English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Eaton Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Grand Committee

This is there simply to position the Government to confirm that they understand what devolution actually is. As I said right at the beginning, in my view this Bill is a staging post. I would like to have direct elections to strategic authorities, but I am the first to admit that that is very difficult to deliver because the systems do not exist for that to become a possibility. But, in time, that should be the objective; otherwise, there is a huge danger that we are not defining the powers and responsibilities of local government on the one hand and of mayors and strategic authorities on the other, which will become a source of conflict. I just hope that here in Committee the Government will be sufficiently open to discussions on this matter, which will assist the delivery of a more powerful form of devolution than is currently within the Bill.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I wish to speak in favour of the purpose clause tabled by my noble friends Lady Scott of Bybrook and Lord Jamieson.

From the outset, the Title of the Bill is quite wrong and misleading. The Bill is not about devolution; it is about centralisation. The number of directed powers it awards to the Secretary of State to instruct combined authorities is alarming. The purpose clause proposed by my noble friends reinvigorates the Bill to achieve what matters most to local government now and the issues most likely to be of concern in the future—namely, sustainable council finances and keeping the “local” in local government through locally led decision-making.

Putting aside the tax-raising powers for mayors enshrined in the Bill, it does nothing to address the serious concerns the sector has about putting the finances of our councils back on to a sustainable footing, or on the ever-increasing DSG deficits or the seismic pressures placed on upper-tier authorities in the delivery of their SEND responsibilities. However, what we had before Christmas was the Government’s unfair funding announcement, which left many councils worse off than before following the withdrawal of the remoteness adjustments metric, which in turn has left councils such as Buckinghamshire £44 million worse off.

We then come to the part of this purpose clause on local decision-making, which my noble friends are correct to underpin. At the start of my contribution, I referenced centralisation. It is astonishing that a devolution-facing Bill will essentially award mass powers to the Secretary of State to impose LGR and strategic authorities without any say from local authorities and groups in those areas. If devolution is to work, it needs to be locally led by local leaders and the community, not forced on communities by Whitehall. Over recent years, we have seen that local government reorganisation and the creation of combined authorities can be agreed by a consensus in local communities and without the imposition of Whitehall. Just look at Wiltshire and Buckinghamshire—two examples of unitarisation which have gone to plan. I welcome the addition in this purpose clause of ensuring that reorganisation and the creation of strategic authorities are locally led.

The Government’s approach to this has already been fairly shambolic. County council leaders who had elections postponed were of the clear understanding that mayoral elections, shadow unitary authority elections or a combination of both would happen in May 2026. Instead, we have had further delay as a result of Whitehall not working closely with local leaders. This is why the point in the proposed new clause about locally enshrined decision-making is worthy. I hope the Government will accept this amendment so that the purpose clause sits in the Bill.

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, I have no interests to declare, other than that I want legislation to be as good as it can be. I very much welcome my noble friend’s amendment because it provides the foundation for my Amendment 251 that would provide for post-legislative scrutiny, which we will come to much later. Too often, Ministers see legislative success in terms of getting a measure on to the statute book. The real measure of success is when the Act delivers what Parliament intended to deliver. To check whether it has done that, post-legislative scrutiny is necessary some years after it has passed.

To assess whether the Act has achieved what it intended, one needs to know clearly what its purpose is—in other words, the basis on which you are undertaking the measurement. This amendment has the great virtue that it stipulates the five purposes that the Bill is intended to deliver. That would provide the measure against which a body set up to engage in post-legislative scrutiny could examine whether it has actually delivered. That is the great value of this amendment and, for that reason, the Government should have the confidence to accept it, as it would show they believe that the Act will deliver what it is designed to do. If they will not accept the amendment, will they bring forward a purpose clause of their own to demonstrate what they believe are the key purposes against which success can be measured?

Rutland Lieutenancy

Baroness Eaton Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness will know, I grew up in a new town in Hertfordshire, which, when it was first announced, was not the most popular decision. That was back in 1946. We have all worked together on this, and now we have a very coherent picture in Hertfordshire. People work with us, and we are working on our unitary proposals. There are always memories of historical areas that people want to retain, and I think the Answer to the noble Baroness’s Question set out that the Government recognise how important these ceremonial areas are. Some of them go way back in history, and we have a lot to do to undertake the local government reorganisation. So, if there is any further reorganisation to be done, we can certainly consider it. But I think there is enough going on for the moment. These historical memories are really important to people, and we should value and treasure them. That history and heritage are part of our country.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Rutland County Council is one of England’s highest-performing local authorities, not least in the area of adult social care. Rutland residents have always felt very close to their council and their elected members, and all decisions have been made locally. With that in mind, will the Minister outline the tangible benefits for Rutlanders of forcing this small but perfectly formed council to become part of a larger unitary authority, and what data has the Minister based her views on?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

First, no forcing is involved here. We put out an offer to submit proposals and have had proposals back. I have met all the councils in Leicestershire and Rutland and, separately, the Mayor of Leicester. There is a very strong will in the county to work together—they have been working very well together—and we look forward to taking these proposals forward with them. I hope it is of reassurance, not only to Leicestershire, Rutland and Leicester but to other counties in our country, that administratively they will be working under different boundaries but that will not affect some of the historical links that they have between them.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Eaton Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as the part-owner of a small number of rented properties in West Yorkshire.

I will speak in support of Amendments 29, 34, 35 and 36, which are in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. Your Lordships may recall from my contribution at Second Reading that I am deeply concerned about the impact of this Bill on rented housing supply. I remain concerned about this issue. However, these amendments provide me with the reassurance that I know the rental market is also looking for. The amendments are technical, but sensible and clearly thought through.

If the Government are to get anywhere near reaching their ambitious 1.5 million new homes target, we need to support and give clarity to the responsible institutional build-to-rent landlord sector, which is building thousands of new, high-quality rented homes each year. I know that this part of the rental market supports the Government’s aim to raise standards across the private rented sector. However, with the uncertainty it faces around how much rent it may reasonably receive and how many rent increase challenges it may receive, I worry that its development pipelines will slow or, at worst, completely halt, while it assesses this new landscape where any renter can challenge any increase without any jeopardy.

Amendments 29, 34, 35 and 36 would allow for those providing new, net additional high-quality rental homes to the market to continue to do so without undue impact from Section 13 rent increase challenges. They would allow the institutional landlord sector to continue delivering the net additional rented homes we need without uncertainty. Crucially, the amendments would deter spurious rent increase challenges and allow vulnerable renters the access to justice that they rightly deserve.

I acknowledge the Government’s amendments on Section 13 notices, but they also leave me concerned that, in this place and indeed in the rental market, we and the sector are being asked to place a significant amount of faith in the Government, and the data they have but will not publish, on how many renters might challenge their rent increases. If a renter can save themselves months of rent increase for free and without any jeopardy, why would they not?

I am therefore strongly of the opinion that the amendments in names of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, provide the requisite amount of clarity to the sector, while ensuring renters’ rights are improved. I urge the Government to take them on board to give everyone clarity while improving renters’ rights and access to justice for vulnerable renters.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. I strongly support Amendment 29 so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. I recall that, when we debated this in Committee, the noble Baroness got a favourable response from the Front Bench, and it may be that on this amendment the ice is beginning to melt.

I am also struck by the contrast between the certainty that we get with Amendment 36 from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the absence of any clarity and certainty from government Amendments 37 onwards. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, it is normal procedure in law if a rent increase is valid to backdate it from the date that it was due, so the Government are introducing a wholly new concept in law in their Amendment 67, which does not actually take the trick because, as I understand it, they are going to wait until the system is gummed up before they activate the process.

This is simply no way to govern. The Government ought to accept Amendment 36 with its clarity and certainty, rather than this doubtful procedure whereby there remains every incentive to appeal and only when the system becomes even more clogged will the Government intervene. That cannot be good government, and I urge the Minister to think again about Amendment 36 or the other amendment that achieves the same objective in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising. I just do not think that this takes the trick.

Housing: New Homes Target

Baroness Eaton Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

We will hear from my noble friend Lord Browne next, please.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Eaton Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

The impact of anti-social behaviour, past, present and future, should be considered in its capacity to destroy community trust and increase costs. The Home Secretary has spoken strongly in the other place about tackling anti-social behaviour. This Bill should align with the Government’s rhetoric and address its effects head on. Anti-social behaviour is ruinous to people’s lives. When a person returns home at the end of a long day, they should feel safe. When we remove the deterrent of demotion, we risk sending a dangerous message that disruptive and harmful behaviour carries no real consequence. In doing so, we fail both those suffering its impact and those who might otherwise be guided back to a more responsible path. I beg to move.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 14, tabled by my noble friends Lady Scott of Bybrook and Lord Jamieson. Local authorities have a duty to ensure fairness for their social housing tenants, and I believe the steps taken in the Bill to restrict local authorities and housing associations in their use of demotion orders are wrong and unnecessary.

The reality is that a small minority of tenants cause misery to other tenants through anti-social behaviour. A report from Nottingham Trent University in 2018 suggested that 30% of social housing tenants are more likely to come across anti-social behaviour, crime and drug dealing. Likewise, a social housing residents’ survey report from 2022 found that 26% had been impacted by anti-social behaviour.

Local authorities and housing associations are already severely restricted in the action they can take against the small minority of tenants who cause misery for other tenants who are law-abiding and play by the rules. Withdrawing the ability for local authorities and housing associations to issue demotion orders will severely diminish their ability to combat anti-social behaviour. As far as I am aware, the Government do not even collect data on the number of demotion orders that are issued each year to social housing tenants, so one has to question how big an issue this really is at present. I hope that the Government will accept Amendment 14, given that it is an instrument used by housing associations as the treatment of last resort.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness earlier; she was on my blind side. She mentioned those of us who have been involved in local government. Well, I had the pleasure, I would say, of being in a beacon council under the Blair Government when the now noble Baroness, Lady Casey, was actually doing all the work with the then Labour Government on anti-social behaviour. We recognised that it was a serious issue on many of our estates—and a deeply challenging one at that. I would argue that councils are not necessarily restricted in what they can do, but it is very challenging. It is difficult, and we often found that the courts were very sympathetic to tenants while we were sitting there going, “But you don’t have to live next door to them”.

Very often, another issue that occurred was that neighbours, after months of ongoing, low-level, constant nuisance, retaliated in some way. Such incidents were then reduced to being 50/50, when in actual fact you had only to speak to the people around the neighbourhood to know that that was not the case. These things are difficult to prove and difficult to get evidence on. People do not always write the dates down—“Oh, please keep a diary”—you know. Sometimes, even that is quite difficult for people. This is an area, Minister, where we would like to explore more what the route is for proving and what the bar is, what the level is, that has to be satisfied.

I must admit that I did not read into the Bill that it was that much of a restriction or a difficulty, but perhaps I have missed something. The National Housing Federation certainly has not listed it as one of its key concerns. That, in itself, perhaps tells me how much of an issue it is, but I would support the noble Baroness if that proved to be the case. As I say, I know from very bitter experience just how difficult this area is, and it is most likely to be the one that would come up most in certain areas.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Eaton Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My noble friend Lord Shipley has eloquently kicked things off for our Benches. I will make a few general comments about how we will conduct ourselves during the course of the Bill.

We do not agree with the assertions made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook. We think that the intentions in the Bill are perfectly clear. Whether it will live up to those intentions only time will tell, which is why we too would be looking at reviews. In fact, the noble Baroness’s Amendment 261 is very similar to my own Amendment 263, so I will reserve comments on reviews until we discuss that group.

I say to the Minister that we really want the Bill to go through, and for that to be done professionally and swiftly, in a well-scrutinised way, so we will not be making Second Reading-style speeches or commenting on every single item and amendment. I would therefore like the Minister to take it that silence means we agree with the Government’s position. However, we will probe, challenge and seek evidence and reassurances, and I think the Minister would expect no less from us.

We all know that the main problem is the shortage of homes, particularly social homes. The Bill is not intended to solve that problem. It has to be seen as part of a suite of policies that the Government are trying to bring in—and, to use the same phrase again, only time will tell. However, landlords have cried wolf before—over the Tenant Fees Act, I believe—and Armageddon did not happen. That is not to say we should not take their concerns seriously, nor that the Government should not monitor and review, but the most important thing in the Bill is the abolition of Section 21. That was promised by the noble Baroness, Lady May, when Prime Minister, back in the mists of time, so it is long overdue. It is time that we cracked on with this, and we will do our bit to ensure thorough scrutiny but swift passage.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association and as part owner of rented properties in Bingley, West Yorkshire. I support Amendment 261, tabled by my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, with its proposed new clause:

“Review of the impact of the Act on the housing market”.


Specifically, I welcome the proposed addition of a review of the impact the Bill will have on requests for social housing. The vast majority of landlords in this country are good, honest people who do a real service in maintaining Britain’s housing supply and providing decent homes to people before they start the journey of getting on to the property ladder, but the reality is that, with the ever-increasing regulation placed on landlords, not least the abolition of Section 21 no-fault evictions, which has already been mentioned, the signing of tenancy agreements will become more of a risk.

In reality, landlords will no doubt be more reluctant, under the new burdens placed on them, to take on more vulnerable tenants—for example, those who enter the market for the first time, without references, and those in receipt of housing benefit. Amendment 261, on reviewing the impact the Act will have on social housing, is necessary because local authorities and housing associations are going to come under pressure as never before to provide social housing, either because supply in the private rented sector will become more challenging to access or because rents are likely to spiral out of control under these proposals. I therefore support fully the amendment tabled by my noble friend.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her Amendments 1 and 261, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Eaton, who have spoken in this short debate. I will keep my response to Amendment 1 short, as the purpose and aims of the Bill were debated in full at Second Reading. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that the Bill is perfectly clear in what it sets out to do.

The private rented sector has grown significantly over the past 20 years and is now used by over 11 million renters in England, with the support of 2.3 million landlords. I should say that most of those landlords are very good landlords who look after their tenants very well. Despite this growth, it still provides the least affordable, poorest quality and most insecure housing of all tenures, and that just cannot continue. A functioning private rented sector can provide a secure stepping stone for aspiring home owners, as the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, said, and flexibility for those who want it, but the chronic insecurity embedded in the current tenancy system fails both those tenants looking for a stable home for their families and those landlords who are undercut by the rogues and the chancers who we know are there—they may be few, but we know they are there. This is a drain on aspiration. Reform of the sector is central to our opportunity mission, so that all have the chance to achieve their potential.

Although I understand the aims of the amendment, I do not believe that it is necessary. The Government made a clear manifesto commitment to transform the experience of private renting by levelling the playing field decisively between landlords and tenants—the very balance that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, was talking about. This Bill delivers that promise. As I outlined at Second Reading, the Bill will strengthen the security of tenure for tenants, ensure that they are paying a fair rent, guarantee a minimum standard they can expect from a property, provide new robust avenues to redress, and much more. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, referred to the attempts in later amendments to reintroduce Section 21 evictions. We will debate those when we get to them but I will say that 83% of landlords have five properties or fewer, so those amendments would be significant and really take the guts out of the Bill. The aims I set out align with the purpose in the noble Baroness’s amendment and lie at the heart of all our current and future decision-making.

The Government also recognise the work done by the majority of landlords, who provide safe and decent homes for their tenants. Both these issues of balance were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, but I was surprised at her assertion that the Bill would not achieve that balance. It is a very similar Bill to the one which she herself brought forward a few months ago.

We have been clear that good landlords have nothing to fear from these reforms. The Bill will bring much-needed certainty to the sector after years of inaction and delay. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, commented on the Armageddon that we hear about; I remember hearing something similar many years ago during the discussions on the minimum wage. I understand landlords’ concerns and I hope we can address them as we scrutinise the Bill, but I am sure we can continue to debate the aims and impacts as we make our way through the 300-plus amendments tabled for debate.

Holocaust Memorial Day

Baroness Eaton Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, it has been a great honour to hear three such interesting and heartwarming maiden speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Katz and Lord Evans, and the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt. It is also a great honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay.

Today we are all here gathered in remembrance. The speeches we have heard have been heartbreaking and full of sadness on many occasions, which has moved many of us. Eighty years ago, the world bore witness to the liberation of Auschwitz—a name etched in infamy for its wickedness, a place where a million souls perished. But we must be clear: Auschwitz was not an anomaly, nor was it the whole story. It was but one in a network of extermination camps which sought to systematically eradicate 6 million Jews in Europe. We must resist the temptation to speak of the Holocaust as a horrific event that took place during the Second World War. To do so would be to diminish the full scale of atrocity which spanned nations, years, and generations of suffering.

Although today is a day of reflection, it must also be a day of reckoning, because the hard truth is this: anti-Semitism did not die with the fall of the Third Reich. It was not buried in the rubble of Berlin, nor was it erased by the words “never again”. It persists, it is alive, and it is growing. We have all heard that the Community Security Trust documented the highest number of anti-Semitic incidents in a six-month period. It is no wonder that the CST also uncovered that merely one-third of British Jews believe they have a future in this country and that a staggering 50% have considered leaving altogether. It is truly anathema to me that in the UK—a nation that has been a beacon of refuge and opportunity for Jewish people—there are those who fear for their safety, their children’s futures, and their very place in society. How can this be? How did we arrive at a moment where British Jews, who have contributed so much to our national life, feel unwelcome in their own country? Crucially, what will we do about it?

We rightly place great importance on the memorialisation of the Holocaust. It is an opportunity to educate, to remember, and to honour those whose lives were stolen, but remembrance alone is not enough if it comes at the expense of acting against contemporary anti-Semitism. What is the point of solemn words and candlelit vigils if we fail to confront the anti-Semitism of today? I put it to the House that each Holocaust Memorial Day should be a day not just of reflection but of renewed commitment to tackling contemporary anti-Semitism in all its forms. This commitment must be explicit: annual targets, clear objectives and unwavering political will. Without this, the fight against anti-Semitism will continue to be overlooked, sidelined and deprioritised on the political agenda.

Let us be honest: the pervasive nature of this problem indicates that we are beyond easy solutions. It cannot be resolved overnight, but that must not deter us. We need a patient, sustained effort—an approach that acknowledges the scale of the issue while refusing to accept it as inevitable. We have skirted around this subject for too long; it is time to take it seriously and, as we do so, we must ensure that Holocaust Memorial Day remains firmly rooted in the historic reality of what happened. We remember all victims of hatred, but let us not shy away from the fact that the Holocaust was first and foremost the attempted extermination of the Jewish people. This is not a mere historical detail; it is the very essence of why this day exists. To obscure or generalise this fact is not only a disservice to the past but a dangerous mistake for the future. Making the historical and contemporary link both honours the memory of those murdered and is the best bulwark against history repeating itself. The Holocaust was not inevitable; it was the result of unchecked hatred, institutional complicity, and the silence of too many for too long. That is why we must act now.

Today, as we remember the liberation of Auschwitz, let us also liberate ourselves from complacency. Let us not merely remember; let us resolve. Let us not only mourn; let us act. Let us ensure that when we say “never again”, it is not merely a phrase but a reality that we strive towards. I urge my esteemed colleagues to stand firm against anti-Semitism, to make Holocaust Memorial Day a moment of real commitment and to ensure that British Jewish people can live in this country with the same security, dignity and confidence as any other citizen.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Eaton Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I offer my thanks to both the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield, for their enthusiastic and energy-driven speeches, which were very infectious. They will help to drive me along and give me the energy to do all the things that will come along to all of us. They are both very welcome.

I must declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as a part-owner of rented property in Bingley, west Yorkshire.

The renters Bill aims to ensure that those renting homes from landlords across the nation have a safe, secure place to live, managed by a landlord who is reasonable, responsive and reactive when problems in their rented home occur—something I am sure that we all wish to see. However, I do not believe that this Bill will necessarily achieve that. I have spoken with a range of stakeholders in the rental market prior to the debate, including those in the built-to-rent sector, which has the potential to deliver up to 10% of this Government’s overall housing targets. The built-to-rent sector—if it is given the policy environment to deliver new, net, additional, high-quality, long-term rent homes—would do a great deal to achieve the housing targets that we need.

It appears to me that the built-to-rent sector is particularly susceptible to the clauses in the Bill, in its current form, that pertain to open-ended tenancies with two-month notice periods, where renters can serve notice to leave their home on day one. This is because built-to-rent homes can be moved into quickly, as they benefit from shared amenities such as wifi and concierge services, among others, that make them very attractive places to live. Renters can move in with just their suitcase and some groceries, and without the need to set up the water meter and internet provider, or deal with the utility providers.

The Government have put on record their support for bringing more institutional investor landlords into the rental market and driving up standards across the market, both of which are laudable goals, alongside the building of new homes. However, allowing renters to immediately serve notice to leave their rented home on day one of their tenancy will have a detrimental impact, particularly on the build-to-rent sector’s ability to secure investment, both domestic and foreign, to deliver the homes that this Government want to see built.

To reiterate, this measure increases the risk of short-term renting by those looking to take advantage of the legislative issues that the Bill creates, and prevents those who truly want to put down roots in the area where they rent their home doing so, while also having an impact on future housing supply. That is not what this Government intend, I am sure, and is certainly not supportive of the Government’s growth agenda or housebuilding targets.

I want the Bill to put in place the ability for renters to serve their two months’ notice only after they have rented their home for a minimum of four months, thereby discouraging those who would use the Bill in its current form to take advantage of the facilities and high-quality homes that build-to-rent landlords provide. I am well aware of the need to ensure that renters are not trapped in unsafe, mis-sold, damp or mould-ridden rented homes, and such exemptions should of course be included in any amendments made to the relevant clauses in Committee.

An additional potential consequence of the Bill that has been raised with me and that warrants consideration in this place is the impact on housing supply due to the incentive the Bill presents to renters to challenge their landlords’ rent increase when served a Section 13 notice. I add at this point that the fact that Section 13 notices have not yet been digitised is an issue that, in this day and age, needs urgent attention. Section 13 notices being challenged by any and all renters simply to delay a rent increase will serve to achieve only one goal: discouraging landlords looking to provide rental homes and investors looking to create new rental homes. These delays in landlords being able to achieve reasonable increases in their rent from renters will mean that less investment is available for these landlords to build the new homes we need.

The Government cannot expect institutional landlords and investors to deliver new high-quality, sustainable homes if they face so much uncertainty and delay about the rent they might reasonably receive. I strongly support an amendment to the Section 13 clause of the Bill to ensure that legitimate rent challenges from renters are progressed through the courts at speed—we have heard a lot of attention being drawn to the difficulties of the court process at the moment—while rent challenges that have no legitimacy and are being lodged simply to delay fair and reasonable rent increases are deterred.

Some opinions that landlords should focus on are the ability for a failed rent challenge in the court to bring the date of the original rent increase back into effect with a payment plan put in place that is achievable for the renter to pay off over a reasonable period, or giving the courts the ability to increase rents past the point proposed on the Section 13 notice if the increase is below market rate and is subsequently challenged by the renter.

The Government have some laudable ambitions, and improving the lives of renters while delivering new homes are clearly two that many in this and the other place will rightly support. However, the Bill as it stands leaves too many loopholes open for some to exploit, at the expense of those who the legislation is being put in place to protect.

Local Government: Funding

Baroness Eaton Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. The review that we are undertaking as part of the spending review in the spring will do just that. We made some steps forward in this year’s settlement; we need to take further steps in that regard, and the local government funding formula will be reset to take account of need.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. With Labour’s increase in employer national insurance contributions, LGA analysis confirms that the cost to local government will be around £1.7 billion next year. The provisional local government finance settlement confirms that councils will be compensated to the tune of £515 million for 2025-26, well short of the £1.7 billion. Can the Minister confirm from the Dispatch Box whether this compensation funding is a one-off, or will it be continued in future financial settlements? How does she expect local authorities to compensate for the shortfall?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As I said, the decision that we took around national insurance contributions was to fill the gap from the £22 billion black hole that was left by the Government of the Benches opposite. We continue to work on fixing those foundations and making the economy stronger. The noble Baroness asked specifically about the £515 million of support that we have provided to local government. That is in addition to other sources of funding that we gave to local government. Whether that will continue into future years will be the subject of the spending review in the spring. We will look at all aspects of local government funding so that we continue to fix and sort out the mess that we were left with.

Housing: Modern Methods of Construction

Baroness Eaton Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Carrington for his insightful introduction to the debate, and declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The previous Government rightly identified MMC as a potential game-changer in addressing our housing needs. As their 2021 commitment to the MMC Taskforce highlighted, there was recognition that MMC could significantly improve the quality, energy efficiency and speed of housing delivery, while reducing waste and addressing the skills shortage within the sector. MMC offers numerous benefits, as we know.

However, while the recognition was there, the execution fell short. The Government’s approach to MMC was marred by a lack of co-ordination and coherent strategy. As highlighted by the House of Lords Built Environment Committee, of which I am a member, public funds were invested, but without a clear plan, measurable objectives or sufficient understanding of the challenges faced by the industry. This disjointed approach led to missed opportunities and the financial collapse of several MMC firms—firms that could have played a pivotal role in addressing our housing needs. The committee’s findings reveal a troubling picture of an industry that has not been given the support or clarity it needs to succeed, particularly in securing insurance, warranties and the necessary regulatory approvals.

Thus far, we have heard little about the detail from the Government, and I hope that the Minister, when she responds, will tell us clearly just how they will address all the particular difficulties with MMC.