Asked by
of Ullock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to their English Housing
Survey: a segmentation analysis of private renters, published on
16 June, what plans they have to improve conditions for private
renters.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling
Up, Housing & Communities () (Con)
First, I declare my residential and commercial property interests
as set out in the register. Our White Paper sets out how we will
provide a better deal for renters and our commitment to consult
on introducing a decent homes standard in the sector—the first
Government ever to do so. This will mean that homes must be free
from serious hazards and disrepair, warm and dry, and with decent
facilities. We will also provide councils with the powers they
need for robust and effective enforcement to drive up standards.
of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, by planning to remove Section 21, the Government have
rightly recognised that security of tenure is one of the biggest
issues for renters. The White Paper talks about the need to
protect renters from evictions while also talking about making
the eviction process as straight- forward as possible. The
Government say:
“After eviction, tenants cannot always find suitable housing
nearby, interrupting their employment and children’s
education”,
yet the White Paper also says:
“Claim forms for possession will be simplified and streamlined
for landlords.”
I ask the Minister for clarification: is it the Government’s aim
to make it easy for landlords to get their house back at short
notice even if the tenant is not at fault, or is it to give
tenants security and to protect them from the cost of unwanted
moves?
(Con)
My Lords, the purpose of this 12-point plan of reforms is to
ensure that we balance the interests between landlord and tenant,
but first remove the Section 21 no-fault evictions. In doing so,
we are enhancing the grounds around Section 8 so that it is
easier to remove tenants who disrupt the community and cause
persistent anti-social behaviour, while bringing grounds for
egregious rent arrears and moving and selling grounds, because
landlords have a right to ask the tenant to leave if they need to
sell the property. We are making those grounds work for the
landlord so that we can remove Section 21. It is all about
balancing those interests.
(Con)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the measures that my noble friend
announced on Monday, which will improve the terms of trade for
private tenants, particularly against bad landlords. But is there
not a risk that these bad landlords see the legislation coming
and, before it is enacted, introduce leases that deny tenants
that protection? Is it not imperative that this legislation is
introduced as soon as possible and, if possible, backdated to the
time of its Second Reading?
(Con)
I always appreciate my noble friend’s eagle eye. We do not want
landlords gaming the system, and we want to make it very clear
that any abuse of the future system will not be tolerated. We are
committed to ensuring that local councils will have the right
powers to crack down on any rogue practices such as those that my
noble friend has outlined.
(LD)
My Lords, on Monday, in response to my letter about landlords
leaving long-term lettings in favour of the more lucrative
Airbnb, particularly at a time of increasing demand, the Minister
replied that the English Housing Survey says that we are seeing
some landlords leaving but an equal number coming in. Can the
Minister tell us the source of the statistics that allow the
Government to make that assertion, against mounting evidence to
the contrary? I could not find it in the quoted English Housing
Survey, nor the Government’s Private Landlord Survey, and the
National Landlords Association could not help either. This is a
vital piece of data, given what we believe is really happening on
the ground.
(Con)
My Lords, I suppose I should always be very careful about giving
data. In response in the other place, the Minister—who was
driving forward with the 12-point plan—made it clear that we are
seeing as many landlords leaving the sector as we are seeing
entering the sector. I will go back and find the data that
underpinned my remarks in the debate we had earlier this week.
(CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that part of the problem with
the private rental sector is that many people in it would rather
be in social housing at a fair rent, and that, because of a
shortage in that housing, private landlords are often able to
exploit some of the most vulnerable in our society? What could we
do about that in the future, to increase social rented?
(Con)
My Lords, it is important to recognise the balance of having more
tenants who cannot afford renting in the private sector having
social or affordable homes. That is why we have an £11.5 billion
Affordable Homes Programme, and we are seeking to double the
amount of social rented homes that we build to 32,000, because
clearly, the housing benefit bill has been growing astronomically
and we need to contain that over time.
(Lab)
Agreeing as I certainly do with the thrust of the previous four
questions, I ask whether the Minister can confirm that in the
last 20 years, the proportion of households living in private
rented accommodation has doubled, whilst the proportion of
owner-occupiers has reduced and the proportion living in social
rented accommodation has reduced dramatically. This is despite
the fact, as the previous questioner has pointed out, that the
private rented sector is often the most expensive and certainly
the least popular of the various forms of tenure. Is the Minister
satisfied with these trends and is he happy for them to continue,
or does he not think that it would be preferable to enable more
people to move into the owner-occupied sector or the social
rented sector, and stop this huge rise in the private rented
sector?
(Con)
I am not going to glorify one type of tenure over another. The
noble Lord is right, however, in the sense that we have seen a
doubling of the amount of private rented, but it is approximately
the same proportion of the amount of housing stock: it has
broadly stayed around 19%. You can look at percentages, or at the
absolute amount. One of the benefits of Governments over the last
few decades is that the proportion of non-decent private rented
sector homes—those with category 1 hazards—has come down
dramatically. In 2006, to pick a date at random, it was 46%. It
is now down to 21% of homes, which is still too high, but that is
why we are bringing in these measures, to drive that down even
further. For young people, who are mobile, private renting is
often a very good option and I am not going to knock it, but we
do recognise that we need to build more homes for sale and have
more social homes. I acknowledge that, but let us not put one
form of tenure ahead of another.
(CB)
Can we look at this in a very cautious sort of way? I am glad
that the Minister used the word “balance”. I remember the Rent
Act 1965, which was so well-intentioned that it led to a 25% fall
in the amount of rented accommodation. The reason for that was
that they did not keep the balance, and in the private sector,
probably more than any other housing sector, we need to keep that
balance, so that it looks as though both sides win.
(Con)
My Lords, I am not sure I detected a question, but I am
completely with the noble Lord in spirit, in the sense that it is
an important comment. We need to recognise that landlords have a
choice. We need to make sure that it works for tenants but also
that when landlords have reasonable grounds to recover their
property, those conditions are in place. These reforms seek to
get that balance right.
(Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister reaffirm the assertion he made that
the fundamental problem we have is an overall shortage of
accommodation, with a growing population? In those circumstances,
what policy do the Government have—any radical turn? Does he not
recognise that many people now want to stay at home, do not want
to work in offices and do not want to go to retail premises,
which are now declining? Waitrose is converting some of its
property into homes. When will the Government encourage people to
stay at home? Then, we can use offices and retail premises to
create more accommodation.
(Con)
That is a very reasonable point. In a sense, we have to recognise
that the world is changing and that there are opportunities to
build more homes. We see that in the urban setting, where retail
will diminish; people are buying online far more than before.
Equally, I talk to my friends who live in the country—I am a city
guy—who say that there are also agricultural areas that could
easily be rezoned to provide opportunities for growth. We need to
look at that, and that is why we are bringing forward the
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill to look at how we reform the
planning system so that we get the right use of the right places
and grow in the right way.
(CB)
My Lords, many local authorities borrowed money to invest in
commercial property; they were not allowed to borrow money to
invest in social housing. I wonder whether the Minister can tell
the House how much money those local authorities that invested in
commercial property have now lost, and how much they might have
bettered themselves and the country had they been able to invest
in social housing.
(Con)
My Lords, as someone who was a local authority leader for six
years and in local government for 20 years, I know that not all
councils invested in commercial property. We have some examples,
such as Croydon, that got into that sort of game, but I do not
think it was something that most councils did. Most councils have
been seeking to get back into the council house building
business. In 2018 we removed the cap on the housing revenue
account, and I think it is great that this generation of council
leaders are building more council homes for their residents.
Proper oversight will ensure that the sorts of practices that the
noble Baroness mentions are kept to the absolute minimum. If
necessary, we will move in to take over control if it gets really
bad.
