Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 31 stand part.

With this clause, we turn to chapter 2 of part 1, which deals with tenancies that cannot be assured tenancies. The clause excludes from the assured tenancy regime fixed-term leases of more than seven years, which is particularly relevant for leasehold homeowners and those who purchased via shared ownership, who can sometimes be legally considered tenants under the assured regime despite having purchased their property. The clause will therefore exclude entirely such fixed-term leases and any others over seven years in length from the assured regime, thereby supporting the continued operation of shared ownership and providing additional security to shared ownership homeowners by exempting them from the grounds for eviction in the Housing Act 1988. It will also exclude leaseholders from the assured tenancy system, finally closing the so-called tenancy trap. It is unjustifiable, in the Government’s view, that leaseholders who have purchased their homes can face repossession for rent arrears through the assured tenancy regime. The exemption will therefore ensure they are protected.

I am grateful to stakeholders for raising concerns with me over the ways the clause could be undermined or abused. Let me be clear: we will not tolerate attempts to get around the abolition of section 21 by abusing this clause. I am therefore considering whether any action is needed to ensure that the system operates as intended, and that no abuse of the system can take place.

Clause 31 rectifies an omission to ensure that, as is the case for other specified sections where local authorities have an interim duty or discretion to provide temporary accommodation, a tenancy granted pursuant to section 199A of the Housing Act 1996 cannot become an assured tenancy. This will allow the private landlord to regain possession of their property once the local authority’s duty to provide it by way of interim accommodation ceases.

From our constituency work, many of us will be aware that when an individual has a “no recourse to public funds” condition because of their immigration status, although they may be employed in the UK and potentially in the public sector, the local authority has no duty to house that individual. That, however, may be compromised if, for example, there are children in the household, where duties under the Children Act 1989 and the National Assistance Act 1948 are triggered and the local authority effectively has a responsibility by another route. Although the individual may occupy a private rented sector property that has been procured for them by the local authority under those duties, they do not have any rights to public funds to pay for it, and therefore fall into a slightly ambiguous position with respect to this Bill. Some clarity would be helpful, especially given that there is a significant market of landlords, many of them directly contracted with the Home Office, who specifically provide accommodation for people who find themselves in a NRPF situation.

I thank the shadow Minister for that point; it is well made and well understood. As I will write to him on the subject of no recourse to public funds, I will ensure that that point is also covered in our correspondence.

I have a point on which I would appreciate clarification. Increasingly, local authorities are purchasing properties to act as temporary accommodation because of a shortage of private rented accommodation. I am interested in whether it is within the scope of the Bill to look at how we would ensure that local authorities are not inadvertently caught up in the new legislation if, for example, they have bought 10 flats in a block to act specifically as temporary accommodation. If they put residents in it temporarily, are they inadvertently caught by the new legislation? Or will they be able to find somewhere else for the people to live, enable them to finish that tenancy and provide it for somebody else who might need temporary accommodation? It is a pretty niche example, but it is happening in my constituency. I am interested to see whether we have accidentally tied ourselves in knots.

That is a niche point—one of many we have had on some of the more technical clauses. That is not a concern that has been expressed to the Government in relation to this clause or other aspects of the Bill, but I will commit to go away and deal with that set of issues relating to temporary accommodation and no recourse to public funds in the round. I will give Committee members a full and detailed answer on each of the points that have been raised.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gen Kitchen.)

Adjourned till Thursday 31 October at half-past Eleven o’clock.

RRB 31 iHOWZ

RRB 32 The Large Agents’ Representation Group

RRB 33 Michael Crofts BSC(Hons), ARICS (retired) (supplementary)

RRB 34 Student Accredited Private Rental Sector (SAPRS)

RRB 35 Matthew White, Regional Lettings Director, Hose Rhodes Dickson

RRB 36 StepChange

RRB 37 Suzanne Smith of the Independent Landlord

RRB 38 Peter Donnelly

RRB 39 Andrew Gardner

RRB 40 NFU

RRB 41 JUSTICE

RRB 42 Grainger Plc

RRB 43 Placefirst

RRB 44 Universities UK (UUK)

RRB 45 National Residential Landlords Association (NRLA)

RRB 46 Commonweal Housing

RRB 47 Gerald Kennedy, on behalf of the Social Housing Action Campaign

RRB 48 Independent Age

RRB 49 Training for Professionals (further submission)

RRB 50 Shelter

RRB 51 Nationwide Foundation

RRB 52 Matter Real Estate

RRB 53 TDS Charitable Foundation

RRB 54 Guild of Residential Landlords

RRB 55 Sue and Richard Lawes

RRB 56 Anonymous

RRB 57 The Law Society

RRB 58 Tom MacInnes, Director of Policy at Citizens Advice (supplementary submission)

RRB 59 Safer Renting on behalf of Cambridge House

RRB 60 Justice for Tenants

RRB 61 Greater Manchester Combined Authority

RRB 62 Ben Twomey, CEO, Generation Rent, and Tom Darling, Director, Renters’ Reform Coalition (supplementary submission)

RRB 63 Justin Bates KC, Landmark Chambers, Giles Peaker, Anthony Gold Solicitors, and Liz Davies KC, Garden Court Chambers (supplementary submission)