Localism Bill

My Lords, Amendments 173B and 173D concern the new regime for flexible tenancies which will change the nature of security of tenure in social housing and will mean that in future councils will be able to grant tenancies for just two years rather than for life. Correspondingly, housing associations will be allowed by their regulator to use assured and short-hold tenancies in place of the previous presumption in favour of lifetime security of tenure. There are positive reasons for such a change. For example, some housing associations, particularly in central London, can see benefits from letting some properties to younger, mobile, more affluent, single people and childless couples. These tenants can add a mix of incomes and of lifestyles to so-called monocultural estates that might otherwise become labelled as being only for the most disadvantaged households. In combination with reforms being introduced by the Government to enable social landlords to charge much higher rents, shorter tenancies to rather better-off tenants could produce surplus income to plough back into meeting more traditional housing needs. A two-year tenancy could suit this kind of tenant. As a supporter of flexibilities and freedoms for social landlords, and as an advocate for more mixed and less stigmatised social housing, I see the merit in a tenure regime that allows some short-term lettings for certain categories of tenant. The key point is that councils and housing associations will continue to be entitled to grant permanent tenancies if they so decide: I would hope Ministers will give them every encouragement to continue to do so. Security is a distinguishing feature of social housing since these landlords are not investing with an eye on future capital gains and do not need, in contrast to the private rented sector, to be able to gain possession for investment reasons. In my early days in the Housing Association world, organisations like the Notting Hill Housing Trust and Paddington Churches Housing Association bought tenanted properties from the notorious landlords of the day simply to provide security for the occupiers. Even though sufficient funds for renovating the buildings were not available, security could be offered, and that could change lives. I think—and certainly I hope—that the new tenancies are not the thin end of a wedge. Ministers have made clear that they would expect two-year flexible tenancies to be very exceptional. The Government's consultation paper on housing reform states that "““the vast majority of tenancies will be provided on longer terms--particularly for vulnerable households or those with children””." I find this reassuring. However, it is not clear whether there is an expectation that flexible tenancies will generally be used for a longer but still relatively short period—say, five years—with no certainty that they will be renewed thereafter. Some commentators, recognising the intense pressures for social housing, have advocated a review of each tenant's income after a fixed period and no renewal of the tenancy if that tenant has achieved average earnings or above, or if they no longer qualify for housing benefit. I fear this approach would send out all the wrong signals and could be hugely counterproductive. Tenants will be well aware that the chances of finding a comparable family home in the private rented sector, at a reasonable rent, are remote, and of course no private landlord would be likely to offer security of tenure for more than six months or a year. So the prospect of being forced to leave their home would hang over social housing tenants like the sword of Damocles. This way of using flexible tenancies would penalise those who make a success of their lives; it would encourage people to fail at work in order to keep their families secure; it would encourage deceit to save the family home and would require an army of snoopers to police it; and it would mean announcing that social housing was confined to losers, condemning those brought up there as society's failures and greatly impeding their life chances. Quite different is the concept of a periodic review, a free consultation, by the landlord for the tenant to see whether, if incomes have risen, a shared ownership or equity purchase arrangement would not now be sensible. Although the tenant would thereafter pay more, they would secure an ownership stake, with all the financial and psychological advantages that that could bring. Amendment 173B, again backed by Shelter and Crisis, would make sure that the flexible tenure regime excluded certain specific categories of tenant. The first group is older people, including those owner occupiers we are hoping will move from unsuitable homes and who, if we could persuade them to move into retirement flats, would free up a family home. But older people will never be persuaded to move if the tenancy is for only a few years, after which they could, even if only in theory, be evicted. The second category is the tenant with a disability or long-term illness who clearly needs a secure home. The third category is widely drawn to embrace any others whom the Secretary of State could commend for proper security of tenure. My view is that this should normally cover families with children for whom a sense of security by remaining at the same school, by becoming established in the area and by settling down for the long term is hugely important. The Minister may argue that no exemptions are necessary because housing associations and councils can continue to give lifelong tenancies if they wish, but this amendment would provide reassurance for those likely to be most anxious about the loss of security. Amendment 173D picks up on the provision in the Bill for a review of the tenant’s position because they have lost their tenancy at the end of a fixed period and spells out that normally the tenant could expect to have the tenancy renewed for at least a similar term. This is not as helpful to those for whom security is all-important as knowing that the home is theirs, like that of any other owner occupier, for as long as they need it. But this amendment at least gives a measure of comfort that only in exceptional circumstances will they be required to move out after five years, or whatever initial term they obtained. Just because they have now secured a proper job, there should be no expectation of having to up sticks and find another home. Together, these amendments try to ensure that the positive elements of a move to flexible tenancies are preserved, while fears and anxieties about the arrangements are put to rest. I beg to move.