Localism Bill

My Lords, I am sorry; I was too slow in getting to my feet. I support Amendment 175 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and other amendments in the group. Clause 139 removes the statutory right of succession of those other than spouses and partners to succeed to secure tenancies granted after the Bill comes into force, except where an express term of tenancy makes provision for this. I understand that this clause has been inserted to assist local authorities in dealing with under-occupancy of social housing following succession against the background of a chronic shortage of social housing and correspondingly long waiting lists. There is concern on these Benches that these proposed changes are likely to have a disproportionate effect on vulnerable people. Presently, close family members are able to succeed to secure tenancies. In addition, local authority tenancies sometimes contain an express provision to provide succession rights to close family members. The proposals under Clause 139 would mean that any family member other than a spouse or a civil partner would not be able to succeed to any form of secure tenancy unless there was an express tenancy term making provision for this. Even then, that person’s succession would have to be in accordance with that term. This provides considerable discretion to social landlords to operate a term in their agreement that may make it virtually impossible for a member of a family, other than a spouse or a partner, to succeed to a tenancy. Local authorities are under pressure to ensure that their housing stock is fully utilised. The removal of the right of succession beyond spouses and civil partners is potentially damaging. Many of those currently eligible to succeed a close family member may have remained living at home with good reason—perhaps because of a disability or some other vulnerability. No doubt local authorities also see remaining in the parental home a number of single adults who have no vulnerability or disability but simply have no inclination to move out. However, we are concerned to ensure that protections for the vulnerable are not removed unwittingly. Restricting the right of succession under the Bill to a spouse or civil partner goes too far, as other potentially vulnerable family members may be living at the property and have little choice about their living arrangements. If the change under the Bill goes ahead, there will be no prospect of anyone close to the deceased who may have lived in the tenancy all their lives securing such a succession unless it is specifically stipulated in the tenancy terms. There will be little incentive for local authorities or landlords to include an express provision in their tenancy agreements. Local authorities, which currently make such express provisions for succession by non-spouses—with unsecured tenancies, for example—may well cease to do so once the statutory succession rules are changed, with an increasing number of new tenancies being granted without express provisions on succession. The Government should carry out a more detailed impact assessment of the removal of such a provision and of the extent to which the removal would affect the construction or granting of secure tenancies. Amendments 175, 176, 177 and 178 would create a condition allowing close family members to become qualified reserve successors to a secure tenancy, as per the current system. Reserve successors would be qualified to succeed only if, at the time of the tenant’s death, the dwelling house was occupied by a spouse or civil partner of the deceased tenant as his or her only or principal home. There are alternative measures for addressing under-occupancy following succession, by making existing grounds for possession under-occupancy function more effectively. In conclusion, I look forward with interest to the noble Baroness’s response. I hope that she is able to give the Committee some reassurance on these important matters.