Climate Change: Wildfire Strategy and Action Plan

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

The noble Earl made an important point. I highlight that the responsibility for land management policies sits with my colleagues in Defra. I understand there are a number of methods that land managers may use to mitigate wildfire risk. Defra recognises that, in certain circumstances, prescribed burning may be the most important tool. Defra encourages landowners and land managers to adopt good-quality wildfire management plans and to use sustainable methods to manage habitats.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, the Minister is absolutely right to describe climate change as the driver for the wildfires. Mitigation is always good in land management plans and so on, but what about the initial point of climate change? What more can the Government do? Can they go further and faster on various issues?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right. I have said before about climate change. I understand the Met Office predicts that the UK will experience more frequent and intense weather extremes. It is widely believed that the impact of climate change is likely to increase and intensify fire incidence. We are already doing so much. We are the leading department for wildfire response and own wildfire risk in the national risk register. We are looking at relationships and co-ordinating across government between key wildfire stakeholders. We have already appointed a national resilience wildfire adviser, who we will work closely with, and are working with the NFCC on the very important issues the noble Baroness outlined.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I shall speak very briefly, because the noble Lord, Lord Black, covered his two amendments very thoroughly. I do not have pets myself, but I declare that I have a daughter who has recently taken the tenancy of a house, and she has children, a dog and two cats. It was quite difficult for her to make sure that they could all live together, so I understand that a lot of people would have to lose their pets, and I think that is an incredible shame.

I thank the Dogs Trust, Mars Petcare and Battersea Dogs & Cats Home for their briefings and work on this, which were very thorough. Amendment 118 would provide security for pet owners in rented accommodation —knowing that, once granted, consent cannot be withdrawn. If this was tabled in the other place by the current Minister, I assume that he is going to accept this amendment, and that the noble Baroness the Minister will tell us that today.

Amendment 125, which I have also signed, would go a long way towards ensuring that blanket no-pet policies cannot continue. Battersea Dogs & Cats Home has described the second most common reason that pets are given up to it as because of rental restrictions. That seems extremely hard. Although I do not have any pets, I understand the value of pets to people in all sorts of ways, and I hope that we can have some success with these amendments.

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

I shall speak to Amendment 126A and to support the noble Earls, Lord Caithness and Lord Leicester. I had not intended to speak on this, but it is a point that there is a big difference between pets in rural properties and pets in urban properties. Speaking as someone who lets rural properties, I have never had any problem with stopping tenants bringing their pets, but I would mention that cats are a particular problem in certain areas. I think that the very carefully drafted amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, makes a great deal of sense in this respect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 133 in my name and that of Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. This amendment would require landlords to grant permission for home adaptations that constitute reasonable adjustments where these have been recommended by local authority assessments.

Disabled individuals in the private rented sector often face significant barriers in accessing essential adaptations that allow them to live safely, independently and with dignity. According to the English Housing Survey for 2022, 21% of private renters live in homes that fail to meet the decent home standards and 16% of private renters with a long-term illness or disability are in homes with at least one category 1 hazard, such as the risk of falls or inadequate heating. These conditions are not only uncomfortable; they can actively endanger health and undermine independence. The Family Resources Survey for 2022-23 reports that 24% of people in the UK are disabled, amounting to approximately 16 million individuals. With such a significant proportion of the population affected, the case for making housing adaptable and accessible is both moral and practical.

We know that many disabled renters face long delays, refusals or restrictive conditions when requesting simple modifications. Even small adjustments such as installing grab rails, ramps or stairlifts can make the difference between a person being able to remain in their home or being forced to move, rely on care or live in unsafe conditions. This amendment seeks to remove those barriers by ensuring that tenants can make necessary changes, subject to the existing checks and balances of local authority assessments. It offers a proportionate, workable solution that respects landlords’ rights while upholding the basic needs of tenants.

The amendment would also help to reduce demand on already stretched social housing by enabling more disabled people to remain in private accommodation that suits their needs. Given that nearly a quarter of the population is disabled, the need for accessible and safe housing is clear and pressing. This amendment offers a practical step to ensure that those who need adaptations are not denied them by process, delay or indifference.

I urge noble Lords to support this amendment in order to make real the promise of equality under the law and to ensure that disabled renters can live in homes that support their independence, health and dignity. I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, my Amendments 178 and 191, along with Amendment 133 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, highlight some of the challenges that disabled people face living in rented accommodation. Life is hard if you have to live with a disability, and it makes sense if where you live can help you have as much of an active life as possible. When we talk about disabled people, we are not just talking about wheelchair users; we are talking, for example, about people who might react badly to certain colours or intensity of lighting. Step-free access these days ought to be almost automatic, given our ageing population.

The sad reality is that Britain’s housing stock has not been designed with disabled people in mind, and the provision of adaptations for disabled housing is quite scarce. My Amendment 191 would give people reassurance that they can ask about and discuss disability adjustments when looking for somewhere to live, without being disadvantaged. Amendment 178 would take this further and give tenants a right to make minor adaptations for disabilities without needing consent from the landlord.

Taken together, these amendments would support people with disabilities to live healthier, happier lives by ensuring that they have specific rights to meet their needs. I hope that the Minister can take this issue away and look at it, as there are some simple ways forward that will have a huge beneficial impact on disabled people and their families.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I think the objective of the noble Baroness’s amendment is commendable. I worry, however, that if a property is altered, it will be limited by the assessment made by occupational health, within the limitations of local authority budgets and what the cost is estimated to be. In some properties, particularly older ones, these alterations can be very substantial.

The question arises: what happens if the tenant leaves the property and it has to be reinstated? That would be a relatively simple operation for a straight stairway, but not all properties are like that. Installing a lift would be a major structural operation. I wonder whether the noble Baroness could assess what the implications would be when someone left a property and how it would be reinstated. Reinstatement can often be more costly than the installation.

With regard to undertaking minor amendments, it depends on what we mean by minor. If building control consent is not required and people alter a property, they can undermine the structure very simply. It is not difficult—a lot of older properties may not have the same structural integrity as more modern ones. If people can say that a change is only minor, what is the boundary and what are the limitations if we have no definition of what a minor alteration is? If someone starts interfering with the structure of a property without the requirement of building control consent, there will be difficulties ahead, as there can be implications for the adjacent property. If various adaptations are needed in a terraced house, it can affect properties on either side.

Who would pay for the removal of the adaptations in the first place? Although the noble Baroness has tabled a very well-meaning amendment, I fear that, if given an inch, people would take a mile because they would not want to bother with getting the various consents. People could undertake quite substantial and perhaps even risky amendments to property without consent. Again, the question arises: how do we reinstate them afterwards?

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, my Amendments 88, 91, 94, 97, 100 and 101 appear in this group. Before I speak to the individual amendments, my general observation is that I do not have great enthusiasm about several of them, but they have been put to me and I thought it necessary to have them aired in this Committee.

Amendment 88 would enable landlords to claim costs against the tenant when the landlord succeeded after the tribunal confirmed the rent increase. This follows the normal rule in front of all tribunals and courts in our land of costs following the event, the event being who won the dispute, and the costs therefore have to be picked up by the loser. Having said that, I have a reservation about this amendment, because it could be a deterrent against tenants challenging an increase in rent, which is undesirable.

In speaking to Amendment 91, I will speak also to Amendments 94, 97 and 100. All these amendments seek to establish that the increase in rent should be calculated from the expiry of the landlord’s notice for the increase rather than the date of the tribunal’s decision. I tabled this amendment because there is quite a noticeable delay in decisions of tribunals, which means the landlord does not get his increase in rent until several months later.

Amendment 101 moves to a different subject: that the rent payable on the decision of the tribunal should be paid in equal monthly instalments within six months of the tribunal’s determination—that speaks for itself.

I am just looking at my list of amendments to speak to and I think I have got there; I have completed my comments on all of them. I say again that I do not speak to them with great enthusiasm. I spoke with great enthusiasm on Thursday in supporting Amendment 60 from the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, and my own Amendments 165 and 166. Unfortunately, my enthusiasm for these amendments has not so far permeated to my noble friend on the Front Bench, but I hope that they will do later.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I rise with huge enthusiasm for my amendments. Amendment 90 in this group relates to Amendment 89 in the following group, so I will speak just once. I have been told to call them probing amendments; really, I would like to push them to a vote. In fact, I would like the Minister to accept them because I think they are very good. They are similar to probing amendments put down by my colleague Carla Denyer in the other place and aim to ensure that tenants have a way of benefiting from energy efficiency improvements where the Government have given landlords the money to make them.

I would like the Minister to think about who profits from the government subsidy. Are the Government interested only in increasing the profits of landlords or should tenants benefit as well? Triple-glazed windows and wall insulation mean lower energy bills for the tenant, but that makes absolutely no difference to them if the saving is cancelled out by higher rents.

Take, for example, this case study provided by Generation Rent: Maya lives with her husband and children in a home they rent from a private landlord. They had a lot of energy efficiency work done, which was paid for by a government grant. They were eligible for it because they received benefits. However, Maya came to Citizens Advice for help when the landlord asked for a £500 rent increase after her family had been through all the disruption of getting their home upgraded. You can imagine the dust, the dirt, the noise and the general disruption of having workers around all the time.

This increase would have left Maya’s family facing a £900 shortfall between their local housing allowance and their rent, making it absolutely unaffordable for them to stay in their home. Maya tried to negotiate the rent with the landlord but has now been issued with a Section 21 eviction notice. Maya and her husband believe that now the property is in an improved condition, thanks to the grant funding they secured, the landlord wants to find more affluent tenants who will pay a higher rent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I signed Amendment 77 because it is a really sensible amendment. My Amendment 275 goes a little further. If I was enthusiastic about my Amendment 90, I am delirious about my Amendment 275.

Back in 2001, I was the Green Party member of the London Assembly. Our group persuaded the Mayor, Ken Livingstone, to set up a Living Wage Commission. It looked at what it really cost to live in London, rather than what the minimum wage paid. The commission then went about the work of persuading employers to sign up to a living wage, rather than the inadequate minimum wage. It was a real success, one that Tory and Labour mayors have kept going. It used common sense and facts instead of relying on market forces, and many people had easier lives as a result.

I now suggest a living rent commission to do a similar job, with local mayors given the power and discretion to bring in rent controls that match the conditions in their area. We need this simply because the privatisation of the rental market since the 1980s, with a decline in social housing and the right to buy, has a been a disaster for poorer people and, of course, young people. We have a two-tier economy in which the rich get richer and the rest of us barely manage to tread water. Because the rich can buy only so many yachts and overpriced handbags, they spend their money on buying assets, which often means properties. When BlackRock buys thousands of properties for rent in the UK and another US investment firm, Blackstone, spends £1.4 billion doing much the same, what chance do a couple earning an average income have of getting on the property ladder? We have a younger generation working hard but being sucked dry every month by a rental system that benefits the rich and big corporations.

The Resolution Foundation found that private renters were spending on average a third of their income on housing costs. This is getting worse rather than better, and it is not just a London problem. Rightmove reports that asking rents outside London have risen 60% since 2020, far outstripping inflation and wage growth.

Rent control is an established part of private renting in 16 European countries, so why not here? If the Government want to save money, bring in rent controls. Between 2021 and 2025, the Government are set to spend £70 billion of taxpayers’ money on housing benefit, with an additional £1.74 billion annual spend on temporary accommodation. Why not save money on housing benefit and use that to build more social housing, and reduce the millions of pounds spent every month on temporary accommodation? I have heard a lot from this Government about affordable housing; I have not heard quite so much about social housing. We need to bring it back into use.

Creating a living wage in London made sense because people in low-income jobs spend nearly all they have on just getting by, and by giving them more money you benefit the local economy because they go out and spend it. By contrast, the more money that goes to rich people and corporations, the more that money forces up the price of homes as they outbid everyone to buy more assets.

The Government can break that cycle by establishing a living rent. When one in five private tenants are spending half their wages on rent, our economy is not working for everyone. The Government are doing their best with this legislation, but if you want real change then we need big ideas—like a living rent.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I do not share the delirium of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for the reintroduction of rent controls, not least because I was a Housing Minister in the 1979-83 Parliament, which dismantled the rent controls that had strangulated the private market.

I want to add a brief footnote to the excellent speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, on Amendments 79, 84 and 85. Of the many reasons he gave, the last one attracted me. I see it as avoiding all the problems that arose in the last debate on the Government’s proposals for dealing with rent increases, in which there is no incentive for the tenant not to appeal. We all listened to the Minister’s defence of what is proposed. I may have misread the mood of the Committee, but I am not sure she carried the Committee with her.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, set out the reasons for avoiding overloading tribunals with appeals by inserting a formula for rent increases for four years. Other amendments propose different formulae. In the other place, the Minister explained that he wanted to avoid rent controls. I fully understand that institutional investment will be deterred by the reintroduction of rent control, which effectively nearly ended the private rented sector. The proposals in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best, to restrict increases to RPI to four years, strikes the balance between rents falling out of line with market rents and the regime proposed in the Bill, with all the risks that were referred to in the last debate. Over four years, it is unlikely that there will be a serious deviation between RPI and rents.

I did a little research on this; the average annual rent inflation in the UK from 1989 to 2023 was 3.71%. I recognise that figure may have been depressed by rents in the public sector. The long-run average in RPI is 3.6%, so there is not a lot of difference between those two figures.

My final point, which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Best, is that the Minister and I are at one in wanting long-term institutional investment in rented accommodation. In our last two exchanges at Oral Questions, she has confirmed that we are at one on this. The institutions want the rent to go up each year, either in line with RPI, as proposed in the amendment, or in line with market rents, as in the Bill. They do not want reasonable increases to be regularly challenged by tenants who can simply defer any increase by appealing. What consultations has the Minister had with the pension funds, insurance companies and long-term institutional investors about whether they prefer the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Best, or want to live with all the risks in the Bill? She may not have the answer at the moment, but I hope she will consult with those people, whom we want to invest in housing, and see which of these alternative measures they are in favour of.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I rather like the look of Amendments 26 and 27 from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and look forward to hearing her describe them. They also relate to my Amendment 142, which I will now speak to.

The Bill restricts a landlord to four instances where they can recover their property and require a tenant to leave. One of these is if the landlord is selling the property. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that, where a landlord seeks to sell a property under the new ground 1A but fails to do so, the property is made available again on the rental market without unnecessary delay.

The Bill requires that the property is on the market for sale for at least 12 months before, if no sale is forthcoming, it can be re-let. Market statistics show that typically about 20% of rental properties taken off the rental market do not sell and come back to the rental market. Savills puts the figure higher, at 33%. According to Hamptons, on average properties come back as available to rent after about 90 days, or three months. Where properties do sell, Zoopla figures indicate that the period between first marketing and completion is typically six months. This amendment responds to these facts and reduces to six months the period when the property is required to be unavailable to rent.

I move from the market facts to the Government’s approach. I am very grateful to the Minister for the opportunity that we had to discuss this and the understanding I obtained of the Government’s thinking. I understand that the Government’s concern is that landlords seeking to increase the rent might claim the property is on the market as a means to obtain vacant possession, apparently expecting much higher rent thereafter. They would leave it standing empty for, say, six months with no rental income, and then re-let it not just at a higher rent but at one that would both recover the rent lost in that six-month period and obtain a higher ongoing rent. The assertion is that making the required period 12 months would make such assumed motivation and behaviour unworkable economically.

I have struggled without success to find a period as long as 12 months credible for this purpose. So I ask the Minister: if the current rent on a property is for some reason set below the market rate, would it not be possible for the landlord simply to seek an increase to the market level in the normal way, rather than going through the convoluted processes and expense involved in removing the tenant, putting the property on the market and then re-letting it? If the rent is close to the market rate, it is surely unrealistic to expect that a landlord would be able to leave the property empty for six months, with ongoing costs but full loss of income, and then rent it out again at an uncompetitive rate, well above the market rate, in order, as the Government’s thinking seems to be, to recover six months of losses and then settle at what would be, I repeat, by definition, an uncompetitively high rent. I just do not see how that would have a chance of working.

To give a quick numerical example, a landlord receiving £2,500 a month in rent who puts the property on the market and receives no rent for just six months would, after leaving aside any other costs incurred in departing the tenant and marketing the property, lose at least £15,000 of rental income. To recover this over the subsequent six months and raise a base rental amount to, say, £3,000 per month compared with the £2,500, which for our evil, rapacious landlord is a pretty modest increase of £500, would mean seeking to rent out the property at £5,500 a month—a 220% rent increase over just a six-month period. If Mr Rapacious wanted to recover his losses faster, say in one quarter—three months—the rent would have to go up to £8,000 a month, a 320% increase in rent over just six months.

I must therefore say to the Minister that just six months off the market is easily more than enough to make evicting a tenant simply to achieve a rent increase a highly implausible strategy. Requiring it to be off the market for a full 12 months is not only unnecessary but a distorted intervention that simply reduces the availability of rental accommodation.

Finally, I draw to noble Lords’ attention the two provisions included in the amendment. First, the property would have to have been demonstrably available to purchase on the open market at a fair market price with no suitable offers received and, importantly, the tenant and the courts could require evidence of these points and would be able to decide whether the landlord had made genuine attempts to sell. Amendments 26 and 27, which are coming up shortly, I believe, are also very helpful in this area.

Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) Order 2025

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

That a Humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) Order 2025, laid before the House on 11 February, be annulled, as it damages the democratic accountability of local authorities to local residents, and has not been subject to full and proper consultation (SI 2025/137).

Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I was going to pause for a moment to see how many people flooded out; how nice it is to have your Lordships all here.

I thank the Minister for taking the time to discuss and explain the Government’s thinking on this decision to postpone some elections for at least a year. The promise to reorganise local government was in the Labour Party’s manifesto, but the method to be used was not, so this statutory instrument is not delivering a manifesto promise and therefore this House is well within its rights to vote against the proposition.

It is always a bad idea to cancel elections at the best of times, and this is clearly not the best of times; in fact, one could say it is the worst of times. We have more cuts to services at the moment than we have had for some time; they are already on their knees. We have council taxes going up again as people pay more for less. Local government is in a bit of a state, so I do not see the common sense in delaying elections and then starting them up or running them a year later with a plan to allow the current councils to devise the next move towards reorganisation. People have a right to vote—that is what being in a democracy means—and the timetable is set out and understood by the general public, so changing that seems a little unprincipled.

It is hard to think of anything less democratic than cancelling elections ahead of a significant change in local democracy; it is straight out of an authoritarian playbook. Creating a devolved mayoralty by cancelling county council elections just seems odd—in fact, nonsensical—and again is undemocratic at the very least. This rushed decision means that voters will not have the chance to have their say on new councillors for at least a year. That means that the councils that have delayed elections do not actually have a mandate to do the reorganisation that the Government are asking them to do. Voters should be able to decide which councillors will have the opportunity to plan for the new structure. Local political parties ought to put such plans into their manifestos for voters to see and vote for or against.

A lot of people who could potentially vote in May in the postponed elections will now be denied the chance to protest, complain and elect people who have a different vision of how their area should be run. I am told by a councillor in East Devon District Council that the council has already begun acting in line with the proposed reorganisation, despite no public consultation taking place due to an alleged lack of time, which is something that we have heard from the Government as well. Decisions have therefore been delegated to unelected officers and executives, raising clear concerns about democratic accountability and statutory obligations under the Localism Act 2011. In addition, the councillor admitted that neither councillors nor the electorate have a clear understanding of how this organisation will work or even what it will be, yet actions are being taken regardless. It seems that local authorities are already acting under the influence of centralised restructuring before it has even been democratically validated.

Is it really for the Secretary of State to select which elections can go ahead and which cannot? Does it not set a dangerous precedent to allow a Secretary of State to make these decisions? It is not a national emergency like Covid, when we understood why elections were postponed and which justified that decision. Do we accept that, for whatever good reason the Government think, the Secretary of State can disrupt the election cycle and delay elections to a convenient time? That is more than authoritarian, it is almost Trumpian—and I have to ask, is it legal? Earlier I consulted a member of the Bar, who is not in his seat. He said, “Oh, it depends”, which is probably what I should have expected. This fatal Motion would green-light the postponed elections to go ahead. But Labour have tabled this vote at the last possible moment on the last possible day so that the Government can now say to us, “It’s too late to go ahead”.

We are going to have mayoral elections next year, in 2026; I understand that the delayed elections will all be held then. Can the Minister reassure me that all delayed elections will be run next year? Then, in 2027, the new shadow principal authority will be elected. Again, this is quite fast. I understand that the Government promised this and therefore they need to move fast, but I am very concerned about the democratic processes here. Can the Minister confirm that this means that some councils and some councillors could be in post for three years beyond their original mandate?

There is also the problem of this being not about devolution at all but about making it easier for the Government to liaise with fewer stakeholders—that is, mayors. This is sucking power upwards and is not devolution at all. It is about the Government making life easier for themselves and giving local people less say in what happens in their local area.

Strategic planning decisions will be taken out of the hands of people who know the area and given to the mayor, who could take decisions against the interests of local residents. This is a reason not to rush into postponing elections. I am concerned about whether there has been an assessment of whether this arrangement will save money. Will it improve efficiency and support social cohesion? Will it give local people more access to knowledge and decision-making? If there is a report or an assessment, I am curious about who wrote it and when. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers, but clearly what is happening is not democratic. On that principle alone, I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I have relevant but not direct interests as a councillor and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

Elections are the bedrock of our democracy and should not—indeed, must not—be cancelled. Some 5.6 million people are being denied the right to vote this May in elections to seven county councils and two unitary councils. The critical question is, why have the Government agreed to such an anti-democratic measure? The Secretary of State’s justification is that the Government have what they are choosing to describe as an

“ambitious programme of local government reorganisation”

and devolution that will eventually see the demise of councils based on historic counties and the abolition of district councils. In their place will be unitary councils with a population of 500,000, making them much larger than any of the London boroughs. Some yet-to-be-agreed combination of councils will then elect a single person, a mayor, with considerable powers on, for instance, strategic planning—as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—where the mayor will be able to allocate land for development without the agreement of residents.

The nine councils with cancelled elections were assessed by the Secretary of State to be more prepared than most in their reorganisation plans, and that therefore it

“would be an expensive and irresponsible waste of taxpayers’ money”

to hold elections

“to bodies that will not exist, and where we do not know what will replace them”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/2/25; col. 767.]

However, in a meeting with the Minister it became clear that the reason for elections being cancelled is that the first step in consulting residents and interested parties had begun in February and would continue until April during the election period. This, rightly, was not acceptable. The option that does not seem to have been considered was to delay the elections until June. That has occurred in the recent past, on more than two occasions, and would both accommodate the need to consult and enable a new mandate to be given to decision-makers.

Furthermore, the cancelled elections will apparently take place in 2026, when it is expected that there will be elections for a new mayor and councillors to the county councils, which will still exist, and district councils. That is the advice we have been given. County councils and district councils will then make decisions on the geography of new unitary authorities. A new mandate from the electorate is therefore absolutely essential before those decisions are made, and not after—which is what will happen if these elections are cancelled.

Had we had elections, it would have had the benefit of alerting residents to the major changes being proposed, and getting their views direct to councillors. They would have been able to elect those they agree with and not elect those they do not agree with. That wide discussion is obviously not seen to be desirable by the existing council leadership—who called for the cancellation of the elections—and the Government.

It is on this particular aspect—the discussion element of this decision—that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has raised concerns and drawn them to the attention of the House. The first of these concerns is about the extent and depth of the opposition to the cancellation of elections. The committee is highly critical of the Government for having failed to provide a response to the issues raised. Can the Minister provide a response—which should have been given to the concerns raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee—to the House before this vote is taken?

Surrey County Council is the exception to the situation I have described, because the reason for the cancellation of its elections is due to the dire financial state of some of its councils—one in particular has debts of more than £1 billion. The Government are enabling the county council, which is also in debt, to push through a reorganisation against the will of the districts. This is a democratic disgrace.

The Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is deficient in its statement, in that it fails to mention the substantial purpose, which is the reorganisation and devolution plans of the Government. It is most unfortunate that the noble Baroness was unable to agree to a single Motion to Annul that had been the subject of a tentative agreement last week. If the noble Baroness puts her Motion to a vote, we on these Benches will abstain, in favour of voting for the stronger and more comprehensive Motion in my name.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I hear the noble Baroness’s view, but the councils that have come forward feel that they need that reorganisation to enter properly into the devolution process. If we are going to get powers and funding out of this bit of Westminster and out to the areas, that elected representation at local level is key.

The Motions put forward by the noble Baronesses would be an unprecedented step by the House of Lords, with serious constitutional and practical consequences. The Motions undermine the convention of the primacy of the Commons and the principle of delegated powers, which have been given in primary legislation granted here and have been previously used in this way. All appropriate steps were taken, and both process and precedent carefully followed.

A vote to agree with these Motions for Annulment at this stage, the evening before the last day by which elections must be called, would throw areas into chaos, damaging the safe running of those elections and confusing the live consultations that are under way, in which we are receiving significant public interest, with, as I said, over 13,000 responses already. The people engaged believe, as we do, that the order is in the interests of the people we all serve. The Motions would slow down the delivery of the benefits of mayoral devolution and strong unitary local government to those areas. It is these Motions, not the order they object to, that are damaging to local democracy. I urge you in the strongest terms to deny them.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I forgot to mention that I am also a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. A lot of issues were raised and the Minister has given a very full answer, which I am sure I will read with great interest in Hansard tomorrow. Clearly, she and the Government will be held to account on that.

It seems a little mean to accuse us of bringing this so late to your Lordships’ House when actually it is the Government’s timetable that we are operating to. We had no choice. The fact that it is 7 pm on the night before is not our choice; it is the Government’s choice to do it, so the Government have made it too late to do this.

There is also the fact that Labour has completely changed the meaning of devolution. What is happening is not devolution; it is actually sucking power upwards. My Motion is not about devolution but about the way it is being done. I think that is deeply undemocratic, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, had to say about it. I am quite disappointed that the Conservatives, His Majesty’s Opposition, could not vote for a fatal Motion. I did use their wording in my fatal Motion to encourage them, but clearly that did not work. If the Government are wrong—on this side of the Chamber we all agree that they are wrong—surely we want to draw that mistake to their attention. They are making a terrible mistake, and if we are not going to draw their attention to something like this now, when are we going to do it?

I also regret that the Liberal Democrats did not reach out before tabling their Motion. That is a real shame. I am not known for my powers of compromise, but I am, I think—I hope—known for my principles, and I would have done my best to come to some agreement. The Liberal Democrats did not attempt that, so to me what they are doing now looks like game playing, not a principled move. Surely a fatal Motion is a fatal Motion, and whether you vote for mine or for theirs, it does the same thing: it draws attention to the fact that many of us are not happy about what is happening. We care about local democracy, not game playing.

Affected councillors and residents do not have a vote here, but we do, and there are times when we really ought to use that vote for the common good. I feel that is not happening this evening. I hate to waste the time of your Lordships’ House, despite the fact that it is only 7 pm—it is not even my bedtime yet, and I go to bed very early.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Too much information!

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Who said that?

I do not play games and I vote on my principles, so I am going to withdraw my Motion. I will vote for the Lib Dems’ Motion, but I am appalled at their behaviour this evening and I think it will come back to haunt them.

Motion withdrawn.

Solar Panels

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We have had issues around energy efficiency improvements to heritage and listed buildings. It is important to get the balance here right, though. Of course, we want to drive energy efficiency and we will be working with all the conservation associations, including Historic England, to look at what more we can do to drive energy efficiency as effectively as possible while still preserving the very important heritage aspects of the buildings in this country.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, could the Government consider making it a legal requirement? Even the terrible Government of the past 14 years tried to encourage people. But that does not work. You need to make it a legal requirement. And it is popular. I do not understand why this Government do not go for a popular policy for a change.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We have a whole range of popular policies, which, I suggest, is why we are here and the other side are not. We are considering measures. We put extra measures into the national planning policy framework and we will continue to do what we can. I like to encourage people where possible. If that does not work, we may have to look again. It is very important that we do everything we can to sell the benefits of having solar panels and other energy-efficient methods of generating heat and other forms of energy and we will continue to do that.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I, too, declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I offer a very warm welcome to the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Silvertown, and the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of wherever it was—

[Noble Lords]

Sedgefield.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Sedgefield—unforgettable, obviously.

I want to point out to the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, that he is not going to beat me in a competition between who has more in common with the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, because my grandfather was a miner in south Wales. In fact, he was killed in a mining disaster, the largest there has ever been in Britain. I also grew up on a council estate until I was 18 years of age and left home for college.

I love so much about this Bill. It ends no fault evictions, it helps to protect tenants from damp and mould and it makes it easier for renters to keep pets. I support those things 100%. Of course, the Government have responded well to suggested amendments, such as stopping excessive demands for rent up front. I am even hopeful that the Minister might give me a positive response to an amendment which I will table later, tabled by my colleague Carla Denyer MP in the other place, which talks about the needs of people with disabilities, both visible and invisible. It would be absolutely wonderful to get something in the Bill to improve the situation for disabled renters in the private rented sector, and to send a message to those landlords who lock them out of the sector that it is not acceptable that so many people struggle to get permission for the most basic of adaptations, or face discrimination in renting in the first place.

The Bill is not perfect, but it is the kind of legislation I was hoping this Government might put forward, and I would like to suggest some big ideas about what the Government should do next. The big things that are missing, and the main reasons why many young people are choosing to vote Green instead of red these days are rent controls and an end to the right to buy. We need a living rent to match the living wage. This would be similar to the living wage scheme that we Greens proposed and got the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, to agree to 24 years ago.

There would be a national commission to decide the living rent with input from local authorities and mayors. It would examine factors like local income in different areas, the size of properties and local market conditions, plus the condition of the properties themselves. We should not have a situation where an estimated one in 10 tenants is spending 60% of their income on rent.

With rents going up rapidly year by year, this is not just an issue of a few hotspots; rents went up by over three times the rate of inflation last year. The question is: why? How does that happen? I have heard all the arguments about it being due to population growth and shortage of supply, but, when you look at the actual figures for the last few decades, you find that housing supply is not just keeping pace with but increasingly outstripping household formation. The houses have been built, but they have ended up in fewer hands; that is the root of the problem with our housing market.

Rents have gone from being 10% of income to an average of around one-third of income. One clear reason why the brakes have come off rents in the private sector is right to buy and the decline in social housing. Rents have risen rapidly, along with the country’s benefits bill. If the Government want to increase the supply of housing, why do Ministers not take up the challenge: invest in social housing and “build, baby, build”. Why do Ministers not invest in a future of good-quality social housing that cannot be sold off, thereby creating decent homes for the younger generations, who are increasingly worried that they may never have the security and quality of life that their parents’ generation had?

The long-term solutions to rising rents are: ending the chokehold on supply from greedy developers who are land-banking, and dealing with the property speculators who buy ghost flats in London and leave them empty all year. While the Government are thinking through what steps they can take to deal with these rich property developers, who restrict the housing market to get even richer, Ministers can and should act to reform the rental market with sensible and locally sensitive limits on what people can charge.

The inequality of housing has become a huge generation divide, as other noble Lords have said. Some 11 million people are renting. We have one generation—going on two generations—who, unless decisive action is taken by this Government, will never be able to earn enough to have a mortgage and are straining to afford their rent. That is not to mention the sharp rise in the number of families with children staying in temporary accommodation for more than five years.

This Bill will definitely help—there is no doubt about that—but, equally, it does not touch the roots of the problem. I would like to hear from the Minister whether social housing is a high priority. I have asked questions on the issue of housing, and in response Ministers talk about affordable housing. I am not talking about just affordable housing; I care very much about social housing. That is where I grew up for my first 18 years and I think other people deserve that as well. So I urge Ministers to consider the steps needed to fix our housing crisis, just as we would all expect from a concerned Labour Government.

Council Tax

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, we are more than aware of the issues in tackling adult social care funding; however, the best way to resolve them in the long term is make sure that we do the job properly by looking at what is needed. We recognise the important role that councils have in delivering those services. That is why we announced in the provisional settlement a further £200 million for adult and children’s social care, bringing the total additional funding to £3.7 billion.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, does the Minister think that this Government are generally finding it quite difficult to be progressive?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Absolutely not. The range of legislation we have brought forward has shown just how progressive this Government are being in both fiscal and social policy.

Housebuilding: Regional Mayors

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord but will resist the temptation to explain why we have not delivered the number of homes we wanted to this year, as I think he knows the answer. On skills, the Government have committed to working with regional mayors and industry to ensure that we have high-quality training opportunities across the country and that we build a diverse workforce, fit for the future. The Minister for Housing and Planning held a round table in November and we welcomed the announcement then of £140 million of industry-funded investment in new construction training opportunities.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it sounded from one of the Minister’s earlier answers that the Government are introducing particular measures to make it easier for councils to buy vacant properties and perhaps to build new social housing. There are such long waiting lists for council homes. Did I understand her correctly?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is quite correct: we want to do that. Despite the very difficult Budget round this time, the Secretary of State for my department was able to achieve further funding for affordable homes of £500 million. That brings the total for affordable housing up to £3.1 billion.