Housing

Debate between John Healey and Heather Wheeler

Tuesday 9th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

We were speaking about that three years ago.

[Mrs Wheeler]

That is why it is important that it is coming through. The important thing here is that the guidance is coming through now, and there has been great respect for that, which I am very pleased about.

I am appalled at the way in which issues are turned into political footballs. There is no stronger Department in trying to deal with such issues one by one, in a logical way, so that nobody ends up sleeping rough or dying on our streets. The important thing is that the Government totally get this. We are spending an awful lot of money to change things around, because that is what is important. People out there realise that changes are being made in the private rented sector, changes are being made for tenants, and changes are being made to professionalise the professional services—the letting agents and managing agents. Leasehold changes are on the way. There are all sorts of things in our country that are wrong; they need to change, and it is this Government who are going to change them.

I am delighted that our ministerial team is on the case, looking at how many houses we need to build in the year; looking at giving councils the freedoms to build more council houses; encouraging social housing to grow; encouraging first-time buyers; encouraging veterans to get on the housing ladder once they leave the armed forces; making sure that veterans are not sleeping rough and that they get the help they need; and looking after people in Scotland, where there are innovative ideas—I looked at rough sleeping issues and Housing First in Glasgow. All these ideas are very important to the Government; no one should be left under any illusion about the fact that only the Government are making the changes that will get these things right.

People’s lives are at risk. People’s happiness is at risk. We want to make sure that fairness is sorted out for the future. I pay huge tribute to the teams of civil servants that are going round the country making sure that people get the help they need. In Medway and Cornwall, there has been a 40% reduction in rough sleepers. These are huge changes, and I am very proud of what the Government are doing.

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

Debate between John Healey and Heather Wheeler

Committee Debate: House of Commons
Wednesday 20th June 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Mrs Wheeler]

I, too, congratulate everyone on the Bill team and all the lawyers who have been working on this matter. This is a sensible amendment that the Government accept and are very happy to support.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship on a Bill Committee for the first time, Mr Wilson. In the spirit in which my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North introduced the first group of amendments, perhaps I may deal with amendment 4 but also speak a little more widely. That may help you decide, Mr Wilson, whether we should have a clause stand part debate and how wide it should be.

I underline the Opposition’s continued strong support for the Bill. It sets out exactly the legal changes that Opposition Front Benchers tried to introduce two years ago into the Housing and Planning Bill. We were resisted at that time, which is why in January I warmly welcomed the Minister and the Conservative party’s change of approach. I also welcome the willingness of the Government to set up a second Committee to deal with the bottleneck that we had regarding private Members’ Bills that have reached this stage.

I pay tribute to the work that the Minister and her officials have done. They have not taken this private Member’s Bill and filleted it, as sometimes happens. On the contrary, on amendment 4 they have proved willing, as they suggested on Second Reading, to extend the basic provisions on the responsibility of landlords to make and keep fit for human habitation—not just to make repairs—to common parts as well. I strongly welcome that.

I, too, pay tribute to the advisers that my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North has had in Giles Peaker and Justin Bates. They are among the finest housing lawyers in the country. The Committee and the House are very fortunate to have their unremunerated commitment and expertise behind the Bill.

Above all, I cannot let this opportunity go by without paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North. This really is the Buck Bill. This is not a hand-out Bill from Government, or a Bill prepared by an outside organisation and thrust into the hands of a Member who has come out high in the private Member’s Bill ballot. My hon. Friend has worked for a long time to develop the content of, and the case for, the legislation. She has also worked for some time to build the coalition of support behind the measures, which includes the Residential Landlords Association and the National Landlords Association.

The Bill is a really important step forward. My hon. Friend has mentioned the scale of the desperately bad, indefensible housing that too many people, as tenants, have to put up with across the country. You will be familiar with that, Mr Wilson, from many cases in your own part of the north-east. The provisions in the Bill are long overdue.

Finally, I say gently to the Minister that I am so glad that the Government have shifted their view and accepted, in this small way, the need to regulate more strongly a market that the Prime Minister herself described as “broken”. I hope it will be a first step towards some of the other changes that are clearly necessary, such as longer tenancies, controls on rents and greater licensing of private landlords. Will the Minister give us an indication of when mandatory electrical safety checks will see the light of day, given that they are already part of legislation? They would be a great complement to the provisions that my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North is leading on for us today.

[Mrs Wheeler]

I have nothing further to add, other than to say that we support the amendment.

Amendment 3 agreed to.

Amendments made: 4, in clause 1, page 2, line 28, at end insert—

“( ) Where a lease to which this section applies of a dwelling in England forms part only of a building, the implied covenant has effect as if the reference to the dwelling in subsection (1) included a reference to any common parts of the building in which the lessor has an estate or interest.”

This amendment would extend the implied covenant as to fitness for human habitation in cases where the dwelling forms a part of a building to any of the building’s common parts in which the landlord has an estate or interest.

Amendment 5, in clause 1, page 2, line 38, at end insert—

“‘common parts’ has the meaning given by section 60(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987;”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 4.

Amendment 6, in clause 1, page 3, line 7, after “(4)” insert “, (4A)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 7.

Amendment 7, in clause 1, page 3, line 20, at end insert—

“(4A) Section 9A applies to a periodic or secure tenancy that comes into existence after the commencement date on expiry of a term of a lease granted before that date.”

This amendment would ensure that the implied covenant as to fitness for human habitation will apply to a periodic or secure tenancy that comes into existence after the date on which the Bill comes into force in a case where the tenancy arises out of a fixed term tenancy granted before that date.

Amendment 8, in clause 1, page 3, line 45, leave out

“and Liability for Housing Standards”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 15.

Amendment 9, in clause 1, page 4, line 2, at end insert—

“9C Application of section 9A to certain dwellings occupied by agricultural workers

(1) This section applies where under a contract of employment of a worker employed in agriculture—

(a) the provision of a dwelling for the worker’s occupation forms part of the worker’s remuneration, and

(b) the provisions of section 9A (implied term as to fitness for human habitation) are inapplicable by reason only of the dwelling not being let to the worker.

(2) There is implied as part of the contract of employment (in spite of any stipulation to the contrary) a term having the same effect as the covenant that would be implied by section 9A if the dwelling were let by a lease to which that section applies.

(3) The provisions of section 9A apply accordingly—

(a) with the substitution of ‘employer’ and ‘employee’ for ‘lessor’ and ‘lessee’, and

(b) with such other modifications as may be necessary.

(4) This section does not affect—

(a) any obligation of a person other than the employer to repair a dwelling to which the covenant implied by section 9A applies by virtue of this section, or

(b) any remedy for enforcing such an obligation.”

This amendment, which replicates section 9 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in relation to the new implied covenant, is consequential on Amendments 1 and 2.

Amendment 10, in clause 1, page 4, line 3, leave out subsection (3).

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 1 and 2.

Amendment 11, in clause 1, page 4, line 11, leave out sub-paragraph (i) and insert—

“(i) after ‘house’, in both places where it occurs, insert ‘or dwelling’;”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 1 and 2.

Amendment 12, in clause 1, page 4, line 15, before “any” insert

“in relation to a dwelling in England,”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 1 and 2.

Amendment 13, in clause 1, page 4, line 27, after “habitation” insert “of dwellings in England”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 1 and 2.

Amendment 14, in clause 1, page 4, line 27, at end insert—

“( ) In section 302 of the Housing Act 1985 (management and repair of houses acquired under section 300 or retained under section 301), in paragraph (c)—

(a) for ‘section 8’ substitute ‘sections 8 and 9A’, and

(b) for ‘does’ substitute ‘do’.”—(Ms Buck.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 1 and 2.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Draft Client Money Protection Schemes for Property Agents (Approval and Designation of Schemes) Regulations 2018 Draft Client Money Protection Schemes for Property Agents (Requirement to Belong to a Scheme etc.) Regulations 2018

Debate between John Healey and Heather Wheeler

Tuesday 12th June 2018 General Committees

[Mrs Wheeler]

I thank my hon. Friend for his interesting question. I will come to it in the rest of my speech.

Making client money protection mandatory will ensure that every tenant and landlord has the financial protection they need. It will bring the property agent sector into line with others where client money is held, such as the legal profession and travel operators.

Before I set out the detail of the regulations, I want to establish the legislative context. The Housing and Planning Act 2016 provided powers for the introduction of client money protection requirements. Following Royal Assent, the Government invited Baroness Hayter and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill to chair a client money protection working group. The working group reported in March 2017, and its recommendation to make client money protection mandatory was accepted by the Government. The Government consulted on implementing mandatory client money protection in November 2017, and there was broad support for our proposals.

I will now introduce the two sets of regulations. The first set—the approval regulations—establishes the procedure for Government to approve privately run client money protection schemes. The second set—the requirements regulations—requires agents in the private rented sector to belong to one of those approved schemes if they handle client money. These two sets of regulations, which together provide the framework for client money protection, are the subject matter for debate before the House today.

I turn first to the approval regulations, which require any client money protection scheme to be approved by the Secretary of State in order to operate. This is to ensure that all schemes meet minimum standards and offer sufficient financial protection. The Government do not intend to create their own scheme at this time. That would be unnecessary, given the number of schemes in the market already. However, the regulations allow the Government to do so in future, so that any protection can be maintained in the unlikely event that the market ceases to offer provision.

In order to obtain approval, client money protection schemes must meet certain conditions, including those that are designed to ensure that landlords and tenants can easily obtain compensation. The scheme administrator must ensure that it has procedures in place so that valid claims are paid as soon as reasonably practicable—I love that word. It cannot make deductions from those claims. The scheme administrator must also hold a level of insurance cover that is appropriate given the amount of client money held by its members. Schemes must put in place arrangements so that in the event of the scheme closing, their members would be notified and transferred to an alternative scheme.

The approval regulations also establish minimum standards that must be set in scheme rules. They include requirements for members to hold money in a separate client account; to have written, transparent procedures for handling client money; and to maintain adequate records.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way in her explanation of what she describes as the approval regulations. What would be her success or failure criteria, which would trigger the Government’s re-thinking of the matter and their implementation of the provision in the regulations for setting up their own scheme?

[Mrs Wheeler]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. We do not anticipate any failure, particularly because the schemes are backed by insurance. It is, however, a matter of form that the Government always provide in regulations that they can react, should the need arise.

Scheme rules must also require members to hold an appropriate level of professional indemnity insurance cover, to ensure that client money protection schemes are not overwhelmed with claims. The first port of call for a consumer making a claim should be their agent and their agent’s insurers; I hope that that somewhat answers the right hon. Gentleman’s question. Finally, schemes must provide key information to the Department on a quarterly basis to enable us to monitor their performance. If a scheme’s standards are not maintained, its approval can be withdrawn.

[John Healey]

Before the Minister moves on, if the Department requires, and will receive, quarterly reports on the activity and the performance of each of the schemes, will she undertake to make that quarterly performance information public?

[Mrs Wheeler]

I will come to that in my closing remarks. I turn to the requirements regulations, which will require all property agents in the private sector to obtain membership of a Government-approved client money protection scheme by 1 April 2019. Those agents will need to meet increased transparency requirements, publish details of scheme membership and inform clients when they lose cover.

The Government recognise that robust and effective enforcement is essential to the implementation of mandatory client money protection. Agents that fail to get client money protection may be subject to a financial penalty of up to £30,000. Those that do not meet transparency requirements will face a penalty of up to £5,000. The regulations level the playing field by ensuring that it is not just reputable agents that offer protection.

For those agents that do not yet have client money protection, we anticipate that obtaining it will not be disproportionately burdensome. Indeed, the average annual fee for cover is only between £300 and £500. It is important to highlight that these requirements apply only where landlord and tenant money is held by a property agent, and so is at risk. Agents can instead choose to eliminate the risk by, for example, allowing tenants to pay their rent to the landlords directly. The new requirements should therefore not deter new entrants to the market.

Hon. Members may be aware that we have committed to introducing a new regulatory framework for letting and managing agents, and to prohibiting letting agents from charging fees directly to tenants. Mandatory client money protection will be an important part of this regulatory framework, which will give landlords and tenants assurance when using an agent. I will close there and answer the questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Wheeler]

What a pleasure it was to hear those three extra questions, further to the three earlier questions. I thank you for chairing the debate, Mr Gray. I also thank the Committee Clerks and the Doorkeepers and everybody who has been involved in organising it, and I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions.

To address some of the points raised, there have actually been only a small number of cases in which claims have been made against existing CMP schemes. The reason why we are going forward with the draft regulations is that this is a growing sector, and so claims may sadly increase in the future. The point of the draft regulations is to protect people involved in this area. We are finishing off the original legislation.

[John Healey]

Does the Minister accept that the measure of why the regulations are needed is not complaints against members of current schemes? The basis for the regulations is that those not in schemes are stealing money, keeping money and sometimes prosecuted for doing so when it is not their money. That is why it is so important to have mandatory schemes to fill the gap. The problem is not with schemes and members of them making complaints. The biggest case for the regulations is to fill the gap where no schemes exist and members are operating as regulated property agents without regulation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Wheeler]

Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is completely correct. We want a level playing field across this area of work. To answer his first three questions, the intention is to designate a governmental scheme only if market provision is insufficient. There is no indication at present that that is likely, but it is good and prudent practice to put that measure into legislation, should the need arise.

It would not be appropriate to publish quarterly, as the information would contain some commercially sensitive information. However, the Government will scrutinise and challenge if standards are not met. As regards the housing regulations and what might be repealed, to repeat myself, these statutory instruments finish off the 2016 legislation, so it is not a matter of deleting other areas of legislation.

[John Healey]

The Minister is right, but my question was whether the Government’s policy of two out, one in on regulations is still extant.

[Mrs Wheeler]

That is not a matter for today. This is a matter of closing the original 2016 legislation.

[John Healey]

I am sorry, but it must be a matter for the Committee. It must be relevant to the two regulations that the Minister is asking the Committee to approve. If Government policy requires that four regulations, probably in the housing field, must be repealed as a result of what we might approve, that is clearly a matter for the Committee. I am asking a simple question: does the Government still have a two out, one in policy on regulations? Yes or no is the only answer that is needed.

[Mrs Wheeler]

I repeat my answer from before: we are closing the legislation that came in in 2016, exactly as we said we would. I will give the right hon. Gentleman no other answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Wheeler]

As the hon. Lady knows—we have also made a great point of this in the Tenant Fees Bill—the £5,000 fine and the £30,000 fine will remain with councils, and we expect councils to be able to fund services because of such fines coming in.

[John Healey]

May I encourage the Minister to get her head together with her colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak)? He dealt with that point, which she is right is relevant to the Bill that has been considered in Public Bill Committee today. He made it clear to that Committee this morning that every local authority will have an enforcement role, not that a lead authority would be appointed to do that job for them in some areas. I will not press her for a definitive answer now, but may I suggest that there may be a difference in the view we are getting on the same day from two Ministers from the same Department? Perhaps they could get their heads together and get it clear for both pieces of legislation and write to members of both Committees.

[Mrs Wheeler]

I would be delighted to answer the right hon. Gentleman now. This is a different piece of legislation under different law—the 2016 Act. This is consumer focused, which is why it is about trading standards. It is not a matter of housing, where we are worried about enforcement and environmental health issues, which is why district councils are getting involved in that Bill. This is completely different.

[John Healey]

As the Minister said, the discussion this morning was about client money protection. It was not about environmental or housing standards; it was about the very issue that is also relevant to the Tenant Fees Bill.

[Mrs Wheeler]

The right hon. Gentleman obviously had a very lenient Chair, who allowed Members to stray into that area on the Bill this morning. We are now talking about this Bill and this matter. As regards the figures of £5,000 and £30,000, we believe that those figures are high enough, particularly given that it is per individual case of failure, not over the course of a year, so we agree that that is the correct level. As it happens, it does also mirror the other Bill, which I will not mention again.

Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Bill

Debate between John Healey and Heather Wheeler

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th May 2018 Commons Chamber

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

It was emailed to the hon. Lady and all Committee members this morning.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

Just in time!