Housing and Planning Bill (Seventeenth sitting)
Debate between Helen Hayes and Teresa Pearce
Teresa Pearce
That is not the case in my constituency, I assure him; that is very rare.
I believe that longer tenancies are a very good idea. It is interesting that in the heated debate we had this morning, tenancies of two to five years were meant to be the right thing for social tenants, but for private rented tenants, there is resistance to it. However, given that the Minister is going to write to me regarding the particular issue I am concerned about, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 24
Local Authorities and Development Control Services
“(1) A local planning authority may set a charging regime in relation to their development control services to allow for the cost of providing the development control service to be recouped.
(2) Such a charging regime will be subject to statutory consultation.”—(Helen Hayes.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Teresa Pearce
Both new clauses in this group relate to standards in the private rented sector.
New clause 25 would place a duty on landlords to ensure that their properties are fit for habitation when let and remain fit during the course of a tenancy. The new clause is largely about probing the Minister to see whether he is open to putting that duty into legislation and follows on from the private Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), which had a similar aim but which was talked out by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies)—a fate that befalls some of the worthiest private Members’ Bills, including my own.
Before moving on to the detail of new clause 25, I note that the majority of landlords let property that is and remains of a decent standard. Many good landlords go out of their way to ensure that even the slightest safety hazard is sorted and that any repairs are attended to, so it is even more distressing when we see reports of homes that are frankly unfit for human habitation being let, often at high prices.
Parliament has for more than 100 years considered and legislated for standards in the private rented sector. The Housing of the Working Classes Act 1885 and, 100 years later, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 placed obligations on landlords regarding safety in their properties. Indeed, the 1985 Act placed a statutory duty on landlords covering issues such as damp, mould and infestation, yet that duty applies only to those fulfilling a rent criterion, and that criterion has not been changed since 1957, so the duty now applies only to properties where the annual rent is less than £80. The new clause would remove those limits to allow the 1985 Act to fulfil the intention and place a duty on landlords to provide a safe, secure environment.
I am sure that all Members in their casework receive letters from constituents living in poor conditions—indeed, it is one of the biggest issues in my constituency. My office phone rings every day with people calling about mould and infestation in their property, the impact that has on their health and the inaction of some landlords in rectifying the situation. It is also a consumer issue, because where else in the modern day could one buy something that is not fit for purpose? If someone buys a television that does not work, they can take it back and get a refund. We are pretty much assured that the food in a food shop is safe to eat—if it was unsafe to eat, the food premises would be shut down. Yet a landlord can let a property that is unfit for human habitation and there is no easy recourse.
About this time last year, I was asked by a family in my constituency to visit the property that had been occupied by their father, who had just passed away from a respiratory illness. They wanted me to see at first hand the conditions he had lived in. The walls were so thick with mould that it looked like flock wallpaper. The air just smelled of damp. This man had died on his sofa on a Saturday night from lung disease while living in that accommodation. His family lived some distance away, which is why they were not fully aware of the conditions he was living in. They had contacted the landlord on numerous occasions, and the landlord failed to assist. Nothing could be done.
I am sure the Government will want to consider the new clause. It would only affect a small number of tenants in the few properties let by bad landlords that are unfit for human habitation, but it would change the lives of many tenants. Earlier in our consideration of the Bill, we discussed rogue landlords and banning orders, but the new clause would try to alleviate suffering before we got to that position. It is a basic consumer, health and productivity issue. It is hard for someone to be productive at work when they live in a property which is not fit to live in. It is also a moral issue where children and elderly people are concerned, so I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say on the new clause.
New clause 26 would introduce a requirement for landlords to undertake electrical safety checks. Electrical Safety First has been leading the way on the issue by raising awareness and lobbying parliamentarians—I think it was in Parliament this week doing that very thing—on the need to ensure that the private rented sector is fire-safe. Many other organisations support the measure, and the Local Government Association, the London fire brigade, Shelter, the Association of Residential Letting Agents, British Gas, Crisis and the Fire Officers Association have all supported previous measures to introduce mandatory electrical safety checks.
It is estimated that each year electrical faults cause more than 20,000 house fires and lead to around 350,000 serious injuries and 70 deaths. It is worth noting those figures, because we now see fewer deaths and injuries—only 300 injuries and 18 deaths—caused by gas and carbon monoxide, on which action has been taken. The risks remain serious, so it is right that we continue to monitor that, but those figures show what is at stake when we discuss electrical fires in the home.
Although landlords have a duty to keep electrical installations in proper working order and to ensure that any electrical appliances they supply are safe, poorly maintained installations remain in the sector and there is no explicit requirement for landlords to prove to tenants that a property is electrically safe. Landlords of houses in multiple occupation are required to have a periodic inspection every five years, but those whose properties are not HMOs are not legally obliged to do that. It is not right that people would be safer in a bed and breakfast or an HMO than in a privately rented home. What is the difference in fire risk between a property that meets the HMO requirements in which a landlord lets to six people and a property that is not an HMO where six different people live? The standards should be the same because the risk is the same.
Of course, many good landlords ensure that their properties are safe. The property is their asset, so they have as much interest in keeping it safe as their tenants. Many good landlords run electrical safety checks and ensure that all appliances are tested at the beginning of the tenancy and at points during it, but there is growing consensus that the introduction of mandatory electrical safety checks is a worthy cause.
We have seen action on the issue in Scotland, where the Scottish Government have introduced fire safety requirements for private rented properties, and the authorities in Northern Ireland are currently running a review of the private rented sector which includes a consultation on mandatory fire checks. In Wales, we have growing cross-party support and we hope that the Welsh Government will introduce such requirements.
Helen Hayes
I want to share an example of a constituent who emailed me recently. She is a private tenant in Lambeth who told me how she lies awake at night going over and over in her mind her worries about the electrical safety in her property and the lack of fire safety in general, and about how she would get out with her children if there was a fire. Does my hon. Friend agree that the clause would provide great comfort to tenants in that situation?
Teresa Pearce
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. That is the exact scenario. People have said to me, “If that is the case, why don’t they move somewhere else?” but particularly in London housing is scarce, so sometimes people have to take whatever is available and thereby risk their and their family’s safety if the place is not safe to live in.
We have mandatory annual gas checks in the private rented sector, and secondary legislation has added regulation for smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors, so I hope that the Minister will consider accepting new clause 26. There is growing support for the measure across the UK, in Parliaments and with landlords. In fact, Janet Finch-Saunders, the Welsh Conservative spokesperson on this issue in the Welsh Parliament, has pledged her support and she also happens to be a landlord. We have broad support.
To recap, new clause 25 would introduce a duty on landlords to ensure that their properties are fit for human habitation, which would drive up standards. New clause 26 would introduce a requirement for landlords to undertake electrical safety checks. I hope that the Minister will accept that new clause.
Housing and Planning Bill (Seventh sitting)
Debate between Helen Hayes and Teresa Pearce(9 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Teresa Pearce
That is what we are probing, and I hope to hear the Minister’s view on that. Without such compensation, local authorities could be unmotivated to act. When local government finance is squeezed, it is incredibly important for local authorities to be able to undertake fully any additional work that we expect of them. We must ensure that they may take on their responsibilities.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government do not accept the amendment it will be yet another example of their determination to ensure that their regulatory framework for rogue landlords lacks teeth? We have just heard the Government refuse to allow tenants the opportunity to use the database of rogue landlords to inform their consumer choices about whether to rent a property. By refusing to allow local authorities the ability to levy charges to cover the additional burdens associated with rent repayment orders, this will inevitably hamper their ability to undertake effective investigation and enforcement. The Government are introducing regulations that will effectively have no teeth in practice.
Teresa Pearce
I completely agree. Some local authorities will be able to do this, but some local authorities simply will not be able to do it because they do not have the funds. We have moved this probing amendment to ask the Minister whether that has been considered and how the Government intend to make the measure work if a local authority does not have the resources to carry out the work set out in the Bill.