MPs reject bid to place legally binding standards on Ministry of Defence housing
An attempt by peers to apply formal housing protections to military homes has been rejected after the Government claimed it would be unworkable due to access and security constraints.
Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook urged MPs to vote against proposals to bring Ministry of Defence accommodation within the scope of the new decent homes standards requirements.
Mr Pennycook told the House of Commons that a report on the standard of military homes would be published every year instead.
MPs voted by a majority of 154 to reject the House of Lords' amendment to the Renters' Rights Bill.
A call by peers for pet owners to pay an additional deposit worth three weeks' rent to cover any potential damage was also rejected.
Additionally, a proposed new ground for eviction when a property is needed to house a carer for the landlord, or a member of their family, was thrown out by MPs.
Mr Pennycook added: "This Government is absolutely determined to improve the standard of service family accommodation across the entire defence estate – Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland as well as England.
"However, the Government cannot accept this amendment.
"As has been debated at length at various stages of the Bill, the Ministry of Defence are absolutely clear that subjecting secure defence sites to local authority inspections, as this amendment would do, is unworkable due to access and security constraints.
"The Ministry of Defence will lay before Parliament and publish on gov.uk an annual report on the standard of service family accommodation in the UK.
"I hope that the transparency and accountability that annual reporting will facilitate will provide sufficient reassurances of the Government’s commitment to the commendable objectives that underpin Lords amendment 39, but for the reasons I provided, we will not be able to accept it today."
The Liberal Democrats criticised the Government's position, with the party’s housing spokesperson Gideon Amos saying: "Our Armed Forces should not be the only group in Britain excluded from the right to a decent home in legislation."
Shadow housing secretary Sir James Cleverly said the Government's reasoning over ignoring peers' concerns in relation to accommodation for carers was "shocking".
"The Government's argument was 'there aren’t that many people, and frankly they’re all posh so we can ignore them'," he said.
Sir James said ethnic minority families "often live in close proximity to each other, and there will be communities like this all across all across the country where perhaps the elders of that family have rented properties which have tenants in them".
"Disregarding this, diminishing this as an idea, just because it is something that the frontbench accuse only the posh members of the other place doing, I think, is rather distasteful," he added.
On the matter of increased deposits for pet owners, Mr Pennycook said the Government was satisfied that the existing requirement for a five-week deposit for typical tenancies is sufficient to cover the risk of any damages relating to pet ownership.
"Requiring a further three weeks' deposit would cost the average tenant in England over £900, such sums would be unaffordable for many tenants, and would greatly exceed the average deposit deduction for pet damage of £300," he said.
He did add that the Government has the delegated powers necessary to allow higher deposits for tenancies with pets if needed in future.
Powers to backdate rent increases following determinations by the tribunal in respect of new rent amounts were added to the Bill.
Mr Pennycook said: "It is not the Government's intention to make use of this new power, unless and until it is considered necessary to avoid lengthy delays for genuine cases to be heard, if used, it would be subject to the affirmative procedure to allow appropriate parliamentary scrutiny."
The Bill will now be returned to the upper chamber, where peers will consider its changes.
Related topics
Join Our Newsletter
