Lord Best
Main Page: Lord Best (Crossbench - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Lord Best's debates with the Department for Transport
Localism Bill
Lord Best Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Reay
My Lords, I put my name down to oppose that Clause 124 stand part of the Bill. A report was issued in 2007 by BERR—as noble Lords will remember, it was a department which existed before BIS and DECC came into being—which was entitled Delivering Community Benefits from Wind Energy Development: A Toolkit. It included this statement:
“There is a strict principle in the planning systems in all parts of the UK that a decision about a particular planning proposal should be based on planning issues; it should not be influenced by additional payments or contributions offered by a developer which are not linked to making the proposal acceptable in planning terms … To put it simply, planning permission cannot be ‘bought’”.
Do the Government still stand by that statement?
I am grateful to the Minister for circulating the most recent, six-page, briefing from her department on Clause 124. That document states that whereas Section 106 payments, or planning obligation payments as they are called, must relate to the planning merits of the specific development to which they relate, CIL income can be used more widely. However, local planning authorities, it goes on to say, should not have regard to considerations that are not material, and if they do their decisions will be unlawful. Deciding on the scope of what, as a matter of law, could be material to a planning decision remains principally a matter for the courts.
So what has changed? The Government say nothing has changed, except that the current legal position has been clarified by putting it into statute, presumably by removing it from case law. The Government have not stated clearly what happened to make them take the step of suddenly producing this clause at Report stage in another place. I should be grateful to the Minister if he takes the opportunity today of stating why that is so. In doing so, perhaps he could explain why the Government wanted to remove decisions about what count as material considerations in planning matters from case law, and what he thinks the effects of doing that will be.
I should also like my noble friend to state that the Government stand by the BERR statement from 2007 that I quoted—that it is not the Government’s intention that planning decisions can be bought. I would also welcome it if the Government were able to support Amendment 166WA, which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Incidentally, I should also like the Minister to say when we can expect the national planning policy framework, as this is the last day before the Recess on which we can receive that information directly.
Lord Best
Perhaps I could speak before the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, who will bring everything together thereafter. I know that opposition to Clause 124 relates to the effects on planning decisions of taking into account, in particular, the financial benefits from the community infrastructure levy and, very importantly, the newly formulated new homes bonus. In relation to the community infrastructure levy, I think the Government were absolutely right in reworking and reintroducing the CIL concept. I hope that planning decisions will take full account of the benefits that these levies can bring.
I shall now consider the potential impact of the new homes bonus. I am a supporter of the bonus, and I pay tribute to the Housing Minister, the right honourable Grant Shapps, for bringing forward this way of rewarding those local authorities that take their leadership role seriously, often in the face of considerable and vocal opposition, and seek to increase the number of new homes built in their areas. We know how important it is that acute shortages of decent housing, particularly in the southern half of England, should be urgently addressed. Planning can be the fundamental barrier to new homes getting built; but it can also be a positive force that facilitates badly needed new homes, even though the beneficiaries—the proposed new residents—have no voice in the local decision-making because they have not yet moved in.
The new homes bonus provides a mechanism for local authorities to give something back to the existing communities affected by new development: money to enhance local facilities, improve the local environment and reward those who are bound to be inconvenienced by building works close by and probably by increased traffic. Councillors can stand before the sceptics and protestors and declare that not only will the new housing serve the needs of young families seeking a home, but it will bring benefits directly or indirectly to the local community too. Some district councils in the Home Counties—exactly the places where opponents of new homes are often most vociferous—could gain significantly from the bonus payments by taking a pro-growth line. In these difficult times, these payments could mean that local authority services, which would otherwise have to go, may be retained. Conversely, those councils that succumb to every pressure and oppose new homes being built in their areas will lose out. I wish the new homes bonus every success and would hate to see planners ignoring the benefits it could bring.
My starting point, therefore, has been to look favourably at Clause 124’s intention that planners should recognise the positive financial considerations for their localities that a planning decision can achieve. However, the arguments from the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Parminter, and the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin and Lord Reay, cause me to think again. If there is a danger that this measure could lead to accusations of planners selling planning permissions, to objectors being able to argue that financial incentives have improperly influenced decisions, and to legal challenges and long delays, then I can see that it would be much better not to tackle this through legislation. If reliance on existing legislation—with some extra guidance—is the safer option then, as a firm advocate for the new homes bonus who would not want to put it at risk, I would support the amendment and that the clause stand part.
“Consideration of planning applications: design review panels
In section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (determination of applications for planning permissions: general considerations), after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) Where an application has been made under subsection (1), the authority may submit it to a design review panel for consideration.(2B) Where an application has been submitted to a design review panel, the panel may make recommendations to the authority regarding the quality of design in the application.(2C) Where recommendations have been given, the authority shall, in dealing with the application, have regard to such recommendations so far as material to the application.(2D) In subsection (2A) “design review panel” means an independent cross-professional panel appointed to examine and evaluate the design of the proposed development.””
Lord Best
My Lords, this amendment concerns design review panels and is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. It goes some way to answering concerns expressed by noble Lords yesterday about giving prominence to design, which can seem a subjective concept—the argument that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The amendment gives local authorities permissive powers to submit applications for planning permission to a local design review panel and then to have regard to the views of this independent, cross-professional panel. It accords with my self-imposed ordinance to avoid amendments that extend central government’s powers over local authorities. It introduces not a duty but a permissive power.
An amendment proposed in the other place would have put an onus on developers to take their plans to such a panel. It was rejected by the Minister, Greg Clark, because it would have added to the regulatory burden on builders. My lighter-touch amendment avoids this hazard by putting the onus on local authorities, but without any compulsion on them—“may”, not “must”. Independent design review panels are working well in several areas and have proved their worth. Support is now available through a network of panels managed and facilitated by Design Council CABE, which advocates adoption of key principles, spreads good practice and works with the RIBA and the RTPI.
The amendment suggests that, with local authorities short-staffed and often struggling with their planning capacity, the time has come to extend the use of design review panels that so helpfully pull in expertise from outside the council to see that design is taken on board in local authority decisions. I beg to move.
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, before speaking to Amendment 170CD, perhaps I may express my extreme disappointment with the usual channels at their arrangements, which effectively prevented me from carrying out the job of scrutinising legislation here and speaking to Amendments 170B, 170C and 182, to which I added my name, because I was moving an amendment tabled in my name alone in the Education Bill Committee in the Moses Room. I hope that there will be no repetition of such a ridiculous arrangement in September so that noble Lords can carry out the work for which they were appointed.
I turn to Amendment 170CD. The noble Lord, Lord Best, explained clearly what it is about. I will add that the Housing Minister Greg Clark's awareness of the importance of good design is well known and appreciated. This new proposal is almost a tautologous requirement. One might say that there would not be much point in sending off an application to an independent panel and then paying no attention to its recommendations. This is the lightest of light touches. It is a gentle nudge in the direction of trying to make sure that, in the words of Greg Clark,
“the built environment is better than it otherwise would be, and that it is beautiful and functional for people to live in”.—[Official Report, Commons, Localism Bill Committee, 1/3/11; col.718.]
I hope the Minister will understand that. I am sure she will and that she will agree to accept the amendment.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we did indeed discuss this yesterday and we had a bit of discussion on the subjective nature of design decisions. I think we all agree that design is an enormously important part of planning, as indeed it is an important part of developing and ensuring how a community looks and what an area is like.
I have great admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Best, but I think this amendment is unnecessary. As he has already pointed out, planning authorities get independent expert advice from the Design Council, and local planning authorities are already able and indeed encouraged to submit applications to design review panels and to heed their impartial, expert advice. I am not sure that putting any more legislation forward on this will do anything. However, we will undertake to give encouragement to local authorities to make sure that they understand that design review panels are a good thing. So there really is no reason for this. We need to keep it out of legislation. I understand the purpose behind it but there are already proper ways of dealing with this. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 173ZZD, 173ZDA and 173ZD. Broadly speaking, these amendments are intended to improve notification of advice and assistance for persons who become homeless intentionally and are not in priority need. We heard my noble friend Lord Shipley talk eloquently about those deemed to be in priority need but intentionally homeless, and they have a priority need in their favour. However, many people are entitled to receive advice from the local authority about their options when they are homeless but, because they are not in this priority bracket, often they are not given the advice that they need. They are frequently the single homeless who go along to the local authority office, as I have seen during my 25 years in a local council. The local authority office does not really want to deal with them because they do not have a priority need, they are intentionally homeless and they are single. They are often pushed from pillar to post, sleeping rough and begging for places to sleep, and often they have a mental problem or a drug problem. In the minuscule amount of advice that the local authority gives, it seems to say that these people should go to the private rented sector and rent a room. The trouble is that those in the private rented sector do not envisage such people as their top choice for tenants. Such people fall between many stools in this situation.
All the amendments are trying to do is to encourage and insist that local authorities give real advice and assistance to what these people can do to get into a secure place, albeit for a short time, so that they can recover and then come into the normal tenant situation in the urban or rural areas where they live. I hope that the Government will consider this.
Lord Best
My Lords, a whole series of significant points have been made which I hope do not get lost. We have had a kind of teach-in on all the issues around homelessness, which I hope can be carried forward in different ways. I shall speak to Amendment 173A, which differs from Amendment 173AA only in containing a typing mistake which Amendment 137AA has rightly expunged. Therefore, I hope I can count the noble Lords who follow me as supporting the same amendment as mine.
The amendment also relates to the proposed ending of the obligation for local authorities to find a place for a homeless household, eventually, if not immediately, in the social sector; for example, in council or housing association accommodation. In future, local authorities would be able to discharge their duty by getting the household into a private landlord's property. Up to now, it has been assumed that the characteristics of social housing, security, which we shall discuss later, and relatively low rents alongside some social support from the landlord have been essential for those who have become homeless. However, some homeless people may not need anything more from their landlord than a roof over their heads for a year or so and some may be able to cope with higher rents in due course.
More realistically, in many areas there is simply no alternative to the private rented sector for some of the people who have nowhere else to go. Even if the nation embarked on a major programme of new social housebuilding, which, despite the good effects on the wider economy, is highly improbable while deficit reduction is the greatest priority, it would be many years before that sector could satisfactorily meet the pent-up demand for affordable decent homes. Even so, using the private rented sector in place of social housing as the long-term solution to the needs of homeless people—households sufficiently vulnerable that councils must accept responsibility for them—is not the same as using the PRS for temporary, emergency accommodation, let alone for short-term lettings to students or to more affluent single people who plan to buy later.
If the council’s duty towards a homeless family is for that family to be satisfied, on a permanent basis, in a privately rented property, that offer needs to satisfy rather higher standards of suitability than for short-term lets. After all, if the household were nominated to a housing association, its housing arrangements would come under the extensive regulatory powers of a statutory regulator, the Office for Tenants and Social Landlords, now known as the Tenant Services Authority, which is to be part of the Homes and Communities Agency. That regulator sets standards on matters such as property condition, rent levels and the rights of tenants to be consulted and involved.
In considerable contrast, private landlords have no regulator, no FSA, Ofcom, Oftel or Ofgem. Many argue, as emerged from the 2009 report from Julie Rugg at York University, that some regulation of the PRS is badly needed. The Association of Residential Letting Agents is keen for amendments to go forward to regulate letting and managing agents. That would bring some 60 per cent of private lettings into a regulated system, but it is clear that the Government are not likely, at present, to be convinced of the case for regulation of this sector. This means protection for the most vulnerable of tenants—the homeless family or the homeless individual—will have to be addressed in a different way.
“Exemptions from flexible tenancy regime
(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations provide that a secure tenancy shall not be capable of being a flexible tenancy if it falls within one of such classes as shall be prescribed.
(2) The prescribed classes of secure tenancy referred to in subsection (1) shall include—
(a) tenancies granted to a tenant (alone or jointly with others) aged 60 years or more;(b) tenancies granted to a tenant (alone or jointly with others) in circumstances where the tenant or a member of his or her household suffers from a long-term illness or disability, or has a need for secure accommodation on medical or welfare grounds;(c) tenancies granted to such other persons as regulations shall provide who have a need for secure accommodation. (3) In determining whether a tenant falls within one of the prescribed classes of person, the landlord authority shall have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State under this section.
(4) Where a tenancy is a secure tenancy by reason of regulations made under this section, it shall be a ground for possession within section 84 of the Housing Act 1985 (grounds and orders for possession) where the accommodation afforded by the dwelling-house is more extensive than is reasonably required by the tenant.
(5) The court shall not make an order for possession under subsection (4) unless—
(a) it is satisfied that suitable alternative accommodation will be available for the tenant when the order takes effect; and(b) it considers it reasonable to make the order.(6) Part IV of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1985 (suitability of accommodation) shall have effect for determining, for the purpose of subsection (5)(a), whether suitable alternative accommodation will be available for the tenant.
(7) Where the landlord considers that the ground for possession in subsection (4) applies to a tenancy, the court shall not entertain proceedings for possession of the tenancy unless the landlord has complied with the notice requirements in section 83 and subsections (3) and (4) of section 84 of the Housing Act 1985.
(8) Where proceedings are brought for possession of a dwelling-house under the ground in subsection (4), the court shall have the powers set out in section 85 of the Housing Act 1985.”
Lord Best
My Lords, Amendments 173B and 173D concern the new regime for flexible tenancies which will change the nature of security of tenure in social housing and will mean that in future councils will be able to grant tenancies for just two years rather than for life. Correspondingly, housing associations will be allowed by their regulator to use assured and short-hold tenancies in place of the previous presumption in favour of lifetime security of tenure.
There are positive reasons for such a change. For example, some housing associations, particularly in central London, can see benefits from letting some properties to younger, mobile, more affluent, single people and childless couples. These tenants can add a mix of incomes and of lifestyles to so-called monocultural estates that might otherwise become labelled as being only for the most disadvantaged households. In combination with reforms being introduced by the Government to enable social landlords to charge much higher rents, shorter tenancies to rather better-off tenants could produce surplus income to plough back into meeting more traditional housing needs. A two-year tenancy could suit this kind of tenant.
As a supporter of flexibilities and freedoms for social landlords, and as an advocate for more mixed and less stigmatised social housing, I see the merit in a tenure regime that allows some short-term lettings for certain categories of tenant. The key point is that councils and housing associations will continue to be entitled to grant permanent tenancies if they so decide: I would hope Ministers will give them every encouragement to continue to do so. Security is a distinguishing feature of social housing since these landlords are not investing with an eye on future capital gains and do not need, in contrast to the private rented sector, to be able to gain possession for investment reasons. In my early days in the Housing Association world, organisations like the Notting Hill Housing Trust and Paddington Churches Housing Association bought tenanted properties from the notorious landlords of the day simply to provide security for the occupiers. Even though sufficient funds for renovating the buildings were not available, security could be offered, and that could change lives.
I think—and certainly I hope—that the new tenancies are not the thin end of a wedge. Ministers have made clear that they would expect two-year flexible tenancies to be very exceptional. The Government's consultation paper on housing reform states that
“the vast majority of tenancies will be provided on longer terms--particularly for vulnerable households or those with children”.
I find this reassuring. However, it is not clear whether there is an expectation that flexible tenancies will generally be used for a longer but still relatively short period—say, five years—with no certainty that they will be renewed thereafter.
Some commentators, recognising the intense pressures for social housing, have advocated a review of each tenant's income after a fixed period and no renewal of the tenancy if that tenant has achieved average earnings or above, or if they no longer qualify for housing benefit. I fear this approach would send out all the wrong signals and could be hugely counterproductive. Tenants will be well aware that the chances of finding a comparable family home in the private rented sector, at a reasonable rent, are remote, and of course no private landlord would be likely to offer security of tenure for more than six months or a year. So the prospect of being forced to leave their home would hang over social housing tenants like the sword of Damocles. This way of using flexible tenancies would penalise those who make a success of their lives; it would encourage people to fail at work in order to keep their families secure; it would encourage deceit to save the family home and would require an army of snoopers to police it; and it would mean announcing that social housing was confined to losers, condemning those brought up there as society's failures and greatly impeding their life chances.
Quite different is the concept of a periodic review, a free consultation, by the landlord for the tenant to see whether, if incomes have risen, a shared ownership or equity purchase arrangement would not now be sensible. Although the tenant would thereafter pay more, they would secure an ownership stake, with all the financial and psychological advantages that that could bring.
Amendment 173B, again backed by Shelter and Crisis, would make sure that the flexible tenure regime excluded certain specific categories of tenant. The first group is older people, including those owner occupiers we are hoping will move from unsuitable homes and who, if we could persuade them to move into retirement flats, would free up a family home. But older people will never be persuaded to move if the tenancy is for only a few years, after which they could, even if only in theory, be evicted. The second category is the tenant with a disability or long-term illness who clearly needs a secure home. The third category is widely drawn to embrace any others whom the Secretary of State could commend for proper security of tenure. My view is that this should normally cover families with children for whom a sense of security by remaining at the same school, by becoming established in the area and by settling down for the long term is hugely important. The Minister may argue that no exemptions are necessary because housing associations and councils can continue to give lifelong tenancies if they wish, but this amendment would provide reassurance for those likely to be most anxious about the loss of security.
Amendment 173D picks up on the provision in the Bill for a review of the tenant’s position because they have lost their tenancy at the end of a fixed period and spells out that normally the tenant could expect to have the tenancy renewed for at least a similar term. This is not as helpful to those for whom security is all-important as knowing that the home is theirs, like that of any other owner occupier, for as long as they need it. But this amendment at least gives a measure of comfort that only in exceptional circumstances will they be required to move out after five years, or whatever initial term they obtained. Just because they have now secured a proper job, there should be no expectation of having to up sticks and find another home.
Together, these amendments try to ensure that the positive elements of a move to flexible tenancies are preserved, while fears and anxieties about the arrangements are put to rest. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I shall learn after another few years if I have not learnt before. My apologies to the House.
I will speak to the amendments in my name. Government Amendments 174N and 174P are small amendments which remove requirements on landlords to register a tenancy with the Land Registry and execute the tenancy by deed. They reflect concerns from the National Housing Federation that requirements to register tenancies with a term of more than seven years and execute by deed those with a term of more than three years would discourage landlords from granting longer-term tenancies. There are, in these circumstances, no practical advantages to a social tenant from either the tenancy being registered or executed by deed since they cannot deal in their tenancy—that is, tenancies in social housing may not be bought and sold. These amendments simply put fixed-term social tenants on the same footing as secure or assured social tenants in this regard.
I turn to government Amendments 173CAA, 173CC, 173CD, 174B, 174C, 174D, 174E, 174F, 174G, 174H, 174J, 174K, 174L and 174M. These amendments make small corrections to the existing text of the Bill and provide additional clarification where parliamentary counsel considers this helpful. They make no change to our policy intention. Those are the government amendments; I now turn to the debate on this part of the Bill which, as I expected, was again half understanding but also slightly quarrelsome. I will again seek to answer the amendments as well as I can.
The amendment spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, would be an unhelpful restriction on local authority landlords’ flexibility to use their social housing stock in a way which best meets the needs of individual households and their local area. This question was about the two-year minimum-term offers. I need to explain that we believe that there is some advantage in seriously exceptional circumstances—and I stress these will be very exceptional circumstances—for landlords to be able to provide for a short period of housing when it is felt it is needed and proper protection.
We have consulted landlords on this and they have made it clear that the great majority would only issue two-year tenancies under exceptional circumstances. As we expect and mean that to be exceptional, as I will say later on, we will look to see what we need to do to underline that. We continue to affirm that we expect longer tenancies of five or 10 years, and of course lifetime tenancies, to be the norm. Those are particularly for vulnerable households or those with children.
Of course the vulnerable will be protected. We intend to require landlords in their tenancy policies to take specific account of the needs of those who are vulnerable through the provision of tenancies that provide a reasonable degree of stability. Two-year tenancies might be appropriate in particular and probably quite exceptional circumstances—for example, helping young people to enter employment; for a family who need a larger home for the short term; or perhaps for someone who has had a serious accident, cannot manage in their own home for a short period and needs access to accessible housing for a short term before they return home. As regards larger housing requirements, people’s children often leave home and therefore the tenancy may not be needed any more. We know that some local authorities are considering how fixed-term tenancies could help them to develop support packages for recovering drug addicts, for example.
I want to underline firmly that we are looking for these provisions to be applied in exceptional circumstances and, in the light of today’s debate, I will reflect on how we can ensure that social landlords grant only tenancies with a term of less than five years in exceptional circumstances. We probably will not be able to put that in the Bill because it may not make sense; but there will be strong guidance about what we mean by exceptional two-year tenancies. I will discuss this matter with officials and consider the best way of dealing with it because I want to make it absolutely clear so that people are not concerned any more. I know that they have been.
Amendments 173B, 174A and 174 propose new clauses that would create categories of individuals and families who could not be offered a flexible tenancy. They would always have to receive a lifetime tenancy. We recognise that the needs of older people and the needs of those with a disability, for example, are likely to remain broadly constant over the long term. Lifetime or long-term tenancies are, of course, likely to be appropriate for these households in the vast majority of cases. More importantly, landlords recognise that too. In only the most exceptional cases will two-year tenancies be granted, but they will usually be for significantly longer or a lifetime for those with ongoing needs. As a safeguard, our draft direction to the social housing regulator sets out our intention to require landlords in their tenancy policies to take specific account of the needs of the vulnerable. Indeed, we have strengthened our proposed terms for the tenure standard, having listened carefully to the views expressed. That is a better way forward than seeking to prescribe centrally categories of people who should always be granted a lifetime tenancy.
The new clauses proposed by Amendments 173B and 174A include a new ground for possession to be available for secure tenancies and provided to some new tenants if a property is more extensive than is reasonably required by the tenant and if the landlord can supply a suitable alternative. I support the intention behind these amendments. We need to do more to make best use of social homes, but we do not believe that these amendments are the right way forward. Flexible tenancies will be a far better means of tackling overcrowding and underoccupancy. They offer a straightforward deal between landlords and tenants, particularly on underoccupancy. A landlord could, for example, offer a family a large family home on a 15-year tenancy on the clear understanding that they would be required to move to a smaller social property at the end of that term when their children had left home and, therefore, they had more space than was necessary.
Amendment 173CB seeks to put into legislation for some existing tenants the guarantee of continued security on moving home. We by contrast are putting in place through regulation a guarantee of continued security for all existing tenants who move to a social rented home. I hope that that answers the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. We are upholding our promise that existing tenants’ rights would be protected and respected, and that includes guaranteeing the same level of security to existing tenants who move to another social rented property. We will do that through a direction to the housing regulator on the new tenancy standard, which we have now published for consultation. All social landlords will be required to meet the tenancy standard, which will guarantee continued security to existing secure and assured tenancy, unlike this amendment.
We do not believe Amendments 173D and 173E are necessary. A review of the original decision must be carried out by a more senior officer not previously involved to ensure that the decision was fair and in line with the landlord’s published tenancy policy. Should the reviewing officer conclude that the decision is not in line with the landlord’s policy then the landlord will have to reconsider. If he does not then a tenant can approach a local councillor, MP or tenancy panel for assistance and have their case referred to the Housing Ombudsman. The Bill makes clear that where a landlord seeks possession of a tenant’s property, despite a review concluding that they were not acting in line with their own policy, then of course the court will refuse that application. The inclusion of a reference to comply with human rights is therefore not necessary. Landlords will need to ensure their decisions on tenancies are proportionate in human rights terms. Recent judgments make clear that a tenant of a local authority will be able to raise a proportionality defence in possession proceedings.
Amendment 173CE would widen the scope of the review available to a tenant or prospective tenant on the length of a tenancy being offered by a local authority. As the Bill stands, the review gives the individual an opportunity to request a review if they consider that the length of the tenancy they are being offered is not in line with the landlord’s published tenancy policy. That policy must set out the kinds and length of tenancies the landlord will grant in different circumstances. If a decision by the landlord appears to be out of line with the policy then it is absolutely right that a prospective tenant should be able to challenge it. If a prospective tenant has concerns that the tenancy policy is not fair, they are free to pursue the issue through the landlord complaints procedure.
Amendment 173CF changes the wording of the Bill to request a review on the length of tenancy. We are covered with that; as it stands, a person seeking a review could argue that their tenancy should be for life.
I will respond to Amendment 174AA although I am not sure whether it was spoken to. While I agree it makes sense that when a tenancy will be for life, a tenant should be compensated when the tenancy is for a fixed term, a right to compensation makes less sense. Perhaps we did not discuss compensation but I will finish nevertheless. This is about flexibility for the landlord, making sure they can make best use of their stock. Forcing a landlord to pay for improvements made by a tenant who may shortly be moving on is just not practical.
I have spoken in some detail—perhaps more than anybody would have wished— but I hope that having done so it will set the base for future debate. I ask that, with those responses, noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Best
My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to the Minister for that very long and valuable exposition of the many ways in which things may turn out for the best at the end of this process. I welcome her reassurance that lifelong tenancies will still be very much the bread and butter of what social housing is all about; not just for those with extremely important ongoing needs, such as older people and those with disabilities, but for families with children, for whom a tenancy for life—a proper family home—is so important. Where social landlords do use flexible tenancies, she makes it clear that these will seldom be for less than the full five years. In any case, they will be relatively exceptional.
The noble Baroness mentioned the guarantee that those who move or transfer their home will take with them the same security of tenure. That is very important. She made a lot of reassurances that we will be able to read at our leisure during the summer, which I hope we will find satisfactory. The Minister explained that a lot of those ministerial intents will be put into practice through the regulator having the power to issue firm requirements on social landlords in relation to tenure. That is an extension of the way in which the regulator works at present. None of the three noble Lords whose names were above mine who were to oppose the Question that Clause 133 should stand part of the Bill rose to do so—I do not suggest that they do now. The noble Baroness explains the value of the regulator having that role. She gives me a dilemma because, as a matter of principle, many people are opposed to the Secretary of State giving more and more instructions to the regulator and are aware of the dangers that that has of taking away the independence of the social housing landlords. Perhaps we could debate those matters when some of us oppose Clause 134 standing part of the Bill. In the mean time, with all those reassurances from the noble Baroness, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Tenancy strategies
(1) A local housing authority in England working with registered providers of social housing in its area, residents, and other stakeholders shall consider appropriate responses to relevant tenancy issues locally.
(2) A local housing authority must publish information detailing the approach taken locally to tenancy issues in any manner it considers appropriate.
(3) This information may include how the local housing authority, registered providers and partners will work together in relation to—
(a) the kinds of tenancies they grant,(b) the circumstances in which they will grant a tenancy of a particular kind,(c) where they grant tenancies for a certain term, the lengths of the terms,(d) the circumstances in which they will grant a further tenancy on the coming to an end of an existing tenancy, and(e) any other issues as determined appropriate by the local housing authority.(4) The powers in this section may be exercised by a single local housing authority or by two or more local housing authorities acting jointly.”
Lord Best
My Lords, I apologise for speaking again, but I shall do so only briefly. Amendment 173C is supported by the Local Government Association and the National Housing Federation. Clause 131 places a duty on every local authority to draw up a tenancy strategy for its area. The social landlords, the registered providers of social housing, must then have regard to that tenancy strategy in formulating their tenancy policies. Neither local authorities nor housing associations are in favour of that idea. Pursuing a theme affecting the whole Bill, I oppose the centralist tendency at work here in dictating the process and instructing local authorities on how to act—in this case, making them produce a new strategy.
Local authorities do not want to be told what to do in their procedures. Equally, housing associations are not keen on that prescriptive approach when they know that better results can be achieved by forging locally tailored partnerships. Bodies such as the Chartered Institute of Housing have strongly encouraged local authorities to reduce tenant strategies for some time, and those voluntary arrangements are working well. Therefore, the replacement clause in my amendment is intended to get local authorities and social housing providers to work together, with councils taking the strategic role in identifying housing requirements and the tenancy policies that flow from understanding those data. Such an approach goes with the grain of localism and recognises the very different housing strategies already been brought together by a number of local authorities, from the Derbyshire Dales to the London Borough of Hackney, to create mutually agreed approaches with their partners. This is how it should be. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I have a swift answer for the noble Lord. A tenancy strategy will not be onerous. There is no requirement for it to be in a specific format or of a particular length or particular content. Many local authorities have indicated that they want to build on the existing policies and strategies, and Clause 131 rightly requires the authority to consult housing associations before adopting strategy. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.