Renters’ Rights Bill
Baroness Grender Excerpts(2 days, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, we welcome the Government’s commitment to rebalancing the relationship between landlords and tenants, and the abolition of Section 21, but we must ensure that the protections afforded to tenants are as robust as possible if the Bill is truly to deliver for the people who find themselves on the front line of this housing crisis. The Bill introduces new mandatory eviction grounds. Although we understand that the intention is to provide clear routes for landlords to regain property, making grounds mandatory removes the courts’ vital ability to act as a backstop and consider the individual circumstances of the tenant. It is important to test this issue in Committee, which is why we tabled Amendment 31.
Although most repossessions will be able to proceed without a hitch under the new Act, ensuring that exceptional cases have a discretionary element is critical—a discretionary element that the Labour Front Bench argued for with some vigour in the previous Parliament. Indeed, the Renters’ Reform Coalition argue that the lack of discretion is one of the most significant shortcomings in the Bill. The Renters’ Reform Coalition comprises some of the leading charities that work tirelessly on the issues of tenancy, homelessness and housing, including Shelter, which I used to work for. I thank the coalition for its work on this amendment and its support on this issue.
It is not difficult to imagine situations where compelling reasons for refusing immediate possession should exist. For instance, a tenant or a member of their family may have a serious terminal illness such as cancer, with a very limited life expectancy, a severe disability, or caring responsibilities for a disabled person, meaning they will necessarily need a longer period to find the most suitable accommodation. In the previous Parliament, the shadow Housing Minister, Matthew Pennycook, provided us with a useful hypothetical example, in which a terminally ill cancer patient could be evicted and at risk of homelessness because the landlord wishes to sell—a landlord, in this hypothetical scenario, with a portfolio of, say, eight houses and no compelling need to sell. In that scenario, he argued, a judge should have discretion.
Mandatory grounds, such as grounds 2ZB and 2ZC, which cover possession when a superior lease ends, prevent the court taking these profoundly human factors into account. Making all grounds discretionary would offer a vital layer of protection. It would allow the courts the potential to act as a backstop, consider all factors and potentially propose alternative courses of action to avoid a damaging eviction.
Obviously, some will argue that this cannot be done on the grounds of backlogs in the courts. Reforms in Scotland, where grounds for possession were made discretionary in October 2022, have shown little evidence of significantly worsening court backlogs. Indeed, if backlogs in courts, or in any institution right now, were applied to every piece of legislation that comes before us as a rationale for not proceeding or making a decision, we would be very hampered indeed as a legislative body.
We all know that the reality and likelihood of tenants taking up this course of action, just like the First-tier Tribunal, will be minimal, but the existence of the discretionary approach would ensure that an all-important safety net is in place for the worst possible cases. This amendment would remove “must” and insert “may” in the relevant heading of part 1 of Schedule 1, and omit the heading of part 2. This would provide the courts with the flexibility needed to consider the specific context of each case. I understand that the Housing Minister, Matthew Pennycook, in the House of Commons has countered that this is “a step too far” and would remove “certainty” for landlords, but we disagree—or rather, we agree with his original arguments, which are no different from mine today.
Should the Government remain resistant to making all grounds fully discretionary, can we please explore, between now and Report, robust mechanisms to prevent evictions that would cause severe hardship? As a fallback position, we advocate strongly for the introduction of a mandatory hardship test that courts must apply when considering possession orders under any mandatory grounds. This test would require the court to explicitly weigh the potential severity of the hardship caused to the tenant, considering factors such as health, disability, how many children there are, access to alternative accommodation and the impact on the ability to maintain employment or education, against the landlord’s stated reason for seeking possession. This hardship test would ensure that the most vulnerable tenants are not rendered homeless or forced into the inadequate temporary accommodation that we have heard described by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, simply because a mandatory ground is technically met without consideration of the dire circumstances in which the tenant finds themselves. It would provide a necessary safety net, ensuring that, while good landlords could regain their property for legitimate reasons, the system does not blindly facilitate deeply unfair and harmful evictions.
We must listen to the voices of those who live with the constant fear of losing their home. We owe it to future generations to get this bit right. This amendment would strengthen the Bill to ensure that security, fairness and compassion are at its heart by making grounds discretionary—or, at the very least, by introducing a mandatory hardship test.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, my Amendments 35 and 71 both aim to help people who rent. I declare an interest as someone who rents a two-bedroom flat.
I have tabled Amendment 35 because I am worried that the Government’s good policy will actually end up penalising the very people that it is aiming to help. I hope the Minister will go away from here thinking, “The Green Party had quite a good idea on that, and how nice it is to have them on our side for once”.
The Government are doing the right thing for the climate and for people in putting in higher energy efficiency standards—that is a given—and doing the right thing for landlords with grants to help them meet those standards. However, the only people who do not get a guaranteed better life are the poor tenants who have to put up with the work, dust, noise and inconvenience of the energy improvements being done, with the possibility that their rent will be going up as their energy costs go down. Amendment 35 is an attempt to give tenants a guarantee that they will also get some direct benefit from the drive for net zero with two years of lower energy bills, without that saving being cancelled out by a landlord focusing on profiting from a government grant. I think this is a sensible amendment and I hope it will find favour with the Minister.
Amendment 71 aims to shift the debate firmly on to the needs of the tenant and to discourage landlords from constantly changing their minds about letting out their properties. It builds on the Government’s welcome attempt to get rid of no-fault evictions by adding a new clause to the eviction process that gives the tenant a one-month financial head start. With all the costs involved with moving—the deposit and moving costs—it can be a long, drawn-out process, and, for many tenants who are self-employed or on zero-hours contracts, time is literally money and moving is a time-consuming business.
I hope that passing this legislation will create a new era of stability for those in the private rental market. A whole generation of young people has had to suffer from an overheated rental market, which was firmly loaded in favour of investors and those with the money to buy properties. This legislation does not actually solve that problem, because only the Government building hundreds of thousands of social homes could probably do that, but I welcome the start the Bill is making and I hope the Minister will consider the needs of tenants even more in this way.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly from these Benches to say that there is some nervousness on our part with regard to these amendments and the potential for loopholes to be created. If the discussion is that this is a meeting of equals between tenants and landlords, then I am not sure that this is entirely the case from all the experience and data that we have so far. Let me stress that one of the reasons why we are very excited about the data section, which we will come to later in the Bill, is that we have quite a strong belief that there is limited knowledge about who is out there and who is a landlord right now. All we know about are the responsible ones who register themselves and provide information.
A tenant by very definition is not an equal to someone who owns a property. There may be exceptions to that case, such as tenants who are in high-end properties, but on the whole the tenants we are talking about within the Bill are the ones who struggle on a weekly basis to pay their rent. Therefore, it is not a meeting of equals.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments. Amendments 32, 33 and 34 seek to expand the definition of a family member for the purposes of possession ground 1. This mandatory possession ground is available if the landlord or their close family member wishes to move into the property. These amendments widen the ground to allow a landlord to claim possession from an existing tenant to move in relatives of their spouse, partner or co-habitee, along with nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles or cousins.
In choosing which of the landlord’s family members can move in under ground 1, we have reflected the diversity of modern families while drawing a line short of where some might wish. But we are of the view that to expand the ground any further would diminish tenant protections too far. It would open tenants up to evictions from a wide range of people—potentially very significant numbers indeed where families are large—while providing more opportunity for ill-intentioned landlords to abuse the system.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked why “family member” is used in Clause 21 while close family member is used in the moving-in ground. The moving-in ground is designed for very specific circumstances where a landlord’s family member is in need of accommodation, so it is right that this definition is narrower, as tenants risk losing their home. New Section 16N of the Housing Act 1988, “Guarantor not liable for rent payable after the tenant’s death”, as inserted by Clause 21, is specifically targeted to stop those grieving being held liable after a tenancy should have been ended, and it is right that this is a broader protection. The use of guarantors is wide ranging and, as such, a wider definition is needed to encompass all relevant persons. However, that is not the case when a tenant is facing eviction from a property.
For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, we thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for raising a critical issue that is at crisis point: namely, housing in rural communities. We on these Benches understand the need to support those in the agricultural community, who are on unique tenancy arrangements for a variety of historical reasons. These tenancies often involve longer durations, inter- generational involvement and a closer relationship between the land and the livelihood than is typical elsewhere in the rental sector, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, described. As such, it is vital that any legislative change reflects the particular realities of agricultural life and does not introduce any unintended uncertainty or disruption.
Crucially, it is important to ensure that there is greater clarity for both landlords and tenants operating under agricultural tenancies. In a sector where long-term planning and security of tenure are essential, both parties require clear and consistent rules to navigate their rights and responsibilities with confidence. That said, we on these Benches are somewhat hesitant about the proposed amendments in this group to introduce a new repossession ground for these tenancies. We believe it is possible that there may be more effective ways to provide reassurance to those living under such arrangements. On that basis, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, as someone who farms, albeit not on the same scale as the noble Lords who have spoken thus far, or indeed anywhere near it, I am very sensitive to the requirement for security of tenants. On the other hand, I know that—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief. Amendment 68 seeks to make a modest but sensible change to Clause 6 by replacing “may” with “must”. The intention here is clear: to ensure that the Secretary of State is under a duty—not merely a discretion—to publish the prescribed form for a notice of possession and to ensure that it is kept up to date. We simply do not understand why the Government believe that discretion is necessary in this case. If a form is to be relied on by landlords and tenants alike, and ultimately by the courts, it must be accessible and current. Anything less introduces the risk of confusion, inconsistency or even procedural unfairness.
Can the Government kindly explain the rationale behind retaining this discretion? In what circumstances does the Secretary of State envisage not publishing the form or not ensuring that the version in use is the most recent? This is a matter of basic clarity and procedural transparency, and I hope the Minister can provide some reassurance on this point.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I find myself in a strange position: having argued earlier on discretionary powers to change “must” to “may”, I now find myself in support of changing a “may” to a “must”. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that making this open, available and transparent would be a good thing. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Baroness Grender Excerpts(4 days, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, Amendment 62 in this group, in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, is also about a particular form of occupational housing. I need to declare an interest: I own one small apartment in the West Midlands which has been let out to a tenant for a long time, but, according to some of the media, that makes me a kind of Rachmanite landlord who is trying to destroy the Bill. I can assure your Lordships that that is the last thing I have in mind.
This is about people who live in tied accommodation. As a Church of England bishop, I live in what I suppose we should call a tied palace rather than a tied cottage, but it is accommodation that I inhabit only for as long as I exercise my current office. That is the situation for the vast majority of stipendiary Church of England clergy, many other ministers of religion, and also for farm workers and estate workers who are required, for the better performance of their duties, to live where they actually work. It is a category that is accepted by HMRC, in terms of taxation legislation, as a special form of tenure. A large proportion of those who live in tied accommodation do not have the capacity during their working lives to save up and be able to provide for themselves in retirement, when they eventually have to move out of their tied dwelling.
I will not benefit from the amendment I am proposing to your Lordships today, because I will be able to accommodate myself by other means, but the Church of England Pensions Board lets out 50 or so properties each year—that is the average over the last few years—to retiring clergy, or sometimes to the spouse or surviving civil partner of a member of the clergy who has died in office, usually at about 60% of what the market rent would normally be in those circumstances. These properties are made available for clergy to look at any time up to about five years before they retire. The importance of that is we know that when people retire and move out of tied accommodation, they need time to think about where they are going to live, what sort of community they will want to settle in and put down roots in, because it is probably where they will stay for the rest of their lives.
At the moment, what the pensions board is able to do, and what other landlords who are used to accommodating people in tied accommodation can do, is to reserve a property for some period of time in advance and let it out in the meantime, but that will not be possible if the Bill passes in its present form. All that my amendment seeks to do is to make a small change that will allow an extra ground for granting possession where it is to accommodate somebody who is moving out of tied accommodation and the person who is providing their accommodation in retirement is somebody who is closely connected with who they were working for. It may be a former employer. In the case of clergy, who are officeholders rather than employees —a bit like police officers, we are officeholders—it will be an appropriate charity that provides accommodation in retirement.
This would make very little difference to the availability of rented housing overall—it would not make it impossible for other people to find properties to rent—but, as we have already heard several times today, there are people who wish to rent for a shorter period of time. It would be known that these properties will be subject to that clawback when the person who has earmarked them retires. If this amendment is not accepted, I fear that what will happen is that properties will simply lie empty for several years until the member of the clergy or the farm worker is ready to retire into them, and thus take properties away from the rented market, which I do not think is the aim of the Bill at all. I think this is a rather modest, quite niche measure, which would affect only particular categories of labourer, but for them it would make a huge difference to be able to identify where they are going to live when they retire a few years ahead of retirement and to know that that property will be available for them on the day of their retirement.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly from these Benches, in part to spare my noble friend’s voice—I assure noble Lords that no wine has been taken this evening.
I will stress something that is beginning to cause confusion on these Benches: the suggestion that an assured shorthold tenancy is in some way secure. It has been well documented over many years that huge insecurity is attached to an assured shorthold tenancy. Everything that we have learned about the huge turnover has for so many tenants been attached to the fact that ASTs are sometimes down to six months. A periodic tenancy—which has no end—is surely more secure than these fragile assured shorthold tenancies, which are often for only six months and cause huge insecurity for so many tenants. For that reason, these Benches are extremely concerned about the current direction of travel.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. Indeed, it follows on very neatly from our earlier debate on fixed-term tenancies. My noble friends Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Moynihan made compelling arguments for why we should permit fixed-term tenancies for both professional athletes and police officers. The benefits were set out with conviction and clarity, and I hope the Government Benches have listened. Of course, I would prefer that fixed-term tenancies continued to be available for everyone.
I will not rehearse the arguments made earlier, but does not the growing list of amendments seeking exemptions highlight the real value that fixed-term tenancies offer, supporting people from all walks of life, from athletes to police officers and everyone in between? Nurses, doctors, students, military personnel and even performers can all benefit from a fixed-term tenancy. The Government should consider these benefits. In removing fixed terms altogether, the Bill risks taking away short-term lets that serve as a real benefit for many thousands of people.
I turn to the Minister’s Amendment 59, which expands ground 5C to account for police officers. These Benches understand the importance of an employer’s need to regain possession of rented property if the tenancy is linked to a tenant’s employment. I thank the Minister for setting out details of the amendment.
Finally, I wish to note Amendment 62, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I thank him for the chat we had about it, because I had no idea that this happened within the Church of England. Enabling a debate on possession for the purposes of housing a person leaving tied accommodation is most welcome. This is an important issue, as it ensures that a landlord, who is often also the employer, can regain possession of a property when it is needed to house a new employee, but also—as in the case of the Church of England—allows the Church to regain a property that is required for the retiring employee. We must recognise the value of maintaining the availability of essential employment-linked housing, and consider how best to safeguard it in practice. Additionally, we must not discourage landlords from helping tenants by giving them extra time to move out, providing references or offering alternative housing, especially in sectors such as education or farming—or, indeed, in the Church.
This debate has encapsulated the depth and breadth of the Bill, and the numerous areas that it covers. A modern, dynamic workforce needs the freedom to move, adapt and pursue opportunities wherever they arise. We must have a laser focus on occupational needs when considering any changes to the rental market.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Baroness Grender Excerpts(4 days, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Grender
“Assured tenancy exemption: new build propertiesAssured shorthold tenancies are abolished except in relation to premises whose current tenants are the first tenants since the construction of the premises, and only for the period of six months beginning with the day on which the tenancy began.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow an assured short-term tenancy for six months after a premises is constructed.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, this is my first speech today, so I will take the opportunity to thank the Minister and her team for all the discussions so far. I support the fundamental principles underpinning this legislation, in particular the long-overdue abolition of Section 21 no-fault evictions—a change that, as we have heard, cannot come soon enough for countless renters across the country.
However, as we work to create a much fairer and more secure private rented sector, we on these Benches are also hugely aware of the pressing need to increase the supply of high-quality rental homes. For that reason, we have tabled Amendment 15, which aims to provide a very specific and targeted temporary exemption to the abolition of ASTs—assured shorthold tenancies. Specifically, the provision would allow assured shorthold tenancies for a period of six months for premises whose current tenants are the first tenants since the construction of the premises. This is a carefully considered proposal, designed to support the laudable aims of the Bill by incentivising the creation of much-needed new rental stock.
My honourable friend in the House of Commons, Gideon Amos, and noble Lords on these Benches have consistently championed the cause of increasing housing supply, particularly through new innovative models such as build-to-rent accommodation. This highlights the urgent need to restore hope to millions aspiring to a decent home after decades of decline in social housing provision. Indeed, ours was the only manifesto with a direct target of 150,000 new social homes to rent—a vital underpinning building block to change the lack of balance in tenures to match and accommodate the desperate need that has reached a crisis level today.
My colleague tabled an amendment in the House of Commons that would have specifically incentivised more build-to-rent accommodation by offering a degree of initial security for developers. Although that original amendment proposed a longer initial term of about two years, the underlying principle remains the same. New developments, particularly in the build-to-rent sector, require a degree of certainty.
We have heard directly from the British Property Federation, which is the representative body for the build-to-rent sector. It has expressed its support for measures that increase the certainty of rental income for institutional investors developing these new homes. It has engaged with us and our colleagues in the Commons on a similar amendment and explicitly stated support for its general thrust. The British Property Federation supports the new supply of rental housing and has said that six months would be an adequate period to incentivise investment in new construction and build to rent. I thank the British Property Federation for its engagement and advice, specifically on this issue.
In the previous group, I explained why I think ASTs are not very secure. This proposed six-month assured shorthold is a one-off exemption that would genuinely offer a limited period of certainty for developers to encourage them to build. That is what we are aiming for. It is a narrowly defined exemption that would apply only to properties being let for the very first time after their construction. It would not affect existing tenancies or undermine the core principles of abolishing no-fault evictions for the vast majority of renters, which we strongly support.
Indeed, by encouraging the creation of new rental homes, we believe the amendment would be a small, modest but useful way of ultimately expanding the options available to renters and contributing to a better balance in the market. The proposal is so modest, unlike other amendments that we have heard today, with build to rent currently estimated to be around 0.1% of the overall housing stock. We believe it would have minimal impact on the much broader move towards periodic tenancies. It may be appropriate at this point to say that we would not support removing Clause 2 from the Bill as we agree with its broad principles, but this approach would recognise the practical realities of bringing new developments to market.
In conclusion, while we rightly focus on enhancing security and rights for existing renters, we must not lose sight of the fundamental need to find ways to increase the supply of decent homes. That is what we are attempting to do with this amendment. We believe that it will act as a catalyst for increased investment in new rental properties, ultimately benefiting renters by providing more choice and contributing to a more sustainable and responsive housing market.
I urge the Minister and noble Lords to give this proposal careful consideration. We will be more than happy to do further work if it is not exactly to order. We believe that there is an opportunity to try to at least encourage a bit more supply in the market sector, even if we do not entirely agree with the suggestions that the whole market will suddenly disappear in the wake of this Bill. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for introducing an amendment that would allow short-term tenancies to continue for six months after a premises is constructed. The noble Baroness has highlighted the fundamental importance of increasing the supply of rented properties. Her case is compelling. This amendment would allow support for newly constructed properties by providing greater certainty for investors in that property. Additionally, it is often true that new properties have periods of vacancy while long-term lets are secured. We must consider, evaluate and listen to all solutions to ensure that liveable accommodation is not left empty and to help develop a stable and thriving community. I am thankful that the noble Baroness has brought this discussion to the attention of the Committee.
However, I wish to probe more widely why the Government are seeking to abolish assured shorthold tenancies, and therefore will speak to my opposition to Clause 2 standing part of the Bill. The short-term rental market supports job mobility, especially industries which require relocation or even temporary positions. Enabling the mobility of working-age adults to reach the depth and breadth of the United Kingdom is vital for economic growth. The modern workforce requires flexibility—the ability to move and adapt, and to pursue opportunities wherever they may arise. By discouraging the ebb and flow of economic activity, we discourage the labour market flexibility required for an expanding economy. Jobs must follow demand, not be restrained by the state removing the option of a short-term tenancy.
While the economic argument is compelling, so is the practical one. For individuals undertaking a home renovation or experiencing family breakdown, short tenancies provide not only a practical solution but an important reprieve, allowing people to escape the chaos of building works or to rebuild a new life without haste. Have the Government considered the benefits of shorthold tenancies for the tenant? Has the Minister considered both the economic and practical benefits of their existence?
With this Bill, the Government are overseeing a huge change to the rental market. Can the Minister please set out the impact on long-term housing pressures as a result of this ban? In markets with soaring demand and low capacity, is it not the case that short-term tenancies can alleviate some of the pressures that tenants face?
The Government have been consistent in highlighting the perceived drawbacks of short-term tenancies. Of course, as with any housing arrangement, there will inevitably be aspects that are less than desirable, depending on one’s individual circumstances. However, in identifying these challenges, it is only right that the Government also acknowledge and weigh the very real, tangible benefits that short-term tenancies offer to many others. As other noble Lords have mentioned, such tenancies expand the availability of housing which might otherwise remain empty. The decision to impose an outright ban is, in effect, the most extreme course of action—the so-called nuclear option. From these Benches, we cannot help but wonder whether sufficient consideration was given to alternative, more balanced solutions that might have addressed the concerns identified while preserving the flexibility and choice that short-term tenancies provide for so many.
I hope the Minister will carefully reflect on these benefits and acknowledge the convenience of shorthold tenancies, as well as the key role they play in enabling economic mobility and the use of homes which might otherwise remain empty.
Baroness Grender (LD)
What we are trying to achieve with this amendment is a guaranteed fixed period for a developer. Authoritative bodies in this sector have suggested that some kind of guaranteed period does not necessarily mean that Section 21 has to remain. Or is it the Minister’s firm belief that you cannot give a fixed period to a developer in order to encourage construction without an element of Section 21 being there?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We do not want to see Section 21 in place for this. We are talking to the build-to-rent sector about the issues it believes it faces, but I genuinely believe that if somebody is going to be evicted from a property, there must be a reason why they are being evicted. We have provided in the Bill the grounds for why people can be evicted. When I come back to the House on this, I will update noble Lords on the work we are doing with the build-to-rent sector to increase supply. There are fairer ways of doing that than continuing to impose Section 21 evictions on people, just because they happen to have moved into a new-build property.
Baroness Grender (LD)
I thank the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for participating in this short but quality debate. We will go back to our drawing board on this because we think that it is a way of delivering construction. We believe that we can get to a point where this is done without Section 21 being part of it. That was the intention behind the amendment; if it would not achieve that then we will go back and look at it again, because we believe that there must be a way to provide some kind of incentive to increase supply. This is a very modest approach and not about wrecking the Bill or taking 85% of landlords out of the equation, so we will take another look at it. We believe that it can proceed without Section 21 being imposed; clearly the Minister does not, so we will go back to the drawing board. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Private Rented Sector: Affordable Rents
Baroness Grender Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Grender
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure that rents in the private rented sector are affordable.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government entirely understand concerns about the affordability of rents. We have inherited a private rented sector that is failing many low-income renters. The Renters’ Rights Bill will empower tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases, as well as taking practical steps to end the practice of rental bidding and prohibiting landlords from demanding large amounts of upfront rent. In addition, the Government are committed to building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England over this Parliament. This boost to supply is critical to improving housing affordability.
Baroness Grender (LD)
I thank the Minister for her response, but current rents remain unaffordable for the 34% of renters in poverty—a figure likely to rise with the freeze of local housing allowance. Private rents increased by more than 8% last year and market rates are already out of reach for so many. The First-tier Tribunal will not resolve any of these issues. Are the Government considering any form of rent stabilisation?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. We have discussed this in the Chamber before, and the Government have been clear: we do not support rent controls. Heavy-handed rent controls tend to mean higher rents at the start of a tenancy, and they can make it much harder for prospective tenants to find a home. They also encourage the growth of unregulated sub-letting, which can leave the most vulnerable tenants very exposed to higher costs and minimal protections. Those rent controls always come at a cost, often in reduced investment in housing supply and quality standards. We prefer to use this mechanism to strengthen tenants’ rights.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Baroness Grender Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, the Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill and support the fundamental principles in it of rebalancing the relationship between landlord and tenant. We thank the Minister for the meetings so far and look forward to working with her to make progress. We also look forward to hearing the maiden speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brown.
We are particularly supportive of the measures to immediately ban Section 21 eviction notices. Frankly, this change cannot come soon enough for so many, and we owe it to the almost 1 million renters who have been on the receiving end of a no-fault eviction since the change was promised in the 2019 Conservative manifesto. They are only a small fraction of the vast numbers who have lived with the insecurities of the now most common form of tenure—assured shorthold tenancies—since they were first introduced in 1988. Given all the similarities to the previous Renters (Reform) Bill—in particular, on scrapping no-fault evictions—it was so disappointing to see the Conservatives in the other place attempting to block the Bill altogether. They need to deliver on their original promise. This much- heralded but delayed change by the previous Government remains nothing short of a scandal and has left a legacy for tenants that we should have uppermost in our minds during the progress of the Bill.
The promise to ban no-fault evictions followed by dither and delay made, if possible, the market even worse for tenants, prompting a 30% growth in Airbnb short-term lets and taking away even more security of tenure from other tenants. There is one small silver lining: the sector itself has had significant notice of this change and therefore time to prepare for no-fault evictions bans.
Tenants are aptly described as the
“People on the Frontline of Britain’s Housing Emergency”
in Vicky Spratt’s excellent book, Tenants, in which she outlines the ever-widening gaps between those who own and those who rent. All issues, from inequality to fuel poverty, mental and physical ill health, the cost of living and lack of social mobility, are impacted by insecurity of tenure—or a home that you simply cannot rely on. The direct link between being evicted as a tenant and homeless is well documented by, among others, the Local Government Association.
At the heart of this issue is lack of supply of suitable homes. We strongly support the Government’s ambitions to end homelessness, but that needs to be matched with greater ambition to build social and council homes for rent—150,000 per year, which was in our manifesto, along with a programme of insulation for all housing, a planning use change to control second homes and new powers for councils to halt right to buy based on local needs.
Of course, the elephant in the room with the private rented sector is rents, and we on these Benches regret the lack of progress on this issue. Although we welcome the ban on bidding wars, which in turn drive up rent, this Bill still does not deal with the chronic levels of rent increases. Private rent inflation may have slowed down, but it is still rising faster than the CPI. The Renters’ Reform Coalition, which I thank for its briefing, rightly highlights that this will continue to leave open significant increases in rent as a means to evict. As the Renters’ Reform Coalition makes clear, England’s rents as a share of disposable income are some of the highest in Europe, with two-thirds of in-work private renters struggling to pay. This Government’s housebuilding plans will not change the supply crisis for years and will not fix this rent problem. Amendments by our Liberal Democrat colleague Gideon Amos MP linked rent rises to the Bank of England base rate, and we will look at options, such as the CPI or national wage growth, in Committee.
Given the poor condition of so many private lets, with the 2023-24 English Housing Survey highlighting that the private rented sector has the highest proportion of non-decent dwellings at 21%, we welcome the extension of the decent homes standard and the introduction of Awaab’s law across the PRS. However, we have significant concerns about enforcement, which other colleagues will elaborate on. Likewise, we welcome the protections for renters who are on benefits and those with children.
Instability in this area cannot be overstated, given that a quarter of all private renters have lived in three or more homes in the past five years. Therefore, we welcome the 12-month protected period at the start of new tenancies, and we will continue to explore the possibility of another extended period of tenancy guaranteed as an incentive to landlords to build to rent.
We will look to improve the Bill—for example, by supporting those who serve the whole nation in our military and give the ultimate service. In the previous Parliament, our colleague Helen Morgan MP campaigned to ensure that MoD housing was included under decent homes. The Kerslake commission report, Homes Unfit for Heroes, commissioned by John Healey MP, lays bare how poor the standards are. I ask the Minister to let us know the possibility of including service accommodation in this Bill. We live in an uncertain world, and putting our Armed Forces and their families into shoddy and inadequate housing, which impacts health and morale, is a failure of our duty to them.
Finally, my noble friend Lady Thornhill will lead us in our attempts to improve and expand the database. The majority of landlords that we know about—the ones that will participate in this debate or have briefed us—are the ones we can see and who will immediately join the database and ombudsman scheme. They, like the majority of tenants, are responsible landlords—but we know so little. It is the landlords we cannot see about whom we have limited knowledge, information and transparency. A database can be either a tick-box exercise or a significant game-changer on this. I hope the Bill progresses and that it will be the latter.
Tonight, as we speak, a primary school child will be in their third rental in a year and will know the insecurity no child should have to bear: health-defining, future-defining and life-defining. We owe it to that future generation to get this right, but to do it soon.
Local Government Reorganisation
Baroness Grender Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for his question and for his continued interest in rural communities. We believe that part of the process of devolution will mean that the people who are taking the decisions for rural communities will be people who have skin in the game in those rural areas; that is very important. Places with a significant rural population will, on average, receive an increase of around 5% in their core spending power next year, which is a real-terms increase. The rural service delivery grant does not properly account for need, and a large number of predominantly rural councils receive nothing from it. That is clearly not right, and a sign that we need to allocate funding more effectively. We are keen to hear about rural councils, as well as others, as we go through the spending review, so that we can work on what would work best for them in the new funding system.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, no doubt the Minister will be aware of the eye-watering debts of over £2 billion left to the people of Woking by their former Conservative council. What is the level of risk to other local authorities if they are merged with Woking? What analysis have the Government undertaken of chronic failures of financial management, such as Woking, and the likely impact on reorganisations if the Government fail to find a way to resolve a debt of this nature?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Baroness is quite right to point out that there are councils that may be in scope for this programme which have significant debt. We are working through a programme with those councils—Woking is one of them and Thurrock is another. It should not be for people outside those areas to pick up that debt. This is not helped by the fact that our Government have inherited a broken local audit system. For the financial year 2022-23, just 1% of audited accounts were published by the original deadline. That is not good enough. We are working on fixing that, and we will be working through a process with the councils concerned.
National Policy Planning Framework: Housing
Baroness Grender Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Grender
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they have taken to compare the need for affordable housing with the need for council and social housing as part of the National Planning Policy Framework.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I add my tribute to Baroness Randerson and offer my condolences to her family and friends. Her wisdom and experience were greats asset to this House, and she will be missed.
Our Government are committed to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation; I hope we have shown that through our movement. Our revised National Planning Policy Framework reflects the commitment to building a greater share of genuinely affordable homes and prioritising the building of new social rent homes in particular. It is, though, for local authorities to judge the right mix of affordable homes for ownership and for rent that will meet the needs of their communities.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, while the NPPF is welcome, does the Minister share the widespread concern that the technical term “affordable” does not mean affordable to those in acute need? Research by the National Housing Federation and the charity Crisis shows that at least 90,000 social homes a year are required to end homelessness. Will the Minister consider expressly requiring local planning authorities to reflect that acute need within their plans? It includes those who are on housing registers in need of supported housing, rough sleepers and the homeless.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with the noble Baroness that the terms “affordable housing” and “social housing” have sometimes been conflated, with unfortunate consequences. To make clear the priority that we attach to delivering homes for social rent, we are amending the definition of affordable housing. It will be carved out as a separate category, distinct from social housing for rent. I hope that that gives the noble Baroness a sign of our intention. We will expect local authorities to assess the need in their areas, including in all the categories that she mentioned, and to make provision to meet that need in their local plans.
Housebuilding Targets
Baroness Grender Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. I am happy to assure her that we are working across government and with industry to deliver sufficient high-quality training opportunities and build a diverse workforce that is fit for the future. She is quite right to identify that this is a real issue in getting the 1.5 million homes built. To support business and boost opportunity, we are transforming the apprenticeship levy into a growth and skills levy, which will allow employers to invest in a wider range of training and empower them to train and upskill workforces for current and future challenges.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the large housebuilding companies have too much power when it comes to deciding what homes to build, where to build and when to build? Can she tell us how her Government’s NPPF can possibly be delivered without strong and effective “use it or lose it” sanctions to get the 1 million homes built that are shovel-ready, with planning permission already given?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Baroness is quite right to point to that as an issue. We have set up the housing acceleration unit in the department, which I mentioned earlier, to help with that. We want to be quite clear within the National Planning Policy Framework that, where sites are allocated, they should be built out as quickly as possible. There will be follow-up where that is not the case.
Housing Supply and Homelessness
Baroness Grender Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, on leading us in this debate. It is an absolute honour to speak along with so many noble Lords who have dedicated their lives to this issue. In a way, my disappointment is that we are still here making the same case. For me, it is reminiscent of when I first started working at the charity Shelter in the 1990s. Our aim, and that of all who had tirelessly campaigned in this area before us, was simple: to create the circumstances in which we were no longer needed.
So it is with a slightly heavy heart that I see this noble group of housing warriors getting the band back together again. In the past, we have been tantalisingly close to making some forms of homelessness a distant memory—once under the stewardship of the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, and once during Covid. Of course, both times the Government of the day had the not-so-secret weapon of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey of Blackstock. Both these experiences, though, tell us that solving this is possible, so we have to believe that the aim—to end homelessness—can be achieved.
As many noble Lords have said, the current situation could not be more shocking for a G7 nation. Right now, today, each night, just under 160,000 children go to bed in often appalling circumstances in temporary accommodation. Again, this was brought down before, so we know it can be done, and at relative speed.
Select Committees at both ends of this building have been clear and have reported again and again that one of the primary causes of homelessness is the severe shortage of social homes for rent. Social homes for rent are the absolute, healthy bedrock of our mixed-tenure system. The rest of the system cannot exist without them, as was explained so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Shipley. That is why we put in our Liberal Democrat manifesto a target to build 150,000 social homes a year for rent, some delivered through garden cities but above all, through thousands of small-scale community-led developments.
Like others, we worry that setting a target and imposing it without engaging communities and bringing them with you will mean that these laudable aims to build will inevitably fall short. In councils that we run, such as Eastleigh, Cambridge and Portsmouth, we have shown that it is possible to work with communities to deliver, at scale, social housing for rent. In Kingston last year we celebrated the first council flats being built in over 30 years. That is the case across the country—council flats being just a badly remembered thing of the past. That was overseen by the council’s housing lead, Councillor Emily Davey, working with the community and delivering sustainable housing—and not a retrofit needed in sight.
Housing associations have expressed their concern about reaching the Government’s new target. Peabody, for instance, has welcomed the extra £500 million for the current affordable homes programme in the Budget but makes clear that this will not allow the sector to deliver large-scale new homes at the pace required. Last year, Peabody alone spent £500 million on new homes. That gives a little perspective on the current allocation.
When it comes to homelessness, the policy platform we fought on at the last general election was to set and agree long-term measures that cross-cut Whitehall, and we welcome that initiative now. We want to include exempting homeless people from the shared accommodation rate, which makes housing unaffordable for many. We also want to see local authorities given proper funding so that they are better able to deliver the Homelessness Reduction Act. We would introduce a new “somewhere safe to stay” legal duty, which would give people emergency accommodation with an assessment of their needs.
So many of the briefings we received for this debate have identified the lack of social housing stock as the critical problem. Right to buy has played its part in the diminution of stock. That is why the Liberal Democrats would give local authorities the power to end right to buy in their area based on their local need and their local knowledge.
Above all, we called for, welcome and look forward to the ban on forced evictions under Section 21, which all research suggests is a major underlying cause of homelessness today. The woeful snail’s pace of delivery of this change in the law, first promised in 2019, has left in its wake countless individual stories of eviction and homelessness. Crisis estimates that there have been as many as 110,000 evictions since that promise was made.
As well as long-term and lasting solutions, there are some quick fixes that organisations such as Crisis have suggested. I particularly ask the Minister to respond to some of the proposals that have come forward to bring empty homes back into use and to take a look at the Welsh Government’s experience of having delivered that using enforcement officers.
I again congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, on securing this debate. I am very hopeful that when we next meet, progress will have been made.
Landlords: Long-term Rentals
Baroness Grender Excerpts(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
First of all, I would say that the number of people who were able to own their own properties actually fell under the last Government. I am surprised, with the record that we have heard many times in this House of the number of people who are currently on housing waiting lists and 150,000 people in temporary and emergency accommodation, that the previous Government want to stand up and question this issue in the House. The PRS has doubled in size since 2002. We will continue to do what we can to support both landlords and tenants in that sector. We are about to introduce the Renters’ Rights Bill to this House. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have already engaged on that. If there is anybody who has not yet, do get in touch with me, but I look forward to working with the House to deliver a very effective piece of renters’ rights legislation.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that two of the most profound underlying causes of children, the most reluctant tenants of all, being in temporary accommodation—150,000 of them in England alone—are forced evictions and affordability? Does she therefore, like many in this sector who care about this issue, have some cause for concern that the housing allowance has been frozen until 2026 and was not used as an opportunity in the Budget? I ask because there is very welcome legislation coming down the track—but right here, right now, tonight, for 150,000 children, what is the quick solution?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising that important issue. We have looked at local housing allowance, but increasing that even slightly puts a huge pressure on the overall fiscal picture in the country. So it has not been possible to do that this time, because we had to fill the £22 billion black hole that was left to us as a legacy from the other side. We have put £500 million into delivering more affordable housing, taking us to £3.1 billion in total for affordable housing. We have also increased discretionary housing payments and have put back in the household support grant, which would have run out at the end of September because there were no government plans to meet those costs until the end of the year. That will provide some relief for the most deprived families.