Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 7 September 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill on Localism Bill.


Localism Bill

I rise to speak very briefly. I suspect that for all sorts of reasons Ministers are going to be reluctant to go down the regulatory route and indeed that, while my memory may fail me on this, I had thought that the previous Government ultimately came to that conclusion as well, although they certainly investigated the possibility of taking it. However, I may be wrong. I just want to throw into the discussion that in the absence of regulation we must recognise the absolutely fundamental role the private sector will have in housing all sorts of vulnerable people because there are not enough houses in the social and affordable sectors. Furthermore, these people are often at the lowest end of the private sector market and, in those circumstances, they are very vulnerable. It seems that an opportunity has been consistently missed over the years to reward those landlords in the private sector who behave best and, indeed, to encourage landlords in the private sector to do some of the things associated with social housing. For example, there is no recognition in the rents that are available through housing benefit if landlords are willing to give longer tenancies, and there is little likelihood of recognition of relative quality. I have never understood why we would allow payments through the state in terms of housing benefit to the worst landlords offering the meanest opportunities and yet do nothing to reward those who behave better. That reward could involve a voluntary system of signing up to charters. In particular there is an issue for tenants in this sector over lack of security. Tenants in the private sector may be elderly and have lived long periods in a house, or they may be people with young children, and yet they may not have any real security in the tenancy. It would encourage landlords to offer security if we were to reward longer periods of tenancy and if we were not to draw such a sharp line that says a brief tenancy gives the landlord the security of being able to get the property back or the tenants become secure and highly protected. Why cannot we have something in between and why cannot we reward landlords for such behaviour? I think the Minister is going to be averse to regulation but perhaps he will be a little bit more supportive of an approach that uses the carrot rather than the stick.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
730 c376-7 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Complaints Conservation Annual reports Council housing Housing benefit Finance Greater London Energy Housing associations Housing improvement Landlord and tenant Local government Powers Property transfer Private rented housing Overcrowding Standards Sales Social rented housing Repairs and maintenance Tenants' rights Rents Rural areas Regeneration Right to buy scheme Housing revenue accounts Homes and Communities Agency Tenant Services Authority Housing Ombudsman Service Community land trusts Almshouses
Legislation
Localism Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk