Housing: New Homes Target
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, but does the Minister agree with the OBR’s experts that the Government are set to miss their 1.5 million homes target?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness. The OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook forecast net additions to the UK housing stock to be 1.3 million, but we have to take alongside that the work that we have done since then on skills, the new homes accelerator and government funding for social and affordable housing. The trajectory of all that is very much in the right direction. We know there is more work to do; we are determined to do it; and we are very happy to stick with our ambitious target.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Can I just add that I was disappointed that we did not have any phraseology in ancient Greek? We will have to put up with that for today, I suppose. I echo my noble friend Lord Carter’s point: I think it would be really helpful, whatever one thinks of the rights and wrongs of retrospective legislation, that a proper list is set out as to which rights are going to be affected. I think everybody outside this Chamber is going to need that, in practice, in the rental sector. It would be very helpful if something could be published that literally specifies which bits are going to be affected retrospectively and how.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough for bringing Amendments 16 to 18 to the Committee today. The question of the retroactivity of the Bill is not just a question of how it will be applied, it is a question as to whether it is fair at all. It is easy for Governments armed with executive powers to apply the law retrospectively, but it should be the duty of every Minister to ask: is this the right way? Is it the fair way?
I invite noble Lords to imagine that they signed a tenancy agreement under a clear set of rules in January 2025; they followed all the rules; then, in June 2025, Parliament passes a law saying that their tenancy is now invalid. Well, many will have to imagine no longer, because once the Bill gets Royal Assent, tenants and landlords may find that their agreements are no longer valid.
The predecessor of the Bill adopted a model of prospective lawmaking by setting out a two-pronged approach to implementation. It would have assured that substantial changes were introduced at a suitable pace, one that brought the sector along with it, giving it time to understand the new requirements and adapt accordingly. In their haste to publish the Bill, the Government appear willing to abandon the principle of prospective lawmaking, placing an immediate and heavy burden on landlords. The Committee will be well aware that 45% of landlords own just a single property. These are not professional landlords with teams behind them. They lack the infrastructure to absorb complex regulatory change. They are not poring over the details of legislation, nor do they have time to follow days of Committee proceedings. How do the Government expect these individuals to implement such sweeping reforms all at once and without a serious and structured implementation period?
At this Dispatch Box on Tuesday, I quoted some statistics from Paragon. In the same survey, it noted that 39% of landlords had not even heard of the Bill. Will the Minister please explain how the Government will communicate these changes? The department must begin explaining in clear and simple terms what is coming down the track. Landlords need to know that change is coming. Regardless of the Bill’s specific contents or intentions, its retroactive nature will pose challenges. It will not only bring an abrupt end to agreements freely entered into by two consenting adults, it will unleash a wave of challenges upon landlords through its immediate implementation.
I turn to the litany of amendments put down by the Government. We welcome the right to sublet and want to ensure people do not lose that right, but we want it to be implemented with clarity. On these Benches, we would prefer those specific tenancy types which underlie the right to sublet—such as fixed-term assured tenancies or assured shorthold tenancies—to remain. We set out our clear case yesterday and we will continue to stand up for a sector that delivers choice and variety and provides the homes we need. Will the Minister explain the Government’s adjustments to the context of Clause 3? It is clear that they intend to restructure the legislation, so on these Benches we wish to ensure that the effects of superior leases are appropriately addressed within the updated framework. Can the Minister set out how the Government will ensure that tenants in sublet arrangements are not left in legal limbo?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing these amendments before the House and for clearly setting out the minor and technical corrections to the legislation. Ensuring legal consistency is crucial, and aligning the wording with the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 will help maintain uniformity across legislation.
As we will discover in coming days, the agricultural aspects of the Bill are both detailed and complex, containing numerous references to specialised terminology. Any technical amendments that help harmonise such language are most welcome on these Benches.
I trust the Minister will continue to approach these proceedings with a collaborative and constructive mindset. These amendments demonstrate that the legislation, as drafted, is not beyond improvement, and we welcome the Government’s recognition of that fact. It is our hope that suggestions from your Lordships’ House are given due consideration and are not dismissed too readily from the Dispatch Box.
We trust that the Minister will also view forthcoming amendments in the spirit intended: to test and to probe the Government’s rationale in pursuing particular policy choices, particularly when it comes to the inclusion or the omission of specific clauses and definitions in the Bill. We are grateful for the opportunity to raise these important issues and we welcome continued constructive dialogue on how we can best improve the technical framework of the legislation.
On that note, I wish to ask further questions of the Government on government Amendment 183. From our understanding, this amends the Charities Act, as the Minister said, to ensure that the disposition of leases which are assured tenancies will be subject to that Act. However, as she said, the requirement to obtain a written report from an independent property adviser could be costly. The costs of these reports vary, and they can impose a significant burden on whoever is footing the bill for them. So I would be grateful if the Minister could just clarify in writing that no charities will be required to obtain this particular report and, if there are some that will continue to need it, can she set out the conditions on which those reports from an independent adviser will be required?
If trustees do not comply with the law, they may be personally liable if this report is required and they do not do it; therefore, it is really important that we get absolute clarity on who, if anybody, will be required to do that. I reiterate the importance of keeping the core text of the Bill simple and, where possible, as focused as we can.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Just to respond briefly to the noble Baroness, I understand that the change to the Charities Act 2011 means that charities would not be required to obtain the designated adviser report prior to granting. They would be required to obtain advice and consider whether the terms of the lease are the best that can be reasonably obtained by the charity; that would be the requirement for trustees. But I will respond in writing to the noble Baroness just to confirm that that is the case.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would retain social landlords’ ability to apply for a demotion order in response to the anti-social behaviour of a tenant.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 14, 66 and 67 standing in my name.
Anti-social behaviour is a scourge on our communities but is particularly devastating from a housing perspective. Quite often, anti-social behaviour replaces productive community spirit with fear and tension, leading to residents feeling trapped and helpless. Anti-social behaviour strips away the very essence of what makes a house a home.
The consequences of anti-social behaviour are often forgotten. The costs of repairing damage, the need to enhance and increase security measures, and the day-to-day administration involved in responding to complaints from neighbours all place a significant and often unsustainable financial strain on housing associations, local authorities and landlords across the country.
As drafted, the Bill reduces the powers available to local authorities and social housing landlords in cases where tenants are responsible for anti-social behaviour. Amendment 14, tabled in my name, seeks to preserve the ability of landlords to demote tenancies in response to such behaviour. Loud noise, vandalism and intimidation leave residents helpless, and local authorities must have the power to uphold community stability without the detriment of demotion. How can the Government ensure that there are consequences for this ruinous behaviour?
Amendment 66, tabled in my name, probes the Government’s objectives in creating a duty on the court to consider any co-operation on the part of the tenant against whom an order is sought. On these Benches we wish to understand the real-world impact of this change. I ask the Minister: what constitutes co-operation? Is it replying to an email or answering a call, or does it require a tenant to display a serious and notable change in their behaviour? Is this simply a requirement for engagement or would there be a requirement to take practical steps to prevent anti-social behaviour in the future?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments relating to anti-social behaviour, and I agree with her powerful statement on ASB. As a councillor, I saw at first hand, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Eaton, did, the utter misery that is caused to individuals and communities through the irresponsible actions of others and I properly understand why it is important that we have provisions to tackle it.
Amendment 14 seeks to reintroduce social landlords’ ability to apply for a demotion order in response to the anti-social behaviour of a tenant. This amendment seeks to enable landlords to demote social tenants to a less secure form of tenancy because of anti-social behaviour. However, the amendment as drafted would not work; the Renters’ Rights Bill will move tenants to a simpler tenancy structure where assured shorthold tenancies and the ability to evict shorthold tenants via Section 21 are abolished. There will therefore no longer be a tenancy with lower security to demote tenants to. To work, it would require a reversal of measures in the Bill to remove demoted tenancies and assured shorthold tenancies; that is the issue with the amendment as drafted.
I reassure the noble Baroness that tackling anti-social behaviour is a top priority for our Government and a key part of our safer streets mission. The Bill will shorten the notice period for the existing mandatory eviction ground, with landlords being able to make a claim to the court immediately in cases of anti-social behaviour. In addition, the Bill amends the matters that judges must consider when deciding whether to award possession under the discretionary ground. This will ensure that judges give particular regard to whether tenants have engaged with efforts to resolve their behaviour and the impact on other tenants within HMOs.
As well as the positive changes that the Bill makes towards tackling anti-social behaviour within the rental sector, we will crack down on those making neighbourhoods feel unsafe and unwelcoming by introducing the new respect order, which local authorities will be able to apply for and which will carry tough sanctions and penalties for persistent adult offenders. Together, those changes will ensure that the needs of victims are at the heart of our response to anti-social behaviour—that is what is important. Too often victims have felt that the power is all on the side of those who are committing the anti-social behaviour and not on the side of victims—that cannot carry on.
In response to the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, about local authority housing tenants, the Bill introduces reforms to the assured tenancies framework, which applies to both the private rented sector and private registered providers of social housing. Local authority tenants are provided secure tenancies under a different tenancy regime. The vast majority of local authority tenants are secure lifetime tenants, and therefore they already enjoy a high security of tenure. Local authority landlords also have existing powers to tackle ASB, including eviction grounds similar to those in the Bill.
The point is taken from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, about the further information about evidence and where the bar is going to be set; I will take that back to the team and come back to her. For these reasons, we feel this amendment is not needed and kindly ask that the noble Baroness withdraws it.
I turn to Amendment 66, which seeks to remove the requirement imposed upon judges, which has been introduced by the Bill, to give a particular consideration to whether a tenant, against whom a possession order is sought under ground 14 for anti-social behaviour, has engaged with attempts by the landlord to resolve the behaviour. We believe this change represents the wrong approach, for two reasons.
First, the Government believe that landlords should attempt to resolve problematic behaviour issues with tenants before attempting to evict them. By directing courts to particularly consider whether a tenant is engaged with these efforts, landlords will be incentivised to make them. Secondly, it is right that the court should give particular consideration to whether a tenant has engaged with attempts to resolve the behaviour so that courts may be more likely to evict a tenant who has, for example, been obstructive throughout the process. Where a tenant has shown willingness to engage constructively with the landlord, it is right that the court considers this factor, and it is for those reasons that we introduced the requirement.
I turn to Amendment 67, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, which seeks to expand the factors that a court is specifically directed to consider when deciding whether to make an order for possession against a tenant in a house in multiple occupancy for anti-social behaviour under ground 14. Currently, courts will be directed to give particular consideration to the past impact of the tenant’s behaviour on their fellow HMO tenants. This is in recognition of the increased impact that anti-social behaviour can have when victims have to share facilities and live in close proximity with the perpetrator, as the noble Baroness mentioned. Judges will also consider all factors relevant to the case and will already be directed generally to have consideration of the future and ongoing impact of that behaviour. As such, we do not think this amendment is strictly necessary to achieve the intended effect, although we are very grateful to the noble Baroness for flagging up that point.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, first of all, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Eaton and Lady Thornhill, and the Minister. All are from local government and understand anti-social behaviour over many years and the effect it can have. We on these Benches recognise that what is often described as anti- social behaviour may indeed be a symptom of much deeper, complex personal struggles. Those underlying issues, of course, deserve serious compassionate attention. So it is important that the Government are looking at the issues surrounding anti-social behaviour. I am particularly interested—I do not need an answer tonight —in bolstering the capabilities of support services within local government, to ensure that intervention can give people a real chance to turn things around before they get to the stage of being evicted.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“Purpose(1) The purpose of this Act is to improve the ability of renters in the rented sector to obtain secure, fairly priced and decent quality housing.(2) The Secretary of State must, in taking any actions under the provisions of this Act, have regard to this purpose.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of the Act, namely, improving the ability of renters to obtain secure, fairly priced and decent quality housing.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 1 and to speak to Amendment 261 in my name. I am delighted to be opening the first day of Committee on the Renters’ Rights Bill and declare my interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The clause I am proposing would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of the Bill when exercising powers under this legislation. In debating this amendment, we seek to test and clarify what the Government are attempting to solve and to understand more fully whether the measures that will be implemented by this legislation will achieve the Government’s intended results.
The “purpose” clause narrows how the Minister can use the discretionary powers afforded by the Bill. The clear benchmark set out in this clause would ensure that the Government must have regard to improving the ability of renters to obtain secure, fairly priced and decent quality housing. We believe the Government must be clear on the Bill’s purpose, and this amendment gives Ministers the opportunity to provide that necessary clarity.
Renters and landlords alike are following the Government’s planned changes very carefully, so it is crucial that Ministers are clear from the beginning of Committee on what they intend to achieve with this Bill. Clarity from Ministers will enable us to scrutinise the Bill much more effectively as we test each part of it against the Government’s intentions as we progress with Committee stage.
This group of amendments also gives us an opportunity to debate the Bill’s impact on the rental sector. Noble Lords across the House agree that we must protect tenants and ensure that they enjoy security, stability and decent housing conditions at a fair price. In order to achieve this, we need a functional market with sufficient supply of good quality homes to meet the growing demand for secure housing.
Ensuring the availability of homes will underpin the obtainability of accommodation and ensure that rents are affordable. Any legislation in this area must tread a difficult but essential line between these interests. Only by striking the right balance with this legislation can we hope to achieve an efficient and effective rental market that delivers the safe, secure, decent and affordable homes renters need. From these Benches we regret to say that the Bill does not achieve that balance. It has become increasingly clear that it will not serve to enhance the availability of homes but risks the supply of rental properties in the market, driving up costs for renters at a time when we have already seen significant increases in the cost of renting.
The surge in rents beyond inflation has been driven by limited housing supply, and rising mortgage costs, maintenance expenses and property taxes. We on these Benches sincerely hope that the effects of this Bill do not add to that list, further exacerbating the challenges faced by renters. Rather than making houses more affordable, this legislation risks increasing burdens on landlords, discouraging them from remaining in the rental market and ultimately reducing supply at a time of rapidly growing demand. In economic terms, this can only mean one thing: higher housing costs for renters.
A survey by Paragon, based on responses from over 500 landlords it works with, paints a clear picture of the real-world consequences of this Bill. A striking 65% of landlords said that they were more likely to reduce the size of their portfolios. An overwhelming 79% said that they were likely to increase rents. Why? Not out of preference, but as a direct response to the pressures introduced by the Renters’ Rights Bill. This is not speculation; it is data-driven and must give us pause for thought.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for contributing to this group. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that we will debate my Amendment 8 later. I particularly thank the Minister for her reply. While the Government’s ambition to improve outcomes for renters is a worthy goal, and one that I was proud to champion during my time in government, we feel that this Bill fails to account for the serious consequences the measure will have on those who provide the much-needed homes. The fact is that renters need a market that encourages landlords to enter it, not leave it.
These concerns, as I have said before, are not mine alone; they have been echoed right across the industry. From Savills to Propertymark to UniHomes, all have highlighted significant issues. We on these Benches will emphasise in the days ahead the need for balance—one that ensures that tenants are properly protected, while keeping the sector attractive enough for landlords to continue providing homes to rent, as my noble friend Lady Eaton clearly communicated. The recent survey by Paragon highlights just how far this Bill falls short of that balance. It found that only 4% of landlords support the proposed changes. Perhaps more strikingly, 73% of landlords believe the legislation will do more harm to renters than good.
It has become increasingly clear that, in the Government’s ambition to strengthen tenant security, they have been blind to the implications for those who provide the rental homes this country so desperately needs. The Government should think hard about this balance and consider what these reforms will do to the market on which millions rely. This Bill piles unprecedented pressures on landlords, fuelling concern, uncertainty and a fear of financial burdens. Simultaneously, these changes are likely to make it even harder for tenants to find accommodation. The selection process will become more stringent, and the grounds for possession are weakened. The availability of homes will decrease and, in turn, rent will take a larger share of tenants’ income. The Government would do well to remember that the rental sector exists only because individuals are willing to invest in property and make those homes available to others. The strength of the rental market rests on keeping these people in the market.
Landlords are not just participants; they are the backbone of the rental market. Their voices must be heard as part of this conversation, as they will provide the homes our tenants need into the future. If this Bill is to protect tenants, we must ensure that we have the landlords to supply them. By piling on excessive regulation, we are in danger of pushing good landlords out and empowering rogue landlords who simply ignore all our rules. We recognise that reform of our rental market is necessary to protect tenants from abuse at the hands of these rogue landlords. This was made clear in the previous Renters (Reform) Bill, but it was always important to us that we balance the rights of tenants to live safely and peacefully in the homes they are renting with the rights of landlords, particularly their property rights. If that Bill did not quite balance the seesaw, this Bill tips it right over. This is not the same Bill that the last Conservative Government introduced, and the Government are rushing it through without any care for the repercussions that will reverberate throughout the sector.
I urge the Minister to listen carefully to the concerns raised throughout Committee to ensure that we can enhance the availability of homes, alleviate the burden of unaffordable rent and deliver security for our tenants. Members across the House agree that renters need a better deal, but we do not believe that the Bill is the answer to this. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Truscott. I must declare my interest: I am a Suffolk farmer and have been for 50 years and I have seen quite a lot of changes during that time. Historically, there have been ups and downs, so in recent years I have turned increasingly to the private rented sector as a means of diversifying from agriculture when agriculture has been in such difficulties.
I can remember the days when there were rent officers and the whole system was gummed up. Now, assured shorthold tenancies are—lamentably—being abandoned in the Bill. Under that system, there was a resurgence of interest. I, for example, have converted redundant farm buildings into houses. I have fitted houses into spaces where there were no houses, but they fitted well into the particularly attractive and beautiful village which I am fortunate and privileged to live in. All these things are a very important part of the overall scene.
I warn the Government that there is a danger of them proscribing or prescribing practices in the private rented sector that are the practices that make it work. It is a very flexible sector. It is a vulnerable and fragile sector and, when we debate these issues in Committee, we are going to find cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that provisions in the Bill should be modified to avoid the danger of reducing the supply of privately rented accommodation.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, for leading this group and all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. My amendment aims to probe the Government on the proposed abolition of all fixed-term tenancies and to strike a fair balance between the rights of tenants and the legitimate interests of landlords.
While the Government’s desire to strengthen tenants’ security is, of course, a commendable objective, we must take a moment to reflect on the variety of tenancy arrangements that currently support different groups within the sector. In light of that diversity, it is reasonable to ask why the Government has chosen to pursue a one-size-fits-all approach through the proposed abolition of all fixed-term tenancies.
I have listened to contributions from the Committee and there is obvious and widespread concern about this element of the Bill. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Truscott and Lord Shipley, for their thoughtful amendments. Taken together, they seek to challenge the blanket removal of fixed-term tenancies and reintroduce much-needed flexibility into the current very rigid clause. In our opinion, the proposal to allow fixed terms of up to 12 months presents a pragmatic middle ground, maintaining a degree of security for tenants while giving landlords the certainty needed to plan for their future use.
Amendment 6 focuses specifically on protecting very short-term lets of up to three months. These arrangements are critical to people on, for example, probationary employment contracts, to vulnerable individuals in temporary relocation and to professionals on short-term placements. We should not be undermining access to housing for those who rely on flexible short-term arrangements. In removing fixed terms entirely, we risk cutting off access to the rental market for these groups—precisely the kind of unintended consequences this House should seek to avoid. I have also tabled this amendment to give Ministers the opportunity to indicate whether they would be willing to take a more limited step of retaining the current arrangements for very short tenancies.
Industry stakeholders have all echoed these concerns. Propertymark has warned that the removal of fixed-term tenancies could have a destabilising effect on tenants with lower incomes or poor credit histories, many of whom rely on guarantors, who in turn require the certainty of a fixed term. Without that structure, such tenants might find themselves excluded from the market altogether.
What does the future look like for these tenants? These are students without parental support, young adults leaving care, or individuals with health conditions whose employment is irregular. These individuals rely on guarantors to secure housing, but those guarantors require a legal assurance of a fixed term. Without that, the door to a rental home quietly shuts behind them. Imagine a single mother working two part-time jobs, trying to secure a home close to her children’s school. With no guarantor willing to sign an open-ended agreement, she is told again and again, “Sorry—no fixed term, no tenancies”. These are not hypotheticals. These are people who will be locked out of the system, possibly entirely.
Propertymark notes that fixed terms provide security for tenants and a guaranteed rental income for landlords. These arrangements are often actively sought by tenants, including nurses on temporary hospital placements, families wishing to remain in a school catchment area, and individuals from overseas needing time-limited accommodation. The Government will argue that tenants will still have flexibility because they can terminate their rental agreements at will. However, this misses the point. Flexibility is not the same as stability. Tenants need the assurance that their home will not be taken away at short notice, especially when they are in transitional stages of their life.
For landlords, the certainty of a fixed term allows them to plan and manage their properties effectively. Without it, many will choose to exit the sector, once again reducing the overall availability of rental homes. The supposed flexibility of a non-fixed-term tenancy could ultimately leave both tenants and landlords with far less stability than they need.
The abolition of fixed-term tenancies could provoke many landlords to reconsider their position in the market altogether. For home owners who currently rent out their properties on a fixed-term basis, this change in policy, which removes the ability to offer a defined tenancy period, will reduce landlord confidence. As a result, some home owners may choose to leave their properties vacant rather than face the uncertainty of an open-ended arrangement.
Why are the Government not listening to landlords, the very individuals who are primary maintainers of the private rented sector? Landlords are not just participants; they are the backbone of the housing market. Their voices must be heard in this conversation. There is a growing sense that these concerns are being overlooked, and one must ask whether this stems from a principled policy position or from a deeper ideological reluctance to recognise the legitimate role that landlords play. Without the ability to plan for future use or to rely on a defined tenancy period, landlords may well choose to exit the market. If this happens, we risk not only reducing the supply of homes but destabilising the rental sector as a whole, undermining the very intention of the Bill.
Taken together, these warnings from industry stakeholders should give the Government pause for thought. They remind us that while reform is necessary, it must be proportionate and carefully balanced to deliver a market that ultimately benefits renters. The Bill gives us the opportunity to modernise our rental system but, in doing so, we must take care not to discard what works. In removing fixed terms altogether, the Bill risks sweeping away short-term lets that serve a very specific and vital purpose.
These are not theoretical cases; they are everyday realities for many people navigating work, family or education. If we are to build a fairer rental system, we must ensure that it remains flexible and accessible to all, including those whose housing needs are necessarily short-term. That is what Amendment 6 in my name seeks to protect. I hope the Minister listens to voices across the House and calls from industry experts to recognise the diversity of the rental market and to support my amendment, which offers the necessary flexibility and common sense.
(1A) For the purposes of this section, a tenant who meets the student test when a tenancy is entered into has the same meaning as in Ground 4A.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow student tenancies to remain as fixed tenancies to provide the certainty that both student tenants and student landlords require.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 44, 45 and 46 in my name.
Although it may have been some years ago, and not all Members of your Lordships’ House chose to go to university, many noble Lords will no doubt recall their own experiences as university students. For those whose memories may have begun to fade, it is likely that a son, daughter or even grandchild is at university today or has recently been at university. I raise this point because those of us who fall into this group will recognise that students have distinct and unique housing needs that set them apart from all other groups. Most students rely on a combination of maintenance loans, part-time jobs and, increasingly, the support of the bank of mum and dad—or even granny—to meet their costs during their studies. Proximity to campus is essential both for academic engagement and to reduce the burden on transport costs. Students typically require leases of nine to 12 months, aligned to the academic calendar. I stress flexibility as an increasing number of tertiary education providers are now offering 18-month courses, moving away from the traditional three-year model. For many students, this marks their first experience of independent living. They are often unfamiliar with housing laws and lack the knowledge that only life experience can bring.
Although the exact legal framework for the exemption requires further clarification, the Government, by virtue of attempting to exclude purpose-built student accommodation from the ban on fixed-term tenancies, have accepted the unique position of students, and we welcome that. However, we feel there is more work to be done.
The Explanatory Notes assume that purpose-built accommodation tenancies are not assured. StudentRent puts this drafting down to a confusion with university halls, which use non-exclusive licences. In reality, most PBSA providers issue exclusive assured shorthold tenancies, meaning that, unless the Bill is amended or exemptions are extended, the agreements will become invalid once the new law takes effect. Could the Minister please use Committee to clarify this? If we cannot reach a reasonable position in Committee, we will have to return to the issue on Report.
In their drafting of the Bill, the Government have missed the opportunity to exempt all types of accommodation. As noble Lords will know, it is common that, after the first year, students often move out of purpose-built student accommodation and into HMOs or other types of property in the private rented sector. Amendment 7 in my name would ensure that student tenants could keep their desirable fixed-term tenancies, no matter what type of accommodation they find themselves in. We must not allow a two-tier system to emerge, where only those who can afford the most expensive purpose-built accommodation are granted the stability of fixed-term tenancies; that would be a perverse outcome from this legislation. It is vital that we resolve this as soon as possible.
Fixed-term contracts provide students with clear start and end dates that not only make financial planning more straightforward but ease the burden of day-to-day administration tasks that can be particularly challenging for those experiencing independent living for the first time, all while managing the demands of their academic studies. Perhaps most importantly, fixed-term agreements provide rent certainty for the entire duration of the contract. That certainty is not only reassuring for students but essential for their families, who rely on clear and predictable costs in order to budget effectively and support their children through higher education. Furthermore, knowing precisely when a tenancy will end helps students avoid disruptive mid-semester moves, which can have a detrimental impact on their studies and exam preparation.
While stability is vital, so too is flexibility. It is on this point that I wish to speak to Amendments 44 and 45. The current provisions acknowledge in part the need for student landlords to regain possession by the end of the academic year, under ground 4A. However, this fails to take into account those students whose studies do not follow a traditional academic calendar. It is important to stress that, under the current model, it is exceptionally rare for student landlords to need to resort to eviction proceedings. In practice, the challenge is far more likely to arise when students wish to leave their tenancies early. The proposals as they stand do not fully address the consequences of such scenarios.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lords, Lord Willetts, Lord Evans, Lord Young—albeit that his amendment was very ably proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts—and the noble Lord, Lord Best, for their amendments, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Wolf and Lady Warwick, and the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Fuller, for their comments during this debate. All these amendments seek to revise or introduce provisions in the Bill related to students, and I say well done to King’s College for having its team approach to this Bill in the Chamber today.
We do not expect that removing fixed terms will have a destabilising effect on the student rental market. New possession ground 4A will give landlords confidence that they will be able to regain their property to move in other students in line with the academic year. If tenants leave a tenancy early, the landlords will be able to find new tenants to take their place. The end of a fixed term does not automatically give the landlord possession. Landlords still have to follow the correct possession procedure. If fixed terms remained in the future, landlords would still need to follow the correct possession procedure.
Amendment 7 would allow fixed-term assured tenancies if the tenant was a student at the beginning of the tenancy. It would not be either right or fair for students to have less flexibility than other tenants just because of their educational status. Students who drop out of university could be required to pay rent for the rest of the fixed term, which could potentially reach thousands of pounds. All renters, including students, should have access to the benefits provided by the Bill.
The opportunity referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, is, as he rightly said, the meeting between housing and higher education. As someone who undertook a degree as a mature student with three children and a full-time job, I say that we simply must not assume that all students are the same. This is the opposite of elitism. It is ensuring that all student circumstances are taken into account and that those who need the greater stability that assured tenancies offer can have that option.
We have introduced a new possession ground to allow the cyclical nature of the student market to continue and provide landlords with confidence. This strikes the right balance and, in our opinion, is the much better approach. Referring to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about tenancies in halls, the Government intend that any new purpose-built student accommodation tenancies created after transition will be exempted from the assured tenancy system following transition, as long as the landlord is signed up to a government-approved code of conduct. I hope that answers her question. For these, reasons I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Amendment 40 seeks to expand ground 4A, which allows student tenants living in HMOs to be evicted in line with the academic year. It would allow students living in self-contained accommodation—one-bedroom and two-bedroom properties for example—to be evicted each year, and it seeks to address the concerns of some noble Lords that the existing scope of ground 4A does not cover all student properties. We have thought very carefully about the design of ground 4A. Limiting it to HMOs captures the bulk of typical students—that is, groups living in a house share. Meanwhile, students who need more security of tenure, such as single parents living with their children, postgraduate couples living together who have put down roots in an area, or families containing students, will be protected.
The core principle of the Bill is that tenants should have more security in their homes, and we think it is right that these groups should not be exposed to potential eviction using ground 4A. Self-contained one-bedroom and two-bedroom homes are also easier to let to non-students than student HMOs are, so, if a landlord cannot gain possession in line with the academic year and the tenants leave in the middle of the next one, the landlord is highly likely to be able to let the property out to non-student tenants. The noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, referred to student accommodation in London, and I imagine that there are other places where costs are prohibitive, such as Cambridge and Oxford. However, the Government’s action to increase supply is critical here. It is only by increasing supply that we will be able to stabilise rents. I do not think that the action proposed in the amendment would have that effect.
Amendments 41 and 45, taken together, seek to remove the requirement for a landlord intending to rely on ground 4A to give prior written notice to the tenants. This would mean that landlords renting to students in HMOs who satisfy the student test would be able to rely on ground 4A without giving tenants written prior notice, before the tenancy was entered into, of their wish to be able to recover possession using ground 4A. We cannot accept these amendments. The core aim of the Bill is to enhance the security of tenants in the private rented sector, including students. The prior notice requirement in ground 4A is key to this. If tenants are liable to be evicted through no fault of their own simply because of their student status, they must be informed of this reduced security before entering into a tenancy. Amendment 45 is purely consequential on Amendment 41, removing a later reference to the paragraph that Amendment 41 removes, and I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, not to press these amendments.
Amendment 42 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, seeks to allow the use of ground 4A in student tenancies agreed up to nine months in advance, rather than the six months in advance limitation that is currently in the Bill. Noble Lords will be aware that we introduced this measure in response to engagement with stakeholders and Members in the other place—I hope that answers the noble Lord’s question about consultation. They were concerned that students are often rushed into important decisions around accommodation before they have formed friendships or had time to properly judge a property’s condition or location.
This measure was intended to act as a strong disincentive to landlords who seek to sign students up to contracts early in the academic year. Increasing the time limit to nine months will push early sign-ups to too early in the academic year—before Christmas for a tenancy beginning in July. This entirely undermines the point of the deterrent. Six months strikes the right balance, allowing those who want to to agree a tenancy well in advance before exam season, but not too early before students have formed firm friendship groups, for instance.
Amendment 43, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, goes even further and would extend the time limit to 12 months. For the reasons I have highlighted previously, we are of the view that six months is the right balance. Very few students sign contracts more than a year in advance, and this amendment would essentially destroy the entire premise of the provision, which is designed to prevent students being pressured into contracts too early in the academic year. For these reasons, I ask the noble Lord not to move these amendments.
Amendment 44 seeks to remove the restriction on the use of ground 4A to the summer of the traditional academic year. This would mean that students on a traditional term date, who are the majority, could be evicted in the middle of the academic year through no fault of their own. We recognise that the intent of the amendment is to ensure properties are available for students starting their courses on non-traditional dates, such as in January. However, we are content that supply will be available for these groups as previous groups on the same cycle would leave at the end of their courses, so there will be students leaving in January and students starting could take those properties. It would be wrong to expose all students to eviction in the middle of their academic year simply because, for example, a landlord found a group with different term dates who were willing to pay more. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness not to move this amendment.
Amendment 46 would allow landlords to evict approved English apprentices, as defined in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, using the student possession ground 4A, provided all conditions for relying on that ground were met. Ground 4A was designed to capture the most typical students, such as those living in groups and away from home, on an annual letting cycle. Apprentices tend not to live that way, as they earn an income and are much more likely to live in a home they expect to stay in. I am therefore of the view that apprentices should enjoy the same security of tenure as other tenants and not fall under the scope of possession ground 4A. For that reason, I ask that this amendment not be moved.
Amendment 189 seeks to remove the private rented student tenancies from the assured tenancy system. I know there has been a lot of concern and debate over this at Second Reading and today. It would achieve this by allowing the Secretary of State to create or approve a code of conduct for student landlords and then allow landlords signed up to the code to offer tenancies that are completely removed from the assured tenancy system. This is the wrong approach: it would be wrong for students renting off-street housing, often indistinguishable from the property next door, to have an entirely different set of rights from their neighbours.
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Young, is seeking to create consistency between private student landlords and landlords of purpose-built student accommodation, which we will exempt from the assured system through regulations. However, these are very different types of accommodation. Purpose-built student accommodation can often be rented only to students due to the nature of the property, and to be exempted in the future a private PBSA landlord will need to be signed up to the government-approved code of management practice. This code is managed by Unipol, an established organisation.
Other private rented accommodation let to students is significantly more diverse and often indistinguishable from other houses in the area. It would be wrong to remove the protections of the assured system. Other students renting privately should not be locked into fixed-term contracts or open to eviction without good reason. In addition, there currently exists no government-approved code that is relevant to such accommodation. Developing this would take a great deal of time and is likely to delay implementation of the Bill. We recognise that the student market has a cyclical business model and have therefore introduced ground 4A, allowing landlords to evict full-time students from HMOs in order to house incoming groups in line with the academic year. Ground 4A addresses the issues that the various amendments tabled by the noble Lord are, in effect, seeking to address. As such, I ask him not to move this amendment.
Amendment 266 seeks to exempt private purpose-built student accommodation from discretionary licensing where the landlord has signed up to a code of practice for managing such accommodation. Although codes of practice offer students assurance that a good standard of management is being met by their landlords, they are not tailored to addressing local issues in the way that licence conditions under licensing schemes are. Membership of the codes is voluntary, and members have an incentive to comply to ensure they can continue to present an attractive offer to students. While a failure to adhere to code standards can result in a landlord being removed from a code, licensing allows for stronger action to be taken where necessary. For example, local authorities can issue a financial penalty where there has been a serious breach of licence conditions.
We recognise that licensing can place a greater burden on landlords with large portfolios, such as those operating private purpose-built student accommodation. That is why local authorities already have discretion to streamline licence application processes and fees for such landlords. We trust local authorities to take a proportionate approach and work together with code operators and providers of these types of accommodation to make sure that licensing schemes remain focused on tackling the issues they were designed to address. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Best, not to move his amendment.
I turn to government Amendments 47, 188 and 202. Currently, university-managed accommodation is exempt from the assured tenancy system, while private purpose-built student accommodation usually is not. Government Amendments 47, 188 and 202 would allow private PBSA to be subject to the same exemption, recognising that the two share many similarities. Students do not move into their accommodation expecting long-term residence, and it is right to ensure that this accommodation is available to new cohorts of students each year.
We intend that the exemption will apply only to private PBSA that is a member of the government-approved code of practice, which sets vigorous standards for the management of property and the relationship between managers and student tenants. If their membership of the code ends for any reason, so does their exemption. There will be no delay in requiring them to provide assured tenancies to new tenants. Although there is an existing power in the Housing Act 1988 to exempt PBSA landlords, it would have required government to frequently update secondary legislation with a list of landlords, causing a duplication of work between code administrators and officials and a lag in the link between code membership and exemption status.
We are also proposing an amendment to an existing power in the Housing Act 2004 that clarifies that educational establishments exempt from HMO licensing can be specified by reference to code membership and that the power can be exercised in the same way for private purpose-built student accommodation in future. The amendment also allows the scope of an exemption to be narrowed to certain groups of building, or building manager, within the membership if required.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in what I consider an extremely important debate and contributed thoughtfully and constructively with their insights.
First, I would like to recognise the contribution by my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow, who tabled Amendments 42 and 43. On these Benches, we believe the limitation may, as my noble friend said, inadvertently push the hunt for student accommodation into the January exam season and disrupt a vital time for many students up and down this country.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would allow small landlords, who are less likely to have capacity to fund legal proceedings, to continue to be able to issue Section 21 notices.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 8, standing in my name. At its core, the private rented sector exists only because individuals are willing to invest in property and rent it out to others. The rental market depends on landlords, many of them small-scale, independent operators who choose to let their homes to others. These are not large corporate entities with huge legal teams and financial buffers; they are ordinary people with one or two properties, often let out to supplement their pension or as a long-term investment for their families.
Let us be clear: the most recent English private landlord survey shows that 45% of landlords own a single rental property and a further 38% own between two and four. That means that over four-fifths of landlords operate on a very small scale, far from the image of large institutional landlords. These landlords form the backbone of the rental sector. Yet, under the proposals in the Bill, particularly the removal of Section 21 without sufficient alternative safeguards—this is to answer the question by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley—we risk driving them out of this market altogether.
That is why I rise to speak to Amendment 8, standing in my name. This amendment proposes a targeted and reasonable exception that landlords who let fewer than five properties—those very small-scale landlords we have spoken of—should retain the ability to use Section 21. This is not about denying renters their rights or undermining the central aims of the Bill; rather, it is about recognising the limitations that smaller landlords face. Unlike larger letting organisations, smaller landlords do not have the resources or the legal support to navigate complex procession proceedings. For them, the loss of Section 21 without workable and efficient alternatives could be and will be the final straw. These individuals are not villains of the piece; in many cases, if not most, they are providing much-needed homes in areas of acute shortage. They do not have the resources to engage in lengthy legal proceedings every time they need to regain possession of their property, whether due to personal financial need or a change in family circumstances or to exit the sector entirely. If the Bill removes Section 21 without offering small landlords a workable alternative, the risk is clear: many will simply choose to leave the market. They are already, altogether.
We know this is already happening: the National Residential Landlords Association found last year that one in four landlords were planning to sell at least one property, many citing rising regulation and uncertainty about future reforms. As these landlords exit, we are left with fewer homes to rent, and the tenants feel the consequences most sharply.
The experience in Scotland offers a sobering lesson. There similar reforms were introduced with the intention of improving tenant security. Yet, as we have seen, they had the opposite effect: a sharp increase in landlords exiting the market and the highest rent increases in the United Kingdom as demand rapidly outpaced supply. Research from the Nationwide Foundation has found that 70% of landlords and letting agents lack confidence in the future of the market. The evidence from Scotland demonstrates that the type of over-regulation proposed here will drive landlords out of the market, reducing housing supply and ultimately leaving renters worse off.
Amendment 8 offers a simple, balanced solution. It allows the Bill to move forward with its tenant protections intact, while acknowledging the distinct position of small landlords and giving them the breathing room that they need to continue letting their homes. If we are serious about building a rental system that is fair, functional and fit for the future, we must ensure that it works for tenants and landlords alike. Amendment 8 does not undermine the principles of the Bill; it strengthens it. It recognises the diversity within the landlord community and offers a sensible, proportionate safeguard for those who make up its majority by allowing small landlords to continue using Section 21 when and where no viable alternative yet exists. We protect not only their role in the market but the long-term interests of renters themselves. I urge the Government to take this amendment seriously and consider whether the future of the private rented sector truly lies in squeezing out the very people who keep it afloat.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in this very important debate in Committee and to support my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook on this amendment. The amendment is about fairness between tenants and landlords, and practicality. It is about the alternative that the Government are offering smaller landlords who are in the situation where they feel it prudent to give notice and seek possession of their own property under Section 21 and Section 8 of the Housing Act 1988. In particular, it is about the bureaucratic and onerous burden and court costs that will fall upon smaller landlords.
Let us look at the figures. Almost half of landlords—45%—own only one property. For the avoidance of doubt and for full transparency, I declare myself to be a landlord; I own one property, which was my matrimonial home, as listed in the Register of Lords’ Interests. Some 83% of landlords are small landlords, and so would be covered by this amendment, in that they own fewer than five properties.
We understand the proper commitment by the Government, as outlined in the manifesto, to abolish Section 21 no-fault evictions, for laudable reasons. We are all committed to the same thing—that good-quality private sector housing should be available in a fair way, to as many people as possible— and we accept that the Government have a mandate to make tenancy reforms. Notwithstanding that, unfortunately, as the previous Administration found, much of the efficacy of that policy will fall upon the reliability or otherwise of the court system and its ability to expedite possession claims in a timely and efficient way.
His Majesty’s Government’s own figures, as at quarter 4 of 2024, show that seven months is the average time taken to process and enforce a Section 8 possession case—especially around the thorny issue of rent arrears and anti-social behaviour. The LGA and the Law Society have raised this issue. The Law Society in particular notes the potential
“increase in contested hearings in the short term, as landlords that would previously have used”
Section 21, because it was less costly and less onerous, will now
“have to show good reason for eviction”.
On page 65 of the impact assessment, the Government, rather elliptically, reference “non-legislative changes” to improve the court system, but they do not give any detail. That is an important issue, as we are being asked to support the Government’s proposals. How do the Government intend to manage the increased demand? The Housing Minister in the other place used the word “ready”, saying that the Government would not take any precipitous action until the court system was ready. What does “ready” mean? This is a problem the previous Government faced and, as the Minister knows, they resiled from going ahead too fast with this policy because the court system was not fit for purpose. What specific measures will be used to deal with the existing backlog in Section 8 claims arising from landlords seeking to take possession? Let us make no mistake, the failings of the court system have the potential to undermine what would be laudable reforms and could have the perverse effect of encouraging landlords, especially smaller landlords, to exit the private rented sector.
Tenants themselves do not have much faith in the court system. Figures provided in 2023 by Citizens Advice show that only
“23% of tenants feel confident applying to court. 99% of tenants whose landlord has taken an unreasonably long time to complete repairs did not bring a claim for disrepair to court … 54% … said they did not … because of the complexity of the process … 45% … said they were put off by the length of time involved”.
It is also the case that the abolition of Section 21, particularly in respect of smaller landlords, will have an impact on the hitherto good relationship between many tenants and landlords, turning it into a much more litigious and disputatious situation. Many of those landlords will not be prepared to give tenants the benefit of the doubt if they fall on difficult financial times or have less benign economic circumstances. Those are the real-world consequences of this policy and one of the issues that this amendment seeks to address and ameliorate.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, first, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that this is not a wrecking amendment. It is trying to find a solution which does not potentially destroy the private rental market. If it is destroyed in any way, only one group of people will be affected, and that is the tenants.
I am grateful to noble Lords who—
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My apologies, but does the noble Baroness not want to hear first from the Minister on the amendment?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Well, the noble Baroness knows what I am going to say, so that is that.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for moving Amendment 8, and the noble Lords, Lord Jackson, Lord Empey and Lord Murray, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for their comments. This amendment would allow fixed-term initial tenancies where the landlord lets fewer than five properties. As I am sure the noble Baroness would expect, the Government cannot accept this amendment. It would be neither fair nor justified for some tenants to have fewer rights, simply because the landlord happens to have a smaller property portfolio at the point at which the tenancy is entered into. All tenants must enjoy the benefits of the new system and the flexibility that periodic tenancies provide.
I have already commented on the likely impact on the market under Amendment 1. As I mentioned earlier, the noble Baroness referred to changes to the law in Scotland, which was very different in the important matter of rent controls. I met with the Scottish Housing Minister during the recent British-Irish Council and discussed this with him in order to learn lessons from what happened in Scotland.
The English Private Landlord Survey shows that 83% of landlords have four properties or fewer. Accepting this amendment would mean fixed terms remaining available for half of all tenancies. This would clearly fly in the face of what this Bill is trying to achieve. It would definitely break the manifesto commitment that we have already clearly set out and which we stand by.
It is also important to clarify that retaining fixed terms would not preserve the Section 21 eviction process, although this is a common misconception. Nor would it automatically retain the accelerated court procedure used for Section 21 claims, which allows cases to proceed without a hearing. If this amendment were accepted, landlords would still be required to seek possession using one of the grounds in Section 8 of the Housing Act 1988, for which the accelerated court procedure is not available. The removal of Section 21 evictions is the cornerstone of this legislation, and the Government will not accept its reintroduction to reduce court costs or for any other purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, was a Minister in the last Government. I remind him that his Government also had the policy of removing Section 21 evictions. The noble Lord must have had a memory lapse in the Chamber this afternoon.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, referred to the cost of court possession hearings for smaller landlords. We are confident that the Bill does not levy unfair new costs on landlords. However, it is reasonable to expect landlords to ensure that their business model covers the possible cost of possession cases proceeding through court. The current accelerated court procedure is not a guarantee of avoiding court proceedings or the associated costs.
I will comment briefly on the points made by the noble Lord—
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sure the noble Lord has a figure in mind. I will write to him; as he would expect, I do not have that figure at my fingertips.
The availability of court hearings is vital for tenants’ access to justice, especially in the new system whereby landlords must always evidence that grounds are met. We are working closely with our colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and HM Courts & Tribunals Service to make the possession process more efficient and easier to understand. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, made a very good point. It can be difficult for both landlord and tenant to understand the process. They may be deterred from accessing the legal redress to which they are entitled because of difficulties in understanding how it works.
We are also committed to digitising the process. I can reassure the noble Lord that we are working closely with the MoJ to make sure that the justice system is fully prepared to implement the Renters’ Rights Bill once enacted. I am not going to guarantee end-to-end digitisation of the whole court system—that is way beyond my remit in this Chamber—but we are working on it in relation to renters’ rights. This includes a commitment to digitising the county court possession process to create a modern, efficient service for court users. I was reassured to find that this is being built on to an existing system, rather than being created from scratch. Work is proceeding at pace on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Will all these changes to the court system, and digitisation, be totally in place before this part of the Bill is enacted?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I was just about to respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, which may answer that question. As usual, we are working with the Ministry of Justice to complete a justice impact test. This will identify the additional burdens on the justice system arising from new policies in the Renters’ Rights Bill, and it will ensure that the system is fully prepared for any increase in workload. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will respond to that in two ways. First, the work that has been done on the court system is both for landlords and tenants. We want it to work for both sides, so that when a landlord needs to seek possession they can do that quickly. I think any landlord’s business model should account for the possibility of a slight break in rental payment, but obviously we want to resolve these issues as quickly as possible, and to do the same for the tenants. There needs to be quick access to recourse if they need it, and we will do that.
Secondly, in respect to the point about local authorities, I have covered extensively the Government’s assessment of whether this will have an impact on supply issues. I reiterate that the Bill’s impact assessment has received a green rating from the Regulatory Policy Committee. We do not believe there will be a sustained or significant impact on supply, but we will monitor that very carefully once the Bill is passed.
I hope I have answered all noble Lords’ points on this but, for the reasons I have set out, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Again, I apologise to the Minister. First, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that it is not a wrecking amendment but one trying to find a workable solution that does not potentially destroy the private renters’ market as the only people who will suffer from that will be tenants in the future.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and to my noble friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Murray of Blidworth for their thoughtful and constructive insights into how we deal with this issue. Across the Committee there is clearly a shared ambition to improve the private rented sector for tenants, and I believe today’s discussion has shown that doing so must include supporting the landlords who make the sector possible.
As I set out earlier, Amendment 8 is a carefully considered proposal aimed at safeguarding the position of small landlords—those who let fewer than five properties and who make up the overwhelming majority of the sector. These are not large-scale investors or corporations. They are individuals, often couples, pensioners or families, who rent out a single property or two as a way of securing long-term stability for themselves. This amendment is not about undermining tenant protections. It is about recognising that those protections will be meaningful only if the rental homes remain available in the first place.
The removal of Section 21 without adequate alternatives risks pushing small landlords out of the market. As we have heard, this is not hypothetical, it is already happening. Once again, I will talk about Scotland, because I do not believe—and nor do the people in the industry who I have spoken to—that this was just about rent control. In Scotland, it has been made clear what can happen when reforms are introduced without properly accounting for market balance. There has been a sharp reduction in landlord numbers, escalating rents and a shrinking supply of rental homes. This is not the future we want in England for our tenants and is exactly what this amendment seeks to prevent.
Recent findings from the Paragon Bank, based on a survey of over 500 landlords, reinforce this concern for us. An alarming 65% of respondents indicated that they are now more likely to scale back their property holdings as a direct result of current and proposed reforms. This is a clear indication of the potential real-world consequences of the Bill if the needs of small landlords are not adequately considered. Amendment 8 offers a modest but vital safeguard. It enables the Government’s reforms to proceed while providing breathing space for the small-scale landlords who play such a crucial role in meeting the housing needs of this country.
To conclude, I urge the Minister to listen carefully to the issues raised in this group and to give serious consideration to Amendment 8, not as a dilution of the Bill’s aims but as a necessary and constructive contribution to its long-term success. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly from these Benches, in part to spare my noble friend’s voice—I assure noble Lords that no wine has been taken this evening.
I will stress something that is beginning to cause confusion on these Benches: the suggestion that an assured shorthold tenancy is in some way secure. It has been well documented over many years that huge insecurity is attached to an assured shorthold tenancy. Everything that we have learned about the huge turnover has for so many tenants been attached to the fact that ASTs are sometimes down to six months. A periodic tenancy—which has no end—is surely more secure than these fragile assured shorthold tenancies, which are often for only six months and cause huge insecurity for so many tenants. For that reason, these Benches are extremely concerned about the current direction of travel.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. Indeed, it follows on very neatly from our earlier debate on fixed-term tenancies. My noble friends Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Moynihan made compelling arguments for why we should permit fixed-term tenancies for both professional athletes and police officers. The benefits were set out with conviction and clarity, and I hope the Government Benches have listened. Of course, I would prefer that fixed-term tenancies continued to be available for everyone.
I will not rehearse the arguments made earlier, but does not the growing list of amendments seeking exemptions highlight the real value that fixed-term tenancies offer, supporting people from all walks of life, from athletes to police officers and everyone in between? Nurses, doctors, students, military personnel and even performers can all benefit from a fixed-term tenancy. The Government should consider these benefits. In removing fixed terms altogether, the Bill risks taking away short-term lets that serve as a real benefit for many thousands of people.
I turn to the Minister’s Amendment 59, which expands ground 5C to account for police officers. These Benches understand the importance of an employer’s need to regain possession of rented property if the tenancy is linked to a tenant’s employment. I thank the Minister for setting out details of the amendment.
Finally, I wish to note Amendment 62, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I thank him for the chat we had about it, because I had no idea that this happened within the Church of England. Enabling a debate on possession for the purposes of housing a person leaving tied accommodation is most welcome. This is an important issue, as it ensures that a landlord, who is often also the employer, can regain possession of a property when it is needed to house a new employee, but also—as in the case of the Church of England—allows the Church to regain a property that is required for the retiring employee. We must recognise the value of maintaining the availability of essential employment-linked housing, and consider how best to safeguard it in practice. Additionally, we must not discourage landlords from helping tenants by giving them extra time to move out, providing references or offering alternative housing, especially in sectors such as education or farming—or, indeed, in the Church.
This debate has encapsulated the depth and breadth of the Bill, and the numerous areas that it covers. A modern, dynamic workforce needs the freedom to move, adapt and pursue opportunities wherever they arise. We must have a laser focus on occupational needs when considering any changes to the rental market.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, before I respond to these amendments, I congratulate Leeds United on their promotion to the Premier League. They are not my team, but what an achievement. We were all shouting when they got through the other day, so well done to Leeds. I have several close friends who are Leeds supporters, and they will be listening to that with interest.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Moynihan, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for their amendments, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Scott, for their comments. These amendments are on fixed terms and occupational possession grounds. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, is quite right to highlight the insecurity of assured shorthold tenancies. They are not secure tenancies, and I do not accept that it is better for tenants to have a fixed-term tenancy than a periodic tenancy, which is theirs until they decide to end it and give the necessary two months’ notice.
I will start with Amendment 10 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and Amendment 11 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. These would retain fixed terms where the property is let to any ranking serving police officer and to professional athletes. As with Amendment 7, the Government believe tenants should not have reduced flexibility and greater financial obligation because of their personal circumstances. I am not convinced there is any case for police officers, who put themselves on the front line in the service of others, to benefit any less from the new tenancy regime. I do not think the case for that has been made.
We have heard concerns about ensuring provision of housing for the police, and that is why government Amendment 59 amends possession ground 5C to ensure it is available to police forces and others who provide accommodation for their officers. This will allow landlords to take possession where a tenancy was granted to an officer in relation to their service in the office of constable, and the tenancy is no longer required for the purpose for which it was granted. I do not consider it necessary to retain fixed terms in addition to this.
Needless to say, we all want to see the UK’s excellent professional athletes succeed in their endeavours. The whole Committee is aware of the sporting achievements of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and his advocacy and service on behalf of British sport. However, it would seem a shame to lock athletes into fixed terms, which might prevent them moving around the country in pursuit of sporting greatness. We would not want to do that. However, if an athlete is in accommodation provided by their employer, then ground 5C would apply and the tenancy could be ended, as necessary.
Amendment 62, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, seeks to create two new grounds for possession. The first, new ground 8A, would enable a landlord to seek possession from an existing tenant in order to re-let that dwelling to a former employee—of the landlord, we assume—who was housed in accommodation tied to their role. It would also apply to other types of workers, such as officeholders. I appreciate the aim of the right reverend Prelate’s amendment and, following engagement with bishops, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, we are sympathetic and understand that the Church wishes to house retired clergy. However, after very careful consideration, I genuinely believe this should not be at the expense of existing tenants. We have already created expanded or strengthened possession grounds to cover situations—such as housing employees or evicting tenants to use the dwelling as supported accommodation—where we believe that the needs of those involved can be deemed to overrule the general principle that renters deserve security of tenure and should be able to put down roots in their long-term homes.
We are not of the view that housing a former employee of the landlord meets the bar to overrule the general principle that private renters should have secure homes. In order to house the former employee, another tenant would need to be evicted, through no fault of their own, placing them in the position of needing to find a new home. This simply moves the problem around. As such, we are content that the current grounds strike the right balance.
The second proposed ground, 8B, seeks to enable possession of a tenanted property so it can be relet to a surviving spouse, civil partner or dependant of a person described in the previous proposed ground who died before being required to vacate the accommodation linked to their role. Although I appreciate the reasons behind wanting to help people in these circumstances, again, this proposed new ground would mean an existing tenant could be evicted through no fault of their own, simply moving the problem around and creating more insecurity for more tenants. For the reasons I have set out, I ask that noble Lords not press their amendments.
Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill
Baroness Scott of Bybrook ExcerptsTuesday 1st April 2025
(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Act 2024-26 View all Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Act 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 90-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reasons - (1 Apr 2025)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will also speak to Motions B to F. Motions A to D and Motion F ask noble Lords not to insist on their Amendments 1B, 2B, 7B, 8B and 15B to 15E. The other place disagreed to these amendments on the basis that they interfere with the public revenue and affect the levy and application of local revenues. The other place did not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason is sufficient.
Amendments 1B, 2B, 7B and 8B seek to allow the Treasury to exclude healthcare and anchor stores from the higher multiplier through regulations. As set out in this House previously, these amendments are unnecessary as the powers they seek to create already exist in the Bill.
The measures set out in Clauses 1 to 4 deliver on the Government’s commitment as set out at the Autumn Budget. Furthermore, they represent the first step of this Government’s work to transform the business rates system. It is essential that the Government are able to progress this work by taking this first step.
Further reforms will come, as the Government have made clear, and further information on this will be set out in the coming months. We want to start our journey with the Bill. Therefore, I respectfully ask noble Lords not to insist on their amendments.
Amendments 15B to 15E would move the decision to remove charitable rate relief from private schools from one being made by Parliament in the Bill to one that would be made by the Secretary of State through regulations, subject to the affirmative procedure. I have already stated the Government’s view that this is a matter for Parliament to decide, which is why we have invited Parliament to do so through the Bill. For these reasons I ask that noble Lords do not insist on these amendments.
Motion E asks the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, not to insist on his Amendment 13B. The other place disagreed to this amendment on the basis that the Government have already agreed to publish information about the new multipliers and further provision is not necessary. The first part of Amendment 13B is concerned with a review that would consider the impacts of Clauses 1 to 4 on properties with a rateable value close to £500,000. I understand that this is seeking to further understand the way that the multipliers in business rates operate and whether the thresholds within the system serve as a disincentive to invest. As previously set out in this House, the Government have already committed to looking at this question through the broader transforming business rates work, and therefore to stipulate this in legislation is not necessary.
The second part of Amendment 13B seeks a review of the merits of a new use class within business rates and an associated multiplier for online fulfilment warehouses. As I have set out previously, this question has arisen over recent years and is something in which the Government have an interest. First, I should be clear to the House that the Government’s intention at this time is to have only one higher multiplier and for that to be applied to all properties with a rateable value at or above £500,000. However, I understand that the noble Lord’s amendment is more concerned with the ability to target online-focused warehouses. I assure the noble Lord and the House that the Bill already provides the Government with the ability to introduce additional higher multipliers in future if required.
The noble Lord’s amendment explored how these online warehouses can be identified in business rates. We have looked at this again, and I remain sure that the best place to tackle this is through the digitalising business rates project. This project links together HMRC and VOA data from which we expect to be able to identify online businesses operating distribution warehouses separately from businesses that operate on the high street. I hope I can give the noble Lord some further reassurance on what we have found. The project will create opportunities to better target business rates policy in future by having access to more comprehensive data. Using this data, the Government could target particular types of businesses within the warehousing sector. I believe this is what the noble Lord is seeking to achieve. Such an approach will do that systematically, using the latest data and technology, and give us the best prospect of a solution that can be fully integrated into the business rates system.
We are confident that this approach is preferable to one that looks to categorise how individual warehouses are being used on the ground, especially given that one warehouse used by one type of business may in practice be used in much the same way as another used by another type of business. Attempting to categorise warehouses by how they are used as opposed to who they are used by, without more accurate data on the businesses using them, risks capturing warehouses used by businesses that we are seeking to protect, creating a far higher burden on high street retailers. I am aware that the noble Lord feels that this is valuable, and I recognise that. I hope he can understand why the Government cannot accept the amendment. However, we are prepared to keep engaging with him on this matter, be that directly with him or with the three professional bodies he mentions in his amendment. On this basis, I respectfully ask the noble Lord not to insist on his amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The Bill not only fails to deliver on the Government’s manifesto but is far from the reform of the business rates system that was promised and will be a damaging blow to our high streets. We have debated the numerous issues present in the Bill a number of times, and I remain exceptionally concerned about the higher multiplier that will undoubtedly hit anchor stores in town centres; the impact of the blunt £500,000 threshold on businesses with values close to that margin, which will affect their decisions about investment; and the Government’s decision to place a tax on education. We have urged them time and again to rethink, but they remain unmoved by our arguments and, more importantly, by the views of people and businesses across the country. I hope that anchor stores will not leave the high street and that this will not result in the destruction of our town centres, but the Government are making it more difficult for those businesses with this blunt tool, which will hit larger stores with higher business taxes.
The Government have rejected even our amendments that would have allowed the Secretary of State to exempt certain businesses if this proved to be damaging, but they are so confident in this increase to business rates that they do not need that power to reverse these decisions. Only time will tell whether that confidence was misguided.
Holocaust Memorial Bill
Baroness Scott of Bybrook ExcerptsThursday 27th March 2025
(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Holocaust Memorial Bill 2022-23 View all Holocaust Memorial Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 4-IV Fourth marshalled list for Grand Committee - (25 Mar 2025)
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 21. I have a few straightforward questions for the Minister on the so-called planning process. First, I say to my noble friend Lord Pickles, in the most comradely and indeed cuddly way, that I think he misunderstood what my noble friend Lord Robathan was saying. I do not take my noble friend Lord Robathan’s comments to mean that the Labour and Tory groups met in some secret cabal or caucus to sabotage the planning application. I took them to mean that, when they met in the council properly to determine it, all the Tories and Labour people voted against it, perfectly legitimately—not in some secret caucus.
The questions I have for the Minister are straightforward. First, will he confirm that the designated Minister to decide on the three options that he mentioned last week will be from his own department? Will it be Matthew Pennycook MP, Jim McMahon OBE MP, Rushanara Ali MP, Alex Norris MP or the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage? Secondly, will he state how their independence will be judged?
I must tell the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that in my opinion there is not the slightest snowflake’s chance in Hades that the Government will again send this to Westminster City Council for a planning application. They will go for the other two internal options. In that regard, will the Minister set out exactly how the round-table proposal will work? Who will be invited, how many round tables will there be and what written evidence will they accept?
Finally, there is a suggestion for written representations as another option. Will he or the designated Minister accept and give full consideration to all written representations received, just like the planning application to Westminster City Council? If the designated Minister rejects them, will his or her justification be set out in full?
For the benefit of any present who may wish to give the Minister any advisory notes from the Box, I repeat: who will be the designated Minister? How will the department determine his or her independence? How will the round tables work? Will written representations permit all the representations that Westminster City Council receives? How will they be assessed? Will the designated Minister set out in full the reasons for rejecting written arguments, if the decision to go ahead is taken?
There you go, my Lords: two and a half minutes, which is a record for me in this Committee.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group, as with many of the amendments that have been tabled to the Bill, relate to the planning process and the impact that the new memorial and learning centre will have on security and other buildings in the area.
Amendment 21, from my noble friend Lady Fookes, asks for a new planning application because of new information on security and environmental impacts. We have discussed these issues in an earlier group and I do not intend to revisit those arguments in my remarks here.
The amendment also seeks to place an expanded notification duty on the applicant. I do not support the amendment, but I am sure that the Minister will take this opportunity to reassure my noble friend Lady Fookes and her cosignatories that appropriate notifications will, as always, be sent in the appropriate manner to the appropriate persons.
Amendment 34, in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, seeks to require another impact assessment before this project. I know that my noble friend’s concerns are deeply felt, but I do not feel that we need to do a further impact assessment. We need to make progress on the delivery of this landmark memorial, which was promised to this country so very long ago.
Amendment 38 seeks to give Parliament the final decision on planning. Parliament will have a say once the Bill is passed. We are not certain that bringing the proposition to Parliament once again is at all appropriate.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, the point I was arguing was about the LCC Act 1900, which completely antedates the planning system and imposes some statutory covenants. My amendment is focused on the statutory covenants, which have nothing to do with the planning system at all. If it is presented as something to do with the planning system, that is fundamentally to misunderstand the reality of the position we are in.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, but what we are discussing here should only be the covenant and we are discussing things that appertain to the planning application.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, but they are different, and they have different relevance and values associated with them, because in essence they operate in different areas of law and/or administration.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I have nothing further to say, my Lords.
Amendment 42, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, touches on an important issue. Obviously, we would not want any proposals to damage or undermine the Palace of Westminster, Westminster Abbey or St Margaret’s. These are sites of immense value to the British people, and the abbey is of global architectural importance. That said, again, we do not feel that this amendment is necessary, and these questions should be addressed, as always, through the planning process.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Howard and Lord Inglewood, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Fookes, for bringing these amendments. This group of amendments seeks to put in place a series of new requirements that must be met before progress could be made with construction of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre.
It may be helpful if I briefly remind the Grand Committee that a very extensive process has already been followed in the journey from the 2015 report of the Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission. The commission consulted extensively before submitting its report, entitled Britain’s Promise to Remember, in January 2015. The recommendations in that report were accepted by all major political parties. An independent, cross-party foundation then led an extensive search for the right site. The foundation included experienced and eminent property developers. A firm of professional property consultants was commissioned to provide assistance. Around 50 sites were identified and considered.
The outcome is of course well known: Victoria Tower Gardens was identified as the most suitable site. The foundation was unanimous in recommending the site, which gives the memorial the prominence it deserves and which uniquely allows the story of the Holocaust to be told alongside the Houses of Parliament. The design of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre was chosen by a broad-based panel after an international competition with more than 90 entrants.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I will make a few comments on Amendments 24 and 41, which deal with the interrelationship between the Holocaust memorial and the restoration and renewal programme for the Palace of Westminster. I am the deputy chair of the R&R Programme Board, and I chair its sub-board, although I stress that I am speaking today strictly in my own capacity and not on behalf of the boards. As my noble friend Lady Deech said, I gave evidence to the Bill Select Committee at an earlier stage. I thought it would be helpful to the Grand Committee to set out briefly the ways that these two substantial projects may interact.
As noble Lords are probably aware, three R&R options are currently being worked out and we hope that the two Houses will make a decision later this year. One thing that all three have in common is that they expect to use a substantial portion of the gardens—nearly 50% by area—during the works as a marshalling area, for storage, for welfare provision, for loading and unloading and so on, as well as for the tunnelling activities that the noble Baroness referred to. To correct her, all three options include tunnelling under the building, not just two. This would all take place in the end of the gardens nearest the Palace and include the part of the gardens currently occupied by the temporary education centre.
The timing of when the use of the gardens would start to be required varies depending on which option we choose, but it is likely that it will be somewhere around 2030 to 2033. Some access may be needed before that to build a jetty in the river and, as the noble Baroness mentioned, the Victoria Tower works, which may or may not be part of R&R, depending on decisions taken, are due to start fairly imminently. Whichever option we take, the R&R works will be long term, so we are probably talking about a minimum usage of a substantial portion of the gardens for about a decade and potentially, perhaps probably, very much longer. The longer options last up to about 50 years.
As I understand it, the Holocaust memorial should be completed and open by the time the major works for R&R would get fully under way, so the overlap of the actual construction works on the two projects will be limited. But that does not mean there will be no interaction between the two projects. There are three principal areas of concern.
First, there is a concern that using a significant part of the gardens for the Holocaust memorial may make it more difficult to obtain the necessary consents for the use of a large part of what remains of the gardens for the purpose of the R&R project. Secondly, there is the impact that having nearly half of the gardens blocked off and being, effectively, part of a major building site for many years will have on the Holocaust memorial. That must surely impact on the dignity of the site and the ability for quiet reflection within it. Thirdly, there is the impact on the gardens. Having the two projects under way will inevitably mean that, for quite a long time, very little of the gardens will be available for use as a park. We will first have the upheaval from the building of the memorial and then, once that is completed, the other half of the gardens will become a building site. Quiet enjoyment of the gardens as a park will be near impossible for many years, possibly decades.
Whether these amendments are the right way forward is up for debate, but the Government really need to take this issue much more seriously than they seem to have done so far. When the Minister kindly arranged a virtual meeting before Second Reading, I asked about the interaction with R&R and was told by the officials present, effectively, that all was in hand and had been taken into account. I am afraid I felt that rather complacent at the time and still do. It is certainly not my understanding from my role as deputy chair of the programme board that this is under complete control. This is a very serious issue and needs much greater consideration by the Government.
Amendment 24 could usefully be strengthened: it requires the authorities of both Houses only to certify that they have satisfied themselves that the activities covered by the Bill will not impede the R&R of the Palace of Westminster. I think the amendment could usefully look at the three impacts I have described—in other words, it could also helpfully consider the impact of R&R on the Holocaust memorial itself, as well as the combined impacts of the two projects on the ability to enjoy the use of the gardens as a park.
I struggle slightly with Amendment 41, as it would mean that the Act will not come into force until R&R is completed, which could be decades—indeed, up to 50 years—away. It is, effectively, a wrecking amendment, so perhaps that goes a bit too far. But I support the sentiments and, again, I cannot urge the Minister strongly enough to take these issues much more seriously than they have been taken so far before any final decision is taken.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, both amendments in this group seek to delay plans to deliver the memorial and learning centre unless it can be shown that the works will not negatively impact the process of the restoration and renewal. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, for his clear explanation of the timescales and the importance of continued discussion between the two projects. When I was Minister in the department, that was happening regularly, as were discussions on security and other issues, and it is important that those things continue. With respect, however, what we have here is one long-planned and undelivered project and another long-planned and undelivered project, and I feel it is now time just to get on with the important delivery of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. It is not going to be as long a project as the restoration project, and we should get on with it and deliver what is important.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 24 and 41 proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, deal with the important matter of co-ordination between the programmes to construct a Holocaust memorial and learning centre and the programme of restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. It is of course essential that care should be taken when planning these projects.
The House of Lords Select Committee gave a good deal of attention to this matter and addressed it in its report. It recommended that we should give detailed consideration to how the construction and operation of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre and the restoration and renewal programme will interact with each other, and accommodate the use of Victoria Tower Gardens by nearby residents and their children. We made clear in our response to the Select Committee that we agree on the importance of the interaction between the two programmes and that the interests of users of the gardens need to be considered. We will continue to work with the restoration and renewal programme to make sure that we understand those interactions and potential impacts.
It is worth noting—as the Select Committee made clear in its report—that the evidence presented to the committee was that the main restoration and renewal works would not begin before 2029 at the earliest. I also remind noble Lords that the Holocaust memorial and learning centre is to be constructed at the southern end of Victoria Tower Gardens—in other words, the opposite end of the gardens to the area which may be required during the restoration and renewal programme.
With all that in mind, we do not believe that there is good reason to expect any major practical conflict between the two programmes, and there is no reason that the construction and operation of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre should be contingent on certification by the authorities of both Houses of Parliament. It would be even less sensible to delay the entire project until the restoration and renewal programme is complete. The commencement of the construction of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre is a matter for the statutory planning framework that Parliament has put in place to determine planning matters.
It is very important that I say this. I want to engage with the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, in particular, and I want to make sure that, after the great, eloquent contribution from the noble Lord, we pay due respect and have regard to the points he makes. I am happy to arrange a meeting to discuss it in detail and to show how seriously we want to see interaction between the programmes. The two programme teams already meet regularly to share information and co-ordinate plans to reduce potential impacts. Rest assured, they will continue to do so.
I respectfully ask the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, to withdraw Amendment 24 and not to press Amendment 41.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords on all sides for their many powerful and often moving speeches throughout the whole of this Committee.
Amendments 32 and 38A seek to require the Holocaust memorial and learning centre to focus solely on the Nazi genocide of Jews and antisemitism, and to be in conformity with Britain’s Promise to Remember: The Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission Report. My understanding is that this is the Government’s intention, and I hope the Minister can confirm this.
This is the final group that we will debate in Committee. I conclude, as I began, with a clear statement of our support for the Government’s plans to deliver the Holocaust memorial and learning centre as soon as possible. As the Committee knows, I have worked on this as a Minister and will continue to work with the noble Lord opposite to support the delivery of this important project.
As I have said before, a Conservative Prime Minister made this solemn commitment to the survivors of the Holocaust, and we will stand by that commitment, made 11 years ago. This is not a promise to be broken. Eighty years on from so many liberations of concentration camps, we must get on and deliver the Holocaust memorial and learning centre right here in Westminster, at the heart of our democracy. We must do this so that the survivors who are still with us can see it open to the public. It is our duty to renew our commitment never to forget the horrors of the Holocaust. We support the Government in making good on that promise.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this final group take us to topics at the heart of the Government’s reasons for seeking to establish a new national memorial and learning centre.
Amendment 32 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would restrict the learning centre to providing solely
“education about the Nazi genocide of the Jews and antisemitism”.
The proposed new clause is well intentioned but overly restrictive and may have unintended consequences. First, it is unnecessary. The Bill—the clue is in its name—clearly refers to a memorial commemorating the victims of the Holocaust and a centre for learning related to the memorial. This Bill is about a memorial to the Holocaust, not to all genocides or crimes against humanity. The learning centre will focus on the unique crime of the Holocaust and aim to set the historical facts in the context of antisemitism. No Holocaust memorial and learning centre could exist without a clear understanding of the roots of antisemitism.
The clause may also have unintended consequences. It may discourage the learning centre from exploring the context and complexity of the Holocaust, missing an opportunity to create an educational offer that would benefit visitors. From the start, we have been clear that, to understand the devastation of the Holocaust on European Jewry, it is crucial to also understand the vibrancy and breadth of Jewish life before the Holocaust.
The centre is also intended to address subsequent genocides within the context of the Holocaust, showing how the Holocaust led to the development of international law. It is doubtful whether either of these topics could be included in the learning centre under this proposed new clause. The content for the learning centre is being developed by a leading international curator, Yehudit Shendar—formerly of Yad Vashem—with the support of an academic advisory group. They will ensure that the content is robust and credible and reflects the current state of historical investigation into, and interpretation of, the Holocaust.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I said at the beginning that I thought this was about the most important amendment we had; I am glad that I have, I think, been proved right. We have had a highly provocative, important debate on what the learning centre should be about. It has been stressed time and again that it should be about the Holocaust and antisemitism—nothing else.
I am grateful to all those of my noble friends who participated; to two highly distinguished Cross-Benchers, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew; and the non-affiliated Peer who signed my amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame. He is a highly distinguished King’s Counsel who has led on many important cases in this country. I will forgive him for taking a brief from the ghastly Leigh Day firm; that was a cab rank thing, I suppose. He is also a professor of international law at King’s College. He rightly made the point that there will be controversy on what other groups are to be included; that point was picked up by my noble friend Lord Goodman, who supported my amendment and also made the point about there being a lot of controversy around what the other genocides are.
I think I would be right to say that probably every noble Lord in this place knows that what happened in Armenia 110 years ago, with 1 million Armenians slaughtered, was genocide. Some other countries in the world have said that, but no British Government have ever called it genocide because we are terrified that, if we call it genocide, Turkey and President Erdoğan—a big NATO member—will get terribly upset. Therefore, we do not call it genocide for wider geopolitical and military reasons; we have the same problem in trying to select various other genocides to attach here.
My noble friend Lady Fleet made a powerful speech on the antisemitism that she and her husband and family currently face. She rightly pointed out that the evil chant of “from the river to the sea” means the extermination of the Jews; she also made the point that the memorial and the learning centre must be about the Holocaust and antisemitism only.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, kept asking what the learning centre is about and what it is supposed to teach. If it is supposed to teach 2,000 years of Jewish history, you need something better than a few posters and videos in this little bunker; you need the giant campus that the Holocaust Commission proposed. Other Jewish organisations could have rooms there and you could have conferences. You would actually teach the 2,000-year history of Jewish life and the Holocaust in full detail.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, just made an intervention to say that his family fought the Germans. My uncles did as well, in the 51st Highland Division; they were captured at Saint-Valery and spent five years of the war in, I think, Stalag IV-D.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, asked: who are the beneficiaries? He rightly pointed out it would be those wandering Jews from 1,300 BC and the exodus in Egypt to the present day; that is 3,300 years of Jews looking for a safe home somewhere in the world. He also made the point that this must be about the Shoah and nothing else.
The shadow Minister, my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, said that the point was to get the learning centre built so that the survivors of the Holocaust could see in their lifetime that we were commemorating the Holocaust. If I may say so, that is not the important point. The point is not, as was wrongly said in this Committee by a colleague, that this is for the benefit of the Jews. The whole point of the memorial and the learning centre is that it is for the tens of millions of people who deny that the Holocaust ever existed. The survivors of the Holocaust do not need to be told how bad it was—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am sorry but they have told me very strongly—and have done so over a number of years, as they have told the Minister now—that they would like to see it.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I accept that. Of course they would like to see it—I totally understand that; I am not dismissing their desire—but what is more important: placating and dealing with their desire, or addressing the millions of people who are calling for a new holocaust and denying that the last Holocaust ever existed? That concern must take priority over building something that is grossly inadequate to please the existing survivors. The Minister talked again about it communicating the value of Jewish life over 2,000 years. I simply make the point, again, that you cannot do that with this little bunker; you need a proper learning centre, which the original Holocaust Commission called for.
I cannot see how on earth you can put an exhibition in this bunker that has any relevance to what happened later in Darfur or to Pol Pot. There is nothing to learn about these genocides from what happened to the Jews.
The noble Lord pointed out that every Prime Minister has supported this. Those of us who have been in Parliament for many years have always formed the view that when both political parties agree on something, the public are being stuffed somewhere. When you have half a dozen Prime Ministers agreeing on something, you can again be sure to bet that the public are being misled. If one could, I would love to put down a Parliamentary Question asking how many times these former Prime Ministers have actually walked through Victoria gardens.
Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill)
Baroness Scott of Bybrook ExcerptsWednesday 26th March 2025
(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Act 2024-26 View all Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Act 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 86-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reasons - (26 Mar 2025)
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, as the Minister said, the higher rate or multiplier being introduced in this Bill is to apply to all properties with a rateable value of more than £500,000. This is a worthy attempt by the Government to have a fairer approach to business rates.
However, 290 hospitals are captured by this new banding. It means a considerable increase in their business rates—potentially, a 20% increase—for which government funding has not made provision, so hospitals will have less funding to drive down waiting lists, which is an aim that has all our support. I give just one example: University College Hospital here in London has a rateable value of nearly £12 million. With the new higher multiplier, its business rates will increase by over £1.2 million.
Amendment 1B, in lieu of Amendment 1, would provide the Government with the option, by regulations, to exclude hospitals from this higher banding. At this late stage, I urge the Minister to agree. None of us wants to see waiting lists not going down as fast as they could because of the Government’s reluctance to exclude hospitals—not from business rates, just from the higher multiplier.
I will speak very briefly to the other Motions. Motion B1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, is very important to the viability and vitality of our town and city centres. We on these Benches are minded to support the noble Baroness on this issue if she wishes to take it to a vote.
Motion N1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, would provide the Government with a way forward to address cliff-edge issues when there are hard divides between different multiplier levels. This is of concern to businesses and, again, we will support the noble Lord if he intends to divide the House on this issue. I beg to move Motion A1.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, first, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. This group of amendments addresses the ongoing issues with Clauses 1 to 4 that have been debated throughout the progress of the Bill. These clauses present two major problems. They do not reflect the Government’s previously stated ambition to reform the business rates system in order to protect the high street and ensure that online businesses pay their fair share. The higher multiplier will damage businesses on the high street and drive them out of town centres.
The Bill is an attempt by the Government to deliver on their manifesto commitment to reform the business rates system, but they have instead used a blunt instrument as a cut-off. That means that a number of businesses will be paying this higher multiplier, which they should not be doing. The Government will be hitting stores up and down the high street. Despite promises that reform will follow, the Bill leaves a number of important high street businesses paying higher rates, with no certainty at all as to when the situation will improve.
“(1A) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1)(a) may specify that occupied anchor stores are not subject to the higher multiplier (and may define “anchor stores” for this purpose).””
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, in support of businesses on high streets up and down this country, I intend to test the opinion of the House.
“(1A) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1)(a) may specify that unoccupied anchor stores are not subject to the higher multiplier (and may define “anchor stores” for this purpose).””
Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) Order 2025
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
That this House regrets that the Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) Order 2025, laid before the House on 11 February, 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 Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the Minister, and I thank her for her answers, but I believe there are still many unanswered questions on this subject—for both local government and the communities that local government serves, so I wish to test the opinion of the House.
High-rise Buildings: Safety Remediation
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord that it is very important that the enforcement we set out is carried out. We have already committed £14 million to local authorities to build the capacity and capability to take that enforcement action, and the Deputy Prime Minister has announced increased funding to double that enforcement activity. In addition to enhancing the national joint inspection team, we will ensure local authorities continue to have access to expertise they can call on around their most complex and high-risk buildings. But it is vital that those who are responsible for this are both brought to account and contribute to the remediation work that needs doing.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the Government have identified that barriers to development-led remediation include disputes between developers and freeholders over access to buildings, delays in securing the necessary regulatory approvals and access to independent assessors to carry out the quality of assessments. Will the Minister set out what the Government are doing to overcome these barriers to vital progress?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The remediation action plan points to the action that we need to take to move this on more quickly. Developers have determined whether work is required on about 80% of buildings for which they have taken responsibility under the remediation contract. Both developers and the Government are committed to accelerating that progress, which is why we have the plan that we published on 2 December as a joint plan. Thirty-nine developers have signed up to that and we will be moving that forward. If they fail to hit those joint plan targets, further action will be taken.
Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) Order 2025
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I rise to express deep concern over this statutory instrument, which marks yet another step in the Government’s rushed approach to local government restructuring. While we continue to support meaningful devolution that enables local communities to thrive and prosper, we are concerned about the process being followed and the sweeping changes being imposed top-down on our local authorities. Quite simply, devolution should be locally led, and these measures are not. We believe that no council should be coerced or pressured into restructuring by a top-down diktat from Whitehall. It is wrong for the Government to adopt a divide-and-rule approach to local government.
I turn to the effect of these measures. This statutory instrument is not just a procedural shift; it is a clear manifestation of the Government’s top-down approach to restructuring local government, with little or no consideration for local consensus. We are particularly concerned about the unprecedented delays—up to three years—and the prospect of existing councillors serving up to a seven-year term. The Government’s decision to bypass any public consultation on this is a significant failure. I ask the Minister: why were the public not consulted on these changes? How can the Government justify proceeding with such a major overhaul without having meaningful engagement with local communities first?
Local councils themselves were given a mere deadline of 10 January 2025 to submit expressions of interest for restructuring, with no further opportunity for public consultation or engagement with those who will be directly impacted by these decisions. The entire exercise has been rushed: from the publication of the devolution White Paper to a minimal feedback period of only four weeks, which included the Christmas break. District councils were never properly consulted either and residents have not been asked for their views. Local government experts have warned:
“We are dealing with the worst white paper for local government in living memory and one which treats it with cavalier disregard”.
That was from the “Local Authority” podcast of 26 January 2025. Will the Minister please respond to what I consider to be serious concerns?
We have heard that this statutory instrument claims to postpone the May 2025 elections, yet this is far more than a postponement. We believe it is an outright cancellation for these councils—specifically, East Sussex, Essex, Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, Norfolk, Suffolk, Surrey, Thurrock and West Sussex—all under the guise of the devolution priority programme. Can the Minister provide a clear timeline for these new elections, including county, unitary, district and mayoral elections, taking into account any changes to ward boundaries?
While I am on the subject of boundary changes, the long-term implications of such changes are a matter of great concern. As we move forward with the creation of new authorities and the restructuring of local government, the role of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England will be crucial in determining how these changes are implemented. Will the Minister outline the timetable for these boundary changes? We need to know when the Local Government Boundary Commission will begin its review and how long it will take to finalise the new boundaries for the affected councils. If she cannot answer today, please will she write to me with all those details?
Can the Minister also provide any assurance that the Local Government Boundary Commission’s recommendations will be made publicly available well in advance, allowing local councils, residents and other stakeholders to fully engage with and review the proposed changes before they are finalised, as has always been the case? Without clear communication and ample time for consultation, we risk a lack of transparency and fairness in redrawing the boundaries.
Given the concerns I have raised today, some noble Lords may be wondering why I have tabled a regret Motion and not a fatal Motion, such as those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Pinnock. We are the Official Opposition and there is a long-standing convention under successive Governments of all colours, and recognised by the major parties at least since the 1950s, on the constitutional relationship between the two Houses of Parliament. It is the responsibility of the House of Lords to scrutinise and, where appropriate, revise legislation—and, ultimately, to respect the will of the elected House. But that does not detract from the concerns I have raised today.
While we all want to work collaboratively with local government to ensure that these changes are beneficial for our communities, the current process has been rushed and lacks the necessary consideration of local views and the needs of local communities. We urge the Government to pause, reconsider the pace of these changes and offer a clearer, more structured plan that involves local authorities and their residents in shaping the future of what is their local government.
If the fatal Motions fall, I shall be testing the opinion of the House on my regret Motion.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I support this Government’s plans for devolution. For years and years, the local government map has needed to be changed. That is a fact, but no Government have attempted to do it for many years.
Changing local government is not an easy task and requires political parties, and of course local authorities and the Government themselves, to look further than just at their short-term political advantage, so that England can enjoy a modern and effective local government system that has real power and influence, while taking some of the power away from the centre. This takes time and I commend the Government’s approach. The matter before the House today is of importance, but I really do not think that it is an attack on the principles of democracy. Those who say it is are mistaken.
I will make one further point before I sit down. The Government have proposals that had to be put in by 21 March—last week. They want and need time to consider them, and to come up with views and proposals themselves. I think that will be by the end of the year. It is one of those proposals that I want to talk about.
I want the Government to consider, when they make their proposals, something that, if acted on, will put right what I consider to be a serious mistake, or accident, that occurred many decades ago in the 1970s in England. Some noble Lords will remember the dividing up of English cities into metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. Very sensibly, many cities had their boundaries increased so that they could accord with reality. They could have the space and the geographical diversity to offer their residents all that a city should, including space for new housing, green spaces and facilities of all kinds.
Examples of metropolitan cities which were properly extended include Leeds, Bradford and Sheffield. However, the non-metropolitan cities were not so lucky; their boundaries remained precisely the same. In many cases, these are boundaries that are now over 100 years old. This has led to city boundaries sometimes being totally artificial, with nowhere to build up housing. Any reasonable person using their common sense can see how ridiculous some of the boundaries are for cities at present. I should add that I have been a police and crime commissioner for an area that had unitary authorities, a county council and district councils. I have also been a local councillor in both a city and a district.
Leicester is a classic example of a non-metropolitan city at that time that suffered, as others did, from the ridiculous decisions taken in the 1970s. Its present boundaries are genuinely ridiculous. It is one of the most tightly constrained cities in the whole United Kingdom. Its boundaries have remained largely unchanged for 100 years. It has no chance of delivering, for example, the extra housing that is vitally needed. The population density is enormous compared with the cities I referred to that were lucky enough to have their boundaries extended. The figures speak for themselves. In Sheffield the population per square kilometre is 1,200 people. In Leicester, the population per square kilometre is 5,000 people. That is totally wrong.
I make these points in this debate because the Government will have to make their decision on issues such as this when it comes to the right time to make those decisions. I want to give the Government a chance to make the right decision as far as cities and other parts of local government are concerned. That is why I think the Government deserve our support tonight.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, on the question of the manifesto and devolution, I do not think it was very clear to communities or individuals that “devolution” also meant local government reorganisation.
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.