Housing and Planning Bill (Seventeenth sitting)

Gareth Thomas Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)]

As you mentioned this morning, Mr Gray, this is the final day of the Committee. We have finished scrutinising the Government’s proposals for the Bill; for the rest of the day, we will focus on the propositions from the Opposition. The hon. Member for Harrow West and others might be particularly focused on the rest of our deliberations and indeed on Parliament for the next few days, but people generally and the members of the Committee might also thinking about and looking forward to Christmas, so I wish everyone well for Christmas.

As I said, we have completed our consideration of the Government’s proposals for the Bill at this stage, but Opposition Members keep surprising us—I suppose in the Christmas spirit—with gifts on the amendment paper. The hon. Member for Harrow West is a gift that just keeps on giving. I am of course more than happy to accept his offer of gifts and to spend the rest of our time in Committee considering the Opposition’s suggestions for the Bill, now that we are done considering the Bill as drafted. Never let it be said that we are not happy to accept and enjoy the good will of all Committee members.

The new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Harrow West would introduce a statutory duty in respect of lending to small and medium-sized house builders. I have said clearly on the record that we recognise that the lack of availability of development finance can be and has been a major barrier to smaller firms that are looking to expand and develop their building activity. Indeed, as outlined earlier, in the survey conducted by the Federation of Master Builders this year, more than 62% of respondents thought that the availability of finance was a constraint on housing supply.

I am concerned to ensure that we do all we can to help small and medium-sized house builders, because they are key to delivering the housing we need throughout the country. Nevertheless, introducing a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to promote lending by banks to small and medium-sized companies simply will not address the problem. We share the desire to see it happen, but I suspect the hon. Gentleman realises that such a duty would not work. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South said, the Secretary of State has no power to force banks to lend to small businesses, so the new clause is technically unworkable. However, it may please the hon. Gentleman to know that the Government are already taking action.

In July I launched the £100 million housing growth fund, which is a partnership between the Homes and Communities Agency and Lloyds Banking Group, to help smaller builders to get access to the finance they need to build more homes and grow their businesses. In the autumn statement, the Chancellor announced further measures to support small and medium-sized builders, including a housing development fund that will provide access to £1 billion of loan finance over up to five years. The new fund brings together and expands the builders finance fund and custom build serviced plots loan fund as well, providing more flexibility for Government support in those emerging markets.

We have also created the British Business Bank for £782 million of facilitated lending and investment. That aims to unlock £10 billion of financing for smaller businesses over the next five years. The Chancellor also announced support for small and medium-sized house builders specifically through amending planning policy to promote the delivery of small schemes, some of which we have debated in the Committee in the past few weeks.

Other proposals announced in the autumn statement will halve the length of the planning guarantee for non-major developments from 26 weeks to 13 weeks, ensuring that those smaller builders are not slowed down by an unnecessarily bureaucratic and slow planning system. With those assurances on Government activity, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his new clause.

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is lovely to have the Minister of State back in his place. We all noticed that he effortlessly passed the hospital pass of the ending of secure tenancies to the Under-Secretary of State, which was a skilful dodge—the Under-Secretary had better watch his back in the Department.

I welcome the Minister’s detailing of the various measures that he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have set out to help small and medium-sized builders. I leave him with the thought that perhaps not enough has been done yet to end the concerns of many in that part of the house building market about the shortage of finance. I welcome the steps taken, but I encourage him to keep this matter in close view. In that spirit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 10

Planning obligations in respect of apprenticeships

‘In section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (planning obligations), after subsection (12) insert—

“(12A) The Secretary of State may by regulations require planning obligations to include a requirement to offer apprenticeships to local people on sites where 50 or more dwellings are to be constructed.”’—(Mr Gareth Thomas.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Thomas]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I am delighted to move the new clause and highlight the need for more construction apprenticeships. The new clause, which for want of a better phrase is a probing new clause, suggests that in proposals for sites where 50 or more dwellings are to be constructed, there should be a guarantee that local people can be offered apprenticeships. The Minister should take that seriously.

The Federation of Master Builders highlighted the shortage of skilled workers in the construction industry, which could scupper the vision for the new affordable homes that we all want. Brian Berry, the chief executive of the FMB, said last month:

“Unless we see a massive uplift in apprenticeship training in our industry, there won’t be enough pairs of hands to deliver more housing on this scale.”

I looked in detail to see where the shortages lay. According to the FMB’s state of trades survey:

“In Q2 of 2015 49% of FMB members were having difficulties recruiting bricklayers and 47% carpenters and joiners.”

The FMB also said:

“Another recent FMB poll of members found that two thirds had had to turn down work because of their inability to recruit the skilled labour they need.”

A significant number of its members saw that as a “major barrier” to their ability to build more homes in the next 12 months, and a third were worried looking three years ahead.

One worries that small and medium-sized house builders will suffer most from the shortage of skilled labour. I remind the Committee of my previous comments about the decline in the number of small and medium-sized house builders over the past 25 years or more. A shortage of labour is no doubt an issue for small and medium-sized house builders. We have the problem of access to finance on the one hand, and if we add to that the shortage of skilled labour, we risk seeing even greater concentration in the house building sector.

Just before he stepped down from Parliament earlier this year, the excellent Nick Raynsford, then the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, chaired a cross-party parliamentary inquiry into apprenticeships with the noble Lord Best. The inquiry drew attention to the 1 million 16 to 24-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training, as well as the fact that we will need an extra 182,000 construction workers by 2018. It also highlighted that just 7,280 people had completed a construction apprenticeship in 2013, and that even though there had been a rise in the number of apprenticeships in other areas, there continued to be a significant shortage in the construction industry.

Between 2008 and 2011, the Homes and Communities Agency had guidelines that required housing associations to initiate apprenticeships as they got money to build new homes, which helped to generate more than 4,000 apprenticeships in that three-year period. The guidelines were lifted in 2011, when, as the agency said in evidence to the cross-party inquiry, they were clearly beginning to make a significant difference. That is a disappointment.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors construction market survey says the skills shortage has reached its highest levels since the survey was launched 18 years ago. Do you see anything in the Bill or any policy that will help to address that?

[The Chair]

I do not, but Mr Gareth Thomas might.

[Mr Thomas]

Mr Gray, if you have not seen any evidence, and I certainly have not seen any evidence—

[The Chair]

I have not been looking for evidence. I take no view on the matter.

[Mr Thomas]

Very wise, Mr Gray; leave it to us and trust our judgment instead. I have not seen anything specific in the Bill that offers improvement regarding the worrying shortage of skilled construction workers. I tabled this probing new clause because it is worth raising the need for more apprenticeships, particularly in the construction sector.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Thomas]

I look forward, as ever, to the contribution from the hon. Member for South Norfolk.

[Mr Bacon]

The hon. Gentleman is, as usual, ineffably kind, but I wonder why he looks to the Bill for a solution to his problem. Were he to look at the website of the excellent Easton and Otley College in my constituency, he would see that with the opening of its modern, well equipped £3.75 million construction centres, it aims to lay the foundations for a more secure future by trebling the number of construction students. It does not have to be legislation that does it.

[Mr Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman is right in the sense that legislation is not the answer to everything. Although I am glad to give him the opportunity to praise a provider of apprenticeships in his constituency, I simply make the point, which I am sure he would not try to counter completely, that at the moment we do not have enough skilled workers in the construction industry in this country. All the fine words that we have exchanged over the past four weeks about how we might get more people into their own home are surely put at risk if we cannot find the people to build those homes in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

Actually, I think the hon. Gentleman does not go too far in breaking into the love-in. People should bear in mind that a lot of the building work we are getting done at the moment is thanks to some very positive work migration. That free movement of labour has been very useful to the construction industry over the past few years.

We want to make sure that the public sector plays a full part. I am proud to be a member of the Government that want to deliver 3 million apprentices in this Parliament, building on the 2 million in the previous Parliament, and we have changed Government procurement rules. The hon. Member for Harrow West talked about what could be done directly. We have changed Government procurement rules so that all relevant bids for central Government contracts worth £10 million or more and lasting more than 12 months must demonstrate a clear commitment to apprenticeships.

[Mr Thomas]

Might I ask the Minister, while there is a period of friendliness between us, to look at the guidelines that the HCA used to have, which encouraged housing associations to offer quality apprenticeships, and consider whether there might be scope for encouraging the HCA to bring them back?

[Brandon Lewis]

Worryingly, I am going to say yes. I would agree with the hon. Gentleman again. I am very happy to look at that. There is obviously a balance at the moment in working with housing associations and the HCA. We have made it clear that we want housing associations to be declassified by the Office for National Statistics, but the housing association sector is keen on the area in question, and I have been speaking to David Orr, the chief executive of the National Housing Federation, about the skills issue. We will be doing a piece of work on that, and I am happy to liaise directly with the housing associations as well as with the HCA.

More specifically on construction apprenticeships, we are supporting initiatives of the Construction Industry Training Board and those that flow from the work of the Construction Leadership Council. In addition, the CITB has developed a range of initiatives, working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions and the armed forces, through the resettlement service, and with local enterprise partnerships.

A legal requirement for all section 106 agreements on sites with 50 or more dwellings to include a requirement to offer apprenticeships to local people would not necessarily support apprenticeships. It could be detrimental. Experience has shown us that without effective dialogue such as the work we are doing with the housing associations and indeed with people doing apprenticeships, some of the objectives that have been set out, which I know have the best intentions—I take the hon. Gentleman’s comments absolutely—can have unintended consequences and result in apprentices being unable to complete their apprenticeships.

I will briefly explain that. It is important to remember that apprenticeships are real, proper jobs, with a structured training to prescribed standards, which require a significant time investment from the employee as much as the employer. The taking on of an apprentice must fit the employer’s work patterns and skill needs. In construction, where work happens from project to project, consideration must be given to the labour skills and general skills needs for each project, and what is therefore practical and capable of delivery.

For example, smaller projects, but even projects of more than 50 homes, may not be able fully to support apprenticeships, especially as an apprentice cannot transfer between trade frameworks. It is not the length of the project but the analysis of the length of the trade activity undertaken within the project that establishes the number of apprenticeships it can support.

Also, requirements to recruit from the local area can in some circumstances be unsustainable. To pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Bootle highlighting mobility, the construction industry workforce is one of our most mobile, and many contractors operate across the country. It may not be feasible for a company based in a different area of the country to support a locally-recruited apprentice once their element of the project is completed. I want to work directly with the sector on that issue.

I hope that those assurances and my explanation will lead the hon. Gentleman to accept our determination of the matter, and to withdraw the new clause.

[Mr Thomas]

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and his willingness to look at the issue of HCA guidance. A number of contractors and social landlords told the inquiry to which I referred that the framework had worked well, and I gently suggest that that might be another reason for looking at the matter again.

I welcome the Minister’s personal commitment to the area in question. As a last point, I would urge him to consider the point that he ended on—the quality of construction apprenticeships. I worry that, in the past, some apprenticeships on offer have not been of high quality, which might have been a factor in putting some people off going into the construction industry. However, given the Minister’s helpful remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 12

Tenants’ rights to new management in property sold under LSVT

“(1) This section applies to housing which—

(a) was previously owned by a local authority;

(b) was part of a large scale voluntary transfer falling within the definition of section 32(4AB) of the Housing Act 1985; and

(c) the disposal of which was subject to the consent of the Secretary of State under section 32 of the 1985 Act.

(2) Where the transfer took place more than five years before this section comes into operation the current owner of the transferred housing shall consult the current tenants on their satisfaction with the management of that property.

(3) Where the transfer took place less than five years after this section comes into operation the current owner of the transferred housing shall not more than every five years consult the current tenants on their satisfaction with the management of that property.

(4) If more than 50% of tenants responding to the consultation under subsections (2) or (3) are dissatisfied with the management of the property, the owner of the housing must carry out a competitive tender for the management of the property and report the outcome to the tenants.”—(Dr Blackman-Woods.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause is intended to ensure that tenants will be consulted about their satisfaction with management arrangements for their properties and tenancies where there has been a large-scale voluntary transfer. If, after five years, more than 50% of tenants are not happy with the arrangements, it provides for a competitive tendering exercise. This is largely a probing amendment to check whether the Government think it important to gauge tenant satisfaction with the LSVT arrangements, and to provide a mechanism to change them if tenants are not happy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jackson]

It is obviously being so cheerful that keeps the hon. Lady going.

I want to briefly add my comments to the debate. The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood has experience in the field and proceeded on the basis of a very reasoned and moderate argument, with which many Government Members agree. We were looking forward—still look forward— to hearing the Minister respond in a similar vein. It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for City of Durham—she was rather sparky today and I do not know why; perhaps it is end-of-term blues—has sought to—

[Mr Thomas]

Get a move on!

[Mr Bacon]

Pot, kettle, black.

--- Later in debate ---

[Teresa Pearce]

I thank the Minister for his response. When people are handling money that does not belong to them, it is important that it is ring-fenced and safeguarded. For example, solicitors have to keep a completely separate client account, which is audited, because it is not their money. That principle is important with letting agents as well. Nevertheless, I hear what the Minister says and look forward to what may happen in 2016. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 36

Restriction on permitted changes of use

Where the Secretary of State has exercised or exercises his powers conferred by sections 59, 60, 61, 74 or 333(7) of the Town and Country Planning 1990 Act to make an Order in respect of change of use from office buildings (currently Class B1(a) of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended)) to use as dwelling-houses, the Order shall have no effect in respect of any building situated within Greater London as provided in the London Government Act 1963.”—(Mr Gareth Thomas.)

This new clause would exclude from the permitted changes of use provided in a Permitted Development Order made, or to be made, by the Secretary of State changes of use from offices to housing in London. Such changes would require planning permission from the local authority.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Thomas]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would require proposals to change offices in London into homes to go through a planning application process. Greater London has been particularly badly affected by the introduction of permitted development rights for those wanting to convert office accommodation into residential dwellings without seeking planning permission. There is a significant difference between office and residential values, which, combined with the high demand for housing and the scarcity of land, has created big incentives for landlords to convert, without planning permission, viable and occupied offices into homes. London Councils estimates that between May 2013 and April this year, at least 100,000 square feet of office floor space was lost. It argues that one consequence of that had been to drive up office rents in some parts of London, increasing costs for businesses; hon. Members know about all the implications of that.

London Councils has expressed concerns about the impact of the provisions on affordable housing in such developments. Because developers do not have to go through section 106 agreements when offices are converted into flats, there is no requirement to provide any affordable housing. London Councils estimates that some 16,000 new dwellings have avoided the full planning process and, as a result, many affordable homes that could have been built, had a planning application been required, have not been built. The LGA and London Councils have argued for change, and they support the intent of the new clause.

[Chris Philp]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the permitted development rights legislation has enabled the creation of thousands of new units in London, which have all been very affordable? What would he say to the thousands of Londoners who have been able to buy relatively cheap flats using that excellent provision?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Thomas]

On occasion, conversion from office accommodation into residential accommodation may well be justified. My point is simply that that should go through a proper planning application process, partly because of the impact on affordable housing and partly because it is necessary to consider the impact on jobs and the business community of the loss of office space. However, I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman’s broader point that there is a huge shortage of housing, and on occasion it may well be entirely appropriate to convert offices into flats.

I will give the Committee some examples of where the ability to convert without planning permission has had an adverse impact on the business community. In Barnet, more than 100 small businesses were given as little as four to six weeks’ notice to leave the premises they were in, Premier House, because the developers wanted to turn it into 112 flats. Another example, which the hon. Member for Wimbledon may be aware of, involved Merton Council—

[Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Thomas]

I will just give the hon. Member for Wimbledon this example, because he may also want to intervene, and I will happily take the hon. Lady’s intervention when I have done so. On Willow Lane industrial estate, some 40 small businesses with 150 employees were told to search for new premises, because there was a desire to convert the premises that they occupied into flatted accommodation.

[Stephen Hammond]

The industrial estate that the hon. Gentleman cites is not in my constituency; it is in that of his colleague the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). As I pointed out earlier, a derelict office building has been brought into use to create 70 new flats for tenants who have come, I think, from the borough of Tower Hamlets. Before he prays too much against it, I think we need to be careful, because it is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South has pointed out, creating real opportunities for low-cost housing.

[Mr Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman’s example of a derelict office block being brought into use as housing is absolutely encouraging. There is nothing to say that had it gone through the planning application process, those flats or other forms of accommodation could not have been provided. The planning application process allows the local community to think about the impact on jobs and the business community of particular applications. I apologise to the hon. Member for South Ribble; I am happy to give way to her.

[Seema Kennedy]

The hon. Gentleman raised a point about a notice period of as little as four weeks. That was done on the basis of a lease that had been agreed between two commercial parties. Surely, he is not suggesting that we legislate to interfere in the privity of contract.

[Mr Thomas]

Absolutely not. I am simply saying that when there is a proposal to convert a big office block into residential accommodation, it is sensible to consider the full impact on the local community, both the benefit of the conversion to housing and the effect on jobs and businesses. The Opposition are pro-business, particularly pro-small business, and I am surprised that the Government want to damage the business communities in the boroughs in my examples.

In that spirit, I gently suggest to Government Members that the new clause would not stop conversions from office use to residential accommodation, but it would allow proper discussions to take place about the benefits and the balance between business and housing need.

[Chris Philp]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that article 4 directions can address the hon. Gentleman’s concern about that balance? Local authorities can exclude town centre areas, for example, from the provisions, as many London boroughs have. Islington, Richmond and I think Southwark and Croydon, actually, have all done that.

[Mr Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about the degree to which the exemption process is working. London Councils has pointed out many other examples of where local authorities have sought exemptions, such as those he describes, but have been rejected.

[Chris Philp]

Typically where they have been unreasonable by requesting whole-borough exemptions, which have been quite rightly turned down.

[Mr Thomas]

With respect, I do not think that is accurate. The hon. Gentleman is perhaps rushing to read the Whip’s script a bit too quickly.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Is it not another curious inconsistency in the Government’s approach that they are happy to add to the bureaucratic burden of local authorities by making them go through a tortuous article 4 direction application, which may or may not be allowed, to carry out the most basic of planning functions?

[Mr Thomas]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The hon. Member for Croydon South may want to seek the help of the hon. Member for Wimbledon in looking in a little more detail at the example of the Willow Lane trading estate and the conversion of business accommodation into flats there. According to the Local Government Association, Merton Council had attempted without success to get the industrial estate exempt from the Government’s rules.

I introduce this new clause in the spirit of concern about the impact on the business community, while still wanting office accommodation to be converted into housing, where appropriate, as long as there is a full discussion involving the local community.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I rise to support my hon. Friend’s new clause and to ask the Minister a very straightforward question. In October, he said that the changes in the policy on permitted development of office blocks from office to residential were to be made permanent. Will he clarify whether there has been any secondary legislation to bring that about?

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

The office-to-residential policy has been successful in achieving what it was intended to do. It has helped to simplify the planning process to encourage more development on brownfield land and to deliver additional new homes, including in London, where housing need is particularly acute. I should also make it clear that it has helped to reduce the pressure to build on brownfield land. The data show that we have seen a 65% increase in the number of new homes created through change of use. Furthermore, since April 2014, nearly 4,000 permissions have been granted under permitted development rights for office-to-residential conversion, showing that it is delivering much-needed homes for Londoners.

To continue to boost the supply of housing, we have announced that we will make the permitted development right permanent. However, we also understand the need to protect the vitality of key economic areas. The current exemption areas, including the City of London and the central activity zone, will be extended until 30 May 2019 to allow time for those authorities to consider whether it is necessary to make an article 4 direction to remove the right. As I set out in my response to new clauses 19 and 20 on Tuesday, the article 4 process is straightforward. Local authorities, including a number of London boroughs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South outlined, have already used that process. I think the new clause is unnecessary, and I invite the hon. Member for Harrow West to withdraw it.

[Mr Thomas]

Even though the Minister has gone back to his Mr Grumpy mood, with some reluctance I have decided not to seek to divide the Committee on this new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 37

Removal of limit on debt where an authority has a housing revenue account

The Localism Act 2011 is amended as follows.

Leave out section 171 (Limits on indebtedness).”—(Mr Gareth Thomas.)

This new Clause would remove the Secretary of State’s power to make determinations about the housing debt that may be held by a local housing authority that keeps a Housing Revenue Account.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Thomas]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This new clause seeks to remove the limit on debt where an authority has a housing revenue account. I hope that it will attract the support of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, who rightly reminded the Committee of the 1.4 million households on council waiting lists and the need for urgent action to tackle the scale of housing need those waiting lists represent. Crucially, we need to do more to build homes that those on the waiting lists can afford. Rents have rocketed because of the shortage of supply, as we have discussed, which is another factor necessitating urgent action. Hon. Members will be more than well aware of the particularly acute shortage of housing in London, where, even according to the Mayor of London’s planning documents, we are building only half of the housing we need.

In April 2012, the Government gave councils that own their own housing full control over their stock for the first time, although it was planned under the previous Labour Government. That meant that councils have the right to keep and manage all their rental income. In exchange for that right, councils in London agreed to take on billions of pounds of the nation’s housing debt. One of the benefits of giving councils full control of their own housing stock is that councils can borrow money against their assets to invest in new housing. However, as part of the agreement, the Government sadly imposed a cap on such borrowing. That cap was over and above the Treasury’s normal prudential borrowing rules that apply to most local authority borrowing. That artificial cap effectively halved the potential cash available for councils in London to invest in new homes.

London Councils has estimated that aligning the housing borrowing cap with the Treasury’s prudential borrowing rules—that is the purpose of my new clause—could generate an additional £3.2 billion of sustainable borrowing, which could potentially pay for an additional 54,000 extra affordable homes for Londoners over and above those already planned.

I understand that the reason—or at least the reason that was given in public—for the introduction of that cap was the worry that even prudential borrowing by local authorities might have an impact on the national deficit. But work by Capital Economics was drawn to the attention of the Lyons review, which made clear, from a series of conversations with City interviewers, that the amount of money that is likely to be borrowed would not be sufficient for the markets to worry, irrespective of any changes in accounting methods.

I understand that, on occasion, some flexibility around the cap has been on offer to local authorities. I hope the Minister, if he does not feel that he can support new clause 37 in its entirety, might be willing to look at the possibility of giving further flexibility to local authorities that have clear, sensible and thought-through plans to build additional homes so they can use their borrowing powers.

It is worth pointing out that a number of councils are seeking to get around the existing borrowing cap by setting up additional partnerships with developers and housing companies that are often wholly run by the local authority. Sheffield Housing Company, which will build some 2,300 homes over the next 15 years, is a particularly interesting example. It has had to go down the housing company route in order to get access to finance from the market. Having to go down such a bureaucratic route by setting up a company would not be necessary if there was no borrowing cap, or indeed, if the Ministers showed more flexibility.

[Mr Bacon]

I do not quite understand what the hon. Gentleman’s problem is with having to set up a company. When I worked in property banking as a young man, I would run five or six annual general meetings for different special purpose vehicle companies before breakfast on one day—literally.

[Mr Thomas]

With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, it is a long time since he was a young man, and things have changed somewhat since then. Despite that gentle riposte, I bring the Committee’s attention back to what I hope will be a positive reply from the Minister.

[Brandon Lewis]

I have always felt that my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk is, at the very least, young at heart.

The indebtedness limits were put in place as part of the self-financing settlement with local authorities back in 2012. The financial freedoms provided by the settlement were widely welcomed by local government. However, as part of that, it was necessary to place a limit on the amount of housing debt that can be held, given the potential impact on the public sector borrowing requirement.

The limits do not mean there is no flexibility for local authorities to borrow. Indeed, at the time of self-financing, there was borrowing headroom of about £2.8 billion. That figure has increased as local authorities have reduced their debt levels. At the end of 2014-15, the headroom had increased to almost £3.4 billion. We were aware that the headroom was not evenly spread and that some councils needed additional borrowing headroom to build more homes, which is why we made available £221 million of extra borrowing headroom to 36 councils in England, to support thousands of new affordable homes in 2015-16 and 2016-17.

Much as I support the hon. Member for Harrow West on seeing more homes built, I cannot agree to the unrestricted increase of housing debt that would result from the amendment, given the implications for the public sector borrowing requirement, so I urge him to withdraw his new clause.

[Mr Thomas]

The Minister worries unnecessarily, given the comments put to us in the Lyons review. Nevertheless, I do not intend at this point to seek a Division, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 38

Extension of Help to Buy schemes to tenants receiving support for the voluntary right to buy

‘(1) This section applies to a tenant purchasing a dwelling-house in respect of which the Secretary of State makes a grant to a private registered provider in respect of a right to buy discount provided at section 56.

(2) The tenant shall be entitled to the same support provided under a help to buy scheme supported or underwritten by the Government as a tenant exercising right to buy of a dwelling- house from a local authority.”—(Mr Gareth Thomas.)

This new clause would extend the Government’s Help to Buy schemes to those exercising the right to buy under the voluntary scheme supported by Government grants, to put housing association purchasers in the same position as those buying their homes under right to buy from local authorities.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Thomas]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I tabled the new clause in a spirit of wanting to finally flush the Minister out on why he was so opposed to the proposal from the Mayor of London and, indeed, the noble Lord Kerslake about the potential for equity loans—an extension of the Government’s Help to Buy scheme—to help pay for the sale of council homes.

It is worth referencing the huge waiting lists that many councils have and the large number of people in temporary accommodation and bed and breakfasts, which represents a huge cost for council tax payers. It is also worth mentioning that last year, for every 11 council homes sold off, just one new property was built.

The proposal from the Mayor of London and the noble Lord Kerslake might be a potential solution that obviates the need to sell off council housing in particular areas—notably in central London, where it will be very difficult to replace—while allowing the Government to move forward with their agenda of offering housing association tenants the right to buy their flat. If the only motivation for including the forced sale of council homes is to pay for the cost of the discounts that housing association tenants will get through the right to buy, the option of extending the Government’s own Help to Buy scheme to housing association tenants might provide a genuinely new route to avoid the sale of council homes, and, as a result, exacerbate the housing crisis in London. In that spirit, I move this new clause.

[Brandon Lewis]

I appreciate the intent behind the new clause, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s conversion and support for our home ownership policies. However, I can assure him that it is completely unnecessary to put his new clause in the Bill, despite Labour building only one home for every 170 that were sold under right to buy. Our new revitalised right-to-buy scheme is delivering one for one, and is reaching two for one in London. We want to support people who work hard and save up for the deposit to buy their own home. That is why there is nothing to prevent the Help to Buy individual savings account being used with other Government schemes, helping people to achieve their home ownership aspirations. I encourage people to look at that, including the voluntary right to buy.

The Help to Buy equity loan scheme can only be used for new build properties, so would not apply to either local authority or housing association tenants looking to buy their own home. I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw his new clause.

[Mr Thomas]

I am a bit disappointed that the Minister did not say he had at least discussed with the Treasury the possibility of extending the scheme to cover housing association tenants. I can see no reason why not. Nevertheless, I am not at this point of a mind to press the new clause to a Division, but perhaps it is a good time to commend you, Mr Gray, for your chairmanship.

[The Chair]

Order. That will come later. At the moment we are discussing new clause 38.

[Mr Thomas]

I will not press it to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Schedule 2

Default powers exercisable by Mayor of London or combined authority: Schedule to be inserted in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

“SCHEDULE A1

Section 27A

Default powers exercisable by Mayor of London or combined authority

Default powers exercisable by Mayor of London

1 If the Secretary of State—

(a) thinks that a London borough council, in their capacity as local planning authority, are failing or omitting to do anything it is necessary for them to do in connection with the preparation, revision or adoption of a development plan document, and

(b) invites the Mayor of London to prepare or revise the document,

the Mayor of London may prepare or revise (as the case may be) the development plan document.

2 (1) This paragraph applies where a development plan document is prepared or revised by the Mayor of London under paragraph 1.

(2) The Mayor of London must hold an independent examination.

(3) The Mayor of London—

(a) must publish the recommendations and reasons of the person appointed to hold the examination, and

(b) may also give directions to the council in relation to publication of those recommendations and reasons.

(4) The Mayor of London may—

(a) approve the document, or approve it subject to specified modifications, as a local development document, or

(b) direct the council to consider adopting the document by resolution of the council as a local development document.

3 (1) Subsections (4) to (7C) of section 20 apply to an examination held under paragraph 2(2)—

(a) with the reference to the local planning authority in subsection (7C) of that section being read as a reference to the Mayor of London, and

(b) with the omission of subsections (5)(c), (7)(b)(ii) and (7B)(b).

(2) The Mayor of London must give reasons for anything he does in pursuance of paragraph 1 or 2(4).

(3) The council must reimburse the Mayor of London—

(a) for any expenditure that the Mayor incurs in connection with anything which is done by him under paragraph 1 and which the council failed or omitted to do as mentioned in that paragraph;

(b) for any expenditure that the Mayor incurs in connection with anything which is done by him under paragraph 2(2).

Default powers exercisable by combined authority

4 In this Schedule—

“combined authority” means a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;

“constituent planning authority”, in relation to a combined authority, means—

(a) a county council, metropolitan district council or non-metropolitan district council which is the local planning authority for an area within the area of the combined authority, or

(b) a joint committee established under section 29 whose area is within, or the same as, the area of the combined authority.

5 If the Secretary of State—

(a) thinks that a constituent planning authority are failing or omitting to do anything it is necessary for them to do in connection with the preparation, revision or adoption of a development plan document, and

(b) invites the combined authority to prepare or revise the document,

the combined authority may prepare or revise (as the case may be) the development plan document

6 (1) This paragraph applies where a development plan document is prepared or revised by a combined authority under paragraph 5.

(2) The combined authority must hold an independent examination.

(3) The combined authority—

(a) must publish the recommendations and reasons of the person appointed to hold the examination, and

(b) may also give directions to the constituent planning authority in relation to publication of those recommendations and reasons.

(4) The combined authority may—

(a) approve the document, or approve it subject to specified modifications, as a local development document, or

(b) direct the constituent planning authority to consider adopting the document by resolution of the authority as a local development document.

7 (1) Subsections (4) to (7C) of section 20 apply to an examination held under paragraph 6(2)—

(a) with the reference to the local planning authority in subsection (7C) of that section being read as a reference to the combined authority, and

(b) with the omission of subsections (5)(c), (7)(b)(ii) and (7B)(b).

(2) The combined authority must give reasons for anything they do in pursuance of paragraph 5 or 6(4).

(3) The constituent planning authority must reimburse the combined authority—

(a) for any expenditure that the combined authority incur in connection with anything which is done by them under paragraph 5 and which the constituent planning authority failed or omitted to do as mentioned in that paragraph;

(b) for any expenditure that the combined authority incur in connection with anything which is done by them under paragraph 6(2).

Intervention by Secretary of State

8 (1) This paragraph applies to a development plan document that has been prepared or revised—

(a) under paragraph 1 by the Mayor of London, or

(b) under paragraph 5 by a combined authority.

(2) If the Secretary of State thinks that a development plan document to which this paragraph applies is unsatisfactory—

(a) he may at any time before the document is adopted under section 23, or approved under paragraph 2(4)(a) or 6(4)(a), direct the Mayor of London or the combined authority to modify the document in accordance with the direction;

(b) if he gives such a direction he must state his reasons for doing so.

(3) Where a direction is given under sub-paragraph (2)—

(a) the Mayor of London or the combined authority must comply with the direction;

(b) the document must not be adopted or approved unless the Secretary of State gives notice that the direction has been complied with.

(4) Sub-paragraph (3) does not apply if or to the extent that the direction under sub-paragraph (2) is withdrawn by the Secretary of State.

(5) At any time before a development plan document to which this paragraph applies is adopted under section 23, or approved under paragraph 2(4)(a) or 6(4)(a), the Secretary of State may direct that the document (or any part of it) is submitted to him for his approval.

(6) In relation to a document or part of a document submitted to him under sub-paragraph (5) the Secretary of State—

(a) may approve the document or part;

(b) may approve it subject to specified modifications;

(c) may reject it.

The Secretary of State must give reasons for his decision under this sub-paragraph.

(7) The Secretary of State may at any time—

(a) after a development plan document to which this paragraph applies has been submitted for independent examination, but

(b) before it is adopted under section 23 or approved under paragraph 2(4)(a) or 6(4)(a),

direct the Mayor of London or the combined authority to withdraw the document.

9 (1) This paragraph applies if the Secretary of State gives a direction under paragraph 8(5).

(2) No steps are to be taken in connection with the adoption or approval of the document until the Secretary of State gives his decision, or withdraws the direction.

(3) If the direction is given, and not withdrawn, before the document has been submitted for independent examination, the Secretary of State must hold an independent examination.

(4) If the direction—

(a) is given after the document has been submitted for independent examination but before the person appointed to carry out the examination has made his recommendations, and

(b) is not withdrawn before those recommendations are made,

the person must make his recommendations to the Secretary of State.

(5) The document has no effect unless the document or (as the case may be) the relevant part of it has been approved by the Secretary of State, or the direction is withdrawn.

The “relevant part” is the part of the document that—

(a) is covered by a direction under paragraph 8(5) which refers to only part of the document, or

(b) continues to be covered by a direction under paragraph 8(5) following the partial withdrawal of the direction.

(6) The Secretary of State must publish the recommendations made to him by virtue of sub-paragraph (3) or (4) and the reasons of the person making the recommendations.

(7) In considering a document or part of a document submitted under paragraph 8(5) the Secretary of State may take account of any matter which he thinks is relevant.

(8) It is immaterial whether any such matter was taken account of by the Mayor of London or the combined authority.

10 Subsections (4) to (7C) of section 20 apply to an examination held under paragraph 9(3)—

(a) with the reference to the local planning authority in subsection (7C) of that section being read as a reference to the Secretary of State, and

(b) with the omission of subsections (5)(c), (7)(b)(ii) and (7B)(b).

11 In the exercise of any function under paragraph 8 or 9 the Secretary of State must have regard to the local development scheme.

12 The Mayor of London or the combined authority must reimburse the Secretary of State for any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under paragraph 8 or 9 that is specified in a notice given by him to the Mayor or the authority.

Temporary direction pending possible use of intervention powers

13 (1) If the Secretary of State is considering whether to give a direction to the Mayor of London or a combined authority under paragraph 8 in relation to a development plan document, he may direct the Mayor or the authority not to take any step in connection with the adoption or approval of the document—

(a) until the time (if any) specified in the direction, or

(b) until the direction is withdrawn.

(2) A document to which a direction under this paragraph relates has no effect while the direction is in force.

(3) A direction given under this paragraph in relation to a document ceases to have effect if a direction is given under paragraph 8 in relation to that document.”” —(Mr Marcus Jones.)

This new Schedule inserts a new Schedule A1 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which makes detailed provision for the intervention in local plan-making by the Mayor of London or a combined authority described in NC17.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 3

“Right to enter and survey land: consequential amendments

Defence Act 1842 (5&6 Vict c. 94)

1 In section 16 of the Defence Act 1842, at the end insert—

“(3) A person may not be authorised under subsection (1) to enter and survey or value land in England and Wales in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”

Coast Protection Act 1949 (12 & 13 Geo 6 c. 74)

2 In section 25 of the Coast Protection Act 1949, after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) A person may not be authorised under subsection (1) to enter and survey or value land in England and Wales in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”

National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (12, 13 & 14 Geo 6 c. 97)

3 (1) Section 108 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)(a), after “therein” insert “in relation to land in Scotland”.

(3) After subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) A person may not be authorised under subsection (1) to enter and survey or value land in England and Wales in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”

Land Powers (Defence) Act 1958 (6 & 7 Eliz 2 c. 30)

4 In section 21 of the Land Powers (Defence) Act 1958, after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) A person may not be authorised under subsection (1) to enter and survey or value land in England and Wales in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”

Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (8 & 9 Eliz 2 c. 62)

5 In section 26 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) A person may not be authorised under subsection (1) to enter and survey or value land in England and Wales in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”

Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (c. 56)

6 In section 11(3) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 for “surveying and taking levels” substitute “surveying, valuing or taking levels”.

Criminal Justice Act 1972 (c. 71)

7 In the Criminal Justice Act 1972 omit section 60.

Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 (c. 70)

8 In Schedule 4 to the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 omit paragraph 14(1).

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (c. 57)

9 In the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 omit section 15.

Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 (c. 46)

10 In section 43 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, for subsection (1) substitute—

“(1) Any person authorised under this section may at any reasonable time enter any land in Scotland for the purpose of surveying it, or estimating its value, in connection with any proposal to acquire that or any other land under this Act or in connection with any claim for compensation under this Act in respect of any such acquisition.

(1A) Any person authorised under this section may at any reasonable time enter any land in England and Wales or Scotland for the purpose of surveying it, or estimating its value, in connection with any claim for compensation under this Act for any damage to that or any other land.

(1B) See section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015 for a power to enter and survey or value land in England and Wales in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land.”

Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (c. 65)

11 (1) Section 167 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 is amended as follows.

(2) In the heading, after “land” insert “in Scotland”.

(3) In subsection (1)—

(a) in paragraph (a) after “any land” insert “in Scotland”;

(b) in paragraph (b) after “other land” insert “in Scotland”.

(4) In subsection (7)—

(a) for the words before paragraph (a) substitute “Where it is proposed to search or bore in pursuance of this section in a road within the meaning of Part 4 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991—”;

(b) in paragraph (a) omit “55 or”;

(c) in paragraph (b) omit “69 or”;

(d) in paragraph (c) omit “82 or”;

(e) for the words after paragraph (c) substitute “have effect in relation to the searching or boring as if they were road works within the meaning of Part 4 of that Act.”

(5) In subsection (9)—

(a) for “Upper Tribunal” substitute “Lands Tribunal for Scotland”;

(b) for the words from “section 4” to “costs)” substitute “sections 9(2) to (5) and 11 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 (procedure and expenses)”.

(6) Omit subsection (13).

Highways Act 1980 (c. 66)

12 In section 289 of the Highways Act 1980, after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) A person may not be authorised under subsection (1) to enter and survey or value land in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”

New Towns Act 1981 (c. 64)

13 In section 73(1) of the New Towns Act 1981 omit paragraph (b) (and the “or” before it).

Civil Aviation Act 1982 (c. 16)

14 (1) Section 50 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), for paragraph (e) substitute—

“(e) in any case not falling within paragraphs (a) to (d) above where the Secretary of State has made an order under or in pursuance of this Part of this Act—

(i) authorising the compulsory purchase of land,

(ii) providing for the creation in favour of a particular person of a right in or in relation to land, or

(iii) declaring that an area of land shall be subject to control by directions.

(f) in any case not falling within paragraphs (a) to (d) above where the Secretary of State is considering making an order under or in pursuance of this Part of this Act—

(i) authorising the compulsory purchase of land in Scotland or Northern Ireland,

(ii) providing for the creation in favour of a particular person of a right in or in relation to land in Scotland or Northern Ireland, or

(iii) declaring that an area of land in England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland shall be subject to control by directions.”

(3) In subsection (3)(e), after “(1)(e)” insert “or (f)”.

(4) In subsection (4)(b), after “(1)(e)” insert “or (f)”.

(5) In subsection (7)(c), after “(1)(e)” insert “or (f)”.

Industrial Development Act 1982 (c. 52)

15 In section 14 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 omit subsection (6).

Housing Act 1985 (c. 68)

16 In section 54 of the Housing Act 1985, after subsection (2) insert—

“(3) A person may not be authorised by a local housing authority under subsection (1)(a) to enter and survey or value land in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”

Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (c. 42)

17 In section 97 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) A person may not be authorised by a local housing authority under subsection (1)(a) to enter and survey or value land in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”

Electricity Act 1989 (c. 29)

18 In Schedule 4 to the Electricity Act 1989, in paragraph 10, after sub-paragraph (1) insert—

“(1A) A person may not be authorised under sub-paragraph (1) to enter and survey or value land in England and Wales in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8)

19 In section 324 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 omit subsection (6).

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (c. 9)

20 In section 88 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 omit subsection (5).

Land Drainage Act 1991 (c. 59)

21 In section 64 of the Land Drainage Act 1991, after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) A person may not be authorised under subsection (1)(a) or (b) to enter and survey or value land in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”

Water Industry Act 1991 (c. 56)

22 (1) Section 169 of the Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2) omit paragraph (a) (and the “or” at the end of it).

(3) In subsection (4), for the words before paragraph (a) substitute “The powers conferred by this section or section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015 shall not be exercised on behalf of a water undertaker in any case for purposes connected with the determination of—”.

Water Resources Act 1991 (c. 57)

23 (1) Section 171 of the Water Resources Act 1991 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2) omit paragraph (a) (and the “or” at the end of it).

(3) In subsection (4), for the words before paragraph (a) substitute “The powers conferred by this section or section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015 shall not be exercised on behalf of the Agency or the NRBW in any case for purposes connected with the determination of—”.

Environment Act 1995 (c. 25)

24 (1) Schedule 8 to the Environment Act 1995 is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 1(2) omit paragraph (b).

(3) In paragraph 2(3)—

(a) at the end of paragraph (a) insert “and”;

(b) omit paragraph (c) (and the “and” before it).

Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29)

25 In the Greater London Authority Act 1999 omit section 333ZD.

Postal Services Act 2000 (c. 26)

26 In Schedule 6 to the Postal Services Act 2000, in paragraph 2, after sub-paragraph (2) insert—

“(2A) A person may not be authorised under sub-paragraph (1) to enter and survey or value land in England and Wales in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”

Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (c. 17)

27 In the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 omit sections 17 and 18.

Localism Act 2011 (c. 20)

28 In the Localism Act 2011 omit section 210. —(Mr Marcus Jones.)

See Member’s explanatory statement for NC18.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 4

“Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life

Law of Property Act 1925 (c.20)

1 (1) Section 52 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (conveyances to be by deed, unless excepted by subsection (2) of that section) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2), after paragraph (db) insert—

“(dc) secure tenancies of dwellings in England granted on or after the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) to the Housing and Planning Act 2015 comes fully into force, other than old-style secure tenancies;”.

(3) In subsection (3)—

(a) in the definition of “flexible tenancy”, for “107A” substitute “115B”;

(b) at the appropriate place insert—

““secure tenancy” has the meaning given by section 79 of the Housing Act 1985 and “old style-secure tenancy” has the meaning given by section 115C of that Act;”.

Housing Act 1985 (c. 68)

2 The Housing Act 1985 is amended as follows.

3 For the italic heading before section 79 substitute—

“Secure tenancies”

4 After section 81 insert—

“Grant of new secure tenancies in England

81A New English secure tenancies to be between 2 and 5 years in general

‘(1) A person may grant a secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in England only if it is a tenancy for a fixed term that is—

(a) at least 2 years, and

(b) no more than 5 years.

(2) If a person purports to grant a secure tenancy in breach of subsection (1), it takes effect as a tenancy for a fixed term of 5 years.

(3) This section does not apply to the grant of an old-style secure tenancy (as to which, see section 81B).

81B Cases where old-style English secure tenancies may be granted

‘(1) A person may grant an old style-secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in England only—

(a) in circumstances specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State, or

(b) in accordance with subsection (2).

(2) A local housing authority that grants a secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in England must grant an old-style secure tenancy if—

(a) the tenancy is offered as a replacement for an old-style secure tenancy of some other dwelling-house, and

(b) the tenant has not made an application to move.

(3) Other provisions of this Part set out the consequences of a tenancy being an old-style secure tenancy.

(4) Regulations under subsection (1) may include transitional or saving provision.

(5) Regulations under subsection (1) are to be made by statutory instrument.

(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

81C Duty to offer new secure tenancy in limited circumstances

‘(1) This section applies where a change in circumstances means that a tenancy that is not a secure tenancy would become a secure tenancy but for the exception in paragraph 1ZA of Schedule 1.

(2) The landlord must, within the period of 28 days, make the tenant a written offer of a secure tenancy in return for the tenant surrendering the original tenancy.

(3) If the tenant accepts in writing within the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the tenant receives the offer, the landlord must grant the secure tenancy on the tenant surrendering the original tenancy.

81D Review of decisions about length of secure tenancies in England

‘(1) A person who is offered a secure tenancy of a dwelling- house in England (under section 81C or otherwise) may request a review under this section, unless the tenancy on offer is an old-style secure tenancy.

(2) The sole purpose of a review under this section is to consider whether the length of the tenancy is in accordance with any policy that the prospective landlord has about the length of secure tenancies it grants.

(3) The request must be made before the end of—

(a) the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the person making the request first receives the offer, or

(b) such longer period as the prospective landlord may allow in writing.

(4) On receiving the request the prospective landlord must carry out the review.

(5) On completing the review the prospective landlord must —

(a) notify the tenant in writing of the outcome,

(b) revise its offer or confirm its original decision about the length of the tenancy, and

(c) if it decides to confirm its original decision, give reasons.

(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the procedure to be followed in connection with a review under this section.

(7) The regulations may, in particular—

(a) require the review to be carried out by a person of appropriate seniority who was not involved in the original decision;

(b) make provision as to the circumstances in which the person who requested the review is entitled to an oral hearing, and whether and by whom that person may be represented.

(8) Regulations under this section may include transitional or saving provision.

(9) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument which is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”

5 In section 82 (security of tenure), in subsection (3), for the words from “section 86” to the end substitute “section 86 or 86D shall apply”.

6 (1) Section 82A (demoted tenancy) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (4) insert—

“(4A) The court may not make a demotion order in relation to a secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in England if—

(a) the landlord is a local housing authority or housing action trust, and

(b) the term has less than 1 year and 9 months left to run

(4B) But subsection (4A) does not apply to a tenancy to which an exception in section 86A(2) or (3) applies.”

(3) In subsection (5), for paragraph (b) substitute—

“(b) the period or term of the tenancy (but see subsection (6));”.

(4) For subsection (6) substitute—

“(6) Subsection (5)(b) does not apply if—

(a) the secure tenancy was for a fixed term and was an old-style secure tenancy or a flexible tenancy, or

(b) the secure tenancy was for a fixed term and was a tenancy of a dwelling-house in Wales,

and in such a case the demoted tenancy is a weekly periodic tenancy.”

7 After section 82 insert—

“Orders for possession and expiry of term etc”

8 In section 83 (proceedings for possession or termination: general notice requirements), in subsection (A1), for paragraph (b) substitute—

“(b) proceedings for possession of a dwelling-house under section 86E (recovery of possession on expiry of certain English secure tenancies).”

9 In section 84 (grounds and orders for possession), in subsection (1), for “section 107D (recovery of possession on expiry of flexible tenancy)” substitute “section 86E (recovery of possession on expiry of certain English secure tenancies)”.

10 (1) Section 86 (periodic tenancy arising on termination of fixed term) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), after “secure tenancy” insert “to which this section applies”.

(3) After subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) This section applies to a secure tenancy of a dwelling- house in Wales.

(1B) This section also applies to a secure tenancy of a dwelling- house in England that is—

(a) an old-style secure tenancy, or

(b) a flexible tenancy the term of which ends within the period of 9 months beginning with the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) to the Housing and Planning Act 2015 comes fully into force,

unless it is a tenancy excluded by subsection (1C).”

(4) In subsection (2), for “this section” substitute “subsection (1)”.

11 After section 86 insert—

“English secure tenancies: review, renewal and possession

86A English tenancies: review to determine what to do at end of fixed term

‘(1) The landlord under a fixed term secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in England must carry out a review to decide what to do at the end of the term, unless one of the following exceptions applies.

(2) Exception 1 is where the tenancy is an old-style secure tenancy.

(3) Exception 2 is where the tenancy is a flexible tenancy the term of which ends within the period of 9 months beginning with the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) to the Housing and Planning Act 2015 comes fully into force.

(4) A review under this section must be carried out while the term has 6 to 9 months left to run.

(5) On a review under this section the landlord must decide which of the following options to take.

[The Chair]

The final question I must put to the Committee, after what has been a long and exciting deliberation of the Bill, is that I do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.