Housing and Planning Bill (Seventeenth sitting)

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2015 Public Bill Committees

Insecurity manifests itself by restricting tenants. They might feel unable to commit to work or other opportunities for fear of the looming end of their tenancy. They might feel unable to start a family, worrying about the insecurity the future may bring. Insecurity might mean that tenants refrain from spending money on the property to redecorate, if allowed, and to make it a home for fear or losing out if forced to move on within the year.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I am very supportive of the principle of longer tenancies, but should that not be the option of the landlord as well? Has the hon. Lady considered the impact on landlords and on supply in the private rented sector if conditions on landlords are made too onerous? Does she understand that that might restrict supply and mean that properties are not there to rent in the first place?

[Teresa Pearce]

I recall in an earlier debate on rogue landlords that we also said that there were rogue tenants. There needs to be security on both sides. Later, I will come to the fact that the Residential Landlords Association supports the measure. It needs to be done sensibly, but I take the hon. Gentleman’s point.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The RLA supports this measure—a minimum of three years on a tenancy agreement? The hon. Lady must give us more details.

[Teresa Pearce]

I will, later in my speech. The RLA supports the Government looking into the ability to have longer tenancies as a more normal structure. It is particularly bothered about the situation where a landlord has a leasehold property bought from a local authority freeholder, and the local authority will not allow that landlord to let for longer than a year. The association just wants a discussion about that sort of thing, which is why I am bringing the matter to the Committee today.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am aware of its proposals in that regard, but that is optional, not compulsory. The new clause would make it compulsory for a landlord to give a three-year agreement. I do not know any landlord association that would support that.

[Teresa Pearce]

This is a probing amendment to see what we agree on. I am glad that you do think that longer tenancies—

--- Later in debate ---

“if planning fees for large scale housing regeneration projects were charged on a full cost recovery system enabling councils to meet all 13 week planning targets, this would save developers up to £486 million per year in delayed development costs, while adding only £65 million in planning fees.”

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Lady talks about efficiency and cost. There is a connection between the two. Does she agree that local planning authorities should be more creative in how they share services, in order to become more efficient and lower costs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will keep my comments brief. I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I am delighted that Members on the Opposition Benches have tabled a measure that will actually protect landlords, rather than just tenants. It really is a problem for the landlord that if money has been paid by a tenant to a landlord through the intermediary of a letting agent, the agent might disappear with it. That has happened in the past. I hope that the Minister looks carefully at the new clause, because it would raise standards in the property, estate agents and lettings industry, among which it is a popular measure. We have to be careful, though, that we do not drive competition out of the market. There should be a proper impact assessment of how the proposal would affect the overall industry. The Government have introduced other measures to protect deposits, which protect both tenants and landlords, but client moneys—moneys paid in rent—are not currently protected. I hope that the Minister looks at the idea in more detail.

[Brandon Lewis]

I am aware that there is some support for the new clause in the housing sector, as the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton have just outlined, but I am concerned that requiring letting agents to belong to a client money protection scheme at this stage could introduce into the sector significant costs, which would have implications on many levels.

We want to ensure that we have a strong and thriving private rented sector that is not tied up in excessive regulation. Requiring agents to pay to belong to a client money protection scheme would force honest agents to buy insurance against the risk that they themselves were fraudulent, when, as the hon. Lady said, the vast majority of agencies are not. Introducing a mandatory client money protection scheme at this point would be a step too far and would overburden a market that is perfectly capable of self-regulation. However, in May 2016 we will review the impact of the transparency measures that were put in place only recently. At that stage, I will take due consideration of whether any further action is needed, and obviously I will take into account the comments made this afternoon. I hope that, with those points in mind, the hon. Lady will withdraw the new clause.