Shapps accused of breaking tenancy pledge
Housing minister Grant Shapps has been accused of breaking a pledge that two-year tenancies will only be used in exceptional circumstances.
Mr Shapps, in a Westminster Hall debate on 28 June, said: ‘I am being clear, in all our language and in the tenancy standards that we will put in place that two years is to be considered an exceptional circumstance, and that at least five years would be the norm.’
Mr Shapps also said last month that the government had not accepted an amendment to the Localism Bill, which would have made clear two year tenancies could only be used in exceptional cases, because this would be set out in tenancy regulations.
But in a letter to MP Jeremy Lefroy on 5 July Mr Shapps said it is not the government’s intention to set a tenure standard requiring landlords to use a two year tenancy in exceptional circumstances.
Nick Raynsford, former housing minister, accused Mr Shapps of breaking a promise and called on him to explain his actions to the House of Commons.
He said: ‘This is not just a disgraceful breach of his own promise, but a further illustration of the government’s cynical betrayal of the interests of tenants.’
A Communities and Local Government spokesperson said: ‘The Localism Bill will offer a fairer and more flexible system of social housing, ensuring the most vulnerable in our society continue to be protected while giving councils the freedom to offer fixed tenancies to new tenants, where that makes more sense.
‘Ministers have been clear that while councils and housing associations will be able to offer minimum tenancies of two years, they expect this to be in exceptional circumstances with five years the more common minimum offered by landlords.
‘We are currently consulting on a Direction to the Regulator on a new Tenancy Standard that proposes that landlords will be required to take account of the needs of those who are vulnerable by reason of age, disability or illness, and households with children, including through the provision of tenancies which provide a reasonable degree of stability.’
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (7)
Alpha One | 12/07/2011 10:04 am
It seems to me that politicians are incapable of telling the truth.
It's the one thing this country really wanted after the whole expenses debacle and 13 years of lies and spin, politicians that were honest. It seems that this lot are as bad as the last lot.
Let's start our own party here, we could start leadership hustings on the discussion board!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
james strang | 12/07/2011 10:10 am
well well the condem's in housing u turn!
It's clear they will make up policy as they go along. they have no interest in nor respect for the housing sector.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rosa Hooses | 12/07/2011 10:10 am
The problem is partly that people don't like to hear the truth. When politicians tell the truth it is known as a "gaffe". This is made worse by the media who are constantly looking to score points in an interview rather than have a sensible discussion.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ann Harris | 12/07/2011 10:36 am
If this government have any interest in housing it is covered in the defining issues of localism and the big society. We will as a sector will be expected to drive these agendas without, in my opinion, enough care and consideration having gone into the workload of the already overstretched staff and volunteers. To expect all housing providers to perform within this future multi disciplinary world will surely create a postcode lottery the like of nothing we have ever experienced.
The theories that are expressed in relation to ‘the big society’ are very grandiose; some of the examples we were shown and told about are indeed inspiring. But, as any focus group discussion that covers half a dozen different landlords will show, the disparity of services provided across the sector is huge.
I am disappointed that the sector has so completely taken on the need to do everything (social work, police role, education and so on).
I would be much happier with a sector that stood up and said our core business is providing good housing so that people can thrive in well cared for homes.
Then and only then take on the other roles and make sure government understand that added value is just that 'added value'. If the sector does not make this stand the time will come when a landlord that provides good housing will be viewed as a failing entity. Whereas the landlord who does ‘a bells and whistles added value presentation’ will be judge as good regardless of state of their housing stock.
As a tenant I pay my rent for a housing service, and I naively thought, that, the other services that myself and everyone else receives are paid for from the various taxes we all pay.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
June Tipping | 12/07/2011 11:31 am
I feel this taking away of Council and Housing Association Tenants security of tenure is a ploy by this government to make sure their friends the private landlords who have exploited their tenants for so many years will get more tenants to prop the failing private renting sector. After all it is the greed of some private landlords in pushing up the rents that has made the Housing benefit cost so high. Tenants should not be blamed.
A better and fairer system would be to pass a law that makes Private landlords and Public Sector landlords give assured tenancies to all tenants. This would ensure that all families would have security of tenure and they could feel secure in the knowledge that unless they abuse their tenancy or fail to pay the rent they are secure.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
SERTAOM YEK | 12/07/2011 1:32 pm
Well made points by Ann and June. We also have to consider why all 'landlords' in particualr HA's are behaving like sharks in a feeding frenzy, together with their remora internal departments over Housing Benefit and the proposed 'Universal Benefit'.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris | 12/07/2011 3:18 pm
Alpha - you are spot on. Indeed, it was the lack of any suitable political voice for working people that started the Parliamentary Labour Party, in order to take the objectives of the Trades Union movement into the heart of government. The idea being that legislation that protected the everyday person from unfair exploitation, and gave equility of right and opportunity regardless of where one started in life.
Now that people have woken up to the huge negative presented by media control of our legislator, perhaps a people's movement can be born without the immediate and disgusting finger of Murdoch and his like undermining it's legitimacy.
Shapps is a prime example of the sort of person who needs to be kept as far away from power in the national interest; but he is one of many. Unfortunately they pollute or government, our politicians, the press, and the major institutions. As one of the first to say the same of Blair, I do not believe this to be a partisan comment.
I'm a foot soldier rather than a leader - are there any leaders out there?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment