Public Service Delivery: Northamptonshire

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 6th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

The hon. Lady asks “When?” The answer is tomorrow, when we will be debating the local government finance settlement, where councils will see a real-terms increase in their core spending power this year. As I have said, Northamptonshire itself will be receiving at least a 3% increase in its core spending power next year.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The Minister did not answer the question from the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). How many local authorities is he talking to that have concerns about their funding next year?

[Rishi Sunak]

It would be wholly inappropriate for me to give a running commentary on councils that we might have a conversation with. As I told the Chair of the Select Committee, my Department consistently monitors all councils and is in dialogue with all of them—as well as the LGA’s peer review process, which we fund—to ensure that we have a good, consistent picture across local government of what is happening on the ground.

Grenfell Tower

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that we have not taken the expert advice. We have consistently done that and have acted on it, but I am happy to look again at the material he mentioned. I have been involved in relation to the Citiscape case in Croydon and we have made it clear to the freeholder there, just as we have done everywhere else, that there is a moral case for avoiding any unreasonable costs to leaseholders or tenants. The leaseholders and tenants also of course have the option of going to the first-tier tribunal to settle an issue legally, and it would be wrong for Ministers to interfere in that process.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The Minister has constantly referred to financial flexibility for local authorities, so does that mean an additional borrowing allowance? If so, does that come from the housing revenue account or the general fund, or are the Government going to fund it?

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Gentleman is right that the flexibility relates to local authorities’ borrowing. Quite how that should be done will depend on the individual circumstances of particular local authorities, but we are willing to discuss that. As I mentioned earlier, we are yet to decline a request, so the support is there.

South-eastern Rail Franchise

Clive Efford Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will not, because time is short and the Minister has to wind up the debate.

At the very least, the Department should guarantee that the service standards delivered by the new south-eastern franchise match those that would have been delivered by London Overground. My fear is not only that the new franchise will not match those standards, but that it could lead to a deterioration in the services on which my constituents rely.

Slipped out alongside an announcement that it will look at reopening lines across the UK that were lost under the Beeching cuts, the Department published its invitation to tender for the new franchise on 29 November 2017. With one operator, Trenitalia, having withdrawn from the process, there are now only three operators bidding: Abellio, Stagecoach and the current operator, Govia.

As expected, given the instant and, I suspect, co-ordinated opposition they generated from Conservative politicians across south-east London and Kent, proposals that all metro services on the North Kent, Greenwich and Bexleyheath lines will terminate only at Cannon Street have been dropped, but that does not mean all services on those lines will escape cuts under the Government’s franchise specification.

The requirements set out in the ITT include the introduction of a revised train service, no later than 2022, that will see Woolwich and Charlton stations in my constituency lose direct services to Charing Cross, and Blackheath station, along with other stations on the Bexleyheath line, lose direct services to Victoria. Those revisions come on top of the proposed replacement of two of the six hourly off-peak Southeastern services on the line with Thameslink services that I fear might be slower and less reliable and that will not stop at Woolwich Dockyard station in my constituency or at Erith and Belvedere stations in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce).

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does he agree that the Government’s reason for terminating Victoria services on the Bexleyheath line—that the services somehow create problems because they have to cross over and that the complexity is not surmountable by modern technology or signalling—is an excuse? The people who run the service are benefiting at the expense of the passengers who use it.

Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation and Liability for Housing Standards) Bill

Clive Efford Excerpts

Friday 19th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Mrs Heather Wheeler)]

I, too, wish a happy birthday to Mr Speaker, and to Rose Hudson-Wilkin.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) on her success in the private Members’ Bill ballot, on bringing attention to the important issue of property standards in the rented housing market and, indeed, on her huge amount of work and interest in this area. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the register of ministerial interests.

Everyone deserves a decent and safe place to live, regardless of their tenure. Most properties in the private and social rented sectors are of a good standard and do not contain potentially dangerous hazards. However, according to the English housing survey, 17% of private rented properties and 6% of social rented properties contain at least one hazard that constitutes a serious risk of harm to the health and safety of an occupier. As we have heard from Members on both sides of the Chamber, these percentages equate to 795,000 homes in the private sector and 244,000 homes in the social sector. While there is a large range of potential hazards, in practice, as we know from English housing survey data, the vast majority of hazards that occur are associated with slips, trips and falls, as well as with excess cold and issues such as fire risk, damp and poor sanitation.

The Bill fits well with the work the Government have already done to improve standards in the private rented sector. That sector is an important part of our housing market, housing 4.3 million households in England. The quality of privately rented housing has improved rapidly over the past decade, with 82% of private renters satisfied with their accommodation and staying in their homes for an average of 4.3 years. The Government want to support good landlords who provide decent, well maintained homes, and to avoid putting further regulation on them that increases costs and red tape for landlords and also pushes up rents and reduces choice. However, a small number of rogue or criminal landlords knowingly rent out unsafe and substandard accommodation. We are determined to crack down on these landlords and to disrupt their business model.

There is a need to act now to require landlords proactively to ensure that properties are free from hazards and to empower all tenants to hold their landlord to account. The alternative of allowing these practices to go unchecked would not be fair on the large majority of good landlords and proactive, responsible local authorities, or on their tenants who suffer because of poor conditions or because of the inability or failure of local authorities to act.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Wheeler]

I will not give way, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, because some very important business is coming up after this debate.

The Government are committed to providing tenants with alternative means of redress, strengthening tenants’ rights and protecting renters against poor practice. The Bill aligns with and supports broader proposals to improve consumer experience across the housing sector. Furthermore, enabling tenants to take direct action themselves will help to free up local authorities’ resources to tackle better the criminal landlords who rent out hazardous and unsafe dwellings.

Draft Housing and Planning Act 2016 (Banning Order Offences) Regulations 2017

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2018 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Housing and Planning Act 2016 (Banning Order Offences) Regulations 2017.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, for what I believe is the first time. I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The draft regulations were laid before the House on Wednesday 29 November 2017.

The Government value the private rented sector, an important part of our housing market that houses some 4.5 million households in England. We want to support good landlords who provide decent, well maintained homes; we also want to avoid unnecessary further regulation. Most private landlords provide a decent service to their tenants, respecting their rights and complying with the obligations and legal requirements imposed on them. However, we know that a small number of landlords and property agents do not meet their legal obligations and sometimes exploit their tenants by renting out substandard, overcrowded and often dangerous accommodation. Those landlords and property agents often do not respond to legitimate complaints made by their tenants; some would even prefer to be prosecuted rather than to maintain their properties to a decent standard. Such practices, which damage the reputation of the sector and of the vast majority of good landlords, frankly have no place whatever in Britain’s housing market.

The Government have implemented tough measures to enable local authorities to target rogue landlords under the Housing and Planning Act 2016. In April 2017, we introduced civil penalties of up to £30,000 as an alternative to prosecution. We also extended rent repayment orders to cover a wide range of housing offences, including illegal eviction and failure to comply with statutory notices. Banning orders, the subject of the draft regulations, are an important part of this wider package and will enable local authorities to take effective enforcement measures against rogue landlords.

It may help if I briefly outline the purpose of banning orders. A banning order is defined in section 14 of the 2016 Act as

“an order…banning a person from—

(a) letting housing in England,

(b) engaging in English letting agency work,

(c) engaging in English property management work, or

(d) doing two or more of those things.”

Section 15 enables a local housing authority to apply to the first-tier tribunal

“for a banning order against a person who has been convicted of a banning order offence.”

A banning order must last for a minimum of 12 months, but there is no upper limit. A landlord who breaches a banning order may face further enforcement action, including an unlimited fine and up to six months in prison.

Hon. Members will be aware of the Government’s intention to introduce a database of rogue landlords and rogue property agents. Any landlord or property agent subject to a banning order will be entered on the database, which can then be used by local housing authorities throughout England to co-ordinate their enforcement activity against rogue landlords.

We will also ensure that tenants who live in property rented out by landlords subject to a banning order retain adequate protection. A banning order will not invalidate any tenancy agreement held by the tenant in the property, regardless of whether it was issued before or after the banning order was made. That will ensure that the tenant does not lose their rights under the terms and conditions of their existing tenancy agreement. The 2016 Act therefore provides that, in certain circumstances, the management of a property can be taken on by the local housing authority following the making of a banning order.

Banning orders target the most prolific offenders who have been convicted of serious housing, immigration or other criminal offences connected to their role as a landlord. They will prevent rogue landlords and property agents from earning income from renting out properties or engaging in letting agency or other property management work, forcing them either to raise the standard of the service that they provide or to leave the sector entirely.

Hon. Members will be aware that we did not include specific banning order offences in the 2016 Act. During the passage of the Bill, concerns were raised about the nature and scope of banning order offences. In response, we held a public consultation on which existing criminal offences should be regarded as banning order offences. We also amended the Bill to ensure that the regulation-making powers were subject to the affirmative procedure, to allow full scrutiny by Parliament of the proposed offences. The regulations before the Committee specify which offences will constitute banning order offences under section 14 of the Act, but I shall summarise the offences, which are set out in the schedule to the regulations.

All the offences listed in the regulations are existing criminal offences. By making them banning order offences, we are not introducing any new offences, but simply introducing a new and draconian sanction for pre-existing criminal offences. Broadly speaking, the regulations cover three types of offences. The first type is housing offences relating to a breach of existing requirements under the Housing Act 2004 and other housing-related legislation, provided that the person convicted of the offence has not received an absolute or conditional discharge for the offence. That condition is in place to ensure that banning orders remain a proportionate sanction.

We want to target only the worst offenders who have been convicted of serious housing offences. Those offences include failure to comply with an improvement or overcrowding notice, failure to comply with houses in multiple occupation licensing and selective licensing of other privately rented properties, and offences relating to fire and gas safety. They also include unlawful eviction of tenants or violence or harassment towards them by the landlord or letting agency. Such offences are serious and directly impact the health and safety of the tenants of a property. The offences are directly related to the offender’s role as a landlord, and in our view it is right that they are included as banning order offences.

The second type of offence is immigration offences under part 3 of the Immigration Act 2014. For a banning order to be made against a landlord, that landlord would need to be convicted of offences including letting a property to an illegal immigrant. Where the original immigration offence is prosecuted, that would generally be a serious offence that would probably be associated with wider exploitation of migrants, so it is appropriate that offenders should be banned.

The third type is serious criminal offences with a connection to the landlord or tenant. A banning order may be sought where a person has been convicted in the Crown court of a serious criminal offence including fraud, misuse of drugs or sexual offences. The Government consider it appropriate to include those serious criminal offences as banning order offences where there is a clear link between the offence and the offender’s role as a landlord. It is for that reason that the offence is linked to property being rented out and/or the tenant living at the property.

The banning order offences regulations were the subject of a consultation held over the eight weeks between 13 December 2016 and 10 February 2017. We received responses from local housing authorities, landlords’ organisations, tenants’ groups, housing charities and representatives of letting agents. We published our response to the consultation on 28 December 2017. In total, there were 223 responses, with a high level of support for our proposals. Overall, 84% of the respondents agreed that the proposed banning order offences were the right ones. In addition, we have included in the regulations a range of further offences that were suggested by respondents during the consultation, because we consider them to be offences that are most commonly committed by rogue landlords against their tenants. The additional offences, listed as items 10 to 14 of the schedule, include offences relating to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, harassment, antisocial behaviour, criminal damage and theft.

The vast majority of landlords and agents who comply with their responsibility will not be affected or have to worry about the regulations. Indeed, the Government believe that they will benefit from them, since standards and compliance with the law across the sector will be set as a level playing field. Good landlords, who work hard for their tenants, provide a decent place to live and comply with the law, will no longer have to face unfair competition from the rogues, who ignore the law and flout their obligations.

Ultimately, it will be for local housing authorities to determine whether to apply for a banning order in any given circumstance. My Department will produce comprehensive guidance for local authorities in England on how they may use the new powers. I therefore—

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Before the Minister sits down, I want to clarify a matter. In my constituency, I have a number of homes in multiple occupation that are a source of antisocial problems, drugs and violence and are poorly managed. Many of them are owned by one company. If a banning order were applied to a company that owned properties, would it apply to all its properties or just to the individual property?

[Jake Berry]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will deal with his question in my concluding remarks, when we have had the benefit of colleagues’ views in that area. Therefore, before anyone else intervenes, I recommend the draft regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford]

I wish you, Mr Robertson, everyone on the Committee and all the officials here a happy new year. I will not keep the Committee long, and I will put my questions at the start to give people a fair chance of finding answers.

My first question is something that I mentioned earlier. In my constituency, a single company owns several properties. If it is found to have committed a criminal offence relating to one of those properties, and if the local authority then sorts a banning order, will that banning order to the company therefore mean that all its properties have to be taken over by a local housing authority or will the order apply to just that one property? If we are talking about an organisation—a company that is a fit and proper person, which is what we are seeking to achieve—surely if it is found to be criminally negligent or to have mismanaged its property, it follows that it should not be running other properties either. I seek clarification around that.

[Jake Berry]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Clive Efford]

I will, if I can just get my questions out to give people in the room the chance to hand the Minister a note if necessary. I am trying to be fair to him. I know the situation and I am genuinely after the answers, rather than trying to trip him up.

On the resourcing of tribunals, are we expecting a glut of these applications? My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby raised the issue of tenants’ rights during this period; they do need to be protected. We do not want a flurry of evictions coming about as a result of this measure, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for The Cotswolds. People might decide that they want to sell the property, or even attempt to evict the tenants under the guise of wanting to sell the property, and therefore seek possession. What about damage that arises during the period in which a housing authority is in charge of the property? Who is liable? Does the landlord have any say over who manages that property during a banning order period, or is that to be determined by the tribunal and the local housing authority? I would like some clarification on those points.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting point as to who is able to run those properties when a banning order is in place. Is the landlord or agent simply able to delegate that to somebody else not subject to a banning order, such as another agent, or will it have to be managed by a local housing association? We do need some clarification on that.

[Clive Efford]

I would like some clarification on that, too, but I feel the latter should be the case. The default position should be for the property to go to the local housing authority, because my experience with these companies, as I have described, has been that if we check with Companies House we find that they not only shift the properties around, but shift the companies around. They change the responsible person for the company just by changing a few letters in the name, because there are other things going on behind some of these companies, such as tax avoidance and defaults on mortgages. With rogue landlords, this goes much deeper than the issue of letting properties, though I accept that the vast majority of landlords are not like that.

Those are the people we are legislating for here. It is important that a banning order is taken not just because that is desirable, but because we are taking punitive action against a landlord as they are not a desirable body to be managing their property, albeit for a year and possibly for a fixed period beyond that. At the same time, it is important that we are alive to the fact that those organisations will be prepared for actions such as these and will just shift the property’s ownership around if they have a say in who takes over its management. They will no doubt have their own pet agency to take over and run it should the hiccup of a banning order occur. We want the orders to stick and we want them to be painful for those rogue landlords, so that we prevent them from entering into this kind of business in the first place. Perhaps the Minister will deal with my question now.