Housing and Planning Bill
Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Lister of Burtersett
Lord Shipley
I welcome what the Minister has said. It is an improvement on the Bill when first published. I repeat that I think it is a matter for the local housing authority to have the discretion to make decisions—I suppose that the Localism Act, as it stands, is probably adequate. However, given that the Government are keen to see changes, I acknowledge that the amendments here are a marked improvement on the original Bill, because of the extension from five to 10 years and, of course, longer where there are children and young people under the age of 19. I thank the Minister for the flexibility that the Government are showing. Section 86A of Schedule 7 makes it clear that this change does not impact current secure tenancies and that a new secure tenancy of a dwelling house can be offered to a tenant at the end of the current tenancy, so in that respect the power to grant a further secure tenancy lies with the local authority. Although I would have preferred no change at all, what we have now is better than what we had a few weeks ago and I thank the Minister for that.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I welcome the amendment and what the noble Baroness has said. I have two brief but related points. First, on reading Hansard, I realised that I never formally said thank you on the record for the concession that was made on Report with regard to those who give up a secure tenancy because of domestic violence—I am pleased to do so now. I also suggest that, when the work is done to put this into regulations, the department works with organisations, such as Women’s Aid and, particularly, Solace Women’s Aid, whose research I drew on heavily in drafting my amendment. I think that they can give insight into how this works on the ground.
Secondly—I am sorry to sound like a broken record—I have still not received the frequently promised equality statement on this clause, despite the noble Baroness’s promise in col. 512 of Hansard to come back to me on it as soon as possible. I raise this now only because it raises questions about the status of equality statements. It suggests that they are being treated as an add-on rather than integral to the policy process, as they are supposed to be. I suggest that the department may want to reflect on how it treats equality statements.
Housing and Planning Bill
Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Lister of Burtersett
Lord Shipley
My Lords, my name is attached to Amendment 79A in this group, along with that of my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. However, I also support Amendment 70A and other probing amendments.
Amendment 79A is our attempt to consider the threshold, which the Government had defined as £30,000 outside London and £40,000 inside London, and which the amendment increases to £40,000 outside London and £60,000 in London. It is a probing amendment. However, our view is that the taper starts too low at the figures that the Government originally decided on. Therefore, I hope there is an opportunity for them to look carefully at whether there is a good case, as we think there is, for the minimum threshold to be much higher. That would save a great deal of administration and associated costs. Be that as it may, I hope the Minister will explain why those figures are deemed too high, because I suspect they are more reasonable than the ones on which the Government have decided.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I raised a number of questions at Second Reading which never got a reply and, as they are relevant to this group of amendments, I thought I would have another go.
The first follows directly from what the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, just said: why was it decided to reduce the earnings threshold from that in the existing voluntary scheme? Am I correct in thinking that there is no intention to increase the threshold in line with average earnings, thereby pulling more and more tenants into the net of pay to stay? If so, why? What protection might there be for vulnerable tenants unable to provide the necessary documentation? Crisis has raised concerns that they could be liable for the full market rent, regardless of their actual income. We can think of a lot of situations where there may be good reason why someone has not provided that information, but it would be totally unfair for them to have to pay the full market rent.
Finally—I did not raise this at Second Reading, but I raised it two groups of amendments ago and the Minister did not come back to me—there is the whole question of the lack of equivalisation. There will be such a crude means test that takes no account whatever of family needs. We are not treating like with like; we are treating the same income to meet rent, regardless of how many mouths have to be fed from that income.