Flexible tenancies for social housing: the vulnerable protected?

Whenever Conservatives talk about enhanced flexibility, there is a tendency to check your pockets to make sure your safety net hasn't been stolen. It isn't that they're inherently dishonest, it's just that they aren't always aware of the importance of State provision in maintaining the dignity of the individual. And because they believe in personal responsibility, they sometimes oblige those least capable of protecting themselves to attempt to do so.

And so it was particularly satisfying to see a Conservative Minister state on the record that flexible tenancies will not wilfully destabilise communities by creating a sense of uncertainty amongst those reliant on social housing. On Monday, Baroness Hanham, under pressure from Lord Shipley confirmed that flexible tenancies would only infrequently be of a period as short as two years.

"We have made it clear - again, this draft is in the Library - that two years is to be exceptional and that the tenancy policies of social landlords and local councils will have to state what they mean by exceptional. A tenancy policy will state what the landlord sees as a possible exception for two years. That will have to be laid out so that everyone knows what it is. The expectation is that these will not be used very frequently. They will probably be used very infrequently, but there should be the right to have that flexibility. Therefore, by definition, the tenures stretch from two years rather than five, as is being proposed."

On the subject of renewal of such flexible tenancies, there was reassurance that there would be a presumption of renewal if a local authority's criteria continued to be met.

"The review already ensures that a decision by the landlord not to renew the tenancy must be fair and in line with the landlord's published tenancy policy. Should the reviewing officer decide that the decision is not in line with the landlord's policy, the landlord will need to reconsider his decision. Where a landlord seeks possession of a tenant's property despite a review concluding that he was not acting in line with his own policy, the court will refuse to grant possession, as the Bill makes clear."

There is much that is positive about the notion of flexible tenancies. But in any situation where the balance of power, and the risk are very much unevenly distributed, it is vital that the positives for all parties concerned are teased out, and the fears of vulnerable people assuaged. And as I don't doubt that campaigners for homelessness charities will be scrutinising the Localism Bill for the potential protections offered within it, it would be nice to think that the debate will be rather less alarmist than some politicians have been claiming it should be.