Housing and Planning Bill

Public Bill Committee, 10 December 2015.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I welcome the Committee to the final day of its consideration of the Housing and Planning Bill. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I remind Members that, under the programme motion, the Bill has to be out by 5 pm.

New Clause 2 - Revocation or variation of banning orders

New Clause 3 - Offence of breach of banning order

New Clause 4 - Offences by bodies corporate

New Clause 5 - Power to require information

New Clause 6 - Removal or variation of entries made under section 24

New Clause 7 - Requests for exercise of powers under section (Removal or variation of entries made under section 24) and appeals

New Clause 8 - Meaning of “property manager” and related expressions

New Clause 17 - Default powers exercisable by Mayor of London or combined authority

New Clause 18 - Amendments to do with section 111 to 117

New Clause 23 - Procedure for redeeming English rentcharges

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

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

Mr Gray, it has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship these past few weeks, and it remains so today. With your permission, before I speak to new clause 23, I would like to inform the Committee that last night I sent the Clerks an updated assessment of the Bill’s legislative competence, following the amendments agreed so far and those being discussed today. I trust that it will help to inform the Speaker when he comes to re-certify the Bill at the appropriate time.

New clause 23 give the Secretary of State a power to make regulations setting out a new statutory redemption procedure for rentcharges, excluding those specified in new section 7A(2) of the Rentcharges Act 1977, as inserted by subsection (2) of the new clause. Currently, a rent payer can apply to the Secretary of State under section 8 of the 1977 Act for a redemption certificate. The rentcharge team will carry out the necessary checks and advise the rent payer on the amount needed for redemption. Once that amount has been paid, the team will issue a certificate of redemption.

We do not believe it appropriate in this day and age, and especially in the current financial climate, for the Government to continue to have a role in the redemption of rentcharges. The clause will allow the current procedure to be replaced with a mechanism that will be set out in regulations. The new procedure will no longer involve the Secretary of State in the redemption of rentcharges. Instead, the rent owner and the rent payer will be required to take certain steps for the redemption of a rentcharge. [Interruption.]

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

On a point of order, Mr Gray. I am trying to listen to the Minister with great interest, but there is clearly a conversation going on elsewhere within the room that is preventing me from listening to what feels like an excellent contribution.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I am grateful for that point of order from the Opposition Back Benches. The Government Whip might like to take note—[ Interruption. ] I repeat: the Government Whip might like to take note of the point of order, which is that there are too many conversations—mainly involving the Government Whip—happening on the Back Benches.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

Thank you, Mr Gray.

It will still be possible for the parties to reach a private agreement on redemption voluntarily outside the statutory regime. The existing redemption procedure is set out in primary legislation. The power to set out the new procedure in regulation provides the flexibility to make changes with greater ease than would otherwise be the case. The new regime is likely to contain a level of detail not suited to primary legislation, as the regulations will be concerned with substantive matters, such as the property rights of both the rent payer and the rent owner, and will include provision on dispute resolution. It seems appropriate for the regulations to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I do not wish to say too much about the new clause at this stage, because I am conscious that much of the detail will come in regulations, and I am partly assured by the fact that the regulations will be affirmative. Presumably, we will get an opportunity at a later stage to consider the implications of the new clause in more detail.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. On the basis of the assurance that we have provided to her, I commend the new clause to the Committee.

New Clause 32 - Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

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

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 33—Succession to secure tenancies and related tenancies .

Government new schedule 4—Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life.

Government new schedule 5—Succession to secure tenancies and related tenancies.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

New clause 32 and new schedule 4 together prevent local authorities in England from offering secure tenancies for life in most circumstances. They deliver on a commitment in the July Budget to review the use of lifetime tenancies, with a view to limiting their use. Currently, the vast majority of new social housing tenancies are offered on a lifetime basis, meaning tenants have the right to live in their social home for the rest of their lives, provided they keep to the conditions of their tenancy.

Since April 2012, following changes introduced by the coalition Government’s Localism Act 2011, local authorities have been able to offer so-called flexible tenancies—tenancies of a fixed term of no less than two years. However, they are not taking advantage of that flexibility. In 2014-15, only 8% of social tenancies granted by local authorities were flexible tenancies. That is only just over than 9,000 in all. At present, 236,000 social tenants are forced to live in overcrowded conditions due to the lack of suitably sized properties, while 380,000 households occupy social housing with two or more spare bedrooms. Under those circumstances, we believe that continuing to offer social tenancies on a lifetime basis is not an efficient use of scarce social housing.

The new clauses will significantly improve landlords’ ability to get the best use out of social housing by focusing it on those who need it most for as long as they need it. That will ensure that people who need long-term support are provided with more appropriate tenancies as their needs change over time and will support households to make the transition into home ownership where they can. In future, with limited exceptions, local authority landlords will only be able to grant tenancies with a fixed term of between two and five years, and will be required to use tenancy review points to support tenants’ move towards home ownership where appropriate.

Let me be clear: we are not taking away security of tenure from existing lifetime tenants who remain in their home. Moreover, these amendments will ensure that where existing lifetime tenants are moved by their landlord—for example, as part of an estate regeneration—they will retain their lifetime tenancy. We want to ensure that fixed-term tenancies do not act as a barrier to mobility.

Where lifetime tenants choose to move, local authority landlords will have limited discretion to offer further lifetime tenancies. We will prescribe the circumstances in which local authorities may exercise that discretion in regulations. We expect that such circumstances will include tenants downsizing to a smaller property and moving for work. We will obviously ensure that we develop the regulations in discussion with local authorities. Outside those limited exceptions, if local authorities try to offer a lifetime tenancy or one that is shorter than two years or longer than five, whether deliberately or by mistake, the tenancy will default to a five-year fixed term.

In the main, the statutory protections that the amendments provide for those granted a fixed-term tenancy are similar to those currently enjoyed by flexible tenants. A person who is offered a fixed-term tenancy by a prospective landlord may request a review of the landlord’s decision on the length of term offered. The landlord will be required to look at their decision again and explain how it was reached in the light of their published tenancy policy.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

For an amendment or something as substantial as what the Minister is proposing, an impact assessment would normally be published. Do the Government intend to do anything like that?

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

The hon. Gentleman raises a good question, which I will come to later in my remarks.

Tenants will usually be able to terminate their tenancy at any stage, while enjoying protection from eviction during the fixed term. The local authority landlord will need to demonstrate to the court that one or more of the grounds for possession is proven and that they are acting reasonably in seeking possession.

The amendments will introduce an important new statutory protection. Local authority landlords will be required to carry out a review of the tenant’s circumstances between six and nine months before the end of the fixed term, so that they can take an appropriate decision about the household’s housing need and advise the tenant on their housing options. That will include moving into home ownership where that is a realistic option. The new review process will also apply to existing flexible tenants unless they have less than nine months to go on their tenancy agreement.

In the review, the landlord will need to consider whether to renew the tenancy, offer the tenant another, more suitable social home or terminate the tenancy. We expect that in many cases the tenancy will be renewed, but where the landlord decides that it should not be, it is essential that the tenant be given the opportunity to challenge that decision, as well as sufficient time to find alternative accommodation, following advice and support from their landlord.

Where the landlord is minded not to grant a further tenancy at the end of the fixed term, they will need to serve a notice on the tenant six months before the end of the flexible tenancy, setting out the reasons for the decision, which should reflect the landlord’s published policy and give the tenant the opportunity to seek an internal review. Where that review upholds the landlord’s original decision, the tenant will have the right to challenge the landlord’s right of possession as part of the possession proceedings in the county court, on the grounds that the landlord has failed to conduct the review properly or made an error of law.

Currently, where landlords grant flexible tenancies, the tenancy will automatically become a lifetime tenancy at the end of the fixed term unless the landlord grants a new tenancy or obtains possession. These amendments ensure that that cannot happen in the future. Instead, unless the landlord grants a new tenancy, a further five-year fixed-term tenancy will arise automatically at the end of the fixed term. That does not prevent the landlord from bringing the original tenancy to an end, but it gives the tenant some protection, while ensuring that the tenancy does not roll over into a lifetime tenancy.

During a fixed-term tenancy, tenants will have the same rights as most secure and flexible tenants do now. As with existing flexible tenants, however, the right to improve and to be compensated for improvements will not apply to fixed-term tenancies. Landlords will still be able to grant such rights within the tenancy agreement if they so choose.

Teresa Pearce (Labour, Erith and Thamesmead)

I am intrigued by what the Minister means when he talks about having the same rights. We have heard a lot in the past few weeks about how the Government want all social tenants to have the right to buy, but is it not the case that social tenants who have less than a three-year tenancy will not have the right to buy? Is that not a clear difference between those two different types of social tenant?

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She makes a very good point, to which I will return.

We are including protections for existing introductory and demoted tenants at the time that the Bill comes into force. Where tenants have a legitimate expectation that they would be granted a lifetime tenancy at the end of the tenancy—because, in the case of demoted tenants, they were previously lifetime tenants, or because, in the case of introductory tenants, the tenancy would otherwise automatically convert to a lifetime tenancy—they will still be given a lifetime tenancy.

I believe that, taken together, the amendments strike the right balance between stability and quality for tenants—new and existing—flexibility for the landlord and a move towards home ownership.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Will the Minister clarify the previous point? If a tenant is currently a local authority tenant with a lifetime tenancy and they move within the stock, does the lifetime tenancy move with them or will they then have to be offered a two to five-year tenancy?

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

In my comments earlier, I set out clearly that that can be the case, but that will depend on the circumstances of the tenant at the time and the policy of the local authority.

We want housing association landlords and tenants to reap the benefits from shorter-term tenancies as well. However, we clearly need to consider any changes to housing associations in the light of the recent decision of the Office for National Statistics on classification. We are working through the ONS reclassification decision and considering the options but, given the complexity of the matter, careful consideration is needed. We will continue to work closely with the housing association sector, the social housing regulator and other stakeholders to finalise the deregulatory package, and we will consider any changes to lifetime tenancies in the context of that work.

New clause 33 and new schedule 5 change the rules on succession to secure tenancies and make equivalent changes for introductory and demoted tenancies. Currently there are significant differences between the succession rights for secure tenancies granted before April 2012 and those for tenancies granted after the date when changes under the Localism Act 2011 came into force.

For secure tenancies granted before April 2012 there is a limit of one succession. Spouses and civil partners qualify to succeed automatically, while other family members, including cohabitees, also qualify but only if they have lived with the tenant for at least 12 months immediately before his or her death.

Since April 2012, only spouses, civil partners and those living together as spouse or civil partner have a statutory right to succeed. However, local authorities can provide any additional succession rights that they think appropriate, including to people who have already succeeded, and to non-family members such as live-in carers.

We do not think that there is a justification for retaining the inconsistency of approach between pre-2012 and post-2012 local authority tenancies. We therefore propose that the succession rights for secure tenancies granted before April 2012 be aligned with those granted after that date. The amendments will deliver a consistent approach across all secure tenancies and ensure that common-law partners are put on an equal footing with married couples and civil partners.

Other family members who may have had an expectation of succeeding to a secure tenancy granted before April 2012, having lived with the tenant for at least 12 months, will lose their statutory right to succeed. We do not think that it is right that those who may not need social housing, because, for example, they can rent or buy privately, should have the automatic right to succeed to a social home when nearly 1.4 million households are on council waiting lists.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

Perhaps I can take the Minister briefly back to his reference to the deregulation agenda in relation to housing associations. Is he minded to apply his proposed measures affecting council housing tenants to housing association tenants as well?

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

As I said a few minutes ago, we clearly need to consider any changes that we might want to make. As I intimated, we would consider that, but we need to make any changes in the light of the reclassification. That is why we are saying that we want to consider the position extremely carefully. We expect to work closely with the housing association sector and the social housing regulator, and other stakeholders, to finalise any deregulatory package. We will consider—and we are considering—changes. That will happen in the context of the work I have mentioned.

I was explaining that family members other than common-law partners, married couples and civil partners will lose any statutory right they may have had to succeed to a secure tenancy granted before April 2012. Instead, local authorities will have the discretion to grant them succession rights, which must be written into the tenancy agreement. Where local authorities grant additional succession rights, we expect they will apply the same rules to tenancies granted before and after April 2012. However, we will provide guidelines to assist local authorities to exercise their discretion.

Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)

As you know, Mr Gray, I listen avidly to what the Prime Minister says on these matters. In August 2010, in a speech in Birmingham, he said of this proposal that

“not everyone will support this and there will be quite a big argument”.

Well, he is right on that one: there will be a big argument. More importantly, however, he also said that the proposal would help with social mobility. It would be helpful if the Minister, in the absence of the Prime Minister, could explain why it will help with social mobility in any way whatever.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

The measure will help with social mobility—all the policies in the Bill are aimed at helping with social mobility. We want people who are able to purchase their own property—to exercise the right to buy—to do so and to exercise what we see as a right to social mobility. Within this policy, in many cases, the circumstances of tenants will be reviewed; in certain cases, it may prompt people who may otherwise not have thought about purchasing their own home to do so where they feel they are able to. That is an important thing for everybody to have the opportunity to do if they are able to.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

Does the Minister envisage any exemptions for households where there are young children? One thinks, for example, of the need to offer young children stability of schooling, allowing them to go through primary school or to complete their passage through GCSEs. Might there be flexibility on secure tenancies in that situation?

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

When a housing authority is doing a review of the circumstances of tenants who are in that position—where their bedrooms are fully occupied, and where they have children at schools—we would not expect it to assess their circumstances in the context that they have changed significantly enough to mean that those people would not be able to take a further tenancy from that authority. It is important to stress to the hon. Gentleman that this is all about trying to free up social housing for the people who really need it; this is not about taking away social housing from people whose circumstances have not changed significantly.

To come back to the point I was making about succession, even where family members do not benefit from additional succession rights, the landlord will still be able to issue them with a new tenancy in the same or a different property if they have had sufficient priority under the council’s allocation scheme. That will ensure that landlords take account of particularly hard cases. That feeds into the point made by the hon. Member for Harrow West.

The proposals ensure that spouses, civil partners and those who live together as such continue to have an automatic right to succeed to a lifetime tenancy. That seems only fair, particularly as, in many cases, they will be joint tenants. However, it is difficult to justify why other people should succeed to a lifetime tenancy, particularly when most new tenants will receive a five-year fixed-term tenancy. The proposals ensure, therefore, that anyone other than a spouse or partner will no longer be able to inherit a lifetime tenancy. Instead, if they qualify to succeed, they will be given a five-year fixed-term tenancy. At the end of the fixed-term period, the landlord will be required to carry out a review of their circumstances, as they would need to do for any new fixed-term tenant. If the tenant is still in need of social housing, the landlord will be able to grant a further fixed-term tenancy of between two and five years. We think that, taken together, the amendments strike the right balance between protection for the tenants and their families, and flexibility for landlords.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

May I offer the Minister the example of a person who has a long-term disability and is in a specially adapted council property? Will there be an exemption for that person under the exemptions that the Minister says may be on offer through the regulations?

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. There are people who have certain needs, and he mentioned somebody who is disabled and in a property that has been specially adapted to deal with that disability. He needs to realise that the amendments are not couched in terms of automatically asking somebody in those circumstances who comes to the end of a fixed-term tenancy to move on. They are about reviewing circumstances. If, after that review, it is found that the disability of the person in question has not changed and that they still need that type of property with the housing adaptations that have been made, the local authority should not do anything other than renew the tenancy, as long as the person who is occupying the property has fulfilled the obligations under their tenancy agreement.

Let me come on to one or two of the questions that were asked during the debate. A question was asked about the impact assessment. We will publish a revised Bill impact assessment, and this will certainly be included in that.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

When?

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I assure the hon. Gentleman that it will be published before the Bill goes to the Lords.

On the right to buy, the answer is yes, the tenant will still be able to exercise their right to buy. They must have had three years in social housing to be eligible. That is the same for flexible tenancies. Part of the purpose of the review at the end of the tenancy is to consider whether a person can exercise the right to buy if they are eligible to do so.

Teresa Pearce (Labour, Erith and Thamesmead)

Will the Minister explain something? If somebody has less than a three-year tenancy, they will not have the right to buy. If they have a two-year tenancy, then a break and then another two-year tenancy, they will not have the right to buy. Is it possible that some local authorities will not grant longer tenancies as a way of not extending the right to buy to some tenants? Has the Minister looked at that to see whether it is a possible loophole?

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I am trying to think carefully about the hon. Lady’s logic. I think that the circumstances she mentioned would apply to people who have a lifetime tenancy. If a person does two years and, by their own volition, whether they are on a lifetime tenancy or a fixed tenancy, moves into private rented accommodation and then comes back to the local authority for rehousing, they would not have built up the three years that makes them eligible to take on the right to buy.

This issue has come up several times. The hon. Lady is saying that the local authority moves them out of the property after two years, but at the end of the two-year fixed tenancy, the situation is reviewed and the people’s circumstances are taken into account. I cannot see that this policy will stop people being able to take up right to buy.

The provisions also align the succession rights of introductory and demoted tenants with those of secure tenants. Spouses, civil partners and those living together as a married couple will have a statutory right to succeed and the landlord will be able to grant additional succession rights in the tenancy agreement. None of the changes will apply where the tenant died before the Bill comes into force. I therefore hope that hon. Members will take the measures in the spirit in which they are intended and accept them.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I will be very measured in my comments on the two new clauses, but I want to say to the Minister and put on the record that I am extremely angry about what is contained in the new clauses. I am angry in terms of process and in terms of content. I do not think it is helpful to the deliberations of this Committee to have had these extremely controversial and wide-ranging new clauses added on the last day of the Committee. I am also angry because, as far as I can see, there has been—

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I will give way to the Minister.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I am looking at the new clauses before us today and the ones that the Committee has not dealt with previously. I can see only a small number of new clauses tabled by the Government, but a significantly greater number of new clauses submitted at this stage to the Committee. I ask the hon. Lady: is not what is good for the goose good for the gander?

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I thought the Minister was going to make a serious intervention about the content of the new clauses. The point I was making is that the Government new clauses, which are wide ranging and controversial and have an impact on lots of people’s lives, should not have been brought to this Committee on the last day of its deliberations without any consultation, without an impact assessment and without any background information. It really is extraordinary. It is extremely bad practice and not good policy making.

It is the content of the clauses that concerns and outrages me. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said this morning:

“People will be astonished that Ministers are legislating to deny families a stable home. This will cause worry and upheaval for tenants, and break up communities.”

Because the new clauses have not been in the public domain for long, people are only now trying to catch up with what the impact might mean for people. However, some housing lawyers have contacted us to say:

“Presently, local authorities generally grant periodic secure tenancies. Such tenancies have no automatic end date, rather, they end only when the court makes an order for possession or when a tenant gives up the tenancy. Moreover, if you are the spouse or civil partner of a local authority tenant then, on the death of that tenant, you can succeed to the tenancy on the same terms.”

Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative, Thirsk and Malton)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. I want to finish what I am saying about this particular issue. The housing lawyers who have contacted us said:

“The new clauses end both of these rights. If the new clauses are accepted, local authorities will only (save for limited exceptions which will mostly be dealt with in secondary legislation)”—

as we heard from the Minister earlier—

“be able to grant tenancies for a fixed term of between 2 and 5 years. Towards the end of the fixed term (defined as between 9 and 6 months before it ends) the landlord will decide whether to offer another fixed term. Whilst there is a right to ask a landlord to review a decision not to offer another fixed term, there is no right to challenge the decision, e.g. by appeal to a court.”

Therefore, the spouse or civil partner of a local authority tenant, on death of that tenant, might get a five-year tenancy, or they might not.

The lawyers continue:

“This is a major reform of housing law, probably the most important since local authority tenants were given security of tenure in the Housing Act 1980. It requires much more detailed (and technical) consideration than just being dropped in for debate on the last day of the Committee Stage. There are, for example, two unintended consequences”—

my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West has just raised one. There is great concern about the potential impact on the right to buy, but there is also major concern about provisions for recovery of possession at the end of the fixed term and for recovery of possession against a successor.

The lawyers say that the current proposals are simply unworkable because

“where a local authority grants a fixed term tenancy, possession proceedings operate by way of forfeiture. Yet the Bill excludes forfeiture from the remedies available against these fixed term tenancies.”

The lawyers direct the Minister to read “Flexible Tenancies and Forfeiture” by Andrew Dymond in volume 17 of the Journal of Housing Law so that he can see how the drafting is flawed.

The lawyers continue:

“a 2 year fixed term means, in reality, only 15 months of security (since the decision whether to extend your tenancy can start with 9 months remaining on the term)”.

A two-to-five-year churn, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West pointed out, has huge implications for the stability of families and communities. It is important that the Minister addresses some of the points about what churn could mean in practice for the stability of families.

Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative, Thirsk and Malton)

As my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, there are 1.4 million people on the housing waiting list. Does the hon. Lady recognise that there is a real need to make the best use of our housing stock? People’s lifestyles change, as they go from living in a larger family to perhaps living on their own in a house that is larger than they need. Are these not sensible proposals to make sure we make best use of our housing stock?

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Local authorities already have the power to grant fixed-term tenancies if they wish to do so. The issue we have been struggling somewhat to get across in the Committee to date is that, if there is a huge need for social rented housing, the way to deal with that need is to build more social rented housing units, not to make life more difficult for those who already occupy social rented housing by kicking them out using a whole variety of mechanisms.

Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative, Thirsk and Malton)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Let me finish the point.

Increasing rents to a level that people will not be able to afford and having the bedroom tax in place means that a lot of people have to move out of their homes. Now, on the last day of our deliberations, we have this extraordinary set of measures, which seek to take secure tenancies away from people in the social rented sector. This is an extraordinary change. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that the way of dealing with acute housing need is to build more housing across all tenures, including for social rent, and I hope he will accept that.

Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative, Thirsk and Malton)

I absolutely accept that. Does the hon. Lady therefore welcome the 55% rise in the number of affordable houses—25,000 more properties— built in 2014-15 versus 2013-14?

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

A further thing I have been trying to do in the Committee is to make it clear that there are social rents and there are affordable rents. Affordable rents are not necessarily what we would all understand as affordable, because, in a lot of areas, 80% of the market rent is not affordable. Of course, that also applies to other measures for low-cost home ownership. Throughout the Committee’s deliberations, we have been questioning whether the Government’s definition of low-cost home ownership actually is low-cost home ownership.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

Taking at face value the question from the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton—and given the conversations on the Government Benches, one should perhaps be cautious about doing that—might he not be tempted to support new clause 37, which would make it easier for councils to build more homes and thus deal with the backlog of people on waiting lists?

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I hope that we are able look at that this afternoon, because it would be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say about it.

Traditional secured tenancies are not tenancies for life. They are invariably subject to a probation period of at least a year. If there is antisocial behaviour during the tenancy, the court has the power to take away security of tenure and reduce the tenant’s rights in a demoted tenancy, so there are already measures that enable local authorities to end tenancies if there is a problem with the tenant. Indeed, the Local Government Association wrote to us to say:

“The Localism Act 2011 introduced flexible tenancies in acknowledgement that ‘a one size fits all model on rents and tenancies is not the best answer to the wide range of needs and circumstances of those accessing the social rented sector’. Councils should retain this freedom to manage locally their Tenancy Policy and decisions over tenancies. Every housing market is different and blanket national enforcements may risk impacting on coordinated local efforts to balance efficient use of stock while building stable neighbourhoods and communities. The requirement to review each tenancy every five years would be a significant administrative burden on councils. We would like to support the Government to work with councils in order for it to understand the impact of fixed-term tenancies and to then be able to use the information to inform future tenancy strategy.”

The new clause is not only profoundly unfair and unjust for people who need and are fortunate enough to get social rented tenancies, but profoundly anti-localist. That is what the local councils themselves say.

The 2011 Act gave local authorities flexibility. If, because of local circumstances, they have not used that flexibility to the degree that the Minister would like, under localism that should not give the Minister the right to legislate for them to do things differently. I want the Minister to explain why he thinks it is appropriate to introduce these new clauses on the last day of Committee stage. What work has been carried out with local authorities and tenants’ organisations to understand the impact of the proposals? What is he going to do from now on in terms of both the impact assessment and having the important discussions that must take place before the proposals go any further?

Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)

If a 46-year-old woman becomes a war widow, and her family fly the nest with the exception of one child, would she be asked to move out with the remaining child in due course? Would she pay the price of the Government’s social mobility policy by losing her marital and family home? What would she say to the child? Does my hon. Friend have any advice on that?

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

At this point, I do not—in fact, I was going to ask the Minister about that. Another question is: what about adult children who have been living in the house as their home for a very long time?

I shall finish with the following point. The reason why Margaret Thatcher offered secure tenancies in the 1980s is that she understood the need for tenancies that would offer families stability. There was a lot of discussion in the run-up to the 1979 election about what would happen to people in the social rented sector, and it was a good thing. It was the result of many years of lobbying and of knowing how important secure tenancies are to the stability not only of households but of communities that the legislation was introduced. It was introduced after a long period and a lot of deliberation, and it is critical that we do not legislate this morning to just get rid of it on what appears to be the whim of a Minister, a particular set of Ministers, or even the Prime Minister. It requires careful consideration, and we have not had the opportunity to consider the full implications of the measures.

My family had years of private rented accommodation and of being moved on, with young children. Getting a secure council tenancy was critical in giving all of us stability and good opportunities for social mobility. I cannot see where social mobility comes into these clauses. We know that making life more insecure does not lead to greater social mobility.

Teresa Pearce (Labour, Erith and Thamesmead)

I am very interested in what my hon. Friend is saying about social mobility. When I was granted a social tenancy at 21, I was on my own with my daughter. I stayed there for two years. In those two years, due to the lower rent and my increased job prospects, I was able to save enough to move out and buy my own property. Had I had a tenancy that I knew would end, I probably would not have been in a position to do that, because I would have been so fearful of where I would go next that it would have held back my social mobility.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention, which demonstrates the clear difference between Opposition and Government Members: we appreciate the value of social rented housing to many individuals and families in this country, and how important it often is in enabling people to turn their lives around and in giving stability, particularly to families on low incomes seeking to do their best in difficult circumstances. It is not simply a product that can be used one way and then another; it is important for whole families and for their life choices.

Security of tenure often gives people time, as my hon. Friend said, to think about what options and opportunities might be available to them, such as education or retraining. It is critical that we do not remove that important support mechanism and pull the rug from under people, particularly when they might be facing difficulties. We should ensure that they get the support they need.

Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)

The more I think about it, the closer I come to the word to describe it. Does my hon. Friend agree that asking local authorities and registered social landlords to go to people and effectively move them out of their houses is pusillanimous, to say the least?

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Yes. If this is the result, the circumstances will be absolutely dreadful. Whether or not families are ultimately moved on, they will now have to live with the insecurity of knowing that they could be moved on at any time. That is what is particularly pernicious about the measures. They are part of a continuing vendetta against social tenants in this country. That is what we must assume from how the measures have been introduced and their content.

Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative, Thirsk and Malton)

The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead made the point beautifully. We all understand the need for social housing. She needed social housing at one time in her life, and the property was available. The measure is about making the best use of our housing stock.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

We dealt with that earlier. I ask the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to turn their attention to how we can deliver more social rented housing.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I will give way to the Minister once I have dealt with the intervention by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton. The way to deal with the huge demand for social rented housing is to build more of it. The figures I gave much earlier showed that last year the lowest number of homes for social rent in decades was built—I think it was 10,000 units.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

We have heard the heartening story of the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead. If she had chosen to, with a lifetime tenancy, she could by definition still be living in that house today while earning £74,000 a year as a Member of Parliament. Does the hon. Member for City of Durham think that it is right for someone to hold on to a lifetime tenancy in those circumstances, when people in housing need have nowhere near that income?

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

The Minister is sidestepping the point—for a change. We need to build more homes that are genuinely affordable—social homes, to rent. The Government are just making life more difficult for council tenants, trying to get them to move on somehow or other, rather than addressing the fundamental underlying problem, which is the lack of genuinely affordable housing.

Teresa Pearce (Labour, Erith and Thamesmead)

Just to clarify, I did have a lifetime tenancy, and my options were either to stay, to buy the property—which I did not do—or to save up, buy something, and leave the tenancy for someone else. Since then four other families have had the flat, because I did not remove it from the social stock by buying it. I do not understand the point about what I could have done if I had had a lifetime tenancy, because I did have one.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I am sure that that clarification is helpful.

Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman and then I am anxious to conclude because other Members want to speak.

Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)

The hon. Lady is very kind to give way. Of course Conservative Members agree that we should build more social or affordable housing, and the Bill will achieve that. Does she agree, however, that cases such as that of the former Member for Holborn and St Pancras, Frank Dobson, who occupied a council house for 30-odd years despite being a Cabinet Minister, are poor use of housing stock, and that a family in Camden on a low income would have been much better off occupying that council property?

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

The hon. Gentleman needs to turn his attention to what the Local Government Association has said on the matter:

“The Localism Act 2011 introduced flexible tenancies in acknowledgement that ‘a one size fits all model on rents and tenancies is not the best answer to the wide range of needs and circumstances’”.

Local authorities already can offer flexible tenancies if they want to. The provisions before the Committee would force all councils to do it, and do it in a particular way, whether or not that accorded with local circumstances and met tenants’ needs.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said that the provisions are a continuation of a “vendetta against council tenants”. The manner in which they have been tabled, and the lack of consultation with the housing sector, tenants or anyone who might be affected, show that he is probably right. I look forward to the Minister’s having the good sense to withdraw them and to allow proper discussion of such a key issue before a decision is made.

Helen Hayes (Labour, Dulwich and West Norwood)

It is absolutely shameful that the Government have tabled this new clause so late in the Committee’s deliberations, without time for tenants to be consulted, without time for the Committee to take evidence orally or in writing from tenants and from those who represent tenants, and without the opportunity to hear the views of the social housing sector and of councils. The proposal is yet another radical reform and a forceful attack on social housing as we know it.

Southwark Council, one of the councils that I represent, consulted during the previous Parliament on the Government’s proposed flexibility to change the form of council tenancies. It consulted extensively with its tenants and in the end it decided to take advantage of the proposal to introduce introductory tenancies, but not to remove lifetime tenancies. That was because of the views that residents expressed during the consultation.

I recall a conversation with a woman who lives on one of my council estates. She was an original right-to-buy tenant. She bought her flat and brought up her family there. She has lived on the estate for more than 40 years and has been the life and soul of the community; she has been chair and vice-chair of her tenants and residents association. She said to me, “If you as the council introduce this proposal, we are finished as a community, because you will be undermining the stability of our community. You will be destabilising. We will have a much more rapid turnover. Our ability to be a cohesive, strong, stable and long-term community on this estate will be gone.” That is the significance of this proposed reform of social housing. It denies stability and security to households on low and moderate incomes, who cannot afford to buy.

I do not understand why the Government are so set on making a distinction between the aspirations of people who can afford to buy and those of everybody else. I do not understand why the Government are bent on denying people on lower incomes the stability of knowing that they can live in their community for the long term; that they can send their children to the local school for as long as they need to be there; that they can invest in that community and play an active role in supporting their neighbours and in giving back. I do not understand why the Government are making that distinction on income grounds alone.

I am concerned that a consequence of the proposal will be to force tenants, for whom home ownership is not sustainable in the long term, to consider the right to buy. In my nearly six years as a councillor, many residents have come to me in deep distress because of the cost of major works bills and the cost of service charges, which they did not necessarily anticipate were coming and which they had not set aside the money for. They had 95% mortgages and they did not have the equity in their home to be able to borrow to cover those costs. Their home is threatened as a consequence of the financial strain. I am concerned that if people think they have only two, three or five years to live in their social home, and that the way to achieve longevity is to buy their home, they will be forced to take up the right-to-buy option when it is not in their long-term financial interests to do so.

It is worth rehearsing exactly how many and varied the ways are in which the Government seem bent on an attack on social tenants. We have the high income tenant provision for tenants who are not actually recognised as high earners by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs under the pay to stay clauses. We are still living with the pernicious bedroom tax. We have absolutely no funding line at all in the comprehensive spending review to deliver a Government subsidy for new social housing, the delivery of which—not the punishment of existing tenants—is the key to solving the social housing crisis. The forced sale of council homes will reduce the number of those homes available to meet the need that is there. This is a race to the bottom on housing for those on low to moderate incomes. It seems to me that the poor standards and insecurity of tenure of the private rented sector are the standards the Government are aiming for, rather than an aspiration to raise standards and security of tenure, and the availability of secure tenure, for those on low to moderate incomes.

New clause 32 is a further pernicious measure that simply punishes those who, through no fault of their own, are on low to moderate incomes. It shows absolute contempt for social tenants that the new clause has been introduced with no opportunity for tenants or their representatives to be consulted and make their views known, and with no opportunity for the Government to hear from them at first hand. Many times during Committee I have referred to my constituents—the people who, every week, come to my surgeries and write to me. Week in, week out, many people raise issues relating to security of tenure. They worry and are caused great anxiety—in fact, it affects their mental health to know that they might have to take their children out of school to move to a more affordable area. Insecurity of tenure undermines people’s ability to save for the future, the strength of community connections, and the ability of people to support each other in a mixed, balanced and diverse community. These things matter to all residents, not only those who can afford to buy their own home.

I would like the Committee and the Government to hear at first hand from tenants and leaseholders—those who live alongside tenants on our mixed and diverse estates—about the effect the new clause will have on them. I hope that the Government will withdraw the new clause so that tenants’ views on it can be heard and can inform the debate.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Gray.

I rise to oppose the new clauses and new schedules. In doing so, I will try to be as measured as my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham and for Dulwich and West Norwood, but I too am angry. Let us be clear: this is not just one group of a bunch of new provisions that have been tabled; taken together, the new clauses and new schedules represent a significant reform of housing law—probably, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham said, the most important since local authority tenants were given security of tenure by the Thatcher Government in the Housing Act 1980. We can have a robust debate about the rationale for the Government’s policy, but whatever the views of individual Members on the Government and Opposition Benches, there is absolutely no justification for the shabby way that these provisions have been brought before the Committee. There has been no consultation or impact assessment. The Minister says we will get one sometime before the Bill goes to the House of Lords, but that will not give the Committee an opportunity to scrutinise this important legislation properly.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

Is it not all the more disappointing that the Minister has confirmed that housing association tenants also face the potential loss of their secure tenancies? We do not know when there will be a consultation on that either, in the same way as there has not yet been a consultation on the provisions before us now.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. If I was a housing association tenant, or if I ran a housing association, I would be worried by the implications of the new clause and new schedules for tenants and for the sector as a whole.

Turning to some of the specifics, I have a number of concerns about the consequences, intended or otherwise, of the proposals. The most important is that the new clauses are yet another example of the centralising nature of the Bill. Perhaps that is the weakest part of the Government’s argument. The Minister argued that the measures are intended to promote the more efficient use of council housing, and the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton said that they are designed to make better use of stock, but the Localism Act 2011 already allows local authorities to grant fixed-term tenancies.

Currently, it is left to local councils to decide whether to grant traditional secure tenancies or fixed-term tenancies. The Minister touched on the fact that there will be freedom and opportunity for local authorities. If that is the aim, why the need for legislation? They have that as things stand. More telling was his staggering comment that the measures are needed because local authorities are not taking advantage of the freedoms available to them. What kind of localism is it that says to a local authority, “Here is a power that you can use if you decide, as a democratically elected local authority, that the housing needs in your area demand it, but if you don’t use it, we are going to take it away, make you look at it again and force you to use it”? That is not localism. As the Conservative party has championed localism, I thought that the Government might have thought about this measure a little more carefully.

My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham has already said that the provisions for recovery of possession at the end of the fixed term and against a successor are not workable. Where a local authority grants a fixed-term tenancy, possession proceedings operate by way of forfeiture, yet the Bill excludes forfeiture from the remedies available against fixed-term tenancies. That is unsurprising, because the provisions have been introduced so hastily that the drafting is flawed and will need to be reviewed at a later date.

Perhaps the most important point is the one made powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood. The new clauses and new schedules will have implications for the building and maintaining of stable and secure communities. I return to a point that we have touched on several times previously, including in our discussion of the pay to stay clauses. When we look at social and public housing as a zero sum game, through the lens of dependency and economic subsidy, as Government Members clearly do, we are into a world where we are undermining mixed communities. I thought that the Government—the coalition Government certainly stated this—believed in sustainable, inclusive, mixed communities. How can we have mixed communities if anyone who does well, who saves and gets a better job, is encouraged to move on?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead, who has actually experienced living in social housing, has said, if they have the opportunity and the security and stability on which to do it, most people will take the opportunity to buy their own home and move out at some point in the future. Coercing people or applying pressure on them to do so is not the way to encourage them to move on. That is what the provisions will do.

The new clauses do not, as the Minister said, strike the right balance; they will be deeply damaging to communities throughout England, including those I represent in Plumstead, Charlton, Woolwich and Greenwich. I encourage the Minister to visit some of the estates and talk to the people there, who will say exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood did: the people who hold these communities together—the glue, if you like—are those tenants who have perhaps done a little better than others but have stayed and are trusted and looked to as community figures.

The measures will increase transience and churn and undermine mixed communities. They are conclusive proof that the central thrust of the Bill is an attack on public housing and the families who rely on it. It is bad policy and, more important, it is bad policy making. The Government should go away and look again and at least, at a minimum, if they really believe in this, come back to us after a consultation when we can look at a proper impact assessment. They should not be introducing these new clauses in such a shabby way.

Mr Jones rose—

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I call the Minister.

Peter Dowd rose—

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Order. The hon. Gentleman should realise that if he wants to catch my eye, he must stand up in his place.

Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)

Okay. Thank you very much, Mr Gray. I tried to catch your eye earlier, but, regrettably, I obviously did not.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

When an hon. Member wishes to speak, he stands in his place and I then call him. If he does not stand in his place, I presume he no longer wishes to speak. He cannot do it by waving.

Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)

I was trying, Mr Gray.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I am sorry, I do not intend to argue about it, but I will say it again: if an hon. Member wishes to speak, they stand in their place. If they do not, they do not get called, for the very simple reason that for all I know he or she may well have changed their mind. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to be called, he must stand in his place.

Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)

Thank you for your advice, Mr Gray, which I genuinely appreciate.

My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham made a powerful case about the contradictions between the provisions in the new clauses and localism. As a council leader, I experienced such contradictions many times. We were constantly being told about all these local powers and having the discretion to do this or that, but of course it was only if it was what the Government wanted us to do. If we did not do what the Government wanted, they forced us to, and if we did, they said, “There you are, you’ve volunteered to do it.” I therefore completely understand and accept my hon. Friend’s contention that this localism policy is not really a localism policy.

The Government have the powers, attitude and guile of Cardinal Richelieu, but want to act like a country vicar when it suits them. They cannot have it both ways. The bottom line is that this is a modern version of a tied cottage, but without noblesse oblige from the landowner. That is what is before us. In effect, we are discussing the threat of eviction after five years. Let us not dress it up in any other way—it is a threat of eviction. People might be able to go through some processes, but in reality that is what the new clause is. It is an extension of the concept of the bedroom tax. Not content with saying, “If you have three bedrooms, you’ll have to pay for two of them, or move out,” the Government are extending that by not even giving people the opportunity to pay, but instead saying that after a certain number of years, “You’re out of this property.”

I asked my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham about the case of a 46-year-old widow because it is a real case about which we have to get answers or assurances from the Government. That could be what will happen to that widow, and the sort of answer we need is that she will be able to stay in her home with her family. We need those answers not next week or in six weeks’ time, but today. The Government constantly tell us about the military covenant in this day and age, and that is the sort of issue that goes to the heart of it. There are lots of warm words, but the Government must guarantee that such things as I have described will not happen, because any breach is a breach of the covenant. In Committee we must think of precisely such things when we make our decisions.

I do not mind a law of intended consequences, as long as people are clear about them, but the new clause might be a law of unintended consequences. It is coming to something when the Government are rolling back some of the social provisions added by Mrs Thatcher. That is a remarkable movement backwards—quite incredible.

I ask the Government to consider the new clause carefully. It is not about emotion and bluff; it will be affecting people’s lives day in, day out. I ask them to consider carefully the impact on communities and their cohesion in coming years—not in two or three years, but in five or 10 years’ time, when most of us—or at least most of the Opposition Members—will be retired, including me.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I have heard the comments of Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for City of Durham. The hon. Lady seems to be most surprised that the Government are introducing these measures, but I am surprised that she is surprised. In August 2010 the Prime Minister first mentioned that the Government of the day were thinking of such provisions—the hon. Member for Bootle even highlighted that in his earlier intervention—and that was followed by the Localism Act 2011, which took the proposals further, and by the Chancellor’s announcement in this year’s summer Budget. The Labour party should not be surprised.

Teresa Pearce (Labour, Erith and Thamesmead)

I hear what the Minister is saying, but given that the measure has been in the pipeline since 2010, why was it not in the Bill?

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

Obviously it will be in the Bill now.

Teresa Pearce (Labour, Erith and Thamesmead)

Why was it not in the Bill?

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

Because we want to get such things right. We believe that we have now put a good package together—

Peter Dowd rose—

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I am not going to give way at the moment. I want to read from a newspaper article quoting a Minister:

“the minister did say the current system had to be re-thought as it concentrated dependency and disadvantage in particular estates, frustrating people’s attempts to either get out of social housing or to get into it.”

I completely agree with that statement, but it was said in 2008 by the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), when she was a Minister in the Department in which I am privileged to serve. She said:

“What we have at the moment is not effective or sustainable and it seems to me that people deserve better.”

The article states that she

“indicated that she wanted to encourage social tenants or would-be social tenants to look beyond social housing to the private sector”.

It quotes her saying:

“If people could find greater stability and security in the private rented sector, or could take advantage of low cost home ownership, then maybe fewer would think that social housing was their only option.”

It is telling that that was the thinking in 2008 of the Labour Government and the Department for Communities and Local Government, in which the shadow Housing and Planning Minister, the hon. Member for City of Durham, served as a Minister.

The thinking of the Labour Government at the time was similar to our thinking now and seemed to be in the centre ground. If the Labour party had won in 2010—if the electorate had not seen fit to throw out that discredited shambles of a Labour Government—and the country had had the misfortune of having another Labour Government, there is every possibility that they would have taken a similar approach to the one we are taking now.

Dr Blackman-Woods rose—

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I am interested in hearing the hon. Lady’s view on that.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

The Minister must really be struggling to defend this policy if the best he can come up with is a Minister many, many years ago making what we all thought were personal comments. They were never accepted as Labour party policy or proposed in legislation. That was a speech in which she made personal comments. [ Laughter. ] I find it pretty shocking that Government Members are laughing, given that these clauses seek to take important rights from people. Labour did not take that approach either in government or in opposition, and the Minister should not suggest that we did.

Andrew Griffiths (Conservative, Burton)

rose—

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

My hon. Friend the Member for Burton wants to intervene on the hon. Member for City of Durham, and I understand why he wishes to do so. The then Housing Minister made those comments at a housing conference at the Adam Smith Institute in her capacity as a Minister of the Government of the time. I find it difficult to square that with the fact that the hon. Lady just said that they were personal comments. They were not personal comments; they were the comments of the Labour Government at the time. That is the direction that the Labour Government would have taken if they had been re-elected in 2010. The hon. Lady said that I am struggling to defend the policy—in a moment, I will give her some more detail about why I am confident in defending it—but I think she is struggling to put up an argument against it.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

rose—

Peter Dowd rose—

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I will take an intervention from the Government side first.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I just want to put on the record that the only reason why I and several colleagues laughed was the shadow Minister’s shocking response and the fact that she dared to disown comments that were clearly made at an official conference by an official representative of the Government of the time. It is an extraordinarily inadequate response.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is an indication either of how far to the left the Labour party has gone or that, as usual, Labour Members have selective amnesia about the views their party held when they were in Government. Time is pressing, so I shall move on.

The hon. Lady mentioned the protection for tenants who do not have their tenancy renewed. The Protect from Eviction Act 1977 means that if a person is being evicted, a court hearing will always be required. Human rights issues can be considered at that hearing. In my initial remarks, I also said that before any court hearing there would be an internal review so that the local authority in question could ensure that it had complied with its own housing policy on evicting a tenant.

A comment was made about the policy being burdensome. The legislation is all about making better use of social housing, and it will certainly save on temporary accommodation costs and the need to manage waiting lists. Our assessment of the policy’s impact will be revised, but we need to consider the family who have been in high-rent temporary accommodation for years. The Government have already shown a commitment to such people by allowing those in temporary accommodation to move into the private rented sector, which means that people who have to use such accommodation now do so for, on average, seven months less than was the case in 2010. That shows that the Conservative party is interested in getting the most vulnerable people housed, not in a policy built on ideology, as the Labour party seems to be.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

The Minister was asked specifically why there has been no consultation on the proposal in the new clause. Will he answer that question now?

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I think I have said at some length, not just in this debate, that we have been consulting on our intentions since 2010. We believe the policy is the right thing to do, so I commend the new clause to the Committee.

New Clause 33 - Succession to secure tenancies and related tenancies

New Clause 9 - Duty to promote lending to small and medium sized house builders

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

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

New clause 9 would add to the Bill a duty to promote lending to small and medium-sized house builders. There has already been some conversation in Committee about the need to do a little more to help a sector of the house building industry that has been struggling in recent years. Small firms lack many of the advantages of scale of larger house builders, particularly in terms of access to finance and access to land and other assets against which to borrow that finance on good terms.

Small builders are often very dependent on a smaller number of land sites and face, in the words of an economics report,

“lumpy, volatile cash flows as land is purchased, sites developed and sales made”.

Equally, small and medium-sized house builders are surely a crucial part of the sector, given their appetite for developing smaller sites that larger firms often do not want to develop themselves. SME house builders can often be more agile players in the housing market and can use local knowledge and expertise to make the most of small sites. In that way, the contribution of SME house builders also provides an opportunity to increase the number of jobs, to help economic growth and, obviously, to ensure that additional homes get built.

The National House-Building Council has charted the decline in the number of SME house builders from the mid-1980s. It notes that, in the mid-1980s, there were some 12,000 SME house builders, which by 2013 had declined to just under 4,000. Evidence presented to Labour’s Lyons review by the Home Builders Federation suggested that there were some 7,600 dormant SME house builders that were doing other kinds of construction work. The crucial point is that there is capacity that could be drawn back into the housing market to build additional homes in the right circumstance. The Lyons review heard that access to development finance, and its cost, was the key problem preventing many SME house builders from coming back into the market.

The current Federation of Master Builders survey, which came out in September, continues to highlight the scale of the problems that many house builders have in accessing finance. The responses to that survey from different house building firms might give hon. Members an additional indication of the scale of the difficulty. One talked about the disproportionate and high interest charges in relation to security held by lenders. One simply said that there is no finance available for small companies. Another said, “Unless you are an established developer with at least five years of profitable developments under your belt and are cash rich, there really isn’t any finance available to grow. The banks just aren’t interested.”

Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)

I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. What the hon. Gentleman says is laudable, but I am unsure how the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government can promote bank lending when he has no power to direct banks. Moreover, banks are constrained by Basel III, a set of international banking regulations, so I would be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s commentary on how the Secretary of State can influence bank activity.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

There are a number of ways in which the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government can intervene and promote lending to small and medium-sized businesses. Simply convening meetings with banks to encourage them and talking through the issues that they have in lending to small and medium-sized construction companies would be a start. The hon. Gentleman raises a separate point about Basel III, which I accept was a sensible reform, but the Secretary of State’s friend in the Treasury has introduced other measures that have also had an impact on the availability of cash for lending to small and medium-sized house builders, which the Secretary of State might be able to challenge more easily if the duty were in the legislation.

One way to help small firms to access the credit that they need might be to provide more guarantees for bank lending. A guarantor bank is one suggestion and would guarantee certain tranches of loans to small and medium-sized builders with the condition that funding be used to develop homes, helping to lower the cost of finance as well as increasing the availability of finance to small and medium-sized builders. That was proposed by Capital Economics to the Lyons review and mirrors the Government’s existing Help to Buy scheme. It would essentially be a help-to-build scheme—[Interruption.] I hear the hon. Gentleman heckling me from a sedentary position. If he wants to intervene to make a point, I am happy to take his intervention.

Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)

The funding for lending scheme is already doing very effectively exactly what the hon. Gentleman describes.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that I have not made up the Home Builders Federation’s concerns. The quotes that I have just given are real. There is a real problem preventing many small and medium-sized house builders from accessing finance. I suggest to him that more needs to be done and the new clause is a way of doing that.

Finally, there is one other option available if a guarantor bank or a help-to-build scheme were not acceptable. Government and Opposition Members will be familiar with the regional growth fund. A series of community development finance institutions occasionally work with construction firms but have difficulty in building their capital base. Regional growth fund moneys might be better used in increasing their ability to lend money to small businesses in their communities. In the context of the new clause, some of that financing could be directed at helping small and medium-sized house builders.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

How could I not give way to the hon. Gentleman?

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to give way. I am worried for the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, who looks very hungry, but the hon. Member for Harrow West is so interesting that we have to keep going. He will be interested to know that the Minister for Housing and Planning, the leader of South Norfolk Council and I were at a self-build summit yesterday at which we heard financiers from Lloyds bank and Nationwide Building Society talking about such issues. It is really not about legislation. The hon. Gentleman needs to know that it is about de-risking. Does he not understand that, were we to have large projects with local development orders, as has been done by Cherwell District Council with the largest self-build project in the country, for example, that automatically de-risks things and makes automatically coming forward much more attractive to lenders?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Order. You must be brief.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

I am sorry that you cut the hon. Gentleman short, Mr Gray. Perhaps a speech might allow him to give the Committee a bit more information. I simply bring him back to the evidence from the Federation of Master Builders, which said that, if the small and medium-sized house building sector’s access to finance was improved, it could deliver an additional 20,000 homes per year. I gently suggest to the hon. Gentleman, with whom I have happily worked on self-build, custom build and housing co-operatives, that here might be an issue for us to co-operate on. We could champion the needs of small and medium-sized builders and address the problems of access to finance. That is the spirit of the new clause.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Order. One of the doors is locked. I am advised that I ought to suspend the sitting until it has been opened and the public and others can get in.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Order. When we broke for lunch, I had proposed the question that new clause 9 be read a Second time.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

On a point of order, Mr Gray. As you will be aware, this morning it was suggested that the proposals in new clauses 32 and 33 were at some stage being considered as policy by the last Labour Government. Over the lunch break I was able to check, and the Minister at the time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), made it absolutely clear that the proposal for fixed-term contracts was made by the Chartered Institute of Housing as part of a consultation on a housing reform Green Paper. She stated categorically that it was not Government policy. There had been some unhelpful speculation following an inaccurate report that appeared in a national newspaper, but she made it absolutely clear that she was not sympathetic to the notion that council residents should somehow lose their security of tenure—

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Order. The hon. Lady knows well that that is not a point of order and not a matter for the Chair, but she has by that mechanism made her views known to the Committee.

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

As you mentioned this morning, Mr Gray, this is the final day of the Committee. We have finished scrutinising the Government’s proposals for the Bill; for the rest of the day, we will focus on the propositions from the Opposition. The hon. Member for Harrow West and others might be particularly focused on the rest of our deliberations and indeed on Parliament for the next few days, but people generally and the members of the Committee might also thinking about and looking forward to Christmas, so I wish everyone well for Christmas.

As I said, we have completed our consideration of the Government’s proposals for the Bill at this stage, but Opposition Members keep surprising us—I suppose in the Christmas spirit—with gifts on the amendment paper. The hon. Member for Harrow West is a gift that just keeps on giving. I am of course more than happy to accept his offer of gifts and to spend the rest of our time in Committee considering the Opposition’s suggestions for the Bill, now that we are done considering the Bill as drafted. Never let it be said that we are not happy to accept and enjoy the good will of all Committee members.

The new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Harrow West would introduce a statutory duty in respect of lending to small and medium-sized house builders. I have said clearly on the record that we recognise that the lack of availability of development finance can be and has been a major barrier to smaller firms that are looking to expand and develop their building activity. Indeed, as outlined earlier, in the survey conducted by the Federation of Master Builders this year, more than 62% of respondents thought that the availability of finance was a constraint on housing supply.

I am concerned to ensure that we do all we can to help small and medium-sized house builders, because they are key to delivering the housing we need throughout the country. Nevertheless, introducing a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to promote lending by banks to small and medium-sized companies simply will not address the problem. We share the desire to see it happen, but I suspect the hon. Gentleman realises that such a duty would not work. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South said, the Secretary of State has no power to force banks to lend to small businesses, so the new clause is technically unworkable. However, it may please the hon. Gentleman to know that the Government are already taking action.

In July I launched the £100 million housing growth fund, which is a partnership between the Homes and Communities Agency and Lloyds Banking Group, to help smaller builders to get access to the finance they need to build more homes and grow their businesses. In the autumn statement, the Chancellor announced further measures to support small and medium-sized builders, including a housing development fund that will provide access to £1 billion of loan finance over up to five years. The new fund brings together and expands the builders finance fund and custom build serviced plots loan fund as well, providing more flexibility for Government support in those emerging markets.

We have also created the British Business Bank for £782 million of facilitated lending and investment. That aims to unlock £10 billion of financing for smaller businesses over the next five years. The Chancellor also announced support for small and medium-sized house builders specifically through amending planning policy to promote the delivery of small schemes, some of which we have debated in the Committee in the past few weeks.

Other proposals announced in the autumn statement will halve the length of the planning guarantee for non-major developments from 26 weeks to 13 weeks, ensuring that those smaller builders are not slowed down by an unnecessarily bureaucratic and slow planning system. With those assurances on Government activity, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his new clause.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

It is lovely to have the Minister of State back in his place. We all noticed that he effortlessly passed the hospital pass of the ending of secure tenancies to the Under-Secretary of State, which was a skilful dodge—the Under-Secretary had better watch his back in the Department.

I welcome the Minister’s detailing of the various measures that he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have set out to help small and medium-sized builders. I leave him with the thought that perhaps not enough has been done yet to end the concerns of many in that part of the house building market about the shortage of finance. I welcome the steps taken, but I encourage him to keep this matter in close view. In that spirit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

New Clause 10 - Planning obligations in respect of apprenticeships

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

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

I am delighted to move the new clause and highlight the need for more construction apprenticeships. The new clause, which for want of a better phrase is a probing new clause, suggests that in proposals for sites where 50 or more dwellings are to be constructed, there should be a guarantee that local people can be offered apprenticeships. The Minister should take that seriously.

The Federation of Master Builders highlighted the shortage of skilled workers in the construction industry, which could scupper the vision for the new affordable homes that we all want. Brian Berry, the chief executive of the FMB, said last month:

“Unless we see a massive uplift in apprenticeship training in our industry, there won’t be enough pairs of hands to deliver more housing on this scale.”

I looked in detail to see where the shortages lay. According to the FMB’s state of trades survey:

“In Q2 of 2015 49% of FMB members were having difficulties recruiting bricklayers and 47% carpenters and joiners.”

The FMB also said:

“Another recent FMB poll of members found that two thirds had had to turn down work because of their inability to recruit the skilled labour they need.”

A significant number of its members saw that as a “major barrier” to their ability to build more homes in the next 12 months, and a third were worried looking three years ahead.

One worries that small and medium-sized house builders will suffer most from the shortage of skilled labour. I remind the Committee of my previous comments about the decline in the number of small and medium-sized house builders over the past 25 years or more. A shortage of labour is no doubt an issue for small and medium-sized house builders. We have the problem of access to finance on the one hand, and if we add to that the shortage of skilled labour, we risk seeing even greater concentration in the house building sector.

Just before he stepped down from Parliament earlier this year, the excellent Nick Raynsford, then the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, chaired a cross-party parliamentary inquiry into apprenticeships with the noble Lord Best. The inquiry drew attention to the 1 million 16 to 24-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training, as well as the fact that we will need an extra 182,000 construction workers by 2018. It also highlighted that just 7,280 people had completed a construction apprenticeship in 2013, and that even though there had been a rise in the number of apprenticeships in other areas, there continued to be a significant shortage in the construction industry.

Between 2008 and 2011, the Homes and Communities Agency had guidelines that required housing associations to initiate apprenticeships as they got money to build new homes, which helped to generate more than 4,000 apprenticeships in that three-year period. The guidelines were lifted in 2011, when, as the agency said in evidence to the cross-party inquiry, they were clearly beginning to make a significant difference. That is a disappointment.

Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors construction market survey says the skills shortage has reached its highest levels since the survey was launched 18 years ago. Do you see anything in the Bill or any policy that will help to address that?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I do not, but Mr Gareth Thomas might.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

Mr Gray, if you have not seen any evidence, and I certainly have not seen any evidence—

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I have not been looking for evidence. I take no view on the matter.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

Very wise, Mr Gray; leave it to us and trust our judgment instead. I have not seen anything specific in the Bill that offers improvement regarding the worrying shortage of skilled construction workers. I tabled this probing new clause because it is worth raising the need for more apprenticeships, particularly in the construction sector.

Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con) rose—

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

I look forward, as ever, to the contribution from the hon. Member for South Norfolk.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

The hon. Gentleman is, as usual, ineffably kind, but I wonder why he looks to the Bill for a solution to his problem. Were he to look at the website of the excellent Easton and Otley College in my constituency, he would see that with the opening of its modern, well equipped £3.75 million construction centres, it aims to lay the foundations for a more secure future by trebling the number of construction students. It does not have to be legislation that does it.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

The hon. Gentleman is right in the sense that legislation is not the answer to everything. Although I am glad to give him the opportunity to praise a provider of apprenticeships in his constituency, I simply make the point, which I am sure he would not try to counter completely, that at the moment we do not have enough skilled workers in the construction industry in this country. All the fine words that we have exchanged over the past four weeks about how we might get more people into their own home are surely put at risk if we cannot find the people to build those homes in the first place.

I gently urge the Minister to do more to champion the take-up of apprenticeships by the construction industry. There has been concern in the past that, where construction apprenticeships have been on offer, they have not been of the quality that might have tempted people into them. There has been concern on occasion that people have been too quickly moved away from sites, and that some of the specialists in the provision of apprenticeships have continued to be undercut by those who do not provide such high quality training programmes.

I am grateful to Joe Brennan of Denbury Ltd, which is based in my constituency. It has provided for many years high quality apprenticeships to local people, usually on housing association building projects, but not exclusively. I ask the Minister: what more can be done to get more people into construction apprenticeships?

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

I find myself in a worrying position, because I agree with the hon. Member for Harrow West on two clauses running. I am not sure where to go from there.

One of our biggest challenges to get the homes that we want built across our country is the skills shortage. When we talk to developers and housing associations, some will talk about access to finance and some will talk about access to land and the planning system, but they will all talk about the skills challenge. Putting this matter on the record is useful, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for making the point. The industry is fantastic to work in. To be part of an industry that creates a home for people in the future is a special thing to be able to do.

Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)

I agree with both my hon. Friend and with the hon. Member for Harrow West. Does my hon. Friend think that registered providers—housing associations—have a vital role to play? I commend my local registered provider, Cross Keys Homes in Peterborough, that works with the Mears construction company to run an apprenticeship school. Apprentices go straight back into working for that housing association in its remedial work and new build.

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I suspect many of us in Committee today can find local housing associations doing excellent work with apprentices. I have certainly found that when I have met housing associations. There are good examples in the private sector as well. At Derby College recently I met Ian Hodgkinson and his team who encourage people particularly into brickwork. We all want to see more people going into bricklaying. Fantastic work is being done, and the more we can do to promote that, the better.

Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)

At the risk of breaking into the love-in, what role does the Minister feel that immigration may have in helping to sort out the skills shortage?

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

Actually, I think the hon. Gentleman does not go too far in breaking into the love-in. People should bear in mind that a lot of the building work we are getting done at the moment is thanks to some very positive work migration. That free movement of labour has been very useful to the construction industry over the past few years.

We want to make sure that the public sector plays a full part. I am proud to be a member of the Government that want to deliver 3 million apprentices in this Parliament, building on the 2 million in the previous Parliament, and we have changed Government procurement rules. The hon. Member for Harrow West talked about what could be done directly. We have changed Government procurement rules so that all relevant bids for central Government contracts worth £10 million or more and lasting more than 12 months must demonstrate a clear commitment to apprenticeships.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

Might I ask the Minister, while there is a period of friendliness between us, to look at the guidelines that the HCA used to have, which encouraged housing associations to offer quality apprenticeships, and consider whether there might there be scope for encouraging the HCA to bring them back?

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

Worryingly, I am going to say yes. I would agree with the hon. Gentleman again. I am very happy to look at that. There is obviously a balance at the moment in working with housing associations and the HCA. We have made it clear that we want housing associations to be declassified by the Office for National Statistics, but the housing association sector is keen on the area in question, and I have been speaking to David Orr, the chief executive of the National Housing Federation, about the skills issue. We will be doing a piece of work on that, and I am happy to liaise directly with the housing associations as well as with the HCA.

More specifically on construction apprenticeships, we are supporting initiatives of the Construction Industry Training Board and those that flow from the work of the Construction Leadership Council. In addition, the CITB has developed a range of initiatives, working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions and the armed forces, through the resettlement service, and with local enterprise partnerships.

A legal requirement for all section 106 agreements on sites with 50 or more dwellings to include a requirement to offer apprenticeships to local people would not necessarily support apprenticeships. It could be detrimental. Experience has shown us that without effective dialogue such as the work we are doing with the housing associations and indeed with people doing apprenticeships, some of the objectives that have been set out, which I know have the best intentions—I take the hon. Gentleman’s comments absolutely—can have unintended consequences and result in apprentices being unable to complete their apprenticeships.

I will briefly explain that. It is important to remember that apprenticeships are real, proper jobs, with a structured training to prescribed standards, which require a significant time investment from the employee as much as the employer. The taking on of an apprentice must fit the employer’s work patterns and skill needs. In construction, where work happens from project to project, consideration must be given to the labour skills and general skills needs for each project, and what is therefore practical and capable of delivery.

For example, smaller projects, but even projects of more than 50 homes, may not be able fully to support apprenticeships, especially as an apprentice cannot transfer between trade frameworks. It is not the length of the project but the analysis of the length of the trade activity undertaken within the project that establishes the number of apprenticeships it can support.

Also, requirements to recruit from the local area can in some circumstances be unsustainable. To pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Bootle highlighting mobility, the construction industry workforce is one of our most mobile, and many contractors operate across the country. It may not be feasible for a company based in a different area of the country to support a locally-recruited apprentice once their element of the project is completed. I want to work directly with the sector on that issue.

I hope that those assurances and my explanation will lead the hon. Gentleman to accept our determination of the matter, and to withdraw the new clause.

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and his willingness to look at the issue of HCA guidance. A number of contractors and social landlords told the inquiry to which I referred that the framework had worked well, and I gently suggest that that might be another reason for looking at the matter again.

I welcome the Minister’s personal commitment to the area in question. As a last point, I would urge him to consider the point that he ended on—the quality of construction apprenticeships. I worry that, in the past, some apprenticeships on offer have not been of high quality, which might have been a factor in putting some people off going into the construction industry. However, given the Minister’s helpful remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 12 - Tenants’ rights to new management in property sold under LSVT

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

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

The new clause is intended to ensure that tenants will be consulted about their satisfaction with management arrangements for their properties and tenancies where there has been a large-scale voluntary transfer. If, after five years, more than 50% of tenants are not happy with the arrangements, it provides for a competitive tendering exercise. This is largely a probing amendment to check whether the Government think it important to gauge tenant satisfaction with the LSVT arrangements, and to provide a mechanism to change them if tenants are not happy.

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

Local authority stock transfer can take place only if the majority of the tenants vote in a ballot, as required by statute. Indeed, the Secretary of State’s consent to the transfer can be given only after he is satisfied of two things: first, that the local authority’s consultation exercise has been adequate; and, secondly, that the majority of tenants voting are in favour of transfer. Furthermore, the Secretary of State will ensure that the acquiring landlord is registered with the regulator, so that he can be satisfied that the organisation is viable and will look after the stock in the long term, to the benefit of the tenants.

Although there are no powers currently available to tenants to sack or fire their housing association, the rights of housing association tenants, including ex-council tenants, are protected through a range of mechanisms. The Localism Act 2011 placed the power to scrutinise landlords’ performance and hold them to account back into the hands of tenants and their elected representatives. That can include referring complaints to the housing ombudsman if issues have not been resolved locally. Many tenant panels already play a key role in scrutinising landlords’ performance, challenging poor service and holding landlords of all types to account for delivery and value for money. The regulator’s tenant involvement and empowering standard requires landlords to offer tenants a wide range of opportunities to play that bigger role locally, including by forming tenant panels.

The regulator does not have powers to mediate or resolve individual cases, but it can and will investigate where there is evidence of serious detriment. The regulator also has the power to institute a statutory inquiry if necessary. Where a merger is proposed, housing associations are already required to consult with all stakeholders. I appreciate, as the hon. Member for City of Durham said, that this is a probing amendment. Hopefully she will accept and acknowledge that it is not necessary, as current tenants already have a number of sufficient and wide-ranging instruments enabling them to scrutinise their landlords and hold them to account, and rightly so, in addition to the HCA’s regulatory standards.

Furthermore, the proposed amendment will affect only some tenants in England: namely, ex-council tenants transferred to new housing association landlords. It does not make sense for that whole group to be treated differently from other housing association tenants. I appreciate that this is a probing amendment, and I hope she will feel able to withdraw it.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I have heard what the Minister has said. It is a particular concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), who was keen to have something on the record about the need for some trigger mechanism in place for tenants unhappy with LSVT arrangements. I have heard what the Minister has said. Perhaps we will come back at a later stage to reconsider the issue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

New Clause 13 - Conversion of leasehold to commonhold for interdependent properties

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

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

I will be extremely brief. New clause 13 seeks greater clarity on how the use of commonhold and leasehold tenancies are mentioned and dealt with in practice by the Department. I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s comments on how the current situation can be improved.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

New clause 13 seeks to replace long residential leasehold with commonhold. As hon. Members know, leasehold is a long-established way of owning property, supported by a framework of rights and protections that aims to deliver the appropriate balance between providing leaseholders with the rights and protections that they need and recognising the legitimate interest of landlords.

Commonhold is subject to a different statutory framework of rights and protections. It has its benefits, but there are important differences between commonhold and leasehold. That is partly why commonhold is and was intended to be a voluntary alternative to long leasehold ownership—a choice. There are no plans to abolish residential leasehold.

Abolishing leasehold and forcing leaseholders into commonhold may seem attractive to some, but would that be the right thing to do in all circumstances? The Government believe that it would not. Removing choice in this instance and, with it, the rights and protections currently afforded to leasehold homeowners and at the same time forcing existing leaseholders to become commonholders against their will would not be desired by all. Considerable care needs to be taken before embarking on legislation that would force existing leaseholders and landlords to transfer to the commonhold model, which would not in all cases be appropriate. Commonhold should remain a voluntary alternative to long leasehold ownership.

On that basis, I hope that the hon. Lady will, as she says, withdraw the motion.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

With this probing new clause, we were seeking greater clarity. Some of that clarity has been provided by the Minister this afternoon. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 21 - Planning obligations: local first-time buyers

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

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

The new clause would apply to all new homes for sale given planning permission by local authorities, as well as those given permission in principle, under provisions in the Housing and Planning Bill. The new clause would give local authorities the power to require a proportion of new homes for sale to be marketed exclusively to local first-time buyers for a specified period. Local authorities could make a judgment call about what proportion was reasonable. The new clause would allow the Secretary of State or, in Greater London, the Mayor of London, to make reasonable definitions of the time period for exclusive local marketing and to make definitions of what “local” means.

Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)

I entirely agree with the hon. Lady’s desire to encourage first-time buyers. Does she not agree, though, that the starter home provisions that we agreed some weeks ago will go a very long way towards doing that?

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

What the new clause is designed to do, which I think the hon. Gentleman has probably realised—I am not totally sure—is to ensure that where new homes are available, they go to local people. There would be a period of time during which they were marketed to local people. This is particularly a London issue, and I will go on to talk about why it is so critical in London.

In many parts of the country, local first-time buyers compete for new homes with second-home buyers and buy-to-let investors. There is wide concern that the problem affecting first-time buyers is growing and that something needs to be done. The director of research at Countrywide was reported in the Daily Express as saying that

“landlords and first-time buyers are now in direct competition because they tend to look for homes that are smaller and cheaper than average.”

The trend has been confirmed by the mortgage search tracker from Mortgage Advice Bureau, whose data in November showed that the number of buy-to-let landlords searching for mortgages on cheaper properties was up 17% on the same quarter last year.

The property website Rightmove was reported in The Guardian in October as saying:

“First-time buyers are facing asking prices almost 10% higher than a year ago because of demand from buy-to-let investors”.

In February 2015, the rural housing policy review, chaired by Lord Richard Best and sponsored by Hastoe housing association, recommended that, in areas of high second-home ownership, the Government should require

“a proportion of new…homes granted planning permission…to be with the condition that they can only be used as principal residences.”

There are, as we know, particular impacts in London from the non-availability of homes for first-time buyers. In London, the problem of first-time buyers being squeezed out is particularly acute, with high proportions of new homes sold to investors, including off-plan overseas investors.

Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)

The hon. Lady will know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made some fiscal changes in the autumn statement that specifically focused on the difficulties encountered by first-time buyers in London vis-à-vis buy-to-let landlords. I just wonder—I may have missed something—why the new clause does not apply just to London. Is she saying that the problem is nationwide?

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I am saying that the problem is particularly acute in London, but housing stress and difficulty getting on the housing ladder not only affect people in London. It happens in a lot of our cities, and it happens in rural areas, too. There is a particularly acute situation in London, which I will talk about in a moment or two.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I thought I would give my hon. Friend a useful illustration from my constituency. Overseas buyers regularly turn up at City airport, get the docklands light railway over to Greenwich and buy off-plan—not buy to let but off-plan, and sometimes in cash—just to hold the property as an asset, rather than seeking to rent it out.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that extremely helpful intervention highlighting some of the difficulties in London, which enables me to respond further to the intervention of the hon. Member for Peterborough. The autumn statement included some measures that might affect buy to let. We do not know what the full outcome of those measures will be, but they do not address the issue of overseas investors buying up properties to keep them empty.

Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)

Taking on board the comments of the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, surely the issue is wider than that. It is about tax changes and fiscal policy for overseas buyers, rather than adding quite a prescriptive new clause to the Bill in respect of first-time buyers. There is a difference between those who are purchasing properties from overseas and those who are seeking to become first-time buyers.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Order. We are straying slightly wide of the new clause. In the context of planning obligations for first-time buyers, I call Roberta Blackman-Woods.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I was going to say to the hon. Member for Peterborough that I would be ruled out of order if I went too far down the fiscal route. The new clause primarily seeks to probe the Minister on what more can be done to ensure that first-time buyers are not priced out of the housing market and to ensure that their needs are considered in order to encourage them into the housing market.

Research by Molior London Ltd for the British Property Federation shows that, in 2013, 61% of new homes in London went to investors and 49% of all new homes in central London were bought by overseas buyers. Londoners are competing with wealthy buyers who are being actively targeted across the world. Housing stock is being sold so many years in advance of being built that cash buyers are favoured over those buying with a mortgage, and a number of us have seen examples in the press of that happening throughout the capital. Councils are powerless to prevent it from happening, even though the phenomenon is widespread and growing. For example, when someone clicks on the “enquire” tab of the website for the new 624-apartment Wardian development on the Isle of Dogs, they are asked to choose their location from London, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Hong Kong, Qatar, Abu Dhabi and Dubai. The scheme is not due for completion until 2019.

In 2014, the Mayor of London announced a mayoral concordat that would commit signatories to marketing new homes to Londoners first or first equal, yet that has failed to offer Londoners any meaningful first choice. Even if homes are technically available to Londoners on a first equal basis, the homes are being marketed across the world many years ahead of being completed. By ensuring that the period of exclusive marketing to local first-time buyers starts no earlier than six months before completion, the new clause would ensure that a proportion of new homes for first-time buyers are held back to be sold as they near completion, which would help people who are trying to buy with a mortgage.

As the Minister will know, the new clause seeks to address the horrible reality, faced by many people in London and other cities, of being priced out of the housing market because of overseas buyers coming in and snapping up the properties. If the Minister does not think that the new clause provides the way forward, it will be interesting to hear what he thinks will tackle the problem.

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

We clearly need a radical shift in how housing markets support young first-time buyers, otherwise we will condemn a whole generation to further uncertainty and insecurity. On the hon. Lady’s point about buy to let and overseas investment, which my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough touched on, there are two things we need to bear in mind.

First, we need to be cautious about always falling into the trap of attacking overseas investment, because we have to remember that, during the economic crash of 2008, a great deal of building in this country, in London in particular, would not have happened had it not been for overseas money. Projects such as Battersea would not be going ahead where no English money was bidding to come forward. There is a part for overseas investment to play.

Secondly, it is also right to do what we can to deliver the homes that we need for young people in this country. That is why we saw the changes in the Budget this year to the tax relief for buy to lets, as well as the changes announced in the autumn statement only a few weeks ago, which made a substantial statement about where the Government are going and about our determination to deliver for people who want to buy their own home. I am therefore pleased that the Government have already made tremendous strides making mortgage lending available again to first-time buyers through the Help to Buy scheme. The number of first-time buyers has now increased by 68% since 2010.

I also recognise, however, the point made very well by the hon. Member for City of Durham: more needs to be done. We have to be clear and honest with ourselves that young people are struggling to buy their first home as house prices have continued to increase. Over the past 20 years, the proportion of under-40s who own their own home has been on a downward trend, so I fully understand and endorse the underlying policy objective of the new clause.

I believe, however, that promoting starter homes, as part 1 of the Bill does, is a much better way of achieving that objective. Not only will developers be required to build a proportion of starter homes on all suitable, reasonably sized sites in future, but those starter homes will be at least 20% cheaper than the going market price. That will give more prospective first-time buyers the opportunity to buy an affordable home of their own, especially if linked with Help to Buy and the 5% deposit, which the new clause would not necessarily achieve.

That is why we want 200,000 new starter homes built over the Parliament, with a minimum of a 20% discount. The Bill sets the framework for delivering our commitment. In November we debated in Committee the starter homes clauses extensively and the new clause would not add further value given the reforms we are putting in place. With that assurance, I hope the hon. Lady will withdraw the new clause.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I want to make it clear that, in moving the motion, we were not in any way suggesting that we were against a degree of overseas investment. The new clause is clear that the provisions would relate to a proportion of the dwellings that are marketed. It was simply intended to allow local people to have a way in to some of the new developments and to ensure that the new homes were not totally unavailable to them because they had all been bought up by overseas investors.

I have heard the Minister’s comments, however, and I think the Government are seeking to find a way of addressing the issue. We will mull over his comments and decide whether to investigate things at a later stage. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 22 - Security of tenure

Teresa Pearce (Labour, Erith and Thamesmead)

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

The new clause would have the effect of making longer-term tenancy much more common. Landlords and tenants would both have stability, but with the ability to terminate contracts early with proper notice, if they have to, just as they can now.

The private rented sector is an important and growing part of the housing sector. The number of people living in the private rented sector has increased by 2.5 million since 2010. Now, 1.5 million families with children are renting from a private landlord and could be evicted with as little as two months’ notice. Some 9 million people now rent privately. Almost half of those who rent are over 35. Many of them want the same security and stability that they would have if they owned their own home but the rules on private renting have not caught up with the way people live now.

Historically, private renting was mainly for students or was temporary. For example, if someone moved house from one place to another, they might rent temporarily for six months. Now, families live in the private rented sector. Private rents have risen massively—by more than 20% since 2010. While costs rise in the private sector, insecurity also rises. Assured shorthold tenancies have quickly become the most common type of tenancy, accounting for the majority of all private rental agreements, yet those tenancies have only provided security of tenure for less than 12 months.

Privately renting households, including many families with children, are moving between properties with much greater regularity now than 20 years ago. That clearly suits some people. Many private renters are young and move between properties for job-related reasons. At the other end of the sector, many struggle on low incomes, under further pressure from increasing rents and with the uncertainty of insecure tenancies looming on the horizon.

Most landlords seek good tenants and want them to stay for a long time. They want to build up a relationship with tenants who pay their rent on time and treat the property respectfully as their home. Most tenants seek a place with security in their tenancy, where they can plan for the future and build a home, but the current legislation leaves tenants with permanent uncertainty over their future and an inability to commit to a property and to a local community.

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

Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative, Thirsk and Malton)

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

Teresa Pearce (Labour, Erith and Thamesmead)

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

Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative, Thirsk and Malton)

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

Teresa Pearce (Labour, Erith and Thamesmead)

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

Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative, Thirsk and Malton)

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

Teresa Pearce (Labour, Erith and Thamesmead)

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

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I don’t think that—the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton does.

Teresa Pearce (Labour, Erith and Thamesmead)

I note that the hon. Gentleman does think that longer tenancies can be a good thing. The purpose of the amendment is to have that debate and to understand the Government’s direction of travel—possibly with longer tenancies in the future. I completely accept what you say.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

No, you completely accept what he says.

Teresa Pearce (Labour, Erith and Thamesmead)

I completely accept what the hon. Gentleman says.

Insecurity in housing affects not only individuals—tenants or landlords—but our whole society. There is a small school in my area that is in a fairly settled part of my constituency, and yet staff there told me that they had a whole class of pupils—30 pupils—that had churned in and out since September. It really affects the way that teachers can make progress with a class when there are new children coming in and out all the time, and the staff put that churn down to the private rented sector.

There is also a doctors’ surgery in my constituency that has 14,000 patients, and every year 4,000 of those patients move on and move to a different practice. A third of patients coming and going makes it nigh-on impossible for the doctors to deal with long-term health issues. They cannot run campaigns on diabetes, obesity or smoking with any success, because a third of their patients are constantly churning in and out. Many of the patients are living in bad conditions with mould and damp, and suffering from asthma, which puts more pressure on GP services.

Also, more secure tenancies and housing will allow families to become more settled, which I believe would help the local economy. Many employers, small and large, that I go to see tell me that they have a problem with recruitment, and it is because of the insecurity in the housing sector.

New clause 22 is designed to encourage longer-term tenancies and to make them much more common, so that both landlords and tenants have more stability. It is important to note that that should not penalise responsible landlords who may need to evict tenants, perhaps because their own financial position has changed or perhaps because they are unhappy with the way the tenant is treating the property. These are legitimate circumstances in which landlords should still be able to evict tenants by providing proper notice.

Measures to increase long-term tenancies are supported not only by me personally but across the industry. In particular, I will highlight some of the written evidence that the Residential Landlords Association gave to the Committee. The RLA wrote:

“We believe that reforms are needed to encourage a culture of long termism within the private rented sector which would play a significant part in stabilising rents for tenants.”

It also wrote:

“Too often letting agents base their business models on short term tenancies, charging fees (and thereby increasing rents) when they are renewed.”

It continued:

“The evidence shows that where tenants stay in their properties for longer periods, landlords are reluctant to increase rents, at least beyond inflation…Landlords often want to offer longer tenancies…Many landlords are prevented from voluntarily providing for tenancies longer than a year by mortgage lenders and the owners of blocks of flats”,

including the freehold owners of blocks of flats. Those were the words of the RLA.

I raised this issue in the most recent Department for Communities and Local Government oral questions with the Minister, and I hope that I might hear more today about what conversations are being had with mortgage providers. I know that the Nationwide now does not have a clause in buy-to-let mortgages whereby it will not allow lettings for longer than a year. However, other lenders have not been as enlightened, so I would be interested to know whether Ministers have had any discussions with the Treasury regarding this issue.

Finally, it is worth noting that many other countries already have longer-term tenancies. I accept that in some other countries in Europe there is not the same attitude towards home ownership that we have in this country, and that renting is a much more normal way of life there. However, in countries such as Germany, Switzerland and Belgium, long-term contracts and more flexibility give tenants the chance to plan for the future. In Germany, leases are usually signed for an unlimited period of time, and in France, where one in five people rent, longer leases are always available.

I am sure that Members from all parties have been contacted in the past by tenants who are struggling because they cannot find stable housing. I think we all agree that we want stability in housing, and longer-term tenancies could be a way of securing that stability. So we hope that we find some common ground with the Minister, and I am very interested to hear the Government thinking regarding longer tenancies becoming more of a norm than they are at the moment.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

Let me make it clear that this Government are committed to building a bigger and better private rented sector, which provides security and stability. We have taken action to support the supply and quality of private rented accommodation by resisting unnecessary and unhelpful regulation, while cracking down on the worst practices of some rogue landlords. Our model tenancy agreement, which was introduced in September 2014, promotes longer tenancies for landlords and tenants who vote to sign up to them.

However, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to tenancy length. Many landlords are looking to rent out a property for the longer term, but there will be some for whom letting a property is a short-term plan and who need the property back at some point, perhaps even for their own family to live in. Although I understand the spirit in which the amendment has been tabled, I think it would be counterproductive and would overburden the market with restrictive red tape, stifling investment and the supply of rented housing at a time when we most need to encourage it. That would not help tenants or landlords.

Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)

I can accept the assertion that the Minister is making, but actually, all the evidence from continental Europe points in the opposite direction. Investment is not stifled—quite the opposite. Secure tenancies often give the security to people investing in them, so the evidence continentally does not indicate that.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

The hon. Gentleman gives me a very good opportunity to segue into explaining that before assured shorthold tenancies were introduced by the Housing Act 1988, the private rental market was in severe decline. Lifetime tenancies and regulated rents meant that being a landlord was simply not commercially viable for many property owners. Since 1988, however, the private rented sector has grown steadily, increasing from just over 9% of the market in 1988 to 19% today. Landlords, and in many cases tenants, welcome the flexibility of the current assured shorthold tenancy regime, which does not lock the parties into long-term commitments and promotes mobility. Without the certainty that landlords can seek repossession when required, many, I am sure, would be reluctant to let their properties. I believe that the current framework strikes the right balance between the rights of landlords and tenants. With those points in mind, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment.

Teresa Pearce (Labour, Erith and Thamesmead)

I am interested in what the Minister said, but he has not responded to the point about the artificial barriers to some landlords, who want the choice to have either a short let or a longer let, but who are restricted by the freeholder—often the local authority—or the mortgage lender. Perhaps he would like to answer that or write to me about it at some future point.

Marcus Jones (Conservative, Nuneaton)

I will certainly undertake to write to the hon. Lady on that, but I also say that in reality, figures show that the length of time that somebody takes a tenancy from a landlord is, on average, three and a half years.

Teresa Pearce (Labour, Erith and Thamesmead)

That is not the case in my constituency, I assure him; that is very rare.

I believe that longer tenancies are a very good idea. It is interesting that in the heated debate we had this morning, tenancies of two to five years were meant to be the right thing for social tenants, but for private rented tenants, there is resistance to it. However, given that the Minister is going to write to me regarding the particular issue I am concerned about, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 24 - Local Authorities and Development Control Services

Helen Hayes (Labour, Dulwich and West Norwood)

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

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 31—Local authority planning fees cost recovery schemes—

“Local authorities shall be given powers to operate full cost recovery schemes with regard to fee levels relating to planning applications”.

Helen Hayes (Labour, Dulwich and West Norwood)

Since 2010, spending on planning by local authorities has almost halved, from £2.2 billion in 2010 to £1.2 billion this year—a decline second only to that in spending on cultural services. In previous sittings of the Committee, Government Members have dismissed the situation as simply being down to the choices of local authorities, but in reality, many councils have faced a Hobson’s choice. The extent of cuts to local authority budgets has been so great over the past five years that councils have had to cut across all areas of expenditure, and most have made the entirely rational and appropriate choice, when pressed, to protect where they can the services on which the most vulnerable residents rely—adult social services and children’s services. That has resulted in a situation where areas such as planning and cultural services have taken a disproportionate level of the cuts.

No one’s life is put in jeopardy as a consequence of planning cuts, unlike in areas such as adult social care or children’s services. The consequences of poor-quality or untimely planning decisions are felt by communities many years down the line, so it is important that planning services are resourced, but that resourcing should absolutely not be at the expense of services on which our most vulnerable residents rely.

We heard from the Royal Town Planning Institute in oral evidence that it believes councils should be allowed to recoup the full costs of providing planning services. The point has rightly been made that good, well-run planning departments contribute to economic development and growth. The proper resourcing of planning departments is essential to their being able to do that.

The new clause is supported by the Local Government Association, which writes:

“The LGA broadly supports new clause 24…which would enable local planning authorities to set a charging regime in relation to their development control service to allow for the cost of providing the service to be recovered. Councils have been forced to spend in excess of £450 million covering the cost of planning applications over the last three years. Currently year on year taxpayers are subsidising 30 per cent of the estimated cost of processing all planning applications in England because nationally set planning fees do not cover the full costs. Introducing locally-set planning fees would enable councils to deliver responsive council planning services that are crucial to growth and building the homes we need.”

Together with new clause 31, on which my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham will speak shortly, new clause 24 is supported by London Councils, which writes:

“We believe the government should localise fee setting and scheduling controls so as to support boroughs that commit to boost the supply of housing. This would produce a more effective, swifter and consistent planning service, and ensure a properly resourced and more efficient planning system in the context of development control in London having seen an estimated net shortfall of around £37-£45 million annually between 2012-13 and 2014-15.”

London Councils published the results of research on charges last year. This found that,

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

Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative, Thirsk and Malton)

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

Helen Hayes (Labour, Dulwich and West Norwood)

I agree that local authorities should be as efficient as possible wherever they can, and that in some cases economies of scale can be derived from sharing services. I also believe, however, that a certain volume of work is created by large-scale planning applications and by our need to deliver new homes across the country that must be properly resourced; I am suggesting to the Government a creative way in which that might be achieved.

Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)

I am slightly disappointed that the Local Government Association supported the new clause, because it is incumbent upon the LGA to understand that the cumulative impact of regeneration, much of which is housing, is beneficial to local authorities; it is an investment. This should be seen in the context of non-domestic rates, the new homes bonus or sales-related taxes—the long-term capital investment—rather than just a one-off negative cost.

Helen Hayes (Labour, Dulwich and West Norwood)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is an investment. It is, however, an investment that many local authorities do not have the luxury of being able to make in the context of the stretching of their resources across other very important statutory areas of service.

I will complete the quotation from London Councils:

“Full cost charging could also be used to fund the kind of pro-active multi-borough teams that supported”

the work of the Olympic Delivery Authority. Where we have large-scale regeneration across a wide area, London Councils supports the principle that local authorities should share that resource and be able to recoup the costs of it.

The new clause makes sense for councils, who would be able to raise the resources that they need without jeopardising vital statutory services such as children’s and adults’ social care; for communities, who will get higher-quality decisions; and for developers, who will get the speed of service they need to bring forward development. I hope that the Government will support it.

Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)

It is an exquisite pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I shall be extremely brief.

Again, I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I spent the past five years financing developers, and must say that they commonly complain that local authority planning departments are both insufficiently resourced in terms of the number of people they employ and inadequately resourced in terms of the quality of those people, because so many move into private practice.

I fully accept the points, made in interventions by my colleagues on the Government Benches, that local authority planning departments should be made more efficient by sharing services and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough said, that local authorities enjoy financial benefit when development takes place, but I do know that developers would, in principle, be prepared to pay higher fees in exchange for better levels of service, which they can currently do via agreements for larger schemes. There might be some concern that local authorities would simply take the extra fees and spend them on something else, so will the Ministers consider whether in future local authorities could be permitted to charge a specific higher fee in exchange for a guaranteed service level? If that service level was not delivered, the fee could be refundable so that there would be a direct and explicit link between the fee and the service. I understand, though, that this is a complicated subject area and there are views on both sides.

Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)

I am exquisitely pleased that you have given way on that point.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I have not given way.

Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)

That the hon. Gentleman has given way.

Here we go again with the issue of localism. The bottom line is that, whether we like it or not, we are going to have to trust local authorities to make decisions and deliver. The new clause would just give us the ability to make those decisions in the best interests of the local area. I do not like the idea—through you, Mr Gray—of Ministers yet again saying one thing and doing another.

Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)

It is reasonable to want to ensure that developers are not simply treated as cash cows and penalised with unlimited fees, which is why I was suggesting that the Ministers might in future consider a fixed-fee schedule related to specific service delivery, with the extra fees being refunded if that delivery is not made. Having uncapped fees so that developers could simply be bled dry would be a retrograde step.

Helen Hayes (Labour, Dulwich and West Norwood)

The text of the new clause is explicit in saying that the schedule of charges should be set in a transparent way. To my mind, that would include setting out the level of service that would be expected to be delivered, as well as the full cost of that service, and undertaking consultation with the wider development industry prior to setting the schedule of charges. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s point.

Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)

Before one could sign up to the new clause, one would want to see the detail, which clearly is not there. I think I have made my point in general terms.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I have been momentarily knocked off track by the hon. Gentleman’s final comments. We have been debating most of the Bill without the detail we need because most of it is coming in regulations, so I hope he will address those comments to his Ministers.

I rise to support new clause 24, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, and to speak briefly to new clause 31. The hon. Member for Croydon South might want to think about why so many planners from local authorities are leaving to join the private sector, because that used not to happen. It is a fairly recent phenomenon that so many local authority planners have been moving on. The reason is that local authority planning departments are in a very, very pressed situation, with reduced resources, greater pressure and increasing insecurity because they do not know when the next round of Government cuts is going to mean that they will lose their job. The only way to address that is to resource local authority planning departments properly—something that developers speak to me about all the time.

If the hon. Member for Peterborough is upset by the Local Government Association backing my hon. Friend’s new clause, he will be even more upset by the fact that the District Councils Network has come out very strongly in favour of the idea that there should be some cost recovery at a local level:

“Having a system where Whitehall dictates to local councils what planning fees they can charge is very unfair for local taxpayers around the country who are left paying the shortfall where fees don’t cover costs. Letting councils set their own fees is a much fairer system for both the applicant and the local taxpayer and will ensure there is flexibility in the system to recover the actual costs of applications.”

In 2010, a major review, which was instigated by the last Labour Government, was carried out of how local planning fees should operate. Instead of bringing forward a plan for the localisation of planning fees, as had been suggested throughout the consultation exercise before 2010, the Government merely revised the fee levels in 2012. That did not carry with it the degree of localism that we all wanted to see. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, London Councils has stressed that point recently, because of the impact of the increasing number of planning applications that local authorities are having to deal with, particularly in the London area:

“We believe the government should localise fee setting and scheduling controls so as to support boroughs that commit to boost the supply of housing. This would produce a more effective, swifter and consistent planning service, and ensure a properly resourced and more efficient planning system in the context of development control in London having seen an estimated net shortfall of around £37-£45 million annually”.

London Councils has stated that,

“if planning fees for large scale housing regeneration projects were charged on a full cost recovery system enabling councils to meet all 13 week planning targets, this would save developers up to £486 million per year in delayed development costs, while adding only £65 million in planning fees. Full cost charging could also be used to fund the kind of pro-active multi-borough teams that supported the work”

of the Olympic Delivery Authority. Developers, the LGA, London Councils and the District Councils Network —more or less everyone involved in the planning and development system—think that local authorities should be able to set planning fees locally, but the Government do not. We can find no rationale for that. The District Councils Network has helpfully set out for the Government some principles that could be applied.

Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are contradictions all over the place? For example, the Government are quite happy to let local authorities raise 2% for social care, but they do not seem to take the same view on matters such as this.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. As we have discussed several times in Committee, the Government’s approach is not necessarily consistent.

The District Councils Network has requested that four common principles be adopted. Principle 1 is the ability to have full cost recovery as a minimum, with full transparency as to method of fee calculation, which could be achieved through an earned autonomy approach. Principle 2 is that council tax payers should not subsidise commercial activities or companies. Principle 3 is that, wherever possible, charges should be determined locally. Principle 4 is that if central Government continue to determine charges at a national level, there should be an agreed annual indexation mechanism. If we do not want to go all the way down the road of local charging, some of those principles could be applied to move us some of the way down that road. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that, particularly as the Government seem to be in an isolated position once again.

Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)

It is obviously being so cheerful that keeps the hon. Lady going.

I want to briefly add my comments to the debate. The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood has experience in the field and proceeded on the basis of a very reasoned and moderate argument, with which many Government Members agree. We were looking forward—still look forward— to hearing the Minister respond in a similar vein. It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for City of Durham—she was rather sparky today and I do not know why; perhaps it is end-of-term blues—has sought to—

Gareth Thomas (Labour/Co-operative, Harrow West)

Get a move on!

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

Pot, kettle, black.

Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)

I think Hansard can record “Pot, kettle, black” there. The loquacity of the hon. Member for Harrow West in this Committee is legendary. I defer to no one in my admiration for him.

There is a good reason why there should be consistency in charging across the country. That said, some years ago I had the experience of visiting Medway unitary authority, which had significant numbers of large infrastructure projects that were beyond the capacity of the planning and development control teams in Medway and many other local authorities, and it got some big construction companies to effectively second services to the planning department, so that the services were offered in a non-monetised way. That was a good compromise, which shows that the very best and visionary local planning officers—head of planning, city council, borough councillors and civic leaders—do make the effort to involve their staff with developers and with big regeneration projects.

The Committee will be interested to know that in my own local authority, Peterborough city council, at the planning and environmental protection committee on Tuesday, the Fletton Quays project was agreed with 285 homes, a hotel, shops and restaurants on the south bank of the River Nene. It is a bit naughty, because technically it is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), but I am sure my hon. Friend will forgive me on this occasion for drawing it to the Committee’s attention. However, that was an example of a joint venture partnership between the planning department and the developer, Lucent, and others.

The point is that there are different ways to access money from developers without putting in the Bill a prescriptive way forward.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

I am listening with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, who, unlike the hon. Member for Harrow West, has been contributing in a powerful way this afternoon. My hon. Friend mentioned a joint venture between planning departments and others. Does he share my view that the problem is not what is or is not in the Bill, but the lack of innovation and dynamism from some of the planning departments controlled by the sclerotic Opposition?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Order. I do not need any help from Back Benchers to keep order in this Committee, as they no doubt will have discovered already.

Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)

The hon. Member for Harrow West has obviously got a tiger in his tank this afternoon as well.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk is absolutely spot-on. It is no good whining about funding constantly and saying, “It is not as it used to be.” We have to go out and attract forward-looking, intelligent, smart planning officers. They are out there. I give way to the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, who I am sure is in that category.

Helen Hayes (Labour, Dulwich and West Norwood)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The new clause is not about constantly whining about funding. It is about putting the absolutely vital task of securing the new homes that we need through the planning system on a sustainable financial footing, without placing an additional burden on the public purse. He would surely agree with that.

Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)

I would not agree with that, but we all see issues in politics through the prism of our constituencies, which is quite natural. In my constituency, we have a target to build 25,500 homes between 2001 and 2031, which is enormous growth. We are the second-fastest-growing city in England, and our planning department, in only a medium-sized unitary authority, is award-winning because it has worked with developers and it has delivered its structure plan, local plan, site location plans, city centre area action plan and other supplementary development on time. It has managed to recruit good people. I gently suggest to the LGA and the District Councils Network that we should be encouraging best practice in recruiting really good planning officers, rather than trying to legislate for it on the face of a Housing and Planning Bill.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Order. I have been reasonably accommodating, but the new clause under consideration is about charging for planning. I think that general debate on the way in which planning departments work is perhaps a little wide of the mark.

Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)

Mr Gray, I accept your admonition. I am just reaching a crescendo in my remarks.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

Just before my hon. Friend does, will he give way?

Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)

Before I reach that crescendo, I will give way to my hon. Friend.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I am very much looking forward to my hon. Friend’s crescendo. Will he reflect in his closing remarks on the fact that the planning system, via the pre-application process, already contains the chance for small developers to pay to get developments brought forward more quickly, and that does reflect the full cost to the authority?

Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)

Not for the first time, my hon. Friend rescues me from falling into your disregard, Mr Gray, and gets me back on track. There is full cost recovery at pre-application, and one of the most useful aspects of planning and development control is the help and assistance that developers get from good, experienced, knowledgeable planning officers at the pre-application stage, leading them to make timely, properly costed applications that will be expedited through the planning system. The new clause may be probing, but it is superfluous and unnecessary and if it is pressed to a vote, I suggest that the Committee reject it.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Helen Hayes.

Helen Hayes rose—

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I am sorry, the Minister.

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

Thank you, Mr Gray. I was already looking forward to an early Christmas finish.

Before discussing the new clauses’ merit, I should highlight to hon. Members who may not have noticed that section 303 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 already provides for the Secretary of State to allow, by regulations, local planning authorities to set their own level of fees up to cost recovery. We are therefore already technically in possession of the powers to enable local fee setting.

Authorities have a crucial role to play in providing services, none more so than enabling development to encourage home ownership, building homes people can afford to buy, and supporting economic growth and job creation. An effective and efficient planning system is essential to support that. Authorities have done a lot of work to find savings and efficiencies over the past few years, but fees for making planning applications have been set nationally and make an important contribution to meeting the costs of development management services. As has been outlined, they were last revised in 2012, and that revision was substantial.

I hear the call from professional bodies and developers that action is needed to ensure that local planning departments are resourced properly. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon pointed out that we already have planning performance agreements that developers will take forward in order to have a guaranteed level of service. However, the level of planning application fees is only one side of the resourcing equation. Local government must drive down its costs, too. I am clear that any changes in fees should go hand in hand with the provision of an effective service. Giving local government a completely blank cheque, as the new clauses would do, could bring about unintended risks, as touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough.

Many more local authorities can do much more to transform their planning departments. I actually thank the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood for tabling her new clause as it gives me the chance, as I had on the Floor of the House just a few weeks ago, to reconfirm that, although some authorities have introduced new ways of delivering planning services through outsourcing and shared service arrangements, showing that costs can be saved and services can be improved, more should be following that lead. The research shows that there is a saving of 5% to 20% for competitively tendered or completely shared services. More local authorities need to do that, not just because it brings efficiencies but because it brings better resource, particularly for small districts that will be challenged to find the best players. Coming together gives them a better career opportunity, and there is also an opportunity for planners. Not enough local authorities have moved down that road.

I do not disagree with the hon. Members who spoke in favour of the proper resourcing of planning services, but local government and councils need to understand that their planning department is also their economic regeneration department, and they should focus clearly on it. Going further must go hand in hand with local authorities driving forward those service improvements and cost reductions.

We heard from my hon. Friends in Committee last week interesting ideas about fast-track planning applications and having a more competitive planning process. I made a commitment at the time, and I do so again today, to consider them before the end of this Bill process. That, rather than a focus on raising fees alone, is the type of innovative thinking that needs to be brought to the resourcing debate.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I hear what the Minister is saying about driving efficiency. Nevertheless, we have to ask what the Government can possibly mean by devolution if they do not even trust planning authorities to set their own fee levels.

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

Finally, I will respond to the many references that hon. Members have made throughout the Committee proceedings, in one form or another, to resourcing—in fact, the hon. Lady just referred to it. The spending review provides a reasonable offer to local government and an increase in resources over this Parliament in cash terms. By the end of this Parliament, local government will be able to retain 100% of local taxes to spend on local services. We have to be honest and clear about this: local authorities have been able to increase their reserves over the past few years from about £13 billion to £22 billion. Although they should retain sensible reserves, they should also look at how to prioritise the funding they have, and they must see planning as a core and important department. As I said at the start of my speech, we already have the powers to allow local planning authorities to set fees locally. I have undertaken to look at some of the suggestions that my hon. Friends made last week. With that, I ask the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood to withdraw the new clause.

Helen Hayes (Labour, Dulwich and West Norwood)

I thank the Minister for his response, and in particular for agreeing that planning services should be properly resourced in local authorities. I agree that there is scope for innovation. I saw innovation during my work in planning, but I think that the task of delivering the new homes that we need through the planning system cannot be fulfilled by innovation alone. Those services must be resourced on a basis that is proper, modern and fit for purpose, given that local authority resources are very stretched and that planning is competing with services that are of a different order of magnitude. I therefore wish to press new clause 24 to a Division.

New Clause 25 - Implied term of fitness for human habitation in residential lettings

Teresa Pearce (Labour, Erith and Thamesmead)

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

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 26—Requirement to carry out electrical safety checks—

‘(1) A landlord of a rental property shall ensure that there is maintained in a safe condition—

(a) any electrical installation; and

(b) any electrical appliances supplied by the landlord so as to prevent the risk of injury to any person in lawful occupation or relevant premises.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), a landlord shall—

(a) ensure that the electrical installation and any electrical appliances supplied by the landlord are checked for safety within 12 months of initial leasing and thereafter at intervals of not more than 5 years since they were last checked for safety (whether such check was made pursuant to this Act or not);

(b) in the case of a lease commencing after the coming into force of this Act, ensure that the electrical installation and each electrical appliance to which the duty extends has been checked for safety within a period of 12 months before the lease commences or has been or is so checked within 12 months after the electrical installation or electrical appliance has been installed, whichever is later; and

(c) ensure that a record in respect of any electrical installation or electrical appliance so checked is made and retained for a period of 6 years from the date of that check and which shall include the following information—

(i) the date on which the electrical installation or electrical appliance was checked;

(ii) the address of the premises at which the electrical installation or electrical appliance is installed;

(iii) the name and address of the landlord of the premises (or, where appropriate, his agent) at which the electrical installation or electrical appliance is installed;

(iv) a description of and the location of the electrical installation or electrical appliance checked;

(v) any defect identified;

(vi) any remedial action taken;

(vii) the name and signature of the individual carrying out the check; and

(viii) the registration number with which that individual’s firm is registered with a Part P competent persons scheme approved by the Department for Communities and Local Government and certified as being competent in periodic inspection and testing.

(3) Every landlord shall ensure that any work in relation to a relevant electrical installation or electrical appliance carried out pursuant to subsection (1) or (2) above is carried out by a firm registered with a Part P competent persons scheme approved for the time being by the Department for Communities and Local Government.

(4) The record referred to in (2)(c), or a copy thereof, shall be made available upon request and upon reasonable notice for the inspection of any person in lawful occupation of relevant premises who may be affected by the use or operation of any electrical installation or electrical appliance to which the record relates.

(5) Notwithstanding subsection (4), every landlord shall ensure that—

(a) a copy of the record made pursuant to the requirements of (3)(c) is given to each existing tenant of premises to which the record relates within 28 days of the date of the check; and

(b) a copy of the last record made in respect of each electrical installation or electrical appliance is given to any new tenant of premises to which the record relates before that tenant occupies those premises save that, in respect of a tenant whose right to occupy those premises is for a period not exceeding 28 days, a copy of the record may instead be prominently displayed within those premises.

(6) A landlord who fails to comply with this section commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale”.

Teresa Pearce (Labour, Erith and Thamesmead)

Both new clauses in this group relate to standards in the private rented sector.

New clause 25 would place a duty on landlords to ensure that their properties are fit for habitation when let and remain fit during the course of a tenancy. The new clause is largely about probing the Minister to see whether he is open to putting that duty into legislation and follows on from the private Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), which had a similar aim but which was talked out by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies)—a fate that befalls some of the worthiest private Members’ Bills, including my own.

Before moving on to the detail of new clause 25, I note that the majority of landlords let property that is and remains of a decent standard. Many good landlords go out of their way to ensure that even the slightest safety hazard is sorted and that any repairs are attended to, so it is even more distressing when we see reports of homes that are frankly unfit for human habitation being let, often at high prices.

Parliament has for more than 100 years considered and legislated for standards in the private rented sector. The Housing of the Working Classes Act 1885 and, 100 years later, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 placed obligations on landlords regarding safety in their properties. Indeed, the 1985 Act placed a statutory duty on landlords covering issues such as damp, mould and infestation, yet that duty applies only to those fulfilling a rent criterion, and that criterion has not been changed since 1957, so the duty now applies only to properties where the annual rent is less than £80. The new clause would remove those limits to allow the 1985 Act to fulfil the intention and place a duty on landlords to provide a safe, secure environment.

I am sure that all Members in their casework receive letters from constituents living in poor conditions—indeed, it is one of the biggest issues in my constituency. My office phone rings every day with people calling about mould and infestation in their property, the impact that has on their health and the inaction of some landlords in rectifying the situation. It is also a consumer issue, because where else in the modern day could one buy something that is not fit for purpose? If someone buys a television that does not work, they can take it back and get a refund. We are pretty much assured that the food in a food shop is safe to eat—if it was unsafe to eat, the food premises would be shut down. Yet a landlord can let a property that is unfit for human habitation and there is no easy recourse.

About this time last year, I was asked by a family in my constituency to visit the property that had been occupied by their father, who had just passed away from a respiratory illness. They wanted me to see at first hand the conditions he had lived in. The walls were so thick with mould that it looked like flock wallpaper. The air just smelled of damp. This man had died on his sofa on a Saturday night from lung disease while living in that accommodation. His family lived some distance away, which is why they were not fully aware of the conditions he was living in. They had contacted the landlord on numerous occasions, and the landlord failed to assist. Nothing could be done.

I am sure the Government will want to consider the new clause. It would only affect a small number of tenants in the few properties let by bad landlords that are unfit for human habitation, but it would change the lives of many tenants. Earlier in our consideration of the Bill, we discussed rogue landlords and banning orders, but the new clause would try to alleviate suffering before we got to that position. It is a basic consumer, health and productivity issue. It is hard for someone to be productive at work when they live in a property which is not fit to live in. It is also a moral issue where children and elderly people are concerned, so I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say on the new clause.

New clause 26 would introduce a requirement for landlords to undertake electrical safety checks. Electrical Safety First has been leading the way on the issue by raising awareness and lobbying parliamentarians—I think it was in Parliament this week doing that very thing—on the need to ensure that the private rented sector is fire-safe. Many other organisations support the measure, and the Local Government Association, the London fire brigade, Shelter, the Association of Residential Letting Agents, British Gas, Crisis and the Fire Officers Association have all supported previous measures to introduce mandatory electrical safety checks.

It is estimated that each year electrical faults cause more than 20,000 house fires and lead to around 350,000 serious injuries and 70 deaths. It is worth noting those figures, because we now see fewer deaths and injuries—only 300 injuries and 18 deaths—caused by gas and carbon monoxide, on which action has been taken. The risks remain serious, so it is right that we continue to monitor that, but those figures show what is at stake when we discuss electrical fires in the home.

Although landlords have a duty to keep electrical installations in proper working order and to ensure that any electrical appliances they supply are safe, poorly maintained installations remain in the sector and there is no explicit requirement for landlords to prove to tenants that a property is electrically safe. Landlords of houses in multiple occupation are required to have a periodic inspection every five years, but those whose properties are not HMOs are not legally obliged to do that. It is not right that people would be safer in a bed and breakfast or an HMO than in a privately rented home. What is the difference in fire risk between a property that meets the HMO requirements in which a landlord lets to six people and a property that is not an HMO where six different people live? The standards should be the same because the risk is the same.

Of course, many good landlords ensure that their properties are safe. The property is their asset, so they have as much interest in keeping it safe as their tenants. Many good landlords run electrical safety checks and ensure that all appliances are tested at the beginning of the tenancy and at points during it, but there is growing consensus that the introduction of mandatory electrical safety checks is a worthy cause.

We have seen action on the issue in Scotland, where the Scottish Government have introduced fire safety requirements for private rented properties, and the authorities in Northern Ireland are currently running a review of the private rented sector which includes a consultation on mandatory fire checks. In Wales, we have growing cross-party support and we hope that the Welsh Government will introduce such requirements.

Helen Hayes (Labour, Dulwich and West Norwood)

I want to share an example of a constituent who emailed me recently. She is a private tenant in Lambeth who told me how she lies awake at night going over and over in her mind her worries about the electrical safety in her property and the lack of fire safety in general, and about how she would get out with her children if there was a fire. Does my hon. Friend agree that the clause would provide great comfort to tenants in that situation?

Teresa Pearce (Labour, Erith and Thamesmead)

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. That is the exact scenario. People have said to me, “If that is the case, why don’t they move somewhere else?” but particularly in London housing is scarce, so sometimes people have to take whatever is available and thereby risk their and their family’s safety if the place is not safe to live in.

We have mandatory annual gas checks in the private rented sector, and secondary legislation has added regulation for smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors, so I hope that the Minister will consider accepting new clause 26. There is growing support for the measure across the UK, in Parliaments and with landlords. In fact, Janet Finch-Saunders, the Welsh Conservative spokesperson on this issue in the Welsh Parliament, has pledged her support and she also happens to be a landlord. We have broad support.

To recap, new clause 25 would introduce a duty on landlords to ensure that their properties are fit for human habitation, which would drive up standards. New clause 26 would introduce a requirement for landlords to undertake electrical safety checks. I hope that the Minister will accept that new clause.

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

I have enjoyed listening to the hon. Lady’s thoughts. I have some sympathy with the points she made in the latter part of her speech. We have listened to hon. Members talk at length about the private rented sector in the past few weeks, so I apologise to those listening now or reading our deliberations later in Hansard, because some of the points I will make have been made before. If the hon. Lady had tabled the new clauses for consideration when we debated the private rented sector, we could have saved ourselves some time and had a more focused debate at a relevant point.

The new clauses cover—once again—property condition in the private rented sector. The hon. Lady outlined new clause 25. I agree that all homes should be of a decent standard and that all tenants have the right and should expect to be able to live in a safe place, regardless of tenure. However, we do not consider that amending the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in the way proposed would ensure that.

Local authorities already have strong and effective powers to deal with poor-quality, unsafe accommodation and we expect them to use those powers. Where tenants raise concerns, they can carry out an inspection using the housing health and safety ratings system introduced in the Housing Act 2004, which assesses 29 categories of hazard found in a property. Local authorities can issue an improvement notice or a hazard awareness notice, or prohibit the property from being rented out. In serious cases, the local authority may decide to make repairs itself.

The Government want to crack down on the small minority of rogue and criminal landlords who exploit their tenants by renting out unsafe and substandard accommodation and who fail to comply with statutory notices. Measures in the Bill that we have already debated will ensure that our powers against rogue and bad landlords go further than ever before. I hope that Members are advising their constituents with bad electrics or mould that they are covered in that way, and telling them to contact their local authority so that the local authority can use its powers. In addition, the Government have a wide range of policy initiatives to improve existing properties in the private rented sector. New clause 25 would result in unnecessary regulation and cost to landlords, which would deter further investment and push up rents for tenants. I ask the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead to withdraw it.

The hon. Lady outlined how new clause 26 would introduce a requirement for landlords to undertake electrical safety checks. I support measures to help safeguard tenants in their homes, so I will consider it. Any new legislation must strike the right balance, protecting tenants without over-regulating or causing unnecessary burdens for landlords. I remind hon. Members of all parties that landlords are already under a general legal duty to ensure that electrical installations are safe, but we are committed to creating a strong and professional private rented sector that works for all, where good landlords can prosper and tenants are protected.

We will carry out further work to understand what legislative amendments for undertaking electrical safety checks, if any, would be beneficial and appropriate to the private rented sector, and ensure that they do not harm the sector by stifling it with red tape. With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Lady will not press the new clause.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.