Bob Blackman
Main Page: Bob Blackman (Conservative - Harrow East)
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Let me begin by drawing the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
It may seem strange to some of my colleagues that I, as a free-marketeer, should wish to interfere in a market—the private sector housing market is clearly a market—but I support the Bill, and for several reasons. Although its focus is narrow and it does not address the wider implications and concerns that have been raised by Members on both sides of the House, that narrow drafting is deliberate, as is intended to secure support throughout the House. That is one of my reasons for being strongly in favour of it.
There are three sorts of private sector landlords. There are the big landlords who have big organisations behind them and many properties—it is their business. There are also the accidental landlords, who have inherited properties—they often have only one or two—and try to let them, as well as other groups of people with relatively small numbers of properties. Then there are the bad, rogue landlords, who are the ones whom we should seek to target. There are not many of them, but they often cause misery to their tenants.
To my way of thinking, when a contract is entered into for the supply of a service, be it the occupation of a property in the private rented sector or any other service, there are obligations on both sides. There are obligations on the tenant to pay the rent, to keep the property in reasonable order, not to behave in an antisocial manner, and to allow the landlord access to the property. There are also obligations on the landlord: they should maintain the property in good repair, ensure that people have a decent place in which to live and charge a reasonable rent. That is not unfair or unreasonable, but it is clear that a small set of landlords are causing immense problems.
In the private sector, tenancies are now normally for six months. They may be rolling tenancies and they may be renewed. During that time, landlords can, at their convenience, say, “I want the property back,” and serve a section 21 notice, and the tenants then have to leave. Like many Members on both sides of the House, I regularly have families coming to my surgeries or to meetings to say, “We are being evicted by our landlord. We have done nothing wrong. We have had problems. We have complained about mould, damp and the conditions of the property, yet the landlord refused to take proper action and, shortly afterwards, an eviction notice followed.” That cannot be right or reasonable. The law should contain a clear protection so that tenants know that they can ask for reasonable repairs to be carried out without the threat of retaliatory action and eviction. That is a reasonable position to adopt, which is why I am strongly in favour of the Bill.
The Bill would not protect unruly tenants who cause trouble, damage properties or fail to pay their rent. The contract has to be two-sided, so the protection should be on both sides. I have been approached by a number of landlords. Across my constituency, there has been a dramatic change in the type of tenure. Harrow East has traditionally been an owner-occupier-type constituency, but many owner-occupiers have moved out and rented their properties. Often those properties are not maintained in a decent, working condition for the tenants, which causes misery not only to the tenants, but to the people who live in adjacent properties. A responsibility flows across the piece. I recognise that the problem is not confined to London—it affects cities and towns throughout the country—but it is affecting London dramatically, and it is clear that action needs to be taken.
As I have said, the Bill is narrowly focused. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) to address one point when she sums up because I have a slight dilemma with the Bill. When a notice of disrepair is served on a property, major repairs are often required and the tenants may have to move out to allow the repairs to be effected. Some landlords say, “I’ll honour that by evicting the existing tenants, doing the property up and re-letting it to other tenants,” but I do not think that the Bill deals with that situation. I agree with the principles of the Bill, but that issue will have to be looked at in some detail in Committee so that we can ensure that the Bill does not have unintended consequences.
The Bill is much needed and there is a strong case for it. The clear issue is to ensure that tenants have rights and that landlords also have protections. My strong view is that bad tenants will not be protected by this legislative change and that good landlords have nothing to fear from it—those two things come together. The Bill would tweak the market, rather than fundamentally reform it, which is why I strongly support it. I trust that today we can support it in principle so that it receives its Second Reading and we can get it to Committee, where detailed changes may need to be made to strengthen it and to ensure that it does not have unintended consequences.
The Bill sends the fundamental message to good landlords who do a good job of maintaining their properties, providing a decent facility for people to live in and charging a reasonable rent that they will be protected. It sends the message to bad tenants that if they make spurious, stupid or irrelevant complaints, they will not be protected. However, if tenants have a fundamental complaint about a health and safety matter or about the condition of the property, and the local authority agrees that that should be fixed, they will be protected. The Bill strikes the right balance between landlord and tenant. For that reason, I am strongly in favour of it, and I trust that the House will support it today and ensure that it is on the statute book before the general election.