Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Doocey

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 173CE and 173E. I should say that a gremlin has got into the system, and Amendment 173CF is incorrect. I beg permission not to speak to it because it is a mistake.

The purpose of Amendment 173CE is to enable a person to whom the offer of a flexible tenancy is made to request a review of the landlord’s decision as to the length of the term of the tenancy, thus eliminating the restriction that no review can be requested if the offer is within the landlord’s policy as to the length of the term of such tenancies. I shall give an example to explain the problem. A tenant or prospective tenant may want to request a longer period which is permitted by the policy but which has not been offered on the basis of the initial assessment by the local authority before the offer. The longer period being sought could be because of long-term specialised medical treatment needed for a member of the household or to avoid disruption of the education of a child with particular needs. There could be a difference between the authority’s initial assessment of the time required for the tenancy and the tenant’s assessment of the time leading to the need for a review. I do not understand why a local housing authority should not consider representations in relation to the length of a flexible tenancy in a particular case. It would be to the advantage of a tenant or prospective tenant that it should be able to undertake a review.

Amendment 173E is about creating a presumption that flexible tenancies should be renewed on expiry unless good reasons are shown to the contrary. As the legislation stands, the process tenants will have to undergo when their flexible tenancies come to the end of the fixed term is weighted almost entirely in favour of the landlord. The amendment would hope to ensure that, when this process is being undertaken, there is greater protection for tenants, many of whom will be particularly vulnerable toward the end of their tenancy. This could be achieved by requiring a landlord to justify refusing to extend the tenancy rather than expecting the tenant to undergo a potentially complicated reapplication process. This would be preferable, as many tenants might be unaware of what factors are relevant to the authority’s decision and might find it difficult to successfully advocate for renewal of a tenancy or struggle to provide proof of need.

We also need to guard against bureaucratic failure. Bureaucratic failings already cause a great deal of hardship for people on low incomes, such as when mistakes occur in determining housing benefit claims or when registered providers fail to issue an assured tenancy following a successful probation period. No one should face the loss of their home as a result of bureaucratic failing. This amendment would help to prevent this happening. There is also the question of landlord accountability. This amendment would help to improve accountability, as landlords would have to demonstrate greater objectivity and transparency before taking possession of a tenant’s home. The removal of security of tenure will result in a great deal more uncertainty for tenants, as they will become aware of the looming threat of losing their homes toward the end of their fixed-term tenancy. While a presumption in favour of renewal would not remove this huge worry, it would at least ensure that tenants are on a more secure footing and hope to ensure that landlords undertake a thorough process when reviewing tenancies.

In committee in the other place, the Minister Andrew Stunell, said that we expect landlords to discuss housing options with tenants well before the fixed term of their tenancy comes to an end. That we would expect the tenancy to be renewed in many cases needs to be underlined. For those reasons, it is important that this expectation in terms of presumption of renewal of tenancy is written into the Bill. Social housing is for many people the best means of ensuring security and a long-term stable home. For some, it is the first step in enabling them to improve their circumstances. Having people living in a neighbourhood for long periods can build community cohesion and social capital. The amendment will simply help to maintain people in their homes.

[Baroness Doocey]

Speaking to Amendments 173CA and 173CB, I turn to Amendment 173CA. The purpose of this amendment is to increase the minimum length of flexible tenancies in social housing. With a diminishing stock of social housing under increasing pressure, the Government see greater flexibility of tenancies as a better way of managing social housing stock. The amendment would increase the minimum length of a flexible tenancy from two to seven years. It does not oppose the principle of flexibility. Rather, it is an attempt to reconcile the advantages of flexibility with the need of tenants for a reasonable degree of security and stability.

In theory, the Bill would give local authorities and housing associations the flexibility to be able to offer tenancies of varying length in order to best manage their stock. They could still offer inflexible tenancies if they chose; the length of a flexible tenancy could be as short as two years, although we know that the Government believe that a two-year tenancy would be the exception. However, in practice, there is a risk that local authorities and housing associations could make two years the norm. If two years become widespread or commonplace, it would undermine household housing stability.

Until now, social housing has been stable; it is often the first stable accommodation that many vulnerable people have ever experienced. If this stability were lost, it would remove a key benefit of social housing for such people. It would significantly weaken the sustainability of communities. Two years is too short because it would lead to a higher turnover of residents on estates, with the associated problems of poor community cohesion. If we want to achieve mixed communities and well-functioning neighbourhoods, it is important that people—including those in work and with good prospects—are able to put down roots in an area and feel a sense of ownership. Extending the minimum to seven years is not a panacea but it would go some way towards mitigating the problems caused by flexible tenancies.

A two-year limit could act as a serious disincentive to work since tenants would fear that if they find employment and increase their earnings, they might no longer be able to renew their tenancy. A seven-year limit would lessen this fear since finding employment would not have an immediate impact on their tenancy.

The purpose of Amendment 173CB is to ensure that people moving on from one secure tenancy are offered another. At present, tenants in the social rented sector enjoy secure tenancies of unlimited duration. The change to a flexible scheme would apply to new tenants but not existing ones. Leaving aside any objections to flexibility per se, the Bill as drafted includes an ambiguity. It is clear that an existing secure tenant will not have his or her tenancy agreement torn up or amended. It is also clear that a new tenant may be subject to a limited-term tenancy. However, the Bill is unclear on what happens if an existing secure tenant moves to a different property. Therefore, it does not guarantee their security.

The Government are putting measures in place to make it easier for social tenants to transfer to a new property that will better meet their needs, such as the introduction of the national affordable home swap scheme. At the same time, the Government intend to cut housing benefit for social tenants who are underoccupying; that is, those living in a house with more bedrooms than they are deemed to need. Many of the people affected by this cut will move to smaller accommodation, but only if that accommodation is available. The Government are right to encourage an increase in social housing transfers because everyone wins. It will be good for existing tenants who can move to more suitable housing, the homeless because it will free up larger houses and social landlords because they can better allocate their housing stock. However, if the Bill leads to existing secure tenants being granted only flexible tenancies simply because they have made the choice to move to a new property, the effect will be that many, if not most, such tenants will decide to stay put.