One of the best things about the recent influx of new Liberal Democrats was the arrival of John Shipley, former Leader of Newcastle City Council. A deep thinker about issues of local government, especially in the area of housing, he has played an invaluable role in hedging in some of the more 'blue sky' (alright, scary) thinking on the subject from the Conservative wing of the Coalition.
Yesterday, his attention was turned to the role of local councils in providing housing advice, moving amendments to the Localism Bill to oblige local councils to give proper advice to the homeless, to ensure that offers of private sector rental accommodation are reasonable for a homeless household to accept (in other words, reestablishing the current pre-legislative position), the provision of emergency accommodation so as to allow a homeless household to make other arrangements and, perhaps of most interest, exemptions from the potential two year flexible tenancies for the most vulnerable.
As is often the case, amendments are submitted in order to prod the Minister into providing clarity, through published guidance, or by statement. If the Minister indicates that he or she is minded to give some ground on the matter, the amendment is not formally moved, a gentleman's agreement, if you like, with the option to return to the point at Third Reading.
Naturally, the Labour benches, led by Lord Kennedy of Southwark, were keen to protect the current social housing obligations, and the session quickly developed into a good cop/opposition cop routine whereby one persuaded and the other supported, and much good came of it.
On the question of flexible tenancies, the Minister, Baroness Hanham confirmed that two year tenancies would be the exception rather than the norm;
"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."
Following on from the question of the minimum length of flexible tenancies, Lord Shipley tackled the question of tenancy renewal. There have been widely stated concerns that flexible tenancies will heighten insecurity amongst council and housing association tenants, and Amendment 28 was designed to create a presumption that such tenancies would be renewed unless the contrary is shown to be in accordance with the authority's policies.
For the Government, Baroness Hanham was quick to reassure;
"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."
So, reassurance for those concerned about the introduction of flexible tenancies, courtesy of the Liberal Democrat benches in the Lords. This work isn't glamorous, it probably won't gain any votes in the short term, but it needs to be done. And you can be so much more persuasive if your part of the Government side...
No comments:
Post a Comment