Planning Committees: Reform

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State to make a statement on plans for the reform of planning committees.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

As the House will be aware, in our first King’s Speech in July the Government announced their intention to introduce a planning and infrastructure Bill, designed to streamline the delivery of essential housing and infrastructure across the country and support sustained economic growth. We made clear at the time that an important component of that Bill would be measures to modernise the operation of planning committees.

Planning committees play a vital role in providing local democratic oversight of planning decisions. However, if we are to undo the damage that the previous Government did to housing supply in this country and deliver homes in the places that our communities need, we must ensure that they are operating as effectively as possible. As we look to develop Government policy in this area, we are determined to avoid the mistakes of previous Conservative Administrations, who were rightly criticised for bringing forward planning legislation without sufficient engagement or consultation.

We also want to ensure that the changes to the operation of planning committees that we ultimately take forward are as robust as possible, drawing on feedback from those who navigate England’s planning system on a daily basis. That is why today we have published a working paper that sets out our initial thinking for modernising planning committees. This is just the latest in a series of working papers on planning reform, and it is explicitly designed to kick-start engagement before we launch a formal Government consultation on a more detailed proposition. As such, I assure Members across the House that there will be plenty of opportunity to engage with and debate these matters in the months ahead.

The working paper seeks views on three potential changes: first, a national scheme of delegation, setting out which types of planning applications should be determined at committee and which by expert planning officers. We believe that that would bring clarity and consistency to both applicants and communities about how applications are determined. Secondly, the introduction of dedicated committees for strategic development would allow members of those committees to dedicate energy to the most significant projects. Thirdly, the introduction of mandatory planning training for committee members would enable applicants to be confident in the knowledge of those making these decisions. Taken together, the changes are designed to help streamline local planning decision making, maximise the use of professional skills and judgment of trained planners, and focus the time of elected councillors on the most significant or controversial applications.

As I said a moment ago, the working paper published today is merely the start of our engagement with the sector on this important issue. It is not a firm set of confirmed proposals, and we will use discussions in the new year to refine our approach. We will then prepare final policy proposals, on which we will launch a consultation in the usual way.

Let me finish by making it clear that the proposals that we are testing through the publication of this working paper are merely one part of a much wider set of reforms to the ailing planning system that we inherited from the previous Government. I look forward to updating hon. Members as we proceed to deliver on other aspects of the Government’s ambitious housing and planning agenda.

[David Simmonds]

Many of us were surprised to hear the Secretary of State tell us over the weekend that there are enough homes in this country. The planning system is an area of interest to all Members and to our constituents; I know it is to you in particular, Mr Speaker, and to your constituency. Planning matters, because it impacts the look and feel of our communities. It has been the subject of numerous parliamentary questions, both at the Dispatch Box and in writing. In response to all those questions, we have been told to await the national planning policy framework. It therefore seems a discourtesy to us to hear so much about the proposed reforms to the planning system in a series of media interviews over the weekend.

Some questions emerge from this. It is clear from the Department’s figures that 96% of planning applications are decided on by officers using delegated powers. That is up from 75% in 2000. It is that 4% to which the local democratic voice is so relevant. On the planning reform working paper, first, what assessment has been made of the impact on local democracy—for example, on the ability of ward councillors to call in a controversial application, or on cases in which reserved matters are approved, but then there is a breach by the developer, so the application needs to come back before a committee for further consideration and enforcement?

Given that 89% of major applications are decided within either 13 weeks or the agreed deadlines, will the full council still be able to call in major strategic applications that will have a significant impact on their area? Already, 87% of applications are granted by local authorities; will neighbourhood plans retain the legal status that enables the communities that write them to have a say on what goes on in their area? Given that 83% of minor applications are already agreed within timescale, who in the local authority will decide whether a matter is to be referred to a committee? Given the huge increase in housing planning permissions granted under the previous Government, when do the Government intend to start work on getting developers developing and builders building, rather than tinkering with a democratic system that has already delivered more than 1 million homes with consent in England?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have to say, it is quite rich hearing the hon. Gentleman crow about planning permissions in the system. We are experiencing the lowest number of planning permissions and completions for a decade, as a result of the Conservatives’ changes to the national planning policy framework, made in December 2023, which torpedoed supply and hit growth across this country.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the NPPF. We fully intend to bring forward a revised NPPF before the end of the year. These changes do not relate to the NPPF, as I made clear in my initial response. We are consulting, in an initial sense, on the changes before bringing forward formal proposals for consultation alongside the planning and infrastructure Bill—another part of the Government’s reform agenda.

The hon. Gentleman rightly made it clear that 96% of decisions are already made by planning officers. The other 4% of decisions, though, are incredibly important; they represent a substantial portion of total units in the planning process, because many major applications go to a planning committee for consideration. While we know that there is good practice out there, the number and type of applications that committees consider still varies widely between local planning authorities. Some committee decisions are not made in accordance with material planning considerations, and some committees repeatedly revisit or relitigate developments that have already been considered by elected members through the local plan process. We need to streamline the local planning system in order to provide the homes and places that we need, and to empower trained planning professionals to get the best use out of the system.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about neighbourhood plans. I have been very clear on several occasions in the House that the protections for neighbourhood plans in the NPPF will remain. As well as firm proposals on this proposition around modernising planning committees, we will bring forward further details about changes to the national planning policy framework in due course.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend will know that I am passionately committed to local councils and local democracy, but does he understand the frustration that many of us feel when a planning authority democratically approves a local plan after consulting the community, but then, when an application is made to build homes, the same councillors turn down the application, despite it being consistent with the local plan? Is the Minister’s main objective to try to remove that sort of decision making, which holds up the whole process, and to ensure, in consultation with the Local Government Association and others in local government, that we can find a better way forward, so that we can get the permissions to build the homes that the country badly needs?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He has huge expertise in this area from his time as Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and he is absolutely right. We have been clear that the best way for local communities to shape the decisions about what to build, where, is through local plans. It is appalling that we have inherited a situation in which less than a third of places are covered by up-to-date local plans. We need to boost that, and—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) will allow me, what we are looking at, in the changes that we are consulting on, in a soft form, through the working paper, is how we can ensure that planning committees make decisions on the most significant and controversial applications, including those that are not in line with local plans, rather than spending their time poring over decisions that have been made in an allocation framework through the local plan process. Hon. Members will see in the working paper that one of our proposals, for a national scheme for delegation, would require all applications that are in accordance with the development plan to be determined by officers. That will free up committees to focus on controversial development that is out of step with the local plan that elected members and officers put forward after consultation with their communities.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

As there are 8.5 million people in England with unmet housing need, the Liberal Democrats welcome the plans for further house building. For us, the priority has to be the delivery of social homes. We need 150,000 annually, and we need housing that local people can genuinely afford. On the topic of social housing, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Let us be clear: when Whitehall takes planning decisions out of the hands of local councillors, it is taking decisions out of the hands of local people. That is undemocratic, and we would reverse that. Instead, Government should unblock the thousands of permitted homes that are not being built—for example, through “use it or lose it” permissions, by having more than just one extra planning officer per local authority, and by allowing councils to set their fees and to ringfence that income for planning departments. Will the Minister allow councils to set their application fees, and ensure that that funding is ringfenced for planning departments?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that set of questions, and I am glad that he personally welcomes housing. When it comes to his party, on this issue, as on so many others, the view you get depends on what part of the country you are in. We are absolutely committed to increasing the delivery of social and affordable homes. We have taken decisive early steps to bring that forward, including by securing an additional £500 million in the Budget for the affordable homes programme.

Until the Liberal Democrats set out how they will pay for 150,000 social rented homes a year, I find the hon. Gentleman’s ambition in that area a little lacking in credibility. We are taking steps to get serious on build out—that is part of our planning agenda—but on these changes, we think it is right that planning committees should operate as effectively as possible in exercising democratic oversight, not revisit or relitigate the same decisions, and focus on applications that require planning committee member input. He is absolutely right that we need more planning capacity in the system. That is why we are making changes through the NPPF to support that, and why at the Budget the Chancellor announced a £46 million package of investment to support capacity and capability in local planning authorities.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

When I was leader of Manchester city council, I spent a large percentage of my time trying to right the wrongs of Labour and Conservative Governments in the ’60s and ’70s who had made a similar dash to build many, many houses. I spent my time finding ways to fund the demolition of deck-access housing. As a result, I became convinced that the solution to every problem is not more power to the centre. The people in Chorley know what is best for Chorley, Mr Speaker, just as the people in Manchester know what is best for Manchester. Will my hon. Friend assure me that he will look at the mistakes that were made in the ’60s and ’70s in the dash for building, and ensure that we do not have really bad decisions made from the centre, or the exclusion of local councils?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is right about some of the bad decisions that were made in the past. I am a keen student of history and am well aware of some of them, and we definitely take them into account when making our own decisions. On what he said about seizing power from the centre, this is absolutely nothing of the sort. We are proposing a national scheme of delegation to provide consistency in how councils make these important decisions. That involves a national scheme of delegation, which balances vital local democratic oversight with ensuring that planning committees operate as effectively as possible. In instances where local councillors are not making the decisions and applications can be dealt with by trained local planning officers—not by me, or by officials in Whitehall—we think that is the right thing to do, in order to streamline the delivery of essential housing in parts of the country that are crying out for those homes.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

There is nothing more controversial than Governments seeking to bypass local democracy. I saw that with the desire of the last Government to bypass local democracy by imposing a special development order on RAF Scampton, and I see it now with the many applications to build solar farms that are ostensibly national infrastructure projects. The present planning system was largely created by the Labour Government, and has stood the test of time. Can the Minister assure me that whatever he decides finally, we will not degrade local democracy? It is essential that people join a council, and join a planning committee, knowing that they have real powers and are not under the cosh of Government, or plans imposed by Government.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. We have to take steps to fix the ailing planning system that we have inherited. It is failing on a number of fronts, and trust and confidence in it is at a record low. As for the assertion that we have heard, for all the hyperbole from Conservative Members, we are not seizing power from the centre. We are saying to local communities, “Put an up-to-date local plan in place, and when sites are allocated through that local plan, you can be confident that they will be built out in the manner that you have specified. It is through local plans that you get your control.” However, when it comes to the decisions on specific sites, let us ensure, if we can, that elected members are directed towards the most significant and controversial applications, as opposed to some of the minor applications that involve technical reserved matters questions. I have sat on a planning committee; I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has. In the case of those applications, the initial decision can be re-litigated and revisited, rather than the technical issues being put to us. Let us ensure that those decisions sit in the hands of trained planning professionals, and get planning committee member time focused on the applications that deserve it.

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

It is good to see the Government’s recommitment to the importance of local plans. In July this year, Milton Keynes city council went through the important process of developing a local plan. During the election campaign, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), visited my home town and described the development of a local plan as “reckless”. Will the Minister reassure us that this Government do not believe that local plans are reckless, but consider them necessary for the sustainable delivery of the homes that the country needs?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I absolutely agree with him. We have a local-plan-led planning system, in which fewer than a third of areas have an up-to-date local plan, and that is unsustainable. We are absolutely determined to drive towards universal local plan coverage. The measures on which we are consulting—and I emphasise that this is a working paper; we are seeking views, and hon. Members are more than welcome to submit theirs as we refine our proposals—will reinforce and support the plan-led system by ensuring that officer and member time is focused on the applications where that is most needed. Communities can have confidence that once they have an up-to-date local plan, it can be decided what to build, and where, in accordance with the wishes of local communities and the wider national planning policy framework.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

As the Housing and Planning Minister will be aware, both Dacorum borough council and Three Rivers district council in my constituency are Lib Dem-controlled; Three Rivers has been for over 20 years. Both councils do not have an up-to-date local plan. Can the Minister advise the House about what would happen if the Government imposed a local plan on an authority? Would those decisions be delegated to officers? If so, the process would have no democratic mandate at all.

[Matthew Pennycook]

We have not outlined any proposals in the working paper that relate to call-ins or the takeover of local plans from the centre. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, though, that Ministers already have powers to take over a local plan in extremis; they have not been used before. We are more than willing to use all the powers at our disposal to ensure that we have up-to-date local plan coverage. If there are local authorities out there—I say this very candidly and openly to the House—that resist the changes that we are trying to make and take no steps towards putting an up-to-date local plan in place, we will consider using all the powers at our disposal. It is through local plans that we will drive sustainable housing supply in the years to come.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

I welcome the mandatory training. As a former chair of a planning committee, I know that training was part of the process that we implemented, so it is good to see that it will be delivered across the board. We approved some developments multiple times on the same site, such as a maternity block in my constituency, which was then flipped and sold on to another developer. Could the Minister please tell us what steps are being taken to account for land banking or flipping sites via developers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there are good examples of training across the country. Hon. Members seemed to indicate earlier that they thought that mandatory training for councillors was in place. It is not in place. We know there are good examples out there, but provision is inconsistent, and we think that we need to take forward mandatory training to ensure that all councillors have the necessary knowledge to make the best decisions on individual applications.

On my hon. Friend’s point about trading of land, she is absolutely right. There is far too much speculative development in this country. We have a dysfunctional land market. Again, I come back to the importance of up-to-date local plans. It is through up-to-date local plans that communities have the ability to shape development in their area in the best possible way in accordance with their wishes. On build-out more generally, we are considering what options might be available to us to ensure that the build-out of consented sites goes forward, alongside our new homes accelerator, which was announced a few months back.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Until September this year, I was a proud elected member of Stockport council. I made decisions on planning, because in Stockport we decide at ward level what is appropriate for each ward. If I understand the Government’s suggestions correctly, the power to decide for ourselves has been taken away from Stockport council. Could the Minister confirm my understanding?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am afraid to say that the hon. Lady’s understanding is not correct. I encourage her to read the working paper. It is a working paper, and we are seeking initial views on a national scheme of delegation. There are three options in the working paper. I look forward to her submitting her views in full, and I will happily consider them.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s new ambition on homes and note that the stated aim is to ensure that

“skilled planning officers in local authorities are given the appropriate amount of trust and empowerment.”

Unfortunately, that is not the case in Middlesbrough, because the last Tory Government handed over power to the unwanted Middlesbrough Development Corporation, which totally undermined the council’s planning department and instead used a private planning consultancy, at a significantly higher cost to the public purse and with a considerable loss of democratic authority. What assurances can the Minister give me that Middlesbrough will get the trust, the empowerment and, indeed, the affordable housing that it needs, and that local democratic legitimacy will be restored?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of local empowerment and of local communities shaping development in their areas—most importantly, as I have made clear in answer to several questions, through up-to-date local plans.

My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not comment on the specifics of the development corporation in his area, but on planning officers more generally, the Government want to make sure—this is what we are testing through the proposals in the working paper—that skilled planning officers in local authorities have the right level of trust and empowerment to resolve select applications more quickly in the service of residents and business. We also want to ensure that planning professionals are fully supported in their roles, and that their experience and skills are put to best use, which will allow members to focus on the most significant and most controversial applications, including those out of line with up-to-date local plans.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

There are a remarkable number of contradictions. The Minister says that he wants more democratic oversight while removing the democratic local voice of councillors. He said he is being decisive while also saying he has existing powers that he has not used and that this is not a firm set of proposals. He is not proposing anything around tech and improvements, while the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is giving a big speech this week on exactly that, as the centrepiece of Government change. Why does the Minister think that the way to bring clarity to the transport system and local plan is to tell people to engage with the local plan, then at the same time tell them that if they do so, the people most engaged with that, the democratically elected councillors, will be ignored if they then follow that local plan?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman that, for a start, he has clearly not read the working paper. His question was a mess of contradictions. What we are clearly saying to local communities is, “Get an up-to-date local plan in place; you can then have confidence that that local plan will be delivered; you can have confidence that applications in line with that local plan will be delivered; and you can have confidence that elected planning members will be focused on the most significant and the most controversial applications, and that local planning officers in those authorities can ensure that other applications that need not go before members are determined in accordance with the local plan as well as the national planning policy framework.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

We have had trouble with house building because the speed with which houses are built has been dictated by developers. What we need to see, when planning permission is granted, is that the developer must either use it or lose it. We cannot allow those companies to continue to land bank and use their land only when they are confident that house prices are continuing to rise. Does my hon. Friend intend to deal with those aspects of the housing market?

[Matthew Pennycook]

On many sites across the country there are genuine reasons, including those of viability, why sites are not built out. It is not as simple as saying that every consented site that is not being built out is being sat on deliberately by developers, but we know that land is traded speculatively. I want to reassure my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour that, as I have made clear in answer to previous questions, there are existing powers that we can consider bringing into force, and there are measures that we took forward in the consultation on the national planning policy framework that we think will help build-out, particularly on proposals around mixed-use sites, but there is potentially more that we can do in this area and we are keeping the matter under close review.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

Speaking as—until recently—the leader of a district council and a long-term member of our planning committee, I do not recognise the issues that the Minister is citing. A lot of the things he says relate to the absence of a local plan. I fully agree with that. My council has just put in place a new local plan, which is hopefully being approved right now. A better way to get more affordable housing would be to look at the way local authorities can finance the building of those houses and fix that. It would be better to allow local authorities to charge appropriate amounts to cover the costs of the planning, so that they can get the necessary planning officers, and far better to look at how many councils already do mandatory training. I hear from Liberal Democrat colleagues that they all had to do mandatory training, as I did in my council, so that is in place. I would like to see a list of how many councils do not do that. We also need to make water companies statutory consultees so that we do not hit flooding problems. Those changes will help. The problem is not in the planning process. More than 1 million applications have been allowed but not built—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think we could have built a whole estate by now.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Indeed, Mr Speaker, and I get a strong sense that an Adjournment debate application will be coming your way on several of those issues. Let me address a number of them. The hon. Gentleman says that training is in place in most parts of the country, in which case local authorities should have no problem with mandatory training being requested by the centre, and only a small number of authorities—if it is a small number—would have to put such training in place.

The hon. Gentleman makes points on capacity and planning fees. I hope he will have seen in the recent consultation on proposed reforms to the national planning policy framework that the Government set out proposed changes to planning application fees and also sought views on the localisation of such fees.

In response to the hon. Gentleman’s specific question, I would encourage him to read the working paper. Most planning committees make well considered and fair decisions most of the time, but we know that there is practice out there of planning committees making decisions that are not in accordance with material planning considerations, repeatedly revisiting and re-litigating the planning answers. We have to look at how we can streamline that process, and I encourage him to engage with that work.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

So much of the success of a local plan seems to hinge on co-production with local communities. Will the Minister describe effective models of that?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the problems we have in our planning system is that not enough people engage with applications or, in particular, with the local plan process. We need to ensure that more people are engaged upstream in the production of local plans because, as I said, they are the best way to shape development in a particular local community. There are a number of things we can do, not least through some of the innovations coming forward as a result of the previous Government’s Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which has a huge amount of potential in terms of digital planning and how it can allow communities to see spatially the type of development that might come forward in their area.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

This working paper smacks of having been thought up after a request for options to streamline the planning process. What is the evidence that what planning committees decide is the fundamental obstacle in the planning system? There is no evidence to suggest that these decisions are the problem. The problems are far wider.

The reason why the Government will not succeed in building 1.5 million homes in England and Wales between now and the general election is a far bigger problem. Will the Government produce a comprehensive assessment of all the things that delay house building in this country? We would then see how significant, or insignificant, this figure is.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman gives the impression that I stood up today and said, “This is our solution to all the flaws of the planning system in England.” This is one small part of a much wider planning reform agenda. He will know that, in our first month in office, we brought forward very significant changes to the national planning policy framework. We are committed to introducing a planning and infrastructure Bill early next year. This working paper is one small part of a larger agenda, but it is an important part, because we know that planning applications are taking far too long in particular. We need to streamline the process to ensure that we get the homes and places coming forward that our communities need.

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

Unlike other colleagues, I have never been on a planning committee. However, I know the effects of the current system and its failings. I know that only 19% of major decisions are made within the 13-week statutory framework, and I know that we have an absolute housing crisis in this country. I know the impact of the delay, prevarication and rampant nimbyism we saw over the past 14 years. Does the Minister agree that it is finally time to grasp these issues head-on?

[Matthew Pennycook]

In a word, yes. In some ways, I feel quite envious of my hon. Friend having not sat on a planning committee. It is an experience that I think everyone in the House should undergo at one point in their career. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These proposals are to test some of the measures that we are considering bringing forward in the planning and infrastructure Bill, the objective of which is to encourage better quality development that is aligned with local development plans, to facilitate the speedy delivery of the quality homes and places that our communities need, and to give applicants the certainty they need that their applications will be determined in a timely manner.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

In advance of these proposals, has the Minister made any assessment of the number of senior local authority planning officers who move on to work directly for, or as private planning consultants to, large developers? Will he consider something I would like to see done anyway, which is registers of interests, gifts and hospitality, and bringing senior planners under the wing of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, or a similar independent body, so that we can have the transparency we really need?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Lady for her suggestion. Proposals in that area are not considered as part of this working paper, but she is more than welcome to submit her views in detail on that point.

[Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

Crewe FC, a fantastic community football club in my constituency, has plans for over £1 million of investment in grassroots football facilities, but that is at risk because of delays in the Cheshire East planning department. Does the Minister agree that the Government’s drive to reform planning should ensure speedier decision making, in order to deliver the crucial facilities that our communities need?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I said in response to a previous question, part of the objective of the proposals set out in the working paper is to test whether they will facilitate the speedy delivery of homes and places that our communities need. My hon. Friend is right that speed is part of the challenge, but there is also a big challenge around the capacity and capability of local planning departments. We consulted on changes to application fees and localisation of such fees in the recent consultation on the NPPF. The Department has a dedicated planning capacity and capability programme that directs support at local authorities, but we hope the £46 million package of investment secured in the Budget will go some way to supporting local planning authorities with the help they need on capacity and capability. That is a hugely important part of the system, and we need to support those who want to do the right thing.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

In an exchange a few moments ago, the Minister seemed to agree that this measure is designed to fight nimbyism. I understand what nimbyism means when it relates to an individual objector or a group of objectors, but when it relates to the members of a planning committee, that suggests that the Minister regards an elected body of specialist councillors as people who are saying “not in my back yard”, when in fact they are considering the welfare of their communities. Would he like to think about that point again?

[Matthew Pennycook]

In general terms, I find the yimby versus nimby debate incredibly reductive; it does not get to heart of some of the challenges that we face with our planning system. We are not accusing elected councillors across the country of acting in a knee-jerk, nimby way. We are saying to them that there is a way to streamline the process, where we can focus their time and energy on those applications that are significant or controversial, and allow trained planning officers to make decisions in other areas, in accordance with up-to-date local plans, which are the best ways that communities have to shape development in their area.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

We are in a housing crisis. Last year, the number of planning permissions granted was the lowest in a decade. What work is the Minister undertaking to turn the page on the failure of the last Government, so that we can build the social housing that is desperately needed in places such as Portsmouth, where viability and cost pose difficulties and barriers? Will he meet me to discuss the Portsmouth local plan?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The evidence speaks for itself. Partly as a result of the change that the previous Government made to the national planning policy framework in December 2023, housing supply in this country has nose-dived. Permissions and completions are at their lowest in a decade—

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

That is not true.

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is true. The Office for Budget Responsibility is projecting that supply will dip below 200,000 homes this year, and the affordable homes programme is on course to deliver between 110,000 and 130,000 affordable homes, not the original 180,000 that were allotted to it. We are taking steps to increase the supply of social and affordable homes, including using the £500 million in additional funding secured for the affordable homes programme in the recent Budget.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Labour-led Basildon borough council’s new draft plan is at the regulation 18 stage, but it proposes a completely unsustainable 27,000 new properties across the borough, including 4,300 in Wickford, in my constituency, which is completely unsustainable and would involve concreting over whole swathes of our local green belt. As well as reimposing mandatory housing targets, which are an insult to local democracy, why is Labour now trying to neuter local planning committees of democratically elected councillors, taking away the say of local people, when it is desperately difficult to persuade people to vote in local elections as it is?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Mr Speaker, you will forgive me if I do not comment on the specifics of the local planning question, due to the quasi-judicial nature of the role of the Secretary of State in planning applications. We set out transitional arrangements in the NPPF consultation in July for how local plans at regulation 18 and 19 stage will proceed through the system, to ensure that we get up-to-date local plans through where appropriate and meet housing need in terms of the revised standard method that we have put forward.

We are determined to get these homes built. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) says that those levels of housing are unsustainable. It will be for the Planning Inspectorate to decide whether the local plan is sound, but I do not take issue in any way with the ambition that the local authority is showing. We have an acute and entrenched housing crisis in this country. Every week in my advice surgery—I am sure that his is the same—people come to me who are desperately in need of houses. The 1 million homes that the previous Government built in the last Parliament are not enough. We will build 1.5 million homes over the next five years.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

Two weekends ago, while knocking on doors, I met a mother who lives with her two adult children. Both those children have professional jobs and earn decent salaries, yet cannot afford their own home, so they are stuck living back in the family home while they save up the money that they need. The housing crisis that the Government inherited has ended the dream of home ownership for too many young people. Will the Minister set out what more we can do to ensure that the dream of home ownership is open to everyone in my constituency?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I say, we inherited an acute and entrenched housing crisis, with 1.3 million people languishing on social housing waiting lists and a generation locked out of home ownership. To their shame, the Conservative Government passed on a situation where 150,000 homeless children are in temporary accommodation as we speak. We have to build the homes that our people need, and we are determined to do so.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on flooding and flooded communities, and the MP for a constituency that suffers from surface water flooding as well as river flooding, I am concerned that the proposals will divert decision making away from those with the greatest local knowledge. When a flooding area is drained, the water has to go somewhere else, and where it goes is critical to the people living in the surrounding area. Can the Minister reassure me that the proposals will not dilute the importance of local knowledge in making critical decisions about draining and flooding when we build?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I can reassure the hon. Lady on that point. The proposals will operate within the context of a national planning policy framework that has very clear requirements in relation to flooding. We are in no way removing local expertise and knowledge from the system; either experienced and trained local planning officers or locally elected authority members should make the decisions, but we have to ensure that they are making the right ones, and that their energy is focused in the right way, to streamline the decisions that we need. We heard the statistics on how planning applications are not progressing through the system at a timely pace. We need to turn things around.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

I associate myself with the comments of my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), on ensuring that the planning authority for Middlesbrough sits within Middlesbrough. Young families in Teesside are desperate to get on the housing ladder, yet last year the number of new homes given planning permission fell to a 10-year low. Can the Minister reassure the House of the steps that he will take to ensure that homes are built and that we get Britain building again?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: permissions have fallen sharply, in part because of changes that the previous Government made to the national planning policy framework, which gave local authorities myriad excuses to bring forward plans that were below their nominal target, although it remained in place. We have got to oversupply permissions into the system, which is precisely why the proposed changes in our consultation on the NPPF would make 370,000 the standard method total envelope. That is how we will build 1.5 million homes over the next five years.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

The Deputy Prime Minister said that this country has plenty of houses. If that is true, can the Minister explain why the Government are imposing an 82% increase in the housing target for Bromsgrove district?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we consulted on a revised standard method that we think meets the scale of the ambition required to build the homes that our people need across the country. We realise that it will put pressure on those areas that need to increase their targets. We have put forward proposals on how support will be put in place, but that is the level of ambition that we need to meet an acute and entrenched housing crisis, the consequences of which I have set out.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Deputy Prime Minister was at pains to say this weekend that nature recovery could happen hand in hand with the ambitious planning target she set. The Environmental Audit Committee is looking at the matter. Our opening inquiry is into the environmental impact of the plans being set out by the Minister. Will the training of planning committee members cover matters such as renewable energy, floodplains and renewable transport to ensure that new planning applications do not negatively impact the environment?

[Matthew Pennycook]

On mandatory training, we are considering a wide range of implementation options. We are keen to work with all stakeholders. I encourage my hon. Friend in his capacity as Committee Chair to put his views into the consultation—we want to determine the best way forward. On nature more generally, we are clear that there is a win-win to be had. The status quo is not working. Nature recovery is not proceeding in the strategic way that is possible. Development is not coming forward; it is being held up and deterred. If there is a win-win that does not involve a reduction in environmental protections, we want to bring it forward, and that is what we are looking to do in the planning and infrastructure Bill next year.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

The reform represents a loss of control when local communities such as mine in the lakes and the dales are desperate for more control. With over 90% of the homes in some of our villages being second homes, we are crying out for the Minister to bring in a change of use for planning for second homes so that we can limit the numbers in those communities. Will he look at doing that in the coming days?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I refute entirely the hon. Gentleman’s claim that the changes represent a loss of control. I encourage him to read the paper, which is about ensuring that decisions are taken by the right local, experienced—professional or elected—members as is appropriate. He and I have had this conversation about second homes many times before. He knows that we are looking and are interested in what additional powers we can give local communities to bear down on the negative impacts of excessive concentrations of short-term lets and second homes. We want to give local communities more power to tackle some of those problems, not less. The proposals in the working paper are in line with that general sentiment.

[Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his work on this and other areas to boost growth across the country for families in my constituency and elsewhere. I note that this weekend the Leader of the Opposition met her Canadian Conservative counterpart —a Conservative who has embraced planning reform and pro-growth measures and who is gaining rapidly in the polls, as far as I can see. Does he agree that it is interesting to see Conservative Members taking an entirely different approach, opposing sensible changes that would support growth in this country and sticking with chaos in the planning system, rather than stability, which is the foundation for economic growth?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is right. These are sensible, proportionate changes to streamline the delivery of housing across the country—housing that we desperately need. If the Conservatives want to put their heads in the sand and resist reform in this area, all they will be doing is digging their long-term electoral grave. The people of this country want good homes and good neighbourhoods to live in. That is what we are determined to bring forward.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

The Minister speaks of mandatory training for councillors, but it has been tried before. It sounds like an effort by central Government to make councillors think more like planning officers, rather than be representatives of their local community. Those of us who have served on local authorities know full well that there are frequently recommendations from officers to approve major schemes, which, in the wider context—infrastructure, schools, GPs and so on—planning committees have refused. Can the Minister assure us that they would still have discretion to turn down applications, even if the recommendation from officers was to approve them?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I encourage the hon. Gentleman to engage with the proposals set out in the working paper. Nothing is definite, nothing is finite; these are our initial views, which we want to test, and I welcome his contribution to that. We are saying in particular that, yes, elected members should be taking decisions on the most significant and controversial applications, but for minor reserved matters and technical issues on which skilled local planning officers can come forward and make decisions, that is helpful and appropriate to streamline the planning system locally.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

Residents in towns and villages across my constituency want an efficient and accountable planning system. Could the Minister set out in more detail how he sees these plans interacting with processes around master planning and the negotiation of planning conditions?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I encourage my hon. Friend to read the working paper. He is welcome to submit his views on the potential interaction of these proposals with master planning and planning conditions. We have not set out specific proposals for those areas in the working paper, but I am more than happy to take his views into account.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I was never brave enough to serve on a planning committee during my 10 years as a local councillor—there are just not enough hours in the day. There are a range of views on this. I have some sympathy with the notion that we need to speed up the delivery of new homes—we have a housing crisis, and it is important that we do that—but does the Minister accept that, with the streamlining he is talking about, one new planning authority simply will not cut it?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The 300 planning officers that we are working to bring through the system with apprenticeships and training are just one part of the solution to address the real capacity and capability constraints that local planning departments face. I have already outlined, as I hope the hon. Gentleman heard, the £46 million of investment allocated in the Budget to help local authorities with planning capacity and capability. As I said, we have also consulted on proposals for the potential localisation of fees. The 300 planners are one element of how we want to support local planning authorities to get capacity in the system, so that they can make decisions at pace and in a timely manner.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I am pleased that the Government are consulting on the creation of smaller targeted planning committees specifically for strategic development. Ebbsfleet Garden City in my constituency shows the value of strategic development. The new settlement is expected to grow from 5,000 to 15,000 homes over the next decade. Notwithstanding key challenges—including the need for better access to decent bus services and, in my view, for the Elizabeth line to be extended to Ebbsfleet—the way that the community is being developed shows the importance of planning for place rather than for individual developments. Will the Minister consider joining me on a visit to see how the Government could, for their plans for a generation of new towns, learn from Ebbsfleet’s lessons?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think I am owed a visit to Ebbsfleet at some point, so I will happily take that up with my hon. Friend outside the Chamber. I am glad that he mentions strategic planning committees—one of the changes that we have put forward in the working paper and would like views on. We think that they should cover, in theory, large-scale allocated regeneration or industrial sites, including urban extensions or opportunity areas—large sites in local communities that could benefit from a more streamlined process. A smaller group of elected councillors with the expertise and knowledge about a specific site could make decisions about it, rather than all such proposals being taken to wider planning committees.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

Is it not the case that the Government have realised that the mandatory top-down targets they came up with are now unachievable, and that, in their panic, they have come up with a policy that will undermine local democratic voices and take people away from, not closer to, the democratic process?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman’s definition of “panic” is, but these are proposals that we set out in the King’s Speech and said we would bring forward—that was in July. I am not sure how that constitutes panic, but he might give me a lesson in that.

[Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

Some 47% of all the casework my office processed last week was regarding housing, or lack thereof. We absolutely must build 1.5 million new homes in this country if we are to solve the housing crisis and restore the dream of home ownership. I have certainly known councillors to oppose housing developments because they worry that the necessary infrastructure—the schools, roads, GP appointments and so on—will not come with it. What reassurances can my hon. Friend give that, either as part of these smaller reforms around committees or as part of the broader reforms we are bringing in, we will absolutely make sure that we build the necessary infrastructure alongside the necessary houses?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. To return to an earlier question, there are a small number of people out there who are out-and-out nimbys—as we might put it—who will resist development of any kind in their area. There is a much wider group of people in our communities across the country who want to see better, infrastructure-led development. That is something we are taking forward, not least through changes consulted on in the NPPF, but we know there is more work to do in this area. I would be more than happy to speak to my hon. Friend about what more we can do.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It is not local planning authorities that stop house building, but land supplies and land banking, as we have already heard this afternoon. In Bath and north-east Somerset alone, something like 2,000 homes have received planning permission but have not been built yet. Should the Government not concentrate on land banking rather than threatening to destroy a vital part of local democracy, and why is land banking not part of the Minister’s consultation paper?

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is not either/or. We have to have more permissions going into the system and more timely planning decisions made in accordance with material planning considerations and in a consistent way, not relitigating or revisiting decisions that have been made in outline. However, we also absolutely have to take action on land supply and build-out, and I have made clear in answer to previous questions that we are giving the matter further thought.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

My constituents often complain about the amount of time it takes for a plan to go from paper to the end product. In fact, it is a conversation I often have with my best hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft). [Hon. Members: “Aww!”] I need some brownie points back.

Can you tell me—[Interruption.] Can the Minister tell me how these plans can speed up that process for my constituents in Harlow?

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is progress, Madam Deputy Speaker.

We do need to speed up the process of local plan development. In a way that the previous Government never did, we are going to adhere to the timelines we are setting for local plan development—for new-style local plans to come forward—and we need to ensure that individual planning applications are made in a timely manner, within the set timelines, to give certainty to the sector that what they bring forward can be built out if they put an application in.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

May I say gently to the Minister that he has been passed a bit of a dud here? I think that experienced Labour Members know that, which is why not a single long-standing Member on the Minister’s Benches has stood up to defend this specific policy this afternoon. Is that because Labour Members, like most MPs, know that the local planning committees they have been involved in and seen make important decisions on a regular basis? They cannot be replaced by planning officers, because those officers are not embedded in local communities. Does the Minister really think that planning officers can replace local councillors on important matters such as this?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I say to the hon. Gentleman that 96% of planning application decisions are already made by planning officers. What we are saying is that there is a way to streamline the system that we want to test views on, which will ensure that the most significant and controversial applications still come to elected members, but that we get the full use out of trained planning officers, who are embedded in their local communities and are cognisant of what a local plan requires.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

I, too, am happy to speak with my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) concerning my planning issues, but I am hoping that the Minister can answer the question too. Tory-led Tonbridge and Malling borough council has allowed predatory development in Burham, Eccles and Wouldham, precisely because it has not delivered a local plan over many years. Does the Minister agree that we need firm timetables for the delivery of local plans that are robust and listen to local concerns, but also that training should be put in place for appeals so that taxpayers in those local areas are not burdened with fines?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend raises a really important point. At the moment, the system incentivises allowing speculative development to come forward and go to the Planning Inspectorate on appeal, because then the local authority or local council members are not responsible for the decision. We have to ensure that we have better, up-to-date local plan coverage, which is the best way to shape development in the area. Less speculative development on unallocated sites will therefore come forward, with more allocated and planned development through the local plans system, but with streamlined and timely decisions. That is what we are aiming for, and this working paper is but a small aspect of that wider agenda we are taking forward.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Some 57% of East Devon is made up of national landscapes, previously known as areas of outstanding natural beauty. I welcome the fact that these areas are protected from housing and industrial development, but for planning committees that have to meet the Minister’s targets, national landscapes compress the area that remains, which can be devastating for flood-prone villages such as Feniton. How are these reforms going to help people who are seeing housing targets concentrated on their village because they live near a national landscape?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I hope the hon. Gentleman is aware that in those areas—he highlights very real problems about the unavailability of data to shape local targets across areas where there are such protected places—the Planning Inspectorate will test whether a local plan is sound, and will make a judgment about whether such hard constraints make a difference to the allocations the local area needs to bring forward. I am more than happy to have a conversation with the hon. Gentleman about the specifics of development in his area if he would find that helpful.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for his answers. He has put forward some very positive ideas to advance housing development, and that must not be ignored by anybody in this House. Has he had the opportunity to have any discussions with the devolved Administrations, bearing in mind the UK-wide need for reform of planning, no matter where it is, to allow for affordable housing, business premises, expansion and, vitally, the need to increase and attract manufacturing production capabilities for our economic growth and community standards, and to restore confidence for home ownership?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Can I say that I always welcome a question from the hon. Member, not least because it signals the end of an urgent question?

I would say to the hon. Member that my ministerial colleagues in the Department and I regularly meet our counterparts from the devolved authorities to learn lessons about what is different, but also about what is similar and about some of the challenges we face in a shared way across this United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

9. What changes her Department is making to the national planning policy framework.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

As hon. Members will be aware, we consulted on proposed changes to the national planning policy framework and other changes to the planning system between 30 July and 24 September. My officials and I have been analysing the over 10,000 responses received, with a view to publishing a Government response before the end of the year. We also intend to bring forward the planning and infrastructure Bill, announced in the King’s Speech, early next year.

[Louise Jones]

Many young families would love to live in my beautiful constituency of North East Derbyshire, but unfortunately we just do not have the housing for them. Could the Minister assure me that our planning reforms will enable us to get the right housing in the right places with the right amenities, to complement the beautiful constituency?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. The Government are determined to increase rates of house building in order to address the housing crisis and boost economic growth, but we are equally committed to improving the quality and sustainability of the homes and neighbourhoods that are built during our period in office. In the aforementioned NPPF consultation, we proposed a series of changes to realise that ambition, including golden rules to ensure that development in the green belt is in the public interest, and a vision-led approach to transport planning.

[Mr Mohindra]

The dangerous proposed reforms to the NPPF are among the many things that the Labour Government have rushed through in the past five months. How will those reforms ensure that villages such as Kings Langley, and South West Hertfordshire, retain their individual character and identity, and do not have their green spaces re-banded as grey belt, concreted over and absorbed into an ever-increasing Greater London?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We are not going to concrete over the green belt. The Government are committed to preserving the green belt, which has served England’s towns and cities well over many decades, but we have to move away from the previous Government’s approach to it, which was to allow land in it to regularly be released in a haphazard matter, often for speculative development that did not meet local housing need. This Government are committed to taking a smarter, more strategic approach to green-belt land designation and release, so that we can build more homes in the right places and secure additional public benefit through the operation of our golden rules.

[Josh MacAlister]

My constituency is fortunate enough to have a number of potential projects that are ripe for investment, including the Port of Workington and energy projects for new nuclear and other kinds of clean energy. They are essential projects for economic growth, but to get them going we need major planning reform, not just for housing but for infrastructure projects. Does the Minister agree on the urgent need for planning reform for infrastructure, and that any legislation that we bring forward must be comprehensive, so that we can remove all the obstacles that stand between us and getting building?

[Matthew Pennycook]

It will not surprise my hon. Friend to hear that I wholeheartedly agree. The delivery of critical national infrastructure is essential for economic growth, accelerating the UK’s efforts towards clean power by 2030, and energy independence. The Bill in question will include old measures to streamline the delivery of infrastructure and new homes. Furthermore, our forthcoming 10-year infrastructure strategy will provide a strategic road map for how we plan for future needs and support our commitment by making timely decisions on national infrastructure.

[Dr Evans]

Under the housing targets, Hinckley and Bosworth will see a 59% increase in housing. North West Leicestershire will see it go up by 74%, but Leicester city, where there is brownfield and infrastructure, will see it fall by 31%. That is compounded by the fact that the Liberal Democrat-run borough council in Hinckley and Bosworth does not have an up-to-date local plan. Given that there is speculative development in Hinckley and Bosworth, will the Minister consider strengthening neighbourhood plans? We know that they deliver more housing, provide protections for people locally and have buy-in from communities, yet the council suffers without an up-to-date one.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman will know that we are leaving in place the protections on neighbourhood planning. He is mistaken if he is suggesting that we are skewing development towards rural areas. The proposed standard method, which we consulted on, significantly boosts expectations across city regions. Indeed, across mayoral combined authority areas, it would see targets grow by more than 30%. Local plans are the best way for communities to control development in their areas. I am sure that he will agree that Hinckley and Bosworth borough council needs an up-to-date local plan in place. Perhaps he can work with me to ensure that that is the case.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

Ministers briefed the media over a week ago about plans for local government reorganisation and devolution. When do the Government plan to set them before the House, so that Members representing areas across the country can take a view?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am not sure how that relates to planning reform, which is the subject of the question, but my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government will set out in due course how our plans for devolution will be taken forward.

[David Simmonds]

Apologies if there is confusion; I was expecting to come in on question 4. [Interruption.] I am glad to hear it.

Many areas of the country stand to lose millions of pounds from the scrapping of the rural services grant—one of many local government funding streams that are expected to change. When will our councils, and this House, know the full impact of the financial changes, so that any reorganisation, devolution, or changes to local plans and other council strategies can be delivered with full knowledge of the impact that the changes will have on councils’ on the ability to lead locally?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Full details of the provisional settlement will be set out in the coming weeks.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

4. What discussions she has had with local government representatives on potential future devolution agreements in Somerset.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)]

11. What steps she plans to take to reform the leasehold system.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

For far too many leaseholders, the reality of home ownership has fallen woefully short of the dream. Over the course of this Parliament, the Government are determined to honour the commitments made in our manifesto and to do what is necessary to finally bring the feudal leasehold system to an end. On 21 November, I made a written ministerial statement to update the House on the steps that the Government intend to take to implement the reforms to the leasehold system that are already in statue, and to progress the wider set of reforms that are necessary to end the system for good.

[Damien Egan]

I recently met people living on the redeveloped Blackberry Hill hospital site in Fishponds, and they told me about the excessive and unfair leasehold charges that they face from their property management company, FirstPort. What assurances can the Minister provide that this Government will, once and for all, free people from the leaseholder system and end the rip-off fees?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The Government are acutely aware that far too many leaseholders across the country are routinely subject to unjustified permissions and administration fees, unreasonable or extortionate charges, and onerous conditions that are imposed with little or no consultation. That is not what home ownership should entail, and it is why we must bring the system to an end in this Parliament. As I set out in the written ministerial statement to which I referred earlier, the Government will act to protect leaseholders from abuse and poor service at the hands of unscrupulous managing agents, such as the ones my hon. Friend mentioned, by strengthening regulation in this area.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

May I thank the Minister for the answers that he has given me in this Chamber, and in a written answer at the end of October, on the plight of leaseholders who have extra apartment levels grafted on above the blocks in which they live? I appreciate that he does not want to alter the planning presumption in favour of granting permission to build add-on extra levels, but will he at least consider outlawing any attempt by freeholders to pass on the cost of botched extensions to the poor old leaseholders, who have suffered enough by having such extensions built over their heads in the first place?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. He will recognise—I know he does—that those types of developments are the result of the expansion of permitted development rights that was taken forward after 2013. There are issues with the quality of some of the works that have come through that stream. On the specific issue he raises, perhaps it might be a good idea if we sat down together. I will happily discuss with him how we can protect leaseholders from those types of variable service charge increases.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

Battersea is home to a large number of leaseholders, many of whom have had to face astronomically high service charges from what we all know are unscrupulous management agents. I am very pleased that this Government will protect leaseholders, given that the last Government failed to do so, but is the Minister willing to meet me and some of my leaseholders so that he can share Labour’s plans to protect them?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I am more than happy to sit down with her, or to join a call or meeting with leaseholders in her constituency, in order to discuss the Government’s plans to end the system in this Parliament. We fully appreciate the wish of leaseholders across the country for us to act with speed. As the ministerial statement sets out, we also have got to balance that with the need to get these reforms right. The serious and specific flaws that were left to us by the previous Government in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 are a warning about what happens when reform in this area is not done properly.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

I welcome the Government’s commitment to continue our work to address issues with the current leasehold system. However, where we are building new towns, such as Sherford in my constituency, residents, like others in new builds, face council tax and service charges, with no likelihood of that changing. What plans does the Minister have to address the impact of service charges in new towns as part of leasehold reform?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think the hon. Lady is referring to the pressures placed on residential freeholders as a result of some of the management estate charges that come through that route. There are provisions in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act to provide residential freeholders with additional protections, and we need to bring those measures into force. We also then need to look more widely at how we reduce the prevalence of private and mixed-tenure housing estates, which are the fundamental root of the problem.

[Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)]

12. What steps she is taking to further devolve powers to local communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

15. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of service charges on residents in social housing.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

The Government recognise the considerable financial strain that rising service charges are placing on leaseholders, including those whose landlord is a social housing provider. As the hon. Gentleman will know, variable service charges must, by law, be reasonable. Their reasonableness can already be challenged at the appropriate tribunal and the housing ombudsman can investigate complaints about the fairness of service charges made by shared owners, as well as tenants of social housing landlords, but the Government are exploring what more can be done to give leaseholders the protection that they need from unaffordable service charge increases.

[Mr Kohler]

Many leaseholders in my constituency live in properties where Clarion housing association is the freeholder. This year’s service charge is on average almost 50% higher than the original estimate and for some on the High Path estate it is over £1,000 more. Does the Minister agree that leaseholders deserve transparency, not shock bills? What more can be done to give the housing ombudsman the power to demand compensation payments?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that supplementary question and assure him that I share his deep concern about the pressure on the household budgets of shared owners in his constituency, and others across the country, as a result of rising variable service charges. In addition to the routes to redress I have just set out, I draw his and the House’s attention to the measures in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 that are designed to drive up the transparency of service charges to make them more easily challengeable if leaseholders consider them unreasonable. Further detail about our plan to bring those and other provisions in the Act into force can be found in the written ministerial statement made on 21 November.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

As the Minister will know, social housing providers and councils operate within a regulated service charge regime that does not allow them to make a profit, and the Housing Ombudsman Service is there for any complaints. Will the Minister consider bringing in a similar regime for the private sector?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have set out the routes to redress that are already available and our intention to switch on the measures in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act, but I am more than happy to sit down and have a conversation with my hon. Friend about what more protection leaseholders in this space require.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

17. What steps her Department is taking to allocate local growth funding according to need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

T5. Given that the Government are already doing another relaunch, would the Secretary of State reconsider the fairness of housing targets, whereby poor delivery by Labour in London is awarded with lower targets to the detriment of areas such as South West Hertfordshire?

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear my previous response. The proposed new standard method, which we consulted on, significantly boosts expectations across our city regions. In mayoral combined authority areas, it would see targets grow by more than 30%, matching the ambition of our local leaders.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

T4. The Government are consulting on the future of pan-regional partnerships such as our own Great South-West, which covers Cornwall, Devon, Somerset and Dorset. Businesses I speak to value the ability of our regions to speak with one voice on economic issues to Government and to investors, which are important for our region. Would the Minister meet me and businesses to discuss the future of PRPs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

T6. The overheated housing market in York is being fuelled by the 2,193 short-term holiday lets in the city. I have a private Member’s Bill on the subject, so will the Minister work with me as I co-produce the Bill to address this problem in York?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend and I have discussed this matter many times. She is well aware of the Government’s approach to tackling excessive concentrations of short-term lets and second homes. I am of course more than happy to discuss the issue with her again in the future.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

Most parties in this House, representing a collective total of 500 MPs, agree that first past the post is damaging trust in politics, and 64% of the public would like to see change. Does the Secretary of State agree that a national commission for electoral reform could address that, as recommended by the all-party parliamentary group?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

Councils up and down the land, but particularly in the south-east of England, are frustrated by the high levels of undeveloped consents. It is perfectly possible that the Secretary of State will find that, come the next election, her target has been consented but is nowhere near built. Will she consider allowing councils to have a 10-year housing supply number that includes undeveloped consents, so that when the number is reached, developers have no choice but to build?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We took steps, in the proposed reforms to the consultation on the national planning policy framework, to encourage build-out—not least through encouraging mixed-use development. However, we are reflecting on what more can be done to encourage that and to ensure that sites are built out in a timely manner.

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

T9. I have a constituent—a young, pregnant woman —who was recently released from hospital and housed in a local hotel that was contracted to house the homeless. She was petrified from the first night. She slept badly because men were banging on her door all night, and she was surrounded by drug use. She felt safer sleeping rough on the second night. Too many of my vulnerable constituents in Stoke-on-Trent South are being housed in accommodation that does not cater to their complex needs. Will the Minister update the House on his work to end the practice of shifting homeless constituents from one area to another to be housed in totally inappropriate—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I welcome the Government’s commitments, in response to my written parliamentary questions, to a consultation on ending fleecehold. However, my constituents in Markhams Close and across Basildon and Billericay just want to know when that will take place.

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I set out in response to a previous question, we will consult on how to end the prevalence of new fleecehold estates, and we will, in the short term, ensure that residents on existing estates have the protections they need against unfair management charges.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I am delighted that the Government’s Mayoral Council is handing back powers to local communities. We are already seeing the impact of that. Claire Ward, the Mayor of the east midlands, attended the first meeting in October. She is leading the way: the east midlands is one of the youth trailblazer regions granted £5 million of Government funding to help young people into work or training. What work are Ministers doing to give those who contribute to our country a say in how it is governed?

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

There is growing concern among constituents that planning decisions are being swept aside because of the Government’s new planning reforms. What assurance can the Minister give that there will be meaningful engagement between constituents and their local planning authority, and that decisions will be respected?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I have said, the best way to shape development in any given area is to have an up-to-date local plan in place. Where such plans are not in place, local authorities leave themselves open to the presumption in favour of sustainable development, and to development via appeal, so I encourage the hon. Gentleman to ensure that his local authority has an up-to-date plan in place. That is the best way for residents to have control. We want more resident engagement upstream in those local plans.

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

In five years, the cost of West Sussex county council’s Oracle upgrade has risen from £2.6 million to £28 million. Is that the kind of contract mismanagement that the Office for Local Government can look into?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Labour’s housing targets desperately need reform to take into account land availability around protected landscapes. The Government have said that the answer is the costly planning appeals system. Does the Minister think that is a good use of taxpayers’ money?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Local plans have to go through examination for a determination of whether they are sound. Hard constraints, such as the type that the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned, will be taken into account when those plans are tested, even under the new framework.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

The Government’s commitment to build more affordable homes is both welcome and urgent. However, we also need to ensure that registered providers are willing and able to take on section 106 affordable homes when they are built. In recent years, a combination of factors has meant that too many homes stand empty. Will my hon. Friend say what steps can be taken to tackle the section 106 standing stock scandal?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We recognise that this is a growing problem across the country that is having a severe impact on affordable housing supply. My hon. Friend will not have to wait long to find out what the Government propose to do to bear down on this problem.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

The proposed planning reforms mean that towns such as Tring will see up to 40% more housing built on the green belt. What assurances can the Minister give that sacrificing that countryside will not have a negative impact on the community, and that we will have infrastructure before the occupation of homes and truly affordable homes for people in the local community?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We want to put in place a planning system that is geared towards meeting housing need in full. That is a clear difference between us and the Conservative party. In bringing forward its local plan and looking at development, every local area should look first at densification—that is, what it can do on brownfield land. It should only have to review green-belt land if it cannot meet the needs in that way or via cross-boundary strategic planning.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

Last week, my local council announced the proposed closure of the much-loved Prince of Wales theatre in Cannock. Despite the council’s financial pressures, local people do not want that theatre to become collateral damage. Will the Minister meet me to see what could be done to explore community ownership and give our theatre the bright future that thousands of my constituents want to see?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

I represent Tunbridge Wells, and just over the boundary in Wealden district, a large housing development is proposed. Wealden will get the houses, but the infrastructure burden will fall particularly on my constituents who live in Tunbridge Wells. Will the Secretary of State update me on the reforms to the NPPF? What is being done about this problem of cross-boundary infrastructure?

[Matthew Pennycook]

In the NPPF, we set out the clear direction of travel towards the universal coverage of strategic planning across the whole of England. We had an Adjournment debate on that just last week. We are determined to put in place the mechanisms that will allow effective cross-boundary co-operation to ensure that the right infrastructure and housing growth takes place.

Cross-Boundary Housing Developments

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

Having not had the chance to do so personally, may I begin by welcoming the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) to his place?

I think it is fair to say that the important issue of cross-boundary planning co-operation has received far too little attention in this place over recent years, and I therefore very much welcome the hon. Gentleman giving the House an opportunity to consider it in some detail. I also appreciate the clarity with which he set out his position on the matter. He will know that the eight Leicestershire authorities are at different stages of plan preparation, having delayed due to further work addressing Leicester city’s unmet need.

Owing to the Secretary of State’s quasi-judicial role in the planning system, I am unable to comment on the details of specific local plans or specific local applications, but the points that the hon. Gentleman has made are on the record and I would expect him to make written representations to the Department in the appropriate way on some of the specific concerns that he has raised.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the nine local authorities in Leicester and Leicestershire voluntarily came together to collaborate on the publication of a non-statutory strategic growth plan in 2018. That plan provides a high-level vision for the sub-region up to 2050, setting out its housing and economic development needs, and focusing growth on key strategic areas.

Key to securing cross-party political support for voluntary collaboration along those lines has been the commendable desire to address the negative impacts of ad hoc, speculative development and to stimulate infrastructure investment to support growth. But equally vital has been a shared understanding of the obvious functional geography of a sub-region with a city at its heart, strong pre-existing relationships at member and officer level, and clear governance structures that are independent of any one authority.

While the partnership arrangements in Leicestershire took a not insignificant amount of time to establish, and to the best of my understanding nearly collapsed several times, they aptly demonstrate that local planning authorities can, and already do, work together informally to deal with cross-boundary and cumulative matters. Notwithstanding the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raised, Leicestershire is a rare example of relatively successful cross-boundary co-operation in a planning system whose incentive structure is not geared towards facilitating it. The Government have inherited a planning system in which, outside London, some metro mayors have spatial planning powers while others have only the power to prepare non-statutory plans. A lack of effective levers, whether that be governance arrangements that require unanimity or an inability to set the strategic direction for where new affordable housing should be delivered, prevents mayors who do have spatial planning powers from realising the full potential of those powers.

In the rest of the country there is a duty to co-operate, as the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) mentioned. The requirement provides a minimum standard for cross-border strategic planning, but by common consensus has not proved to an effective mechanism for fostering the kind of deep strategic co-operation that enables areas to meet their cross-border challenges and unmet local need to be shared with adjacent authorities. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 includes provisions that enable local authorities to come together to produce joint spatial development strategies, but as that is entirely discretionary and the current incentives are weak, there is no evidence that scores of areas eagerly await the opportunity to take that particular approach.

The result is a planning system that currently lacks any effective mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning. That has not always been the case. Indeed, planning for housing growth and infrastructure at a larger than local scale has been integral to the functioning of England’s planning system for most of the past half-century, whether through county structure plans, regional planning guidance or the comprehensive system of regional strategic planning introduced by the last Labour Government, including regional spatial strategies. The period since that architecture was abolished by the coalition Government in 2011 has been something of an aberration, with the duty to co-operate ostensibly facilitating necessary strategic cross-boundary planning, but in practice failing to do so in any meaningful way.

The result has been large parts of England where no strategic planning activity takes place, a number of notable local plan failures, increased delays in local plan production, growing public antagonism towards the planning system, and a yawning gap between the amount of development that the country needs and what is actually being built. The Government are committed to bringing that sub-optimal situation to an end by first, in the short term, strengthening the existing national planning policy framework requirements on effective co-operation, and then introducing effective new mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning through legislation, with a view to implementing a universal system of strategic planning in this Parliament.

Let me make it clear that we do not intend to return to the pre-2011 regional planning regime; rather, we will look at how we can ensure that effective cross-boundary co-operation—the kind that I take it the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire wants to see in his constituency—is taking place at a sub-regional level. While it is still too early to be definitive about the precise model, the Government are attracted to the spatial development strategy, which is well established in London, with the London plan having been produced and continually reviewed over a 20-year period by successive London Mayors. Whatever model is ultimately selected, it is important to note that strategic plans are not big local plans. Nor should the forthcoming introduction of statutory strategic planning arrangements be taken by local planning authorities as a reason not to progress the development of their local plans.

Local plans are the best way for communities to shape future development in their areas. The Government are determined to progress toward our ambition of universal local plan coverage, and we intend to drive local plans to adoption as quickly as possible. In all areas, strategic sub-regional plans will guide development for the local planning authorities in the area, and local plans will need to be in general conformity with them. We will expect local plans to be updated or developed alongside the strategic planning process, and we envisage that that process is where those larger than local level questions and negotiations about large-scale housing growth will be determined.

Given that the hon. Gentleman’s constituency spans three local authorities, I know he will take an active interest in the Government’s plans. Local authorities in Leicester and Leicestershire have shown what can be achieved through the voluntary production of a non-statutory strategic growth plan. I note that they have been working effectively on their local plans, including various local authorities meeting unmet needs from Leicester city.

However, the experience of the partnership arrangements being in place in the county also highlights the risks and limitations of voluntarism. I hope the intention to require statutory strategic planning arrangements to be put in place across England will be welcomed by the authorities that lie within the boundaries of Mid Leicestershire as a means of more quickly and effectively resolving cross-boundary and cumulative issues of the kind the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to. On that note, I look forward to further discussions with him and other hon. Members as the Government take forward their plans in this area.

Question put and agreed to.

Veterans’ Access to Social Housing

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Written Statements

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

As we set out in our manifesto and the Prime Minister reiterated in his conference speech on 24 September, this Government are committed to supporting our armed forces communities and ensuring veterans have access to the housing support they need.

To honour that commitment and facilitate access to social housing for veterans, I am today laying regulations to exempt all former members of the regular armed forces from any local connection tests for social housing applied by local councils in England.

Having a connection to an area should not be a barrier to housing for those who put their lives on the line for our country.

The regulations laid today will ensure that no veteran of the regular armed forces will need to meet a local connection test for social housing regardless of when they last served.

The Deputy Prime Minister has already written to local councils to remind them of the guidance and flexibilities to facilitate access of veterans to social housing.

Statutory guidance will be updated to reflect these changes. This includes specific guidance on improving access to social housing for members of the armed forces with examples of ways in which councils can ensure that service personnel and their families are given appropriate priority for social housing. We know that councils use the flexibilities available to them, but we must ensure that no veteran is unfairly penalised.

In addition to these measures, the Government have committed a further £3.5 million to the reducing veteran homelessness programme. This includes Op FORTITUDE, the single referral pathway for veterans at risk of, or experiencing, homelessness.

We will continue to work with the sector to deliver affordable homes to meet the needs of veterans as part of our broader commitment to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, and in the development of our long-term housing strategy.

Veterans represent the very best of our country. The Government are committed to honouring their sacrifices and ensuring homes will be there for heroes across the UK.

[HCWS255]

Older People's Housing Taskforce

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Written Statements

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

The Government have today published the report of the older people’s housing taskforce. Copies will also be deposited in the House Library.

Concluding in May 2024, the older people’s housing taskforce undertook an assessment of public and private specialised and supported older people’s housing, with a particular focus on the private market for those on middle incomes, and explored options for the provision of greater choice, quality and security of housing for older people. There is rightly significant national interest in the taskforce’s findings.

I would like to offer my sincere thanks to the chair of the taskforce, Professor Julienne Meyer, and all its members for producing such a comprehensive, detailed and well-researched report. I would also like to express my gratitude to the many stakeholders who contributed to the work of the taskforce.

The Government recognise the importance of increased supply and improving the housing options for older people in later life, and we will give careful consideration to the many recommendations set out in the report.

Providing a range of safe, suitable housing for older people in later life helps them live independently, safely and well, for longer. It can enhance the wellbeing of our senior citizens and reduce demand on adult social care services and the national health service. The Government have committed to building 1.5 million new homes over the next five years, including those to meet the needs of older people, and we will consider this issue further as we develop our long-term housing strategy.

We are determined to create a more diverse housing market; one that delivers homes quickly and responds to the needs of a range of communities. Through the recent consultation on proposed reforms to the national planning policy framework, we tested proposals to promote the delivery of mixed-use sites, including housing designed for specific groups such as older people. We have also indicated our intention to consider further planning policy changes in the future as we move to produce a more streamlined and accessible suite of policies, and we will ensure that considerations around older people’s housing inform our approach.

We are also working with the Planning Advisory Service to meet the recommendation of the taskforce for guidance to provide more clarity on how planning use classes apply to specialist older people’s housing.

As the report also makes clear, older people’s housing has not been immune to the challenges faced by other residential leaseholders across the country. The Government remain fully committed to providing homeowners with greater rights, powers and protections over their homes by quickly implementing the provisions of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024.

We will also take further steps over the Parliament to bring the feudal leasehold system to an end, including reinvigorating commonhold by modernising the legal framework as well as restricting the sale of new leasehold flats. We will consult on the best way to achieve this, and consider the needs of all parts of the housing market as we do this, including older people’s housing.

The Government are committed to helping older people to live comfortably and independently at home for as long as possible. The Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), and I thank the taskforce for their important contribution to this agenda.

[HCWS249]

Leasehold and Commonhold Reform

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Written Statements

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

Millions of homeowners across the country will remember with fondness the sense of satisfaction, pride and security they felt when completing the purchase of their first home. Given a free choice, an overwhelming majority of families would prefer to own their own home, and home ownership remains indelibly associated in the minds of many with security, control, freedom and hope.

Yet, for far too many leaseholders, the reality of home ownership has fallen woefully short of the dream—their lives marked by an intermittent, if not constant, struggle with punitive and escalating ground rents; unjustified permissions and administration fees; unreasonable or extortionate charges; and onerous conditions imposed with little or no consultation. This is not what home ownership should entail.

Over the course of this Parliament, the Government are determined to honour the commitments made in our manifesto and do what is necessary to finally bring the feudal leasehold system to an end. Given that millions of leaseholders and residential freeholders are currently suffering as a result of unfair and unreasonable practices, we appreciate fully the need to act urgently to provide them with relief. However, we are also cognisant of the significant complexity of the task and the importance of taking the necessary time to ensure that reforms are watertight.

With both of these imperatives in mind, I am today updating the House on the steps the Government intend to take to implement those reforms to the leasehold system already in statute and to progress the wider set of reforms necessary to end the feudal leasehold system for good.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024

The previous Government’s Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 was passed in the wash-up period prior to the Dissolution of the last Parliament. In enacting only a select number of Law Commission recommendations relating to enfranchisement and the right to manage, the Act has rendered the process of holistic and coherent leasehold and commonhold reform more challenging.

However, while limited in nature, the Act did introduce a necessary set of reforms that will provide immediate relief to those leaseholders and residential freeholders subject to unfair and unreasonable practices. As set out in the King’s Speech, it is therefore the Government’s intention to act as quickly as possible to provide homeowners with greater rights, powers and protections over their homes by implementing its various provisions.

However, we must balance speed with care if we are to ensure that the measures brought into force are to the lasting benefit of leaseholders and residential freeholders. The risk of acting with undue haste is not merely a hypothetical one. On assuming office in July, the Deputy Prime Minister and I were informed that the 2024 Act contains a small number of specific but serious flaws which would prevent certain provisions from operating as intended and that need to be rectified via primary legislation.

These serious flaws include a loophole which means that the Act goes far beyond the intended reforms to valuation and that undermines the integrity of the amended scheme. In addition we must correct an omission that would deny tens of thousands of shared ownership leaseholders the right to extend their lease with their direct landlord, given that the providers in question do not have sufficiently long leases to grant 990-year extensions.

This Government will not make the same mistakes as the last when it comes to reforming what is, without question, an incredibly complicated area of property law. While we intend to continue to work at pace, we will take the time necessary to ensure the reforms we pass are fit for purpose.

That is not to say that progress has not already been made. A number of the Act’s provisions came into force on 24 July relating variously to legal costs associated with the remediation of unsafe buildings, the work of professional insolvency practitioners, and removing the remedy where homeowners risk losing their home entirely because of failure to pay an income-supporting rent charge after 40 days.

On 31 October, the Government activated further building safety measures. These help clarify that remediation contribution orders and remediation orders—which require developers and other relevant persons to pay for or fix defects—can be made in respect of interim measures, known as “relevant steps”, such as waking watches and simultaneous evacuation alarms. They also clarify that costs of alternative accommodation, when leaseholders have been displaced from their homes on building safety grounds, and expert reports, can be recovered through remediation contribution orders.

Commencing the remaining provisions in the Act will require an extensive programme of detailed secondary legislation. While we appreciate fully the scepticism that leaseholders feel about yet more consultations, in some cases they will be necessary to determine precisely how certain measures are to be implemented effectively. To our frustration, we will not be able to bring other important measures into force, including the new valuation process, until we have fixed the small number of specific but serious flaws in the 2024 Act through primary legislation. Switching on the Act in full will therefore take time, but it is important that we get it right if we are to avoid the mistakes made by the previous Government.

A good example of why appropriate secondary legislation must be prepared and scrutinised before even seemingly simple measures in the Act are commenced is section 49. This section provides for an increase in the non-residential floorspace limit for right to manage claims from 25% to 50%. This will broaden access to this right for a significant number of leaseholders by allowing those in mixed-use buildings where up to 50% of the floorspace is non-residential to make right to manage claims.

However, the way existing right to manage company voting rights operate means that in some buildings with higher percentages of non-residential floorspace, freeholders not leaseholders will be able to control the right to manage company with more votes. For this reason we must amend right to manage company voting rights via secondary legislation in parallel with commencing section 49. If we do not do so, and simply activate section 49, new claims for the right to manage could result in these companies being set up only for the building’s existing freeholders to have total control over them. This would be contrary to the intention behind the Act. While we appreciate that leaseholders will be frustrated at having to wait for secondary legislation, this Government will not commence the Act in a half-baked or incoherent way that could risk detriment to leaseholders.

With a view to effectively implementing the Act as quickly as possible, the Government’s intended sequencing for bringing the provisions of the 2024 Act into force is as follows.

We intend to commence the Act’s provision to remove the two-year rule in January next year. This will mean that leaseholders will no longer have to wait two years after purchasing their property before exercising rights to extend their lease or buy their freehold, giving more leaseholders control over their properties from the outset.

We will bring the Act’s right to manage provisions —expanding access and reforming its costs and voting rights—into force as a coherent package at the same time, in spring 2025, meaning more leaseholders in mixed-use buildings can take over management from their freeholders, and leaseholders making claims will, in most cases, no longer have to pay their freeholder’s costs.

We understand that for many leaseholders the cost of living will be their primary immediate worry. For too long, leaseholders have borne the brunt of opaque and excessive costs being passed on to them. We will go out to consultation very shortly on the detail of the Act’s ban on buildings insurance remuneration such as commissions for landlords, property managing agents and freeholders being charged through the service charge and their replacement with transparent and fair fees.

Next year, we will look to consult on the Act’s provisions on service charges and on legal costs, bringing these measures into force as quickly as possible thereafter. Once implemented, leaseholders will be able to more easily challenge service charges they consider unreasonable and landlords will be required to apply to the relevant court or tribunal for approval before they can pass legal costs from such challenges back to leaseholders.

The Act includes measures that will make it cheaper for leaseholders to enfranchise—buy their freehold or extend their lease—giving them security over their property in the long term. Next summer we will consult on the valuation rates used to calculate the cost of enfranchisement premiums. Parliament will then need to approve the secondary legislation that sets out the detail, as well as fixing the Act’s serious flaws in further primary legislation, before implementing the package.

The Government remain committed to protecting residential freeholders on private and mixed-tenure housing estates from unfair charges. Next year we will consult on implementing the Act’s new consumer protection provisions for the up to 1.75 million homes that are subject to these charges, and bring these measures into force as quickly as possible thereafter. These include ensuring that homeowners who pay an estate management charge have better access to information they need to understand what they are paying for, the right to challenge the reasonableness at the first-tier tribunal (in England), and to go to the tribunal to appoint a substitute manager.

It is important that landlords, agents and other key actors in the sector are aware of their responsibilities. As such, we will continue to work closely with delivery partners and stakeholders as we implement the Act, and look to future reform. We also look forward to working closely with the Welsh Government to bring about these much-needed reforms across England and Wales.

It is also vital that as many residential leaseholders and freeholders understand and take advantage of the reforms as they are implemented. The Leasehold Advisory Service will have a crucial role to play in that regard and we will set out further detail in due course about how we believe it can most effectively do so.

Further reform of the leasehold system

While we must fix the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act and implement its provisions as soon as possible, we have always been clear that the Act does not go far enough. It overlooked a number of Law Commission recommendations relating to leasehold enfranchisement, enacted only eight relating to the right to manage and contained none relating to commonhold.

Moreover, it left untouched serious problems such as unregulated and unaffordable ground rents; the poor quality of service provided by some managing agents; the threat of forfeiture as a means of ensuring compliance with a lease agreement; and the prevalence of “fleecehold” private and mixed-tenure housing estates.

As part of our commitment to finally bring the feudal leasehold system to an end in this Parliament, the Government are determined to take action to address Law Commission recommendations omitted from the 2024 Act, to resolve a range of problems that legislation failed to grapple with, and to enact key pledges in our manifesto that it did not even engage with, such as making commonhold the default tenure.

In the King’s Speech, the Government made clear we would publish an ambitious new draft Leasehold and Commonhold Reform Bill in this parliamentary Session that would be subject to broad consultation and additional parliamentary scrutiny. Our intention is that it will be published in the second half of next year.

A central focus of the Bill will be reinvigorating commonhold through the introduction of a comprehensive new legal framework. To set out our thinking in advance of the Bill and invite consultation and discussion about how we finally transition away from leasehold, we will publish a White Paper on reforms to commonhold early next year.

Alongside setting out our plans for a comprehensive new legal framework for commonhold, we will take decisive first steps to making commonhold the default tenure by the end of the Parliament. To that end, we will consult next year on the best approach to banning new leasehold flats so this can work effectively alongside a robust ban on leasehold houses. We will seek input from industry and consumers on other fundamental points such as potential exemptions for legitimate use and how to minimise disruption to housing supply. We will also engage on the conversion of existing flats to commonhold.

The draft Bill will also consider a number of vital reforms to the existing leasehold system. The Government remain firmly committed to its manifesto commitment to tackle unregulated and unaffordable ground rents, and we will deliver this in legislation. We will remove the disproportionate and draconian threat of forfeiture as a means of ensuring compliance with a lease agreement. And we will consult on new reforms to the section 20 “major works” procedure that leaseholders must go through when they face large bills for such works.

We also intend to act to protect leaseholders from abuse and poor service at the hands of unscrupulous managing agents. The previous Government committed to regulate the property agent sector in 2018, even asking a working group chaired by the esteemed Lord Best to advise them how to do it. Yet, over multiple years they failed to take any action.

Managing agents play a key role in the maintenance of multi-occupancy buildings and freehold estates, and their importance will only increase as we transition toward a commonhold future, and so we are looking again at Lord Best’s 2019 report on regulating the property agent sector, particularly in light of the recommendations in the final Grenfell inquiry report. As part of our response to that report, I can confirm that we will strengthen regulation of managing agents to drive up the standard of their service. As a minimum, this should include mandatory professional qualifications which set a new basic standard that managing agents will be required to meet. We will consult on this matter next year.

Finally, we are determined to end the injustice of “fleecehold” entirely and we will consult next year on legislative and policy options to reduce the prevalence of private estate management arrangements, which are the root cause of the problems experienced by many residential freeholders.

[HCWS244]

Council Tax

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

(Urgent question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if she will make a statement on the Government’s policy on council tax referendum thresholds in 2025-26.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

Since the 2012-13 financial year, local authorities, fire authorities, and police and crime commissioners have been required to determine whether the amount of council tax they plan to raise is excessive. The Secretary of State sets thresholds on excessiveness and knows the referendum principles for different classes of authority. Since 2016-17, those thresholds have also included a social care precept, providing higher thresholds for authorities with social care responsibilities.

Decisions on the council tax levels to set, or whether to hold a referendum to go beyond the referendum principles, sit with councils. But the Government have been clear that we expect the threshold to be maintained at the current level, set by the previous Government. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecast of the last Government assumed that council tax would increase by a 3% core, plus an additional 2% for local authorities with adult social care responsibilities for the entirety of the forecast period. We will set out further details in the local government finance settlement in the new year.

Beyond that, we are determined to support local government and undo the mess that has been created over the past 14 years. That is why at the Budget we announced over £4 billion in new local government funding, including an additional £1.3 billion in the local government finance settlement. That, as the hon. Gentleman will be well aware, has been warmly welcomed by the sector.

[David Simmonds]

Council tax funds about £20.5 billion of expenditure in England on social care, which is 61% of all council funding. It is therefore of huge interest to our constituents. The Prime Minister and Ministers have repeatedly told the House that we need to wait for the spending review and the local government finance settlement to know what will happen with the referendum limit, including at the Dispatch Box yesterday when the Prime Minister told my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to wait. Shortly afterwards, the press were told that the 5% limit would remain in place.

Answers to parliamentary questions show that the Government are expecting spending power to increase by £3.7 billion, funded by grants of £1.3 billion. That demonstrates that the Chancellor’s Budget has opened up a £2.4 billion black hole in council finances. In addition to that, the County Councils Network has highlighted its concerns that although we have not yet had a formal statement in the House, there are proposals to change the way in which funding is allocated, further depriving local authorities in urban, suburban and rural areas of the funding that they need.

I would like to put two questions to the Minister. First, will he promise the House that funding allocations through the grant mechanism will follow the cost pressures on local authorities and not any other form of indexation or formula, to ensure that places facing the highest costs receive the funding that they need? Next, while nobody would want to see the referendum limits scrapped simply to bail out central Government, the announcement of the 5% constrains local authorities when it comes to their fundraising. Will the Minister tell the House whether it will be our high streets through increased business rates or whether significant cuts to other council services will be needed to fill the Government’s £2.4 billion black hole?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. Let me take them in turn. The Government are committed to a fair funding settlement for local government. We will set out further details in the usual way in the upcoming local government finance settlement, which will be presented to Parliament.

On the £2.4 billion figure, I am afraid that we simply do not recognise it. I assume that the hon. Gentleman, in his calculations, failed to take account of the over £300 million raised from business rates and £300 million in additional new houses coming along. Yes, it is right that £1.8 billion will be raised through council tax in 2025-26, but, as I made clear, that is because the Government are clear that we are maintaining the previous Government’s policy on council tax, in line with the OBR forecast made in March 2024.

The question for the Opposition is: are they saying that the cap should be abolished, as the Conservative Local Government Association group’s “Rebuilding the Road to Victory” document called for all caps to be removed, or are they saying that the limit should be reduced, which would be contrary to the policy in place when the now Leader of the Opposition was the local government Minister?

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is worth remembering why a number of our local authorities are facing this decision and the tight financial situation: the funding crisis over the past 14 years, forcing a number of local authorities to make those difficult decisions. A number of our areas are facing major in-year cost pressures from things such as temporary accommodation and special educational needs and disabilities provision. Does the Minister agree that we need to accelerate the house building plan in order to get local authorities back on a level playing field, so that our local residents do not see that cost increase in their council tax bills?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for that question. She is absolutely right; after 14 years of the previous Government’s record in office, local government is on its knees. We have a system on the verge of collapse. We had multiple years when in-year spending pressures were ignored. The headroom that we have provided through the Budget—more than £4 billion in new local government funding, which I referenced earlier—will allow us to start to turn that system around and to get ahead of some of the challenges we are facing, whether the pressures on adult social care, children’s services or homelessness costs as a result of temporary accommodation. That is why our house building programme—within my specific remit of responsibility—and, in particular, the increase in social and affordable housing supply that we are committed to, is so important.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats are deeply concerned that people are simply paying more council tax for fewer services. That is quite clearly the result of Conservative tax cuts and their failure to tackle social care. As a former council leader, I know that the burden on councils has increased to such an extent that they are forced to make impossible choices. The burden and the costs that councils of all colours have to shoulder as a result of the Conservative Government’s policies must be reviewed. Will the Minister ensure that councils do not have to close libraries, cut bus routes and reduce road repairs in order to meet the growing demands of the most vulnerable members of our community? Despite the announcement in the Budget, will the Minister recognise the LGA analysis that councils face a £6.9 billion shortfall because of inflation, increased wage demands and demand pressures on local services?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Government certainly recognise the pressures on local authorities and the burdens placed on households as a result of 14 years in which local government was run down. We are determined to turn that situation around, as I have said, by providing the headroom that local authorities need to get ahead of some of the challenges that they have faced for many years. That is why the more than £4 billion in new local government funding announced at the Budget, including an additional £1.3 million in the local government finance settlement, has been so warmly welcomed. That brings the total real-terms increase in core spending to around 3.2%. We remain committed to the 5% referendum cap—we believe that is the right threshold. To protect the most vulnerable, we are also committed to the single-person discount and local council tax support schemes, under which, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, more than 8 million households do not pay a full council tax bill.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I really do not know how the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), can stand there and talk about cuts and shortfalls with a straight face. We know where responsibility lies—and on the Lib Dem Benches as well. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point, and I will relay it to the Local Government Minister. On the general principle, we are determined to rebuild local government from the ground up. That is why we are providing multi-year funding settlements to councils and removing a number of ringfences, and are committed, as I said, to fair funding. On his general point about the Opposition, I completely agree. It reminds me of a phrase my nan used to use: “More front than Harrods,” she used to say. That is what Opposition Members have.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Will the Minister rule out additional council tax bands being among any changes that the Government make?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we are not talking about council tax bands in this urgent question; we are talking about the thresholds that remain in place. We are committed to those thresholds. As I am sure you would expect, Mr Speaker, we will set out more details about the local government finance settlement at the appropriate point next year, in the usual way.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

Areas like Hull city council were savaged by the previous Government when it came to funding—absolutely savaged, to the point where they were almost on their knees. Will my hon. Friend the Minister tell the House what the Government are doing for areas of high deprivation like Hull?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The damage done to local government over the 14 years in which the Conservatives were in office is profound. We have inherited, as I said, a system on the verge of collapse. We are absolutely committed, as part of rebuilding that system from the ground up, to a fair funding settlement. As I say, the Minister for Local Government will announce more details in the upcoming local government finance settlement in the new year.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Local authorities across the country will welcome multi-year settlements, so they can plan for the future. However, does the Minister have any plans whatever for a revaluation of properties, given that properties were originally valued back in 1992, when council tax began? The hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and I produced a Select Committee report on what could be done to ensure that councils need not be strictly neutral in terms of finance, and could revalue properties to bring valuations up to date.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to discuss the local government finance settlement ahead of it being formally presented to the House. I am afraid I cannot do that, but the Government have heard his point, and I will ensure that it is passed on to the Local Government Minister.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

As a councillor, I saw 14 years of austerity and cuts to local government, and a 93% cut equivalent for my council in Medway. The opposition, the Medway Conservative group, recently stated that it would not only scrap the recent council tax cap, but introduce a local income tax on residents. Does the Minister agree that there needs to be consistency on this issue, whereas the Opposition’s approach is to say, in one case, “Scrap the cap,” and in another, “Keep it”?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and we still have not had an answer: we do not know the Opposition’s position on thresholds. [Interruption.] We are in government, as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) chunters from a sedentary position, and we have confirmed that when it comes to thresholds, we intend to maintain the position as it was under the previous Government, and as baked into the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast for the spending period. The Opposition really do have to answer this question: are they saying that the thresholds should be removed or increased, or are they saying that they should be reduced and core services cut?

[Mr Speaker]

Unfortunately, it is not for the Opposition to answer the questions—they are in opposition.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

The Chancellor and the International Monetary Fund are known to favour ending council tax and replacing it with a wider property tax. The Welsh Labour Government tried to revalue all the properties in Wales for council tax purposes. Can the Government rule out doing either of those things?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am not going to get into speculating about more fundamental reform of the council tax system. As I have in a number of my responses to this urgent question, the Government will set out their position on the thresholds, and on other matters in respect of the local government finance settlement, at the appropriate point early in the new year.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

York is the lowest-funded unitary authority in the country, but has one of the highest costs of living. That puts real pressure on it. We are also among the poorest-funded for health, fire and police services. When the Minister looks at the funding formula for local government, will he look at the presumptions made, to ensure more equity in the way it is put together?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I have said repeatedly— I commit to it again—we are determined to ensure that there is a fair funding settlement for local government, and as I have said, more details will be forthcoming in the settlement early next year.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Labour used to say that it would freeze council tax. Can the Minister now confirm that its policy is actually to put council tax up because of the flawed, broken promise on national insurance?

[Matthew Pennycook]

No, that is not the case. We are maintaining the policy of the previous Government, which, as per the OBR forecast, estimated that £1.8 billion will be raised through council tax. The position of the Government is that it will maintain the thresholds. If the hon. Gentleman thinks differently, he should tell House what his position is on thresholds: should they be reduced or increased?

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am pleased about the support for first and second-tier councils and the commitment to fair funding, which will make a real difference in, for instance, Cornwall. However, in unitary authorities such as ours, where a great many services have been shared, larger town councils have had to step up and take the strain, but have not had the grants and other measures that have been available to those first and second-tier councils. Could the appropriate Minister meet me to discuss the position of larger town councils in Cornwall?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am more than happy to commit the Local Government Minister to a meeting with my hon. Friend.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

During Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, the Government accepted that they were giving councils a maximum of £600 million, but the Local Government Association has said that there is £2.4 billion worth of pressure. Does the Minister accept that councils will have to increase their tax by about £1.8 billion to fill the gap between what the Government are offering them and what they need to provide local services?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I have made clear, we do not recognise the £2.4 billion figure. It fails to take into account increases that I have already mentioned, such as the £300 million increase in business rates income and the £300 million increase in income from new, additional houses. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we expect council tax to raise £1.8 billion in 2025-26, but that is in line with the previous Government’s spending plans and baked into the OBR forecast as of March 2024.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

As a former deputy council leader, I am somewhat amazed by the collective amnesia of Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) spoke of what “constrains” local government spending power. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is 60% cuts, such as those that Southampton city council has suffered for 14 years, that have really reduced that spending power, and does he agree that rather than faux outrage, what we need is an apology?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We deserve an apology, but I doubt that we will get one. Before 2010, it was vanishingly rare for councils to fall into serious financial difficulty. Since then, nine councils have been affected in just 14 years. There is a pattern here. For too long, the Conservative Government not only failed to carry out their duty to local government, but hollowed out frontline services and crashed the economy. We are turning that around with the support that we are providing to local government in the Budget. We will set out more details in the local government settlement early next year, as I have mentioned.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As the Minister will know, although we do not have council tax per se in Northern Ireland, the pressures on our family finances are on a par with those on the UK mainland. The Government need to be clear about just how much further the finances of average families will be stretched, because this is a very worrying trend. What extra help can families, especially disabled families, expect to receive this year?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, which relates to an earlier one. I think that, in the urgent question, the Opposition failed to account for the various other sources of support that we are providing for families. We are continuing the household support fund—that is £1 billion. There is a £1 billion uplift for special educational needs. There is UK shared prosperity funding of £900 million—the list goes on, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to discuss the specific conditions in Northern Ireland further, I am more than happy to pass on that request to the Local Government Minister.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association; Opposition Front Benchers might want to reflect on that.

My hon. Friend mentioned front; I could talk about the Opposition’s brass neck in talking about concerns about the pressures that local councils face. Does he agree that 14 years of Conservative austerity, initially with the Liberal Democrats, devastated the ability of many councils, including Luton council, to provide much- needed services to families in our constituencies?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have been a local councillor, as have many Members of this House. The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) has been a council leader, so he will know what has happened to the system over the past 14 years. The Opposition continue to claim that there is a multibillion-pound black hole in local council budgets. When asked how they would fix it, however, they said, “It’s not for us to do; we’re in opposition. It’s for the Government.” It is a classic policy of having no plan to fix the mess. They have provided no clarity on their position on thresholds, and failed to take responsibility for what they did over 14 years in government.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

My Conservative-controlled council in the London borough of Bexley had to apply for a capitalisation order three years ago and make 15% of our staff redundant. Despite that, it still overspent its budget every month for over two years, and is currently overspending on the safety valve agreement made with the previous Government. In addition, the Conservative leader of the council, in responding to a question from me last year, accepted that she was part of the LGA Conservative group executive that published a manifesto last year asking their own Government to remove caps on council tax. Given that, does my hon. Friend agree that it is rank hypocrisy for the Conservative party to complain now about black holes in council finances?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I absolutely do, and the Government are determined to extract from the Opposition some clarity on their position on thresholds. Do they agree with the LGA Conservative group, which has called for the caps on council tax to be removed? Do they want those caps to be reduced? We are still none the wiser. Hopefully, we can find out in the weeks and months to come.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

As a member of a council for more than 30 years—like other Members of this House, I am still one—I have to say that, in the last few years, I have not met a single councillor from any political party across the local government family who does not believe that local government finance is in its worst state for decades. The latest LGA figures indicate that in Labour authorities, council tax is £276 lower than in Conservative authorities. Does the Minister agree that this shows that Labour councils, the Labour party and the Labour Government provide better value for money?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Labour councils charge less on average than Tory councils, and the councils with the lowest rates of council tax are all Labour. Council tax bills in Labour councils are on average £345 less than in Tory councils. When it comes to local government financing and council tax pressures, people are right to vote Labour. It will ensure that their council tax is lower than if they were under a Conservative local authority.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

I am a former local government leader. Does the Minister agree that we should thank local authority leaders, especially Labour leaders such as Pete Marland at Milton Keynes city council, for keeping services during 14 years of austerity? Milton Keynes city council has kept weekly bin collections, kept children’s centres open and reduced rough sleeping, while keeping council tax lower than in its neighbouring Tory authorities. Does the Minister agree that instead of using local authority leaders to make cheap political points, the Conservative party should thank them and apologise for 14 years of austerity?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I extend the Government’s appreciation to all local government leaders—I mean that in a cross-party spirit—for what they have done to keep services going despite the pressures that they have faced over the past 14 years, when the previous Government ran down local government. We should thank local government leaders, and this Government do. We want to consult them on how we rebuild the system after 14 years of pressure, and we would be more than happy to work across the Chamber and have a mature, cross-party conversation about we fix this mess. That will not happen if the political game-playing from the Opposition continues.

Housing Design and Quality

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Written Statements

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

The Government are committed to building 1.5 million new homes over the next five years, but we have also been clear that increasing house building rates cannot mean units at any cost. We want exemplary development to be the norm not the exception so that more communities feel the benefits of new development and welcome it. As we act to boost housing supply, we are therefore determined to take steps to improve the design and quality of the homes and neighbourhoods being built.

These guiding principles are woven into the fabric of the reforms we have initiated over recent months. The new towns taskforce, for example, has been asked to ensure that quality and design are integral to its agenda, and it has been explicitly tasked with setting out clear principles and standards for new large-scale communities to ensure they are well-connected, sustainable, well-designed, and attractive. Our proposed reforms to the national planning policy framework also highlighted the Government’s ongoing commitment to well-designed homes and places, and retaining the objective of creating high-quality, beautiful, and sustainable buildings and places.

My Department intends to update the national design guide and national model design code in spring next year, and we will continue to bolster design skills and capacity through the £46 million package of capacity and capability support provided to local planning authorities. This will be used to fund the recruitment and training of 300 graduate and apprentice planners, along with the £1 million funding to public practice for the recruitment of planners, architects and urban designers.

Together, this framework provides a clear basis for the delivery of more high-quality, well-designed homes. To help support this delivery, in particular as we progress our consideration of large-scale sites and large-scale new communities, I intend to establish quarterly steering boards on design and placemaking, ensuring that our work is guided by those with relevant professional and practical expertise.

It was announced in July 2023 that the Office for Place, previously a small team in the then Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, would become an arm’s length body to be based in Stoke-on-Trent. Work to establish the Office has continued since then. I would like to offer my sincere thanks to the interim board, led by Nicholas Boys Smith as chair, and the Office for Place team for their exemplary work on this important issue. In putting design and quality at the heart of the housing supply agenda and establishing the principles of design coding and embedding them in practice across the planning and development sectors, Nicholas and the team have made a significant contribution.

Alongside spending decisions taken at the Budget and the re-setting of departmental budgets, the Deputy Prime Minister and I have, however, concluded that support to improve the quality and design of new homes and places can be more efficiently and effectively delivered by the Department itself. The Office for Place will therefore be closed down and the expertise of its staff redeployed within the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, across the country. I would like to reassure the House that this will not impact on wider Government commitments to Stoke-on-Trent, including the award of £19.8 million for their levelling up partnerships programme.

In taking the decision to wind up the Office for Place, the Government are not downgrading the importance of good design and placemaking, or the role of design coding in improving the quality of development. Rather, by drawing expertise and responsibility back into MHCLG, I want the pursuit of good design and placemaking to be a fully integrated consideration as the Government reform the planning system, roll out digital local plans and provide support to local authorities and strategic planning authorities. I also believe that embedding this work within MHCLG will allow experience to be better reflected in decision-making, as well as integrated within an existing delivery team in Homes England already focused on design and placemaking.

It will also ensure continuity of current Office for Place key activities, including support for pathfinder authorities who received a share of £1 million to produce exemplar design codes, alongside work on digital design codes and funding to support local and regional urban design best practice and skills.

The Government regard improving the design and quality of the homes and neighbourhoods we will build over the coming years as conducive to, rather than in tension with, our ambition to significantly increase housing supply, and we have put in place the necessary policy and delivery framework to ensure we deliver on both objectives.

[HCWS209]

Renters' Rights Bill (Eighth sitting)

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 5th November 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I add the support of the Liberal Democrats for the intent of the new clause. Clearly, tenants should not be penalised for having to move frequently, and we are interested in the Minister’s response on the subject.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Bristol Central for moving the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), and I thank the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for their contributions.

The Government absolutely agree that unwanted private rental moves are not only stressful but extremely expensive in terms of both the unrecoverable costs associated with moving home and the significant up-front costs of moving into a new property, including tenancy deposits. That is why one of the Bill’s main objectives is to remove the threat of arbitrary evictions and increase tenant security.

Under the new tenancy system a small proportion of tenants will still find themselves evicted through no fault of their own in circumstances where the landlord has good reason to regain possession of the property—for example, if the landlord or a close family member wishes to live in it as their only or principal home. I therefore recognise the worthy intentions behind the new clause—namely, to ensure that tenants’ credit scores are not adversely affected by unwanted moves resulting from the use of such possession grounds.

However, I am not convinced that the new clause, which would require the FCA to issue guidance on how possession orders specifically should be reflected in an individual’s credit score, is necessary, because tenants’ credit scores are not adversely affected by evictions under ground 8 possessions. Credit reference agencies do not receive information about possession orders from the courts, and as a result possession orders are not recorded on people’s credit reports and do not negatively affect their credit scores.

I acknowledge that there is a distinct, but related, issue in respect of the impact on credit scores of changes of address in general, on which it is worth noting two things. First, the methodology that underpins credit scores is not uniform across different credit reference agencies. Experian, TransUnion and Equifax, for example, each have their own distinctive approaches to credit scores, including in how they reflect changes of address. Secondly, almost all lenders review a person’s credit report when assessing an application for credit, and a change of address would still be recorded on those reports.

Whether it is feasible and sensible to seek to have the FCA attempt to ensure that credit reference agencies treat moves resulting from the use of certain possession grounds set out in schedule 1 differently from changes of address more generally is an entirely valid question, albeit one somewhat distinct from that posed by the specific wording of the new clause. As things stand, I am not entirely convinced that it would be, but I will happily seek to ensure that Treasury Ministers engage directly with the FCA on this matter, including on the review cited by the hon. Member for Bristol Central. However, for the reasons I have stated, I will not be able to accept the new clause and ask the hon. Lady to withdraw it.

[Carla Denyer]

I and thank the Minister for his consideration and beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2

Review of the impact of the Act on the housing market

“(1) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report outlining the impact of the provisions of this Act on the housing market in the UK.

(2) A report under this section must include the impact of this Act on—

(a) the availability of homes in the private rental sector;

(b) rents charged under tenancies;

(c) house prices; and

(d) requests for social housing.

(3) A report under this section must be laid before Parliament.”—(David Simmonds.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Just so that the Committee understands the procedure, because the new clauses are grouped, new clause 7 will not be moved now, but if the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington wishes to move it when we come to it, then he may do so without further debate.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am afraid I will have to resist all three new clauses. Although I will try to limit it, I fear that I may be somewhat repetitive in doing so, because the Government’s logic in each instance is similar.

As the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner has made clear, new clause 2 would introduce a legal requirement for the Government to publish an annual review of the impact of the Bill’s reforms on the availability of homes. In particular, it would require an assessment to be made on the availability of homes in the private rental sector, rents charged under tenancies, house prices and requests for social housing. As per our previous discussion, I recognise that the underlying rationale for the measure is an interest in the practical difference the legislation will make over the coming years. I reassure the Committee that this is an interest I share, which is why we are committed to robustly monitoring and evaluating the private rented sector reform programme introduced by the Bill.

I will not detail the Government’s general approach to monitoring and evaluation, but suffice it to say that we believe that setting an arbitrary deadline for the work in law—as the new clause would require—would be an unnecessary step, and there is a risk that it would detract from evaluation and prevent us from conducting as robust an assessment as possible. However, given the interest in the Bill’s impact, I wish to reassure the Committee that we do not expect the Bill to have a destabilising effect on the rental market. This Government value the contribution made by responsible landlords who provide quality homes to their tenants. We will continue to work with good landlords and their representative associations throughout implementation.

New clause 3 would introduce a legal requirement for the Government to appoint an independent person to prepare a report on the impact of the reforms to the tenancy system and the grounds for possession. We are committed to robustly monitoring and evaluating the impact of our reform programme in line with the Department’s evaluation strategy; however, setting an arbitrary deadline in law for that work is unnecessary and, again, may detract from the quality of evaluation and prevent us from conducting as robust an assessment as possible.

New clause 7, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, would introduce a legal requirement for the Government to publish a review of the extent to which the abolition of fixed terms and assured shorthold tenancies and the changes to leasehold covenants lead to landlords leaving the private rented sector to provide short-term lets within two years of the Bill passing. It is important to state that this Government value the contribution made by responsible landlords who provide quality homes to their tenants, and believe they must enjoy robust grounds for possession where there is good reason to take their property back. As such, good landlords have nothing to fear from our reforms and should be in no rush to change legitimate business models, as I have said repeatedly.

The private rented sector has doubled in size since the early 2000s. There is no evidence of an exodus since reform was put on the table by the previous Government. Our proposals will ensure that landlords have the confidence and support they need to continue to invest and operate in the sector.

[Mr Amos]

Will the Minister comment on whether, and how soon, the Government are likely to introduce a use class, which the previous Government committed to?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will come to the specific proposals under consideration for short-term lets and holiday lets. The use class was consulted on as one of a number of measures that the previous Government introduced. I will touch on that specific point shortly.

I will preface this with a point that I think all Committee members appreciate. The Government are very alive to the fact that there are many parts of the country—coastal, rural and some urban constituencies—where excessive concentrations of short-term lets and holiday homes are having detrimental impacts, not least on the ability of local people to buy their own homes or, in many cases now, rent their own homes. I have stated this on many occasions in the House since being appointed, but I will say it again: that is the reason why we will progress with abolishing the furnished holiday lets tax regime, and with the introduction of a registration scheme for short-term lets. That will give local authorities access to valuable data on them.

Those measures were committed to by the previous Government, and we will take them forward. However, as I said a number of times in the previous Parliament, we do not think they go far enough and we are considering what additional powers we might give to local authorities to enable them to better respond to the pressures they face as a result of the excessive concentrations of short-term lets and holiday homes. I hope to say more on that in due course.

In respect of this Bill, we are committed to robustly monitoring and evaluating the impact of our reform programme in line with the Government’s evaluation strategy. However, setting an arbitrary deadline in law for this work is unnecessary and may detract from our efforts in that regard. On that basis, I encourage Members not to press their new clauses.

[David Simmonds]

Given the Minister’s response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

Assessment of operation of possession process

“(1) The Lord Chancellor must prepare an assessment of the operation of the process by which—

(a) on applications made by landlords, the county court is able to make orders for the possession of dwellings in England that are let under assured and regulated tenancies, and

(b) such orders are enforced.

(2) The Lord Chancellor must publish the assessment at such time, and in such manner, as the Lord Chancellor thinks appropriate.

(3) In this section—

‘assured tenancy’ means an assured tenancy within the meaning of the 1988 Act;

‘dwelling’ means a building or part of a building which is occupied or intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling;

‘regulated tenancy’ means a regulated tenancy within the meaning of the Rent Act 1977.”—(David Simmonds.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[David Simmonds]

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

At risk of rehearsing the debate we have already had, the new clause seeks to address the assessment of the possessions process. In evidence to the Committee a degree of concern was expressed on the part of landlords that the backlog in the courts may make it difficult to secure possession when that is necessary. Governments of all parties, including the previous Government, have put in place measures seeking to address that. We know that they are beginning to bear fruit, but it is important in maintaining the confidence of landlords both to come to the market and to remain in the market that they know it is possible to secure a court hearing, should one be necessary to gain access to the property. The new clause seeks to ensure that an assessment of that process is carried out.

[Matthew Pennycook]

New clause 4 would require the Lord Chancellor to prepare an assessment of the operation of the process by which the county court is able to make possession orders for rented properties and by which such orders are enforced. The assessment would be published at such time and in such a manner as the Lord Chancellor saw fit.

Hon. Members who followed the debates in the last Parliament will recall that the previous Government introduced a similar clause to their own Renters (Reform) Bill in the late stages of that Bill’s progress, via a Government amendment, together with a clause that prevented the Secretary of State from laying regulations to bring tenancy reforms into force for existing tenancies until after the Lord Chancellor’s amendment had been published. This Government have been clear that we will not follow a similar approach. We do not consider it reasonable that the implementation of our reforms should be constrained by such an assessment, not least an assessment of the kind proposed in the new clause, which is extremely broad and undefined.

The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner tabled amendment 64, which would delay commencement until the Lord Chancellor has carried out and published the proposed assessment. I reaffirm that we have no intention of delaying these urgent and necessary reforms while awaiting an unnecessary assessment of the possession process against what is an unspecific metric. We will instead move ahead with tenancy reform as quickly as possible, but in conjunction with an extensive parallel workstream with colleagues from the Ministry of Justice and His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to ensure that the courts are ready at the point of implementation.

In any case, the assessment required by new clause 4 is entirely unnecessary and unhelpful, because data on the operation of possession proceedings for rented properties is already published by the Ministry of Justice on a quarterly basis, and will continue to be. Court rules specify that possession claims requiring a hearing should be listed between four weeks and eight weeks of receipt.

The Committee may be interested to know that figures for April to June 2024 show that claim to order median timeliness is 8.1 weeks, suggesting that—I am not necessarily attributing this to the shadow Minister—some of the more alarmist statements about the readiness of the county court system may have more to do with fundamental opposition to the abolition of section 21 and the current tenancy regime than they are an impartial assessment of court performance.

The proposed assessment would provide no obvious additional insight or benefit to any interested parties, in our view, and would merely detract from the vital work of the courts and tribunals by subjecting them to a nugatory additional process. All our focus is on ensuring that HMCTS is ready to stand up the new system at the point of commencement, and that should be our focus in the coming weeks and months. On that basis, I kindly ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Denyer]

New clause 9 would head in the opposite direction from new clause 5. It is about removing unnecessary barriers to the use of licensing schemes to improve housing standards. The new clause would do two things. First, it would increase the maximum duration of discretionary licensing schemes from five years to 10. Secondly, it would enable local authorities operating selective licensing schemes to use licensing conditions to improve housing conditions.

Licensing can be an effective way to improve housing standards for at least three reasons. First, it is proactive. It provides a means for local authorities to inspect privately rented housing using enforceable conditions and to identify and resolve problems without the need for tenants to have complained, and it provides that proactive regulation in a locally tailored form. It makes major contributions to area-based issues such as crime, antisocial behaviour and waste management, and it brings together a range of bodies to focus additional support services—for example, for landlords and tenants, improving public health and reducing burdens on the NHS. There are a huge number of wins, and I have experienced that at first hand with licensing schemes in my local authority.

Secondly, licensing is self-funding. It means that the market pays for its own regulation, which is a good principle, rather than relying on the taxpayer. It provides a sustainable and predictable source of income that enables local authorities to maintain staffing levels and support the training of new officers.

Thirdly, licensing is targeted. It enables local authorities to target regulation where that is most needed, so that the worst landlords and the most vulnerable tenants get the most attention and landlord costs can be minimised in other areas.

The problem, however, is that local authorities have to implement licensing schemes with their hands tied behind their backs, because previous Governments have made various decisions that have placed unnecessary and irrational barriers in their way. Given that licensing schemes are expensive and time-consuming for local authorities to initially introduce, it does not make sense to restrict the period over which they can act to only five years.

New clause 9 would amend sections 60 and 84 of the Housing Act 2004 to increase the maximum duration of discretionary licensing schemes, which includes both selective licensing schemes and additional—sorry, jargon again—for HMOs from five to 10 years. That would allow local authorities to advertise for longer-term posts for officers and to include training of new staff in those schemes. It would also provide more time for local partnerships formed through such schemes to become embedded and effective.

The new clause also addresses another issue, which was highlighted by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health during oral evidence. That respected body pointed out that it does not make any sense to have the current peculiar disconnect in the 2004 Act, whereby local authorities can introduce selective licensing schemes to address poor housing conditions, but they cannot include a directly enforceable requirement relating to the housing condition as a condition of the licence—so they do not have the tools to do what they are set up to do. The new clause would therefore amend section 90 of the 2004 Act to enable local authorities to use licence conditions to improve housing conditions directly.

I stress that the new clause does not cover all that needs to be done to remove barriers to licensing. For example, I also urge the Minister to commit the Government to removing the Secretary of State’s ability to veto selective licensing schemes covering more than 20% of the local authority area.

[Matthew Pennycook]

indicated assent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

As we have heard, new clause 5 seeks to abolish selective licensing. This would remove the ability of local authorities to set up a selective licensing scheme of any size in their area. In contrast, new clause 9 seeks to extend selective and additional licensing of houses in multiple occupation by allowing local authorities to increase the maximum duration of schemes from five to 10 years. It also seeks to allow local authorities to use licence conditions under selective licensing to improve housing conditions, as the hon. Member for Bristol Central made clear.

This Government support selective licensing. It allows local authorities to proactively and more intensively target specific issues in private rented properties, where it is needed most. That includes tackling poor housing conditions and antisocial behaviour. If we abolish selective licensing, local authorities will lose a crucial tool in taking effective enforcement action against landlords who flout the rules. However, I take the shadow Minister’s point, and I reiterate that it is important that the selective licensing system, and the system introduced by the Bill, operate effectively alongside each other. That is very much our intention.

However, we recognise that licensing imposes a burden on landlords. Correspondingly, we think a maximum duration of five years for discretionary licence schemes strikes the right balance for the following reasons. It gives local authorities time to realise improvements while ensuring that landlords are not by default subject to increased regulation for prolonged periods. Of course, licensing in any given area may be part of a longer-term strategy. That is why, where a scheme has expired and there is still a case for licensing, local authorities may simply introduce a new scheme to drive further improvements. The duration that the hon. Member for Bristol Central is seeking selective licensing schemes to cover can be achieved in any given local authority area, if the local authority simply extends matters through a new scheme. We think that a five-year timeframe gives an opportunity to review the effectiveness of individual discretionary licensing schemes and ensure that they are proportionate in achieving their aims.

The broad intention of the hon. Lady’s new clause is to improve housing conditions. Let me be clear again that every private renter, not just those in licensed properties, has the right to a good-quality home. That is why, through the Bill, we are introducing a decent homes standard and applying Awaab’s law to the sector to tackle the blight of poor-quality homes.

Our reforms will establish a level playing field across the sector, ensuring that all renters and local authorities, not just those in areas with licensing schemes, can challenge and enforce against dangerous conditions. I will not address the hon. Lady’s specific point on the Secretary of State’s veto, because it is somewhat outside the scope of the Bill, but I take that on board. On the chartered institute, I will say nothing more at this stage other than that we will continue to review the use of selective licensing as we develop the database and other measures in the Bill. On that basis, I ask the hon. Members not to press their new clauses.

[David Simmonds]

We remain a little concerned that where selective licensing schemes are in operation alongside the measures introduced by the legislation, a degree of ambiguity and potential confusion is created, especially for some landlords who may seek to evade responsibility. Two schemes of a similar nature will be in place, with potentially different fees and standards in operation. However, I accept the numbers on the Committee, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Denyer]

I support new clause 8, and I would also like to speak in favour of new clause 14, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel). New clause 14 seeks to address an injustice around guarantors for students. In this speech, I cite heavily evidence provided by the National Union of Students and individual student union officers in my home city of Bristol, all of whom are very concerned about this injustice.

The widespread landlord practice of demanding that tenants provide a guarantor is discriminatory, especially in this situation. Tenants are asked to put someone forward, normally a parent or relative, who owns a house in the UK and/or earns an income typically above the national average. The guarantor is asked to guarantee to pay the rent should the tenant default, and to pay for any damage to the property should the tenant be unable to do so.

Although for some, this is just an inconvenience, for tenants who are from deprived socioeconomic backgrounds, who are estranged from their families, who have a background in care or who are coming to the UK, such as international students from abroad, it can be a huge barrier to securing a home. The practice can push those unable to find a suitable guarantor into unsustainable debt, because they are forced to pay either months of rent up front or for costly guarantor schemes run by private companies. Others are forced into hostels or sofa surfing, and can even be made homeless.

The stats are stark: 13% of students experience homelessness during their studies, and that figure rises to 29% for international students. This issue has a detrimental impact on the lives of student renters and their ability to focus on their studies. It is imperative that we address the issue to ensure fair and equitable access to housing for all tenants, including students, allowing them to flourish in their education.

Landlords have several other means available to protect themselves against potential losses, including tenant referencing, rent guarantee insurance and deposit protection schemes, all of which make guarantor schemes unnecessary. I am not pushing for a vote today, but I ask the Minister to have a dialogue—if he is not doing so already—with the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley, who tabled the new clause, and the NUS, with a view to including the changes in the next version of the Bill. Finally, I should mention that I have joined the all-party parliamentary group for students.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke for speaking to the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), whom I commend for her work in this area, not just in this Parliament but in the previous one. She has been prodigious in pursuing this issue on behalf of her constituents, and I have reflected further on the points that she made on Second Reading.

The Government agree that it is unacceptable for bereaved guarantors to be held liable for unpaid rent where the only reason for it is the sad death of a tenant. Guarantor arrangements are not usually intended to protect landlords against the risk of financial loss caused by the death of their tenant; rather, they are used by landlords to reduce the financial risk of letting to a tenant who, for example, may have no previous residency in the UK and consequently no references from former landlords, or who might not successfully pass credit checks.

Although we understand that few landlords would use guarantor agreements to pursue debts that occur after a tenant’s death, we do know that sadly some do. This is an unacceptable practice that compounds the grief that families face after unexpected bereavements. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke will be reassured to hear that the Government have been considering this issue closely and in detail. We take it very seriously, and I am extremely sympathetic to the issues raised. I hope to be able to say more on Report about the matter and about the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood.

I thank the hon. Member for Bristol Central for speaking to new clause 14, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel). I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his work on this issue, and for his engagement with me and on the Bill more generally. The Government understand that obtaining a guarantor may be difficult for some prospective tenants, and I absolutely sympathise with those who are in that situation. For some tenants, the requirement can, as the hon. Member for Bristol Central made clear, effectively block access to the private rented sector.

The Government are clear that landlords should consider a tenant’s individual circumstances when negotiating rental contracts. I have been concerned to hear anecdotally about some landlords insisting that all tenants provide a guarantor, regardless of individual circumstances. That said, and ever mindful of the unintended consequences of weighing in without thought, I am aware that the use of guarantors can give landlords confidence to provide tenancies to individuals who otherwise may struggle to gain accommodation. That might include those with a history of rent arrears or with no previous rental history, those who are moving out of home for the first time and foreign students. As such, I am concerned that the wording of the new clause may inadvertently make it harder for those tenants to find a place to live, despite the honourable intentions behind it.

I recognise the importance of getting the balance right between barriers and enablers to accessing the private rented sector. I will continue to engage with hon. Members more broadly and with wider stakeholders, but in particular with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley, who has diligently pursued the matter. For the reasons I have given, however, I respectfully ask my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke to withdraw the new clause.

[Claire Hazelgrove]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 10

Home Adaptations

“(1) The Housing Act 1988 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 16 insert—

‘16A Home adaptations

(1) It is an implied term of every assured tenancy to which this section applies that a landlord shall give permission for adaptations where a local council has carried out a Home Assessment and recommends adaptations which constitute reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. Tenants have the right to appeal a landlord’s refusal to adapt a property.

(2) This section applies to every assured tenancy other than a tenancy of social housing, within the meaning of Part 2 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.’” —(Carla Denyer.)

This new clause would ensure that landlords give permission for home adaptations where a Home Assessment has been carried out.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

I tabled the new clause in the spirit of debate and discussion, aware of how many disabled people are affected by poor-quality housing in the private rented sector. I know that the Minister cares about the issue, and I hope that he can speak to ways to dramatically improve the situation for the disabled people who need it.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I very much sympathise with the intent behind the new clause, but I am afraid I will have to disappoint the hon. Lady by saying that I do not think it is necessary, and I will set out why. The Government strongly agree that landlords should not unreasonably refuse disability adaptations. As she rightly says, there is already a requirement in law that they do not. The Equality Act 2010 provides that landlords cannot unreasonably refuse a request for reasonable adjustments to be made for the purposes of a disabled person using their home. Where consent has been sought and is refused, the burden is on the landlord to show why their refusal or any conditions are reasonable.

The hon. Lady said that the Bill does nothing to target the problem that she outlines, but I think it takes a series of steps that will support disabled renters to challenge unreasonable refusals without fear of retaliatory eviction—I am talking about the general overhaul of the tenancy system, which should provide them with more confidence in that area. In addition, when the new PRS landlord ombudsman is established, tenants may be able to make a complaint to it if they think that the landlord should have given permission for disability adaptations but has unreasonably refused to do so. That is another means of redress that will be introduced through the Bill.

Notwithstanding the hon. Lady’s point about a postcode lottery—we could rehearse for many hours the pressures on local authorities’ budgets—where a tenant has applied for a disabled facilities grant, local councils have the power to override the requirement for tenants to have the landlord’s permission to make adaptations, and to award the grant without permission if they believe that permission was withheld unreasonably. For those reasons, although I will reflect on the point that she made and although I sympathise with the intent, the new clause is unnecessary and I kindly ask her to withdraw it.

[Carla Denyer]

I will be honest: I am not convinced that the new clause is unnecessary, but I can do the maths so will not seek to divide the Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 11

Rent controls

“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a body to be known as the Independent Living Rent Body within 12 months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act.

(2) The ‘proposed rent’ referred to in section 55(2) must be no more than an amount set by the Independent Living Rent Body.

(3) The amount referred to in subsection (2) must be calculated as a function of property size, quality, local incomes, location, and such other criteria as the Independent Living Rent Body sees fit.”—(Carla Denyer.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

I want to see us create a fair system of rent controls, carefully introduced with local flexibility, aimed at bringing down rents relative to incomes and acknowledging that that must come alongside a suite of policies to address the housing crisis more broadly, including a major increase in social housing and real support for community-led housing. Let us interrogate the assumptions on all sides of this issue, because we must take urgent action on affordability one way or another, and this is one proposal for how to do so.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Lady’s new clause, which she has set out clearly, seeks to require the Government to establish an independent body to set the maximum rent at which a landlord could advertise a property in writing, under clause 55, which I remind Committee members requires a landlord or a person acting on their behalf to state a specific and proposed rental amount in a written advertisement or offer for a proposed letting. Although I very much recognise the concerns in relation to rising rents generally and extortionate within-tenancy rent increases in particular—I do not think anyone on the Committee dismisses those concerns, particularly in parts of the country with hot rental markets, as referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster—I do not believe the approach proposed in the new clause is necessary or proportionate.

I understand from the hon. Member for Bristol Central that her new clause is intended to provoke debate, and I am more than happy to debate it. However, I must confess that when I was considering the new clause’s specific wording, I struggled somewhat to ascertain how the new independent body would operate. I think she has given us a bit more clarity on her thinking, but I am still a little unsure. I will therefore put the two options in my mind that it might reasonably take.

It could mean that every landlord and letting agent in England would need to engage with the body proposed by the hon. Lady to set a maximum starting rent for every property they seek to advertise on every occasion that they require a new tenant. I think that is what she was driving at when she said that it would have to take into account specific factors relating to each property. We are debating the specific measure rather than a general point but if that is the case, the costs of administrating such an arrangement, which would have to apply to the approximately 950,000 new lets that occur each year, would be likely to be enormous. In my view, it would almost certainly have an impact on the time that landlords and tenants take to agree a rental price.

If, as the hon. Member for Bristol Central touched on later in her remarks, the body would simply be required to set maximum rents on the basis of broad principles and therefore not account fully for variation in the market, it would in effect be overseeing a form of rent control. The Government believe that would impact negatively on tenants as well as landlords, as a result of reduced supply, discouraged investment and declining property sales, as I have set out in detail previously.

I gently push back on the hon. Lady’s assertion that I am just asserting such a point; I have given the Committee extensive references to some of the negative impacts of various forms of rent control in other countries. There are academic studies on countries such as Sweden and Germany, and from cities such as San Francisco and Ontario, which show that rent regulation can have those precise effects. I was in Rome at the G7 yesterday, discussing this very matter with the German Housing Minister, who acknowledged that while there are benefits to the system in Germany, it has had an impact on supply in places. It could have a detrimental impact on tenants if we introduce it into our system here.

I am more than happy to debate. I think we will debate the issue throughout the Bill’s remaining stages in this place, and I am sure it will be a source of debate in the other place and again when it returns to us. I do not want to test your patience or the Committee’s, Sir Roger, by repeating the long discussion we have already had about rent control. I simply reiterate that the Government are confident that the Bill strikes the right balance when it comes to addressing, in particular, unreasonable within-tenancy rent increases. We do not believe the establishment of a body along the lines that the hon. Lady proposes would be beneficial to tenants or landlords.

I have made the point, and will do again, that the legislation is not the Government’s only answer to affordability pressures in the private rented sector. The hon. Lady referenced the Government’s intention to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. I appreciate the urgency with which that needs to take place. She is more than welcome to clarify the point, but I hope she commends the additional £500 million of funding in the recent Budget, the top up to the affordable homes programme this year and the action we are taking on right-to-buys, giving local councils 100% retention of discounts from sales. There will be more to come, not least when we set out further Government investment in the spending review next year.

On the basis of all the points I have made, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw new clause 11. I do not think it will be the last time we debate the matter as part of the Bill or more widely across the Parliament.

[Carla Denyer]

I certainly welcome additional funding for social housing, and I know that many local authorities do too, although I suspect that most if not all would also say that they need more than that. In terms of what exact model of rent controls we are talking about and how the independent living rent body works it out, I am deliberately not attached to exactly how to do that.

As I mentioned, there are 17 European countries that have some form of rent controls; they are all tailored to specific circumstances and some have worked better than others. My point is that we should not rule out an entire category of available tools on the basis of looking at a few examples that have not worked. I would rather we look at how we could make it work or, if not, at what the Government are going to do instead to tackle affordability in the private rented sector, given that the positive measures on social housing are unlikely to bring down rents in that sector by anything like the necessary amount.

As it is clear that the Minister will not support new clause 11, I suggest he should at least consider the merits of setting up a living rent commission to undertake work to inform evidence-based decision making about what we can do on the issue. When I was a Bristol city councillor, I was the co-proposer with a Labour councillor of commissioning a local version of that work to look at how rent controls could theoretically work in Bristol if the Government gave the council the necessary powers. We took that route specifically because we were aware that several options were available, so we first needed research on how it might work and how to avoid unintended consequences. I would love the Government to commission an equivalent study at a national level so that we can make informed decisions in future.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Lady that commitment. She somewhat downplays the amount of thinking that has gone into this legislation by my officials, me and my colleagues as to the appropriate and necessary measures. We think the measures strike the right balance. This legislation is not the only intervention we are making on affordability pressures in the private rented sector. As I have said, I am more than happy to continue the debate with the hon. Lady in the remaining stages of the Bill.

[Carla Denyer]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

[Matthew Pennycook]

May I take this opportunity, Sir Roger, to put on the record my thanks to you and to the other Chairs of the Bill Committee? Several Committee members are new to the process, and you and the other Chairs have done an incredibly effective job, with patience and generosity, of helping everyone to navigate the process.

I thank our exemplary Clerks, the Hansard Reporters, and the Doorkeepers for overseeing our proceedings. I also thank my officials and private office team, who have supported me and worked tirelessly over a short time to bring forward the Bill that we have debated in recent weeks.

Finally, I thank all hon. Members, including the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington and the hon. Member for Bristol Central for the spirited and constructive dialogue we have had. I value all the contributions and the challenges that have been made. I know that we are united in wanting to deliver the best legislation that we can for all our constituents.

As we end this stage of scrutiny and prepare for Report stage, I hope we can all agree that these important reforms will finally provide certainty for the sector and deliver meaningful change to millions of renters and landlords. I look forward to further engagement with all hon. Members as the Bill progresses through its remaining stages.

[David Simmonds]

I share the Minister’s sentiments. I will pay him the highest compliment that I can: at times, he could have been a Conservative in the way he addressed the issues that I raised. I add my thanks to the officials, as I know that the Minister’s swift responses would not have been possible without their diligent work behind the scenes; I am enormously grateful that issues have been dealt with in such detail. I also add my thanks to Committee members for their sensible and sound contributions. I am sure the debate will continue, but we have carried out an efficient piece of work.

Renters' Rights Bill (Seventh sitting)

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 5th November 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 85 to 86 stand part.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings with you in the Chair, Mr Betts. We now turn to clauses 84 to 86, which deal with access to the data collected on the database and the circumstances in which that may be shared.

Let me start by speaking to clause 84. One of the central objectives of the database is to provide tenants and prospective tenants with the data to allow them to make informed decisions about which landlords to rent from. For that reason, the clause gives the Government a regulation-making power to make certain information on the database visible to the public.

For the database to be a success, it is crucial that tenants have access to key information about a landlord and a rental property. The information that the Government plan to make available to the public will include details of the landlord, details of other parties involved in the management or ownership of the property, and information about the rental property. The Government also intend to use the database to make landlords’ unspent housing-related offences or penalties visible to the public. Tenants will be able to make a judgment about whether to rent from a landlord, and good landlords will be distinguished from the minority of landlords who commit offences.

Information about spent offences will continue to remain visible to local authorities until those offences must be removed from the database, as described under clause 87. That will help local authorities to devise their enforcement approaches. However, spent offences will not be visible to the public. The Government will make information from the database public only if that is necessary and proportionate to meeting the aims of the database. We are committed to providing tenants with the information they need to make sound decisions about renting, but we are determined to respect landlords’ rights to privacy and to follow data protection and human rights legislation.

The clause also gives authorities such as local housing authorities, which have an interest in enforcing property standards, unlimited access to the information on the database. That will ensure they have access to the data necessary for them to carry out their enforcement activities.

Clause 85 outlines circumstances in which restricted data may be shared. The database will contain information that could be useful to various third parties. Although it could be useful, it remains essential that the information is protected in such a way as to respect the privacy of landlords and to ensure that the data is disclosed only for the intended purpose. Under clause 84, access to information will already be possible for relevant enforcement authorities, and regulations made under clause 85 can be used to extend that access to restricted information to other important third parties. That could be another Department or other third parties, such as the police service and the fire service.

The Government remain committed to protecting the privacy of landlords, as I said, and will ensure that any data disclosed is disclosed only for the specific purposes outlined in clause 85 and in full compliance with data protection legislation. The clause contains limitations to ensure that restricted information is disclosed to third parties only when necessary—for example, to help to fulfil statutory requirements and functions, or to facilitate compliance with the rule of law.

The Government have yet to confirm which organisations will have access to that information. We believe that certain elements of the information contained in the database may be useful to other Departments and other external agencies, as I said. Should the database operator or other persons breach the restricted data disclosure restrictions imposed by clause 85, they could be guilty of an offence punishable by a fine.

Clause 86 outlines the circumstances in which data can be used by certain public bodies that are granted access. The clause restricts the use of database information by those bodies to housing-specific functions. I will list the agencies in turn, for the benefit of the Committee: local housing authorities may use information from the database only in relation to their functions concerning housing, residential landlords and residential tenancies; local weights and measures authorities will be able to use the information from the database only for purposes related to their enforcement of housing standards; the mayoral combined authorities and the Greater London Authority may use information only in connection to their housing-related functions; and, if the Government nominate a lead enforcement authority—we will discuss that in more detail in respect of a later clause—it will be allowed to use information from the database only in relation to its functions as a lead enforcement authority, and the provision of the landlord legislation for which it is responsible.

Clause 86 will mean that although those agencies will have access to the information collected by the database, they will be able to use the data only where necessary and connected to their work related to housing. That will provide for better intelligence gathering on the private rented sector, enhancing enforcement activities and driving up standards, while also ensuring the privacy of landlords. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. We spent some time on the use of the database in the previous Committee sitting, and the Opposition are satisfied with the Government’s direction of travel.

I have a question for the Minister in respect of his comments about those who will have access to the data and the purposes for which it is used. He spoke specifically about local authorities having the ability to access the data only for the performance of their housing functions. Predictive analytics are in quite widespread use in local authorities, largely based on the gathering of data from a number of sources—for example, the Ofsted databases that contain indicators relating to children, which might include the potential for a household to be made homeless, which would then trigger a requirement for a local authority to intervene.

It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify, perhaps in writing subsequent to this morning’s sitting, how housing functions will be defined so as not to inhibit the entirely commendable use of predictive analytics to identify households where there might be a risk that would trigger the local authority to intervene. How would that interact where elements of the service were provided by, for example, children’s trusts as a third party to the local authority, in order to ensure that the good work that is already being done to prevent households with children or vulnerable people from becoming homeless, and then requiring the intervention of a local authority, continues, and so that earlier intervention can forestall the level of risk?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for that question. To reassure him, any access to restricted information that is not displayed publicly through the database must be shown to facilitate compliance with a legal requirement, a rule of law or, as I said, the performance of a specific statutory function. I understand and recognise his point—namely, what are the limits? What is the definition of what a housing function is? What are the limits of what that applies to where statutory services are—I hope I have taken the shadow Minister’s meaning correctly—not strictly housing related but shade into housing-related issues? I will happily provide him some specific detail on that point through correspondence.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 84 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 85 to 87 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 88

Restriction on gaining possession

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 89 and 90 stand part.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clauses 88, 89 and 90 introduce a restriction on repossession for unregistered properties and new offences and financial penalties in relation to the database.

Clause 88 prohibits landlords from gaining a possession order for a property unless they have registered themselves and their property on the database. A comprehensive record is essential for the database to be of use to tenants —in the way I described in relation to the previous clauses—and to local authorities and central Government. This approach will incentivise landlords to register on the database, thereby empowering renters to make informed choices about where they live. However, the Government recognise the importance of tackling antisocial behaviour. It will therefore be possible for a possession order to be granted under grounds 7A or 14 if the matter relates to antisocial behaviour, even if a landlord and their property are not registered on the database.

The Government can, through regulations, amend the person to whom or circumstances in which the restriction on granting a possession order applies. This will allow the legislation to evolve to match the changing needs of the database and ensure that the possession restriction targets the right landlords.

Clause 89 allows local authorities to levy financial penalties on individuals who fail to comply with the database provisions. A transformative database will equip local authorities and tenants with the intelligence needed to make informed choices in the private rented sector. A strong enforcement framework will be crucial in maintaining the database’s integrity and ensuring that it serves its intended purpose. The clause grants local authorities powers to tailor penalties for non-compliance, and outlines a transparent and proportionate system for increasing penalties in cases where initial measures fail to achieve such compliance.

Clause 89 also allows local authorities to impose fines of up to £7,000 on persons who breach the restrictions in clause 80 regarding the marketing, advertising or letting of properties. Repeat offenders who commit similar breaches within five years, or continue to engage in unlawful behaviour, may face fines of up to £40,000, under clause 90. To further safeguard the integrity of the database, local housing authorities will have the power to impose fines of up to £40,000 on anyone who knowingly or recklessly submits false or misleading information to the database operator. Those fine levels will act as a powerful deterrent for landlords and agents, thereby ensuring high levels of compliance with the database provisions. The Secretary of State can amend the level of fines to reflect inflation; this power will ensure the continued effectiveness and relevance of our enforcement measures.

We understand that the database is a new service for local authorities, and we are designing the service to be as streamlined as possible. Our research indicates that a dependable source of information on the private rented sector will improve the efficiency of local authority enforcement practices. The clause mandates local authorities to have regard to guidance on financial penalties issued by the Secretary of State. The power will enable the Government to assist local authorities to fulfil their new responsibilities.

The success of the private rented sector database hinges on landlords and property agents fulfilling their new duties. Clause 90 will establish new offences for continued or repeated breaches of the requirements relating to the restrictions on the marketing, advertising and letting of a property imposed by clause 80. Those who continually or repeatedly breach the requirements within a five-year period are liable to an unlimited fine, following a successful prosecution.

Furthermore, clause 90 will establish a new offence where a person knowingly or recklessly provides false or misleading information to the database operator. Again, those who breach that requirement will face an unlimited fine on conviction. To ensure accountability in the private rented sector, we have extended liability for the offences to include corporate bodies. That will deter non-compliance and promote responsible behaviour among corporate entities and their representatives.

To combat these illegal practices, the Government will make regulations under the Housing and Planning Act 2016 to categorise the new offences established under clause 90 as banning order offences, which must be recorded on the database. As a result, depending on the decision of the local housing authority, landlords, agents or others convicted of such offences may be subject to a banning order.

The stringent penalties outlined in the clause will serve as a powerful disincentive for those who do not comply with the requirements of the database. By ensuring greater compliance, we will equip local authorities and tenants with essential information, while also enabling reputable landlords to differentiate themselves from those who do not, or refuse to, meet the required standards.

[David Simmonds]

Again, the Opposition support the measures, and I welcome the Minister’s words in introducing them.

On the restrictions around gaining possession, I have a brief question concerning the potential interaction between the database and planning law—for example, where a landlord has been registered and is letting a property that has not been authorised in planning terms. That is quite common on caravan sites, where the land might be illegally occupied, with a complex set of transactions leading up to that situation. The most vulnerable individuals and households are often accommodated in that type of property, which is sometimes of very poor quality. A local authority, therefore, needs to go down the appropriate enforcement path, in planning terms, to end the potentially illegal or unlawful use of that land.

Because planning law permits unlawful use to be rendered lawful by the seeking of retrospective permission, there is a potential risk to a tenant occupying such a property, if the local authority undertakes different courses of enforcement action simultaneously against a banned bad landlord and against a landowner or developer who has created a property that is not fit for occupation but is part of a rented-out property portfolio. I would like confirmation that those circumstances have been considered. Constituents of mine have been in that situation. I do not want to find that the most vulnerable and marginal households cannot benefit from the rights that the legislation intends to create.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for that question. I will give him the opportunity to clarify, if he feels that would be helpful. If I have understood him correctly, he is asking what would happen where there is an unauthorised development and potential planning enforcement in place, but the landlord is required under the new system to register with the database. Would they essentially be allowed to register with the database and comply with the requirements in the Bill, were they subject to a form of planning enforcement?

[David Simmonds]

Yes.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will take that away and write to the shadow Minister. It is a good, detailed, specific question. We need to consider how various elements of local authority enforcement action relate to the Bill and how the Bill interacts with other requirements.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

It has just occurred to me that the same question might apply to houses in multiple occupation, in areas where section 4 is applied. When the Minister looks into it, will he include that as well?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am more than happy to include that in my correspondence with the Committee.

[David Simmonds]

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) held a Westminster Hall debate on the topic of unauthorised development, but there are also issues with authorised development in places where there may be conflicts in planning law. For example, somebody occupying a caravan or temporary structure on land where they are subject to planning enforcement, but where they have a legal contract with a landlord, is in an especially vulnerable position. We want to ensure that they are not at risk of having their rights taken away as a result of ambiguities in the legislation. I am grateful to the Minister for looking into that.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Let me, hopefully, bring the exchanges on this matter to a close. I have taken away from this a very valid point. Under the provisions in the clause, if landlords correct a matter of non-compliance, vis-à-vis the requirements in the Bill, the possession process will be allowed to continue. Hon. Members have asked a reasonable question about whether, in circumstances where planning enforcement is still a live issue, it impacts in any way, and that can also apply in respect of HMOs. I commit to coming back to the Committee with fulsome detail on the subject.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 88 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 89 and 90 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 91

Power to direct database operator and local housing authorities

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 92 to 94 stand part.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clauses 91 to 94 deal with the power to direct the database operator, amendments to the Housing and Planning Act 2016, provisions for joint landlords and the interpretation of chapter 3.

The Government are aware that in order to achieve the aims of the database—to raise standards in the sector—we may need to direct the database operator or local authorities in respect of how they carry out certain functions in relation to the database. Clause 91 allows the Government to give the database operator or local housing authority instructions on how they exercise their functions. This may include giving instructions to local housing authorities on how to investigate and enforce property standards. The power will provide an agile database that can respond to the changing needs of the sector.

To ensure that local authorities can build a complete picture of enforcement activities, it is essential that banning orders and banning offences are recorded in one location. Clause 92 will require local authorities to record banning orders and banning order offences in respect of landlords on the private rented sector database once it has come into force. The clause amends section 28 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 to signpost people to the new PRS database established under the Bill.

The purpose of clause 93 is simply to ensure that we have the ability to streamline the process for joint landlords in order, where possible, to avoid the duplication of entries. We anticipate creating a single sign-up process for joint landlords, with one lead landlord registering on behalf of others.

To help the understanding and aid the interpretation of the proposed legislation concerning the database, clause 94 defines certain key terms used in the legislation, or signposts readers to definitions elsewhere. Those terms are “database”, “lead enforcement authority”, “the landlord legislation”, “relevant banning order”, “relevant banning order offence” and “unique identifier”. I hope the Committee will have no issue with these simple, straightforward clauses.

[David Simmonds]

Once again, we support the clauses, but I have a question for the Minister. A little later, we will debate the allocated enforcement authority—which local authority has the power to undertake the enforcement. It will be a challenge for areas of England with two-tier councils where the housing authority is the district council, because the county council also has certain responsibilities that it must fulfil. For example, under the Children Act 1989, the county council has a duty to house somebody who is at risk of homelessness even if they have no recourse to public funds, because of the risk to children of being made homeless. Were the council not able to access the database because it was not the enforcement authority for that area, it would not be able to undertake the same level of due diligence.

I want the Committee to be confident that when the allocation of powers and duties is undertaken, the process will be sufficiently comprehensive for all the parts of the local government system that could have duties triggered under various parts of this legislation to have equality of access to the database to enable them to discharge their functions properly.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for posing that question. I am confident that the provisions are comprehensive enough to deal with those sorts of eventualities. I think we will discuss the matter in a bit more detail when we come to the clauses that relate to the lead enforcement authority and who has particular responsibilities in certain scenarios envisioned in the Bill. If I have not answered the shadow Minister’s question, I will be happy to respond again at that point.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 91 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 92 to 94 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 95

Financial assistance by Secretary of State

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 96 and 97 stand part.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The clauses cover financial assistance provided by the Secretary of State to the PRS ombudsman and database, rent repayment orders and the interpretation of part 2.

On clause 95, we intend the private rented sector database and ombudsman to be self-funded through landlords’ registration or membership fees. However, clause 95 gives the Secretary of State the ability to give financial assistance to a person carrying out functions related to the PRS ombudsman or database provisions. Assistance will be granted in the event of an emergency, unforeseen circumstances or to cover enforcement shortfalls in particular circumstances.

Clause 96 concerns rent repayment orders. As members of the Committee will know, an RRO is an order made in the first-tier tribunal requiring a landlord to repay a specified amount of rent, either to the tenant or to the local housing authority, for a range of specified offences. The amount owed under an RRO is enforceable as if it were a debt in the county court. To grant an RRO, it is not necessary for the landlord or agent to have been convicted, but a tribunal must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that one of the offences has been committed. Presently, an RRO can require the repayment of a maximum sum of 12 months’ rent.

Rent repayment orders were introduced by the Housing Act 2004 and extended through section 40 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 to cover a wider range of offences. RROs are an accessible, informal and relatively straightforward means by which tenants can obtain redress in the form of financial compensation, without having to rely on another body in instances where a landlord or his or her agent has committed an offence. For that reason—as you know better than anyone, Mr Betts—they have proved an extremely effective means for tenants and local authorities to hold to account landlords who fail to meet their obligations. RROs empower tenants to take effective action against unscrupulous landlords, but they also act as a powerful deterrent to errant landlords.

The previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill brought a number of continuing or repeat breaches or offences within the purview of rent repayment orders. In our view, it did not go far enough. We made the case at the time—ultimately without success, it must be said —that RROs should be a more significant feature of the Bill. I am therefore pleased that our Renters’ Rights Bill significantly expands rent repayment orders.

At this point, it would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the late Simon Mullings, who unexpectedly died recently while on holiday in Scotland. Spike, as he was known by many, was a real enlarger of life and a real force for good in the sector, helping a great many families in need. His work on RROs, not least in the Rakusen v. Jepsen case, which went to the UK Supreme Court, and the exchanges we had in relation to the Renters (Reform) Bill in the last Parliament heavily influenced our approach to the legislation before us. He is sorely missed, and I thought it was right for me to make special mention of him, given how he has influenced the clauses we are discussing.

Clause 96 makes a series of important measures that strengthen rent repayment orders. First, it expands rent repayment orders to new offences across the Bill, including those in relation to tenancy reform, the ombudsman and the database. That ensures robust tenant-led enforcement of the new measures and supports better compliance with the new system. Secondly, the clause ensures that for all the listed offences, the tribunal must issue the maximum rent repayment order amount where the landlord has been convicted of, or received a financial penalty for, that offence or has committed the same offence previously. The intention is that rent repayment orders will provide an even stronger deterrent against offending and reoffending. Finally, clause 96 makes it easier for tenants and local authorities to apply for rent repayment orders, by doubling the maximum period in which an application can be made from the current 12 months to two years.

Clause 97 explains what activities constitute marketing a property to let and what comprises letting agency work. Landlords, letting agents and other persons will be prohibited from marketing residential properties to let, unless the landlord has registered with the private rented sector database and ombudsman scheme. Renters will benefit from knowing that a landlord has registered with the database, and tenants should be able to seek redress for issues that occur during the pre-letting period. We will retain the flexibility to narrow the definition of letting agency work by regulations in the future, if that is needed.

I commend the clauses to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 95 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 96 and 97 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 98

Decent homes standard

[Mr Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 72, in clause 98, page 117, line 20, at end insert—

“(ia) the availability of which is secured by the Secretary of State under paragraph 9 of Schedule 10 of the Immigration Act 2016, or sections 4 or 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999;

(ib) that is provided by the Ministry of Defence for use by service personnel; or”.

This amendment would extend the Decent Homes Standard to accommodation provided to people on immigration bail and to that provided by the Ministry of Defence to service personnel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Amos]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, particularly as I know your expertise in this policy area. Amendment 72 would apply the proposed decent homes standard both to accommodation for refugees and people seeking asylum, and to accommodation provided by the Ministry of Defence for serving personnel. As I stated on Second Reading, it would be perverse, now that we have a decent homes standard for social housing and this Bill proposes a decent homes standard for the private rented sector, to leave our serving military personnel as one of the only groups not benefiting from decent living accommodation.

In debate on the Renters (Reform) Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), speaking on behalf of our hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), spoke about RAF Shawbury and Tern Hill barracks in north Shropshire, where the service accommodation was plagued by black mould, rat infestations and chronic overcrowding, meaning that individuals who have put their lives on the line for our country are not necessarily guaranteed a warm and safe place to live in return. I agree with the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham:

“That is no way to treat people who have put their lives on the line to serve this country…they deserve better.”—[Official Report, 24 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 1004.]

I am grateful to the Minister for advising the House on Second Reading of this Bill that

“the MOD is reviewing its target standards so that we can drive up the quality of that accommodation separately from the Bill.”—[Official Report, 9 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 412.],

but this is a long-running issue, and no doubt any Government at any time on any day in any month would say that they were “reviewing” the situation. Frankly, that is not going far enough.

Next week, of course, we will be commemorating those who sacrificed everything for our country. It would be appropriate, would it not, for the Government to take the opportunity under this Bill to commit to giving service personnel a decent homes standard for the public buildings in which they live? I have to say that the Government’s current position is a bit disappointing. I hope that the Minister will update that position, the more so because it falls short of the position taken by the previous Conservative Government, which is something of a surprise from where I am on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I hope very much that the Minister will update the position.

As the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner will no doubt remember, the former Minister and then Member for Redcar, Jacob Young, in response to the equivalent amendment proposed to the Renters (Reform) Bill by my hon. Friends, made the commitment on Report that the Conservative Government would

“ensure that service accommodation meets the decent homes standard”.

However, he also said:

“Service…accommodation has unique features…including a significant portion being located on secure military sites where there will be issues around security and access for inspections.”

Therefore, like the Minister today, he recognised the unique challenges. However, he said that with

“the appropriate monitoring and reporting arrangements”,

the Government

“intend to ensure that service accommodation meets the decent homes standard”.—[Official Report, 24 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 1029.]

Can it really be the case that the new Government are backtracking on the commitment of the last Government when it comes to decent homes for our serving military personnel? I certainly hope not.

In earlier sittings, this Minister emphasised that the exact nature of the standard would be subject to consultation, and clause 98(4) makes provision for exactly that consultation. I do not suggest that private rented housing would necessarily have poorer standards than the decent homes standard that applies to social housing. However, it is clear in clause 98 that the Government intend to develop a distinct standard appropriate to the private rented sector. What greater opportunity is there for the clause to ensure that the Government also develop a distinct decent homes standard that would be appropriate for the MOD conditions described earlier?

Finally, there is no doubt that tenants taking refuge here from war or other disasters in their own countries, who are awaiting determination of their asylum applications and many of whom have served our military and British forces in theatres of war such as Afghanistan, should also be in decent homes. Incidentally, the Liberal Democrats believe that asylum seekers should be working for that accommodation, so that they can earn for themselves and pay for it, but that does not take away from the fact that those families should not be in poor accommodation and should have decent homes.

I strongly urge the Minister, and the Committee as a whole, to recognise that the Bill provides a legislative opportunity, one that may not come again in this Parliament, to do right by those who should have decent homes. I urge the Committee to support the amendment and finally bring a long-running campaign to a successful conclusion, such that military accommodation will meet the decent homes standard.

[Matthew Pennycook]

We now move to part 3 of the Bill, concerning the decent homes standard. As members of the Committee will be aware, the private rented sector has the worst conditions of any housing tenure. More than one in five privately rented homes fail to meet the current decent homes standard, which sets a minimum standard for social housing. That equates to around a million homes. We are determined to tackle the blight of poor-quality homes and to ensure that tenants have the safe and decent homes they deserve. To do that, we will apply a decent homes standard to privately rented homes for the first time.

Clause 98 allows regulations to be made setting out the decent homes standard requirements that private rented homes must meet. As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington just mentioned, the Government will be consulting on the content of that standard, and we will set out the details of our proposals in due course. We want as many private rented sector tenants as possible to benefit from the decent homes standard. It will therefore apply to the vast majority of privately rented dwellings and houses in multiple occupation that are let under tenancies, as well as privately rented supported housing occupied both under tenancies and licences.

It is our intention that as much privately rented temporary homelessness accommodation as possible is covered by the decent homes standard too, but we need to avoid reducing the supply of such housing. Clause 98 therefore allows, following a consultation, temporary accommodation to be brought within scope of the standard through regulations. We are committed to engaging with the sector to assess the potential impacts and to ensure that our approach strikes the right balance.

Schedule 4 establishes a robust but proportionate enforcement framework for the decent homes standard. Local councils already have a wide range of powers to take action when properties contain hazards. Schedule 4 will allow those enforcement powers also to be used where private rented homes fail to meet decent homes standard requirements. It also gives councils a new power to issue financial penalties of up to £7,000 where the most dangerous hazards are found, as well as taking other enforcement action. That will provide a strong incentive for landlords to ensure that their properties are safe.

In most instances, the landlord who lets out the property to the tenants will be responsible for ensuring that it meets the decent homes standard. To reflect that, the schedule provides that the landlord will be subject to enforcement by default. However, some circumstances are more complex, such as leasehold properties and where rent-to-rent arrangements are being used. The schedule gives councils the flexibility in such situations to take enforcement action against the appropriate person. The schedule also allows for the fact that there will be legitimate reasons why some properties will not be able to meet all elements of the standard—for example, if a property is a listed building and consent to make alterations has been refused. Local councils will be able to take a pragmatic approach to enforcement in such cases. We will publish statutory guidance to support them in dealing with such issues in a way that is fair for both tenants and landlords.

We have tabled a number of minor Government amendments to ensure that clause 98 and schedule 4 work as intended. It is important that local authorities can take enforcement action against the person responsible for failures to meet quality standards. The amendments will ensure that the appropriate person can always be subject to enforcement action in respect of health and safety hazards in temporary homelessness accommodation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Denyer]

I rise to support amendment 72, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, who made a compelling case for the need to provide adequate housing for those who serve us in the armed forces. I want to pick up on the reassurance that the Minister attempted to offer us on the existing regulatory regime for asylum accommodation, which he believes is sufficient. There is a two-word answer to whether it is sufficient: Bibby Stockholm. Would the Bibby Stockholm meet the decent homes standard? No, it clearly would not, and the Bill is an opportunity to fix that.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will respond briefly, partly because a number of the issues raised are outside my ministerial responsibility. I commit to replying in writing to the points raised in relation to the responsibilities of the Home Office and the Department for Education, to give the Committee more clarity. Some of those details will come out when we consult. Everyone is assuming that we are talking about the decent homes standard as if it exists—it does not exist. We need to consult on what those specific standards will be and introduce the regulations.

The powers we have given ourselves in the measures will ensure that the standard can be extended to temporary accommodation, and to other types of housing provision where needed. I will happily come back on the point that the hon. Member for Bristol Central raised about the provision of asylum accommodation.

[Mr Amos]

The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner believes that the commitment from the last Government that the decent homes standard will be applied to Ministry of Defence housing still stands, but the Minister says that the decent homes standard will not apply to MOD homes and instead that the MOD has it under review.

[Mr Amos]

That is not consistent with what Jacob Young said in 2023, as recorded in Hansard, namely that the intention was to extend the decent homes standard to cover Ministry of Defence accommodation. That is the intention of the amendment. That is why I tabled it and why my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire tabled it in the last parliamentary Session. We are hearing that someone in the MOD has it under review. At the moment, that is not a huge reassurance. The whole subject of MOD housing and the need for serving personnel to benefit from it has been omitted.

The Minister mentioned the difficulty of enforcing the decent homes standard because MOD accommodation is behind the wire, but according to him we know that 96% of MOD accommodation would meet the standard. That work has been done, surveys have been carried out and the information is being freely exchanged, so clearly it is not that difficult to inspect the accommodation and understand what standard it meets. All accommodation on MOD bases can be easily accessed with the permission of the officer commanding the base. All sorts of inspections are carried out on MOD bases.

I accept that the Government are supportive of the principle of improving the standard of asylum seeker accommodation, but as with MOD housing, the fact that it is under review is not much of an assurance. I therefore will not withdraw the amendment.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Unless the hon. Gentleman is pressing his amendment simply to make a political point, I ask him gently: what outcomes are we seeking? He wants to bring MOD accommodation up to the decent homes standard. I have made it very clear to him that the MOD has been benchmarking minimum housing standards to the decent homes standard since 2016, and the shadow Minister has made the same point. The MOD inspects its properties. It knows what that standard is. It reports that 96% of its accommodation meets that standard.

The MOD also has a higher standard, the MOD-developed decent homes-plus standard, to which it benchmarks its accommodation. It found that 84.4% of its accommodation meets that standard. So we know that the MOD is already inspecting and monitoring its standards. The MOD has made it very clear under the present Government that it is reviewing how it takes forward those standards and—this is important to the point about outcomes—that in driving up standards in its accommodation, it is seeking an equivalent standard that we will introduce for the private sector through the Bill.

I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that we share the same objective; it is about how that is achieved. I have tried to give him the reassurance that the MOD is not just brushing off the review; it is absolutely committed to driving up standards through its particular route, given some of the challenges it faces. I have a barracks in my constituency, and it is not that easy for local authority enforcement officers to just make an appointment to visit it and inspect. It is for the MOD to take this forward, and it is absolutely committed to doing so. If the hon. Gentleman’s point is simply about how we achieve the same objective, I am very confident that the MOD should be the one to do it through the specific route it has outlined, rather than by bringing military accommodation into the Bill, which could have all manner of unintended consequences.

[David Simmonds]

The Minister said earlier that there is a requirement for a consultation on the decent homes standard. It is important to recognise that a decent homes standard already exists, and in fact has existed since the previous Labour Government, which introduced it for social housing. The MOD is benchmarking its accommodation to that existing social housing decent homes standard, which includes things such as the state of repair of the property and its thermal insulation—the property needs to be sufficiently warm for safe occupation. Those criteria already exist and are already in use. Where there is an element of doubt is on the specific decent homes standard that the new Government would apply to the private rented sector. But there is already a decent homes standard, which is in use in the Ministry of Defence now.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I give way to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

We have been in office for a little over 120 days, so the hon. Gentleman will forgive us for not publishing information about every action that we are taking. I will make him this offer: I will take his point away to MOD Ministers who we are in conversation with, and if I cannot give him further assurances through written correspondence about the process that the MOD intends to take forward, including in response to his specific point about timelines, he is more than welcome to push the amendment at a later stage. However, at this stage I urge him to accept that we think there are good reasons why this is not the legislative vehicle to take the amendment forward. The objective is shared; from our point of view, this is about the means by which it is most appropriately achieved.

[Mr Amos]

Given the assurance that the Minister has generously given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: 24, in clause 98, page 118, line 27, at end insert—

“(ba) a building or part of a building constructed or adapted for use as a house in multiple occupation if—

(i) it is for the time being only occupied by persons who form a single household, and

(ii) the accommodation which those persons occupy is let under a relevant tenancy or is supported exempt accommodation,

except where the accommodation which those persons occupy is social housing and the landlord under the tenancy, or the provider of the supported exempt accommodation, is a registered provider of social housing,”.

This expands the definition of “qualifying residential premises”—and therefore expands the scope of the power in new section 2A inserted by this clause—so as to catch HMO accommodation which is occupied by only one household (and therefore does not count as an HMO because it is not actually in multiple occupation).

Amendment 25, in clause 98, page 118, line 34, after “(b)” insert “, (ba)”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)

This is consequential on Amendment 24.

Clause 98, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4

Decent homes standard

Amendments made: 26, in schedule 4, page 186, line 4, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—

“(3) After subsection (8) insert—

‘9) But unoccupied HMO accommodation is “qualifying residential premises” for the purposes of this Part only to the extent provided for by section 2B(1)(ba).’”

This is consequential on Amendment 24.

Amendment 27, in schedule 4, page 202, line 5, leave out from second “premises” to “, and” in line 6 and insert “other than—

(i) homelessness accommodation (see paragraph B1), or

(ii) common parts (see paragraph 4)”.

This excludes homelessness accommodation from the scope of the new paragraph A1. Instead it is dealt with by the new paragraph B1 inserted by Amendment 29. (Common parts are already excluded from new paragraph A1.)

Amendment 28, in schedule 4, page 202, line 11, leave out from beginning to second “the” in line 13 and insert—

“(1A) Sub-paragraph (2) applies in relation to the premises if they are—

(a) a dwelling or HMO let under a relevant tenancy,

(b) an HMO where at least one unit of accommodation which forms part of the HMO is let under a relevant tenancy, or

(c) a building or a part of a building constructed or adapted for use as a house in multiple occupation if—

(i) it is for the time being only occupied by persons who form a single household, and

(ii) the accommodation which those persons occupy is let under a relevant tenancy.”

This is consequential on Amendment 24.

Amendment 29, in schedule 4, page 202, line 31, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(4) In this paragraph—

“common parts” means common parts that are qualifying residential premises by virtue of section 2B(1)(d);

“homelessness accommodation” means accommodation in England—

(a) the availability of which is secured under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (homelessness), and

(b) which is residential premises, whether by virtue of paragraph (e) or another paragraph of section 1(4).

Service of improvement notices: homelessness accommodation (whether or not it is qualifying residential premises)

(1) This paragraph applies where the specified premises in the case of an improvement notice are homelessness accommodation (which has the same meaning here as in paragraph A1).

(2) The notice must be served on any person—

(a) who has an estate or interest in the premises, and

(b) who, in the opinion of the local housing authority, ought to take the action specified in the notice.

(3) This paragraph applies instead of paragraph 1, 2 or 3 (in a case where that paragraph would otherwise apply to the improvement notice).”

The definitions are consequential on Amendment 27. The new paragraph B1 provides for the service of all improvement notices relating to homelessness accommodation (and replaces the current provision which only catches notices about requirements under regulations under section 2A).

Amendment 30, in schedule 4, page 203, line 5, leave out “let under a relevant tenancy, or” and insert “a dwelling or HMO let under a relevant tenancy,”.

This is consequential on Amendment 24.

Amendment 31, in schedule 4, page 203, line 8, at end insert “or

(c) are a building or a part of a building constructed or adapted for use as a house in multiple occupation—

(i) that is for the time being only occupied by persons who form a single household, and

(ii) where the accommodation which those persons occupy is let under a relevant tenancy,”.

This is consequential on Amendment 24.

Amendment 32, in schedule 4, page 203, line 12, after “tenancy.” insert—

“(2B) Where—

(a) sub-paragraph (2A) does not apply in relation to the specified premises,

(b) the specified premises consist of or include the whole or any part of a building containing homelessness accommodation, and

(c) the person providing the homelessness accommodation—

(i) is a tenant of that accommodation under a tenancy which has an unexpired term of 3 years or less (the “short tenancy”), and

(ii) accordingly is not an owner in relation to the homelessness accommodation (see section 262(7)(b)),

the authority must also serve copies of the order on any person who, to their knowledge, is a tenant under the short tenancy, a landlord under the short tenancy, or a superior landlord in relation to the short tenancy, and who is not otherwise required to be served with a copy of the notice under this paragraph.

(2C) In sub-paragraph (2B) “homelessness accommodation” means accommodation in England—

(a) the availability of which is secured under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (homelessness), and

(b) which is residential premises, whether by virtue of paragraph (e) or another paragraph of section 1(4).”

This requires copies of a prohibition notice to be given where homelessness accommodation is provided by a person who is a tenant of the accommodation under a lease with an unexpired term of 3 years or less.

Amendment 33, in schedule 4, page 203, line 13, leave out “after “(2)” insert “or (2A)”” and insert “for “sub-paragraph (2)” substitute “this paragraph””.

This is consequential on Amendment 32.

Amendment 34, in schedule 4, page 203, line 28, leave out “let under a relevant tenancy, or” and insert “a dwelling or HMO let under a relevant tenancy,”.

This is consequential on Amendment 24.

Amendment 35, in schedule 4, page 203, line 31, at end insert “or

(c) are a building or a part of a building constructed or adapted for use as a house in multiple occupation—

(i) that is for the time being only occupied by persons who form a single household, and

(ii) where the accommodation which those persons occupy is let under a relevant tenancy,”.

This is consequential on Amendment 24.

Amendment 36, in schedule 4, page 203, line 35, after “tenancy.” insert—

“(2B) Where—

(a) sub-paragraph (2A) does not apply in relation to the specified premises,

(b) the specified premises consist of or include the whole or any part of a building containing homelessness accommodation, and

(c) the person providing the homelessness accommodation—

(i) is a tenant of that accommodation under a tenancy which has an unexpired term of 3 years or less (the “short tenancy”), and

(ii) accordingly is not an owner in relation to the homelessness accommodation (see section 262(7)(b)),

the authority must also serve copies of the order on any person who, to their knowledge, is a tenant under the short tenancy, a landlord under the short tenancy, or a superior landlord in relation to the short tenancy, and who is not otherwise required to be served with a copy of the notice under this paragraph.

(2C) In sub-paragraph (2B) “homelessness accommodation” means accommodation in England—

(a) the availability of which is secured under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (homelessness), and

(b) which is residential premises, whether by virtue of paragraph (e) or another paragraph of section 1(4).”

This requires copies of a prohibition notice to be given where homelessness accommodation is provided by a person who is a tenant of the accommodation under a lease with an unexpired term of 3 years or less.

Amendment 37, in schedule 4, page 203, line 36, leave out “or (2A)” and insert “, (2A) or (2B)”.

This is consequential on Amendment 36.

Amendment 38, in schedule 4, page 203, line 37, leave out “after “(2)” insert “, (2A)”” and insert “for “sub-paragraph (2) or (3)” substitute “this paragraph””.

This is consequential on Amendment 36.

Amendment 39, in schedule 4, page 204, line 4, leave out “let under a relevant tenancy, or” and insert “a dwelling or HMO let under a relevant tenancy,”.

This is consequential on Amendment 24.

Amendment 40, in schedule 4, page 204, line 7, at end insert “or

(iii) are a building or a part of a building constructed or adapted for use as a house in multiple occupation that is for the time being only occupied by persons who form a single household and where the accommodation which those persons occupy is let under a relevant tenancy,”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)

This is consequential on Amendment 24.

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 99

Financial penalties

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider schedule 5.

[Matthew Pennycook]

These provisions deal with financial penalties. Schedule 5 sets out the process for a local housing authority to impose a financial penalty on a person and applies to clauses 39, 56, 64 and 89. Foremost, schedule 5 stipulates that, before imposing a financial penalty, a local housing authority must issue a notice of intent setting out its reasons for issuing the fine. Landlords then have 28 days to make written representations to the local authority—I have discussed this point outside of Committee with the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham. Following that period of representations, the local authority must decide whether to impose a penalty. If it decides to issue a penalty, the local housing authority must then issue a final notice detailing the fine to be paid by the landlords, who will be able to appeal a decision to impose a penalty or the amount of the penalty by bringing an appeal to the first-tier tribunal within 28 days. The process in the schedule follows the precedent of the Tenant Fees Act 2019 and is similar to the process in the Housing and Planning Act 2016.

Clause 99 applies the schedule 5 procedures and rules for imposing, appealing, recovering or applying the proceeds of a financial penalty related to the anti-discrimination provisions, rental bidding, landlord redress schemes and the private rented sector database. I commend the provisions to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 99 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clause 100

Rent repayment orders: liability of landlords and superior landlords

[Carla Denyer]

I beg to move amendment 41, in clause 100, page 120, line 9, leave out from “order)” to the end of line 12 and insert—

“—

(a) in subsection (1), omit “, beyond reasonable doubt,”;

(b) at the end of subsection (3), insert—

“(d) section 46A (where an order is made against more than one landlord or there has been a previous order”;

(c) after subsection (3), insert—

“(4) Where the application for a rent repayment order relates to an offence under sections 1(2), (3) or 3(A) of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, the First-tier Tribunal must be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the offence has been committed.

(5) Where the application for a rent repayment order relates to any other offence to which this Chapter applies, the First-tier Tribunal must be satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that the offence has been committed.”””

This amendment would apply the civil standard of proof for Rent Repayment Orders pursued on the basis of a Protection from Eviction Act 1977 offence.

[Carla Denyer]

The amendment is related to amendment 44, which I spoke to a few days ago, and to the serious issue of illegal evictions. Amendment 41 would apply the civil standard of proof for rent repayment orders, known as RROs, which are pursued on the basis of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 offence, known as PFEA—I apologise; there will be acronyms. RROs are extremely difficult for renters to bring under the PFEA offence, due to the criminal standard of proof. As the Minister himself pointed out in our discussions on illegal discrimination, it is notoriously difficult for tenants to prove landlords’ culpability to a criminal standard of proof.

As I understand it, RROs for PFEA offences require a landlord who has committed an offence listed in the 1977 legislation to repay rent that has been paid in respect of a tenancy or licence. RROs are brought in the first-tier property tribunal, often as compensation by self-represented applicants who seek to reclaim rent they have paid to their landlord. Importantly, legal aid is not available for RRO claims, so tenants are almost always on their own. Currently, RRO claims require a criminal standard of proof. That is inappropriate because an RRO is not a criminal prosecution. It does not follow criminal procedural rules, or result in a criminal sentence or a criminal record if the defendant is convicted. As things stand, PFEA RROs are an anomaly. A civil claim in a civil court for illegal eviction or harassment applies the civil standard, despite the fact that civil claims typically attract much higher penalties in the form of civil damages. It is therefore logical and consistent to apply the civil standard of proof to PFEA RROs, in line with the rest of civil law.

What is more, RROs are intended to be accessible to lay applicants, but although that may be so for licensing offences, it is far from the case for PFEA offences. Lay applicants—I would include myself in that category, because I would also make the following mistake—might understandably focus on proving one aspect of the offence, for example the locks being changed, rather than a separate part of the offence, for example by proving the intention of the landlord. To a non-lawyer, that might seem an insignificant distinction, but intention carries substantial legal weight.

Often, these offences are not just difficult but impossible to prove to a criminal standard. Often, if a landlord changes the locks, they do it when the tenant is not at home. Illegal eviction and harassment occur in the privacy of renters’ homes, often without witnesses or evidence. The criminal burden for PFEA RROs places an extra and often insurmountable burden on lay applicants to prove their case at tribunal. It has a chilling effect because it prevents many claims from being brought in the first place, as the evidence to meet that standard is simply not available. Under the current standard, therefore, renters cannot apply for RROs as they cannot prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, even when it is clear that an offence has occurred and that only the landlord would be motivated to commit it. That error weakens enforcement and access to justice, and it undermines the purpose of RRO legislation.

The incredibly low number of RROs and PFEA eviction offences demonstrates that the system is not working. Safer Renting—also known as Cambridge House—and the University of York have conducted research estimating that, over the two-year period from January 2021 to December 2022, there were at least 16,089 illegal evictions, and that number is almost certainly an undercount. Meanwhile, data gathered from the organisation Marks Out of Tenancy—founded in my constituency, as it happens—shows that in the same period, from 2021 to 2022, there were just 31 RROs in which a PFEA ground was successful. That is 31 out of more than 16,000. The system simply is not working.

I appreciate that the statistics that I have referred to might be explained by several things, but the standard of proof is certainly part of the problem and could be part of the solution. In fact, given that we are getting rid of section 21 evictions, I fear that failing to apply the civil standard of proof will risk creating the unintended consequence that illegal evictions will soar, as landlords find a way around the protections introduced by the Bill. I hope that, on that basis, the Minister will consider my amendment.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will begin by addressing clauses 100 and 101, and I will then turn to amendment 41, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol Central.

Clauses 100 and 101 make provision about the application of rent repayment orders to superior landlords and to company directors. To be most effective, tenants and local authorities need to be able to seek a rent repayment order against any landlord in the chain who has committed an offence. We are seeing a rise in so called rent-to-rent arrangements, which are often used by criminal landlords to mask illegal and exploitative practices and escape enforcement action. Clause 100 provides that superior landlords in such arrangements can be subject to rent repayment orders; that is currently not possible. With this important clause, we are ensuring that superior landlords cannot avoid their responsibilities. Rent repayment orders need to act as a sufficient deterrent to criminal landlords. Some criminal landlords see financial penalties simply as a cost of doing business. Clause 100 therefore doubles the maximum amount payable under a rent repayment order from 12 months to two years, making the deterrent effect significantly stronger.

Clause 101 will enable rent repayment orders to be made against directors and other similar officers of landlord bodies corporate that have committed a listed offence. Currently, if a tenant pursues a rent repayment order against a sham rent-to-rent or landlord company, the company can escape the penalty by virtue of having few or no assets or by simply dissolving. The clause will prevent this practice, for example by ensuring that, where certain conditions are met, individual directors of such companies can have a rent repayment order made against them. The clause ensures that rent repayment orders can be used effectively to tackle unscrupulous landlord companies and sham rent-to-rent companies.

Amendment 41 concerns an issue that the Government have previously considered and that I continue to keep under close review, namely what might be done to address the fact that proving illegal eviction and harassment to a criminal standard is, without doubt, extremely challenging and the prevalence of rent repayment orders in this area relative to other offences is low as a result.

As I have said before during our proceedings, the Government are clear that illegal eviction and harassment are serious criminal offences that cause significant harm and distress. Perpetrators must be robustly punished. It is right that the Housing and Planning Act 2016 extended repayment orders to cover these offences and that this Bill takes steps in other areas, including expanded civil penalties, to bear down on them.

Amendment 41, for which the hon. Member for Bristol Central made the case eloquently, would reduce from criminal to civil the standard of proof that needs to be met for rent repayment orders to be awarded in relation to unlawful eviction and harassment. To be candid with the hon. Lady and to explain my thought process, my concern about her amendment is primarily about the implications that it could have for the integrity of the rent repayment order regime as a whole. RROs are a mechanism designed to provide redress and act as a deterrent in relation specifically to criminal offences. As such, I fear that lowering the standard of proof for individual offences, as proposed in her amendment, runs the risk of weakening the link between the culpability of the landlord and the making of a rent repayment order. If the tribunal does not need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the landlord committed an offence, we could see a weakening of that link.

I am absolutely committed to ensuring that rent repayment orders are effective across all the listed offences. I feel that that has to be balanced against the need to maintain the coherence, efficacy and fairness of a regime that is, as I hope she will acknowledge, in most instances working extremely well and that we want to strengthen. As we introduce the strengthened rent repayment orders in the Bill, I am mindful that we do not want to inadvertently damage the functioning of that regime, which we need to build upon.

Although I am more than happy to continue a dialogue with the hon. Member for Bristol Central on the matter, I kindly ask her to withdraw her amendment. We would have to resist it if she pushed it to a vote, and I would like that not to happen. We keep this area under review, and I would like to keep the conversation going.

[Carla Denyer]

I have a follow-up question. If the Minister desires to keep the criminal standard of proof for RROs, will he consider speaking to his colleagues about amending legal aid, so that it is at least available to tenants who would otherwise need to represent themselves in criminal courts?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I hope that the hon. Lady will appreciate that I cannot, as a Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Minister, give her that commitment in Committee today, but we are having conversations across all Departments. This is an issue that the Government have considered, and I keep it under review. I recognise the challenge that the hon. Lady rightly poses, and which we have considered, which is that rent repayment order prevalence in this area is far too low.

As I have said, I worry about the unintended consequences of making what would amount to quite a significant change to the RRO regime. We want to strengthen it, because it is working and has worked incredibly well—particularly since the changes made in the 2016 Act—in providing effective tenant redress and acting as a deterrent. I am mindful about accepting significant changes in Committee, but I keep the matter under review. I will have those conversations, and my Department’s officials have had conversations across Government on this and many other areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 103 stand part.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will be fairly brief on these two clauses. Licensing requirements are a fundamental part of ensuring that HMOs and other rented properties are safe and well managed. Clause 102 ensures that superior landlords can be liable for the offences of failing to ensure that a property is properly licensed.

In a situation in which a correct licence is not in place for a property, local authorities and tenants need the ability to take enforcement action against the person, or persons, responsible for failing to obtain a licence. The measure ensures that superior landlords can be held to account where they are responsible. Building on our discussion of a previous clause, that is critical to tackling sham rent-to-rent arrangements. It is important that superior landlords who could not have known that the property was being let as an HMO—for example, freeholders of a large block of flats with long leases—are protected. Clause 102 provides additional defences to make sure that that is the case.

Clause 103 seeks to ensure that both landlords and superior landlords can, where appropriate, be served with improvement notices requiring the removal of hazards. The provisions in the Housing Act 2004 do not allow improvement notices to be served on landlords or superior landlords in rent-to-rent arrangements in all circumstances. Clause 103 addresses that anomaly by giving local councils the ability to serve improvement notices on landlords and superior landlords, based on who should take the remedial action required. It will also ensure that tenants can pursue rent repayment orders against such landlords if they fail to comply with improvement notices. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 102 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 103 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 104

Enforcement by local housing authorities: general duty

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 105 to 110 stand part.

[Matthew Pennycook]

We expect that the vast majority of landlords will do the right thing and meet their new legal responsibilities, but there will be a minority who fail to do so. That is why, for this package of reforms to be effective and achieve its aims, consistent and effective enforcement by local authorities is absolutely necessary.

Clause 104 places a duty on every local housing authority in England to enforce the new measures in their areas. We expect local authorities to take a proactive approach to enforcing these reforms and give this area the priority that it deserves. Equally, we want councils to have flexibility and take action in a way that best addresses local problems and priorities. The duty is broadly framed to allow that to happen.

We recognise that different types of enforcement will be more suited to different cases. When considering enforcement, local authorities will be able to issue a civil penalty as an alternative to criminal prosecution for an offence, allowing them to decide the most effective method of enforcement in each case. Clause 104 also empowers county councils that are not local housing authorities to take enforcement action, and it enables local authorities to take enforcement action outside their own local authority areas.

Clauses 105 and 106 set out the notification requirements where local authorities take enforcement action outside their own boundaries, or where a county council that is not a local housing authority takes enforcement action.

Clause 107 places a duty on local authorities to supply information to the Secretary of State, as required, on the exercise of their functions under the measures created or amended by the Bill. Regular and robust data from local authorities will be vital to understanding the impact of our reforms and the action taken by local authorities. We will work with local authorities to agree a data reporting framework that is rational, proportionate and helpful to both local and central Government, and in line with similar data collections.

Clause 108 allows the Secretary of State to appoint a lead enforcement authority for the purposes of any provisions in the landlord legislation, which include many of the provisions in the Bill.

Clauses 109 and 110 outline the functions of the lead enforcement authority, which include: overseeing the operation of the provisions in the legislation for which it is responsible; providing guidance, advice and information to local authorities; and, where necessary, enforcing the provisions. We are carefully considering whether having a lead enforcement authority for any of the provisions in the landlord legislation will be beneficial, and we will continue to engage with local authorities and other stakeholders to shape our plans. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[David Simmonds]

Although the Opposition are supportive of the clauses, it is important to clarify a few things. First, the aim of clause 104 is clearly to ensure that a very high standard is met in the private rented sector. Many local authorities will take action themselves to ensure that the standard is met in a property—particularly in respect of social housing—if the landlord fails to do so. The powers under this legislation do not go as far as that; they extend to imposing a financial penalty or instituting proceedings against a person for that offence. Renters may expect that the local authority will effectively take possession of a property to remedy a problem giving rise to a breach—for example, a breach of the decent homes standard at the property—and it is important to recognise their expectations.

I will ask the Minister a question about clause 110. Local authorities will generally find it more efficient to enforce the decent homes standard as a single function, rather than having separate private rented sector and social housing functions, both of which effectively do the same work. The financing of the social housing element would normally come through the housing revenue account, which, like a number of other local authority revenue accounts, is ringfenced—something I know you are familiar with, Mr Betts—meaning that resources raised through that account cannot be applied to another purpose. Clearly, we would not wish to allow a degree of inefficiency to creep in by creating duplication.

It would be helpful if the Minister could say whether the guidance provided to local authorities will clarify that there is no objection, in respect of the private rented sector, to a sharing of services that are funded partially through the housing revenue account and partially through the regime introduced by the legislation. I know that this issue has been significant in different types of funding provided to local authorities for particular functions.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will be fairly brief, because I am more than happy to go away and check whether this is an error on my part rather than that of the shadow Minister, but we have to be very clear which provisions in the Bill these enforcement powers relate to. Clause 104 sets out that every local housing authority has a duty to enforce the landlord legislation in its area, which covers chapters 3 and 6 of part 1 of the Bill, part 2 of the Bill, sections 1 and 1A of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, and chapter 1 of part 1 of the Housing Act 1988.

We will consult on it, so further detail will come forward, but, to put it simply, enforcement of the decent homes standard will come via a different track. Nothing in the enforcement provisions will interfere in the housing health and safety rating system, or the enforcement of Awaab’s law or the decent homes standard to come.

I am more than happy to go away and check, and I will write to the shadow Minister if I have misunderstood his question. To reassure him, though, I think we are talking about enforcement against specific parts of landlord legislation under the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 104 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 105 to 110 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 111

Power of local housing authority to require information from relevant person

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 112 to 133 stand part.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Committee will forgive me for talking at some length to ensure that we fully set out the rationale for this large group of clauses. The group of clauses provides new investigatory powers to local housing authorities to tackle non-compliant landlords. The measures aim to enhance compliance and accountability among landlords.

Clause 111 gives local housing authorities the power to require information from landlords, licensors, agents and marketers. The information will be for the purpose of exercising the local housing authority’s functions under specific new provisions introduced by the Bill or in other specified legislations. Clause 111 also contains provisions that enable housing authorities to more effectively enforce financial penalties. It also provides safeguards to ensure that the powers are not misused.

Clauses 112, 113 and 114 provide the power to require information from persons other than the landlord or agent. That includes information from banks, accountants and client money protection schemes. This information will support prosecution and help in setting appropriate levels of civil penalties, which should take rental income and the landlord’s financial position into account. To ensure that the power is used proportionately, local housing authorities can only use it when they reasonably suspect that a relevant breach or offence has occurred.

Clauses 115 to 122 and clause 130 give local housing authorities the power to enter the business premises of landlords. There is a power to enter business premises without a warrant and a power of entry under warrant. Local housing authorities will be able to use the powers to enter business premises if they require the production of documents or to seize and detain documents for the purpose of ascertaining whether there has been compliance with the rented accommodation legislation and whether documents are required as evidence in proceedings. A local housing authority officer will need to reasonably suspect a breach of, or an offence under, rented accommodation legislation before they can exercise the power to require the production of documents or to seize and detain them.

In many instances, the evidence will likely be on a landlord’s business premises. That evidence includes tenancy agreements, bank statements, letters and communications. Following entry, local housing authorities will be able to require a relevant person on the premises to produce documentation. An officer of a local housing authority may seize and detain such documentation if they consider that it may be needed as evidence in proceedings for breaches of, or offences under, rented accommodation legislation.

This set of clauses contains safeguards to prevent them from being misused. For example, unless certain circumstances apply, local housing authorities must give at least 24 hours’ written notice prior to entry into business premises without a warrant. They will not be able to use that power where the premises are used wholly or mainly as residential accommodation. The clauses allow for relevant persons who have had their documents seized and detained to request access under supervision when appropriate, and all such documents will only be detained for as long as required.

Clauses 123 to 127 will give local housing authorities the power to enter residential premises without a warrant if they have a reasonable suspicion that the premises contain evidence that a relevant breach or offence has taken place. For entry into residential premises, with and without a warrant, the powers will apply only for the limited purposes of investigating specific breaches or offences relating to the private rented sector database or illegal evictions. Those breaches or offences are associated with serious potential harm and circumstances where physical evidence may be found on the premises.

The power of entry without a warrant will be available only where a specially authorised officer considers it necessary to enter the property to investigate whether there has been a relevant breach or offence. The power of entry with a warrant will be exercised only where a justice of the peace is satisfied that it is necessary for an officer to inspect the premises to investigate whether there has been a relevant breach or offence. The enforcement of the private rented sector database will sometimes require local authorities to enter the premises to establish whether the property needs to be registered. This will enable them to gather evidence to demonstrate that it is a residential tenancy, such as photographs of locks on bedroom doors or tenancy agreements.

Local housing authorities will also be able to use the powers to enter residential premises to investigate suspected illegal evictions, for example by checking whether locks have been changed or whether areas in the property have been blocked off. For the power of entry without a warrant, a written notice period of at least 24 hours is required unless the right to notice has been waived. The power can be used only where a specially authorised officer reasonably suspects that the premises are subject to a residential tenancy and entry is necessary to investigate whether a relevant breach or offence has occurred. These safeguards are in place to ensure that the power is used only where necessary.

Clause 128 will create new offences in relation to the new investigatory powers in part 4, including new offences in relation to requiring information from a relevant person, or any person, and the powers of entry into business and residential premises. The clause introduces a set of offences of obstructing an officer, failing to comply with requests, failing to provide other information or assistance if reasonably required by the officer for the purposes of exercising the powers, and providing false or misleading information.

The clause also introduces an offence with an unlimited fine for anyone falsely purporting to be a housing officer acting under the investigatory powers chapter. This is to protect landlords and tenants from anyone falsely trying to gain access to their property or obtain private information. It also makes it clear that a person is not committing an offence if they refuse to answer any question or give any information that might incriminate them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

I apologise for being rather slow on the uptake, but may I take the Minister back to clause 124, “Duties where occupiers are on residential premises entered without warrant”? Subsection (1) states:

“If an officer of a local housing authority enters premises under section 123(1) and finds one or more occupiers on the premises”—

in other words, if there are people there—

“the officer must produce evidence of the officer’s identity and special authorisation to that occupier or (if there is more than one) to at least one of them.”

That is very sensible—it means that the person must demonstrate who they are to the people in the premises—but subsection (2) states:

“An officer need not comply with subsection (1) if it is not reasonably practicable to do so.”

If we have already identified that an officer is entering premises that are occupied, what are the circumstances in which it would not be reasonably practicable for him to identify himself?

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is a very reasonable question. If the hon. Member will allow me, I will come back to him via written correspondence. In drafting the clause— I am raking my memory for our discussions about it—we thought that there would be certain circumstances in which the reasonability test might not need to be met. Some of the clauses have been developed following exchanges with local authorities. I will come back to the hon. Member on the specific point about whether we have met the test for it being necessary to include the subsection in the Bill.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The difficulty is that the Minister is asking us to support the wording of the Bill now, not subsequently to a letter being received. It is hard to support a clause that suggests on the face of it that an officer could come in and decide that it is not reasonably practicable to show their authority to somebody who is in occupation of their own residence. This is not an office building; it is where people live. I invite the Minister, who has his officials with him, to provide a more substantive answer in his next comments, because it is difficult for someone like me to support the clause as drafted.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will happily try to do so: I will take away the point and try to get the hon. Member some reassurance in short order. I reassure him that we have drafted the clauses carefully, following extensive dialogue with local authorities and local authority stakeholders. We do not take the power lightly. If I understand him correctly, he is putting to me the reasonable point that such a power would never be necessary. If, in the course of our ongoing exchanges, I can give him an example in which it might be necessary, perhaps he will be reassured.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 111 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 112 to 133 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 134

Interpretation

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

[Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 135 to 141 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I turn to part 5, on general provisions.

Clause 134 sets out the meaning of three terms used in the Bill: “lease”, “local housing authority” and “the 1988 Act”. Clause 135 sets out the Bill’s application to the Crown. Clause 136 sets out its application to Parliament.

Clause 137 clarifies various aspects of powers to make secondary legislation under the Bill. In particular, it contains a power to make consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision. It also clarifies which powers in the Bill will be subject to the affirmative or the negative procedure where exercised.

Clause 138 contains a power that will allow the Welsh Ministers to make consequential amendments arising from part 1 of the Bill. Clause 139 contains a power that will allow the Scottish Ministers to make consequential amendments arising as a result of chapter 5 of part 1 of the Bill, which makes provision to address rental discrimination in Scotland.

Clause 140 will give the Secretary of State the power to make consequential amendments arising from the Bill, such as by removing now defunct terms from other legislation. This is necessary to ensure that existing legislation continues to function as intended once the Bill has passed into law.

Clause 141 provides that the Bill’s extent, for the most part, is England and Wales. Housing is within the devolved legislative competence of the legislature in Wales, and in practice the application of the majority of the clauses will be to England only. A small number of changes will apply in England and Wales to address remaining aspects of the tenancy system in Wales that are still dependent on English law. Chapter 4 of part 1 applies the rental discrimination measure in Wales. Similarly, chapter 5 of part 1 extends only to Scotland and applies the rental discrimination measure in Scotland. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 134 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 135 to 141 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 142

Commencement

[David Simmonds]

I beg to move amendment 45, in clause 142, page 150, line 26, leave out from “subject to” to end of line 27 and insert—

“—

(a) the publication of an economic impact assessment in relation to the bill, which must include the impact of abolishing fixed term assured tenancies on the student housing market; and

(b) subsections (2) to (6).”

[David Simmonds]

Amendments 45 and 64 would require the Government to give broader consideration to the economic assessment required to understand the full implications of the Bill. A lot of the evidence that we have heard on the Bill, and on the Renters (Reform) Bill in the last Parliament, concerns impact on supply, especially on the supply of accommodation for particular categories of tenant. Those categories include people in the student housing market, to which both amendments refer.

We are all aware that for local authorities and other public bodies such as transport authorities, the ability to predict and plan the need for student accommodation in particular locations is very significant. Transport for London and other transport authorities in major cities plan bus routes and other public transport based on the need for students to get to and from the places where they receive their education. The same is true in respect of retirement homes and so on.

This is a matter not merely of general political interest, but of practical interest for the public bodies whose responsibilities will be affected by the Bill. Although we recognise that a substantial amount of the Bill was already envisaged under the previous Government and has been through a significant process of scrutiny, we do not fully understand what the impact will be on supply, particularly on the supply of homes required by students. We have heard a great deal of evidence about the economic significance of students for our towns and cities, as well as for our university sector. The Opposition regard that as very important. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say about our amendments and the clauses to which they relate.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will speak briefly to the clauses in the group and then discuss the shadow Minister’s two amendments.

Clause 142 provides how and when the provisions in the Bill will be brought into force. This Government have made it clear on multiple occasions that we are determined to end the scourge of section 21 evictions as soon as possible. I think it has now been more than five years since the previous Government promised private renters across the country that section 21 evictions would be abolished. Renters have waited far too long for a Government to take action. We are determined to act for them to end the insecurity that they face, including the risk of homelessness, and—this is a point I have tried to stress throughout our discussions—to give good landlords certainty about what change means.

The clause provides the mechanism for ending section 21 once and for all for private tenancies. The new tenancy system for the private rented sector that is set out in chapter 1 of part 1 will come into force in a single stage for all assured tenancies. On that date, the new tenancy system will apply to all private tenancies. Existing tenancies will convert to the new system; any new tenancies signed on or after that date will also be governed by the new rules. This will give all private tenants the same security immediately: that will be the effect of clause 142(8). I reassure the Committee that we will work closely with all parts of the sector to ensure a smooth transition to the new system and that we are committed to providing sufficient notice ahead of implementation.

Beyond tenancy reform, the clause sets out how and when other provisions in the Bill will be brought into force. Some provisions, such as the investigatory powers in part 4, will come into force automatically two months after Royal Assent.

Clause 143 provides that the commencement of chapter 1 of part 1 will not have an impact on the continuation of existing tenancies. The Bill will apply to those tenancies, but they will not be treated as new tenancies. For example, although the landlord will not be able to use a section 21 notice in relation to such tenancies, the protected period during which the moving and selling grounds cannot be used will count from when the tenancy first began.

Schedule 6 will ensure a smooth conversion for existing tenancies to the new tenancy system by making specific provision to avoid unnecessary cliff edges, for example by maintaining the validity of rent increases and notices served prior to implementation. This will ensure that landlords and tenants are clear about which legal framework applies before and after the transition.

Clause 144 provides clarity about what happens when a fixed-term assured tenancy expires and becomes a statutory periodic tenancy. This will ensure that the periodic tenancy will be treated as continuous, meaning that any provisions in the Bill that apply from when the tenancy began will count from the beginning of the original tenancy rather than from when the statutory periodic tenancy arose.

Clause 145 will give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations that have transitional or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of any provision of the Bill. It will give powers to Welsh and Scottish Ministers to make transitional or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of chapters 4 and 5 respectively of part 1, which apply the rental discrimination measures in Wales and Scotland. The clause will also give the Secretary of State power to make provision concerning pre-application instruments that the Secretary of State considers will not operate effectively as a result of the Bill. It is standard and appropriate for the Secretary of State to have the power to make transitional or saving provisions; this is important to facilitate an orderly implementation of the new regime and to ensure that agreements and private legal instruments that were entered into prior to the Bill continue to operate as intended under the new regime.

Clause 146, as I think is self-evident, provides that the short title of the Act will be the Renters’ Rights Act 2024.

I turn to the shadow Minister’s amendments 45 and 64. Amendment 45, as he made clear, would require the publication of an economic impact assessment for the Bill, including an assessment of the impact of abolishing fixed-term assured tenancies on the student housing market, before its provisions are commenced. Amendment 64 would do the same, but would also make the publication of any assessment by the Lord Chancellor of the operation of possession proceedings for rented properties a prerequisite for commencing the provisions of the Bill.

I say gently to the shadow Minister that I have tried this trick before in a previous role, and I do not for one second condemn him for doing so, but we are committed to robustly monitoring and evaluating the private rented sector reform programme and the implications of the Bill. Our approach builds on the Department’s existing long-term housing sector monitoring work, and we will conduct our processes, impact and value-for-money evaluation in line with the Department’s published evaluation strategy. We will publish the evaluation findings in a timely manner that is consistent with our policy for the publication of research. Further data on the operation of possession proceedings for rented properties, to which amendment 64 refers, is already published and will continue to be published quarterly by the Ministry of Justice.

We are committed to ending the scourge of section 21. The sector and particularly tenants have waited too long for these changes to come into effect. We are therefore not minded to tie implementation to any additional requirements of the type that the shadow Minister mentions. I do not begrudge his trying, but I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[David Simmonds]

I will have to accept the Minister’s gentle rebuff, but we have heard from the housing sector and from student organisations that these are very important issues. We recently debated rough sleeping in Westminster Hall; one challenge that emerged is that we did not count the number of rough sleepers until 2010, so it is very hard fully to understand what was going on. That is a lesson in the importance of doing the research and having impact assessments: they are a key part of the evidence that the Committee needs to consider to understand the direction of travel and whether it will do the job intended. However, I take the Minister’s point.

[Matthew Pennycook]

May I briefly intervene? I do not want to deprive the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham of an answer to his question about clause 124. I am told that the power is in place for very limited exceptions, in particular where an agent might face aggression from an occupier of a property and is therefore unable to show identification. The powers mirror the provisions in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 that apply to trading standards officers. It is a very limited exception for those circumstances. I hope that that provides some clarification and reassurance.

[David Simmonds]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 142 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 143 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6 agreed to.

Clauses 144 to 146 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gen Kitchen.)