Renters’ Rights Bill
Debate between Calum Miller and Matthew Pennycook(4 days, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Pennycook
The Northern Ireland Assembly can access this legislation online, but I will certainly continue to have conversations with Ministers in all the devolved Administrations about what lessons can be learned from what we have done with this Bill, and about what they can take from it.
I once again commend Lord Young of Cookham for championing the interests of shared owners affected by the building safety crisis, and I thank him for tabling his three amendments in lieu. As I made clear when we considered Lords amendments last month, the Government recognise the plight of shared owners living in buildings that require remediation. Many are facing unaffordable costs, often with no viable exit route other than a distress sale. We also appreciate that it is often harder to secure a purchaser for a shared ownership property, and that the sales of shared ownership flats are more likely to fall through due to the additional constraints involved. As such, we have always accepted that the 12 month no re-let period would have placed many shared owners in an extremely challenging position.
The reason why the Government did not feel able to accept Lord Young’s original Lords amendment 19 was that it could undermine protections for the small subset of tenants who happened to rent a sub-let home from a shared owner. I am therefore pleased to report to the House that the amendments in lieu deliver the core aims of that original amendment, while also ensuring that three key safeguards are in place to protect tenants.
First, there is a requirement for the shared owner to have informed the assured subtenant in writing at the outset of the tenancy about the exemption and its possible use. This will ensure tenants are aware of the particular circumstances of the tenancy they are entering into and can make an informed choice about whether they wish to enter into a tenancy agreement with the shared owner in question.
Secondly, shared owners must have informed their provider of their intention to sell before obtaining possession of the property from the tenant. This is an essential first step that all shared owners must take to begin the process of selling their property. I am satisfied that it is a proportionate requirement to evidence that a shared owner is genuinely intending to sell their home.
Thirdly, a valuation must be undertaken on the property by a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, or the shared owner must have advertised the property for sale. This can be done at any point before a property is re-let, recognising the need for flexibility in how shared owners will approach a sale.
Taken together with the protections that are already in place as a result of registered providers having to authorise sub-letting requests and having oversight of what rent levels can be charged, I am satisfied that these safeguards will reduce, if not eliminate entirely, the risk that an exemption from the 12-month no re-let period might otherwise have posed.
Lords amendments 39B and 39C will introduce a statutory requirement for annual reporting on the extent to which service family accommodation meets the decent homes standard.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Minister for listening to Liberal Democrat colleagues who have made these points, as I have along with my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), on previous occasions. It is very good that those living in military service accommodation will now have the opportunity to access the decent homes standard. Could the Minister assure me that he will work with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to ensure that all service families are aware of the decent homes standard—the standard to which they can hold their accommodation providers—so they can live in better homes in my constituency of Bicester and Woodstock and across the country?
Matthew Pennycook
We have ongoing dialogue with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence about this issue, and if the hon. Member will allow me, I will elaborate on how we think these amendments will work in practice and how they interact with what the Ministry of Defence is itself doing. First, however, I once again thank Baroness Grender, Baroness Thornhill and the hon. Members for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for their continued support and advocacy for service personnel and their families.
The Government have been clear throughout the passage of the Bill that our armed services personnel and their families must live in safe and decent homes. We remain determined to improve the standard of service family accommodation across the entire defence estate. Alongside the commitment to drive up standards through a record investment of £1.5 billion in service family accommodation over the next five years, the Government will soon publish a defence housing strategy setting out clear renewal standards and further steps to improve the lives of those who serve our country. That standard will be published, so service families will be able to see, judge their accommodation against and interact with this new statutory duty.
As I outlined in the previous debate on Lords amendments, the Government acknowledge the need for greater transparency and accountability to ensure that the commitments we have made are honoured. The amendments in lieu will place the commitments I made to this House last month on a statutory basis. The Government believe that this, alongside the wider steps I have already set out, will help ensure service personnel and their families have the quality of homes that they deserve. The amendments also include a delegated power allowing the housing quality standards that SFA is assessed against to be updated when the current version of the decent homes standard is no longer considered appropriate—for example, when it has been replaced by a new modernised standard. The Liberal Democrats have indicated their support for these amendments, and I hope hon. Members will join me in supporting them.
To conclude, I urge the House to support the amendments put forward by the other place, and I look forward to the remainder of the debate.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Debate between Calum Miller and Matthew Pennycook(9 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Pennycook
That is only one of the issues; as the hon. Gentleman knows, we debated many others in Committee. I appreciate that there is a principled disagreement on this point. We share his objective, but we think that there is a different and more sensible way to go about meeting it. Addressing service accommodation through this Bill is not the way to proceed.
Calum Miller
I am very grateful to the Minister; I appreciate the time constraints that he faces. The critical question is when those in our communities who live in service accommodation can expect it to reach the standards that he and his colleagues intend to set out. I appreciate the co-operation with Defence Ministers, but can the Minister give us a date by which that standard will be in place?
Matthew Pennycook
I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman’s question and his desire for that information, but it is not for me to give a date from the Dispatch Box today; my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence will provide further information on the review of that target standard early this year.
The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) and the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer), spoke in support of their respective amendments to introduce forms of rent control. I assure each of those Members that I entirely understand their concerns about the affordability of rent generally, and specifically the potential for retaliatory no-fault economic evictions. Once section 21 evictions are done away with, unscrupulous landlords will no doubt attempt to evict tenants who assert their rights by means of extortionate rent rises.
However, as we debated extensively in Committee, the Government sincerely believe that the introduction of rent controls in the private rented sector could harm tenants as well as landlords by reducing supply and discouraging investment. While I fully appreciate that there is a broad spectrum of regulation that falls under the title of rent control, there is, as we debated at length in Committee, sufficient international evidence from countries such as Sweden and Germany, cities such as San Francisco and Ontario, and the Scottish experience since 2017, to attest to the potential detrimental impacts of rent control. For that reason, we believe that we should proceed on the basis of the protections that the Bill provides against unreasonable within-tenancy rent rises, as well as wider action to improve affordability, not least support for the growth of the build-to-rent sector.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree also tabled new clause 5, which would place a duty on the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the tenancy deposit protection schemes and requirements. The contracts governing those schemes are due to end next year, and their re-procurement provides an opportunity for the Department to review their objectives and how they operate. I am more than happy to engage with my hon. Friend on that process; on that basis, I ask her to not divide the House on her new clause. I am also more than happy to ensure that she is closely involved in the development of the PRS database. We believe that there are good reasons for the detail relating to that database to be laid out in secondary legislation, rather than put in the Bill, as her amendment 7 stipulates. However, it is our clear expectation that the database will capture key information about landlords, and we recognise that there may be clear benefits in using it to collect a wider range of information, as her amendment suggests.
My hon. Friend also tabled new clause 6, which would require local authorities, if requested, to pay or guarantee the tenancy deposits of care leavers seeking to access the private rented sector. I am of the view that local authorities, rather than central Government, are best placed to assess the best way of supporting care leavers in their area. I reassure my hon. Friend that while local authorities maintain their ability to support care leavers in their areas, the Government are committed to putting in place the support that local government needs to do so effectively.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) made a strong case for new clause 11 on acting to limit guarantors. I appreciate fully that obtaining a guarantor can be difficult for some prospective tenants, and I understand the reasoning behind his amendment. However, I am also mindful that in some instances the use of guarantors can provide good landlords with the assurance necessary to let their properties to tenants who may otherwise find it difficult to access private rented accommodation. For example, there are those with a poor credit history—the kind of tenant who the shadow Minister worries our rent-in-advance amendments will harm. Having considered this issue in great detail, I ultimately concluded that limiting guarantors could inadvertently make life more difficult for certain types of renter. That said, I will keep the matter under review, and I am more than happy to engage in a dialogue with my hon. Friend about this in the weeks and months to come.
Several Opposition Members mentioned new clause 22, in the name of the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper). The Government are clear that all landlords must keep their properties in a fit state, and that there need to be robust routes of redress when they do not. However, tenants can already take their landlord to court if their home is unfit for human habitation, and if the courts find that landlords have not met their obligations, they can award compensation, as well as requiring landlords to carry out repairs. For that reason, while agreeing entirely with the objective, I believe that the hon. Lady’s amendment is unnecessary.
I will briefly refer to two amendments on the amendment paper that were not spoken to by the Members who tabled them. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) rightly called for protection from discrimination for renters who require home adaptations. The rental discrimination provisions in the Bill are specifically designed to protect victims of discrimination who may not be eligible to make a case under the Equality Act 2010, such as those who have children or are in receipt of benefits. People with a disability are already afforded protections from discrimination relating to the provision of housing or services under the Act. For that reason, we do not believe her new clause 24 is warranted, but I am more than happy to discuss the matter with her outside the Chamber.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) tabled amendment 11 to make rent repayment orders available for initial failure to be a member of the PRS landlord ombudsman or to register with the PRS database. She will recognise that we have significantly strengthened the RRO provisions in the previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill. However, I took the view that it would be inappropriate to extend rent repayment orders to non-criminal breaches of the kind that her amendment covers. Instead, local authorities will be able to issue civil penalties for the initial failures in question, with the possibility of higher financial penalties and RROs if landlords fail to sign up, having been fined.
Finally, I will mention the amendments relating to home adaptations—both new clause 9, in the name of the hon. Member for Bristol Central, and new clause 23, in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. Both amendments seek to require PRS landlords to permit home disability adaptations for assured tenants when these have been recommended in a local authority home assessment. The hon. Member for Bristol Central tabled the same amendment in Committee, and as we discussed then, the Equality Act already provides that landlords cannot unreasonably refuse a request for reasonable adjustments to a disabled person’s home. As I said in Committee, measures already in this Bill will improve the situation for disabled renters who request home adaptations. The abolition of section 21 notices will remove the threat of retaliatory eviction, empowering tenants to request the home adaptations they need and to complain if their requests are unreasonably refused. In addition, we are establishing the new PRS ombudsman, which will have strong powers to put things right for tenants where their landlord has failed to resolve a legitimate complaint.
I must say candidly to the hon. Lady that I remain somewhat unconvinced that these amendments are the way to address this absolutely legitimate issue—I recognise the problem she identifies—and for that reason, the Government will not be able to accept them. However, I can give her the assurance that we will commit to continuing to consider what more we may need to do to ensure that requests for reasonable adjustments cannot be unreasonably refused, including those recommended by local authority home assessments. I am more happy to engage with Members across the House, and to meet her, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington and other Members who have concerns on the subject, to discuss her amendment and the problem generally in more detail. I hope that, on that basis, she will consider not pressing her new clause to a vote.