Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Julian Knight

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Friday 15th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Julian Knight]

I thank my hon. Friend. He is a very compassionate and good friend of mine, and he is absolutely correct. I just wish we could have done this sooner, but we are here now, getting it done, and that is thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham.

I am pleased that the Government are taking the opportunity provided by the Bill to review the way in which we record marriages in this country. The fact that the alternative means of achieving some of these important reforms via secondary legislation, which would involve reissuing tens of thousands of paper records, was found to be so extraordinarily inefficient, time-consuming and expensive has shone a spotlight on how analogue the marriage registration system still is. I know that some of this officialdom has become part and parcel of the wedding ritual, and I hope that the process of signing the register and receiving a certificate can remain for those who want it, but there is no doubt that moving towards a secure, streamlined and centrally accessible marriage register is a logical step forward.

The second important change ushered in by the Bill is the opening of civil partnerships to heterosexual couples. As I said earlier, I am married and I am pro-marriage. It is an ancient and precious institution, which offers happiness and security to millions of people in this country. As a Conservative, however, I recognise that institutions only survive to become ancient and precious if they are able to adapt to social change. As I also said earlier, people of faith must have strength in that faith, and must understand and adapt. There is no doubt that public attitudes towards marriage, in both its legal and its religious dimensions, have evolved since the law was last updated.

I am a person of faith, although sometimes it is quite a fragile faith, but an increasing number of my fellow citizens are not, and I quite understand why many of them would be uncomfortable at the prospect of marriage. Even a civil ceremony carries the weight of a long and deeply religious history. I recognise, too, that after decades of rising divorce rates, there are doubtless many people who have experienced marriage, either personally or close at hand, and decided that it is not for them. The fact that I myself did not marry until I was nearly 40 may be an indication of the long-term effect that a marriage breakdown can have. None of that should for one moment be taken to imply that those people’s love for, and commitment to, their partners is any less than the love and commitment felt by those who do decide to get married, but the law as it stands assigns an inferior legal status to their relationships.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) mentioned financial implications. It is important to align inheritance tax and pension rights so that heterosexual civil partners have the same rights as those of the same sex. That should not be left to the discretion of trustees in private pension schemes. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham raised the question whether pensions could be passed to siblings. It would be a matter for the trustees, but I know of very few who do that at present.

I had hoped for a change in the way in which heterosexual couples in civil partnerships are treated in more sensitive circumstances, such as those involving hospitals. On Second Reading, I spoke of my personal experience when I lost my partner in a road traffic accident in 1999. I will not go over that particular story again, but I will say that I had to almost beg my way into a ward where the woman I loved was dying. That was not right, and I really hope that no one else will have a similar experience.

As for the law governing stillbirths, I am glad that the Bill deals so sensitively with what must be an unimaginably painful topic for so many. It is never right when arbitrary officialdom intrudes to compound the grief of a bereaved family, let alone when it stands in the way of a proper investigation of a child’s death. It is quite right that the law will be changed so that coroners are able to investigate stillbirths; that is an important extension to unborn children and their parents of rights due to every living person.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Some time ago, when I was taking the Bill I referred to earlier through the House, one of my constituents contacted me to say that their son was born after 23 weeks and six days and sadly passed away two days later, but had that not happened they would never have been able to register the baby. What a massive difference between those two positions. It cannot be right that this will not have been possible until the Bill has been brought into effect.

[Julian Knight]

I could not have put it any better myself; that is absolutely the right approach and the right thing to say, and we are correcting that wrong in this place today.

As well as allowing for official investigation, the Bill opens the door to providing official recognition to babies who are born dead before the current deadline, allowing their parents to name them and have their birth officially recognised. That is a very positive step forward to say the least, and I deeply hope it will provide some comfort to those poor parents of stillborn children. Of course there may be some for whom such matters are the very last thing they want, and I hope and trust that their rights and feelings will be properly accounted for in the implementation of any new system and that it is done in the most sensitive way possible.

This is an exemplary Bill: rather than trying to deliver big changes through broad wording and aspirational intentions, it bundles together a number of detailed, well considered changes that will deliver real, tangible change in several important areas. It will bolster marriage and the alternatives to marriage, and afford long overdue recognition to both mothers and unborn children. I hope the entire House will join me in supporting its swift progress on to the statue book.

Letting Agent Fees (Tenants)

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Julian Knight

Wednesday 6th September 2017 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The first-time buyer difficulty is huge. We are not debating that today—we are talking about tenants—but as I stated, we need to consider the plight of those on low incomes, and I will do that shortly.

The point is that tenants do not have a choice. This is not a free market for tenants in terms of levying fees on them. Landlords choose agents; tenants choose properties. When a tenant has chosen a property, the agent can charge them whatever they feel is the right fee. It is a completely closed market at that point. Most agents take a very responsible view of that and provide their services at fair rates, but from the research done in the consultation by the Department for Communities and Local Government, we know that there is huge variation in those charges. DCLG suggests that the average tenant fee is £318; the industry says that it is much lower. One thing that we would all agree on is that there is huge variation. DCLG says that tenant fees are between £120 and £747.

I was recently at a roundtable of letting agents discussing this issue. A high-profile London agent said that they charge a £400 tenant fee, which they justified on the basis that they provide viewings for tenants. To me, that is clearly a service they provide for their landlords. Another leading figure in the estate agency industry talked to me about his daughter, who went to college in Manchester. She rented a house with four fellow students, and they were charged £500 each as a tenant fee. That is simply unfair.

Some agents exploit this opportunity. They use it as a way to compete unfairly in the marketplace, which is not good for people who operate a fair system of charges. They use it to lower their charges to landlords, so that they attract more of them, and transfer that cost to the tenant. That cannot be right. Others use it simply to maximise profits. There is a loophole, and I welcome the Government’s action in looking to close it. I think that tenants should welcome that, as well as housing charities and Members across this House.

However, it is right that we consider the potential impacts of this change, and there are impacts and unintended consequences. First, there is the issue of rent increases. All rules and regulations have a price tag. A similar ban was introduced in Scotland in 2012. It was a kind of secondary ban, because a ban was put in place some years earlier that had not been totally effective. Having talked to agents in Scotland, I know that they had to make more efficiencies after the ban. They cut jobs and transferred some of the costs and charges to landlords, which is bound to result in higher rents. In terms of landlords and the private rented sector, the lettings market is an effective free market, and those markets do not lead to excessive profits if there is sufficient competition, which there is. Research by LSL Property Services—a property company that looked at the Scottish situation—said that there was a 4.3% increase in rents in 2013, compared with a nil increase in 2012.

The likelihood is that there will be a rise in rents, and that will disproportionately affect some tenants. Tenants who move more frequently will probably be better off; tenants who stay in properties for longer—usually tenants on lower incomes—would potentially be worse off if the fees go into rents. Overall, in their consultation, the Government recognise that this is a potential, if not desirable, outcome. The housing charity Shelter, which has been campaigning on this matter, also sees it as a potential outcome. On the forum that we held on Money Saving Expert, we asked tenants about that, and they said that the transparency of that is better than the lack of transparency and the closed market regarding tenant fees.

I see in the Gallery a number of people who are involved in the industry. The industry is very concerned about the impact on jobs and businesses. The industry position is that we should have a cap, rather than a ban, on fees. I understand that, and at one point argued for it, but the trouble with a cap is that it is a contrived device. Putting a cap in place potentially allows for a race to the top. It does not afford the opportunities of a free market, which I see as the best regulator. What charges would we allow and where would those be capped? That was one of the issues with the original Scottish scheme that was supposed to ban fees. It created a loophole that allowed other types of charges. The Government’s position is clear, and the reality is that the direction of travel is towards a complete ban.

We must consider businesses, which are hugely important. Their investment in our economy and the jobs and wealth that are created are very welcome, and we should do whatever we can to ensure that we create a fair, level playing field for business. According to Companies House, the number of letting agents in Scotland has increased since 2012, so some of the worries about businesses seeing difficulties are probably overblown. One of the leading lettings-only agents in Scotland has had no office closures since 2012.

As somebody who believes in competition, I see market failure and closed markets as protecting weak companies that do not compete on a level playing field, and that do not really work, in terms of their services and in terms of efficiencies, which businesses are so good at.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent and balanced speech. He mentioned that there has been no decline in the number of letting agents in Scotland since the new regime. How does he account for that? What is the key reason why the industry has continued to prosper?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I like to think, although I have no definitive evidence, that a dynamic market has been created. New entrants have come into the market that are willing to work harder and provide different, more efficient services. Some agents will find it difficult and there will have to be job losses, but hopefully those jobs will be transferred to new businesses that come into the market and compete. We should see this as a definite challenge, but also as an opportunity within the sector.

One of the biggest concerns is the unintended consequences, particularly for tenants on low incomes. Agents are allowed to charge tenants for very important services such as references and inventories, but in future they will not be, so the costs will be borne by the letting agent. When faced with a tenant whom we might call borderline—somebody who is on a lower income, who might fail a credit check or who is on housing benefit—the letting agent may not want to carry out a reference check, if they will not get paid for if the tenant fails it, so they may plump for a safer bet. This may result in some tenants being unable to rent the properties they seek.