Localism Bill — Clause 130 — Flexible Tenancies — Safeguards for Exsiting Secure Tenancies — 18 May 2011 at 18:13

The majority of MPs voted against safeguards preventing the conversion of secure tenancies to new "Flexible" tenancies.

MPs were considering the Localism Bill^[1]. The amendment rejected in this vote was:

• Amendment : 271, page 115, line 7, at end insert—
• ‘(2A) Subsection (2) shall not apply to a secure tenancy if immediately before the tenancy was granted the person who became the tenant under the tenancy, or in the case of joint tenants, one or more of them was—
• (a) a secure tenant of the same or another dwelling-house, or
• (b) an assured tenant of a private registered provider of social housing or a registered social landlord (otherwise than under an assured shorthold tenancy) in respect of the same or another dwelling-house.’.

Had it not been rejected the above text would have been added to Clause 130^[2] of the Bill. It would have prevented individuals in the situations described in the amendment from having their tenancies transformed into a new "Flexible" tenancy.

During the debate Alison Seabeck MP (Plymouth, Moor View, Labour) stated^[3]:

• Amendment 271 is intended to address the threat in the Bill to take security of tenure away from existing social tenants.

==

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the Localism Bill (now an Act)
• [2] Clause 130 of the Localism Bill as at the time of the vote
• [3] Alison Seabeck MP (Plymouth, Moor View, Labour), House of Commons, 18 May 2011

Debate in Parliament | Source |