My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, who tabled his amendments yesterday, thereby giving him the onerous task of explaining what this debate is all about.
During this Grand Committee, I have heard from London Councils that, while it regards the noble Lord’s amendments as moving in the right direction, it still prefers to go for the deletion of the clause as a whole. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones—who unfortunately is in China on business today, leaving the task to me—and I have therefore given notice of our intention to oppose the clause standing part so as to enable a full and proper debate on this issue. As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, rightly said, the issue is contentious—I think that he used that word. It is certainly controversial in London, where it is a growing issue.
We have received objections from London Councils. The Local Government Association, of which, I should perhaps mention, I am a vice-president, rightly sees this as a London issue, as it is relevant to the Greater London powers Act, and is therefore leaving it with London Councils. We have received representations from Westminster City Council, which understandably is probably the local authority in London most affected by these issues—although it is by no means the only one—from the Covent Garden Community Association, the British Hospitality Association, the Bed and Breakfast Association, Whitbread, which runs Premier Inn and Costa coffee, and a number of individuals who are personally affected.
That leads me to ask the Minister the following. Specifically, whom did the Government consult before deciding to insert this clause? When did they do that consultation? What was the response and has it been published? It may well be that I have missed it. Given the body of opinion that is outright opposed to this clause, one wonders what led the Government to go along with it. I should say, and will say again later, that since tabling what is effectively our intention to delete the clause we have received a number of representations which are not wholly in support of the clause but perhaps rather more positive towards it. I will try to deal with those as well, because we want to have a full debate on the issue.
It is easy to think that this is a provision that was put into a 1973 Act—coincidentally, that happened to be my one year as a London MP, so I remember these things reasonably well—and that since then, times have changed. Yes, of course they have. The internet has been invented and businesses are now doing a very good job with something that could not have existed then. However, something else has changed since 1973: the housing crisis in London is now even worse than it was at that time. I looked at the Explanatory Notes to understand more fully the Government’s thinking on this. Paragraph 193 states:
“The purpose behind the provision”—
that is, the original 1973 provision—
“was to protect London’s existing housing supply, for the benefit of permanent residents, by giving London boroughs greater and easier means of planning control to prevent the conversion of family homes into short term lets”.
The only thing that has changed since is that that is even more necessary now than it was then. Therefore, I contend that the purpose is still there, although the means of achieving it is open to debate.
London Councils, which represents all 32 London boroughs and the City of London, tells us that Westminster City Council has estimated that 3,000 properties in its borough are being used for short-term accommodation. In Camden, 923 flats are being offered by just one short-term let business, a rise of 37% in just over three months. On that scale, it is not simply people who want to offer their home for someone to live in while they go away, perhaps for a long holiday, in order to help finance that holiday. This is a business.
4.15 pm
London Councils has surveyed all its members and 92% of responding boroughs said that short-term letting caused problems with noise and anti-social behaviour; 92% that it resulted in a loss of permanent accommodation; 75% that it caused loss of community identity; 58% that it caused increased fear of crime, and 25% that it caused increased crime and fire safety risks. I suspect that might be an underestimate of fire safety risk, which is of course the particular concern of both the British Hospitality Association and the Bed and Breakfast Association.
I mentioned the Covent Garden Community Association because it has written to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who has now sadly left us, and to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who is still with us. It is a long-established community association—I stress community association—which I can remember working with back in 1973. It says:
“We appeal to you to delete this proposal from the Bill, and indeed to work with communities like ours to bring in far stricter regulation of short term letting. It is no exaggeration to say that short term letting is already harmfully affecting our community more than any other issue in our generation … we believe that communities now need protection from people who go away a lot, and whose homes become informal hostels on a regular basis using websites”—
and they name some, which I will not. It goes on:
“This activity is very difficult for local authorities to take action against, even under the current legislation. Yet it is ruining the quality of life of long term residents who then, of course, are driven to move out themselves”.
My final quotation comes from an individual, who I will not name for the record, but who puts it much more succinctly in a letter to Mr Eric Pickles. He says:
“I am fed up with the constant stream of people staying for short periods”—
he gives an example of his own house—
“immediately below my flat and letting people into our otherwise secure courtyard and staircase. This flat (below mine) should be a home for someone who would be a part of the community. Instead it deprives hotels of business (and the accommodation charges go to an owner who lives abroad)”.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is right to say that it is a contentious issue and there is some example of the contention.
I said that we had received contrary representations from people operating in business since tabling our opposition to the clause. I want to refer to one in particular from a company called onefinestay, with
which my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and I had a useful, productive and constructive meeting, subsequent to which, at our request, it wrote to us more fully. It says that:
“we are absolutely not in favour of wholesale deregulation”.
As a relatively new business made possible by the coming of the internet, which offers a clearly needed service—they are doing good business and benefiting people—what it quite reasonably wants is not deregulation, but better and more appropriate regulation. It wants regulation which meets the circumstances and strengthens its legitimate and very proper business, which protects them against the cowboys who operate in this area, and which would also strengthen the hands of local authorities.
One of its key recommendations, which is very much in line with that of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is that the regulation should apply simply to properties that are the sole or main residence. There is a test of what is a residence: it is where somebody is living. I understand that that is defined in law. Nobody wishes to stop somebody letting a property while they go away on holiday for a few weeks or even a month or two. We are talking not about that but about the businesses that are into short-term lets—often, though not always, of poor quality, with low fire-safety requirements and so on. That is the area we need to attend to.
We come now to the clause before us. As so often, we are being asked to do away with the only safeguard that exists, albeit one from 1973, without any evidence that it is not working. As far as I know, there is no evidence that local planning authorities are applying this provision disproportionately. Perhaps the Minister will tell me whether the Government have any evidence. Given the state of most local planning authorities and their staffing I suspect that they are not applying it at all, which may be a worse situation. There can be no serious suggestion that in the vast majority of London boroughs, if any, it is applied disproportionately. We are being asked to do away with the only protection there is with no certain knowledge of what is to replace it. We are allowing the Secretary of State to make regulations but are given no indication of what those regulations will or will not cover. I hope that the Minister will tell us in a minute and that we will be able to see those draft regulations, preferably before the next stage of the Bill. Whether that is possible, who knows?
If the Government are determined to do away with the provision in the 1973 Act, we need to know what is coming in its place. We need to be reassured that it really will be fit for purpose and will safeguard the interests of the organisations, commercial businesses and, particularly, the individuals in communities to which I have referred. In conclusion, I hope that the Minister will also reassure us that this section of the 1973 Act will not be repealed—if that is the right word—before we have the new regulations debated, discussed, agreed and in place, at least so that the protection remains in place throughout.