Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Main Page: Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Labour - Life peer)Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
“( ) In considering what is reasonable for the purposes of subsection (4), the court shall have regard to all relevant factors including but not limited to the following—
(a) the nature and location of the premises;(b) the nature of the business and the extent to which the activities of the business are comparable to activities carried on at home which are not business activities;(c) whether the business requires any structural change to the premises comprised in the tenancy;(d) the number and frequency of visitors likely to come to the premises in connection with the business;(e) the number and frequency of deliveries and collections of goods likely to occur at the premises in connection with the business;(f) the amount of any noise or other environmental impact likely to arise from the business;(g) the likely effect of the business on the parking of vehicles in the vicinity of the premises; and(h) the proportion of the property used for the business.( ) Where a dwelling-house is let under a tenancy to which subsection (2) applies the landlord and tenant may agree in writing under the terms of the tenancy or in any other document signed by them—
(a) that a particular business, or(b) that a particular description of business, if carried on in the premises, shall be a home business for the purposes of this Part of this Act.( ) Any such agreement shall be binding upon the parties.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 33BH stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stevenson. It deals with the issue of so-called home businesses that take place in rented or leased homes.
At present, landlords who let residential property to tenants who also use their homes for business run the risk of their tenants claiming security of tenure as business tenants under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. To protect themselves from this, landlords usually prohibit any use of the residence for business in the tenancy agreement. However, should the landlord in some way acquiesce to such businesses, the tenant gets security under the 1954 Act, notwithstanding the wording of the agreement. That is why the Government have included Clause 35 in the Bill, which will allow that, where a home business is carried on by a tenant, it should not qualify for security of tenure under the 1954 Act. Landlords could thus accept some working at home by tenants without risking losing control of their property—the tenants having only normal residential security of tenure. Secondly, where a tenant carries on a home business in breach of any prohibition against business use and the landlord gets to know about it—and thus at the moment is seen effectively to acquiesce to it—the Bill as drafted would not give the tenant statutory rights.
The clause seems sensible but my first question is: why is the measure in the Bill? Although we support its intention, we are unaware of any problems, debate or any evidence that led to its inclusion. Helpful though Clause 36 may be, will the Minister outline a little more of the background? We doubt whether it will have much impact, but that is no reason for us to oppose its inclusion. We welcome what it could do but we have questions about the wording, hence the amendment.
The most obvious, indeed crucial question is: what is a home business? The definition in the Bill, which has been described by my noble and learned friends as hopelessly wide, states:
“A home business is a business of a kind which might reasonably be carried on at home”.
I kid you not. That is what the Bill says.
That is fraught with uncertainty. Whether a tenant’s business is one which can reasonably be carried on at home will depend on a great number of variables. Indeed, there is an almost infinite range of businesses which householders carry on at home at present. Probably all of us over the weekend were doing a bit of office work at home. I am excluding civil servants from that; I would hope they had a good weekend off. We have catering, music teachers, tutors, web design, computer programming, craft work, repairing and restoring anything from machinery and vehicles to furniture, books, TVs or musical instruments, hairdressing, jewellery-making, secretarial services, fine art or even Barbara Hepworth’s wonderful sculptures, journalism, charity work, medical, counselling, physical fitness training, accountancy, legal advice, or, to return to the Consumer Rights Bill, dress-making. I know that the Minister understands my particular interest in that.
Whether all of those can reasonably be carried on at home depends on the home. What can be done in the back yard of a remote cottage is rather different from what can reasonably be carried out in a flat on the third floor. So, to assist the courts, and to provide some certainty for landlords and tenants alike, the test of “reasonableness” needs fleshing out. Presumably it must be reasonable from the point of view of the premises—something which is sufficiently close to activities which householders might carry out on their own account, such as sewing, studying, reading, writing, cooking, handicrafts, gardening, DIY, and so on may not seriously impact on the fabric, condition or layout of the premises. Nevertheless, there could be environmental considerations.
Is it reasonable to receive deliveries, customers, clients, patients or students, or to carry out noisy activities when you live in close quarters with your neighbours? Will the business generate an excessive amount of traffic on the roads, creating congestion or parking problems? That will be particularly the case where the Bill will now deny statutory rights to businesses in which the landlord has acquiesced, since there will not be an earlier agreement between the landlord and the tenant over whether what the tenant is doing at home is indeed a home business, given that there is no independent definition of that.
It is for that reason that the first part of our amendment seeks to suggest the factors that the court should take into account—and therefore factors that the landlord and tenant need to be aware of when the court is deciding what can reasonably be described as a home business. The second part would specifically allow a landlord and a tenant to contract out of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, probably providing that they notify the court, as has been possible since the 1970s under some other circumstances.
The success of this probably desirable measure will depend on how any definition is received in the real world, and whether there is sufficient clarity or guidelines to enable both parties—the landlord and the tenant—to know where the statutory rights will fall. The amendment attempts to identify a way forward to provide the clarity needed for the measure to have effect that I assume the Government desire. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, back to the Dispatch Box on the Bill. I start by answering her question about why we are doing this. Clause 35 will help support the further growth of home businesses by removing the current incentive for landlords to bar tenants operating a business from their home. As we have heard already, there are nearly 5 million small and medium-sized businesses in the UK. Of those, 2.9 million are home businesses. Home businesses are of growing importance to the economy, with an increase of half a million since 2010. The Government want the home business sector to continue to flourish. That is why we are committed to do what we can to overcome obstacles, and Clause 35 is a key part of that work. Landlord and tenant bodies agree that that is a sensible step, so why not use this opportunity to act now to help the enterprise culture and the small businesses that we all agree are so important?
For those who rent their home, things can be particularly complicated. Landlords can be wary of letting them run a home business. Indeed, residential tenancy agreements will often include a prohibition on business use. Section 23 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 provides that where there is a business use for a property, a business tenancy exists. Because business tenancies enjoy greater security of tenure, private residential landlords are keen to avoid them, as they fear that it may be more difficult to get their property back at the end of a lease. That is what Clause 35 will address by amending Part 2 of the 1954 Act.
I add that the opportunities created by the digital world, bringing ever more innovations into the marketplace, make that provision even more important. This change could help to encourage the enterprise culture. I think that it is a sensible move and would assist the graphic examples that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, gave, although I think it will take a little longer to get the younger generation sewing again. However, perhaps craft skills are coming through and there is certainly an element there.
I thank the noble Baroness for tabling the amendment, but we are concerned that the effect would be to cause confusion. It would not prohibit the types of business activity listed, but it would create uncertainty as to whether certain types of business carried on in a home would make the home subject to the business tenancy provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act. As I said, currently, Section 23 provides that where there is a business use for property, a business tenancy exists. Because business tenancies enjoy a greater security of tenure, residential landlords are often keen to avoid them.
Clause 35 is aimed to remove that disincentive on landlords when they are considering allowing a home business from their property. Under our proposal, landlords would continue to have a veto. The landlord continues to have a right to impose conditions—which I think is important, because it can relate to matters such as noise, which can be a big issue—or prohibit a home business outright if that seems appropriate to the property in question. However, we believe that the amendment could have perverse consequences, create bureaucracy, disincentivise landlords from being willing to consider a home business and encourage them to set unnecessary conditions.
Let us take an example. Suppose that a tenant were to ask the landlord for permission to operate a home business. The amendment would encourage the landlord to check whether the proposed business fell foul of the factors listed. The landlord might have to judge what constitutes a reasonable number of clients calling at the property, the impact of deliveries, and so on. In the face of that increased burden, landlords might become risk averse and say no. We also have concerns about providing for a binding agreement between landlord and tenant on whether a particular business or description of business carried on in the business should be a home business. That could have a detrimental impact on business tenants—that is, those in premises where business is the predominant use—if they were to lose the rights secured for them by the Landlord and Tenant Act. The security afforded by business tenancies means that tenants can invest in their businesses, building up good will, buying equipment and stock, without fear that they will have to leave the premises before the end of the tenancy.
Amendment 33BH would allow people to define for themselves, by agreement between the landlord and tenant, what a home business tenancy was. Some landlords might seek to use this to exclude business tenants from having the security of tenure provided by the 1954 Act. There is already provision for the exclusion of security of tenure in business tenancies by agreement, and with tested procedures involving notices and declarations by the parties. I believe it would be undesirable for this clause to provide an alternative route for landlords to avoid security of tenure. The tenancy agreement can state in terms that the tenancy is a home business tenancy, as set out in the clause, and the tenancy agreement is legally binding, provided that the tenancy is a home business tenancy within the meaning of the 1954 Act.
I know that the noble Baroness was probing to some extent, and I hope that she has found my explanation of this background useful. I think that this is a concrete and important change, which I commend to the House.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, it was not meant as a probing amendment at all. It was tabled because the very senior advice that I have taken from the top planning chambers in the country says that this is not going to work unless people know what it means; it will end up in court and that is where the definition of a home business will have to be decided. When someone claims, as a residential tenant, “Well, I’m sorry, I’ve been running my business as a speechwriter for the House of Lords at home and am therefore a business, not a home business”, that will have to go to court. The landlord is going to say, “No, it’s a home business because you live there as well”, but the tenant will say, “No, the major thing is that it’s a business”. The advice is absolutely that the courts will need guidance as to what is a home business.
A landlord would be sensible to claim that an enormous business was a home business, just because the person running it also happened to live in the place, because of course that would deny them the right of security as a business. So the landlord will be saying, “This is a home business”, while the person running the business will be saying, “No, this is a normal business and I happen to live here”. I mentioned Barbara Hepworth. Anyone who has been to her house will know that there is a bedroom there, but 80% of the house is her sculpture gallery. Of course, she owned that house. Still, if a house has one room that is a bedsit and nine rooms that are a business, is that a home business?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
The noble Baroness is rightly concerned about this question ending up in court with lots of legal proceedings, which we all agree is what one wants to avoid in good regulation. To some extent, we have thought about that. We have taken a power in the Bill that allows us to further specify the definition if that proves to be the case, so she is right and I am wrong.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
That is why we thought it should go in the Bill rather than waiting for regulations. I think that we share the desire that this should work, but it will work only if landlords and tenants can have confidence. As I say, just because a person running a business from a rented place happens to live there, I assume it is not the intention that they should therefore lose the security that they get under the 1954 Act. This will also open up to quite big businesses, and I wonder what thought has been given to the planning issues that arise from this. Local government certainly needs to think about how big a business would be before there were planning implications.
The Minister said that there were 2.9 million home businesses; she did not of course say how many of those were in rented accommodation as opposed to owner-occupied. Maybe she would be able to write to me about the figures—or she may be getting them at this moment—for how many of those 2.9 million are in rented accommodation. I worry that this is so vague that it will not give certainty and there will have to be test cases in court. Without some guidance from Parliament about what we had in mind for what is probably a welcome and well intentioned measure, the fear is that there will not be enough certainty. We know that landlords are pretty risk averse, for understandable reasons. There will be so much uncertainty that the measure will not be implemented.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I do not have the figure that the noble Baroness would like, so I shall write to her. However, the powers apply only to tenants with a residential tenancy, so there is no risk that someone with an existing business tenancy could lose security. That is an important clarification. It does not affect existing planning requirements either, but I note the point she made. The planning requirements continue to apply. They are complicated, but it does not do anything about planning.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Existing businesses that will lose the right to secure tenure are those where the landlord has acquiesced because he has known about a business being taken on. Until this Bill becomes an Act, those businesses have security, and they will lose that, not necessarily wrongly, but it is not quite correct that all businesses will retain the rights they have. This is something we may come back to. We will certainly take further advice. People who are very active in this field certainly have concerns, and the Minister may also need to check a little more widely on that. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, the amendment is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stevenson. I shall speak also to Amendment 35C in this group. Clause 36 empowers the Competition and Markets Authority to make and publish recommendations about the impact of any proposed legislation on competition. That is clearly to be welcomed. The CMA, after all, exists to promote competition in the interests of consumers and therefore, should laws be proposed that could be detrimental to consumers, we should know about it in advance.
Indeed, the Government recognise that regulation, procurement and other activities can affect markets and therefore envisage the CMA playing a key role in challenging the Government where they are creating barriers to competition. However, there is one problem with the clause. That arises from our failure, when the CMA was created, to persuade the Government to establish a CMA consumer panel analogous to those for the Legal Services Board, Ofcom and the Financial Conduct Authority, or some such similar mechanism, to ensure that real insight from consumer advocates and from the consumer perspective was built into the CMA’s judgment on such matters.
It is a matter of regret that we failed in that, given that the CMA’s primary duty under Section 25(3) of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, which set it up, is to,
“seek to promote competition … for the benefit of consumers”.
It therefore seems essential that the voice of consumers be embedded in the CMA’s view as to whether draft legislation will be to the benefit or detriment of consumers with regard to competition.
Hence, Amendment 35B requires the CMA to undertake its consideration of draft legislation in consultation with consumer advocacy groups. Amendment 35C takes the Government’s new clause one stage further by requiring the CMA to undertake a similar exercise not simply when legislation is proposed but to carry out an annual health check on the state of competition and consumer protection in key markets, including by listening to consumers, consumer advocates and small businesses.
Without consumers at the heart of the Government’s drive to increase competition and tackle the cost of living crisis, any plans or measures are likely to be ineffective. Big business and special interests can always get the ear of Ministers, civil servants and regulators, and big businesses can and do—as we heard earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Deben—take advantage of market weaknesses.
We see this in the failure to pass on reductions in fuel prices and in the banks’ failure to work in clients’ interests. We see it in the bus market, where bus fares have risen by 25%—five times faster than wages. Big bus companies have cut crucial routes that people rely on to maximise their own profits. Indeed, the failure in competition within the bus market costs the taxpayer £305 million a year. We see it in myriad other markets where the consumer is unable to shop around—the monopolies and oligopolies, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, in the earlier group. Indeed, if ever there was a failing market, it is where energy companies have not passed on reductions in wholesale costs to consumers. We have to have a mechanism for action to force such companies to cut their prices when wholesale costs fall, or where phone calls simply cannot get through to the right person, again as described earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Deben. We have to have a mechanism for an annual review of vital markets to identify those where consumers are being taken for a ride.
For years consumers and their representatives knew that energy price cuts were not being passed on to users, but there seemed to be no mechanism for making the Government take action. Labour wants consumer groups, such as Which? and Citizens Advice, to work with the CMA and sector regulators to draw up an annual competition audit or health check of Britain’s economy, which will lead to a programme of action for regulators and the Government. We need this analysis to identify broken markets, so that Ministers and departments can respond accordingly.
Amendment 35C would ensure that the consumers are at the table when priorities for action are decided. Consumers and their advocates should not have to shout from outside. They should be given a direct say in how to tackle abuses or concentrations of power which undermine competition. Without this amendment, decisions as to whether markets are working in the interests of the public will be taken solely by regulators. These sadly have failed to protect small businesses in the banking sector when the mis-selling of interest rate swaps undermined some 40,000 small businesses. They failed retail clients when banks were selling PPI and endowment mortgages. Regulators have failed to ensure that users got a fair deal from the big six energy firms.
In all of those cases, consumers and their representatives were well aware of the serious problems with markets not working competitively, but they were denied a proper hearing. So our approach is to embed the consumer interest into decision-making, so that decisions about priorities for improving competition are taken in the public interest, in the interest of consumers and in the interests of small businesses, and with policymakers having to confront problems rather than leaving them to drag on. The proposed annual competition health check, led jointly by consumers and the competition authorities, would ensure that regulators and politicians act where markets are not working in the public interest. Crucially, it will include consumer organisations and small business representatives, rather than just being done by the CMA. I beg to move.
Lord Deben
I did not intend to speak on this but the noble Baroness has referred to me so often. I had better explain to her that I think that this is nonsense. It is nonsense from beginning to end because it misunderstands how business works and what the Government should do. The last thing we want is the establishment of a collection of people who professionalise the representation of consumers. Any of us who have ever had to deal with the double standards which some of them put forward about their own businesses and the way that they are never quite sure whether they are representing the consumer or some business operation which they have, which is part of the way in which they support themselves, recognise that this is not sensible. What is sensible is to have a proper organisation whose job is to ensure proper competition.
The Government ought to be concerned about having proper competition. I would be strongly opposed to the idea that the only people concerned with proper competition are the consumers. Government and the competition authorities should both be committed to ensuring competition. Decent companies, of course, can be very much in favour of competition until they see that there is an advantage if they are monopolistic. I do not blame them for that: it seems to me perfectly simple that everybody would like to have a nice, comfortable life in which they do not have to compete with anyone else. You therefore need a balance in society where you constantly refresh the market; you constantly make the market work. However, the idea that you do that by way of consumer representatives misses the point; we have to make government do it. That is what the Government are there for; it is not what Which? is there for. Which? is there precisely to be outside the system and to shout. Government is supposed to run the system so that there is proper competition. I do not want government to be excused from that.
Therefore, I do not agree with these amendments. I hope that the Minister will recommit the Government to ensuring proper competition. They should ensure, too, that the Competition Commission has the powers, the resources and the intent to achieve the best level of competition possible. We should also begin to have a bit more of the philosophical background to this, which is essential if we are to win the battle. If we cannot have competition as we ought to have it, frankly, the argument for the free society is difficult to maintain. If that is important, let us make it the purpose of government and the Competition Commission, and not say that it has to be run on a sort of old-fashioned, tripartite basis, which is to allow the Government to get off the hook. They should be on that hook firmly for promoting competition.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I thank the Minister but her suspicions, as ever, are completely accurate. We do not agree.
We are getting close to the time to finish, but I have two things to say. The problem with the CMA or for any of us who are legislators, in government, or whatever, is that the impact of malfunctioning markets falls most heavily on consumers. They are the ones who get ripped off when markets do not work. Not to have embedded in discussions in both identifying those problems and in looking at solutions the very people who feel the whack of it seems to be a mistake in legitimacy terms.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I agree that consumers are absolutely central to this. I have said it on many occasions, but I believe that we have a reinvigorated CMA. The processes for engagement with everybody, including small businesses and consumer groups, which are the subject of the second amendment, are very strong. It would be a mistake, as others have said, to put yet more requirements and red tape into this area because I fear that that would have an adverse effect on the ability of the CMA to tackle and use its competition powers to look at these very important markets in the way in which it is looking at energy.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
The Minister might well say that. However, the Which? manifesto—I gather there is a general election in the offing—is that the CMA and all sector regulators should carry out routine, cross-examining analysis on the state of consumer competition. That may sound familiar to those who have been reading the amendment. The Minister may be very confident that consumer representatives feel that everything is tickety-boo—sorry, Hansard—but that is not how the consumer organisations themselves see it, and they have called for this. That is an important element. They still feel that they are shouting from the outside.
I take very much the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, on what the problem is, as someone who has both run a lobbying organisation and an embedded consumer body within a regulator. The difference in the impact that one could make is enormous. Shouting from the outside one tends to do late. Indeed, I think the Minister gave it away when she said that consultation could delay something. The suggestion I hear from that is that we will have our report and then we will consult on it. That is not what we are trying to do.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
There are systems within the CMA set-up, including the CPP, which allows it to consult on things. Who knows what the exact facts are, but that is how the system is designed. It is to try and give pre-eminence to competition which is done in a way that is envied by other member states I visit. They are very concerned both about competition and consumers.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
The Minister thinks that we are not very far away. She is saying “Do it in consultation” and I am saying that, too. I tabled an amendment about consultation and the noble Baroness is saying that we are doing it in consultation but does not want this amendment because she does not want to do it in consultation. That is not quite an accurate portrayal of what we are saying but it sounds as if we are closer than maybe the Minister wants to admit. Having a review of how something will affect the competition and asking the CMA that is meant to do this only for consumers and not do it in consultation would be strange. Therefore, adding the words,
“in consultation with consumer advocacy groups”,
seems easy. That was the first amendment.
On the second amendment, the idea is to make sure that all the time somebody is asking, “Are there failures in the market?”. The difference between us is that it sounds as if everything is going well, yet our experience is that consumers are not always getting a good deal from parts of the market. The system that is set up is not good enough. We have been in government. My noble friend was actually in No. 10 but he obviously was not doing enough at the time. My other noble friend was a Minister, so it clearly goes back a long way. The idea is that we should have a driving mechanism, which is what the second amendment is about. The first amendment is important and one to which we should return. The idea of excluding those who are most affected by the lack of competition cannot be right, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.