Private Rented Sector

Debate between Andrew Love and Mark Prisk

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Prisk]

I hope the Opposition have listened to my hon. Friend’s eminently wise advice about timing, but we are where we are. I will certainly want to look at what the Select Committee has to say.

As a Government, we recognise the growing importance of the private rented sector in meeting our constituents’ housing needs. Indeed, as we have heard, some 8 million people now rent privately. Home ownership, of course, remains a goal for most families, and we strongly support that ambition. Let us be clear, however, that home ownership is not for everybody. Many younger people need the flexibility that the rented sector offers. Even those who want to buy will rent while they are saving for their deposit, so a bigger private rented sector is very much here to stay.

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Minister accept that rents are rising—both in London and across the country—and that this is causing considerable difficulty for people in the private rented sector?

[Mr Prisk]

It is a mixed picture. I appreciate that in the hon. Gentleman’s part of north London the pressures might be different from those in the rest of the country. If we look at the official Valuation Office Agency numbers, we find that the figures are recorded as static. It is, as I say, a varied picture across the country, and we need to be alert to that important point.

Employment Law (Beecroft Report)

Debate between Andrew Love and Mark Prisk

Monday 21st May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Prisk]

That we need to look at this issue in the round—that is, not just at specific aspects of employment law, but at other aspects throughout the workplace. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we need fresh ideas. It is just a shame that we do not get them from Labour.

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Can the Minister explain the evidence base on which the “fire at will” recommendation has been made? Is the rushed consultation not an admission that there was no evidence and that the recommendation was based on prejudice?