Private Rented Sector: Affordable Rents
Baroness Thornhill Excerpts(4 days, 22 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I understand the point the right reverend Prelate makes about the conversion of family homes into HMOs. I do not have those figures here, so I will write to her with a response.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, evidence from Scotland shows that only 4% of tenants with a rent rise use the First-tier Tribunal to challenge that rise. How will the Government ensure that more tenants are aware of and use this right? Does the Minister accept that, in a system where demand significantly outstrips supply, a tribunal decision that the rent is fair does not make it affordable?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I absolutely understand the point the noble Baroness makes, but tenants will be able to dispute rent increases they think are above market rate by referring their case to the First-tier Tribunal. The tribunal will assess what the landlord could expect to receive if re-letting the property on the open market, and it will determine the rent. Both landlords and tenants will have the opportunity to submit evidence, and the tribunal will not be able to determine a rent increase higher than the landlord had originally proposed—all through our Renters’ Rights Bill. So we are improving the position for tenants, and for landlords, who will be able to make their case at the tribunal.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Baroness Thornhill Excerpts(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, on their entry to the House. I really enjoyed both their speeches. I felt they were delivered with passion and with that which is always welcome in this House—humour. I thank the Minister, who has been very generous with her time in answering our many and varied queries.
This has been a very lengthy and informed debate, and at times somewhat heated. I was reminded—if I needed to be—that we are indeed a nation of pet lovers. Coming at this stage in the batting order and knowing that we all now really just want to hear the Minister’s responses to our very wide-ranging concerns, I have ruled out a lot of facts and details that noble Lords have diligently provided. I am aiming to be succinct, I hope, and not too repetitive.
First, I thank from our Benches the very many who have sent us briefings, particularly the Renters’ Reform Coalition—especially Generation Rent and Shelter. For the landlords—and let us be honest, the majority are good landlords—I thank the National Residential Landlords Association, Propertymark and LARG. They all welcome the Bill in different ways but see unintended consequences. We must explore these, and seek to remedy them and strengthen the Bill, which will be our task over the coming months.
As many have said, we too are pleased to receive the Bill. On the whole, there is much to be welcomed, such as the abolition of Section 21, which has been trailed so much and for so long that it is very much taken for granted. We do not accept the plea from landlords that we should wait until the courts are ready; they should be by now as they too have had ample notice. My question to the Minister is: are they ready?
That said, we do think there are other legitimate concerns from the landlords’ side, as was very well expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in her detailed contribution. We will join that ride on the see-saw. In particular, we ask the Government for a timeline of the many and various aspects of the Bill to provide certainty, because that is what has been missed in all this. The sector—tenants and landlords—need certainty for all parties, so that we do not jeopardise the Bill’s key objectives in haste or unpreparedness.
It must be said, and has been said by several noble Lords, that a lack of supply of homes for social rent over decades has brought us to this crisis point. The noble Lord, Lord Best, outlined this particularly well. This has created an entire cohort of renters who would have previously been housed in social housing but are now struggling in the private rented sector. They can often be the most vulnerable and financially challenged, and in need of additional support. Our real concern is that despite the Bill they may well still be at the sharp end of renting, unable to access the rights enabled in the Bill and vulnerable to being threatened by the least scrupulous landlords—as was passionately and forcefully expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. We also have concerns for these residents around eligibility checks and guarantors. We need the issues raised by landlords to be fully answered to protect these renters.
The Bill relies on tenants to challenge their landlord across a range of issues, not just regarding rent rises but on unfit properties and repairs, as we have heard. Of course, the Bill gives tenants more rights. We applaud that but doubt whether the residents about whom we are most concerned will have the means or the motivation to take advantage of the new rights. Can the Minister outline any changes that will be brought in, possibly in other ways, to support tenant advocacy, as is the case in the social rented sector? The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, pointed out just how complex the current system is. It will deter even the hardiest tenant.
The Bill is clear that a database could be a great aid to tenants in this regard. We believe that it has the potential to be a game-changer, as outlined by my noble friend Lady Grender. We regret that the detail of its contents is to be left to secondary legislation. We seek for some clear criteria to be enshrined in the Bill to ensure that it really is fit for purpose. In particular, we would support failure to register on the database becoming a breach of duty which would count towards a rent repayment order. That would provide a real incentive to register, in addition to the heavy fines indicated in the Bill.
On renters repayment orders, we are pleased that the Bill introduces six more offences that constitute a breach, but we feel that this is somewhat neutered by the First-tier Tribunal’s powers. It appears that it must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that one of these offences has been committed, as this is the criminal standard of proof—it is a very high bar. I listened intently to the nuanced and detailed response of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, on this.
It is clear that every one of us is concerned about whether the measures in the Bill would lead to a drop in supply. It is strongly claimed by the landlord sector— I believe that evidence from Scotland has actually been mixed—but is contested by others, as there may be different reasons why some of the baby boomer owners have decided that they have had enough and want to sell up.
What is in no doubt is that there are legitimate concerns about the flight of landlords to more lucrative short-term lets, such as Airbnb. This concern is heightened in the Bill by the measure to abolish fixed-term tenancy, which, while a welcome measure for many, could have unintended consequences. Therefore, we feel that some provision for a review should be built into the Bill, no matter what it ends up being, because the rhetoric on both sides of this argument needs to be tested against reality. As the supply side is the crucial issue, can the Minister tell us when there will be a level playing field between both rental sectors, as the Airbnb side is far less regulated at present and there are no incentives to encourage landlords back? Several noble Lords will say that the Bill actually does the opposite.
The Liberal Democrats support build to rent. Supply of this and social homes is vital to climb slowly out of our housing crisis. We can no longer rely solely on the landlord owning between one and five properties, which has been the main market for decades, thus we will explore means to incentivise more build to rent. We also want to keep the smaller landlords in the game, and we should acknowledge that repossession of one’s property is a legitimate concern. They should be reassured that the grounds for repossession have been strengthened, but grounds 1A and 1B still remain a cause for concern. We believe that the threshold for sale and moving in a family member should be higher than at present, as this could still be a fig leaf for an illegal eviction—for once the tenant has moved out, who will in fact check that the house is sold or the family have moved in?
This leads us to the legitimate questions that have been raised by several noble Lords about the capacity and resource readiness of local councils and other agencies to deal with the Bill. Enforcement and the capability of enforcement are big issues; without effective enforcement, the Bill fails.
We were very pleased that the Government have been bold enough to extend the decent homes standard and Awaab’s law to the private rented sector. Many noble Lords supported this measure, but let us not underestimate it; it is not easy, having spoken to both landlords and tenants, to judge who is at fault. I feel that there is more debate to be had there, but we know in our hearts that the consequences can be fatal.
We are in no doubt that it will be a leap for many landlords who genuinely want to improve their properties, but it is a mountain to climb, as too many of our properties are non-decent—or is it indecent?—which is quite shocking for such a wealthy country. What we are concerned about is the reality shown to us by numerous case studies, including from Citizens Advice, that any property improvements resulting from public money have been shown to result in the landlord immediately asking for higher rent from the very tenant whose financial situation gave rise to the eligibility of the landlord to receive the grant and add value to their property in the first place. This cannot be right. We will look to explore this unfairness further in Committee.
We have heard from several noble Lords, and we were shocked to learn, that Ministry of Defence properties are exempt from the Bill. The argument has been put forcibly by others, but I will just say that our service families deserve, at the very least, the same as everyone else.
A key issue mentioned by several noble Lords—especially memorable was the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister—is the whole notion of affordability. We know that, in many parts of the country, rent is simply not affordable. My noble friend Lord Tope outlined the incredibly difficult situation in our capital city, but elsewhere too people are paying a far higher percentage of their income on simply putting a roof over their heads. This is not sustainable. The evidence and detail of this is irrefutable. We support the measures in the Bill to try to give some stability to rent increases, as many people are stretching themselves to the maximum to pay rent and the year-on-year increases implicit in the Bill—which do not keep up with wage increases and the cost of living—are simply unsustainable.
We are sceptical about how the First-tier Tribunal will work and the amount of work it may or may not end up with. We do not agree that its criteria to agree on a fair rent should be market rent, precisely because of the dearth of supply. We would like to work with the Minister to find a way forward on rent increases that is fair to both landlords and tenants.
Although we are not as pessimistic as some, we are not without a degree of scepticism about the unintended consequences of the Bill and whether the see-saw is balanced or broken. But we will work constructively to get it over the line.
Homelessness
Baroness Thornhill Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate is right to highlight homelessness for ex-offenders. Since 2021, more than £33 million has been awarded to local authorities to support nearly 6,000 ex-offenders into their own private rented accommodation. The number of individuals still enrolled on the programme and sustaining tenancies is nearly 3,000. The funding provided allows schemes to offer a range of support. It is very important that, alongside housing, we get that support, consisting of rental deposits, landlord incentives, and dedicated support staff with landlord liaison and tenancy support officers. That complements the MoJ’s community accommodation service. The right reverend Prelate is right that housing is key to preventing re-offending.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, worryingly, the total spend on homelessness is unknown, largely due to a loophole in what we call exempt accommodation, which I am sure the Minister is aware of. The usage of this is not tracked, and it is now evident that it attracts some of the worst providers. Can the Minister assure us that this Government will get to grips with this unquantified and uncontrolled spending, and with those who are exploiting some of the most vulnerable people in society and the public purse?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Baroness is quite right. It is outrageous that people choose to exploit the individuals concerned in this situation and the councils that have to fund their accommodation. We are doing everything we can to discover the extent of this and to tackle it head on. We recognise the increasing costs of that temporary accommodation and the pressure that it places on council budgets. As well as the homelessness prevention grant, councils are expected to draw from their wider local government finance, as the noble Baroness is aware. The overall local government settlement made extra provision for that, as well as the additional homelessness funding. It is totally unacceptable for homeless people to be exploited. We continue to track that down everywhere we can.
English Devolution
Baroness Thornhill Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, there are two absolutely key incentives to this programme of going forward with a mayor. Mayors will get new powers, devolved from Westminster, in a number of areas of competence. With the patience of the House, I will repeat those again: transport and local infrastructure; skills and employment support; housing and strategic planning; economic development and regeneration; environment and climate change; health, well-being and public service reform; and public safety. We are already setting out integrated budgets for the more established mayoral authorities to enable them to do that. There is a huge incentive to do that, as well as a seat around the table of the Council of the Nations and Regions. I hope local areas will see that as a positive opportunity. If they want to take more time to get there, that is fine, but it will be a great opportunity for our local regions.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I have the dubious distinction of holding a job as a directly elected mayor for 16 years, in the role that my party wished would never exist, so we have had an interesting debate. I absolutely understand some of the positives of the mayoral model—she would say that, wouldn’t she?—but I also appreciate the issues about democratic deficit. When Tony Blair imagined and brought into being directly elected mayors, he saw that the democratic deficit and the electoral process worked against a mayor having a real broad consensus in an area to be the chosen person. So he rightly ditched first past the post and brought in what we would consider to be an inferior PR: the alternative vote system. As we know, that was abolished by the previous Government—and one can only think about the reasons they might have had to do that. Genuinely, if you want a super-mayor with superpowers to really command authority and respect over an area, people must feel that their vote counts. At least in an AV model, the vast majority of people actually get their first or second choice candidate to win. Under first past the post, the winner, as we all know, can actually receive fewer votes than the rest of the field put together, which cannot be right if you are devolving that amount of power.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Baroness provided a wonderful role model for mayors going forward. Some of the innovations that she introduced during her time as Mayor of Watford are legendary, so I thank her for that service.
Mayors can use their mandate for change to take the difficult decisions needed. As the noble Baroness will be aware, they have both standing and soft power to convene local partners and tackle shared problems directly, exercising devolved powers and attracting inward investment. They have a platform for tackling obstacles to growth that might need a regional approach. Mayors are accountable to their citizens, as she rightly points out, and have the profile to stand up for them on a national stage and to partner with and challenge central government where needed—and of course it is needed sometimes.
As for the electoral system for mayors, we are not proposing to change that just now.
Housing: Permitted Development Rights
Baroness Thornhill Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My noble friend makes an excellent point about funding for affordable housing. Even in a very tight budget round, the Government have allocated an additional £500 million towards affordable housing, which brings the total up to around £3 billion altogether. But we need to consider all sources of funding. I spoke to a housing investment forum in the City of London just a few weeks ago, and there is great interest in this area; and of course, we still need to look at pension funds further for local investment to drive the housing market.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, surely it is the Government’s mission to create decent homes and not the slums of the future, and I am at a loss to know why the Government are procrastinating on this. Surely it is time to insist on full planning permission for the larger schemes, or at least to revert to the regulations that were in place before 2012.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I take the noble Baroness’s point; we need to keep this continually under review. Some of the permitted development homes have been of fair quality and have provided homes for people. But we need to continue to press that all new homes delivered through permitted development rights must provide adequate light, meet nationally described space standards and be decent, fit and safe for the people who live in them. We will continue to do that. Where there are bigger schemes, equally, they must meet those requirements.
Planning Committees: Reform
Baroness Thornhill Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I am not a lawyer, so I do not want to get involved in discussions about the merits of judicial review. People need to have some recourse to law at some stage. I will take her question back, because she makes a very good point. If she wants to put in a submission as a response to the working paper, I would be very pleased to consider it.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, the Deputy Prime Minister has flagged up the role of elected mayors of combined authorities. As someone who lamented the coalition scrapping regional spatial strategies, I see this as a possible way of replacing those. Can the Minister perhaps flesh out a little how she sees that layer working?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. There certainly needs to be a strategic planning level above the level of local plans. She can expect to see more news about that in the English devolution White Paper that will be coming out shortly.
New Homes
Baroness Thornhill Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to say that I went to visit British Offsite with Weston Homes in Braintree earlier this week. What a fantastic example of British innovation, using recycled steel to build MMC products. MMC is an important opportunity to improve productivity in the construction sector, to deliver quickly the very high-quality energy-efficient homes we need, and to create new and diverse jobs. We are working to address the strategic barriers to the further uptake of MMC, including improved supply chain confidence, clarity for warranty and insurance markets, and planning reform. We will say more about that in the long-term housing strategy next year.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, there are currently tens of thousands of Section 106 affordable homes with detailed planning permission waiting to be built out on active sites, but stuck because the registered providers will not take them on due to the current financial capacity in that sector. Will the Government as a short-term emergency measure consider the use of Homes England grant funding specifically, so that registered providers can afford to take up these much-needed affordable homes on these stuck sites?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Baroness is quite right about the stuck sites but, in spite of the very difficult Budget round this year, the Government have put £500 million more into affordable housing. That takes the total for affordable housing up to about £3 billion. Homes England is working through its programme of how it is going to support the delivery of those affordable homes. I am sure that support for registered providers will form part of that.
Housing Supply and Homelessness
Baroness Thornhill Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as yet another vice-president of the Local Government Association. I begin by acknowledging the very personal valedictory speech of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. His wise but often challenging contributions will be missed.
As ever, it has been a stimulating, knowledgeable and important debate, but I confess that it has left me feeling a bit depressed. Noble Lords’ excellent contributions have shown that, yes, there is a consensus that we have a housing crisis—no surprise there—and, yes, there are lots of reasons why it has come to pass: noble Lords have cantered knowledgeably around the course, covering almost all of them. We also seem to agree that this is not new: it has been brewing for decades and the many and various attempts to build more homes have been, by and large, unsuccessful—hence my depression. But I am looking forward to the Minister’s response and I hope she can lift my gloom, because this is one area where we all want to see change, and radical change at that. It is a sign of the quality of the debate today that noble Lords have given the Minister many suggested solutions that give us hope.
As a result of the many and varied barriers to building more homes outlined in this debate, homelessness has risen, along with the number of families in temporary accommodation. It is also evident that the private rented sector is not coping with the increased demand, so in times of scarcity rents rise and tenants get evicted. All these points were amplified by many noble Lords, but I particularly enjoyed the contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson.
This vicious circle was clearly outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, in her thorough, informed and compelling introduction. The contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Griffiths and Lord Bird, highlighted the very human consequences of people living without a home. It is about people and about poverty.
The causes of homelessness were very well outlined, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton, when she turned her attention to the young. That is where our attention should be too. These causes include restrictions to benefit entitlement, rising living costs, mental health issues, relationship breakdown and, of course, the number one: eviction from the private rented sector due to increasing rent prices, which have risen by almost 9% in the past year alone. We look forward to working with the Minister on the forthcoming Renters’ Rights Bill to ameliorate some of these issues.
One of the inevitable consequences of an undersupply of homes is indeed increasing rents, but the reason for this is irrefutably the significant decline in the availability of social housing, which to these Benches is the big lever to pull to unlock the logjam, as analysed by my noble friends Lord Shipley and Lady Grender. That social housing has declined to the massive extent it has was well outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Best. I loved his “bricks not benefits” slogan, which we should adopt. It is inescapable that this decline has contributed significantly to the problems we have now. The figures speak for themselves: a net loss of over 11,000 homes in 2022-23 and a quarter of a million over a decade. You cannot remove that amount of supply without it having a significant impact, and it has.
That is why these Benches see a substantial increase in the building of homes for social rent as the key route out of the vicious circle. This must and should be subsidised, and all builders—particularly local SME builders, who have been squeezed out of the market—should be incentivised to build homes for social rent. I seek reassurances from the Minister that Homes England is being directed to fund homes for social rent and in places of greatest need. How can we incentivise more SME builders back into building more? Is it too much to hope that the new planning Bill and attendant National Planning Policy Framework will set clear expectations that local planning authorities must assess their need for social housing, and state their targets for all tenures according to local need? This would send a very strong signal to developers that this is not negotiable. We have had a decade of it being negotiable.
Local planning authorities have to give greater priority not just to the numbers and targets but to providing more social housing. Perhaps we also need to seriously incentivise private investors to invest in social housing schemes in those areas. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Young, about getting financial stability into the private rented sector.
Noble Lords may notice that I have not used the term affordable housing. I believe it is a misnomer that has come to be meaningless in so many contexts. If our friend Lord Stunell were still with us, he would certainly be holding forth on this whole issue of affordability and how we should address the problem. He would probably have agreed with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Hain, proposed.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, outlined, we also have ample evidence of a declining and ageing workforce to build the homes we need. Where is the workforce strategy to deliver this number of homes? Targets and tough talk will come to naught if we do not have the capacity to actually build the homes, regardless of who builds them.
Among our many excellent briefings, one that jumped out at me concerned the number of empty homes, which was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my noble friend Lord Shipley. Nearly 700,000 homes in England are unfurnished and empty, and 265,000 are classified as long term. From experience, I know how difficult it is to gain possession of an empty home, and I hope that this Government will make it easier for councils to do so and will consider incentivising sellers by exempting them from a percentage of capital gains tax.
I am deeply concerned about councils’ ability to find suitable temporary accommodation. Anecdotally, I know they are really struggling. Councils spent £1.74 billion last year supporting 104,000 households in temporary accommodation. Worryingly, there is growing evidence that some landlords are leaving the long-term private rented sector in order to supply this much sought after temporary accommodation at—guess what—much higher rents. We also know that it is stretching some district councils’ finances to breaking point, and there are fears of Section 104 notices being served.
The planning system is often cited as a barrier to building. In my view, this is overstated, usually by developers. They would say that, wouldn’t they? Councils are required to identify a five-year land supply, and 1 million planning permissions have been granted but not built out. Councils have no power to compel developers to come forward to develop these sites or to build out sites to which permission has already been given, yet they are judged and punished by the Government’s housing delivery test. Perhaps this Government might consider more powers for councils, such as being able to charge developers full council tax for every development that is not built out on the agreed time scale.
However, what certainly does deter developers is our NIMBY culture, as forcefully raised by the noble Lord, Lord Snape. Politicians of all stripes have pandered to this, to the detriment of more and quicker housing delivery. This is not new. The 1947 Act gave rise to the notion that development needed to be restrained and resisted as an antidote to urban sprawl. I note that, even back in those days, when the Minister with responsibility for housing visited existing residents on the site for the new town of Stevenage, he was driven from the meeting with shouts of “Dictator!” ringing in his ears, only to find his car tyres slashed and sugar in his petrol tank. I have received only online abuse, which lets me off lightly.
I hope the Government have a genuine new take on how to overcome this visible and negative impediment to development. We need to somehow change the narrative to “YIMBY” at both national and local level, and that takes real leadership. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, that we support a long-term cross-party strategy because we know this is a complex issue. It will take years, following the impact of decades of failure, to change the market significantly, yet the reality of people’s lives is that change cannot come quickly enough.
Landlords: Long-term Rentals
Baroness Thornhill Excerpts(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornhill
To ask His Majesty’s Government what incentives they propose to introduce to encourage landlords back into the private rented sector for long-term rentals.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interest as a vice president of the Local Government Association.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her Question. The Government value the contribution made by responsible landlords who provide quality homes for tenants. They form a vital part of our housing market. Our Renters’ Rights Bill ensures that landlords have the confidence and support they need to continue to invest in the sector and we do not expect it to have a destabilising effect on the market. We have included provisions in the Bill to make sure that landlords cannot evict tenants simply to turn the property into a short-term let. Landlords and tenants are equally important. Landlords want good tenants. Tenants want good landlords. We hope that the Bill will make things better.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I thank the noble Baroness for her reply and sincerely hope that the Government’s aspirations are met, but note that most of the actions are going to be in the future. However, I know that the Minister is only too well aware of the crisis in temporary accommodation that is actually caused by over 110,000 households unable to find any affordable accommodation in the private rented sector, where demand is demonstrably not keeping up with supply. What can be done when those landlords that are leaving the private rented sector precisely because there is a shortage can then relet the same property to their own council at a higher rent? Incredulously, this practice is fuelled by councils and the Home Office bidding against each other for the same property, at considerable cost to the taxpayer.
Noble Lords
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I did ask what the noble Baroness felt could be done about it. I asked my Question first, but my question is: surely this is bonkers and can we not work out some protocol so that councils and government offices are not outbidding each other?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, of course the noble Baroness is quite right to flag up the issue of the terrible shortage of housing. The answer in the medium to longer term is just to get more housing built, and we are straining every sinew to do just that. In terms of the way that short-term lets work, we know that they can benefit economies through visitor spend and creating employment opportunities for local people. However, we appreciate that excessive concentrations of that in some parts of the country impact availability and affordability. I know that this competition between local authorities and government departments for housing is causing a real problem. We are introducing a registration scheme for short-term lets to protect our communities, abolishing things such as the furnished holiday let tax regime, to remove the tax incentive that short-term let owners have over long-term landlords. We recognise that more needs to be done to level the playing field between short and long-term tenures. Long-term tenures are important, and they need to be affordable long-term tenures.
Grenfell Tower Inquiry Report
Baroness Thornhill Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness. I echo what she said about who holds the ring in government, because these changes will take time and we need to know who will do so, as government silos are well known and entrenched.
On behalf of these Benches, I pay tribute to Sir Martin Moore-Bick, his team, and the members of Grenfell United and their families and supporters for their relentless search for the truth. It has been a long time coming and I am sure we all regret that too much is still to be done before justice is finally done—if it ever is. The inquiry’s shocking findings place damning blame on companies, the Government, bodies responsible for building regulation and emergency services. It concludes that the victims were “badly failed” by those responsible for their safety and that all the deaths were “avoidable”. Could there be a more succinct, damning and deeply poignant sentence to sum up the Grenfell tragedy?
Sir Martin’s report does not hold back—thank goodness. He has shone a bright light on the cumulative decisions made in dark corners of boardrooms, in Cabinet and council meetings and during the regulation of fire safety and construction methods, and on the interconnectedness of these institutions, which all played a part in what happened on 14 June 2017. “Cumulative” and “interconnectedness” are the two key words that help me begin to understand what is at the root of the report’s reference to failures of government policy and decision-making. It is a simple phrase, but let us try unpacking it.
What shocked me most were the staggering accounts revealing cultures of complacency, denial, lack of scrutiny and accountability, back covering, buck passing, indifference, institutional negligence and even systemic dishonesty by the building contractors and these institutions. All of that created the perfect environment for this tragedy. The report exposes the systemic and entrenched refusal by every one of them to ensure that whistleblowers could speak up without consequence, confident that their concerns would be investigated and taken seriously. Civil servants were found to have ignored, delayed or disregarded concerns. Those who wanted to raise issues were simply too afraid to speak out and those who did were ignored or, worse still, branded as troublemakers. In short, there was a demonstrable endemic culture which led to the lack of importance given to fire safety and social housing tenants, which combined in a perfect storm—only the storm was a horrific fire that claimed 72 lives, including those of 18 children, left scores injured and displaced many families.
To say that the residents of that tower were let down by these institutions is a gross understatement, whether it was a cost-cutting local authority ideologically committed to outsourcing services, a regulation system completely gutted by successive Governments boasting about a bonfire of red tape, the privatisation of building safety testing, a fire service with inadequate controls or a construction industry focused on profits for shareholders and bonuses for senior executives. They were all in part responsible for the deaths that night.
Added to this were decades of underfunding of our public services. We have grown so used to cost cutting that it has become the norm across those services, including local government. We have watched our services be stripped to the bone and some abandoned altogether. There must be consequences from this over time, and we need to acknowledge that this has created a cost-cutting culture across these institutions, with staff under pressure to deliver regardless and discouraged from asking awkward questions.
Those asking such questions are seen as overly negative. They show a “can’t-do” attitude. “You’re not being a team player”. It is chastening to read on the Whistleblowers UK website that 96% of whistleblowers whose cases get to employment tribunals lose. To spell that out, whistleblowers more often than not find themselves on a redundancy list, not for their whistleblowing, of course—there are other ways—but due to “service re-engineering” or similar terms that are difficult to argue against. But some continue to whistleblow and, of the brave souls who do, almost all lose. No wonder they are afraid to come forward if they will lose their job, with the consequences that flow from that. Remember Mid Staffs, where Julie Bailey was forced to close her business and move away and nurse Helene Donnelly was attacked and bullied by colleagues and was too scared to even walk to her car. Do the Government plan to find ways to protect whistleblowers? There are many suggestions as to how this might be accomplished, as surely it is the only way to ensure that failings come to light before another major tragedy happens.
Many staff are stretched in their day jobs as “doing more for less” has been a mantra for years. Within councils, there has been a hollowing out of the role of scrutiny and audit functions, the effective working of which is fundamental to accountability, transparency and resilience. I recall one of the first things I was told as a brand-new councillor by the then Labour leader of Watford Council: “In this job you’ve got to know when you’re being hoodwinked by experts”—only he used more colourful language. I took that lesson with me as mayor and as a peer assessor.
Those on the board of Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation should have heeded it. It transpired that it was easy for employees to withhold information, doctor the findings of critical reports and downplay their urgency. Even outright lying was accomplished with ease. In fact, the fire safety reports were not even done by experts; they appointed someone without the relevant expertise and qualifications. Why? Because he lied and embellished his CV and nobody bothered to check his credentials, ask difficult questions, probe reports, scrutinise actions and timelines or test results. In other words, they failed to do their job. They were little more than nodding dogs. Some might call that a harsh caricature, but it is accurate given the evidence in this inquiry.
The cumulative impact over decades of policies designed to shrink the state, decrease regulation and let the market decide has led in part to their interconnectedness in Grenfell. Sadly, we appear not to have learned the lessons from history and so are doomed to repeat it—think Hillsborough, Windrush, Mid Staffs, infected blood and the Post Office, to name only the high-profile ones. Let us be under no illusion: those most impacted by this relentless trajectory are ordinary working people—the so-called “left behind” or “just about managing”. Whatever label we choose to put on them, they are the most marginalised and vulnerable in our society. I looked again at the photographs and heard the life stories of those who died at Grenfell, and they were all of those things. Most importantly, they were men, women and children with families who loved them. They loved and were loved, trying to live the best way they could.
My question to the Minister is not a simple one. How do we know that such a culture has changed and how to we monitor such things? The regulator and the Government are holding Kensington and Chelsea’s feet to the fire on its recovery programmes, but how is this being done? Can the Minister write to me, as this is an important check and balance in the system and is probably quite detailed for an answer at the end of the debate?
In conclusion, the report is very detailed, and it has many wide-reaching recommendations, which is why I have chosen to concentrate on one bigger issue. There is stuff about emergency planning: they were ill prepared. There is stuff on building control: has competition worked, or should it be taken out of councils’ hands? There is stuff about remediating buildings: why is the amount of money available considerably less for social housing providers than private owners? Is height an inadequate measure of risk? Should the definition of a “high-risk building” be reviewed? But I have chosen just the one overarching major issue, knowing full well that other noble Lords will seek to get answers to those questions and many more. I look forward to their contributions.
I am sure the Minister will agree with my final comment that the report raises fundamental questions about societal attitudes to social housing and its tenants. The report highlights that systematic neglect and a lack of investment in social housing contributed to the tragedy. Residents felt marginalised and their concerns about safety were ignored. This aspect of the disaster underscored broader issues of inequality and neglect in housing policy. How will this Government seek to change that?