Private Rented Sector

Debate between Mark Pawsey and Jake Berry

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate. As I said in an intervention, I find it difficult to understand why the Opposition have initiated a debate on this topic at this time, just as the Communities and Local Government Committee is about to start its inquiry. Would it not make more sense to hold such a debate immediately after the Committee produces its report?

The private rented sector plays a significant role in housing provision, and for many people renting privately has become a preferred choice as they look for the flexibility that the sector provides. After owner occupation and social renting, the private sector has become an accepted and effective third form of occupying a home. As Shelter points out, more than 1 million families with children are now renting privately, and many are renting by choice.

In any discussion of the private rented sector it is important to acknowledge how the Conservative Government rescued it. Between 1915 and 1979 owner occupation of social housing increased dramatically, while private rented accommodation fell from 75% of all properties in 1918 to as low as 8% by the 1980s. Only the Housing Act 1988, which introduced radical change under the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, ended the slide of the private rented sector and abolished rent controls.

[Jake Berry]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Housing Act 1988—a seminal piece of legislation—clarifies the fact that reducing regulation can improve the sector? It is not always about increasing regulation.

[Mark Pawsey]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Until 1988, anybody who owned or had inherited private rented accommodation under the fair rent regime was anxious to sell immediately on taking vacant possession because the returns available in that sector simply did not justify investment in it.

Some serious issues face the private rented sector, including an appropriate concern about rogue landlords—the House has heard accounts of tenants living in substandard accommodation. There are various claims about the extent of rogue landlords, and I hope that when the Communities and Local Government Committee takes evidence it will be able to identify the true extent of the problem. Tenants should feel confident when they enter into an agreement that their landlord will stick to his responsibilities. The question before the House is whether regulation is the best route to deal with rogue landlords, and indeed rogue letting agents. The Association of Residential Letting Agents states:

“With the majority of letting agents operating legitimate, professional practices, one could argue that it is the responsibility of consumers”—

and, in this case, landlords, who in the main are professional people—

“to make an informed decision about which agents they use”.

I agree on that point. I am not convinced the Government should get involved.

Interestingly, in June 2010, the Department for Communities and Local Government stated, as my hon. Friend has, that:

“In the past over-regulation drove landlords out of the rental market.”

Over-regulation would reduce the number of properties to rent and would not help tenants or landlords.