Localism Bill

Baroness Doocey Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Doocey]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 171B, 171C and 173ZA. Amendments 171B and 171C propose a two-stage tenancy process. The Localism Bill effectively removes the right of qualifying homeless people to turn down an offer from the local authority of private rented accommodation; and I agree with the comments just made by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. A local authority will now be able to discharge its duty to the homeless by offering private rented accommodation on a “take it or leave it” basis with a minimum tenancy of 12 months.

The problem is that a private rented accommodation offer may not be suitable for a variety of reasons, yet if a homeless applicant refuses the offer, they can be deemed intentionally homeless and the local authority will no longer have a duty to house them. Given its obvious attraction to landlords, the 12-month tenancy is likely to become the norm, or at least commonplace. It may prevent homeless people from finding secure and stable accommodation and will almost certainly lead to recurring homelessness. Even if tenants do not become homeless again, the 12-month minimum prevents them putting down roots and stabilising their employment or their children’s education.

The aim of these amendments is to improve the sustainability of private tenancies for homeless households by requiring households to be placed in a successful interim tenancy prior to the 12-month minimum tenancy that discharges the authority’s duty. The amendments would not scrap the Bill’s proposal to end the right of homeless people to refuse an offer of private rented accommodation, nor would they change the 12-month minimum. Amendment 171C would create a mandatory two-stage process. In the first stage, the homeless person would be placed in private rented accommodation for a short tenancy of between six and 12 months. At the end of that period, the landlord and tenant can agree a minimum 12-month tenancy, turning the Bill’s original proposal into a second stage. In effect, this would extend the period of accommodation from a minimum of 12 months to at least 18 months. A local authority could only discharge its duties in this way if the applicant had previously been placed in an assured shorthold tenancy of between six and 12 months, the local authority was satisfied that the applicant could afford the rent, and the household’s various support needs could be met.

This is a moderate amendment that does not undermine any of the major proposals contained in the Bill; rather, it seeks to make the Bill work better. It would encourage the tenant, landlord and authority to work together to ensure the success of the tenancy and encourage early intervention when any problems arose. In this way, the amendment builds on the work of private rented sector access schemes, which are supported by the Government. It would provide further support and assessment to the tenant from the local authority. Although local authorities will have to assess the support needs of all tenants, this should not create an undue burden since many tenants will have low-level support needs, and some will have none at all. Where tenants do need support to sustain a tenancy, it is already best practice to provide this, and such support can help avoid the cost of repeat homelessness. Although at the end of the second tenancy the tenant will have been settled for at least 18 months, it does not entail tenancies of over 12 months and should therefore appeal to landlords. This is because both landlords and tenants will have the option of not renewing after the interim tenancy. In other words, if a landlord accepts stage one, he or she is not obliged to move to stage two. By preventing repeat homelessness, this system can work better for tenants, landlords and local authorities.

I turn to Amendment 173ZA. The purpose of this amendment is to establish a statutory framework for housing option schemes and other measures for the prevention of homelessness. The amendment would do two things. It would oblige local authorities to provide the applicant with comprehensive advice and assistance in the course of their inquiry and to keep the applicant fully informed of his or her options. It would also restore the right of applicants to reject an offer of private rented accommodation without affecting the duties of the local authority. The amendment assumes a 12-month minimum tenancy for private rented accommodation, as set out in the Bill. I very much hope that the Government will carefully consider these suggestions.

[Baroness Hollins]

My Lords, I support Amendments 171, 172 and 173, as presented by my noble friend Lord Rix. I want to speak about the prioritisation of housing need for people with learning disabilities.

For many years, it has been government policy to support people with learning disabilities in living in their own homes. However, as my noble friend Lord Rix said, the majority still live with their parents well into their parents’ later years. For the past 30 years, I have worked as a psychiatrist with people with learning disabilities and their families. Many of the parents have been caring for 30, 40 or even 50 years. Indeed, I myself am the parent of a man whose carer I have been for approaching 40 years. That is a long time.

The majority stay at home with their families until there is a crisis such as parental illness or death, effectively leaving the person with the learning disability homeless, or certainly vulnerable to homelessness, and leading to expensive unplanned residential care. This is instead of a carefully planned transition to a secure future which takes account of an individual’s assessed needs. I think that parents who have provided care for those years should reasonably expect their sons and daughters to be given priority for accommodation of their own at an earlier stage, rather than be left with long-term anxiety—in many cases, daily anxiety—about what is going to happen when they are no longer there to care. For those reasons, I support these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.