Homelessness Reduction Bill

Debate between Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Marcus Jones

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 27th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

It is true that, recently, the liberalisation of permitted development rights has released many more properties for rent, which is a very good thing, but does my hon. Friend agree that changes in fiscal policy, buy-to-let, and, in my own area, selective licensing are encouraging more landlords to resist letting properties? This proposal from the Opposition will exacerbate that trend.

[Mr Jones]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Layering more regulation on to residential landlords will have the net effect of reducing supply. Many of our constituents rely on renting private properties, so we need to be very careful that the balance is right.

Finally, if new clause 3 is enacted, it will introduce rent controls in the private rented sector by compelling landlords to limit rent rises to no more than once a year and by no more than inflation in cases where there is a risk of the tenant becoming homeless as a result of a rent rise. Although I understand the spirit in which this amendment has been tabled, introducing rent controls is fundamentally the wrong approach and is not borne out by evidence. Experience from Britain and around the world shows that rent controls lead to fewer properties on the market and less choice for tenants. Returning to the situation in the 1980s when the private rented sector was in decline will not help landlords or tenants.

The key to improving affordability and choice for tenants is to build more homes rather than impose rent controls. Our build-to-rent fund has now contracted investment worth £630 million to deliver more than 5,600 high-quality homes specifically for private rent. Our £3.5 billion private rented sector housing guarantee scheme will increase the stream of investment in new private rented sector housing.

We have also established the private rented sector affordability and security working group to explore options to reduce the cost for tenants who access and move within the sector. This group is expected to submit its report to Ministers next month.

I therefore urge the House to agree that new clause 3 is not desirable, and, given the commitment I have made to Opposition Front Benchers, I hope that new clauses 1, 2 and 3 will now be withdrawn.

Protection of Family Homes (Enforcement and Permitted Development) Bill

Debate between Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Marcus Jones

Friday 28th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)]

I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for introducing the Bill. Housing is a key priority for my Department and for the Government. As the Prime Minister has made absolutely clear, ensuring that the housing market works for everyone is necessary if we are going to make Britain work for everyone.

We are making good progress, delivering more than 700,000 additional homes since 2010. We have doubled the housing budget to more than £20 billion over the next five years, but there is still significant work to be done. The Neighbourhood Planning Bill currently before Parliament supports house building while providing more say for communities over developments in their area. We need a range of homes for individuals and households at different stages of their lives, with different needs and incomes.

The private rented sector, including houses in multiple occupation, plays an important role in the housing market. Around 4.3 million households in England live in private rented homes. Single people, students and those embarking on their first job in a new town often want to rent a room. They may only be staying in the area for a fixed period, such as a university term; they may want to get familiar with an area before they find a more permanent home of their own; or it may simply be that they are not in a position where they can afford to live alone. Houses in multiple occupation, including smaller shared houses, can provide flexibility. Where they offer good quality, safe accommodation, managed by responsible landlords, they can provide a much needed service.

Many households live in decent, well-maintained homes in the private rented sector. However, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak is all too aware, that is not always the case.

[Mr Jackson]

The Minister is making a very good case. Does he believe, as I do, that, given that about a third of local planning authorities do not have robust local plans in place, it is incumbent on those authorities to do their bit in defending the integrity of residential areas as much as it is on the passing of specific legislation such as this Bill?

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. It is incumbent on all local authorities to put local plans in place. My hon. Friend and I spent many happy hours on the Housing and Planning Bill Committee. The Bill, which became an Act earlier this year, includes provision to compel local authorities to put local plans in place. He is absolutely right that any local authority that does not do so has an obligation to its residents to protect its area. If it cannot do so because it does not have a substantive local plan, then unless there are any practical reasons why it has not been able to do so, it is failing its local population.

Returning to landlords prepared to exploit their tenants, who are sometimes the most vulnerable members of our society with very little choice of housing, unfortunately a number of rogue landlords do not manage their properties properly. They have no regard for planning legislation or building regulations. They are prepared to rent out substandard accommodation: homes that are dangerous and overcrowded.

The Bill draws attention to the need for measures to tackle the problem of illegal or substandard housing. However, I do not accept that the hon. Gentleman’s proposals are necessary in this context. There is already a range of regulations to tackle the various breaches to which he draws attention. In particular, the private rented sector provisions in the Housing and Planning Act 2016—at least three of us in the Chamber sat on the Bill Committee—show a real determination from the Government to tackle rogue landlords by disrupting their business models and putting them out of business.

Housing and Planning Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Marcus Jones

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Jackson]

It means that there are opportunities, under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Housing Act 2004 and now this legislation, for people to go through the proper procedures, which will stand up in a court of law or a tribunal, to identify, deal with and ameliorate the issues caused by rogue landlords. To conclude, I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I do not think the amendment will add anything to the efficacy of the Bill. I support the Government’s clause as it stands.

[Mr Jones]

The Government agree wholeheartedly that the impact on the tenant is a key consideration when it comes to a banning order. Clause 15(3)(d) provides that, in deciding whether to make a banning order, the tribunal must consider

“the likely effect of the banning order on the person and anyone else who may be affected by the order.”

Clearly, that would include the tenant.

Clause 20 introduces schedule 3, which provides that a management order may be made in cases where a banning order has been made. That will allow the local authority to take over management of a property and could allow a tenant to continue living in a property while a banning order is in place. The local authority may, for example, wish to use that power in situations where there is a vulnerable tenant whom it does not wish to see displaced. That further protects the tenant in the event of a banning order being made and ensures that they do not suffer for further offences committed by their landlord. It is also worth noting that the tribunal can include exceptions when making a banning order, such as to allow time for a tenant to find alternative accommodation.

Transferable Tax Allowances

Debate between Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Marcus Jones

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jackson]

My right hon. Friend is bang on the money. Although such tax changes would be costly in the short term, the benefits for society would be incalculable, were we to enact them, which I hope we will in the Budget next March.

In considering the fairness arguments, it is also important to deal with the misguided claim made by some that, rather than helping one-earner families, the answer is to make them two-earner families. That logic is the occasion of great unfairness, because more often than not that option is not available. The latest DWP figures demonstrate that in 2.2 million households one member is in full-time work and the other is not earning; that 1.2 million, or 53%, of those households contain children; that in 700,000, or 58%, of those households with children there is a youngest child who is under five; and that a further 300,000, or 21%, have a youngest child between the ages of five and 10. Some 61% of all one-earner couple families have a young child under five, someone who is disabled or someone with caring responsibilities. Many of the remainder are likely to be doing voluntary work. It is clear that the majority of one-earner families are one-earners out of necessity rather than choice.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He is making an important point about low-income families and the second person in the family having to obtain work. Does he agree that one of the biggest problems is that, for a second earner on a low wage, there is the massive impediment of child care costs, which usually take up most of that second income?