Renters’ Rights Bill
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts(5 days, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 262 and 271. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, for tabling them and for his excellent introduction, which explained the lamentable situation we have arrived at whereby people living on boats continually fall through the cracks between housing and what is now known as Defra. I will go a little bit into the history, so that the Minister will perhaps appreciate the need for action now.
Those with permanent moorings have some protection, although the cost of mooring fees and licences is an issue. I am especially concerned with those who do not have a permanent mooring and are classified as continuous cruisers, which means they can stay for a maximum of only 14 days in one place. This situation dates from the British Waterways Act 1995, when Parliament removed the need for boat dwellers to have a home mooring.
The Canal & River Trust, which is now responsible for our waterways, has embarked on a review by an independent commission. It says that the review will seek to implement any reforms, including any legislative changes, as soon as possible after its conclusion. Your Lordships may feel that that is a good way forward, but the problem is that housing is not reflected anywhere in the Canal & River Trust’s main purposes: waterways management, maintenance, environmental protection, and generating income to support its work, which might include development along the riverbanks. Your Lordships can see that nowhere is it tasked with looking after the rights of boat dwellers to a safe and secure home situation. All this amendment is asking the Minister to do is to ensure that this group of boat dwellers be considered within the scope and implications of the Bill. Defra formed a working group in 2017 to try to resolve some of these issues, but that was inconclusive.
Amendment 271 concerns the definition of a dwelling house. In 2016, the Planning and Housing Act placed a duty on local authorities to assess the housing needs of boat dwellers and bargees. However, the Act did not read across to the duties of the Canal & River Trust, in whose gift lie mooring and mooring regulations. As the riverbanks are continually assessed for development or leisure potential, the supply of moorings is constantly under threat. The ability to moor somewhere is obviously essential if a boat is your home. Given the Canal & River Trust’s rule that continuous cruisers cannot stay on any one mooring for more than 14 days, for a boat to remain a home there must be a supply of available moorings.
There is a lot of history to this, but I will not go into all of it because I do not want to detain the House. I simply mention that in 2004, I took part in a debate when the late Baroness Hanham was trying to pass an amendment to address this very issue. My noble friend Lady Hamwee made a very apposite point when she said that for
“the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to refer the people involved to Defra and for Defra to tell them that it is a matter for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister leaves us wondering what we can do to get bits of government not just to talk to one another but to find a solution to a very real problem”.—[Official Report,16/9/2004; col.1422.]
That was over 20 years ago. My right honourable friend Vince Cable raised the issue in 2006 when he was MP for Twickenham. He identified one reason why the navigation authorities and regulatory bodies are rather hostile to residential boat owners—the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, touched on this. He said that at best they tolerate them, but they do not see them as integral to canal conservation. So there was a certain amount of prejudice against boat dwellers and Travellers, and I do not believe that has changed.
The Minister who replied to my right honourable friend Vince Cable is now the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, Leader of our House. She said that a working group had been formed and that action in this area had been sought for a number of years. Well, that was 19 years ago and the solution is no nearer, because the department responsible for waterways never considers housing matters for boat dwellers, and the housing department, which has been through many names in time, does not relate to waterways issues. This Bill must break the mould and address this matter now.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I have an interest to declare, as my family owns land in Cookham with a quarter of a mile of river frontage along the Thames and one of its tributaries, but we have never accommodated houseboats. I have added my name to Amendment 262, so ably spoken to by Lord Cashman, and it is appropriate that houseboats are linked in this group of amendments with mobile homes, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, has just spoken. In both cases, the home is owned or rented by the owner, but the land or water on which it rests is owned by somebody else. This leads to issues of security mentioned by the three previous speakers, as the home—which, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, may cost a quarter of a million pounds—has really no value unless it is on land or secured to land. To that extent, there is some comparison with leaseholders, because the flat owner owns the flat, but he does not own the land on which it is based. That is the point that I want to make.
All three tenures—leaseholders, mobile home owners and boat owners—have varying degrees of security. Right at the top of the scale are leaseholders, whose rights have been progressively improved over the last 50 years, and more rights are promised in forthcoming legislation. Lower down the scale are mobile home owners. They have rights; as a Minister, I put on the statute book the Mobile Homes Act 1983. That legislation was then succeeded by other legislation, further improving the rights of mobile home owners. By contrast, houseboat owners are right at the bottom of the list and have very little security. So far, all Governments have refused to make any progress.
I will not repeat the problems facing boat owners that have been so ably mentioned, but I just make this point. In answer to a Question on 17 January, the Minister in the other place said:
“The government recognises that while the occupants of residential boats have the benefit of protection under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 and wider consumer … legislation, they do not enjoy the same level of … security as those in the private rented sector. We will consider what action might be necessary to provide houseboat residents … with greater security in their homes”.
That is exactly what Amendment 262 does. It asks the Government to review the security of houseboat residents, which the Answer said they are going to do anyway. So, I honestly do not see why the Minister has any reason not to accept this amendment, as it simply is in line with an Answer given by her parliamentary colleague only three months ago.
High Streets (Built Environment Committee Report)
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts(6 days, 3 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, with her knowledge and expertise. I think she put it in a nutshell when she described a high street where things can get done as opposed to just bought. My thanks go to our new chair, the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for so ably introducing this debate, and to our previous chair, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for guiding us through what could have been a very complicated issue and arriving at a pretty succinct report.
We had a lot of discussion about why a high street is important and who should be responsible for its revival. Of course, we found that there is no one blueprint but our report highlights the factors important to success. It is clear from the evidence we received that a proactive local authority is very important, especially in pump-priming, but the role of the wider community after that is critical—businesses big and small and community organisations are all crucial.
We heard from Frome in Somerset. Its town council began that pump-priming process by hiring a town centre manager and engaging with a local entrepreneur. It has a multi-pronged approach to reviving and maintaining the health of its high street, which has been incredibly successful. Especially compelling was its use of markets to increase footfall and provide opportunities for smaller independent retailers, and it recognised the role that culture plays.
Moving from the positive to the negative, I want to highlight the shocking evidence—I was certainly shocked—that we received from the Royal Society for Public Health. It found that one-fifth of the general public do not go out as often as they would like due to their concern about the lack of public toilets. We can guess which fifth that is: the elderly and those with small children, the very groups who may already suffer from isolation and loneliness. They are not going out as often as they would like just for fear of being caught short. For the elderly, this is inevitably an increasing concern and it is a very important concern, too, for parents with children out of nappies but still young. Of course, urinating in public is an offence and one that authorities sometimes have to invoke to deal with public nuisance caused by alcohol consumption followed by wanton urination, but that is a completely different issue. As our report says:
“Public toilets make it possible for everyone to use the local high street with confidence and comfort”.
Local authorities need to be proactive in finding ways to provide such an essential facility. It is one of the most basic health and dignity issues, but there has been a shocking decline in provision of public toilets.
Accessibility was also found to be lacking, by and large. I will not spend a lot of time on transport and car parking, but that was an important issue, as was access for wheelchairs and those using walking frames, for example. I have recently begun to notice how incredibly important this is, since my husband had a stroke. You notice how there are so few dropped pavements, for example, which would make life so much easier.
The timing of the Government’s response was quite difficult because there was an election between publication of our report and the response. Perhaps one of the most disappointing parts of this Government’s response was on parish and town councils. As the local authorities most involved in their community, they are ideally placed to be the most proactive in high street revival, but the Government’s response to our suggestion that they should be able to bid directly for funds was only that they
“will continue to look at”
it. I hope the Minister will be able to say a bit more today and that we will be able to debate this further in the forthcoming devolution Bill.
One of the most compelling sections of our report is that which concerns public service delivery, which the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, touched on. We heard that the public are very keen to have NHS services located on or relocated to the high street, not least because the transport links may well be better and because it increases footfall for businesses. We heard evidence from Councillor Vikki Slade, who was the council leader in Poole and is now MP for Mid Dorset and North Poole. She explained how the public services they had introduced to ex-retail space—an NHS out-patient centre, a library and some charity space—had “completely reinvigorated the town”. Of course, the big traditional department stores have closed and the challenge facing many high streets is what to do with that space. We heard from Barnsley, whose local authority had to be pretty dogged, frankly—given its setbacks—to arrive at its Glass Works redevelopment project, which includes open space, an NHS diagnostics centre, a market and much more.
Success stories are out there, from small towns to small cities, but sometimes that has been despite the propensity of central government to change funding models so often. The previous Government had a very time-consuming and wasteful bidding process. One of our main recommendations, in paragraphs 173 and 174, is that there is still a role for an appropriate bidding process, but it must be highly simplified and possibly involve a two-stage system with a simple initial bid that would be developed if successful. The Government acknowledged this in their response and mentioned the reform to the long-term plan for towns. Can the Minister tell us any more about that today?
Another issue we heard a lot about was green space. Our evidence underlined the value of having space in which to socialise and spend time without having to spend money—a point emphasised to us by the young people we engaged with. I thank those involved in the House of Lords engagement programme, who produced some very lively groups of young people. We heard that it is not just about prettifying with hanging baskets; it is about usable space.
There is plenty of evidence, too, about the benefit of green space and nature to mental health and physical well-being. Here, I have to praise Lambeth Council, which, in the 20 years that I have had a flat in the borough, has transformed many of its green spaces, including with things such as outdoor gyms. It is fantastic. This does not seem to be controversial until developers realise that green spaces are a cost to them and local authorities could see them as a cost, as they produce no rates or council tax. There is no national statutory green space standard, but it is reasonable to hope that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill might have a genuine element of seeing green space as critical to good development.
Things to appreciate in the Government’s response include high street rental auctions and community right to buy. The Government correctly said in their response:
“High streets matter … because they reflect the wider state of the economy and the public realm”.
That is very true. Valuing the public realm is, to me, the essence of what we should be looking for and enabling in a high street. The private realm has been good at looking after its own and I hope this report makes a contribution to rebalancing that trend.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 119 and 126 in my name, to which the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, has added his name. The provisions of my two amendments simply mirror the provisions that are in Amendments 118 and 125, so that they will apply to superior landlords as well as landlords. A superior landlord is a person who, for example, owns the block of flats and has a greater interest in the tenants than does the immediate landlord. I declare an interest as I have been affected twice recently by the superior landlord being in a position to deny any pet ownership.
I fully agree with the excellent introduction to this issue from the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, and all the points that he made, but, if this provision is not added to the Bill, I fear it will completely undermine the Government’s very good intentions, which we support, in bringing forward Clause 12, because the position of the superior landlord will almost always override that of the landlord.
The interests that I quote I will give as examples. The first was from when, during Covid, I rented out my flat. The family who rented it wanted to adopt a cat. The rules applying to the block of flats state that pets may not be kept, so although I as a landlord was happy that this family adopted a cat, the superior landlord rules for the block forbade it. More recently, this year, my husband and I have bought a flat, but even as owners we are subject to a rule that the superior landlord has to give permission for a pet. This means a lot of uncertainty for the vendor and for us, while the superior landlord decided whether we could keep our 15 year-old dog.
If the Government succeed in changing the position for renters, they must also address the issue of superior landlords and their ability to block any pet ownership. If the Government do not address this, the likelihood is that the good intentions behind this clause will fail because of the legal limitations for subtenants. Usually, they do not have a direct contractual relationship—that is, in legalese, no privity of contract—with the superior landlord, unless there is a direct agreement. This can mean that enforcing rights or obligations becomes very difficult if the issue lies with the superior landlord rather than with the immediate landlord.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply to this issue, because I fear that, otherwise, as I said, the good intentions of Clause 12 will be totally undermined.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, I am not quite sure what the Minister said earlier, but I would like to declare interest as an owner of rented property.
I shall speak to Amendments 120, 122 and 123 in my name in this group. All these amendments seek to highlight where pets could be unsuitable in a rented property. Although, as I have already said earlier during this Committee, as a landlord I have never refused a pet, a blank cheque for pets is not practical. Amendment 120 would allow landlords to reasonably refuse their consent to a pet if the allergies from that pet would have a negative impact on the landlord’s employees, their managing agents or other related persons, including future tenants. For those who suffer with allergies, this is a very serious matter and can have a debilitating effect, and it is not always possible to remove allergens through standard cleaning. We have all read and heard about the allergies from peanuts et cetera that can kill; well, the allergies from pets are not so serious, but they are very serious for people who suffer.
Amendment 122 would allow landlords to reasonably refuse their consent to a pet if they reasonably believe it is unsuitable for the property, may cause a nuisance to neighbours or may damage the property or place an unreasonable burden on its upkeep. Wooden floors get scratched and carpets get stained—if they are still there —when pets are involved, so flooring almost always needs to be replaced when a tenancy ends. Some may consider this reasonable wear and tear, and others may not, but it is certainly a much greater cost when there have been pets in a property, and it is an important factor to consider. Not every landlord is in a position always to replace everything every time there is a new tenancy. Of course, some pets are capable of causing more damage than others, and some properties are easier to upkeep than others. I think there should be some leniency and some leeway for landlords who know their properties to make a judgment on this.
Amendment 123 follows on from this and seeks to exclude pets which are inappropriate or disproportionate in size or number. I realise there will be difficulties in defining this. Are five Dobermann pinschers more or less suitable than 25 fox-terriers? Nevertheless, as the Bill stands, I am not clear whether a landlord would be free to make a judgment, which most noble Lords would agree would be very sensible, that a Great Dane could not be housed in a studio flat, or that 50 cats could not be kept in a small terraced house. Given the difficulties, will the Minister consider making it clear that the landlord has, or should have, discretion to make sensible decisions for the benefits of residents, neighbours and the pets themselves?
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a landlord of private property. It is becoming clear that the Bill will be a beanfeast for lawyers in the area of landlord-tenant disputes. As my noble friend Lord Dobbs implied, it could well happen with regard to landlord-tenant disputes over pets. My noble friend Lord Howard’s amendment is eminently sensible, and his points about overriding current legislation are very important, as are those on insurance problems in this area.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, was as entertaining as ever in speaking to his amendment. But none of us was here in 1990—here in your Lordships’ House, I mean; obviously, we were around. In 1990, this discussion took place on the definition of a pet under the Environmental Protection Act, which chose not to define a pet specifically. Instead, it focused on the nuisances and environmental harms, regardless of the type of animal. That approach was probably safer because, obviously, for some people a praying mantis could be a pet, and it is certainly a very ornamental creature when you look at it closely—as would be a butterfly.
I have a lot of sympathy with the Government, and I think that we should stick with the idea of companionship, which is in the Bill. But the Environmental Protection Act offers a lesson from that time, one concerned with the effects of an animal’s presence or behaviour and not with whether the animal is defined as a pet. I do not feel very strongly about this issue, but that lesson is there should the Government choose to take it.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who took part in this engaging debate. I thank particularly my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising for moving Amendment 121, and my noble friend Lord Dobbs—as always, he has such a wonderful way of speaking in this Chamber. I cannot add much more to what he said. He is absolutely right.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
That is probably a bridge we ought to cross when we come to it.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Black, quoted from the University of Huddersfield’s excellent research, The Financial Impact of Pet Ownership in Rental Properties, which I have read in detail. One of the most surprising things is that there is more non-pet-related damage to properties from non-pet owners, which averaged at £215, than there is pet-related damage from pet owners. But perhaps the more relevant thing to this particular debate is that when there was damage: the tenant’s deposit fully covered the cost 38% of the time; the repair costs exceeded the deposit and the tenant covered the additional costs 18% of the time; and the repair costs exceeded the deposit and were covered by insurance 13% of the time—which is surprising given what the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, told us. So, more than 60% of the time, there was no problem at all. Only in a very small percentage of the time did the landlord find themselves out of pocket. The overall findings from this study were that it is a much-exaggerated fear rather than an actual problem.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendments 127, 128 and 129 in the name of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull and others. With regard to pets, the main purpose of the Bill is to make it more likely that landlords will accept tenants with pets. That is its purpose, surely, and it is an objective that I fully support, as a veterinarian, particularly for elderly and lonely people, as well as others. The benefits of pet ownership are very well known, with a strong evidence basis. Amendments 127, 128 and 129 would ensure that the purpose of the Bill with regard to pets is not confounded by unintended consequences. The current reality—and we cannot ignore realities, as the noble Lord, Lord Black, does—is that 40% of landlords are currently unwilling to accept tenants with pets.
Another survey that the noble Lord, Lord Black, quoted showed that 27% of landlords who do accept tenants with pets—that is, one-quarter—have experienced problems. So, in order to boost the market for pet-friendly rentals, it is important that landlords are assured that, were there to be negative effects due to pets, there is adequate legal recompense. The Bill recognises this, and the solution it proposes is that the landlord can require a tenant to provide appropriate insurance. But the problem, clearly articulated by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, who is, of course, an expert in insurance, is that it appears extremely unlikely that there will be a product on the market which a tenant could buy to insure against the problem—relatively unlikely, perhaps —of damage. If that were the case, as my noble friend started to explain, a landlord could debar a tenant by the simple act of requiring that they provide insurance to cover pet damage, their failure to find which would legitimately allow a landlord to bar them access with a pet to rental accommodation. So it would conflict with the objective of the Bill.
Amendment 127 would remove that possibility. Instead, Amendment 128 would allow an increased deposit arrangement to enable landlords to permit pets, confident in the knowledge that, in the unlikely event of damage, it will be covered by the deposit. Amendments 128 and 129 would ensure that the level of recompense is likely to adequately cover relatively costly measures, such as deep cleaning to remove allergens, referred to earlier, or the elimination of infestation with fleas, which can be a significant problem if it occurs and expensive to remove. I would love to say more about fleas—they are remarkable creatures that can jump amazing distances compared to their size—but I am aware of the constraints on repeating Second Reading speeches, so I will not. I also make the point that a deposit is likely to be a fairer and more acceptable arrangement to a tenant than paying for an insurance policy, because obviously there is no cost unless there has been a problem.
To conclude on these three amendments, I strongly support them and I think they would make it more likely that landlords could be persuaded to offer their property for rent to tenants with a pet than any alternative. I shall just make an additional point that I did raise at Second Reading but which is pertinent to this issue and has wider implications, and that is on assistance dogs. We know that having a pet is very valuable to many people’s physical and mental health, but the case of assistance dogs is very special. These are incredibly valuable animals that can alert to medical emergencies of all sorts, as well as providing physical support for disabled people, hearing support and other things. Yet assistance dogs are not actually officially recognised—there is no list or register of them—and I understand that people with assistance dogs sometimes have problems finding rental accommodation. I raised this at Second Reading, but I hope the noble Baroness will excuse me mentioning it again. She said she would discuss it with officials, and I ask her to consider that again. I strongly support Amendments 127, 128 and 129.
Housing: Modern Methods of Construction
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I am very pleased to have joined your Lordships’ Built Environment Committee, but I was not a member for this report.
The noble Lord, Lord Mair, has reminded us that this is not the first report that your Lordships’ House has done into MMC, and spelled out what the 2018 report from the Science and Technology Committee concluded. There was also a 2019 report from the other place on modern methods of construction. It seems very strange that the Government did not take up any of the lessons of either of these reports. I am sure that this Government will do better.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, referred to one of the big problems—confidence—and I agree with her. This was absolutely underlined by the Competition and Markets Authority, which did a market study into the housebuilding sector, concluding in February 2024. On MMC, it concluded that there is a
“lingering negative stigma amongst consumers, builders, investors, and insurers”.
What will the Government do to overcome this lingering negative stigma? Without overcoming it, MMC will always be dragged down by it.