---

Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

The noble Lord, Lord Best, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have raised a very important issue; namely, how we ensure that all tenants, regardless of their landlord, receive a good service. We are well aware that some of the most disadvantaged in our society are the tenants of private landlords. The noble Lord has powerfully highlighted the key issues. Noble Lords will know that it is precisely because we are conscious of the needs of tenants in the private sector and of the issues raised by the noble Lord that we asked Julie Rugg and David Rhodes, of York University, to undertake a review. Their report sets out some real challenges for the sector and we are still considering the issues that it raises. We shall respond in due course, but one perhaps obvious conclusion of the review was the sheer diversity of the sector, from the very wealthy to the very poor. That was echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. That we should provide a single voice for such a diverse community was not one of the review’s conclusions. However, we share the noble Lord’s concerns about the more vulnerable tenants in the private sector, many of whom face issues similar to those of their neighbours in social housing. That is precisely why we have made provisions in these clauses for National Tenant Voice to undertake activities not only in relation to social housing tenants but that affect those in the private sector. That is where they have a shared concern. Again, I hope that that provides some reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, in respect of her previous amendments. The creation of National Tenant Voice is part of our wider reform of social housing regulation. We must not lose sight of that. Issues of the private sector are a different matter and, although important, need to be addressed separately. What we want is a strong private rented sector that acts professionally and meets the needs of all its customers, not just those with the financial ability to walk away from a poor deal. In conclusion, I point out a technicality in the first amendment, which would allow the Secretary of State to establish more than one body for fulfilling the functions of National Tenant Voice. This amendment is unnecessary under Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1976, as the singular includes the plural, and vice versa, unless a contrary intention is apparent. I hope that the reassurance that we are giving serious thought to the matters raised in the Rugg review and will respond to the review in due course will enable the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment at this stage.