the succession rights of introductory and demoted tenants with those of secure tenants. Spouses, civil partners and those living together as a married couple will have a statutory right to succeed and the landlord will be able to grant additional succession rights in the tenancy agreement. None of the changes will apply where the tenant died before the Bill comes into force. I therefore hope that hon. Members will take the measures in the spirit in which they are intended and accept them.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I will be very measured in my comments on the two new clauses, but I want to say to the Minister and put on the record that I am extremely angry about what is contained in the new clauses. I am angry in terms of process and in terms of content. I do not think it is helpful to the deliberations of this Committee to have had these extremely controversial and wide-ranging new clauses added on the last day of the Committee. I am also angry because, as far as I can see, there has been—
Mr Jones
I am looking at the new clauses before us today and the ones that the Committee has not dealt with previously. I can see only a small number of new clauses tabled by the Government, but a significantly greater number of new clauses submitted at this stage to the Committee. I ask the hon. Lady: is not what is good for the goose good for the gander?
Dr Blackman-Woods
I thought the Minister was going to make a serious intervention about the content of the new clauses. The point I was making is that the Government new clauses, which are wide ranging and controversial and have an impact on lots of people’s lives, should not have been brought to this Committee on the last day of its deliberations without any consultation, without an impact assessment and without any background information. It really is extraordinary. It is extremely bad practice and not good policy making.
It is the content of the clauses that concerns and outrages me. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said this morning:
“People will be astonished that Ministers are legislating to deny families a stable home. This will cause worry and upheaval for tenants, and break up communities.”
Because the new clauses have not been in the public domain for long, people are only now trying to catch up with what the impact might mean for people. However, some housing lawyers have contacted us to say:
“Presently, local authorities generally grant periodic secure tenancies. Such tenancies have no automatic end date, rather, they end only when the court makes an order for possession or when a tenant gives up the tenancy. Moreover, if you are the spouse or civil partner of a local authority tenant then, on the death of that tenant, you can succeed to the tenancy on the same terms.”
Dr Blackman-Woods
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. I want to finish what I am saying about this particular issue. The housing lawyers who have contacted us said:
“The new clauses end both of these rights. If the new clauses are accepted, local authorities will only (save for limited exceptions which will mostly be dealt with in secondary legislation)”—
as we heard from the Minister earlier—
“be able to grant tenancies for a fixed term of between 2 and 5 years. Towards the end of the fixed term (defined as between 9 and 6 months before it ends) the landlord will decide whether to offer another fixed term. Whilst there is a right to ask a landlord to review a decision not to offer another fixed term, there is no right to challenge the decision, e.g. by appeal to a court.”
Therefore, the spouse or civil partner of a local authority tenant, on death of that tenant, might get a five-year tenancy, or they might not.
The lawyers continue:
“This is a major reform of housing law, probably the most important since local authority tenants were given security of tenure in the Housing Act 1980. It requires much more detailed (and technical) consideration than just being dropped in for debate on the last day of the Committee Stage. There are, for example, two unintended consequences”—
my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West has just raised one. There is great concern about the potential impact on the right to buy, but there is also major concern about provisions for recovery of possession at the end of the fixed term and for recovery of possession against a successor.
The lawyers say that the current proposals are simply unworkable because
“where a local authority grants a fixed term tenancy, possession proceedings operate by way of forfeiture. Yet the Bill excludes forfeiture from the remedies available against these fixed term tenancies.”
The lawyers direct the Minister to read “Flexible Tenancies and Forfeiture” by Andrew Dymond in volume 17 of the Journal of Housing Law so that he can see how the drafting is flawed.
The lawyers continue:
“a 2 year fixed term means, in reality, only 15 months of security (since the decision whether to extend your tenancy can start with 9 months remaining on the term)”.
A two-to-five-year churn, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West pointed out, has huge implications for the stability of families and communities. It is important that the Minister addresses some of the points about what churn could mean in practice for the stability of families.
Kevin Hollinrake
As my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, there are 1.4 million people on the housing waiting list. Does the hon. Lady recognise that there is a real need to make the best use of our housing stock? People’s lifestyles change, as they go from living in a larger family to perhaps living on their own in a house that is larger than they need. Are these not sensible proposals to make sure we make best use of our housing stock?
Dr Blackman-Woods
Local authorities already have the power to grant fixed-term tenancies if they wish to do so. The issue we have been struggling somewhat to get across in the Committee to date is that, if there is a huge need for social rented housing, the way to deal with that need is to build more social rented housing units, not to make life more difficult for those who already occupy social rented housing by kicking them out using a whole variety of mechanisms.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Let me finish the point.
Increasing rents to a level that people will not be able to afford and having the bedroom tax in place means that a lot of people have to move out of their homes. Now, on the last day of our deliberations, we have this extraordinary set of measures, which seek to take secure tenancies away from people in the social rented sector. This is an extraordinary change. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that the way of dealing with acute housing need is to build more housing across all tenures, including for social rent, and I hope he will accept that.
Kevin Hollinrake
I absolutely accept that. Does the hon. Lady therefore welcome the 55% rise in the number of affordable houses—25,000 more properties— built in 2014-15 versus 2013-14?
Dr Blackman-Woods
A further thing I have been trying to do in the Committee is to make it clear that there are social rents and there are affordable rents. Affordable rents are not necessarily what we would all understand as affordable, because, in a lot of areas, 80% of the market rent is not affordable. Of course, that also applies to other measures for low-cost home ownership. Throughout the Committee’s deliberations, we have been questioning whether the Government’s definition of low-cost home ownership actually is low-cost home ownership.
Mr Thomas
Taking at face value the question from the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton—and given the conversations on the Government Benches, one should perhaps be cautious about doing that—might he not be tempted to support new clause 37, which would make it easier for councils to build more homes and thus deal with the backlog of people on waiting lists?
Dr Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I hope that we are able look at that this afternoon, because it would be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say about it.
Traditional secured tenancies are not tenancies for life. They are invariably subject to a probation period of at least a year. If there is antisocial behaviour during the tenancy, the court has the power to take away security of tenure and reduce the tenant’s rights in a demoted tenancy, so there are already measures that enable local authorities to end tenancies if there is a problem with the tenant. Indeed, the Local Government Association wrote to us to say:
“The Localism Act 2011 introduced flexible tenancies in acknowledgement that ‘a one size fits all model on rents and tenancies is not the best answer to the wide range of needs and circumstances of those accessing the social rented sector’. Councils should retain this freedom to manage locally their Tenancy Policy and decisions over tenancies. Every housing market is different and blanket national enforcements may risk impacting on coordinated local efforts to balance efficient use of stock while building stable neighbourhoods and communities. The requirement to review each tenancy every five years would be a significant administrative burden on councils. We would like to support the Government to work with councils in order for it to understand the impact of fixed-term tenancies and to then be able to use the information to inform future tenancy strategy.”
The new clause is not only profoundly unfair and unjust for people who need and are fortunate enough to get social rented tenancies, but profoundly anti-localist. That is what the local councils themselves say.
The 2011 Act gave local authorities flexibility. If, because of local circumstances, they have not used that flexibility to the degree that the Minister would like, under localism that should not give the Minister the right to legislate for them to do things differently. I want the Minister to explain why he thinks it is appropriate to introduce these new clauses on the last day of Committee stage. What work has been carried out with local authorities and tenants’ organisations to understand the impact of the proposals? What is he going to do from now on in terms of both the impact assessment and having the important discussions that must take place before the proposals go any further?
Peter Dowd
If a 46-year-old woman becomes a war widow, and her family fly the nest with the exception of one child, would she be asked to move out with the remaining child in due course? Would she pay the price of the Government’s social mobility policy by losing her marital and family home? What would she say to the child? Does my hon. Friend have any advice on that?
Dr Blackman-Woods
At this point, I do not—in fact, I was going to ask the Minister about that. Another question is: what about adult children who have been living in the house as their home for a very long time?
I shall finish with the following point. The reason why Margaret Thatcher offered secure tenancies in the 1980s is that she understood the need for tenancies that would offer families stability. There was a lot of discussion in the run-up to the 1979 election about what would happen to people in the social rented sector, and it was a good thing. It was the result of many years of lobbying and of knowing how important secure tenancies are to the stability not only of households but of communities that the legislation was introduced. It was introduced after a long period and a lot of deliberation, and it is critical that we do not legislate this morning to just get rid of it on what appears to be the whim of a Minister, a particular set of Ministers, or even the Prime Minister. It requires careful consideration, and we have not had the opportunity to consider the full implications of the measures.
My family had years of private rented accommodation and of being moved on, with young children. Getting a secure council tenancy was critical in giving all of us stability and good opportunities for social mobility. I cannot see where social mobility comes into these clauses. We know that making life more insecure does not lead to greater social mobility.
Teresa Pearce
I am very interested in what my hon. Friend is saying about social mobility. When I was granted a social tenancy at 21, I was on my own with my daughter. I stayed there for two years. In those two years, due to the lower rent and my increased job prospects, I was able to save enough to move out and buy my own property. Had I had a tenancy that I knew would end, I probably would not have been in a position to do that, because I would have been so fearful of where I would go next that it would have held back my social mobility.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention, which demonstrates the clear difference between Opposition and Government Members: we appreciate the value of social rented housing to many individuals and families in this country, and how important it often is in enabling people to turn their lives around and in giving stability, particularly to families on low incomes seeking to do their best in difficult circumstances. It is not simply a product that can be used one way and then another; it is important for whole families and for their life choices.
Security of tenure often gives people time, as my hon. Friend said, to think about what options and opportunities might be available to them, such as education or retraining. It is critical that we do not remove that important support mechanism and pull the rug from under people, particularly when they might be facing difficulties. We should ensure that they get the support they need.
Peter Dowd
The more I think about it, the closer I come to the word to describe it. Does my hon. Friend agree that asking local authorities and registered social landlords to go to people and effectively move them out of their houses is pusillanimous, to say the least?
Dr Blackman-Woods
Yes. If this is the result, the circumstances will be absolutely dreadful. Whether or not families are ultimately moved on, they will now have to live with the insecurity of knowing that they could be moved on at any time. That is what is particularly pernicious about the measures. They are part of a continuing vendetta against social tenants in this country. That is what we must assume from how the measures have been introduced and their content.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead made the point beautifully. We all understand the need for social housing. She needed social housing at one time in her life, and the property was available. The measure is about making the best use of our housing stock.
Dr Blackman-Woods
We dealt with that earlier. I ask the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to turn their attention to how we can deliver more social rented housing.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I will give way to the Minister once I have dealt with the intervention by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton. The way to deal with the huge demand for social rented housing is to build more of it. The figures I gave much earlier showed that last year the lowest number of homes for social rent in decades was built—I think it was 10,000 units.
Mr Jones
We have heard the heartening story of the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead. If she had chosen to, with a lifetime tenancy, she could by definition still be living in that house today while earning £74,000 a year as a Member of Parliament. Does the hon. Member for City of Durham think that it is right for someone to hold on to a lifetime tenancy in those circumstances, when people in housing need have nowhere near that income?
Dr Blackman-Woods
The Minister is sidestepping the point—for a change. We need to build more homes that are genuinely affordable—social homes, to rent. The Government are just making life more difficult for council tenants, trying to get them to move on somehow or other, rather than addressing the fundamental underlying problem, which is the lack of genuinely affordable housing.
Teresa Pearce
Just to clarify, I did have a lifetime tenancy, and my options were either to stay, to buy the property—which I did not do—or to save up, buy something, and leave the tenancy for someone else. Since then four other families have had the flat, because I did not remove it from the social stock by buying it. I do not understand the point about what I could have done if I had had a lifetime tenancy, because I did have one.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman and then I am anxious to conclude because other Members want to speak.
Chris Philp
The hon. Lady is very kind to give way. Of course Conservative Members agree that we should build more social or affordable housing, and the Bill will achieve that. Does she agree, however, that cases such as that of the former Member for Holborn and St Pancras, Frank Dobson, who occupied a council house for 30-odd years despite being a Cabinet Minister, are poor use of housing stock, and that a family in Camden on a low income would have been much better off occupying that council property?
Dr Blackman-Woods
The hon. Gentleman needs to turn his attention to what the Local Government Association has said on the matter:
“The Localism Act 2011 introduced flexible tenancies in acknowledgement that ‘a one size fits all model on rents and tenancies is not the best answer to the wide range of needs and circumstances’”.
Local authorities already can offer flexible tenancies if they want to. The provisions before the Committee would force all councils to do it, and do it in a particular way, whether or not that accorded with local circumstances and met tenants’ needs.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne said that the provisions are a continuation of a “vendetta against council tenants”. The manner in which they have been tabled, and the lack of consultation with the housing sector, tenants or anyone who might be affected, show that he is probably right. I look forward to the Minister’s having the good sense to withdraw them and to allow proper discussion of such a key issue before a decision is made.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is absolutely shameful that the Government have tabled this new clause so late in the Committee’s deliberations, without time for tenants to be consulted, without time for the Committee to take evidence orally or in writing from tenants and from those who represent tenants, and without the opportunity to hear the views of the social housing sector and of councils. The proposal is yet another radical reform and a forceful attack on social housing as we know it.
Southwark Council, one of the councils that I represent, consulted during the previous Parliament on the Government’s proposed flexibility to change the form of council tenancies. It consulted extensively with its tenants and in the end it decided to take advantage of the proposal to introduce introductory tenancies, but not to remove lifetime tenancies. That was because of the views that residents expressed during the consultation.
I recall a conversation with a woman who lives on one of my council estates. She was an original right-to-buy tenant. She bought her flat and brought up her family there. She has lived on the estate for more than 40 years and has been the life and soul of the community; she has been chair and vice-chair of her tenants and residents association. She said to me, “If you as the council introduce this proposal, we are finished as a community, because you will be undermining the stability of our community. You will be destabilising. We will have a much more rapid turnover. Our ability to be a cohesive, strong, stable and long-term community on this estate will be gone.” That is the significance of this proposed reform of social housing. It denies stability and security to households on low and moderate incomes, who cannot afford to buy.
I do not understand why the Government are so set on making a distinction between the aspirations of people who can afford to buy and those of everybody else. I do not understand why the Government are bent on denying people on lower incomes the stability of knowing that they can live in their community for the long term; that they can send their children to the local school for as long as they need to be there; that they can invest in that community and play an active role in supporting their neighbours and in giving back. I do not understand why the Government are making that distinction on income grounds alone.
I am concerned that a consequence of the proposal will be to force tenants, for whom home ownership is not sustainable in the long term, to consider the right to buy. In my nearly six years as a councillor, many residents have come to me in deep distress because of the cost of major works bills and the cost of service charges, which they did not necessarily anticipate were coming and which they had not set aside the money for. They had 95% mortgages and they did not have the equity in their home to be able to borrow to cover those costs. Their home is threatened as a consequence of the financial strain. I am concerned that if people think they have only two, three or five years to live in their social home, and that the way to achieve longevity is to buy their home, they will be forced to take up the right-to-buy option when it is not in their long-term financial interests to do so.
It is worth rehearsing exactly how many and varied the ways are in which the Government seem bent on an attack on social tenants. We have the high income tenant provision for tenants who are not actually recognised as high earners by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs under the pay to stay clauses. We are still living with the pernicious bedroom tax. We have absolutely no funding line at all in the comprehensive spending review to deliver a Government subsidy for new social housing, the delivery of which—not the punishment of existing tenants—is the key to solving the social housing crisis. The forced sale of council homes will reduce the number of those homes available to meet the need that is there. This is a race to the bottom on housing for those on low to moderate incomes. It seems to me that the poor standards and insecurity of tenure of the private rented sector are the standards the Government are aiming for, rather than an aspiration to raise standards and security of tenure, and the availability of secure tenure, for those on low to moderate incomes.
New clause 32 is a further pernicious measure that simply punishes those who, through no fault of their own, are on low to moderate incomes. It shows absolute contempt for social tenants that the new clause has been introduced with no opportunity for tenants or their representatives to be consulted and make their views known, and with no opportunity for the Government to hear from them at first hand. Many times during Committee I have referred to my constituents—the people who, every week, come to my surgeries and write to me. Week in, week out, many people raise issues relating to security of tenure. They worry and are caused great anxiety—in fact, it affects their mental health to know that they might have to take their children out of school to move to a more affordable area. Insecurity of tenure undermines people’s ability to save for the future, the strength of community connections, and the ability of people to support each other in a mixed, balanced and diverse community. These things matter to all residents, not only those who can afford to buy their own home.
I would like the Committee and the Government to hear at first hand from tenants and leaseholders—those who live alongside tenants on our mixed and diverse estates—about the effect the new clause will have on them. I hope that the Government will withdraw the new clause so that tenants’ views on it can be heard and can inform the debate.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Gray.
I rise to oppose the new clauses and new schedules. In doing so, I will try to be as measured as my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham and for Dulwich and West Norwood, but I too am angry. Let us be clear: this is not just one group of a bunch of new provisions that have been tabled; taken together, the new clauses and new schedules represent a significant reform of housing law—probably, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham said, the most important since local authority tenants were given security of tenure by the Thatcher Government in the Housing Act 1980. We can have a robust debate about the rationale for the Government’s policy, but whatever the views of individual Members on the Government and Opposition Benches, there is absolutely no justification for the shabby way that these provisions have been brought before the Committee. There has been no consultation or impact assessment. The Minister says we will get one sometime before the Bill goes to the House of Lords, but that will not give the Committee an opportunity to scrutinise this important legislation properly.
Mr Thomas
Is it not all the more disappointing that the Minister has confirmed that housing association tenants also face the potential loss of their secure tenancies? We do not know when there will be a consultation on that either, in the same way as there has not yet been a consultation on the provisions before us now.
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend makes a good point. If I was a housing association tenant, or if I ran a housing association, I would be worried by the implications of the new clause and new schedules for tenants and for the sector as a whole.
Turning to some of the specifics, I have a number of concerns about the consequences, intended or otherwise, of the proposals. The most important is that the new clauses are yet another example of the centralising nature of the Bill. Perhaps that is the weakest part of the Government’s argument. The Minister argued that the measures are intended to promote the more efficient use of council housing, and the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton said that they are designed to make better use of stock, but the Localism Act 2011 already allows local authorities to grant fixed-term tenancies.
Currently, it is left to local councils to decide whether to grant traditional secure tenancies or fixed-term tenancies. The Minister touched on the fact that there will be freedom and opportunity for local authorities. If that is the aim, why the need for legislation? They have that as things stand. More telling was his staggering comment that the measures are needed because local authorities are not taking advantage of the freedoms available to them. What kind of localism is it that says to a local authority, “Here is a power that you can use if you decide, as a democratically elected local authority, that the housing needs in your area demand it, but if you don’t use it, we are going to take it away, make you look at it again and force you to use it”? That is not localism. As the Conservative party has championed localism, I thought that the Government might have thought about this measure a little more carefully.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham has already said that the provisions for recovery of possession at the end of the fixed term and against a successor are not workable. Where a local authority grants a fixed-term tenancy, possession proceedings operate by way of forfeiture, yet the Bill excludes forfeiture from the remedies available against fixed-term tenancies. That is unsurprising, because the provisions have been introduced so hastily that the drafting is flawed and will need to be reviewed at a later date.
Perhaps the most important point is the one made powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood. The new clauses and new schedules will have implications for the building and maintaining of stable and secure communities. I return to a point that we have touched on several times previously, including in our discussion of the pay to stay clauses. When we look at social and public housing as a zero sum game, through the lens of dependency and economic subsidy, as Government Members clearly do, we are into a world where we are undermining mixed communities. I thought that the Government—the coalition Government certainly stated this—believed in sustainable, inclusive, mixed communities. How can we have mixed communities if anyone who does well, who saves and gets a better job, is encouraged to move on?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead, who has actually experienced living in social housing, has said, if they have the opportunity and the security and stability on which to do it, most people will take the opportunity to buy their own home and move out at some point in the future. Coercing people or applying pressure on them to do so is not the way to encourage them to move on. That is what the provisions will do.
The new clauses do not, as the Minister said, strike the right balance; they will be deeply damaging to communities throughout England, including those I represent in Plumstead, Charlton, Woolwich and Greenwich. I encourage the Minister to visit some of the estates and talk to the people there, who will say exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood did: the people who hold these communities together—the glue, if you like—are those tenants who have perhaps done a little better than others but have stayed and are trusted and looked to as community figures.
The measures will increase transience and churn and undermine mixed communities. They are conclusive proof that the central thrust of the Bill is an attack on public housing and the families who rely on it. It is bad policy and, more important, it is bad policy making. The Government should go away and look again and at least, at a minimum, if they really believe in this, come back to us after a consultation when we can look at a proper impact assessment. They should not be introducing these new clauses in such a shabby way.
The Chair
Order. The hon. Gentleman should realise that if he wants to catch my eye, he must stand up in his place.
Peter Dowd
Okay. Thank you very much, Mr Gray. I tried to catch your eye earlier, but, regrettably, I obviously did not.
The Chair
When an hon. Member wishes to speak, he stands in his place and I then call him. If he does not stand in his place, I presume he no longer wishes to speak. He cannot do it by waving.
The Chair
I am sorry, I do not intend to argue about it, but I will say it again: if an hon. Member wishes to speak, they stand in their place. If they do not, they do not get called, for the very simple reason that for all I know he or she may well have changed their mind. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to be called, he must stand in his place.
Peter Dowd
Thank you for your advice, Mr Gray, which I genuinely appreciate.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham made a powerful case about the contradictions between the provisions in the new clauses and localism. As a council leader, I experienced such contradictions many times. We were constantly being told about all these local powers and having the discretion to do this or that, but of course it was only if it was what the Government wanted us to do. If we did not do what the Government wanted, they forced us to, and if we did, they said, “There you are, you’ve volunteered to do it.” I therefore completely understand and accept my hon. Friend’s contention that this localism policy is not really a localism policy.
Mr Jones
I have heard the comments of Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for City of Durham. The hon. Lady seems to be most surprised that the Government are introducing these measures, but I am surprised that she is surprised. In August 2010 the Prime Minister first mentioned that the Government of the day were thinking of such provisions—the hon. Member for Bootle even highlighted that in his earlier intervention—and that was followed by the Localism Act 2011, which took the proposals further, and by the Chancellor’s announcement in this year’s summer Budget. The Labour party should not be surprised.
Teresa Pearce
I hear what the Minister is saying, but given that the measure has been in the pipeline since 2010, why was it not in the Bill?
Mr Jones
I am not going to give way at the moment. I want to read from a newspaper article quoting a Minister:
“the minister did say the current system had to be re-thought as it concentrated dependency and disadvantage in particular estates, frustrating people’s attempts to either get out of social housing or to get into it.”
I completely agree with that statement, but it was said in 2008 by the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), when she was a Minister in the Department in which I am privileged to serve. She said:
“What we have at the moment is not effective or sustainable and it seems to me that people deserve better.”
The article states that she
“indicated that she wanted to encourage social tenants or would-be social tenants to look beyond social housing to the private sector”.
It quotes her saying:
“If people could find greater stability and security in the private rented sector, or could take advantage of low cost home ownership, then maybe fewer would think that social housing was their only option.”
It is telling that that was the thinking in 2008 of the Labour Government and the Department for Communities and Local Government, in which the shadow Housing and Planning Minister, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), served as a Minister.
The thinking of the Labour Government at the time was similar to our thinking now and seemed to be in the centre ground. If the Labour party had won in 2010—if the electorate had not seen fit to throw out that discredited shambles of a Labour Government—and the country had had the misfortune of having another Labour Government, there is every possibility that they would have taken a similar approach to the one we are taking now.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The Minister must really be struggling to defend this policy if the best he can come up with is a Minister many, many years ago making what we all thought were personal comments. They were never accepted as Labour party policy or proposed in legislation. That was a speech in which she made personal comments. [Laughter.] I find it pretty shocking that Government Members are laughing, given that these clauses seek to take important rights from people. Labour did not take that approach either in government or in opposition, and the Minister should not suggest that we did.
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton wants to intervene on the hon. Member for City of Durham, and I understand why he wishes to do so. The then Housing Minister made those comments at a housing conference at the Adam Smith Institute in her capacity as a Minister of the Government of the time. I find it difficult to square that with the fact that the hon. Lady just said that they were personal comments. They were not personal comments; they were the comments of the Labour Government at the time. That is the direction that the Labour Government would have taken if they had been re-elected in 2010. The hon. Lady said that I am struggling to defend the policy—in a moment, I will give her some more detail about why I am confident in defending it—but I think she is struggling to put up an argument against it.
Stephen Hammond
I just want to put on the record that the only reason why I and several colleagues laughed was the shadow Minister’s shocking response and the fact that she dared to disown comments that were clearly made at an official conference by an official representative of the Government of the time. It is an extraordinarily inadequate response.
Mr Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is an indication either of how far to the left the Labour party has gone or that, as usual, Labour Members have selective amnesia about the views their party held when they were in government. Time is pressing, so I shall move on.
The hon. Lady mentioned the protection for tenants who do not have their tenancy renewed. The Protection from Eviction Act 1977 means that if a person is being evicted, a court hearing will always be required. Human rights issues can be considered at that hearing. In my initial remarks, I also said that before any court hearing there would be an internal review so that the local authority in question could ensure that it had complied with its own housing policy on evicting a tenant.
A comment was made about the policy being burdensome. The legislation is all about making better use of social housing, and it will certainly save on temporary accommodation costs and the need to manage waiting lists. Our assessment of the policy’s impact will be revised, but we need to consider the family who have been in high-rent temporary accommodation for years. The Government have already shown a commitment to such people by allowing those in temporary accommodation to move into the private rented sector, which means that people who have to use such accommodation now do so for, on average, seven months less than was the case in 2010. That shows that the Conservative party is interested in getting the most vulnerable people housed, not in a policy built on ideology, as the Labour party seems to be.
Mr Thomas
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 9 would add to the Bill a duty to promote lending to small and medium-sized house builders. There has already been some conversation in Committee about the need to do a little more to help a sector of the house building industry that has been struggling in recent years. Small firms lack many of the advantages of scale of larger house builders, particularly in terms of access to finance and access to land and other assets against which to borrow that finance on good terms.
Small builders are often very dependent on a smaller number of land sites and face, in the words of an economics report,
“lumpy, volatile cash flows as land is purchased, sites developed and sales made”.
Equally, small and medium-sized house builders are surely a crucial part of the sector, given their appetite for developing smaller sites that larger firms often do not want to develop themselves. SME house builders can often be more agile players in the housing market and can use local knowledge and expertise to make the most of small sites. In that way, the contribution of SME house builders also provides an opportunity to increase the number of jobs, to help economic growth and, obviously, to ensure that additional homes get built.
The National House-Building Council has charted the decline in the number of SME house builders from the mid-1980s. It notes that, in the mid-1980s, there were some 12,000 SME house builders, which by 2013 had declined to just under 4,000. Evidence presented to Labour’s Lyons review by the Home Builders Federation suggested that there were some 7,600 dormant SME house builders that were doing other kinds of construction work. The crucial point is that there is capacity that could be drawn back into the housing market to build additional homes in the right circumstance. The Lyons review heard that access to development finance, and its cost, was the key problem preventing many SME house builders from coming back into the market.
The current Federation of Master Builders survey, which came out in September, continues to highlight the scale of the problems that many house builders have in accessing finance. The responses to that survey from different house building firms might give hon. Members an additional indication of the scale of the difficulty. One talked about the disproportionate and high interest charges in relation to security held by lenders. One simply said that there is no finance available for small companies. Another said, “Unless you are an established developer with at least five years of profitable developments under your belt and are cash rich, there really isn’t any finance available to grow. The banks just aren’t interested.”
Chris Philp
I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. What the hon. Gentleman says is laudable, but I am unsure how the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government can promote bank lending when he has no power to direct banks. Moreover, banks are constrained by Basel III, a set of international banking regulations, so I would be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s commentary on how the Secretary of State can influence bank activity.
Mr Thomas
There are a number of ways in which the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government can intervene and promote lending to small and medium-sized businesses. Simply convening meetings with banks to encourage them and talking through the issues that they have in lending to small and medium-sized construction companies would be a start. The hon. Gentleman raises a separate point about Basel III, which I accept was a sensible reform, but the Secretary of State’s friend in the Treasury has introduced other measures that have also had an impact on the availability of cash for lending to small and medium-sized house builders, which the Secretary of State might be able to challenge more easily if the duty were in the legislation.
One way to help small firms to access the credit that they need might be to provide more guarantees for bank lending. A guarantor bank is one suggestion and would guarantee certain tranches of loans to small and medium-sized builders with the condition that funding be used to develop homes, helping to lower the cost of finance as well as increasing the availability of finance to small and medium-sized builders. That was proposed by Capital Economics to the Lyons review and mirrors the Government’s existing Help to Buy scheme. It would essentially be a help-to-build scheme—[Interruption.] I hear the hon. Gentleman heckling me from a sedentary position. If he wants to intervene to make a point, I am happy to take his intervention.
Chris Philp
The funding for lending scheme is already doing very effectively exactly what the hon. Gentleman describes.
Mr Thomas
I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that I have not made up the Home Builders Federation’s concerns. The quotes that I have just given are real. There is a real problem preventing many small and medium-sized house builders from accessing finance. I suggest to him that more needs to be done and the new clause is a way of doing that.
Finally, there is one other option available if a guarantor bank or a help-to-build scheme were not acceptable. Government and Opposition Members will be familiar with the regional growth fund. A series of community development finance institutions occasionally work with construction firms but have difficulty in building their capital base. Regional growth fund moneys might be better used in increasing their ability to lend money to small businesses in their communities. In the context of the new clause, some of that financing could be directed at helping small and medium-sized house builders.
Mr Bacon
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to give way. I am worried for the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, who looks very hungry, but the hon. Member for Harrow West is so interesting that we have to keep going. He will be interested to know that the Minister for Housing and Planning, the leader of South Norfolk Council and I were at a self-build summit yesterday at which we heard financiers from Lloyds bank and Nationwide Building Society talking about such issues. It is really not about legislation. The hon. Gentleman needs to know that it is about de-risking. Does he not understand that, were we to have large projects with local development orders, as has been done by Cherwell District Council with the largest self-build project in the country, for example, that automatically de-risks things and makes automatically coming forward much more attractive to lenders?
Mr Thomas
I am sorry that you cut the hon. Gentleman short, Mr Gray. Perhaps a speech might allow him to give the Committee a bit more information. I simply bring him back to the evidence from the Federation of Master Builders, which said that, if the small and medium-sized house building sector’s access to finance was improved, it could deliver an additional 20,000 homes per year. I gently suggest to the hon. Gentleman, with whom I have happily worked on self-build, custom build and housing co-operatives, that here might be an issue for us to co-operate on. We could champion the needs of small and medium-sized builders and address the problems of access to finance. That is the spirit of the new clause.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Julian Smith.)
Housing and Planning Bill (Seventeenth sitting)
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Order. One of the doors is locked. I am advised that I ought to suspend the sitting until it has been opened and the public and others can get in.
Sitting suspended.
The Chair
Order. When we broke for lunch, I had proposed the question that new clause 9 be read a Second time.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Gray. As you will be aware, this morning it was suggested that the proposals in new clauses 32 and 33 were at some stage being considered as policy by the last Labour Government. Over the lunch break I was able to check, and the Minister at the time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), made it absolutely clear that the proposal for fixed-term contracts was made by the Chartered Institute of Housing as part of a consultation on a housing reform Green Paper. She stated categorically that it was not Government policy. There had been some unhelpful speculation following an inaccurate report that appeared in a national newspaper, but she made it absolutely clear that she was not sympathetic to the notion that council residents should somehow lose their security of tenure—
The Chair
Order. The hon. Lady knows well that that is not a point of order and not a matter for the Chair, but she has by that mechanism made her views known to the Committee.
New Clause 9
Duty to promote lending to small and medium sized house builders
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall have a duty to promote lending by banks to small and medium sized house builders.
(2) A small or medium sized builder in subsection (1) is a builder that has fewer than 250 employees.”—(Mr Gareth Thomas.)
Brought up, read the First time, and Question proposed (this day), That the clause be read a Second time.
Question again proposed.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)
As you mentioned this morning, Mr Gray, this is the final day of the Committee. We have finished scrutinising the Government’s proposals for the Bill; for the rest of the day, we will focus on the propositions from the Opposition. The hon. Member for Harrow West and others might be particularly focused on the rest of our deliberations and indeed on Parliament for the next few days, but people generally and the members of the Committee might also thinking about and looking forward to Christmas, so I wish everyone well for Christmas.
As I said, we have completed our consideration of the Government’s proposals for the Bill at this stage, but Opposition Members keep surprising us—I suppose in the Christmas spirit—with gifts on the amendment paper. The hon. Member for Harrow West is a gift that just keeps on giving. I am of course more than happy to accept his offer of gifts and to spend the rest of our time in Committee considering the Opposition’s suggestions for the Bill, now that we are done considering the Bill as drafted. Never let it be said that we are not happy to accept and enjoy the good will of all Committee members.
The new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Harrow West would introduce a statutory duty in respect of lending to small and medium-sized house builders. I have said clearly on the record that we recognise that the lack of availability of development finance can be and has been a major barrier to smaller firms that are looking to expand and develop their building activity. Indeed, as outlined earlier, in the survey conducted by the Federation of Master Builders this year, more than 62% of respondents thought that the availability of finance was a constraint on housing supply.
I am concerned to ensure that we do all we can to help small and medium-sized house builders, because they are key to delivering the housing we need throughout the country. Nevertheless, introducing a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to promote lending by banks to small and medium-sized companies simply will not address the problem. We share the desire to see it happen, but I suspect the hon. Gentleman realises that such a duty would not work. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South said, the Secretary of State has no power to force banks to lend to small businesses, so the new clause is technically unworkable. However, it may please the hon. Gentleman to know that the Government are already taking action.
In July I launched the £100 million housing growth fund, which is a partnership between the Homes and Communities Agency and Lloyds Banking Group, to help smaller builders to get access to the finance they need to build more homes and grow their businesses. In the autumn statement, the Chancellor announced further measures to support small and medium-sized builders, including a housing development fund that will provide access to £1 billion of loan finance over up to five years. The new fund brings together and expands the builders finance fund and custom build serviced plots loan fund as well, providing more flexibility for Government support in those emerging markets.
We have also created the British Business Bank for £782 million of facilitated lending and investment. That aims to unlock £10 billion of financing for smaller businesses over the next five years. The Chancellor also announced support for small and medium-sized house builders specifically through amending planning policy to promote the delivery of small schemes, some of which we have debated in the Committee in the past few weeks.
Other proposals announced in the autumn statement will halve the length of the planning guarantee for non-major developments from 26 weeks to 13 weeks, ensuring that those smaller builders are not slowed down by an unnecessarily bureaucratic and slow planning system. With those assurances on Government activity, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his new clause.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is lovely to have the Minister of State back in his place. We all noticed that he effortlessly passed the hospital pass of the ending of secure tenancies to the Under-Secretary of State, which was a skilful dodge—the Under-Secretary had better watch his back in the Department.
I welcome the Minister’s detailing of the various measures that he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have set out to help small and medium-sized builders. I leave him with the thought that perhaps not enough has been done yet to end the concerns of many in that part of the house building market about the shortage of finance. I welcome the steps taken, but I encourage him to keep this matter in close view. In that spirit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 10
Planning obligations in respect of apprenticeships
‘In section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (planning obligations), after subsection (12) insert—
“(12A) The Secretary of State may by regulations require planning obligations to include a requirement to offer apprenticeships to local people on sites where 50 or more dwellings are to be constructed.”’—(Mr Gareth Thomas.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Thomas
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am delighted to move the new clause and highlight the need for more construction apprenticeships. The new clause, which for want of a better phrase is a probing new clause, suggests that in proposals for sites where 50 or more dwellings are to be constructed, there should be a guarantee that local people can be offered apprenticeships. The Minister should take that seriously.
The Federation of Master Builders highlighted the shortage of skilled workers in the construction industry, which could scupper the vision for the new affordable homes that we all want. Brian Berry, the chief executive of the FMB, said last month:
“Unless we see a massive uplift in apprenticeship training in our industry, there won’t be enough pairs of hands to deliver more housing on this scale.”
I looked in detail to see where the shortages lay. According to the FMB’s state of trades survey:
“In Q2 of 2015 49% of FMB members were having difficulties recruiting bricklayers and 47% carpenters and joiners.”
The FMB also said:
“Another recent FMB poll of members found that two thirds had had to turn down work because of their inability to recruit the skilled labour they need.”
A significant number of its members saw that as a “major barrier” to their ability to build more homes in the next 12 months, and a third were worried looking three years ahead.
One worries that small and medium-sized house builders will suffer most from the shortage of skilled labour. I remind the Committee of my previous comments about the decline in the number of small and medium-sized house builders over the past 25 years or more. A shortage of labour is no doubt an issue for small and medium-sized house builders. We have the problem of access to finance on the one hand, and if we add to that the shortage of skilled labour, we risk seeing even greater concentration in the house building sector.
Just before he stepped down from Parliament earlier this year, the excellent Nick Raynsford, then the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, chaired a cross-party parliamentary inquiry into apprenticeships with the noble Lord Best. The inquiry drew attention to the 1 million 16 to 24-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training, as well as the fact that we will need an extra 182,000 construction workers by 2018. It also highlighted that just 7,280 people had completed a construction apprenticeship in 2013, and that even though there had been a rise in the number of apprenticeships in other areas, there continued to be a significant shortage in the construction industry.
Between 2008 and 2011, the Homes and Communities Agency had guidelines that required housing associations to initiate apprenticeships as they got money to build new homes, which helped to generate more than 4,000 apprenticeships in that three-year period. The guidelines were lifted in 2011, when, as the agency said in evidence to the cross-party inquiry, they were clearly beginning to make a significant difference. That is a disappointment.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors construction market survey says the skills shortage has reached its highest levels since the survey was launched 18 years ago. Do you see anything in the Bill or any policy that will help to address that?
Mr Thomas
Very wise, Mr Gray; leave it to us and trust our judgment instead. I have not seen anything specific in the Bill that offers improvement regarding the worrying shortage of skilled construction workers. I tabled this probing new clause because it is worth raising the need for more apprenticeships, particularly in the construction sector.
Mr Bacon
The hon. Gentleman is, as usual, ineffably kind, but I wonder why he looks to the Bill for a solution to his problem. Were he to look at the website of the excellent Easton and Otley College in my constituency, he would see that with the opening of its modern, well equipped £3.75 million construction centres, it aims to lay the foundations for a more secure future by trebling the number of construction students. It does not have to be legislation that does it.
Mr Thomas
The hon. Gentleman is right in the sense that legislation is not the answer to everything. Although I am glad to give him the opportunity to praise a provider of apprenticeships in his constituency, I simply make the point, which I am sure he would not try to counter completely, that at the moment we do not have enough skilled workers in the construction industry in this country. All the fine words that we have exchanged over the past four weeks about how we might get more people into their own home are surely put at risk if we cannot find the people to build those homes in the first place.
Brandon Lewis
I find myself in a worrying position, because I agree with the hon. Member for Harrow West on two clauses running. I am not sure where to go from there.
One of our biggest challenges to get the homes that we want built across our country is the skills shortage. When we talk to developers and housing associations, some will talk about access to finance and some will talk about access to land and the planning system, but they will all talk about the skills challenge. Putting this matter on the record is useful, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for making the point. The industry is fantastic to work in. To be part of an industry that creates a home for people in the future is a special thing to be able to do.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
I agree with both my hon. Friend and with the hon. Member for Harrow West. Does my hon. Friend think that registered providers—housing associations—have a vital role to play? I commend my local registered provider, Cross Keys Homes in Peterborough, that works with the Mears construction company to run an apprenticeship school. Apprentices go straight back into working for that housing association in its remedial work and new build.
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I suspect many of us in Committee today can find local housing associations doing excellent work with apprentices. I have certainly found that when I have met housing associations. There are good examples in the private sector as well. At Derby College recently I met Ian Hodgkinson and his team who encourage people particularly into brickwork. We all want to see more people going into bricklaying. Fantastic work is being done, and the more we can do to promote that, the better.
Peter Dowd
At the risk of breaking into the love-in, what role does the Minister feel that immigration may have in helping to sort out the skills shortage?
Brandon Lewis
Actually, I think the hon. Gentleman does not go too far in breaking into the love-in. People should bear in mind that a lot of the building work we are getting done at the moment is thanks to some very positive work migration. That free movement of labour has been very useful to the construction industry over the past few years.
We want to make sure that the public sector plays a full part. I am proud to be a member of the Government that want to deliver 3 million apprentices in this Parliament, building on the 2 million in the previous Parliament, and we have changed Government procurement rules. The hon. Member for Harrow West talked about what could be done directly. We have changed Government procurement rules so that all relevant bids for central Government contracts worth £10 million or more and lasting more than 12 months must demonstrate a clear commitment to apprenticeships.
Mr Thomas
Might I ask the Minister, while there is a period of friendliness between us, to look at the guidelines that the HCA used to have, which encouraged housing associations to offer quality apprenticeships, and consider whether there might be scope for encouraging the HCA to bring them back?
Brandon Lewis
Worryingly, I am going to say yes. I would agree with the hon. Gentleman again. I am very happy to look at that. There is obviously a balance at the moment in working with housing associations and the HCA. We have made it clear that we want housing associations to be declassified by the Office for National Statistics, but the housing association sector is keen on the area in question, and I have been speaking to David Orr, the chief executive of the National Housing Federation, about the skills issue. We will be doing a piece of work on that, and I am happy to liaise directly with the housing associations as well as with the HCA.
More specifically on construction apprenticeships, we are supporting initiatives of the Construction Industry Training Board and those that flow from the work of the Construction Leadership Council. In addition, the CITB has developed a range of initiatives, working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions and the armed forces, through the resettlement service, and with local enterprise partnerships.
A legal requirement for all section 106 agreements on sites with 50 or more dwellings to include a requirement to offer apprenticeships to local people would not necessarily support apprenticeships. It could be detrimental. Experience has shown us that without effective dialogue such as the work we are doing with the housing associations and indeed with people doing apprenticeships, some of the objectives that have been set out, which I know have the best intentions—I take the hon. Gentleman’s comments absolutely—can have unintended consequences and result in apprentices being unable to complete their apprenticeships.
I will briefly explain that. It is important to remember that apprenticeships are real, proper jobs, with a structured training to prescribed standards, which require a significant time investment from the employee as much as the employer. The taking on of an apprentice must fit the employer’s work patterns and skill needs. In construction, where work happens from project to project, consideration must be given to the labour skills and general skills needs for each project, and what is therefore practical and capable of delivery.
For example, smaller projects, but even projects of more than 50 homes, may not be able fully to support apprenticeships, especially as an apprentice cannot transfer between trade frameworks. It is not the length of the project but the analysis of the length of the trade activity undertaken within the project that establishes the number of apprenticeships it can support.
Also, requirements to recruit from the local area can in some circumstances be unsustainable. To pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Bootle highlighting mobility, the construction industry workforce is one of our most mobile, and many contractors operate across the country. It may not be feasible for a company based in a different area of the country to support a locally-recruited apprentice once their element of the project is completed. I want to work directly with the sector on that issue.
I hope that those assurances and my explanation will lead the hon. Gentleman to accept our determination of the matter, and to withdraw the new clause.
Mr Thomas
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and his willingness to look at the issue of HCA guidance. A number of contractors and social landlords told the inquiry to which I referred that the framework had worked well, and I gently suggest that that might be another reason for looking at the matter again.
I welcome the Minister’s personal commitment to the area in question. As a last point, I would urge him to consider the point that he ended on—the quality of construction apprenticeships. I worry that, in the past, some apprenticeships on offer have not been of high quality, which might have been a factor in putting some people off going into the construction industry. However, given the Minister’s helpful remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 12
Tenants’ rights to new management in property sold under LSVT
“(1) This section applies to housing which—
(a) was previously owned by a local authority;
(b) was part of a large scale voluntary transfer falling within the definition of section 32(4AB) of the Housing Act 1985; and
(c) the disposal of which was subject to the consent of the Secretary of State under section 32 of the 1985 Act.
(2) Where the transfer took place more than five years before this section comes into operation the current owner of the transferred housing shall consult the current tenants on their satisfaction with the management of that property.
(3) Where the transfer took place less than five years after this section comes into operation the current owner of the transferred housing shall not more than every five years consult the current tenants on their satisfaction with the management of that property.
(4) If more than 50% of tenants responding to the consultation under subsections (2) or (3) are dissatisfied with the management of the property, the owner of the housing must carry out a competitive tender for the management of the property and report the outcome to the tenants.”—(Dr Blackman-Woods.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is intended to ensure that tenants will be consulted about their satisfaction with management arrangements for their properties and tenancies where there has been a large-scale voluntary transfer. If, after five years, more than 50% of tenants are not happy with the arrangements, it provides for a competitive tendering exercise. This is largely a probing amendment to check whether the Government think it important to gauge tenant satisfaction with the LSVT arrangements, and to provide a mechanism to change them if tenants are not happy.
Brandon Lewis
Local authority stock transfer can take place only if the majority of the tenants vote in a ballot, as required by statute. Indeed, the Secretary of State’s consent to the transfer can be given only after he is satisfied of two things: first, that the local authority’s consultation exercise has been adequate; and, secondly, that the majority of tenants voting are in favour of transfer. Furthermore, the Secretary of State will ensure that the acquiring landlord is registered with the regulator, so that he can be satisfied that the organisation is viable and will look after the stock in the long term, to the benefit of the tenants.
Although there are no powers currently available to tenants to sack or fire their housing association, the rights of housing association tenants, including ex-council tenants, are protected through a range of mechanisms. The Localism Act 2011 placed the power to scrutinise landlords’ performance and hold them to account back into the hands of tenants and their elected representatives. That can include referring complaints to the housing ombudsman if issues have not been resolved locally. Many tenant panels already play a key role in scrutinising landlords’ performance, challenging poor service and holding landlords of all types to account for delivery and value for money. The regulator’s tenant involvement and empowering standard requires landlords to offer tenants a wide range of opportunities to play that bigger role locally, including by forming tenant panels.
The regulator does not have powers to mediate or resolve individual cases, but it can and will investigate where there is evidence of serious detriment. The regulator also has the power to institute a statutory inquiry if necessary. Where a merger is proposed, housing associations are already required to consult with all stakeholders. I appreciate, as the hon. Member for City of Durham said, that this is a probing amendment. Hopefully she will accept and acknowledge that it is not necessary, as current tenants already have a number of sufficient and wide-ranging instruments enabling them to scrutinise their landlords and hold them to account, and rightly so, in addition to the HCA’s regulatory standards.
Furthermore, the proposed amendment will affect only some tenants in England: namely, ex-council tenants transferred to new housing association landlords. It does not make sense for that whole group to be treated differently from other housing association tenants. I appreciate that this is a probing amendment, and I hope she will feel able to withdraw it.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I have heard what the Minister has said. It is a particular concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), who was keen to have something on the record about the need for some trigger mechanism in place for tenants unhappy with LSVT arrangements. I have heard what the Minister has said. Perhaps we will come back at a later stage to reconsider the issue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 13
Conversion of leasehold to commonhold for interdependent properties
“(1) On 1 January 2020 long leases of residential property in interdependent properties shall cease to be land tenure capable of conveyance.
(2) On 1 January 2020 long leases as set out in subsection (1) shall become commonholds to which Part 1 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (‘the 2002 Act’) shall apply, subject to the modifications set out in this section.
(3) Leaseholders, freeholders and those with an interest in an interdependent property are required to facilitate the transfer to commonhold, in particular they shall:
(a) by 1 January 2018 draw-up an agreed plan for the transfer;
(b) by 1 October 2018 value any interests to be extinguished by the transfer where the interest is held by a person who after transfer will not be a unit-holder; and
(c) by 1 January 2019 draw up a commonhold community statement for the purposes of—
(i) defining the extent of each commonhold unit;
(ii) defining the extent of the common parts and their respective uses;
(iii) defining the percentage contributions that each unit will contribute to the running costs of the building;
(iv) defining the voting rights of the members of the commonhold association; and
(v) specifying the rights and duties of the commonhold association, the unit-holders and their tenants.
(4) In any case where the parties at subsection (3) cannot or refuse to agree arrangements to facilitate the transfer any of the parties can make an application to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for a determination of the matter.
(5) Section 3 [Consent] of the 2002 Act shall cease to have effect on 1 January 2017.
(6) In subsection (1) ‘long lease’ means—
(a) a lease granted for a term certain exceeding 21 years, whether or not it is (or may become) terminable before the end of that term by notice given by the tenant or by re-entry or forfeiture; or
(b) a lease for a term fixed by law under a grant with a covenant or obligation for perpetual renewal, other than a lease by sub-demise from one which is not a long lease.”—(Dr Blackman-Woods.)
This New Clause would end the tenure of residential leasehold by 1 January 2020 by converting residential leases into commonhold.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I will be extremely brief. New clause 13 seeks greater clarity on how the use of commonhold and leasehold tenancies are mentioned and dealt with in practice by the Department. I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s comments on how the current situation can be improved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
New clause 13 seeks to replace long residential leasehold with commonhold. As hon. Members know, leasehold is a long-established way of owning property, supported by a framework of rights and protections that aims to deliver the appropriate balance between providing leaseholders with the rights and protections that they need and recognising the legitimate interest of landlords.
Commonhold is subject to a different statutory framework of rights and protections. It has its benefits, but there are important differences between commonhold and leasehold. That is partly why commonhold is and was intended to be a voluntary alternative to long leasehold ownership—a choice. There are no plans to abolish residential leasehold.
Dr Blackman-Woods
With this probing new clause, we were seeking greater clarity. Some of that clarity has been provided by the Minister this afternoon. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 21
Planning obligations: local first-time buyers
“After section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (planning obligations) insert—
‘106ZA Planning obligations in respect of local first-time buyers
(1) When granting planning permission under 70(1)(a), or permission in principle under 70(1A)(a), for the construction of new dwellings for sale, the local planning authority may require that a proportion of the dwellings are marketed exclusively to local first-time buyers for a specified period.
(2) The “specified period” in subsection (1) must start no earlier than six months before the new dwellings have achieved, or are likely to, practical completion.
(3) “First-time buyer” in subsection (1) has the meaning given by section 57AA(2) of the Finance Act 2003.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) define the “specified period” in subsection (1);
(b) define “local” in subsection (1), and
(c) the definition “local” may vary according to specified circumstances.
(5) The regulations in subsection (4) so far as they apply to local planning authorities in Greater London will not apply to these authorities unless the Secretary of State has consulted and received the consent of the Greater London Authority.’”— (Dr Blackman-Woods.)
This amendment would empower local planning authorities to impose a planning obligation when giving planning permission for the construction of new housing for sale requiring that a proportion of the housing is marketed exclusively to local first-time buyers.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would apply to all new homes for sale given planning permission by local authorities, as well as those given permission in principle, under provisions in the Housing and Planning Bill. The new clause would give local authorities the power to require a proportion of new homes for sale to be marketed exclusively to local first-time buyers for a specified period. Local authorities could make a judgment call about what proportion was reasonable. The new clause would allow the Secretary of State or, in Greater London, the Mayor of London, to make reasonable definitions of the time period for exclusive local marketing and to make definitions of what “local” means.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I entirely agree with the hon. Lady’s desire to encourage first-time buyers. Does she not agree, though, that the starter home provisions that we agreed some weeks ago will go a very long way towards doing that?
Dr Blackman-Woods
What the new clause is designed to do, which I think the hon. Gentleman has probably realised—I am not totally sure—is to ensure that where new homes are available, they go to local people. There would be a period of time during which they were marketed to local people. This is particularly a London issue, and I will go on to talk about why it is so critical in London.
In many parts of the country, local first-time buyers compete for new homes with second-home buyers and buy-to-let investors. There is wide concern that the problem affecting first-time buyers is growing and that something needs to be done. The director of research at Countrywide was reported in the Daily Express as saying that
“landlords and first-time buyers are now in direct competition because they tend to look for homes that are smaller and cheaper than average.”
The trend has been confirmed by the mortgage search tracker from Mortgage Advice Bureau, whose data in November showed that the number of buy-to-let landlords searching for mortgages on cheaper properties was up 17% on the same quarter last year.
The property website Rightmove was reported in The Guardian in October as saying:
“First-time buyers are facing asking prices almost 10% higher than a year ago because of demand from buy-to-let investors”.
In February 2015, the rural housing policy review, chaired by Lord Richard Best and sponsored by Hastoe housing association, recommended that, in areas of high second-home ownership, the Government should require
“a proportion of new…homes granted planning permission…to be with the condition that they can only be used as principal residences.”
There are, as we know, particular impacts in London from the non-availability of homes for first-time buyers. In London, the problem of first-time buyers being squeezed out is particularly acute, with high proportions of new homes sold to investors, including off-plan overseas investors.
Mr Jackson
The hon. Lady will know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made some fiscal changes in the autumn statement that specifically focused on the difficulties encountered by first-time buyers in London vis-à-vis buy-to-let landlords. I just wonder—I may have missed something—why the new clause does not apply just to London. Is she saying that the problem is nationwide?
Dr Blackman-Woods
I am saying that the problem is particularly acute in London, but housing stress and difficulty getting on the housing ladder not only affect people in London. It happens in a lot of our cities, and it happens in rural areas, too. There is a particularly acute situation in London, which I will talk about in a moment or two.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I thought I would give my hon. Friend a useful illustration from my constituency. Overseas buyers regularly turn up at City airport, get the docklands light railway over to Greenwich and buy off-plan—not buy to let but off-plan, and sometimes in cash—just to hold the property as an asset, rather than seeking to rent it out.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that extremely helpful intervention highlighting some of the difficulties in London, which enables me to respond further to the intervention of the hon. Member for Peterborough. The autumn statement included some measures that might affect buy to let. We do not know what the full outcome of those measures will be, but they do not address the issue of overseas investors buying up properties to keep them empty.
Mr Jackson
Taking on board the comments of the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, surely the issue is wider than that. It is about tax changes and fiscal policy for overseas buyers, rather than adding quite a prescriptive new clause to the Bill in respect of first-time buyers. There is a difference between those who are purchasing properties from overseas and those who are seeking to become first-time buyers.
The Chair
Order. We are straying slightly wide of the new clause. In the context of planning obligations for first-time buyers, I call Roberta Blackman-Woods.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I was going to say to the hon. Member for Peterborough that I would be ruled out of order if I went too far down the fiscal route. The new clause primarily seeks to probe the Minister on what more can be done to ensure that first-time buyers are not priced out of the housing market and to ensure that their needs are considered in order to encourage them into the housing market.
Research by Molior London Ltd for the British Property Federation shows that, in 2013, 61% of new homes in London went to investors and 49% of all new homes in central London were bought by overseas buyers. Londoners are competing with wealthy buyers who are being actively targeted across the world. Housing stock is being sold so many years in advance of being built that cash buyers are favoured over those buying with a mortgage, and a number of us have seen examples in the press of that happening throughout the capital. Councils are powerless to prevent it from happening, even though the phenomenon is widespread and growing. For example, when someone clicks on the “enquire” tab of the website for the new 624-apartment Wardian development on the Isle of Dogs, they are asked to choose their location from London, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Hong Kong, Qatar, Abu Dhabi and Dubai. The scheme is not due for completion until 2019.
In 2014, the Mayor of London announced a mayoral concordat that would commit signatories to marketing new homes to Londoners first or first equal, yet that has failed to offer Londoners any meaningful first choice. Even if homes are technically available to Londoners on a first equal basis, the homes are being marketed across the world many years ahead of being completed. By ensuring that the period of exclusive marketing to local first-time buyers starts no earlier than six months before completion, the new clause would ensure that a proportion of new homes for first-time buyers are held back to be sold as they near completion, which would help people who are trying to buy with a mortgage.
As the Minister will know, the new clause seeks to address the horrible reality, faced by many people in London and other cities, of being priced out of the housing market because of overseas buyers coming in and snapping up the properties. If the Minister does not think that the new clause provides the way forward, it will be interesting to hear what he thinks will tackle the problem.
Brandon Lewis
We clearly need a radical shift in how housing markets support young first-time buyers, otherwise we will condemn a whole generation to further uncertainty and insecurity. On the hon. Lady’s point about buy to let and overseas investment, which my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough touched on, there are two things we need to bear in mind.
First, we need to be cautious about always falling into the trap of attacking overseas investment, because we have to remember that, during the economic crash of 2008, a great deal of building in this country, in London in particular, would not have happened had it not been for overseas money. Projects such as Battersea would not be going ahead where no English money was bidding to come forward. There is a part for overseas investment to play.
Secondly, it is also right to do what we can to deliver the homes that we need for young people in this country. That is why we saw the changes in the Budget this year to the tax relief for buy to lets, as well as the changes announced in the autumn statement only a few weeks ago, which made a substantial statement about where the Government are going and about our determination to deliver for people who want to buy their own home. I am therefore pleased that the Government have already made tremendous strides making mortgage lending available again to first-time buyers through the Help to Buy scheme. The number of first-time buyers has now increased by 68% since 2010.
I also recognise, however, the point made very well by the hon. Member for City of Durham: more needs to be done. We have to be clear and honest with ourselves that young people are struggling to buy their first home as house prices have continued to increase. Over the past 20 years, the proportion of under-40s who own their own home has been on a downward trend, so I fully understand and endorse the underlying policy objective of the new clause.
I believe, however, that promoting starter homes, as part 1 of the Bill does, is a much better way of achieving that objective. Not only will developers be required to build a proportion of starter homes on all suitable, reasonably sized sites in future, but those starter homes will be at least 20% cheaper than the going market price. That will give more prospective first-time buyers the opportunity to buy an affordable home of their own, especially if linked with Help to Buy and the 5% deposit, which the new clause would not necessarily achieve.
That is why we want 200,000 new starter homes built over the Parliament, with a minimum of a 20% discount. The Bill sets the framework for delivering our commitment. In November we debated in Committee the starter homes clauses extensively and the new clause would not add further value given the reforms we are putting in place. With that assurance, I hope the hon. Lady will withdraw the new clause.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I want to make it clear that, in moving the motion, we were not in any way suggesting that we were against a degree of overseas investment. The new clause is clear that the provisions would relate to a proportion of the dwellings that are marketed. It was simply intended to allow local people to have a way in to some of the new developments and to ensure that the new homes were not totally unavailable to them because they had all been bought up by overseas investors.
I have heard the Minister’s comments, however, and I think the Government are seeking to find a way of addressing the issue. We will mull over his comments and decide whether to investigate things at a later stage. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 22
Security of tenure
“After section 19A of the Housing Act 1988 insert—
‘(1) Any assured shorthold tenancy (other than one where the landlord is a private registered provider of social housing) granted on or after April 1, 2018 must be for a fixed term of at least thirty six months. It is an implied term of such a tenancy that the tenant may terminate the tenancy by giving two months’ written notice to the landlord.’
(2) In section 21 Housing Act 1988 insert—
‘(4ZA) In the case of a dwelling-house in England no notice under subsection (4) may be given for thirty six months after the beginning of the tenancy.’”—(Teresa Pearce.)
This amendment would prevent private sector landlords from using the ‘notice only’ grounds for possession for the first three years of a tenancy, without affecting the rights of tenants to give notice and leave the tenancy early.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would have the effect of making longer-term tenancy much more common. Landlords and tenants would both have stability, but with the ability to terminate contracts early with proper notice, if they have to, just as they can now.
The private rented sector is an important and growing part of the housing sector. The number of people living in the private rented sector has increased by 2.5 million since 2010. Now, 1.5 million families with children are renting from a private landlord and could be evicted with as little as two months’ notice. Some 9 million people now rent privately. Almost half of those who rent are over 35. Many of them want the same security and stability that they would have if they owned their own home but the rules on private renting have not caught up with the way people live now.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I am very supportive of the principle of longer tenancies, but should that not be the option of the landlord as well? Has the hon. Lady considered the impact on landlords and on supply in the private rented sector if conditions on landlords are made too onerous? Does she understand that that might restrict supply and mean that properties are not there to rent in the first place?
Teresa Pearce
I recall in an earlier debate on rogue landlords that we also said that there were rogue tenants. There needs to be security on both sides. Later, I will come to the fact that the Residential Landlords Association supports the measure. It needs to be done sensibly, but I take the hon. Gentleman’s point.
Kevin Hollinrake
The RLA supports this measure—a minimum of three years on a tenancy agreement? The hon. Lady must give us more details.
Teresa Pearce
I will, later in my speech. The RLA supports the Government looking into the ability to have longer tenancies as a more normal structure. It is particularly bothered about the situation where a landlord has a leasehold property bought from a local authority freeholder, and the local authority will not allow that landlord to let for longer than a year. The association just wants a discussion about that sort of thing, which is why I am bringing the matter to the Committee today.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am aware of its proposals in that regard, but that is optional, not compulsory. The new clause would make it compulsory for a landlord to give a three-year agreement. I do not know any landlord association that would support that.
Teresa Pearce
This is a probing amendment to see what we agree on. I am glad that you do think that longer tenancies—
Teresa Pearce
I note that the hon. Gentleman does think that longer tenancies can be a good thing. The purpose of the amendment is to have that debate and to understand the Government’s direction of travel—possibly with longer tenancies in the future. I completely accept what you say.
Teresa Pearce
I completely accept what the hon. Gentleman says.
Insecurity in housing affects not only individuals—tenants or landlords—but our whole society. There is a small school in my area that is in a fairly settled part of my constituency, and yet staff there told me that they had a whole class of pupils—30 pupils—that had churned in and out since September. It really affects the way that teachers can make progress with a class when there are new children coming in and out all the time, and the staff put that churn down to the private rented sector.
There is also a doctors’ surgery in my constituency that has 14,000 patients, and every year 4,000 of those patients move on and move to a different practice. A third of patients coming and going makes it nigh-on impossible for the doctors to deal with long-term health issues. They cannot run campaigns on diabetes, obesity or smoking with any success, because a third of their patients are constantly churning in and out. Many of the patients are living in bad conditions with mould and damp, and suffering from asthma, which puts more pressure on GP services.
Also, more secure tenancies and housing will allow families to become more settled, which I believe would help the local economy. Many employers, small and large, that I go to see tell me that they have a problem with recruitment, and it is because of the insecurity in the housing sector.
New clause 22 is designed to encourage longer-term tenancies and to make them much more common, so that both landlords and tenants have more stability. It is important to note that that should not penalise responsible landlords who may need to evict tenants, perhaps because their own financial position has changed or perhaps because they are unhappy with the way the tenant is treating the property. These are legitimate circumstances in which landlords should still be able to evict tenants by providing proper notice.
Measures to increase long-term tenancies are supported not only by me personally but across the industry. In particular, I will highlight some of the written evidence that the Residential Landlords Association gave to the Committee. The RLA wrote:
“We believe that reforms are needed to encourage a culture of long termism within the private rented sector which would play a significant part in stabilising rents for tenants.”
It also wrote:
“Too often letting agents base their business models on short term tenancies, charging fees (and thereby increasing rents) when they are renewed.”
It continued:
“The evidence shows that where tenants stay in their properties for longer periods, landlords are reluctant to increase rents, at least beyond inflation…Landlords often want to offer longer tenancies…Many landlords are prevented from voluntarily providing for tenancies longer than a year by mortgage lenders and the owners of blocks of flats”,
including the freehold owners of blocks of flats. Those were the words of the RLA.
I raised this issue in the most recent Department for Communities and Local Government oral questions with the Minister, and I hope that I might hear more today about what conversations are being had with mortgage providers. I know that the Nationwide now does not have a clause in buy-to-let mortgages whereby it will not allow lettings for longer than a year. However, other lenders have not been as enlightened, so I would be interested to know whether Ministers have had any discussions with the Treasury regarding this issue.
Finally, it is worth noting that many other countries already have longer-term tenancies. I accept that in some other countries in Europe there is not the same attitude towards home ownership that we have in this country, and that renting is a much more normal way of life there. However, in countries such as Germany, Switzerland and Belgium, long-term contracts and more flexibility give tenants the chance to plan for the future. In Germany, leases are usually signed for an unlimited period of time, and in France, where one in five people rent, longer leases are always available.
I am sure that Members from all parties have been contacted in the past by tenants who are struggling because they cannot find stable housing. I think we all agree that we want stability in housing, and longer-term tenancies could be a way of securing that stability. So we hope that we find some common ground with the Minister, and I am very interested to hear the Government thinking regarding longer tenancies becoming more of a norm than they are at the moment.
Mr Jones
Let me make it clear that this Government are committed to building a bigger and better private rented sector, which provides security and stability. We have taken action to support the supply and quality of private rented accommodation by resisting unnecessary and unhelpful regulation, while cracking down on the worst practices of some rogue landlords. Our model tenancy agreement, which was introduced in September 2014, promotes longer tenancies for landlords and tenants who vote to sign up to them.
However, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to tenancy length. Many landlords are looking to rent out a property for the longer term, but there will be some for whom letting a property is a short-term plan and who need the property back at some point, perhaps even for their own family to live in. Although I understand the spirit in which the amendment has been tabled, I think it would be counter-productive and would overburden the market with restrictive red tape, stifling investment and the supply of rented housing at a time when we most need to encourage it. That would not help tenants or landlords.
Peter Dowd
I can accept the assertion that the Minister is making, but actually, all the evidence from continental Europe points in the opposite direction. Investment is not stifled—quite the opposite. Secure tenancies often give the security to people investing in them, so the evidence continentally does not indicate that.
Mr Jones
The hon. Gentleman gives me a very good opportunity to segue into explaining that before assured shorthold tenancies were introduced by the Housing Act 1988, the private rental market was in severe decline. Lifetime tenancies and regulated rents meant that being a landlord was simply not commercially viable for many property owners. Since 1988, however, the private rented sector has grown steadily, increasing from just over 9% of the market in 1988 to 19% today. Landlords, and in many cases tenants, welcome the flexibility of the current assured shorthold tenancy regime, which does not lock the parties into long-term commitments and promotes mobility. Without the certainty that landlords can seek repossession when required, many, I am sure, would be reluctant to let their properties. I believe that the current framework strikes the right balance between the rights of landlords and tenants. With those points in mind, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment.
Teresa Pearce
I am interested in what the Minister said, but he has not responded to the point about the artificial barriers to some landlords, who want the choice to have either a short let or a longer let, but who are restricted by the freeholder—often the local authority—or the mortgage lender. Perhaps he would like to answer that or write to me about it at some future point.
Teresa Pearce
That is not the case in my constituency, I assure him; that is very rare.
I believe that longer tenancies are a very good idea. It is interesting that in the heated debate we had this morning, tenancies of two to five years were meant to be the right thing for social tenants, but for private rented tenants, there is resistance to it. However, given that the Minister is going to write to me regarding the particular issue I am concerned about, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 24
Local Authorities and Development Control Services
“(1) A local planning authority may set a charging regime in relation to their development control services to allow for the cost of providing the development control service to be recouped.
(2) Such a charging regime will be subject to statutory consultation.”—(Helen Hayes.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 31—Local authority planning fees cost recovery schemes—
“Local authorities shall be given powers to operate full cost recovery schemes with regard to fee levels relating to planning applications”.
This amendment would allow local authorities to develop a planning fees schedule that would enable the full costs of processing planning applications to be recovered.
Helen Hayes
Since 2010, spending on planning by local authorities has almost halved, from £2.2 billion in 2010 to £1.2 billion this year—a decline second only to that in spending on cultural services. In previous sittings of the Committee, Government Members have dismissed the situation as simply being down to the choices of local authorities, but in reality, many councils have faced a Hobson’s choice. The extent of cuts to local authority budgets has been so great over the past five years that councils have had to cut across all areas of expenditure, and most have made the entirely rational and appropriate choice, when pressed, to protect where they can the services on which the most vulnerable residents rely—adult social services and children’s services. That has resulted in a situation where areas such as planning and cultural services have taken a disproportionate level of the cuts.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Lady talks about efficiency and cost. There is a connection between the two. Does she agree that local planning authorities should be more creative in how they share services, in order to become more efficient and lower costs?
Helen Hayes
I agree that local authorities should be as efficient as possible wherever they can, and that in some cases economies of scale can be derived from sharing services. I also believe, however, that a certain volume of work is created by large-scale planning applications and by our need to deliver new homes across the country that must be properly resourced; I am suggesting to the Government a creative way in which that might be achieved.
Mr Jackson
I am slightly disappointed that the Local Government Association supported the new clause, because it is incumbent upon the LGA to understand that the cumulative impact of regeneration, much of which is housing, is beneficial to local authorities; it is an investment. This should be seen in the context of non-domestic rates, the new homes bonus or sales-related taxes—the long-term capital investment—rather than just a one-off negative cost.
Helen Hayes
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is an investment. It is, however, an investment that many local authorities do not have the luxury of being able to make in the context of the stretching of their resources across other very important statutory areas of service.
I will complete the quotation from London Councils:
“Full cost charging could also be used to fund the kind of pro-active multi-borough teams that supported”
the work of the Olympic Delivery Authority. Where we have large-scale regeneration across a wide area, London Councils supports the principle that local authorities should share that resource and be able to recoup the costs of it.
The new clause makes sense for councils, who would be able to raise the resources that they need without jeopardising vital statutory services such as children’s and adults’ social care; for communities, who will get higher-quality decisions; and for developers, who will get the speed of service they need to bring forward development. I hope that the Government will support it.
Chris Philp
It is an exquisite pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I shall be extremely brief.
Again, I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I spent the past five years financing developers, and must say that they commonly complain that local authority planning departments are both insufficiently resourced in terms of the number of people they employ and inadequately resourced in terms of the quality of those people, because so many move into private practice.
I fully accept the points, made in interventions by my colleagues on the Government Benches, that local authority planning departments should be made more efficient by sharing services and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough said, that local authorities enjoy financial benefit when development takes place, but I do know that developers would, in principle, be prepared to pay higher fees in exchange for better levels of service, which they can currently do via agreements for larger schemes. There might be some concern that local authorities would simply take the extra fees and spend them on something else, so will the Ministers consider whether in future local authorities could be permitted to charge a specific higher fee in exchange for a guaranteed service level? If that service level was not delivered, the fee could be refundable so that there would be a direct and explicit link between the fee and the service. I understand, though, that this is a complicated subject area and there are views on both sides.
Peter Dowd
That the hon. Gentleman has given way.
Here we go again with the issue of localism. The bottom line is that, whether we like it or not, we are going to have to trust local authorities to make decisions and deliver. The new clause would just give us the ability to make those decisions in the best interests of the local area. I do not like the idea—through you, Mr Gray—of Ministers yet again saying one thing and doing another.
Chris Philp
It is reasonable to want to ensure that developers are not simply treated as cash cows and penalised with unlimited fees, which is why I was suggesting that the Ministers might in future consider a fixed-fee schedule related to specific service delivery, with the extra fees being refunded if that delivery is not made. Having uncapped fees so that developers could simply be bled dry would be a retrograde step.
Helen Hayes
The text of the new clause is explicit in saying that the schedule of charges should be set in a transparent way. To my mind, that would include setting out the level of service that would be expected to be delivered, as well as the full cost of that service, and undertaking consultation with the wider development industry prior to setting the schedule of charges. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s point.
Chris Philp
Before one could sign up to the new clause, one would want to see the detail, which clearly is not there. I think I have made my point in general terms.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I have been momentarily knocked off track by the hon. Gentleman’s final comments. We have been debating most of the Bill without the detail we need because most of it is coming in regulations, so I hope he will address those comments to his Ministers.
I rise to support new clause 24, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, and to speak briefly to new clause 31. The hon. Member for Croydon South might want to think about why so many planners from local authorities are leaving to join the private sector, because that used not to happen. It is a fairly recent phenomenon that so many local authority planners have been moving on. The reason is that local authority planning departments are in a very, very pressed situation, with reduced resources, greater pressure and increasing insecurity because they do not know when the next round of Government cuts is going to mean that they will lose their job. The only way to address that is to resource local authority planning departments properly—something that developers speak to me about all the time.
If the hon. Member for Peterborough is upset by the Local Government Association backing my hon. Friend’s new clause, he will be even more upset by the fact that the District Councils Network has come out very strongly in favour of the idea that there should be some cost recovery at a local level:
“Having a system where Whitehall dictates to local councils what planning fees they can charge is very unfair for local taxpayers around the country who are left paying the shortfall where fees don’t cover costs. Letting councils set their own fees is a much fairer system for both the applicant and the local taxpayer and will ensure there is flexibility in the system to recover the actual costs of applications.”
In 2010, a major review, which was instigated by the last Labour Government, was carried out of how local planning fees should operate. Instead of bringing forward a plan for the localisation of planning fees, as had been suggested throughout the consultation exercise before 2010, the Government merely revised the fee levels in 2012. That did not carry with it the degree of localism that we all wanted to see. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, London Councils has stressed that point recently, because of the impact of the increasing number of planning applications that local authorities are having to deal with, particularly in the London area:
“We believe the government should localise fee setting and scheduling controls so as to support boroughs that commit to boost the supply of housing. This would produce a more effective, swifter and consistent planning service, and ensure a properly resourced and more efficient planning system in the context of development control in London having seen an estimated net shortfall of around £37-£45 million annually”.
London Councils has stated that,
“if planning fees for large scale housing regeneration projects were charged on a full cost recovery system enabling councils to meet all 13 week planning targets, this would save developers up to £486 million per year in delayed development costs, while adding only £65 million in planning fees. Full cost charging could also be used to fund the kind of pro-active multi-borough teams that supported the work”
of the Olympic Delivery Authority. Developers, the LGA, London Councils and the District Councils Network —more or less everyone involved in the planning and development system—think that local authorities should be able to set planning fees locally, but the Government do not. We can find no rationale for that. The District Councils Network has helpfully set out for the Government some principles that could be applied.
Peter Dowd
Does my hon. Friend agree that there are contradictions all over the place? For example, the Government are quite happy to let local authorities raise 2% for social care, but they do not seem to take the same view on matters such as this.
Dr Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend makes a good point. As we have discussed several times in Committee, the Government’s approach is not necessarily consistent.
The District Councils Network has requested that four common principles be adopted. Principle 1 is the ability to have full cost recovery as a minimum, with full transparency as to method of fee calculation, which could be achieved through an earned autonomy approach. Principle 2 is that council tax payers should not subsidise commercial activities or companies. Principle 3 is that, wherever possible, charges should be determined locally. Principle 4 is that if central Government continue to determine charges at a national level, there should be an agreed annual indexation mechanism. If we do not want to go all the way down the road of local charging, some of those principles could be applied to move us some of the way down that road. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that, particularly as the Government seem to be in an isolated position once again.
Mr Jackson
It is obviously being so cheerful that keeps the hon. Lady going.
I want to briefly add my comments to the debate. The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood has experience in the field and proceeded on the basis of a very reasoned and moderate argument, with which many Government Members agree. We were looking forward—still look forward— to hearing the Minister respond in a similar vein. It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for City of Durham—she was rather sparky today and I do not know why; perhaps it is end-of-term blues—has sought to—
Mr Jackson
I think Hansard can record “Pot, kettle, black” there. The loquacity of the hon. Member for Harrow West in this Committee is legendary. I defer to no one in my admiration for him.
There is a good reason why there should be consistency in charging across the country. That said, some years ago I had the experience of visiting Medway unitary authority, which had significant numbers of large infrastructure projects that were beyond the capacity of the planning and development control teams in Medway and many other local authorities, and it got some big construction companies to effectively second services to the planning department, so that the services were offered in a non-monetised way. That was a good compromise, which shows that the very best and visionary local planning officers—head of planning, city council, borough councillors and civic leaders—do make the effort to involve their staff with developers and with big regeneration projects.
The Committee will be interested to know that in my own local authority, Peterborough city council, at the planning and environmental protection committee on Tuesday, the Fletton Quays project was agreed with 285 homes, a hotel, shops and restaurants on the south bank of the River Nene. It is a bit naughty, because technically it is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), but I am sure my hon. Friend will forgive me on this occasion for drawing it to the Committee’s attention. However, that was an example of a joint venture partnership between the planning department and the developer, Lucent, and others.
The point is that there are different ways to access money from developers without putting in the Bill a prescriptive way forward.
Mr Bacon
I am listening with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, who, unlike the hon. Member for Harrow West, has been contributing in a powerful way this afternoon. My hon. Friend mentioned a joint venture between planning departments and others. Does he share my view that the problem is not what is or is not in the Bill, but the lack of innovation and dynamism from some of the planning departments controlled by the sclerotic Opposition?
The Chair
Order. I do not need any help from Back Benchers to keep order in this Committee, as they no doubt will have discovered already.
Mr Jackson
The hon. Member for Harrow West has obviously got a tiger in his tank this afternoon as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk is absolutely spot-on. It is no good whining about funding constantly and saying, “It is not as it used to be.” We have to go out and attract forward-looking, intelligent, smart planning officers. They are out there. I give way to the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, who I am sure is in that category.
Helen Hayes
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The new clause is not about constantly whining about funding. It is about putting the absolutely vital task of securing the new homes that we need through the planning system on a sustainable financial footing, without placing an additional burden on the public purse. He would surely agree with that.
Mr Jackson
I would not agree with that, but we all see issues in politics through the prism of our constituencies, which is quite natural. In my constituency, we have a target to build 25,500 homes between 2001 and 2031, which is enormous growth. We are the second-fastest-growing city in England, and our planning department, in only a medium-sized unitary authority, is award-winning because it has worked with developers and it has delivered its structure plan, local plan, site location plans, city centre area action plan and other supplementary development on time. It has managed to recruit good people. I gently suggest to the LGA and the District Councils Network that we should be encouraging best practice in recruiting really good planning officers, rather than trying to legislate for it on the face of a Housing and Planning Bill.
The Chair
Order. I have been reasonably accommodating, but the new clause under consideration is about charging for planning. I think that general debate on the way in which planning departments work is perhaps a little wide of the mark.
Mr Jackson
Mr Gray, I accept your admonition. I am just reaching a crescendo in my remarks.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Just before my hon. Friend does, will he give way?
Mr Jackson
Before I reach that crescendo, I will give way to my hon. Friend.
Stephen Hammond
I am very much looking forward to my hon. Friend’s crescendo. Will he reflect in his closing remarks on the fact that the planning system, via the pre-application process, already contains the chance for small developers to pay to get developments brought forward more quickly, and that does reflect the full cost to the authority?
Mr Jackson
Not for the first time, my hon. Friend rescues me from falling into your disregard, Mr Gray, and gets me back on track. There is full cost recovery at pre-application, and one of the most useful aspects of planning and development control is the help and assistance that developers get from good, experienced, knowledgeable planning officers at the pre-application stage, leading them to make timely, properly costed applications that will be expedited through the planning system. The new clause may be probing, but it is superfluous and unnecessary and if it is pressed to a vote, I suggest that the Committee reject it.
Brandon Lewis
Thank you, Mr Gray. I was already looking forward to an early Christmas finish.
Before discussing the new clauses’ merit, I should highlight to hon. Members who may not have noticed that section 303 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 already provides for the Secretary of State to allow, by regulations, local planning authorities to set their own level of fees up to cost recovery. We are therefore already technically in possession of the powers to enable local fee setting.
Authorities have a crucial role to play in providing services, none more so than enabling development to encourage home ownership, building homes people can afford to buy, and supporting economic growth and job creation. An effective and efficient planning system is essential to support that. Authorities have done a lot of work to find savings and efficiencies over the past few years, but fees for making planning applications have been set nationally and make an important contribution to meeting the costs of development management services. As has been outlined, they were last revised in 2012, and that revision was substantial.
I hear the call from professional bodies and developers that action is needed to ensure that local planning departments are resourced properly. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon pointed out that we already have planning performance agreements that developers will take forward in order to have a guaranteed level of service. However, the level of planning application fees is only one side of the resourcing equation. Local government must drive down its costs, too. I am clear that any changes in fees should go hand in hand with the provision of an effective service. Giving local government a completely blank cheque, as the new clauses would do, could bring about unintended risks, as touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough.
Many more local authorities can do much more to transform their planning departments. I actually thank the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood for tabling her new clause as it gives me the chance, as I had on the Floor of the House just a few weeks ago, to reconfirm that, although some authorities have introduced new ways of delivering planning services through outsourcing and shared service arrangements, showing that costs can be saved and services can be improved, more should be following that lead. The research shows that there is a saving of 5% to 20% for competitively tendered or completely shared services. More local authorities need to do that, not just because it brings efficiencies but because it brings better resource, particularly for small districts that will be challenged to find the best players. Coming together gives them a better career opportunity, and there is also an opportunity for planners. Not enough local authorities have moved down that road.
I do not disagree with the hon. Members who spoke in favour of the proper resourcing of planning services, but local government and councils need to understand that their planning department is also their economic regeneration department, and they should focus clearly on it. Going further must go hand in hand with local authorities driving forward those service improvements and cost reductions.
We heard from my hon. Friends in Committee last week interesting ideas about fast-track planning applications and having a more competitive planning process. I made a commitment at the time, and I do so again today, to consider them before the end of this Bill process. That, rather than a focus on raising fees alone, is the type of innovative thinking that needs to be brought to the resourcing debate.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I hear what the Minister is saying about driving efficiency. Nevertheless, we have to ask what the Government can possibly mean by devolution if they do not even trust planning authorities to set their own fee levels.
Brandon Lewis
Finally, I will respond to the many references that hon. Members have made throughout the Committee proceedings, in one form or another, to resourcing—in fact, the hon. Lady just referred to it. The spending review provides a reasonable offer to local government and an increase in resources over this Parliament in cash terms. By the end of this Parliament, local government will be able to retain 100% of local taxes to spend on local services. We have to be honest and clear about this: local authorities have been able to increase their reserves over the past few years from about £13 billion to £22 billion. Although they should retain sensible reserves, they should also look at how to prioritise the funding they have, and they must see planning as a core and important department. As I said at the start of my speech, we already have the powers to allow local planning authorities to set fees locally. I have undertaken to look at some of the suggestions that my hon. Friends made last week. With that, I ask the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood to withdraw the new clause.
Helen Hayes
I thank the Minister for his response, and in particular for agreeing that planning services should be properly resourced in local authorities. I agree that there is scope for innovation. I saw innovation during my work in planning, but I think that the task of delivering the new homes that we need through the planning system cannot be fulfilled by innovation alone. Those services must be resourced on a basis that is proper, modern and fit for purpose, given that local authority resources are very stretched and that planning is competing with services that are of a different order of magnitude. I therefore wish to press new clause 24 to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 26—Requirement to carry out electrical safety checks—
‘(1) A landlord of a rental property shall ensure that there is maintained in a safe condition—
(a) any electrical installation; and
(b) any electrical appliances supplied by the landlord so as to prevent the risk of injury to any person in lawful occupation or relevant premises.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), a landlord shall—
(a) ensure that the electrical installation and any electrical appliances supplied by the landlord are checked for safety within 12 months of initial leasing and thereafter at intervals of not more than 5 years since they were last checked for safety (whether such check was made pursuant to this Act or not);
(b) in the case of a lease commencing after the coming into force of this Act, ensure that the electrical installation and each electrical appliance to which the duty extends has been checked for safety within a period of 12 months before the lease commences or has been or is so checked within 12 months after the electrical installation or electrical appliance has been installed, whichever is later; and
(c) ensure that a record in respect of any electrical installation or electrical appliance so checked is made and retained for a period of 6 years from the date of that check and which shall include the following information—
(i) the date on which the electrical installation or electrical appliance was checked;
(ii) the address of the premises at which the electrical installation or electrical appliance is installed;
(iii) the name and address of the landlord of the premises (or, where appropriate, his agent) at which the electrical installation or electrical appliance is installed;
(iv) a description of and the location of the electrical installation or electrical appliance checked;
(v) any defect identified;
(vi) any remedial action taken;
(vii) the name and signature of the individual carrying out the check; and
(viii) the registration number with which that individual’s firm is registered with a Part P competent persons scheme approved by the Department for Communities and Local Government and certified as being competent in periodic inspection and testing.
(3) Every landlord shall ensure that any work in relation to a relevant electrical installation or electrical appliance carried out pursuant to subsection (1) or (2) above is carried out by a firm registered with a Part P competent persons scheme approved for the time being by the Department for Communities and Local Government.
(4) The record referred to in (2)(c), or a copy thereof, shall be made available upon request and upon reasonable notice for the inspection of any person in lawful occupation of relevant premises who may be affected by the use or operation of any electrical installation or electrical appliance to which the record relates.
(5) Notwithstanding subsection (4), every landlord shall ensure that—
(a) a copy of the record made pursuant to the requirements of (3)(c) is given to each existing tenant of premises to which the record relates within 28 days of the date of the check; and
(b) a copy of the last record made in respect of each electrical installation or electrical appliance is given to any new tenant of premises to which the record relates before that tenant occupies those premises save that, in respect of a tenant whose right to occupy those premises is for a period not exceeding 28 days, a copy of the record may instead be prominently displayed within those premises.
(6) A landlord who fails to comply with this section commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale”.
This new clause would introduce a requirement for landlords to undertake electrical safety checks.
Teresa Pearce
Both new clauses in this group relate to standards in the private rented sector.
New clause 25 would place a duty on landlords to ensure that their properties are fit for habitation when let and remain fit during the course of a tenancy. The new clause is largely about probing the Minister to see whether he is open to putting that duty into legislation and follows on from the private Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), which had a similar aim but which was talked out by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies)—a fate that befalls some of the worthiest private Members’ Bills, including my own.
Before moving on to the detail of new clause 25, I note that the majority of landlords let property that is and remains of a decent standard. Many good landlords go out of their way to ensure that even the slightest safety hazard is sorted and that any repairs are attended to, so it is even more distressing when we see reports of homes that are frankly unfit for human habitation being let, often at high prices.
Parliament has for more than 100 years considered and legislated for standards in the private rented sector. The Housing of the Working Classes Act 1885 and, 100 years later, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 placed obligations on landlords regarding safety in their properties. Indeed, the 1985 Act placed a statutory duty on landlords covering issues such as damp, mould and infestation, yet that duty applies only to those fulfilling a rent criterion, and that criterion has not been changed since 1957, so the duty now applies only to properties where the annual rent is less than £80. The new clause would remove those limits to allow the 1985 Act to fulfil the intention and place a duty on landlords to provide a safe, secure environment.
I am sure that all Members in their casework receive letters from constituents living in poor conditions—indeed, it is one of the biggest issues in my constituency. My office phone rings every day with people calling about mould and infestation in their property, the impact that has on their health and the inaction of some landlords in rectifying the situation. It is also a consumer issue, because where else in the modern day could one buy something that is not fit for purpose? If someone buys a television that does not work, they can take it back and get a refund. We are pretty much assured that the food in a food shop is safe to eat—if it was unsafe to eat, the food premises would be shut down. Yet a landlord can let a property that is unfit for human habitation and there is no easy recourse.
About this time last year, I was asked by a family in my constituency to visit the property that had been occupied by their father, who had just passed away from a respiratory illness. They wanted me to see at first hand the conditions he had lived in. The walls were so thick with mould that it looked like flock wallpaper. The air just smelled of damp. This man had died on his sofa on a Saturday night from lung disease while living in that accommodation. His family lived some distance away, which is why they were not fully aware of the conditions he was living in. They had contacted the landlord on numerous occasions, and the landlord failed to assist. Nothing could be done.
I am sure the Government will want to consider the new clause. It would only affect a small number of tenants in the few properties let by bad landlords that are unfit for human habitation, but it would change the lives of many tenants. Earlier in our consideration of the Bill, we discussed rogue landlords and banning orders, but the new clause would try to alleviate suffering before we got to that position. It is a basic consumer, health and productivity issue. It is hard for someone to be productive at work when they live in a property which is not fit to live in. It is also a moral issue where children and elderly people are concerned, so I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say on the new clause.
New clause 26 would introduce a requirement for landlords to undertake electrical safety checks. Electrical Safety First has been leading the way on the issue by raising awareness and lobbying parliamentarians—I think it was in Parliament this week doing that very thing—on the need to ensure that the private rented sector is fire-safe. Many other organisations support the measure, and the Local Government Association, the London fire brigade, Shelter, the Association of Residential Letting Agents, British Gas, Crisis and the Fire Officers Association have all supported previous measures to introduce mandatory electrical safety checks.
It is estimated that each year electrical faults cause more than 20,000 house fires and lead to around 350,000 serious injuries and 70 deaths. It is worth noting those figures, because we now see fewer deaths and injuries—only 300 injuries and 18 deaths—caused by gas and carbon monoxide, on which action has been taken. The risks remain serious, so it is right that we continue to monitor that, but those figures show what is at stake when we discuss electrical fires in the home.
Although landlords have a duty to keep electrical installations in proper working order and to ensure that any electrical appliances they supply are safe, poorly maintained installations remain in the sector and there is no explicit requirement for landlords to prove to tenants that a property is electrically safe. Landlords of houses in multiple occupation are required to have a periodic inspection every five years, but those whose properties are not HMOs are not legally obliged to do that. It is not right that people would be safer in a bed and breakfast or an HMO than in a privately rented home. What is the difference in fire risk between a property that meets the HMO requirements in which a landlord lets to six people and a property that is not an HMO where six different people live? The standards should be the same because the risk is the same.
Of course, many good landlords ensure that their properties are safe. The property is their asset, so they have as much interest in keeping it safe as their tenants. Many good landlords run electrical safety checks and ensure that all appliances are tested at the beginning of the tenancy and at points during it, but there is growing consensus that the introduction of mandatory electrical safety checks is a worthy cause.
We have seen action on the issue in Scotland, where the Scottish Government have introduced fire safety requirements for private rented properties, and the authorities in Northern Ireland are currently running a review of the private rented sector which includes a consultation on mandatory fire checks. In Wales, we have growing cross-party support and we hope that the Welsh Government will introduce such requirements.
Helen Hayes
I want to share an example of a constituent who emailed me recently. She is a private tenant in Lambeth who told me how she lies awake at night going over and over in her mind her worries about the electrical safety in her property and the lack of fire safety in general, and about how she would get out with her children if there was a fire. Does my hon. Friend agree that the clause would provide great comfort to tenants in that situation?
Teresa Pearce
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. That is the exact scenario. People have said to me, “If that is the case, why don’t they move somewhere else?” but particularly in London housing is scarce, so sometimes people have to take whatever is available and thereby risk their and their family’s safety if the place is not safe to live in.
We have mandatory annual gas checks in the private rented sector, and secondary legislation has added regulation for smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors, so I hope that the Minister will consider accepting new clause 26. There is growing support for the measure across the UK, in Parliaments and with landlords. In fact, Janet Finch-Saunders, the Welsh Conservative spokesperson on this issue in the Welsh Parliament, has pledged her support and she also happens to be a landlord. We have broad support.
To recap, new clause 25 would introduce a duty on landlords to ensure that their properties are fit for human habitation, which would drive up standards. New clause 26 would introduce a requirement for landlords to undertake electrical safety checks. I hope that the Minister will accept that new clause.
Brandon Lewis
I have enjoyed listening to the hon. Lady’s thoughts. I have some sympathy with the points she made in the latter part of her speech. We have listened to hon. Members talk at length about the private rented sector in the past few weeks, so I apologise to those listening now or reading our deliberations later in Hansard, because some of the points I will make have been made before. If the hon. Lady had tabled the new clauses for consideration when we debated the private rented sector, we could have saved ourselves some time and had a more focused debate at a relevant point.
The new clauses cover—once again—property condition in the private rented sector. The hon. Lady outlined new clause 25. I agree that all homes should be of a decent standard and that all tenants have the right and should expect to be able to live in a safe place, regardless of tenure. However, we do not consider that amending the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in the way proposed would ensure that.
Local authorities already have strong and effective powers to deal with poor-quality, unsafe accommodation and we expect them to use those powers. Where tenants raise concerns, they can carry out an inspection using the housing health and safety ratings system introduced in the Housing Act 2004, which assesses 29 categories of hazard found in a property. Local authorities can issue an improvement notice or a hazard awareness notice, or prohibit the property from being rented out. In serious cases, the local authority may decide to make repairs itself.
The Government want to crack down on the small minority of rogue and criminal landlords who exploit their tenants by renting out unsafe and substandard accommodation and who fail to comply with statutory notices. Measures in the Bill that we have already debated will ensure that our powers against rogue and bad landlords go further than ever before. I hope that Members are advising their constituents with bad electrics or mould that they are covered in that way, and telling them to contact their local authority so that the local authority can use its powers. In addition, the Government have a wide range of policy initiatives to improve existing properties in the private rented sector. New clause 25 would result in unnecessary regulation and cost to landlords, which would deter further investment and push up rents for tenants. I ask the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead to withdraw it.
The hon. Lady outlined how new clause 26 would introduce a requirement for landlords to undertake electrical safety checks. I support measures to help safeguard tenants in their homes, so I will consider it. Any new legislation must strike the right balance, protecting tenants without over-regulating or causing unnecessary burdens for landlords. I remind hon. Members of all parties that landlords are already under a general legal duty to ensure that electrical installations are safe, but we are committed to creating a strong and professional private rented sector that works for all, where good landlords can prosper and tenants are protected.
We will carry out further work to understand what legislative amendments for undertaking electrical safety checks, if any, would be beneficial and appropriate to the private rented sector, and ensure that they do not harm the sector by stifling it with red tape. With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Lady will not press the new clause.
Teresa Pearce
I thank the Minister for his response. On the point about late tabling, the reason why the new clauses were tabled when they were is that I did not have time to table them. Knives were put in that I did not expect. I apologise for the fact that they are at the end of the Bill.
Brandon Lewis
I am just wondering what the hon. Lady means by unexpected knives. We have gone late some nights and moved things around to suit the Opposition, so I am not quite sure what she is referring to.
Teresa Pearce
Because the Minister at the time seemed to understand that we had moved further on the Bill than the Opposition expected, he accepted starred amendments, for which I thank him. I was trying to point out that we did not deliberately put the new clauses at the end of the Bill; it was because we moved much more swiftly through the Bill than I had expected. That was my explanation.
On new clause 25, I understand what the Minister says about existing ways for tenants to get in touch with their local authority and get it to come inspect a property, but one problem is that there are so few people working in local authority departments at the moment who can carry out such checks that often it is a feeble hope that somebody will come inspect a property. When we considered banning orders and fines, I hoped that the fines could be ring-fenced to employ people to go out and do that work. I hope that the Government will take that on board as a possibility.
On new clause 26, I am heartened by what the Minister has said. I am pleased that he will consider it. I think that there is consensus across all parties that it would be a good thing to do. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 27
Description of HMOs
“(1) The Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation (Prescribed Descriptions) England Order 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) Clause 3, subsection (2), leave out paragraph (a).
(3) Clause 3, leave out subsection (3)”.—(Teresa Pearce.)
This new clause would remove the three storeys condition from the conditions HMOs must satisfy in order to be of a description prescribed by article 3(1) of the Housing Act 2004.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Teresa Pearce
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is a probing amendment, and it is quite short. I am aware that the Government have published a consultation on houses in multiple occupation, and I was pleased to see it. HMOs come in a variety of forms. In the past, they were accommodation mainly for students, or for lots of single people, and they were basically tenement buildings, but increasingly in crowded cities, HMOs can be just a three-bedroom semi or similar building.
In my street, there is a bungalow that is an HMO, with about 10 people living in it, but because it does not have three storeys it does not fall within the definition of an HMO. That means many people living in HMOs and bed and breakfasts now have a better standard of safety than people who live in a private rented property that is clearly an HMO by every other definition, but not under the current definition because it has only one or two storeys, not three.
I am sure the Minister will say he needs to wait for the consultation to end, but I hope he will agree that the HMO sector needs revisiting. I would like to hear a little more about why the consultation has gone out now and what his intentions are for changes to the management and licensing of HMOs.
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Lady is right; there is a technical consultation out at the moment. We recognise that not all local authorities have made additional licensing schemes. It is well known that some of the worst management standards, living conditions, disrepair and overcrowding in the sector are found in smaller HMOs, which is why we issued the technical discussion paper. We wanted to seek views on whether mandatory licensing should be extended to smaller HMOs. The closing date for those responses is 18 December. I do not want to pre-empt at this stage how the proposals will be taken forward; I want to wait and get the final remarks from the consultation.
I can assure the hon. Lady and the Committee that the Government are committed to tackling abuse in the HMO market as we are in any other part of the private rented sector. Extending mandatory licensing is an option to achieve that, but I want to fully consider all responses before announcing how I will proceed. I can give the Committee some assurance about how we may do that. Any change to the scope of mandatory licensing can be achieved through secondary legislation. With that assurance, and given our commitment to stamping out abuse in the HMO market, I hope the hon. Lady is willing to withdraw her new clause.
Teresa Pearce
I thank the Minister for his response. I am sure we will return to this issue at a later stage, and I look forward to seeing the results of the consultation. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 28
Reporting of Housing Benefit Paid
‘(1) Each local housing authority must disclose information quarterly to HMRC regarding any monies paid to landlords through Housing Benefit in accordance with the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992.
(2) In this section—
“HMRC” means the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs;
“local housing authority” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Housing Act 1985”.
This new clause would require local housing authorities to disclose the amount of Housing Benefit paid to landlords to HMRC quarterly.—(Teresa Pearce.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Teresa Pearce
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is largely a probing one, but it raises an important issue. In many cases up and down the country, someone making a claim for housing benefit has to send in a copy of their lease or tenancy agreement, on which the landlord is named. I would like local authorities and housing benefit departments to ensure there is quarterly or annual reporting to HMRC of the moneys paid when they pay out housing benefit.
The overwhelming majority of landlords pay their taxes in a timely and correct fashion. However, a few choose not to. I have seen evidence of that myself, where tenants have to pay every Sunday, when the landlord comes round and collects the money in cash. That is public money—housing benefit money—but it goes into the landlord’s pocket, and they do not pay any tax on it.
I was so concerned about this issue that I wrote to Lin Homer at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and to HM Treasury. I got a reply from a Minister and Lin Homer, both of whom estimated that the tax gap for letting income could be as high as £500 million a year. Something needs to be done about that, because housing benefit is public money—it is taxpayers’ money, and we should ensure that where it goes to a landlord, it is treated with the respect it deserves.
If HMRC had quarterly or annual reporting of the moneys paid, it would have more information to allow it to track down certain individuals, ensuring that those who are not being proper landlords and acting as decent citizens are caught up with much sooner. At the moment, we all know that HMRC is running on less resources, but it is clear that it wants to tackle tax evasion wherever that occurs. Where someone evades tax on public money they have received, it is even more important that HMRC does that.
Dr Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. The Government want to set up a whole public body to transfer information about tenants’ incomes from landlords to HMRC. Does she agree that this is another thing the body could do? That would be helpful for recouping much-needed money for the taxpayer.
Teresa Pearce
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We are talking about people who are receiving taxpayers’ money, taking it as income and not paying tax on it. We should do whatever we can to tackle those people, because they are exactly the same group of people who will not be carrying out electrical safety checks on the properties they rent out and who are cramming people into bedrooms that are too small. They are exactly the rogue landlords that this Bill seeks to ban, so we should also be ensuring that they are not profiting from this.
This is a probing new clause to raise the issue for consideration by the Committee. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I hope that something can be done to ensure that every citizen of this country who gets income pays the right amount of tax on that income.
Mr Jones
The new clause would place an additional requirement on each local authority to collect information about housing benefit paid to landlords and to disclose that information to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on a quarterly basis. Local authorities are already accountable to the Department for Work and Pensions for their housing benefit expenditure as part of the subsidy scheme, which is subject to an annual audit. For claimants in social housing, housing benefit is often paid directly to the landlord, although that is starting to change with the roll-out of universal credit, which pays benefits directly to the claimant in most cases. For claimants in the private rented sector, housing benefit is not, for the most part, paid directly to private landlords but is paid to the claimant, who is then responsible for the rent, so any reporting would only provide a partial picture.
Universal credit, which is replacing housing benefit for working-age claimants, is currently being rolled out across the country and is not administered by local authorities, which means that the proposal would become of diminishing relevance in the medium to short term. On that basis, I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw her motion.
Teresa Pearce
I understand what the Minister says about the roll-out of universal credit but, at present, every local authority has a payroll department and has to make annual reports of payments made outside of the payroll to contractors and people like that. The proposal is not that onerous on councils, but I accept that it might not fix the problem, so I ask the Minister to go away and consider what would fix the problem. There clearly is an issue, and I would like to think that the Government will consider it and try to find some way of ensuring that such people are not avoiding their due taxes. In the spirit of accepting that he may do that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 29
Accreditation and licensing for private landlords
“Local authorities shall be required to operate an accreditation and licensing scheme for private landlords.”—(Dr Blackman-Woods.)
This amendment would require local authorities in England and Wales to put in place a scheme to license and provide for the accreditation of private sector landlords in their area.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 29 would introduce an accreditation and licensing scheme for private landlords. It is possible to argue that we would not have needed to table so many new clauses to improve the quality of much of our private rented sector and to improve the way in which landlords operate if we had followed the excellent example of some of our devolved Administrations by having a proper register of landlords. I will use the scheme set up and operated by the Scottish Government since 2006 as an example. That register is extremely straightforward. Anyone who owns residential property in Scotland that is let must apply to register with the local authority for the area in which the property is located unless the property is covered by one of the exemptions. It is the owner of the property who must register, and in some cases that may not be the landlord who has the letting agreement, but they must declare that information. The scheme is very straightforward, and it is operated online. The exemptions are very clear and it is the property that is exempt from registration: it is the only or main residence of the landlord; there are not more than two lodgers; it is let under an agricultural tenancy; it is let under a crofting tenancy; it is used for holiday lets; it is regulated by the Care Commission; it is owned by a religious organisation; it is occupied only by members of a religious order; or it is let to members of the landlord’s family. We can see that those are very sensible and straightforward exemptions.
Mr Jackson
I do not instinctively have any objection to the hon. Lady’s new clause, but I wonder about the payment regime and who funds the administration and management of the scheme. As she knows, selected licensing under the Housing Act 2004 is in effect self-financing and any money goes back into ameliorating the impacts of antisocial landlords and tenants. The funding is not on the face of her new clause, so how would the scheme be funded? Would the funding fall disproportionately on the taxpayer?
Dr Blackman-Woods
Absolutely not. I will come to the matter of payment in a moment or two.
The scheme is very straightforward. The information is given online and all the council has to do is to check that there is documentation to back up an exemption if a landlord asks for one. Furthermore, the person letting must be fit and proper according to three categories. They are considered not to be a fit and proper person if they have committed an offence involving fraud, dishonesty, violence, drugs, discrimination, firearms or sexual offences; if they have practised unlawful discrimination in connection with any business; or if they have contravened any provision of the law relating to housing or landlord and tenant law.
As the hon. Gentleman said, I was keen to find out how such a straightforward scheme was funded. It is funded by the application of a fee, which is extraordinarily low; it is £55. Often what we hear back from the Conservative party is, “Oh, we couldn’t possibly have a landlord register operating, because it’s so expensive, puts unreasonable charges on to landlords and is much too complicated”, but in Scotland an excellent, straight- forward and reasonably charged scheme is in operation. I can see no landlord who would be unable to pay £55. I would like to hear from the Minister why such a scheme cannot operate in the UK.
Alongside that we could have an accreditation system. We already have the London Landlords Accreditation Scheme, which seeks to enable landlords to register and get accreditation to show that they are fit and proper persons who operate as good landlords. Some other such schemes operate locally—for example, Oxford City Council has a landlord accreditation scheme.
Those are examples of good practice, often carried out by Labour authorities. It would be excellent if such good practice could be rolled out nationally. I look forward to hearing from the Minister why we do not have the ability to operate in this country schemes that operate easily in Scotland and under other devolved Administrations.
Mr Jones
The new clause would require all local authorities to operate an accreditation and licensing scheme for private landlords. The existing licensing arrangements for the private rented sector were introduced to give local authorities the ability to deal with problems that might arise in connection with rented property. Three types of licensing are provided for: mandatory licensing of larger homes in multiple occupation; additional licensing of smaller houses in multiple occupation; and selective licensing of all types of private rented sector housing.
Additional and selective licensing are discretionary powers. Additional licensing may be introduced by a local authority for smaller houses in multiple occupation in all or part of its area where there are significant management issues, or the properties are in poor condition. Selective licensing allows local authorities to license all private rented housing in a designated area that suffers issues such as low housing demand and/or significant antisocial behaviour.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Will the Minister outline what is burdensome about filling in an online form, which takes about 10 minutes, and paying £55 to do so, given that that scheme operates effectively elsewhere in the country?
Mr Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for that question. It was typical of the last Labour Government that more and more bureaucracy was layered on to business. The problem is that the more bureaucracy that is layered on, particularly to decent business people who are doing the right thing, the more it discourages them from investing and running businesses and, in this case, from housing people. It is apparent that where this system has been or is being used—Scotland—the additional required administration has resulted in increased rents for tenants.
Several voluntary landlord accreditation schemes have already been introduced by many local authorities and are promoted by the main landlord associations. We strongly encourage that approach. The aim of voluntary accreditation is to raise standards by providing education and training to landlords, identifying poor practice and generally increasing the levels of professionalism among landlords. However, I do not believe that local authorities should be required to operate an accreditation scheme in their area. Accreditation is only of interest to good landlords who rent out decent accommodation, so it does not help to identify and tackle criminal landlords. Local authorities are in the best position to decide whether there is a need for an accreditation scheme in their area. On that basis and following that explanation, I hope the hon. Lady will withdraw the new clause.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The Minister gave exactly the response that I thought he would and that we have heard a number of times from this Government. The lack of consistency in approach is pretty breathtaking. Earlier in our discussions, we found out that local authorities have been given powers to offer fixed-term tenancies to their tenants. Local authorities do not think that is a good idea and they do not want to do it, so what are the Government doing? They are making them do it through this legislation. Exactly the same situation pertains to the registration of landlords.
It is extremely difficult for local authorities to run selective licensing schemes and, in this instance, any sensible Government would say, “We would want to ensure that we have maximum protection and ease of information for tenants. Therefore, we will set up a very cheap, easy-to-administer national scheme.” I just do not understand the logic, but it is getting late in the deliberation of the Committee. No doubt we can return to the issue at some later stage in our deliberations. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 30
Restrictions to granting permission in principle
“Permission in principle shall apply—
(a) to brownfield sites only for the provision of housing, and
(b) to sites that have already been approved in an adopted local plan for the provision of housing”.—(Dr Blackman-Woods.)
This amendment would restrict the circumstances in which permission in principle can be applied to brownfield sites for housing and to sites that have already been approved in an adopted local plan for the provision of housing.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause was tabled to put on the record—or at least to try again to elicit from the Minister—exactly how wide the permission in principle outlined in clause 102 of the Bill will be applied. Will it be applied to brownfield sites and to sites that have been approved in the adopted local plan for the provision of housing? What we are trying to elicit through this new clause is some clarity from the Minister about what brownfield sites will be used for in terms of getting permission in principle.
Brandon Lewis
I am very happy to put on the record today that the Government obviously have no intention of allowing, for example, planning in principle to be used for some of the things that I know some people may be concerned about, such as fracking or waste development. However, we want to ensure that the local authorities are able to grant permission in principle for mixed-use developments that promote balanced and sustainable places, as I outlined last week.
The hon. Lady did not quite use the phrase “probing amendment”, but she wanted to have another go at making a point, which I appreciate. I am pleased she made that point, because I was somewhat surprised that she had tabled this new clause, bearing in mind that, in effect, we have already debated these issues quite heavily in two previous Committee sittings.
Both parts of this new clause would restrict the granting of permission in principle. As I outlined when we had those lengthy debates in those two Committee sittings, we want to ensure that there is a flexible system that delivers for people. That is where we are, and that is why I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her new clause. If she does not do so, we will oppose it.
Dr Blackman-Woods
As I suggested earlier to the Minister, this new clause is very much about getting further clarity from him about the extent of land, and the purpose, that could be behind permission in principle. It appears that it goes beyond housing and the Minister has helpfully clarified that this afternoon. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 34
Extension of the Housing Ombudsman to cover the Private Rented Sector
“(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations introduce a scheme to extend the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, as set out in section 51 and Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1996, to cover disputes between tenants and private landlords in the Greater London Authority.
(2) The scheme under subsection (1) shall—
(a) last at least one year and no longer than two years; and
(b) come into effect within 6 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent.
(3) The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a report of the scheme under subsection (1) alongside any statement he thinks appropriate, within 3 months of the closing date of the scheme.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations extend the powers of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme as set out in section 51 and Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1996, to cover disputes between tenants and private landlords nationwide.”—(Teresa Pearce.)
This new clause would give the Secretary of State the power to introduce a pilot scheme which would see the Housing Ombudsman extend its cover in London to private sector housing and disputes between tenants and private landlords, to require that the Secretary of State reports on the pilot scheme, and to give the Secretary of State power through regulations to extend the Housing Ombudsman to cover private sector housing and disputes between tenants and private landlords nationwide.
Teresa Pearce
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would give the Secretary of State power to introduce a pilot scheme that would see the housing ombudsman extend its cover in London to the private sector. That would require a report from the Secretary of State following the pilot, and would give the Secretary of State the ability to extend the powers of the housing ombudsman to the private sector nationwide if that pilot is successful.
In London, the private rented sector is growing and is a significant proportion of the housing market. Extending the ombudsman scheme to cover the private rented sector would be a big change. That is why this new clause proposes a pilot to establish whether such an extension would be worth while.
Most landlords are effective and efficient in letting their property, but disputes between landlords and tenants can and do occur. They could be about a delay in responding to a situation in a flat. Perhaps there could be problems with electrics, gas or heating, or there could be a concern that the property is dangerous. A tenant could be concerned that part of the tenancy agreement or lease has not been upheld. The housing ombudsman is a fantastic independent service that helps to resolve many such complaints and concerns.
The ombudsman considers complaints about how a landlord has responded to reports of a problem, and considers what is fair in all circumstances. The ombudsman does not look at the original problem. For example, it does not decide whether or not a property is damp. What they look at is whether or not the landlord has done what he needs to do in line with the tenancy agreement and the ombudsman’s policies. It helps to defuse disputes by having an independent person look at them.
All local authorities and housing associations must be a member of the ombudsman scheme. At present, private sector landlords can join on a voluntary basis, but not nearly enough of them do so, leaving many tenants in a position where they have nowhere left to turn when things go wrong.
In total, 87% of cases referred to the housing ombudsman were resolved by landlords and tenants with the support of the ombudsman. Many of those landlords and tenants have gone on to build and keep good relations, and they continue to rent from and let to each other.
The measures in the Bill will bring about a decline in social housing, whether it is managed by the local authority or a housing association. As a result, the private rented sector, particularly in London, will increase its share of the housing market. Surely, therefore, it is right to ensure that all tenants across the sector are afforded the same protections and dispute resolution service.
That is why I have tabled new clause 34, which would extend the housing ombudsman scheme as a pilot in London. I hope the Minister will look favourably on it and let me know whether he sees any merit in this scheme. If he does, I hope he will accept the new clause.
Brandon Lewis
Of course, private sector landlords can already join the housing ombudsman scheme on a voluntary basis. Many landlords who wish to assure their tenants of the quality of their services already do so. I suggest that tenants reading Hansard in their quiet moments this weekend might take that on board and ensure that they look for landlords who are members of that scheme and the housing ombudsman scheme, because it sends a clear signal. The Greater London Authority would need to take a view on whether it would be appropriate for the housing ombudsman to expand its role in London, given the linkages with the London rental standards.
I have made it clear that we have absolutely no intention of introducing unnecessary regulation on landlords or a national register of landlords. If the new clause were agreed, all landlords would be required to sign up to the scheme in order for it to work. Despite the excellent work of the housing ombudsman to resolve complaints, membership in the scheme for private landlords should remain voluntary at present, and we encourage private sector landlords to sign up.
Private landlords who have signed up voluntarily are signalling to their tenants that they are committed to a high level of service and can be expected to comply with any determination. Were they to be required to sign up, we would not expect the same level of engagement in the process or the same level of compliance. Indeed, the rogue landlords whom we want to target are the landlords who would ignore and avoid such a measure in the first place. Determinations would not therefore be enforceable, and we could risk increasing costs while tenants of reluctant landlords might not see any benefit. Although we accept and acknowledge the ethos of the hon. Lady’s new clause, I hope she will agree to withdraw it at this stage.
Teresa Pearce
I thank the Minister for his response. Given that in London we have the GLA, I hope that, in conversations with the GLA and the next Mayor of London, whoever that might be, the Minister will press them to publicise the scheme and ensure that private landlords sign up for it. I agree that the rogue landlords that we discussed some weeks ago do not pay their tax or look after their tenants, and are not likely to sign up to the scheme. That is why we asked for a pilot scheme. In the hope that the Minister will take on board what we are trying to do, which is to raise the standard in the sector, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 35
Cover for money received or held by lettings agents in the course of business
“(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person may not accept money from any person who seeks residential accommodation which is to let or who has a tenancy of a residential premises, or other right or permission to occupy, in the course of lettings agency work unless there are in force authorised arrangements under which, in the event of his failing to account for such money to the person entitled to it, his liability will be made good by another.
(2) In this section ‘lettings agency work’ has the same meaning as in section 83 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 and a ‘lettings agent’ is a person who engages in lettings agency work.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament—
(a) specify any persons or classes of persons to whom subsection (1) does not apply;
(b) specify arrangements which are authorised for the purposes of this section including arrangements to which a enforcement authority nominated for the purpose by the Secretary of State or any other person so nominated is a party;
(c) specify the terms and conditions upon which any payment is to be made under such arrangements and any circumstances in which the right to any such payment may be excluded or modified;
(d) provide that any limit on the amount of any such payment is to be not less than a specified amount; and
(e) require a person providing authorised arrangements covering any person carrying on lettings agency work to issue a certificate in a form specified in the regulations certifying that arrangements complying with the regulations have been made with respect to that person.
(4) Every guarantee entered into by a person who provides authorised arrangements covering a lettings agent shall tenure for the benefit of every person from whom the lettings agent has received a relevant payment as if the guarantee were contained in a contract made by the insurer with every such person.
(5) A ‘relevant payment’ means any sum of money which is received in the circumstances described in subsection (1).”—(Teresa Pearce.)
This new clause would require lettings agents to have Client Money Protection to cover all money received in the course of business.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Teresa Pearce
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 35 would require letting agents to have client money protection to cover all money received in the course of their business. Client money protection is an issue of which the sector has been incredibly supportive, and I thank those who have been in touch with me to share their support for the new clause.
It is estimated that letting agents currently hold approximately £2.7 billion in clients’ funds. The figure has been derived from the assumption that letting agents will potentially have a tenant’s deposit and one month’s rent in their client account at any given time, yet if a letting agent is not covered by client money protection, both the landlord and the tenant stand to lose their money. The new clause is designed to protect both parties in the unlikely event that an agent goes into administration or misappropriates the client’s funds. Any losses could be recovered through the scheme. The Bill’s extension of banning orders to letting agents has acknowledged that there are times when letting agents do not act in the best interests of landlords or tenants.
The new clause would provide a type of consumer protection to the financial services industry’s Financial Services Compensation Scheme, but it would be financed by the industry itself. We have a tenancy deposit scheme, which has been influential in ensuring that tenants’ deposits are fairly and securely held, so why are letting agents and the tenants who use them not granted the same protections? The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 already requires all letting and managing agents to be members of a redress scheme. The new clause would simply complement that.
I have spoken about the industry support for the clause. Indeed the Association of Residential Letting Agents believes that
“the client money protection scheme is fundamental for tenants and landlords to ensure that they have peace of mind should an agent go bust or take off with their funds...Last year’s move for all letting agents and property management agents in England to be a member of an approved redress scheme is a welcome step but essentially is only a half measure without a Client Money Protection scheme in place to ensure that, if necessary, we can cover losses for both the landlord and tenants...To not include such an amendment would be a missed opportunity.”
The introduction of a CMP would clearly be a positive step towards enhancing the professional reputation of letting agents across the board and for protecting clients’ money. I hope the Committee and the Minister will consider the new clause and that, in his response, the Minister will indicate whether he is minded to proceed in this direction and ensure that landlords’ and tenants’ money is protected when letting agencies are in administration or make off with the money.
Kevin Hollinrake
I will keep my comments brief. I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I am delighted that Members on the Opposition Benches have tabled a measure that will actually protect landlords, rather than just tenants. It really is a problem for the landlord that if money has been paid by a tenant to a landlord through the intermediary of a letting agent, the agent might disappear with it. That has happened in the past. I hope that the Minister looks carefully at the new clause, because it would raise standards in the property, estate agents and lettings industry, among which it is a popular measure. We have to be careful, though, that we do not drive competition out of the market. There should be a proper impact assessment of how the proposal would affect the overall industry. The Government have introduced other measures to protect deposits, which protect both tenants and landlords, but client moneys—moneys paid in rent—are not currently protected. I hope that the Minister looks at the idea in more detail.
Brandon Lewis
I am aware that there is some support for the new clause in the housing sector, as the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton have just outlined, but I am concerned that requiring letting agents to belong to a client money protection scheme at this stage could introduce into the sector significant costs, which would have implications on many levels.
We want to ensure that we have a strong and thriving private rented sector that is not tied up in excessive regulation. Requiring agents to pay to belong to a client money protection scheme would force honest agents to buy insurance against the risk that they themselves were fraudulent, when, as the hon. Lady said, the vast majority of agencies are not. Introducing a mandatory client money protection scheme at this point would be a step too far and would overburden a market that is perfectly capable of self-regulation. However, in May 2016 we will review the impact of the transparency measures that were put in place only recently. At that stage, I will take due consideration of whether any further action is needed, and obviously I will take into account the comments made this afternoon. I hope that, with those points in mind, the hon. Lady will withdraw the new clause.
Teresa Pearce
I thank the Minister for his response. When people are handling money that does not belong to them, it is important that it is ring-fenced and safeguarded. For example, solicitors have to keep a completely separate client account, which is audited, because it is not their money. That principle is important with letting agents as well. Nevertheless, I hear what the Minister says and look forward to what may happen in 2016. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 36
Restriction on permitted changes of use
Where the Secretary of State has exercised or exercises his powers conferred by sections 59, 60, 61, 74 or 333(7) of the Town and Country Planning 1990 Act to make an Order in respect of change of use from office buildings (currently Class B1(a) of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended)) to use as dwelling-houses, the Order shall have no effect in respect of any building situated within Greater London as provided in the London Government Act 1963.”—(Mr Gareth Thomas.)
This new clause would exclude from the permitted changes of use provided in a Permitted Development Order made, or to be made, by the Secretary of State changes of use from offices to housing in London. Such changes would require planning permission from the local authority.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Thomas
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would require proposals to change offices in London into homes to go through a planning application process. Greater London has been particularly badly affected by the introduction of permitted development rights for those wanting to convert office accommodation into residential dwellings without seeking planning permission. There is a significant difference between office and residential values, which, combined with the high demand for housing and the scarcity of land, has created big incentives for landlords to convert, without planning permission, viable and occupied offices into homes. London Councils estimates that between May 2013 and April this year, at least 100,000 square feet of office floor space was lost. It argues that one consequence of that had been to drive up office rents in some parts of London, increasing costs for businesses; hon. Members know about all the implications of that.
London Councils has expressed concerns about the impact of the provisions on affordable housing in such developments. Because developers do not have to go through section 106 agreements when offices are converted into flats, there is no requirement to provide any affordable housing. London Councils estimates that some 16,000 new dwellings have avoided the full planning process and, as a result, many affordable homes that could have been built, had a planning application been required, have not been built. The LGA and London Councils have argued for change, and they support the intent of the new clause.
Chris Philp
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the permitted development rights legislation has enabled the creation of thousands of new units in London, which have all been very affordable? What would he say to the thousands of Londoners who have been able to buy relatively cheap flats using that excellent provision?
Mr Thomas
On occasion, conversion from office accommodation into residential accommodation may well be justified. My point is simply that that should go through a proper planning application process, partly because of the impact on affordable housing and partly because it is necessary to consider the impact on jobs and the business community of the loss of office space. However, I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman’s broader point that there is a huge shortage of housing, and on occasion it may well be entirely appropriate to convert offices into flats.
I will give the Committee some examples of where the ability to convert without planning permission has had an adverse impact on the business community. In Barnet, more than 100 small businesses were given as little as four to six weeks’ notice to leave the premises they were in, Premier House, because the developers wanted to turn it into 112 flats. Another example, which the hon. Member for Wimbledon may be aware of, involved Merton Council—
Mr Thomas
I will just give the hon. Member for Wimbledon this example, because he may also want to intervene, and I will happily take the hon. Lady’s intervention when I have done so. On Willow Lane industrial estate, some 40 small businesses with 150 employees were told to search for new premises, because there was a desire to convert the premises that they occupied into flatted accommodation.
Stephen Hammond
The industrial estate that the hon. Gentleman cites is not in my constituency; it is in that of his colleague the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). As I pointed out earlier, a derelict office building has been brought into use to create 70 new flats for tenants who have come, I think, from the borough of Tower Hamlets. Before he prays too much against it, I think we need to be careful, because it is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South has pointed out, creating real opportunities for low-cost housing.
Mr Thomas
The hon. Gentleman’s example of a derelict office block being brought into use as housing is absolutely encouraging. There is nothing to say that had it gone through the planning application process, those flats or other forms of accommodation could not have been provided. The planning application process allows the local community to think about the impact on jobs and the business community of particular applications. I apologise to the hon. Member for South Ribble; I am happy to give way to her.
Seema Kennedy
The hon. Gentleman raised a point about a notice period of as little as four weeks. That was done on the basis of a lease that had been agreed between two commercial parties. Surely, he is not suggesting that we legislate to interfere in the privity of contract.
Mr Thomas
Absolutely not. I am simply saying that when there is a proposal to convert a big office block into residential accommodation, it is sensible to consider the full impact on the local community, both the benefit of the conversion to housing and the effect on jobs and businesses. The Opposition are pro-business, particularly pro-small business, and I am surprised that the Government want to damage the business communities in the boroughs in my examples.
In that spirit, I gently suggest to Government Members that the new clause would not stop conversions from office use to residential accommodation, but it would allow proper discussions to take place about the benefits and the balance between business and housing need.
Chris Philp
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that article 4 directions can address the hon. Gentleman’s concern about that balance? Local authorities can exclude town centre areas, for example, from the provisions, as many London boroughs have. Islington, Richmond and I think Southwark and Croydon, actually, have all done that.
Chris Philp
Typically where they have been unreasonable by requesting whole-borough exemptions, which have been quite rightly turned down.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Is it not another curious inconsistency in the Government’s approach that they are happy to add to the bureaucratic burden of local authorities by making them go through a tortuous article 4 direction application, which may or may not be allowed, to carry out the most basic of planning functions?
Mr Thomas
My hon. Friend makes a good point. The hon. Member for Croydon South may want to seek the help of the hon. Member for Wimbledon in looking in a little more detail at the example of the Willow Lane trading estate and the conversion of business accommodation into flats there. According to the Local Government Association, Merton Council had attempted without success to get the industrial estate exempt from the Government’s rules.
I introduce this new clause in the spirit of concern about the impact on the business community, while still wanting office accommodation to be converted into housing, where appropriate, as long as there is a full discussion involving the local community.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I rise to support my hon. Friend’s new clause and to ask the Minister a very straightforward question. In October, he said that the changes in the policy on permitted development of office blocks from office to residential were to be made permanent. Will he clarify whether there has been any secondary legislation to bring that about?
Brandon Lewis
The office-to-residential policy has been successful in achieving what it was intended to do. It has helped to simplify the planning process to encourage more development on brownfield land and to deliver additional new homes, including in London, where housing need is particularly acute. I should also make it clear that it has helped to reduce the pressure to build on brownfield land. The data show that we have seen a 65% increase in the number of new homes created through change of use. Furthermore, since April 2014, nearly 4,000 permissions have been granted under permitted development rights for office-to-residential conversion, showing that it is delivering much-needed homes for Londoners.
To continue to boost the supply of housing, we have announced that we will make the permitted development right permanent. However, we also understand the need to protect the vitality of key economic areas. The current exemption areas, including the City of London and the central activity zone, will be extended until 30 May 2019 to allow time for those authorities to consider whether it is necessary to make an article 4 direction to remove the right. As I set out in my response to new clauses 19 and 20 on Tuesday, the article 4 process is straightforward. Local authorities, including a number of London boroughs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South outlined, have already used that process. I think the new clause is unnecessary, and I invite the hon. Member for Harrow West to withdraw it.
Mr Thomas
Even though the Minister has gone back to his Mr Grumpy mood, with some reluctance I have decided not to seek to divide the Committee on this new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 37
Removal of limit on debt where an authority has a housing revenue account
The Localism Act 2011 is amended as follows.
Leave out section 171 (Limits on indebtedness).”—(Mr Gareth Thomas.)
This new Clause would remove the Secretary of State’s power to make determinations about the housing debt that may be held by a local housing authority that keeps a Housing Revenue Account.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Thomas
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause seeks to remove the limit on debt where an authority has a housing revenue account. I hope that it will attract the support of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, who rightly reminded the Committee of the 1.4 million households on council waiting lists and the need for urgent action to tackle the scale of housing need those waiting lists represent. Crucially, we need to do more to build homes that those on the waiting lists can afford. Rents have rocketed because of the shortage of supply, as we have discussed, which is another factor necessitating urgent action. Hon. Members will be more than well aware of the particularly acute shortage of housing in London, where, even according to the Mayor of London’s planning documents, we are building only half of the housing we need.
In April 2012, the Government gave councils that own their own housing full control over their stock for the first time, although it was planned under the previous Labour Government. That meant that councils have the right to keep and manage all their rental income. In exchange for that right, councils in London agreed to take on billions of pounds of the nation’s housing debt. One of the benefits of giving councils full control of their own housing stock is that councils can borrow money against their assets to invest in new housing. However, as part of the agreement, the Government sadly imposed a cap on such borrowing. That cap was over and above the Treasury’s normal prudential borrowing rules that apply to most local authority borrowing. That artificial cap effectively halved the potential cash available for councils in London to invest in new homes.
London Councils has estimated that aligning the housing borrowing cap with the Treasury’s prudential borrowing rules—that is the purpose of my new clause—could generate an additional £3.2 billion of sustainable borrowing, which could potentially pay for an additional 54,000 extra affordable homes for Londoners over and above those already planned.
I understand that the reason—or at least the reason that was given in public—for the introduction of that cap was the worry that even prudential borrowing by local authorities might have an impact on the national deficit. But work by Capital Economics was drawn to the attention of the Lyons review, which made clear, from a series of conversations with City interviewers, that the amount of money that is likely to be borrowed would not be sufficient for the markets to worry, irrespective of any changes in accounting methods.
I understand that, on occasion, some flexibility around the cap has been on offer to local authorities. I hope the Minister, if he does not feel that he can support new clause 37 in its entirety, might be willing to look at the possibility of giving further flexibility to local authorities that have clear, sensible and thought-through plans to build additional homes so they can use their borrowing powers.
It is worth pointing out that a number of councils are seeking to get around the existing borrowing cap by setting up additional partnerships with developers and housing companies that are often wholly run by the local authority. Sheffield Housing Company, which will build some 2,300 homes over the next 15 years, is a particularly interesting example. It has had to go down the housing company route in order to get access to finance from the market. Having to go down such a bureaucratic route by setting up a company would not be necessary if there was no borrowing cap, or indeed, if the Ministers showed more flexibility.
Mr Bacon
I do not quite understand what the hon. Gentleman’s problem is with having to set up a company. When I worked in property banking as a young man, I would run five or six annual general meetings for different special purpose vehicle companies before breakfast on one day—literally.
Brandon Lewis
I have always felt that my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk is, at the very least, young at heart.
The indebtedness limits were put in place as part of the self-financing settlement with local authorities back in 2012. The financial freedoms provided by the settlement were widely welcomed by local government. However, as part of that, it was necessary to place a limit on the amount of housing debt that can be held, given the potential impact on the public sector borrowing requirement.
The limits do not mean there is no flexibility for local authorities to borrow. Indeed, at the time of self-financing, there was borrowing headroom of about £2.8 billion. That figure has increased as local authorities have reduced their debt levels. At the end of 2014-15, the headroom had increased to almost £3.4 billion. We were aware that the headroom was not evenly spread and that some councils needed additional borrowing headroom to build more homes, which is why we made available £221 million of extra borrowing headroom to 36 councils in England, to support thousands of new affordable homes in 2015-16 and 2016-17.
Much as I support the hon. Member for Harrow West on seeing more homes built, I cannot agree to the unrestricted increase of housing debt that would result from the amendment, given the implications for the public sector borrowing requirement, so I urge him to withdraw his new clause.
Mr Thomas
The Minister worries unnecessarily, given the comments put to us in the Lyons review. Nevertheless, I do not intend at this point to seek a Division, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 38
Extension of Help to Buy schemes to tenants receiving support for the voluntary right to buy
‘(1) This section applies to a tenant purchasing a dwelling-house in respect of which the Secretary of State makes a grant to a private registered provider in respect of a right to buy discount provided at section 56.
(2) The tenant shall be entitled to the same support provided under a help to buy scheme supported or underwritten by the Government as a tenant exercising right to buy of a dwelling- house from a local authority.”—(Mr Gareth Thomas.)
This new clause would extend the Government’s Help to Buy schemes to those exercising the right to buy under the voluntary scheme supported by Government grants, to put housing association purchasers in the same position as those buying their homes under right to buy from local authorities.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Thomas
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I tabled the new clause in a spirit of wanting to finally flush the Minister out on why he was so opposed to the proposal from the Mayor of London and, indeed, the noble Lord Kerslake about the potential for equity loans—an extension of the Government’s Help to Buy scheme—to help pay for the sale of council homes.
It is worth referencing the huge waiting lists that many councils have and the large number of people in temporary accommodation and bed and breakfasts, which represents a huge cost for council tax payers. It is also worth mentioning that last year, for every 11 council homes sold off, just one new property was built.
The proposal from the Mayor of London and the noble Lord Kerslake might be a potential solution that obviates the need to sell off council housing in particular areas—notably in central London, where it will be very difficult to replace—while allowing the Government to move forward with their agenda of offering housing association tenants the right to buy their flat. If the only motivation for including the forced sale of council homes is to pay for the cost of the discounts that housing association tenants will get through the right to buy, the option of extending the Government’s own Help to Buy scheme to housing association tenants might provide a genuinely new route to avoid the sale of council homes, and, as a result, exacerbate the housing crisis in London. In that spirit, I move this new clause.
Brandon Lewis
I appreciate the intent behind the new clause, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s conversion and support for our home ownership policies. However, I can assure him that it is completely unnecessary to put his new clause in the Bill, despite Labour building only one home for every 170 that were sold under right to buy. Our new revitalised right-to-buy scheme is delivering one for one, and is reaching two for one in London. We want to support people who work hard and save up for the deposit to buy their own home. That is why there is nothing to prevent the Help to Buy individual savings account being used with other Government schemes, helping people to achieve their home ownership aspirations. I encourage people to look at that, including the voluntary right to buy.
The Help to Buy equity loan scheme can only be used for new build properties, so would not apply to either local authority or housing association tenants looking to buy their own home. I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw his new clause.
Mr Thomas
I am a bit disappointed that the Minister did not say he had at least discussed with the Treasury the possibility of extending the scheme to cover housing association tenants. I can see no reason why not. Nevertheless, I am not at this point of a mind to press the new clause to a Division, but perhaps it is a good time to commend you, Mr Gray, for your chairmanship.
Mr Thomas
I will not press it to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Schedule 2
Default powers exercisable by Mayor of London or combined authority: Schedule to be inserted in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
“SCHEDULE A1
Section 27A
Default powers exercisable by Mayor of London or combined authority
Default powers exercisable by Mayor of London
1 If the Secretary of State—
(a) thinks that a London borough council, in their capacity as local planning authority, are failing or omitting to do anything it is necessary for them to do in connection with the preparation, revision or adoption of a development plan document, and
(b) invites the Mayor of London to prepare or revise the document,
the Mayor of London may prepare or revise (as the case may be) the development plan document.
2 (1) This paragraph applies where a development plan document is prepared or revised by the Mayor of London under paragraph 1.
(2) The Mayor of London must hold an independent examination.
(3) The Mayor of London—
(a) must publish the recommendations and reasons of the person appointed to hold the examination, and
(b) may also give directions to the council in relation to publication of those recommendations and reasons.
(4) The Mayor of London may—
(a) approve the document, or approve it subject to specified modifications, as a local development document, or
(b) direct the council to consider adopting the document by resolution of the council as a local development document.
3 (1) Subsections (4) to (7C) of section 20 apply to an examination held under paragraph 2(2)—
(a) with the reference to the local planning authority in subsection (7C) of that section being read as a reference to the Mayor of London, and
(b) with the omission of subsections (5)(c), (7)(b)(ii) and (7B)(b).
(2) The Mayor of London must give reasons for anything he does in pursuance of paragraph 1 or 2(4).
(3) The council must reimburse the Mayor of London—
(a) for any expenditure that the Mayor incurs in connection with anything which is done by him under paragraph 1 and which the council failed or omitted to do as mentioned in that paragraph;
(b) for any expenditure that the Mayor incurs in connection with anything which is done by him under paragraph 2(2).
Default powers exercisable by combined authority
4 In this Schedule—
“combined authority” means a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;
“constituent planning authority”, in relation to a combined authority, means—
(a) a county council, metropolitan district council or non-metropolitan district council which is the local planning authority for an area within the area of the combined authority, or
(b) a joint committee established under section 29 whose area is within, or the same as, the area of the combined authority.
5 If the Secretary of State—
(a) thinks that a constituent planning authority are failing or omitting to do anything it is necessary for them to do in connection with the preparation, revision or adoption of a development plan document, and
(b) invites the combined authority to prepare or revise the document,
the combined authority may prepare or revise (as the case may be) the development plan document
6 (1) This paragraph applies where a development plan document is prepared or revised by a combined authority under paragraph 5.
(2) The combined authority must hold an independent examination.
(3) The combined authority—
(a) must publish the recommendations and reasons of the person appointed to hold the examination, and
(b) may also give directions to the constituent planning authority in relation to publication of those recommendations and reasons.
(4) The combined authority may—
(a) approve the document, or approve it subject to specified modifications, as a local development document, or
(b) direct the constituent planning authority to consider adopting the document by resolution of the authority as a local development document.
7 (1) Subsections (4) to (7C) of section 20 apply to an examination held under paragraph 6(2)—
(a) with the reference to the local planning authority in subsection (7C) of that section being read as a reference to the combined authority, and
(b) with the omission of subsections (5)(c), (7)(b)(ii) and (7B)(b).
(2) The combined authority must give reasons for anything they do in pursuance of paragraph 5 or 6(4).
(3) The constituent planning authority must reimburse the combined authority—
(a) for any expenditure that the combined authority incur in connection with anything which is done by them under paragraph 5 and which the constituent planning authority failed or omitted to do as mentioned in that paragraph;
(b) for any expenditure that the combined authority incur in connection with anything which is done by them under paragraph 6(2).
Intervention by Secretary of State
8 (1) This paragraph applies to a development plan document that has been prepared or revised—
(a) under paragraph 1 by the Mayor of London, or
(b) under paragraph 5 by a combined authority.
(2) If the Secretary of State thinks that a development plan document to which this paragraph applies is unsatisfactory—
(a) he may at any time before the document is adopted under section 23, or approved under paragraph 2(4)(a) or 6(4)(a), direct the Mayor of London or the combined authority to modify the document in accordance with the direction;
(b) if he gives such a direction he must state his reasons for doing so.
(3) Where a direction is given under sub-paragraph (2)—
(a) the Mayor of London or the combined authority must comply with the direction;
(b) the document must not be adopted or approved unless the Secretary of State gives notice that the direction has been complied with.
(4) Sub-paragraph (3) does not apply if or to the extent that the direction under sub-paragraph (2) is withdrawn by the Secretary of State.
(5) At any time before a development plan document to which this paragraph applies is adopted under section 23, or approved under paragraph 2(4)(a) or 6(4)(a), the Secretary of State may direct that the document (or any part of it) is submitted to him for his approval.
(6) In relation to a document or part of a document submitted to him under sub-paragraph (5) the Secretary of State—
(a) may approve the document or part;
(b) may approve it subject to specified modifications;
(c) may reject it.
The Secretary of State must give reasons for his decision under this sub-paragraph.
(7) The Secretary of State may at any time—
(a) after a development plan document to which this paragraph applies has been submitted for independent examination, but
(b) before it is adopted under section 23 or approved under paragraph 2(4)(a) or 6(4)(a),
direct the Mayor of London or the combined authority to withdraw the document.
9 (1) This paragraph applies if the Secretary of State gives a direction under paragraph 8(5).
(2) No steps are to be taken in connection with the adoption or approval of the document until the Secretary of State gives his decision, or withdraws the direction.
(3) If the direction is given, and not withdrawn, before the document has been submitted for independent examination, the Secretary of State must hold an independent examination.
(4) If the direction—
(a) is given after the document has been submitted for independent examination but before the person appointed to carry out the examination has made his recommendations, and
(b) is not withdrawn before those recommendations are made,
the person must make his recommendations to the Secretary of State.
(5) The document has no effect unless the document or (as the case may be) the relevant part of it has been approved by the Secretary of State, or the direction is withdrawn.
The “relevant part” is the part of the document that—
(a) is covered by a direction under paragraph 8(5) which refers to only part of the document, or
(b) continues to be covered by a direction under paragraph 8(5) following the partial withdrawal of the direction.
(6) The Secretary of State must publish the recommendations made to him by virtue of sub-paragraph (3) or (4) and the reasons of the person making the recommendations.
(7) In considering a document or part of a document submitted under paragraph 8(5) the Secretary of State may take account of any matter which he thinks is relevant.
(8) It is immaterial whether any such matter was taken account of by the Mayor of London or the combined authority.
10 Subsections (4) to (7C) of section 20 apply to an examination held under paragraph 9(3)—
(a) with the reference to the local planning authority in subsection (7C) of that section being read as a reference to the Secretary of State, and
(b) with the omission of subsections (5)(c), (7)(b)(ii) and (7B)(b).
11 In the exercise of any function under paragraph 8 or 9 the Secretary of State must have regard to the local development scheme.
12 The Mayor of London or the combined authority must reimburse the Secretary of State for any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under paragraph 8 or 9 that is specified in a notice given by him to the Mayor or the authority.
Temporary direction pending possible use of intervention powers
13 (1) If the Secretary of State is considering whether to give a direction to the Mayor of London or a combined authority under paragraph 8 in relation to a development plan document, he may direct the Mayor or the authority not to take any step in connection with the adoption or approval of the document—
(a) until the time (if any) specified in the direction, or
(b) until the direction is withdrawn.
(2) A document to which a direction under this paragraph relates has no effect while the direction is in force.
(3) A direction given under this paragraph in relation to a document ceases to have effect if a direction is given under paragraph 8 in relation to that document.”” —(Mr Marcus Jones.)
This new Schedule inserts a new Schedule A1 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which makes detailed provision for the intervention in local plan-making by the Mayor of London or a combined authority described in NC17.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Schedule 3
“Right to enter and survey land: consequential amendments
Defence Act 1842 (5&6 Vict c. 94)
1 In section 16 of the Defence Act 1842, at the end insert—
“(3) A person may not be authorised under subsection (1) to enter and survey or value land in England and Wales in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”
Coast Protection Act 1949 (12 & 13 Geo 6 c. 74)
2 In section 25 of the Coast Protection Act 1949, after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) A person may not be authorised under subsection (1) to enter and survey or value land in England and Wales in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”
National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (12, 13 & 14 Geo 6 c. 97)
3 (1) Section 108 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(a), after “therein” insert “in relation to land in Scotland”.
(3) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) A person may not be authorised under subsection (1) to enter and survey or value land in England and Wales in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”
Land Powers (Defence) Act 1958 (6 & 7 Eliz 2 c. 30)
4 In section 21 of the Land Powers (Defence) Act 1958, after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) A person may not be authorised under subsection (1) to enter and survey or value land in England and Wales in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”
Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (8 & 9 Eliz 2 c. 62)
5 In section 26 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) A person may not be authorised under subsection (1) to enter and survey or value land in England and Wales in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”
Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (c. 56)
6 In section 11(3) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 for “surveying and taking levels” substitute “surveying, valuing or taking levels”.
Criminal Justice Act 1972 (c. 71)
7 In the Criminal Justice Act 1972 omit section 60.
Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 (c. 70)
8 In Schedule 4 to the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 omit paragraph 14(1).
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (c. 57)
9 In the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 omit section 15.
Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 (c. 46)
10 In section 43 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, for subsection (1) substitute—
“(1) Any person authorised under this section may at any reasonable time enter any land in Scotland for the purpose of surveying it, or estimating its value, in connection with any proposal to acquire that or any other land under this Act or in connection with any claim for compensation under this Act in respect of any such acquisition.
(1A) Any person authorised under this section may at any reasonable time enter any land in England and Wales or Scotland for the purpose of surveying it, or estimating its value, in connection with any claim for compensation under this Act for any damage to that or any other land.
(1B) See section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015 for a power to enter and survey or value land in England and Wales in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land.”
Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (c. 65)
11 (1) Section 167 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 is amended as follows.
(2) In the heading, after “land” insert “in Scotland”.
(3) In subsection (1)—
(a) in paragraph (a) after “any land” insert “in Scotland”;
(b) in paragraph (b) after “other land” insert “in Scotland”.
(4) In subsection (7)—
(a) for the words before paragraph (a) substitute “Where it is proposed to search or bore in pursuance of this section in a road within the meaning of Part 4 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991—”;
(b) in paragraph (a) omit “55 or”;
(c) in paragraph (b) omit “69 or”;
(d) in paragraph (c) omit “82 or”;
(e) for the words after paragraph (c) substitute “have effect in relation to the searching or boring as if they were road works within the meaning of Part 4 of that Act.”
(5) In subsection (9)—
(a) for “Upper Tribunal” substitute “Lands Tribunal for Scotland”;
(b) for the words from “section 4” to “costs)” substitute “sections 9(2) to (5) and 11 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 (procedure and expenses)”.
(6) Omit subsection (13).
Highways Act 1980 (c. 66)
12 In section 289 of the Highways Act 1980, after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) A person may not be authorised under subsection (1) to enter and survey or value land in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”
New Towns Act 1981 (c. 64)
13 In section 73(1) of the New Towns Act 1981 omit paragraph (b) (and the “or” before it).
Civil Aviation Act 1982 (c. 16)
14 (1) Section 50 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), for paragraph (e) substitute—
“(e) in any case not falling within paragraphs (a) to (d) above where the Secretary of State has made an order under or in pursuance of this Part of this Act—
(i) authorising the compulsory purchase of land,
(ii) providing for the creation in favour of a particular person of a right in or in relation to land, or
(iii) declaring that an area of land shall be subject to control by directions.
(f) in any case not falling within paragraphs (a) to (d) above where the Secretary of State is considering making an order under or in pursuance of this Part of this Act—
(i) authorising the compulsory purchase of land in Scotland or Northern Ireland,
(ii) providing for the creation in favour of a particular person of a right in or in relation to land in Scotland or Northern Ireland, or
(iii) declaring that an area of land in England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland shall be subject to control by directions.”
(3) In subsection (3)(e), after “(1)(e)” insert “or (f)”.
(4) In subsection (4)(b), after “(1)(e)” insert “or (f)”.
(5) In subsection (7)(c), after “(1)(e)” insert “or (f)”.
Industrial Development Act 1982 (c. 52)
15 In section 14 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 omit subsection (6).
Housing Act 1985 (c. 68)
16 In section 54 of the Housing Act 1985, after subsection (2) insert—
“(3) A person may not be authorised by a local housing authority under subsection (1)(a) to enter and survey or value land in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”
Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (c. 42)
17 In section 97 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) A person may not be authorised by a local housing authority under subsection (1)(a) to enter and survey or value land in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”
Electricity Act 1989 (c. 29)
18 In Schedule 4 to the Electricity Act 1989, in paragraph 10, after sub-paragraph (1) insert—
“(1A) A person may not be authorised under sub-paragraph (1) to enter and survey or value land in England and Wales in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8)
19 In section 324 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 omit subsection (6).
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (c. 9)
20 In section 88 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 omit subsection (5).
Land Drainage Act 1991 (c. 59)
21 In section 64 of the Land Drainage Act 1991, after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) A person may not be authorised under subsection (1)(a) or (b) to enter and survey or value land in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”
Water Industry Act 1991 (c. 56)
22 (1) Section 169 of the Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2) omit paragraph (a) (and the “or” at the end of it).
(3) In subsection (4), for the words before paragraph (a) substitute “The powers conferred by this section or section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015 shall not be exercised on behalf of a water undertaker in any case for purposes connected with the determination of—”.
Water Resources Act 1991 (c. 57)
23 (1) Section 171 of the Water Resources Act 1991 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2) omit paragraph (a) (and the “or” at the end of it).
(3) In subsection (4), for the words before paragraph (a) substitute “The powers conferred by this section or section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015 shall not be exercised on behalf of the Agency or the NRBW in any case for purposes connected with the determination of—”.
Environment Act 1995 (c. 25)
24 (1) Schedule 8 to the Environment Act 1995 is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 1(2) omit paragraph (b).
(3) In paragraph 2(3)—
(a) at the end of paragraph (a) insert “and”;
(b) omit paragraph (c) (and the “and” before it).
Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29)
25 In the Greater London Authority Act 1999 omit section 333ZD.
Postal Services Act 2000 (c. 26)
26 In Schedule 6 to the Postal Services Act 2000, in paragraph 2, after sub-paragraph (2) insert—
“(2A) A person may not be authorised under sub-paragraph (1) to enter and survey or value land in England and Wales in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”
Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (c. 17)
27 In the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 omit sections 17 and 18.
Localism Act 2011 (c. 20)
28 In the Localism Act 2011 omit section 210. —(Mr Marcus Jones.)
See Member’s explanatory statement for NC18.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Schedule 4
“Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life
Law of Property Act 1925 (c.20)
1 (1) Section 52 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (conveyances to be by deed, unless excepted by subsection (2) of that section) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2), after paragraph (db) insert—
“(dc) secure tenancies of dwellings in England granted on or after the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) to the Housing and Planning Act 2015 comes fully into force, other than old-style secure tenancies;”.
(3) In subsection (3)—
(a) in the definition of “flexible tenancy”, for “107A” substitute “115B”;
(b) at the appropriate place insert—
““secure tenancy” has the meaning given by section 79 of the Housing Act 1985 and “old style-secure tenancy” has the meaning given by section 115C of that Act;”.
Housing Act 1985 (c. 68)
2 The Housing Act 1985 is amended as follows.
3 For the italic heading before section 79 substitute—
“Secure tenancies”
4 After section 81 insert—
“Grant of new secure tenancies in England
81A New English secure tenancies to be between 2 and 5 years in general
‘(1) A person may grant a secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in England only if it is a tenancy for a fixed term that is—
(a) at least 2 years, and
(b) no more than 5 years.
(2) If a person purports to grant a secure tenancy in breach of subsection (1), it takes effect as a tenancy for a fixed term of 5 years.
(3) This section does not apply to the grant of an old-style secure tenancy (as to which, see section 81B).
81B Cases where old-style English secure tenancies may be granted
‘(1) A person may grant an old style-secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in England only—
(a) in circumstances specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State, or
(b) in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) A local housing authority that grants a secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in England must grant an old-style secure tenancy if—
(a) the tenancy is offered as a replacement for an old-style secure tenancy of some other dwelling-house, and
(b) the tenant has not made an application to move.
(3) Other provisions of this Part set out the consequences of a tenancy being an old-style secure tenancy.
(4) Regulations under subsection (1) may include transitional or saving provision.
(5) Regulations under subsection (1) are to be made by statutory instrument.
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
81C Duty to offer new secure tenancy in limited circumstances
‘(1) This section applies where a change in circumstances means that a tenancy that is not a secure tenancy would become a secure tenancy but for the exception in paragraph 1ZA of Schedule 1.
(2) The landlord must, within the period of 28 days, make the tenant a written offer of a secure tenancy in return for the tenant surrendering the original tenancy.
(3) If the tenant accepts in writing within the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the tenant receives the offer, the landlord must grant the secure tenancy on the tenant surrendering the original tenancy.
81D Review of decisions about length of secure tenancies in England
‘(1) A person who is offered a secure tenancy of a dwelling- house in England (under section 81C or otherwise) may request a review under this section, unless the tenancy on offer is an old-style secure tenancy.
(2) The sole purpose of a review under this section is to consider whether the length of the tenancy is in accordance with any policy that the prospective landlord has about the length of secure tenancies it grants.
(3) The request must be made before the end of—
(a) the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the person making the request first receives the offer, or
(b) such longer period as the prospective landlord may allow in writing.
(4) On receiving the request the prospective landlord must carry out the review.
(5) On completing the review the prospective landlord must —
(a) notify the tenant in writing of the outcome,
(b) revise its offer or confirm its original decision about the length of the tenancy, and
(c) if it decides to confirm its original decision, give reasons.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the procedure to be followed in connection with a review under this section.
(7) The regulations may, in particular—
(a) require the review to be carried out by a person of appropriate seniority who was not involved in the original decision;
(b) make provision as to the circumstances in which the person who requested the review is entitled to an oral hearing, and whether and by whom that person may be represented.
(8) Regulations under this section may include transitional or saving provision.
(9) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument which is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”
5 In section 82 (security of tenure), in subsection (3), for the words from “section 86” to the end substitute “section 86 or 86D shall apply”.
6 (1) Section 82A (demoted tenancy) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) The court may not make a demotion order in relation to a secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in England if—
(a) the landlord is a local housing authority or housing action trust, and
(b) the term has less than 1 year and 9 months left to run
(4B) But subsection (4A) does not apply to a tenancy to which an exception in section 86A(2) or (3) applies.”
(3) In subsection (5), for paragraph (b) substitute—
“(b) the period or term of the tenancy (but see subsection (6));”.
(4) For subsection (6) substitute—
“(6) Subsection (5)(b) does not apply if—
(a) the secure tenancy was for a fixed term and was an old-style secure tenancy or a flexible tenancy, or
(b) the secure tenancy was for a fixed term and was a tenancy of a dwelling-house in Wales,
and in such a case the demoted tenancy is a weekly periodic tenancy.”
7 After section 82 insert—
“Orders for possession and expiry of term etc”
8 In section 83 (proceedings for possession or termination: general notice requirements), in subsection (A1), for paragraph (b) substitute—
“(b) proceedings for possession of a dwelling-house under section 86E (recovery of possession on expiry of certain English secure tenancies).”
9 In section 84 (grounds and orders for possession), in subsection (1), for “section 107D (recovery of possession on expiry of flexible tenancy)” substitute “section 86E (recovery of possession on expiry of certain English secure tenancies)”.
10 (1) Section 86 (periodic tenancy arising on termination of fixed term) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), after “secure tenancy” insert “to which this section applies”.
(3) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) This section applies to a secure tenancy of a dwelling- house in Wales.
(1B) This section also applies to a secure tenancy of a dwelling- house in England that is—
(a) an old-style secure tenancy, or
(b) a flexible tenancy the term of which ends within the period of 9 months beginning with the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) to the Housing and Planning Act 2015 comes fully into force,
unless it is a tenancy excluded by subsection (1C).”
(4) In subsection (2), for “this section” substitute “subsection (1)”.
11 After section 86 insert—
“English secure tenancies: review, renewal and possession
86A English tenancies: review to determine what to do at end of fixed term
‘(1) The landlord under a fixed term secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in England must carry out a review to decide what to do at the end of the term, unless one of the following exceptions applies.
(2) Exception 1 is where the tenancy is an old-style secure tenancy.
(3) Exception 2 is where the tenancy is a flexible tenancy the term of which ends within the period of 9 months beginning with the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) to the Housing and Planning Act 2015 comes fully into force.
(4) A review under this section must be carried out while the term has 6 to 9 months left to run.
(5) On a review under this section the landlord must decide which of the following options to take.
Option 1: | offer to grant a new secure tenancy of the dwelling-house at the end of the current tenancy. | |
Option 2: | seek possession of the dwelling house at the end of the current tenancy but offer to grant a secure tenancy of another dwelling-house instead. | |
Option 3: | seek possession of the dwelling-house at the end of the current tenancy without offering to grant a secure tenancy of another dwelling-house. |
(6) The landlord must also—
(a) offer the tenant advice on buying a home if the landlord considers that to be a realistic option for the tenant, and
(b) in appropriate cases, offer the tenant advice on other housing options.
86B Notification of outcome of review under section 86A
‘(1) On completing a review under section 86A the landlord must notify the tenant in writing of the outcome of the review.
(2) The notice must be given by no later than 6 months before the end of the term of the current tenancy.
(3) The notice must state which of the options mentioned in section 86A the landlord has decided to take.
(4) If the landlord has decided to seek possession of the dwelling-house at the end of the secure tenancy the notice must also—
(a) inform the tenant of the right under section 86C to request the landlord to reconsider, and
(b) specify the time limit for making a request under that section.
(5) If the notice states that the landlord has decided to offer a new tenancy and the tenant accepts in writing before the end of the current tenancy, the landlord must grant the new tenancy in accordance with the offer.
86C Reconsideration of decision not to grant a tenancy
‘(1) Where a tenant is notified that the outcome of a review under section 86A is that the landlord has decided to seek possession of the dwelling-house at the end of the current tenancy, the tenant may request the landlord to reconsider its decision.
(2) The request must be made before the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which tenant was notified of the decision.
(3) On receiving the request, the landlord must reconsider its decision.
(4) The landlord must, in particular, consider whether the original decision is in accordance with any policy that the landlord has about the circumstances in which it will grant a further tenancy on the coming to an end of an existing fixed term tenancy.
(5) Once the landlord has reconsidered the decision the landlord must—
(a) notify the tenant in writing of the outcome,
(b) revise or confirm its original decision, and
(c) if it decides to confirm its original decision, give reasons.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the procedure to be followed in connection with reconsidering a decision for the purposes of this section.
(7) The regulations may, in particular—
(a) require the original decision to be reconsidered by a person of appropriate seniority who was not involved in the original decision, and
(b) make provision as to the circumstances in which the person who requested the landlord to reconsider the original decision is entitled to an oral hearing, and whether and by whom that person may be represented.
(8) Regulations under this section may include transitional or saving provision.
(9) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument which is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
86D Fixed term tenancy arising on termination of previous fixed term
‘(1) This section applies to a secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in England other than—
(a) an old-style secure tenancy, or
(b) a flexible tenancy the term of which ends within the period of 9 months beginning with the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) to the Housing and Planning Act 2015 comes fully into force.
(2) If the tenancy comes to an end by virtue of the term expiring, or by virtue of an order under section 82(3), a new tenancy of the same dwelling-house arises by virtue of this subsection.
(3) Where the landlord has offered the tenant a new tenancy of the same dwelling-house following a review under section 86A but the tenant has failed to accept, the new tenancy that arises by virtue of subsection (2) is a fixed term tenancy of whatever length the landlord offered.
(4) In any other case, the new tenancy that arises by virtue of subsection (2) is a 5 year fixed term tenancy.
(5) The parties and other terms of a new tenancy that arises by virtue of subsection (2) are the same as those of the tenancy that it replaces, except that the terms—
(a) are confined to those which are compatible with a tenancy of the length determined in accordance with subsection (3) or (4), and
(b) do not include any provision for re-entry or forfeiture.
(6) A new tenancy does not arise by virtue of subsection (2) if the tenant has been granted another secure tenancy of the same dwelling-house to begin at the same time as the earlier tenancy ends.
86E Recovery of possession of secure tenancies in England
‘(1) The landlord under a secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in England may bring proceedings for possession under this section if—
(a) the landlord has decided on a review under section 86A to seek possession at the end of the tenancy, and
(b) the landlord has not subsequently revised the decision under section 86C.
(2) If the landlord brings proceedings under this section the court must make an order for possession if satisfied that—
(a) the landlord has complied with all of the requirements of sections 86A to 86C,
(b) the tenancy that was the subject of the review section 86A has ended,
(c) the proceedings were commenced before the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the day on which the tenancy ended, and
(d) the only fixed term tenancy still in existence is a new secure tenancy arising by virtue of section 86D.
(3) But the court may refuse to grant an order for possession under this section if the court considers that a decision of the landlord under section 86A or 86C was wrong in law.
(4) Where a court makes an order for possession of a dwelling-house under this section, any fixed term tenancy arising by virtue of section 86D on the coming to an end of the tenancy that was the subject of the review under section 86A comes to an end (without further notice) in accordance with section 82(2).
(5) This section does not limit any right of the landlord under a secure tenancy to recover possession of the dwelling-house let on the tenancy in accordance with other provisions of this Part.
Termination of English secure tenancies by tenant
86F Termination of English secure tenancies by tenant
‘(1) It is a term of every secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in England, other than an old-style secure tenancy, that the tenant may terminate the tenancy in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
(2) The tenant must serve a notice in writing on the landlord stating that the tenancy will be terminated on the date specified in the notice.
(3) That date must be after the end of the period of four weeks beginning with the date on which the notice is served.
(4) The landlord may agree with the tenant to dispense with the requirement in subsection (2) or (3).
(5) The tenancy is terminated on the date specified in the notice or (as the case may be) determined in accordance with arrangements made under subsection (4) only if on that date—
(a) no arrears of rent are payable under the tenancy, and
(b) the tenant is not otherwise materially in breach of a term of the tenancy.”
12 (1) Section 97 (tenant’s improvements require consent) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), after “secure tenancy” insert “to which this section applies”.
(3) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) This section applies to—
(a) a secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in Wales, or
(b) an old-style secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in England.”
(4) Omit subsection (5).
13 (1) Section 99A (right to compensation for improvements) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(c), after “secure tenancy” insert “to which this section applies”.
(3) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) This section applies to—
(a) a secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in Wales, or
(b) an old-style secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in England.”
(4) Omit subsection (9).
14 Omit sections 107A to 107E (flexible tenancies).
15 After section 115A insert—
“115B Meaning of “flexible tenancy”
(1) For the purposes of this Act, a flexible tenancy is a secure tenancy to which any of the following subsections applies.
(2) This subsection applies to a secure tenancy if—This subsection applies to a secure tenancy if—
(a) it was granted by a landlord in England for a fixed term of not less than two years,
(b) it was granted before the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) to the Housing and Planning Act 2015 came fully into force, and
(c) before it was granted the person who became the landlord under the tenancy served a written notice on the person who became the tenant under the tenancy stating that the tenancy would be a flexible tenancy.
(d) it became a secure tenancy by virtue of a notice under paragraph 4ZA(2) of Schedule 1 (family intervention tenancies becoming secure tenancies),
(e) the notice was given before the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) to the Housing and Planning Act 2015 came fully into force,
(f) the landlord under the family intervention tenancy in question was a local housing authority in England,
(g) the family intervention tenancy was granted to a person on the coming to an end of a flexible tenancy under which the person was a tenant,
(h) the notice states that the tenancy is to become a secure tenancy that is a flexible tenancy for a fixed term of the length specified in the notice, and sets out the other express terms of the tenancy, and
(i) the length of the term specified in the notice is at least two years.
(3) The length of the term of a flexible tenancy that becomes such a tenancy by virtue of subsection (3) is that specified in the notice under paragraph 4ZA(2) of Schedule 1.
(4) The other express terms of the flexible tenancy are those set out in the notice, so far as those terms are compatible with the statutory provisions relating to flexible tenancies; and in this subsection “statutory provision” means any provision made by or under an Act.
(5) This subsection applies to a secure tenancy if—
(a) it is created by virtue of section 137A of the Housing Act 1996 (introductory tenancies becoming flexible tenancies), or
(b) it arises by virtue of section 143MA or 143MB of that Act (demoted tenancies becoming flexible tenancies).”
115C Meaning of “old-style secure tenancy” in England
‘(none) In this Part “old-style secure tenancy” means a secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in England that—
(a) is a secure tenancy, other than a flexible tenancy, granted before the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) to the Housing and Planning Act 2015 came fully into force,
(b) is a secure tenancy granted on or after that date that contains an express term stating that it is an old-style secure tenancy, or
(c) is a tenancy that arose by virtue of section 86 on the coming to an end of a secure tenancy within paragraph (a) or (b).”
16 (1) Section 117 (index of defined expressions) is amended as follows.
(2) In the entry relating to flexible tenancies, for “section 107A” substitute “section 115B”.
(3) At the appropriate place insert—
“old-style secure tenancy | section 115C” |
17 (1) Schedule 1 (tenancies which are not secure tenancies) is amended as follows.
(2) After paragraph 1 insert—
“Certain English tenancies that were not secure tenancies when originally granted
1ZA A tenancy of a dwelling-house in England cannot become a secure tenancy if—
(a) it was granted on or after the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) to the Housing and Planning Act 2015 came fully into force,
(b) it was not a secure tenancy or an introductory tenancy at the time it was granted, and
(c) it is a periodic tenancy or a tenancy for a fixed term of less than 2 years or more than 5 years.”
(3) In paragraph 4ZA, after sub-paragraph (2) insert—
“(2A) A notice under sub-paragraph (2) that relates to a tenancy of a dwelling-house in England must—
(a) state that the tenancy is to become a secure tenancy for a fixed term of a length specified in the notice, and
(b) set out the other express terms of the tenancy.
(2B) The length of the term specified in a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (2A) must not be less than 2 or more than 5 years.
(2C) Where a notice is given in accordance with sub-paragraph (2A) the length of the secure tenancy, and the other terms, are those set out in the notice.
(2D) Sub-paragraphs (2A) to (2C) do not apply to notices given before the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) to the Housing and Planning Act 2015 comes fully into force.”
Housing Act 1996 (c. 52)
18 The Housing Act 1996 is amended as follows.
19 (1) Section 124 (introductory tenancies) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) When such an election is in force, every fixed term tenancy of a dwelling-house in England entered into or adopted by the authority or trust shall, if it would otherwise be a secure tenancy, be an introductory tenancy, unless section 124A(4) applies or immediately before the tenancy was entered into or adopted the tenant or, in the case of joint tenants, one or more of them was—
(a) a secure tenant of the same or another dwelling-house, or
(b) a tenant under a relevant assured tenancy, other than an assured shorthold tenancy, of the same or another dwelling-house.”
(3) In subsection (2), in the words before paragraph (a), after “dwelling-house” insert “in Wales”.
(4) In subsection (2A), for “subsection (2)(b)” substitute “subsections (1A)(b) and (2)(b)”.
(5) In subsection (3), for “subsection (2)” substitute “subsections (1A) and (2)”.
(6) After subsection (5) insert—
“(6) In relation to a tenancy entered into or adopted by a local housing authority or a housing action trust before the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) to the Housing and Planning Act 2015 comes fully into force, this section has effect—
(a) as if subsection (1A) were omitted, and
(b) as if, in subsection (2), the words “in Wales” were omitted.
20 After section 124 insert—
“124A New introductory tenancies in England: overall length
(1) A local housing authority or a housing action trust may enter into an introductory tenancy of a dwelling-house in England only if it is a tenancy for a fixed term that is—
(a) at least 2 years, and
(b) no more than 5 years.
(2) If a local housing authority or a housing action trust purports to enter into an introductory tenancy in breach of subsection (1), it takes effect as a tenancy for a fixed term of 5 years.
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) apply only to tenancies entered into on or after the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) to the Housing and Planning Act 2015 comes fully into force.
(4) A tenancy of a dwelling-house in England that is adopted by a local housing authority or a housing action trust does not become an introductory tenancy if—
(a) it is adopted on or after the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) to the Housing and Planning Act 2015 came fully into force, and
(b) the tenancy is a periodic tenancy or it is a tenancy for a fixed term of less than 2 years or more than 5 years.
(5) Subsections (6) and (7) apply where a tenancy that has been adopted by a local housing authority or a housing action trust is not an introductory tenancy but would (on adoption or at any later time) become a secure tenancy but for subsection (4).
(6) The local housing authority or housing action trust must, within the period of 28 days, make the tenant a written offer of an introductory tenancy in return for the tenant surrendering the original tenancy.
(7) If the tenant accepts in writing within the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the tenant receives the offer, the local housing authority or housing action trust must grant an introductory tenancy on the tenant surrendering the original tenancy.
124B Review of decisions about length of introductory tenancies in England
‘(1) A person who is offered an introductory tenancy of a dwelling-house in England may request a review under this section.
(2) The sole purpose of a review under this section is to consider whether the length of the tenancy is in accordance with any policy that the prospective landlord has about the length of introductory tenancies it grants.
(3) The request must be made before the end of—
(a) the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the person making the request first receives the offer, or
(b) such longer period as the prospective landlord may allow in writing.
(4) On receiving the request the prospective landlord must carry out the review.
(5) On completing the review the prospective landlord must —
(a) notify the tenant in writing of the outcome,
(b) revise its offer or confirm its original decision about the length of the tenancy, and
(c) if it decides to confirm its original decision, give reasons.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the procedure to be followed in connection with a review under this section.
(7) The regulations may, in particular—
(a) require the review to be carried out by a person of appropriate seniority who was not involved in the original decision;
(b) make provision as to the circumstances in which the person who requested the review is entitled to an oral hearing, and whether and by whom that person may be represented.”
21 (1) Section 125A (extension of trial period by 6 months) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), for “both” substitute “each”.
(3) After subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) The third condition must be met only if the introductory tenancy —
(a) is one to which section 124A(1) or (2) applies, or
(b) is adopted by a local housing authority or housing action trust on or after the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) came fully into force.
(3B) The third condition is that the new expiry date would be before the period mentioned in section 86A(3) of the Housing Act 1985 (review to determine what to do at end of fixed term secure tenancy); and for this purpose “the new expiry date” means the last day of the 6 month extension period mentioned in subsection (1).”
22 In section 128 (notice of proceedings for possession), in subsection (4), for the second sentence substitute—
(a) in a case where the introductory tenancy is a periodic tenancy, must not be earlier than the date on which the tenancy could, apart from this Chapter, be brought to an end by notice to quit given by the landlord on the same date as the proceedings, and
(b) in a case where the introductory tenancy is a fixed term tenancy, must not be earlier than the end of the period of 6 weeks beginning with the date on which the notice of proceedings is served.”
23 In section 137A (introductory tenancies that are to become flexible tenancies), in subsection (2), for “, before entering into or adopting the introductory tenancy” substitute “the introductory tenancy was entered into or adopted before the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) to the Housing and Planning Act 2015 came fully into force and, before entering into or adopting it,”.
24 In section 143A (demoted tenancies), in subsection (1), omit “periodic”.
25 In section 143E (notice of proceedings for possession), for subsection (3) substitute—
(a) in a case where the demoted tenancy is a periodic tenancy, must not be earlier than the date on which the tenancy could, apart from this Chapter, be brought to an end by notice to quit given by the landlord on the same date as the proceedings, and
(b) in a case where the demoted tenancy is a fixed term tenancy, must not be earlier than the end of the period of 6 weeks beginning with the date on which the notice of proceedings is served.”
26 (1) Section 143MA (demoted tenancies that are to become flexible tenancies) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), for “section 107A of the Housing Act 1985” substitute “section 115B of the Housing Act 1985 (certain tenancies granted etc before the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) to the Housing and Planning Act 2015 came fully into force)”.
(3) After subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) If the notice is given on or after the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) to the Housing and Planning Act 2015 comes fully into force, the period specified under subsection (3)(b) must be no more than five years.”
27 After section 143MA insert—
“143MB Default flexible tenancies when no notice given under section 143MA
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a landlord has the power to serve a notice under section 143MA on the tenant under a demoted tenancy but fails to do so, and
(b) the tenancy comes to an end on or after the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) to the Housing and Planning Act 2015 comes fully into force.
(2) On ceasing to be a demoted tenancy, the tenancy becomes a secure tenancy for a fixed term of 5 years that is a flexible tenancy.
(3) The terms of the new tenancy are the same as those of the tenancy that it replaces, so far as those terms are compatible with—
(a) a tenancy for a fixed term of 5 years, and
(b) the statutory provisions relating to flexible tenancies (within the meaning given by section 143MA(5).”
Land Registration Act 2002 (c. 9)
28 In section 132 of the Land Registration Act 2002 (interpretation), in the definition of “flexible tenancy” in subsection (1), for “107A” substitute “115B”.
Localism Act 2011 (c. 20)
29 The Localism Act 2011 (flexible tenancies: other amendments) is amended as follows.
30 In section 155, omit subsections (3) and (4).
31 In section 159 (further provisions about transfer of tenancy under section 158), in subsection (6)(b), for “107A” substitute “115B”.
Savings for flexible tenancies with only 9 months left to run
32 (1) Despite the repeal of sections 107D and 107E of the Housing Act 1985 (flexible tenancies: recovery of possession) by paragraph 14 above, those sections continue to apply in relation to a flexible tenancy the term of which ends within the period of 9 months beginning with the day on which paragraph 4 of this Schedule comes fully into force.
(2) The amendments made by paragraphs 8 and 9 (which replace references to proceedings for possession under section 107D of the Housing Act 1985) do not apply in relation to such a tenancy.”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
See Member’s explanatory statement for NC32.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Schedule 5
“Succession to secure tenancies and related tenancies
Housing Act 1985 (c. 68)
1 The Housing Act 1985 is amended as follows.
2 In section 86 (periodic tenancy arising on termination of fixed term), after subsection (1B) (inserted by Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) insert—
“(1C) This section does not apply to a secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in England if—
(a) the original secure tenant has died,
(b) the tenancy has been vested in, or otherwise disposed of to, the current tenant in the course of the administration of the original tenant’s estate, and
(c) the current tenant qualified to succeed the original tenant under section 86G(2) or (4).”
3 (1) Section 86A (persons qualified to succeed: England) as inserted by the Localism Act 2011—
(a) is renumbered section 86G (so that it follows on from section 86F as inserted by Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) without making the numbering more complex than it has to be), and
(b) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (7) insert—
“(8) This section applies to a tenancy that was granted before 1 April 2012, or that arose by virtue of section 86 on the coming to the end of a secure tenancy granted before 1 April 2012, as it applies to a secure tenancy granted on or after that day.”
4 In section 88 (cases where the tenant is a successor), in subsection (1), after paragraph (b) insert—
“(ba) the tenancy arose by virtue of section 89(2A) (fixed term tenancy arising in certain cases following succession to periodic tenancy), or”.
5 (1) Section 89 (succession to period tenancy) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1A), for “section 86A” substitute “section 86G”.
(3) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) Where the tenancy vests in a person qualified to succeed the tenant under section 86G(2) or (4) and continues to be a secure tenancy—
(a) the periodic tenancy comes to an end immediately after vesting, and
(b) a new tenancy of the same dwelling-house arises by virtue of this subsection for a fixed term of 5 years.
(2B) The parties and terms of a tenancy arising by virtue of subsection (2A) are the same as those of the tenancy that it replaces, except that the terms—
(a) are confined to those which are compatible with a tenancy for a fixed term of 5 years, and
(b) do not include any provision for re-entry or forfeiture.”
6 In section 117 (index of defined expressions), in the entry relating to persons qualified to succeed , for “section 87” substitute “sections 86G and 87”.
Housing Act 1996 (c. 52)
7 Before section 131 (but after the italic heading) insert—
“130A Persons qualified to succeed to introductory tenancy: England
(1) A person is qualified to succeed the tenant under an introductory tenancy of a dwelling-house in England if—
(a) the person occupies the dwelling-house as his or her only or principal home at the time of the tenant’s death, and
(b) the person is the tenant’s spouse or civil partner.
(2) A person is qualified to succeed the tenant under an introductory tenancy of a dwelling-house in England if—
(a) at the time of the tenant’s death the dwelling-house is not occupied by a spouse or civil partner of the tenant as his or her only or principal home,
(b) an express term of the tenancy makes provision for a person other than such a spouse or civil partner of the tenant to succeed to the tenancy, and
(c) the person’s succession is in accordance with that term.
(3) Subsection (1) or (2) does not apply if the tenant was a successor as defined in section 132.
(4) In such a case, a person is qualified to succeed the tenant if—
(a) an express term of the tenancy makes provision for a person to succeed a successor to the tenancy, and
(b) the person’s succession is in accordance with that term.
(5) For the purposes of this section a person who was living with the tenant as the tenant’s wife or husband is to be treated as the tenant’s spouse.
(6) Subsection (7) applies if, on the death of the tenant, there is by virtue of subsection (5) more than one person who fulfils the condition in subsection (1)(b).
(7) Such one of those persons as may be agreed between them or as may, where there is no such agreement, be selected by the landlord is for the purpose of this section to be treated as the fulfilling that condition.”
8 (1) Section 131 (persons qualified to succeed tenant) is amended as follows.
(2) At the end of the heading for “tenant” substitute “to introductory tenancy: Wales”.
(3) After “introductory tenancy” insert “of a dwelling-house in Wales”.
9 (1) Section 133 (succession to introductory tenancy) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) Where there is a person qualified to succeed the tenant under section 130A, the tenancy vests by virtue of this section—
(a) in that person, or
(b) if there is more than one such person, in such one of them as may be agreed between them or as may, where there is no agreement, be selected by the landlord.”
(3) In subsection (2), after ““tenant” insert “under section 131”.
10 Before section 143H (but after the italic heading) insert—
“143GA Persons qualified to succeed to demoted tenancy: England
(1) A person is qualified to succeed the tenant under a demoted tenancy of a dwelling-house in England if—
(a) the person occupies the dwelling-house as his or her only or principal home at the time of the tenant’s death, and
(b) the person is the tenant’s spouse or civil partner.
(2) A person is qualified to succeed the tenant under a demoted tenancy of a dwelling-house in England if—
(a) at the time of the tenant’s death the dwelling-house is not occupied by a spouse or civil partner of the tenant as his or her only or principal home,
(b) an express term of the tenancy makes provision for a person other than such a spouse or civil partner of the tenant to succeed to the tenancy, and
(c) the person’s succession is in accordance with that term.
(3) Subsection (1) or (2) does not apply if the tenant was a successor as defined in section 132.
(4) In such a case, a person is qualified to succeed the tenant if—
(a) an express term of the tenancy makes provision for a person to succeed a successor to the tenancy, and
(b) the person’s succession is in accordance with that term.
(5) For the purposes of this section a person who was living with the tenant as the tenant’s wife or husband is to be treated as the tenant’s spouse.
(6) Subsection (7) applies if, on the death of the tenant, there is by virtue of subsection (5) more than one person who fulfils the condition in subsection (1)(b).
(7) Such one of those persons as may be agreed between them or as may, where there is no such agreement, be selected by the landlord is for the purpose of this section to be treated as fulfilling that condition.
(8) This section applies to a tenancy that became a demoted tenancy before or after Schedule (Succession to secure tenancies and related tenancies) of the Housing Act 2015 comes into force.
143GB Succession to demoted tenancy: England
‘(1) This section applies if the tenant under a demoted tenancy of a dwelling-house in England dies.
(2) Where there is a person qualified to succeed the tenant under section 143GA, the tenancy vests by virtue of this section—
(a) in that person, or
(b) if there is more than one such person, in such one of them as may be agreed between them or as may, where there is no agreement, be selected by the landlord.
(3) Where a periodic demoted tenancy vests in a person qualified to succeed the tenant under section 143GA(2) or (4) and continues to be a demoted tenancy—
(a) the tenancy comes to an end immediately after vesting, and
(b) a new tenancy of the same dwelling-house arises by virtue of this subsection for a fixed term of 5 years.
(4) The parties and terms of a tenancy arising by virtue of subsection (3) are the same as those of the tenancy that it replaces, except that the terms—
(a) are confined to those which are compatible with a tenancy for a fixed term of 5 years[, and
(b) do not include any provision for re-entry or forfeiture.]
(5) Where a demoted tenancy comes to an end and a new tenancy arises by virtue of subsection (3), as from that time the demotion order is to be treated for all purposes as it had been made in relation to the new tenancy (and the demotion period remains the same).”
11 (1) Section 143H (succession to demoted tenancy) is amended as follows.
(2) At the heading insert “: Wales”.
(3) In subsection (1), after “tenancy” insert “of a dwelling-house in Wales”.
12 In section 143I (no successor tenant: termination), after “section” insert “143GA or”.
13 (1) Section 143J of the Housing Act 1996 (demoted tenancies: successor tenants) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) The tenancy arose by virtue of section 89(2A) of the Housing Act 1985.”
(3) For subsection (7) substitute—
“(7) A person is the successor to a demoted tenancy if—
(a) the tenancy vests in the person by virtue of section 143GB(2) or 143H(4) or (5), or
(b) the tenancy arose by virtue of section 143GB(3).”
Localism Act 2011 (c. 20)
14 In section 160 of the Localism Act 2011 (succession to secure tenancies), omit subsection (6).
Savings
15 The amendments made by this Schedule do not apply in relation to cases where the tenant under a secure tenancy dies before it comes into force.
16 The amendments made by paragraphs 7 and 8 do not apply in relation to an introductory tenancy granted before the day on which this Schedule comes into force.
17 The amendments made by paragraphs 10 to 13 do not apply in relation to cases where the tenant under a demoted tenancy dies before this Schedule comes into force.”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
See Member’s explanatory statement for NC33.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
The Chair
The final question I must put to the Committee, after what has been a long and exciting deliberation of the Bill, is that I do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Brandon Lewis
On a point of order, Mr Gray. If you will indulge me for a few moments, I want to thank Members of all parties for a constructive debate over the past few weeks. This has been a good opportunity, as we head into Christmas, to get to know each other that little bit better, which in almost all cases has been a good thing. Some of us may have moved our views from time to time in order to make the passage of the Bill work. I genuinely appreciate that hon. Members have made some very powerful speeches, and we have seen strong contributions from both sides of the Committee by Members working to ensure that we end up with a Bill of which we can all hopefully be very proud and that delivers more housing across this country. I thank all Members, both Opposition Members and my hon. Friends, for their part in that.
I thank both Whips for helping us all to take the Bill through Committee in a timely manner, and I particularly thank my brilliant Government Whip. I also thank my colleague, the Under-Secretary of State, who has been a fantastic Minister to work with throughout the passage of the Bill. It would be inappropriate not to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burton for keeping us inspired from time to time, and other Members have, too. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions and for the manner in which this debate has been held. I thank the Opposition Front-Bench Members for a constructive and useful debate.
I also want to thank the Clerks, Glenn McKee and the team, for the way in which they have worked with us to make sure that we have had everything we need. Mr Chairman, I thank you and your colleague, Sir Alan, for your work in getting through these sessions, not only on the days we finished early but on the days we finished late, to make sure that we were able to get the Bill through in a good, strong manner. I thank the Chair and the team of Clerks.
I thank the Doorkeepers, who have managed to keep us safe and secure when we vote and more generally, for their perseverance over the past few weeks. I also thank the team from Hansard, who have had the unenviable job of ensuring that all our words look as eloquent as possible on the page when it is published a short while after we finish. I am sure that is less of a challenge in some cases than in others, but I thank them for that.
Penultimately, I thank all my officials and our Department’s team who have worked so closely on the policy and the Bill. I thank the preparation team, the lawyers and parliamentary counsel, my private office and the Under-Secretary of State’s private office. They have all persevered and worked for many months to get the Bill to this stage. I thank everybody who has in any way played a part, large or small, in getting us here—finishing early on our final day.
Finally, I thank everybody who gave evidence, both written and oral, and who took the time to put forward their views and to contribute to the Bill. I am sure we will see each other on Monday for oral questions, which we will all be looking forward to, and excited about, over the weekend. With that in mind, I wish everybody a very happy Christmas and a very exciting 2016. I look forward to taking this debate further on Report.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Further to that point of order, Mr Gray. I wonder whether the Minister is inviting me to speak for another 12 minutes so that we do not finish early. I, too, want to start by thanking you, Mr Gray, and Sir Alan Meale for chairing this Committee fairly and graciously, which is much appreciated. I also thank the Clerks for their excellent service in getting amendments in the right order and in the right place so that we could debate them.
I marvel that the Doorkeepers sit here through hours and hours of deliberation with such good humour to keep us safe and secure, but mostly they prevent us from dying of dehydration, which is much appreciated. I thank Hansard for turning around a great deal of material in such a short space of time. I thank the many organisations that have sent detailed evidence into the Committee or that have turned up to give oral evidence. I assure them that, at least on the Opposition side of the Committee, we have read all their evidence and taken it on board in our comments. It is excellent that they take such time to engage with our democracy in that way.
I thank my fellow shadow Minister for her input into the Bill, and I thank our Whip for always maintaining good humour whatever the circumstances. I thank members of the Committee, on both sides, who gave excellent speeches, with much passion at times. I highlight the interventions by Opposition Members, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West, who challenged Government Members on everything from the nature of their lunch and their lunch arrangements to how to improve their chances of being elected in future. As always in such Committees, Members emerged who keep us entertained, and this time it was the hon. Member for South Norfolk for the Conservative party and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West on the Opposition side. We should commend them for keeping us amused at key points in our debate.
We know that some of the Bills we debate in Committee have a great deal of consensus, but that is not always the case. We have strong differences on this Bill, but I think we have managed to proceed with a great deal of civility on both sides of the Committee at all times, despite—I say this gently, having been in this place for nearly 11 years—now knowing what it is like to experience a hyperactive Whip. I am not sure that I want to experience it ever again, so I hope the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon has a really, really chilled Christmas and comes back with a degree of levity to our proceedings in the main Chamber on Report.
I, too, thank the Ministers for their helpful responses at times and for disagreeing with us so civilly. I wish everyone a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
The Chair
I am most grateful to both hon. Members for their kind remarks. On behalf of Sir Alan Meale, I add our warm thanks to the Clerks. It may appear that we know the finer points of procedure, but we do not; we merely read out what they tell us. We are extremely grateful to you for all your hard work. I thank the Committee for being extremely courteous and largely in order. These proceedings have been very worth while.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.