Renters’ Rights Bill
Lord Howard of Rising Excerpts(6 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 119 and 126 in my name, to which the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, has added his name. The provisions of my two amendments simply mirror the provisions that are in Amendments 118 and 125, so that they will apply to superior landlords as well as landlords. A superior landlord is a person who, for example, owns the block of flats and has a greater interest in the tenants than does the immediate landlord. I declare an interest as I have been affected twice recently by the superior landlord being in a position to deny any pet ownership.
I fully agree with the excellent introduction to this issue from the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, and all the points that he made, but, if this provision is not added to the Bill, I fear it will completely undermine the Government’s very good intentions, which we support, in bringing forward Clause 12, because the position of the superior landlord will almost always override that of the landlord.
The interests that I quote I will give as examples. The first was from when, during Covid, I rented out my flat. The family who rented it wanted to adopt a cat. The rules applying to the block of flats state that pets may not be kept, so although I as a landlord was happy that this family adopted a cat, the superior landlord rules for the block forbade it. More recently, this year, my husband and I have bought a flat, but even as owners we are subject to a rule that the superior landlord has to give permission for a pet. This means a lot of uncertainty for the vendor and for us, while the superior landlord decided whether we could keep our 15 year-old dog.
If the Government succeed in changing the position for renters, they must also address the issue of superior landlords and their ability to block any pet ownership. If the Government do not address this, the likelihood is that the good intentions behind this clause will fail because of the legal limitations for subtenants. Usually, they do not have a direct contractual relationship—that is, in legalese, no privity of contract—with the superior landlord, unless there is a direct agreement. This can mean that enforcing rights or obligations becomes very difficult if the issue lies with the superior landlord rather than with the immediate landlord.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply to this issue, because I fear that, otherwise, as I said, the good intentions of Clause 12 will be totally undermined.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, I am not quite sure what the Minister said earlier, but I would like to declare interest as an owner of rented property.
I shall speak to Amendments 120, 122 and 123 in my name in this group. All these amendments seek to highlight where pets could be unsuitable in a rented property. Although, as I have already said earlier during this Committee, as a landlord I have never refused a pet, a blank cheque for pets is not practical. Amendment 120 would allow landlords to reasonably refuse their consent to a pet if the allergies from that pet would have a negative impact on the landlord’s employees, their managing agents or other related persons, including future tenants. For those who suffer with allergies, this is a very serious matter and can have a debilitating effect, and it is not always possible to remove allergens through standard cleaning. We have all read and heard about the allergies from peanuts et cetera that can kill; well, the allergies from pets are not so serious, but they are very serious for people who suffer.
Amendment 122 would allow landlords to reasonably refuse their consent to a pet if they reasonably believe it is unsuitable for the property, may cause a nuisance to neighbours or may damage the property or place an unreasonable burden on its upkeep. Wooden floors get scratched and carpets get stained—if they are still there —when pets are involved, so flooring almost always needs to be replaced when a tenancy ends. Some may consider this reasonable wear and tear, and others may not, but it is certainly a much greater cost when there have been pets in a property, and it is an important factor to consider. Not every landlord is in a position always to replace everything every time there is a new tenancy. Of course, some pets are capable of causing more damage than others, and some properties are easier to upkeep than others. I think there should be some leniency and some leeway for landlords who know their properties to make a judgment on this.
Amendment 123 follows on from this and seeks to exclude pets which are inappropriate or disproportionate in size or number. I realise there will be difficulties in defining this. Are five Dobermann pinschers more or less suitable than 25 fox-terriers? Nevertheless, as the Bill stands, I am not clear whether a landlord would be free to make a judgment, which most noble Lords would agree would be very sensible, that a Great Dane could not be housed in a studio flat, or that 50 cats could not be kept in a small terraced house. Given the difficulties, will the Minister consider making it clear that the landlord has, or should have, discretion to make sensible decisions for the benefits of residents, neighbours and the pets themselves?
Lord Howard of Rising
“(5A) Where a landlord has given their consent under subsection (1) they may withdraw their consent at any time if they become aware that the pet in question is a dangerous wild animal under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 or in breach of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to enable landlords to refuse pets on the grounds that they are a dangerous wild animal.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 121 seeks to probe and address the inadequate definition of “pet” in the Bill, which has already been mentioned by a number of noble Lords during this debate. Part 1, Chapter 1, Clause 12(2) inserts the following definition into Section 45(1) of the Housing Act 1988:
“‘pet’ means an animal kept by a person mainly for … personal interest … companionship … ornamental purposes … or any combination”
of those. My Amendment 121 seeks to probe whether pets that are considered dangerous and/or wild animals under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 or the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 should be counted as pets. This might sound like common sense, but I am not convinced that, under the current drafting of the Bill, landlords would not be forced to consider giving consent for unsuitable and, in this case, dangerous animals. These Acts already govern the keeping of dangerous animals, but it is good practice to ensure legal consistency, and it is not clear how they will interact with the Bill before us today.
For example, the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 requires accommodation to be
“suitable as regards construction, size, temperature, lighting, ventilation, drainage and cleanliness”.
If a landlord’s property happens to fit the definition in that legislation, does that mean that an animal included therein would be considered a pet by the definition of this Bill? As we will hear in the next group, damage insurance is problematical, as it is for standard pets. Will any insurance provider give cover for the damage that could be caused by a dangerous animal? If the fact that an animal is dangerous and wild, or falls outside the definition of a pet, can be a reasonable ground for refusal, would it not be simpler to make that explicit by reference to an existing definition and list already in legislation? Why should landlords be required to make independent assessments to justify their refusal?
The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is another example. It bans the keeping of specific breeds without an exemption certificate and creates offences for dogs that are out of control or that cause injury or death. Again, it is unclear how this existing legislation interacts with the Bill. If the owner of a banned breed has an exemption certificate, would a landlord be able to refuse the animal in their property? Likewise, if a dog had been deemed dangerously out of control or had injured someone, what risk would this pose to the landlord, their property agents and others who need access? What risk would be considered acceptable, if any?
I hope that the Minister can answer these questions and clarify this matter. If she needs to write to me on any of them, I would be very happy to receive her letter, but I would like to be reassured that this amendment and others we will debate today are being considered as they should be. I beg to move.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, what is a pet? That is a central question to everything that we are discussing. Some noble Lords will remember that there once was a parrot—a Norwegian Blue, to be precise—that was very sick. In fact, he was so sick, he was a deceased parrot—at least, that is how his new owner perceived it—and no amount of nailing that dead polly’s feet to the perch could change that. How we miss Monty Python.
Perceptions, rather like recollections, may differ, yet this Bill’s definition of a pet depends almost entirely on perception, and I suspect it is likely to cause quite a few ruffled feathers. Therefore, I have put down two amendments—Amendment 131 and the consequential Amendment 132—to prod and probe a little.
First, as the Chief Whip instructed, I declare my interest as a pet owner. Percy is our rescue cat—a very happy puss that has trained my family exceptionally well. So well that, if ever I were to ask my family who they love more, me or Percy, I would soon be looking for lodgings.
As the Explanatory Notes set out:
“The Bill requires landlords not to unreasonably withhold consent”
for tenants to have pets. Despite the split infinitive, I would have thought that that was the right target area: legislation based on what is reasonable. But the Bill goes further and howls at the moon in trying to define a pet. It does this in a very peculiar manner, by defining a pet not by what it is, but by how it is perceived. It offers three definitions, as my noble friend has already pointed out. A pet is defined as an animal kept, first, for mainly personal interest, secondly, for companionship, and thirdly—it is this that my amendment mostly concerns—mainly for ornamental purposes. That is a definition we should consider getting rid of.
What is a pet kept for ornamental purposes? I will take a calf as an example. Currently, the beautiful pastures around my home in Wylye are filled with any number of calves. They are so cute and cuddly, and my grandchildren always want to take one home. But I think we can agree that a calf is not really a pet; it is a would-be cow. Except, it would seem to fall directly under the Bill’s definition of a pet: first, it is personally interesting to my grandchildren; secondly, it is companionable, particularly so long as one has a bottle of milk handy; and thirdly, it is ornamental. A triple whammy.
I remember Margaret Thatcher once cuddled a calf. I was with her in Suffolk on the election trail in 1979 when she picked up this terrified young animal and embraced it. Did the fact that she found it personally interesting or exceptionally ornamental—and, as it happened, amazingly photogenic—make it a protected pet? Could she have taken it home? Apparently, the Daily Mirror paid the farmer £50 to let it know if the poor thing died before polling day. Can you imagine the headlines? “Maggie Thatcher, calf basher”—but I digress. The problem is that once we try to define what a pet is or is not in the way the Bill attempts, we start with a cat’s cradle of confusion and end up with a dog’s dinner. People nowadays get very protective about their pets, and very litigious; we need to take care.
Traditionally, working animals and pets have been regarded as separate categories, but it is not always clear cut. Take Larry, the Downing Street cat: is he not a working animal that is supposed to keep the place free of vermin? Good luck with that. Ever since the Prime Minister’s claim at his party conference that his main mission in life was to free the sausages—Remember that? It was a magical moment—I suspect that Larry has been working even harder to try to track down all those missing sausages.
However, it is the third category that really has me wondering. Clause 12 defines a pet as an animal that is kept for “mainly … ornamental purposes”. Forgive me, but what on earth does that mean? I am confused. Does it mean, for instance, an XL bully dog? I am told that many owners regard them as extremely attractive. It must be the way they smile, or drool. But does that give a tenant an unequivocal right to keep them? I ask the Minister: does the landlord have no grounds to refuse—even if keeping such animals might well cause fear for others, such their neighbours who have children or who own a small dog or cat? As my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising so eloquently pointed out, one pet owner’s rights can become another pet owner’s nightmare.
I should perhaps whimsically point out that for, the purposes of the discussion, I have decided this week to self-identify as a Chihuahua. So, hand on heart and paw on prostate, I say: these definitions are barking mad. I really do not want to end up as breakfast for next door’s bully dog, no matter how cute he looks.
Would it not be enough simply to require both tenant and landlord to be reasonable in the specific circumstances? The Minister keeps coming back to the concept of people being reasonable. That is a much stronger concept, it seems to me, than tying ourselves in knots trying to define what a pet is in the ways that the Bill currently attempts.
Our laws should offer clarity, not confusion. But, no matter how hard we try to nail these definitions to the perch, they will make about as much sense as a dead parrot. So their proper place is not in the Bill but in that great parliamentary litter tray in the sky. I request the Minister to go back and have a much closer look at the definition of a pet.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Howard of Rising and Lord Dobbs, for their amendments relating to the definition of a pet. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Scott, for their comments on this debate. Even in these two short debates this afternoon, we have seen the benefit that our House can add to legislation, including probing very intensively a definition but also the entertaining nature of the speeches we are privileged to listen to. So I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, for his entertaining intervention.
Amendment 121 from the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, seeks to allow landlords to withdraw consent for a pet if it is later found to be a dangerous wild animal under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, or in breach of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Although I of course fully support the principle that animals posing a serious risk to safety should not be kept in rental properties, this amendment is not necessary. The keeping of dangerous wild animals without a licence is already prohibited under the 1976 Act, and the 1991 Act imposes strict controls on specific dog breeds—I presume that includes the XL bullies that were mentioned by the noble Lord. These laws already provide local authorities with sufficient powers, and we would expect a request for a pet that falls foul of that legislation to give landlords a strong case for refusing consent. Local authorities have the powers to act, and the amendment would therefore duplicate existing protections and introduce unnecessary complexity into the Bill. For these reasons, we do not consider the amendment necessary, and I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing it.
Amendment 131, from the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, seeks to remove the line in Clause 12 that includes keeping animals for “ornamental purposes” within the definition of a pet. Amendment 132 is consequential to Amendment 131. I understand that these are probing amendments, intended to seek clarity on the scope of the term “pet” as used in the Bill. Like the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, I miss Monty Python—I have watched them over and again, I must admit—but I must respectfully resist these amendments. The line in question, referring to animals kept for ornamental purposes, is a deliberate and important part of the definition. The noble Lord will be pleased to learn that it does not refer to dead parrots, but it ensures that the Bill captures a broad and inclusive understanding of what a pet may be, reflecting the wide range of animals that people may choose to keep in their homes for companionship or decorative enjoyment. I am not sure whether Wilberforce the snake was decorative, ornamental or a pet, but he is obviously now enjoying somebody else’s company than his original owner.
Removing this provision could risk narrowing the scope of the definition, creating legal ambiguity and potentially excluding animals that are commonly accepted as pets, such as fish and birds—live ones. To support implementation, the Government will provide guidance, setting out examples of instances where animals are likely to fall into the definition of a pet. I hope that that will help to ensure consistency and clarity for both tenants and landlords, without placing restrictions on primary legislation. It is important to repeat that landlords are required to agree only to reasonable requests; a calf that may grow into a cow is unlikely to be reasonable in a small flat, for example. For these reasons, I do not consider these amendments necessary, and I hope the noble Lord will consider not pressing them.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
As my amendment alluded to, the Government’s definition of a pet is very broad and open to debate, although I believe that the Minister’s remarks were helpful. As we have heard from my noble friend Lord Dobbs, the definition could be stretched to the extreme. How is a landlord or tribunal expected to understand its meaning?
To summarise, the definition of a pet in this Bill poses more questions than it answers, and I hope that the Government can offer some much-needed reassurance on this. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Lord Howard of Rising Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as an owner of a rental property. I shall speak to Amendments 99 and 103 in this group, both of which would go towards preventing the situation where it has become almost mandatory for a tenant to take any increase to a tribunal. As that has been pointed out by the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Cromwell, I will spare your Lordships the repetition of those arguments, but it would be silly for a tenant not to take any proposed increase to a tribunal. Under present proposals, there is no risk or disadvantage to the tenant. The very worst that can happen to the tenant is that an increase, if agreed, is postponed until such time as it has been dealt with by the tribunal.
Amendment 99 proposes that any increase agreed by the tribunal could be implemented from the date when the increase was due to take effect. That would remove some of the incentive to automatically apply for reviews.
As has been mentioned, according to government statistics, there are 4.9 million private rented homes in England. Some of those will have an annual rent review, for some it will be less frequent, but, if one takes a conservative average of, say, three-year rent reviews for each dwelling, that would mean over 1.6 million possible applications to the rent tribunal per annum. I think every three years is an exaggeration—it is much more likely to be more frequent—but let us assume that we take the three years, and that one-third of the people who have received increases in rent do not apply to the tribunal. By my conservative calculation, that leaves 1 million applicants to the tribunal. How are His Majesty’s Government planning to deal with that? Could the Minister tell the Committee the number of challenges taken to the tribunal in the last period for which the information is available? What is the present delay or wait time for applications to the tribunal being heard?
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 99 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, which, as my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising explained, would ensure that, if there was an unsuccessful challenge to a rent tribunal on a rent increase, the increased rent would become payable on the date proposed by the landlord.
Before turning to that amendment, I will say that I have some sympathy with Amendment 87 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, which proposes an alternative means of filtering appeals before they reach the tribunal by enabling the tenants first to check with the VOA whether their challenge has any prospect of success. However, many of the arguments that the noble Baroness used are equally applicable to Amendment 99.
Turning to Amendment 99, what Clause 8 proposes is exactly the opposite of what happens at the moment, and what indeed has been the case since the Housing Act 1988. At the moment, if a landlord serves a Section 13 increase on the tenant, giving a month’s notice, the tenant can appeal. But, if the tribunal decides the rent should be increased, the increase is payable from the date given on the Section 13 notice. That is the position at the moment, which the Government propose to overturn. The CAB website gives advice to a tenant on this subject, saying that
“it’s probably best to save money towards your rent increase if it’s due to start before the tribunal makes a decision. That way, you won’t have to find a large sum of money if your rent is increased”.
It goes on to make the point that it can take up to 10 weeks for the tribunal to make a decision.
I agree with what has been said. I do not see how this proposal, as it stands, can possibly survive. As many noble Lords have pointed out, from the tenant’s point of view they have nothing to lose by appealing against any increase. The rent cannot be put up, and the increase is not effective until it has been endorsed by the courts.
No satisfactory reasons have been given for this, so I looked in Hansard to see what happened in the other place. The Minister, Matthew Pennycook, said on 29 October last year:
“Tenants should not be thrust into debt simply for enforcing their rights”.
But the relevant right of the tenant is to appeal against an unfair rent increase. There should be no additional right to the tenant if that appeal is subsequently lost, but that is what is proposed.
My honourable friend Jerome Mayhew intervened in the Minister’s speech. He said:
“The Minister says that it would be unfair on the tenant to have a significant increase in rent and a backlog after the determination of the tribunal, but that is rent that ought properly to have belonged to the landlord and has been unjustifiably denied them for the period of the process. Why is it fair for the landlord to be denied a just rent as a result of the delay in the process, yet it is for some reason not fair for the tenant?”
The Minister then in effect conceded the case:
“The hon. Gentleman is right that if the tribunal determines that the rent increase is reasonable, a landlord may have missed out on a short period of the rent increase—not the whole rent, but the rent increase”.
It is not “may have missed out” but will have missed out and, as we have heard, not for “a short period” but potentially for a very long period.
The Minister then sought to defend the position:
“I will be very clear about this: we took the view that it was better that tenants were not, by facing the prospect of significant arrears, disincentivised from taking any cases to tribunal to challenge what could be, on a number of occasions, completely unreasonable within-tenancy rent increases”.
But what the Minister described as “significant arrears” were sums which actually a tribunal will have deemed to be fair, and which current advice from the CAB is that tenants should make provision for. The argument the Minister uses is at odds, as I have said, with the position at the moment.
The Minister’s case was further weakened by a subsequent intervention. Again, my colleague Jerome Mayhew asked:
“I understand that the Government’s intention is that tenants should not go to the tribunal unless they are clear that the asked-for rent is too high, but what prevents them from gaming the system, as we discussed?”
In reply, the Minister said:
“What I would say to the hon. Gentleman—I will expand upon my argument in due course—is that I think he underestimates how difficult it is to take a case to the tribunal”.
In a spare moment over the weekend, I put into Google, “How do I appeal against my rent increase?”. Up came the answer: use form Rents 1 on the GOV.UK website. I downloaded the form. You can appeal, free and online. All credit to the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham, and others for simplifying and digitising government forms. You fill in your name, address and contact details, the name and address of the landlord or agent, the amount of rent you are paying, when the tenancy began and the details of the property. You add a copy of the Section 13 notice from the landlord increasing the rent and a copy of the tenancy agreement, and send it off online to the nearest tribunal regional office. I estimate that it would take about 10 minutes. The tribunal will then ask you what type of hearing you want. Most tribunals for rent increases are based on the evidence you send—they are paper hearings—so there is no need for an appellant to do anything more than I have described.
I hope the Minister will not repeat what her colleague said in another place:
“However, I think the hon. Gentleman underestimates the onerous nature of taking a case to tribunal. It will not be as simple as the tenant deciding on a whim one day that they can do that, and that it is a no-lose situation, but I recognise the incentives at play on both sides”.—[Official Report, Commons, Renters’ Rights Bill Committee, 29/10/24; cols. 145-46.]
It is not onerous, and it is no lose. What is onerous is the pressure on the tribunals. I urge the Minister to reflect on the many amendments to this clause and, in her reply, indicate a willingness to think again.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to which I have added my name. I endorse what she said just now when she spoke to the amendments.
When I spoke to the fourth group, I pointed out that, as presently drafted, the Bill will, at a conservative estimate, give rise to 1 million applications per annum to the rent tribunals. Other noble Lords have commented on the problems which will occur. The rent tribunals will be overwhelmed. With the delay for any rent increase, this will amount to a de facto rent control, with a corresponding and inevitable loss of rental accommodation when landlords disappear from the market as they cease to be able to cope with the ever-rising costs, not least the cost of increasing regulation.
I spoke at Second Reading to the problems in Berlin, where rent controls had to be abandoned owing to the lack of rental accommodation. These amendments would help introduce some realism into the system, so that applications to the rent tribunals are for genuine reasons and not merely because it would be silly not to go to the rent tribunal when there is no risk and a possible gain.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I had thought that there would be a few more speakers than that, but hey.
I wish I could be half as certain about what is going to happen in the future as some noble Lords here—they must have a crystal ball hidden somewhere. I feel this Bill is almost an act of faith. It is quite obvious that we believe that it is going to do good things and that Armageddon will not happen. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, argued her case very well and sincerely, and likewise she believes that. At the moment, neither side really knows what is going to happen. To use the cliché: only time will tell.
The problem with so many amendments being regrouped is that we are into groundhog day, so I will be brief. As previously stated, we do not support amendments that would disincentivise tenants challenging rent rises and feel that most of these amendments fall into that category. The Bill is about a power balance between the tenant and the landlord, and is a genuine attempt to redress that balance. A lot of the amendments and statements made by some noble Lords want to maintain the status quo; for us on these Benches, that is an imbalance. We are just going to have to disagree about that.
The noble Baroness referred to the realities of the housing market. Our interpretation is that landlords can charge whatever they want—whatever the market will sustain—and we do not believe that that is right. In doing so, I genuinely believe we are creating an underclass of people who will never be able to fit into the private rented sector. That is perhaps an argument for another day.
The Minister has perhaps already answered Amendment 105, but I am quite happy to hear it again, given that I agree with the noble Baroness that such a review is important and necessary.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments on rent regulation. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for their comments.
As I set out earlier, the Bill will empower private rented sector tenants to challenge unreasonable rent amounts. This is a central aim of the Government’s reform agenda and reflects our manifesto commitment. The tribunal will not be able to increase rent beyond what the landlord initially proposed. This will prevent unscrupulous landlords—let us face it, most of them are good, but there are some unscrupulous ones—using rent increases as a back door means of eviction, while ensuring rents can be increased to reflect market rates.
We are clear that tenants should submit an application to the tribunal only where they believe a rent increase is above market rates. In the first instance, we strongly encourage landlords and tenants to communicate early about what adjustments to rent are sustainable for both parties. We need to think about possible triage arrangements if there is no agreement between them.
We anticipate that our reforms will lead to some increases in cases, but, as I have already stated, we are working closely with the judiciary to ensure the tribunal has the capacity to deal with cases. In the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), work is progressing to increase capacity, as well as on reviewing resourcing and working practices in readiness for any increase in demand. I am not sure if it will be 1 million applications, as the noble Lord, Lord Howard, said, but we anticipate that there will be some increase initially, until the way that this works drives down demand in the future—which I think it will. This is part of our wider work to make sure the justice system is prepared for the changes to case loads and procedures which will be required for our reforms.
As now, tenants will be able to challenge the rent payable in the first six months of a tenancy if it is above market rate at the First-tier Tribunal. The tribunal can determine the open market rent only to be lower than or the same as the tenancy rent itself. The tribunal will not be able to increase the rent above the amount originally proposed by the landlord. We see this as a rebalancing mechanism, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said.
Amendment 92 seeks to allow the tribunal to determine the open market rent to be higher than that originally proposed by the landlord. We believe that limiting the tribunal to determine a rent to be either the same as the landlord themselves proposes or an amount lower than this is fair to both parties. If landlords have agreed a rent that they consider to be acceptable at the beginning of the tenancy, they should have no fear of a challenge at tribunal.
I turn to Amendment 93. This Bill enables a tenant during the first six months of a tenancy to challenge the rent payable. It is an important provision that should stop a minority of unscrupulous landlords exploiting tenants desperate to find a new home. It strengthens our ban on rental bidding, ensuring that any landlords who seek to charge over the odds can be challenged. When a tenant challenges their rent, the Bill states that the start date of the new rent determined by the tribunal
“must not be earlier than the date of the application”.
This reflects Section 22 of the Housing Act 1988, where a similar provision already exists to allow backdating of a determination where a tenant has challenged an excessive rent.
Amendment 93 would prevent a tribunal backdating the determination of the new rent payable to the date of the tenant’s application. It would mean that the new rent could take effect only from the date of the tribunal’s determination. I understand that the purpose of this is to ensure that the landlord will not have to repay the difference in rents back to the tenant. The Government encourage landlords and tenants to communicate early about what rents are sustainable for both parties. The Bill levels the playing field to enable a more equitable discussion about levels of rent before anything comes to the tribunal. To be clear, the aim of this is to prevent as many cases as possible ending up in court action.
In our view, the noble Baroness’s amendment would limit the ability of tenants in the first six months of an above-market tenancy to get justice for the period that the case is in the courts. It would also increase the risk that landlords would seek to exploit desperate tenants by extracting above-market rents. I am really concerned about that, because one of the key principles of the Bill is to stop that happening.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
Perhaps the Minister can help me: if you can never put the rent above market rates, how does it ever change? You can never put it up—you can only ever put it down—so it can never go up and will only ever drop. That seems a bit of a conundrum.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
No—you can put the rent up to market rates.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
That is the point. If you put it up to market rates, it can never go above market rates, so market rates can never increase. They will always stay static, and in 10 years they will be exactly the same.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Market rates are usually driven by demand, not by what happens in the courts, so I do not think that will be the case.
On Amendment 95, for too long tenants have been afraid to challenge an unreasonable rent increase for the fear that the rent can be raised beyond what the landlord has asked for. The Bill will reform how the tribunal works to ensure that tenants feel confident in challenging poor practice and can enforce their rights. The tribunal will not be able to increase rent beyond what the landlord initially proposed. That strikes the right balance between empowering tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases and ensuring that landlords can increase to the market rent.
Amendment 95 would require the tribunal to backdate a rent increase to the date of the rent increase notice, except where this is likely to cause undue hardship to the tenant. This amendment would punish the most vulnerable tenants who may already be struggling financially. Therefore, to ensure tenants are not unexpectedly thrust into debt, it is right that the new rent amount would take effect no earlier than the date of the tribunal determination. This will give tenants the time to prepare for any changes to their rent and seek independent advice on how best to manage their finances. For the sake of clarity, I repeat that the tenant will continue to pay the rent that they were paying before—it is the increase in the rent that is being challenged through this process.
Turning to Amendment 102, I reiterate that applying to the tribunal should be a last resort for a tenant. Good landlords and tenants will discuss what rent is sustainable for both parties but, if they cannot come to an agreement, a tenant has the right to challenge a rent increase at tribunal. As I have said, for too long tenants have been afraid to do that. I note, too, that the Opposition once supported our position on this matter. Their original White Paper said the tribunal will no longer have the power to increase the rent above the amount the landlord asked for. It is regrettable that they now disagree with themselves and want to make it easier for tenants to be evicted by the backdoor.
Holocaust Memorial Bill
Lord Howard of Rising ExcerptsThursday 27th March 2025
(1 month, 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)
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and those of several other noble Lords. As noble Lords will see, it calls for a new full planning application to be given to the relevant local authority, in this case Westminster City Council. In the event of the Minister calling in the application, it also calls for a new public inquiry with a different inspector. I am fully aware from the exchanges that have taken place in this Committee that the Minister is very unlikely to welcome the full new planning application and possibly even the more minor arrangement that I have put in as a second best. However, that will not deter me from putting the case as forcefully as I can.
I will deal first with the reasons why a new application is vitally necessary. We all know now about the relevant sections of the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900, which specifically set out that the Victoria gardens should be in perpetuity a public garden for the interests of those living there. It seems to me that the inspector at the time gave very little weight to that consideration and assumed that the Victoria gardens were easily there to be taken. I think this was a material consideration, because he felt that other sites might take longer to come to fruition. That was a bad miscalculation, but I will not dwell on it further now.
I also feel that the inspector greatly underestimated the damage to the park that would ensue to both the trees and the interests of the residents who rely on this little park in an area not terribly well served by green spaces. He did not have the benefit, shall we call it, of the later present Government’s consideration that everyone should be able to live within 15 minutes of a green space, as set out fairly recently. I feel, therefore, that the environmental considerations were not taken properly into account, but as I dealt with this in more detail in a previous amendment, I will not dwell on it now.
I will now look at a major source of concern where issues have changed for the worse: the security of the site in terms of possible acts of terrorism and any other source of grief, worry or danger to the public. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has powerfully set out this case. Coming as they do from a former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and a King’s Counsel with many years of experience, his views should be taken far more into consideration. I hope that this afternoon he may wish to elaborate on these matters. I am anxious that he does, because there will be very practical implications if one has to allow for the safety of the public in these circumstances, especially so close to the Palace of Westminster.
Furthermore, we have had powerful speeches from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, setting out the risks of fire hazards. Again, I will not go into all the details, but she made the important point that there was only one escape route from the underground learning centre, which she felt needed to be dealt with. Indeed, since she spoke we have had the ghastly incident in Macedonia, where a number of lives were lost in a nightclub because there was only one exit. These things are to be taken very seriously. That does not mean to say that there will not be some mitigation, but I think it needs a new, thorough look.
Then there is the risk of flood, dealt with most cogently by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. It is in an area that has always been rather prone to flooding, and we have had an example of this at 1 Millbank, where the basement restaurant was flooded and out of action for months. So this is another issue that needs much greater consideration.
Interestingly, the R&R programme now wants experiments to be done on the floor of the River Thames along the east side of the Palace, because it may want to do some works on the Terrace and the neighbouring areas. That may not impinge directly on this, but it is an indication that a great many things will be happening with the restoration programme. The Victoria Tower repair is imminent. Are we to suppose that both of those major impacts will not have a very damaging effect on the park, especially if, at the same time, all the building works for the memorial and the underground learning centre are going on? It seems to me that an impossible practical situation is developing. How can one small park accommodate the overflow from two major restorations and repairs, and cope with the building of the memorial and underground learning centre at the same time?
I now turn to the all-important arrangements for dealing with any planning application once the Bill enters the statute book. Let us look for a moment at the guidance given by the Planning Inspectorate as to the procedure to be followed if an application quashed by a law court is revived or restarted. It says in section 20.8 that written representations will normally not even be considered if there have been material changes since the time the application was first submitted. Let us remember that in this case we are talking about a submission in January 2019, now over six years ago. The Planning Inspectorate guidance adds that a round table or hearing will normally be considered only if
“it can reasonably be expected that the parties will be able to present their own cases (supported by professional witnesses if required) without the need for an advocate to represent them”.
Finally, if the application was previously considered by a public inquiry, there would normally be a fresh inquiry and a new inspector would normally be appointed, because he or she would be reviewing matters previously overturned by a court.
That seems pretty straightforward guidance. I understand that it is guidance and not the application of the law, but it seems to me that the guidance here is akin to that for traffic arrangements, whereby when we have road accidents and so on, we can look to the body of work that guides people on matters of traffic.
I was not aware of yet a further complication: the National Planning Casework Unit, set up by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, with a remit that includes managing major planning applications referred to it by the Secretary of State and requests from the Secretary of State to call in planning applications. It has become involved in a pre-consultation process to ensure that there are no undue delays once the Bill is enacted. To my knowledge—and probably that of others—it has consulted the London Historic Parks & Gardens Trust and, most importantly, the promoter, which, of course, comes from within that very same department. Through its solicitor, Pinsent Masons, it has set out what it believes to be the issues before it. It has made a written representation, from which I will quote—not the whole lot but the most relevant parts. It wrote:
“The Applicant considers that the Minister should consider representations on any and all matters required for the redetermination of the Application … such that the redetermination can then take place as soon as reasonably possible following any Royal Assent”—
as I have pointed out. It continued:
“Such matters can be fully and appropriately dealt with through written representations. To re-open the public inquiry would clearly be disproportionate to the matters relevant to the redetermination”.
Finally, it added that
“all the principal … and planning matters relevant to the determination of the Application … remain either entirely or largely unchanged from the time they were originally considered”.
As I have said previously, I regard that as totally wrong and not to be considered at all.
We have this curious spectacle, as I see it, of a planning application from an applicant, somebody who has to make the decision, and another organisation, the planning unit, all within the same department of state. Looking at it from the outside, as most people will, I consider that to be an unhealthily close relationship—at best unhealthy, and at worst positively incestuous. I am not at all happy if the way out to be chosen once the Bill becomes law is anything other than a full public inquiry or, at the very least, a new public inquiry. That is the burden of my theme this afternoon. I beg to move.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 34 in my name, which I tabled before your Lordships started to look at the Bill in Committee. Having listened so far, I am more than ever convinced that an impact assessment is needed. It would cover many things we have already debated but, as I suggested previously, with regard to risk, there would be great benefit in pulling together the many points that have been and are still to be discussed. Some suggestions will impact on others, so an overall view of the impact of the proposed memorial and learning centre would be of great benefit, not to say essential.
I find it most peculiar that there should not already have been an impact assessment for this project. I expect that a number of issues are more strictly for planning, whereas this Bill is to overcome the limitations of the 1900 covenant. When considering legislation to dispense with a covenant, there are planning issues that will impact on the decision. For example, if the proposal were for a manufacturing unit of some sort, I imagine that your Lordships might well feel that the covenant should stand. So it is not inappropriate to seek answers that are, strictly speaking, planning matters. As the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has said, we are entitled to know in detail what is proposed before we are asked to remove the covenant of which we are custodians.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I politely disagree with the noble Baroness—there is no inconsistency. My job in promoting the Bill is to look at the two main clauses along with the third one, which says that the Bill applies to England and Wales. Planning permission is absolutely for the designated Minister. As a proposal of national significance, it is perfectly proper for a planning decision to be taken by a Minister rather than by a local planning authority. When these arrangements were challenged in a judicial review in 2020, that challenge did not succeed.
Perhaps I can just make some more progress. Like any other neighbour, Parliament can make its views known through the planning system.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
With the greatest respect to the Minister, if the Planning Minister is somebody different, why is he not here answering these questions today?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, that is not the way planning works. I will leave my remarks there, in the sense that it is up to the designated planning Minister how he takes this process forward, but there will be a planning process, which is right. It is not ideal for this House, through this Bill in particular, to be discussing planning applications. That is not the role of this Committee on this Bill in particular.
As I said before, Parliament can make its views known through the planning system and can be confident that those views will be given due weight. We have well-established provisions in place to allow a decision to be challenged if proper weight is not given. The Lords Select Committee considered this matter, and the Government were pleased to give an assurance that they would notify the relevant authorities in both Houses as soon as practicable following the reactivation of the planning process in respect of the current application.
Holocaust Memorial Bill
Lord Howard of Rising ExcerptsThursday 20th March 2025
(1 month, 3 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-III Third marshalled list for Grand Committee - (18 Mar 2025)
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 35 in my name. I declare interests: I have a house nearby, I have interests in a playground manufacturing company, and I am vice-president and a former chairman of Fields in Trust, formerly known as the National Playing Fields Association, which devotes itself to the preservation of playing fields and parks.
I do not think this project should go ahead without a risk assessment. This has been highlighted by our debate so far which has raised some of the risks that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, just mentioned. So as not to waste your Lordships’ time, I will mention very briefly some of the points. Can anyone not think that there is a risk in introducing 1 million visitors a year into a relatively small space? A risk assessment is essential, even more so when one considers that it is proposed that the memorial be in an area in central London that, because of its proximity to Parliament, is more sensitive than most, as a number of noble Lords have already mentioned. There will be a risk from the sheer numbers.
What risks will there be from demonstrations connected with the memorial? These have already been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and others. There are bound to be demonstrations if the memorial is built, as it will be a prime target. Already demonstrations cause havoc in the area, with many streets being closed. How will the potentially more dangerous and aggressive demonstrations be dealt with? What about the risk to local inhabitants? What assessment of risk has there been of the memorial being a target for fanatics as well as for peaceful demonstrations? What about the risk of bombs, or the risk that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, highlighted at a previous meeting? What risk is there to those using Victoria Tower Gardens for the purpose it was set up for as a recreational park for peace and tranquil enjoyment? What about the risk during the restoration of the Palace of Westminster? Think of all the plant, machinery and building materials that will almost certainly need to be parked in Victoria Tower Gardens pending use. This is bad enough without the memorial, but with the memorial taking up the proposed space and with all the necessary security surrounding it, there will be a risk to the poor public squeezed between these two.
What about being squeezed between the Buxton memorial and the Holocaust memorial? What traffic risks will there be with the greater congestion caused by busloads arriving at the memorial, to say nothing of the increased vehicle traffic? What about the risk to covenants on other parks and green spaces? Will disapplying the 1900 Act covenant create a precedent? Will it be an example of what can be done? The National Playing Fields Association has covenants over 3,000 green spaces. Breaking the 1900 covenant may well create a precedent and encourage some of those other covenants to be challenged. What about the risk of flooding as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley? The idea of children being trapped there is unthinkable. What about the risk of no proper management structure or the convoluted management arrangement with 10 separate bodies but no one in overall charge, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra and others have highlighted?
There is also the risk of non-completion. Let me repeat the quote from the Infrastructure and Projects Authority that my noble friend Lord Blencathra mentioned earlier in this debate:
“Successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable”.
There are major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable. The project may need to be rescoped and/or its overall viability to be reassessed. There are many other areas of risk that I have not mentioned. The whole project is fraught with risk. A proper risk assessment will doubtless raise other problems. I imagine that, after our debate so far, the Minister is probably falling over himself to have a risk assessment that will pull together all the various strands of all the risks that have been debated and others that have not been mentioned.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 28 and 36. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is not just a House of Lords expert on security and terrorist threats; he is a national expert with many years’ experience. I submit that any person or Government who ignore his wise words are putting at risk fellow parliamentarians and all visitors who will be in the park either to go to the learning centre, to visit the gardens generally or to go through Black Rod’s security entrance to access House of Lords facilities.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I will come back to the noble Baroness’s point towards the end of my wind-up.
Following the planning inquiry, the independent inspector submitted his detailed and lengthy report to the Minister, with a recommendation that consent should be granted. The Minister agreed with that recommendation.
Amendment 16, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, would simply take us back around nine years and require the design competition to be run again. There is no good reason for such a step. The Government remain fully committed to the current design, which has been the subject of detailed attention and wide consultation. Suggestions that the memorial was not designed by Ron Arad or not envisaged specifically for Victoria Tower Gardens are wide of the mark. Ron Arad’s drawings showing the evolution of the design have been displayed at the Royal Academy for all to see the originality and brilliance of his design.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
Does the noble Lord agree that a camel is a horse designed by a committee? What he has just said proves that.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, swiftly moving on, it is not realistic to suppose that a new design competition would produce a design that pleases everyone. Let me be absolutely clear: I have featured in a BBC housebuilding documentary programme and I was most suspicious of design but, by the end of the 14 months when I was running for the European Parliament, I realised the impact and the power of design. Everyone has different tastes and different suspicions of design; everyone has different views. Differences of view about the artistic merits of designs are nothing new. It is quite proper that there should be an open debate about the design of new memorials, indeed of all new public buildings.
The design that is proposed for the UK national Holocaust memorial and learning centre is the product of extensive consultation, a design competition that attracted many of the best architects in the world and a judging process that relied on the deep expertise of a talented and experienced panel. Are we simply to set all that aside and require the process to be repeated? It is right, of course, that a decision to proceed with construction of the memorial and learning centre should be taken only after all relevant voices have been heard.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, referred to the press reports in 2023 concerning Sir David Adjaye. Following allegations made in those reports, Adjaye Associates has said that Sir David will not be involved in the UK Holocaust memorial project until the matters raised have been addressed.
I am not sure whether the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, was in her place when I made the following point. The learning centre will look at subsequent genocides through the lens of the Holocaust. The content of the learning centre is being developed by the leading international curator, Yehudit Shendar, formerly of Yad Vashem. The focus is to ensure that the content is robust and credible and reflects the current state of historical investigation into, and interpretation of, the Holocaust. The exhibition will confront the immense human calamity caused by the destruction of Jewish communities and other groups, and the exhibition will also examine the Holocaust through British perspectives.
The noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, said that he knows nothing wiser. I was very clear in an earlier group about the next steps of the process around planning options, subject to the passage of the Bill. I made it very clear last week—and I will say it again after the confirmation of the previous group—that the designated planning Minister, Minister McMahon, will take an approach of his choosing, whether that will be a consensus round- table meeting, written responses or a public inquiry. It is for the designated Minister to decide which approach to the planning process he will take. On his very important focus on world heritage sites, I would not do justice to the noble Lord’s passion in this area if I swiftly gave the answer now, but I will come back to him, and go through this in detail, in the next group.
Holocaust Memorial Bill
Lord Howard of Rising ExcerptsTuesday 4th March 2025
(2 months, 1 week 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-I(a) Amendment for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (3 Mar 2025)
Lord Pickles (Con)
That is why we have a planning system. When I was a Planning Minister, we often had situations where gaming was played.
Lord Pickles (Con)
Allow me to allow me to develop the point. We always have an independent inspector to look at these things. If the Secretary of State disagrees with the independent inspector, then there is generally a row. But we accepted the report.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
I appreciate that my noble friend had a lot to do with planning when he was a Minister. The point is that this is not planning. This is to try and overturn a legal dedication of this park to being a park. That is what it is about.
Lord Pickles (Con)
With the greatest respect, my noble friend needs to look more carefully at what is being asked here. It is second-guessing the planning.
In terms of the size, it is the size of the Berlin Holocaust underground site. It is the size of the one in Jasenovac. It is the size of the large temporary exhibition in America. It is not particularly small art; it is adequate for its size. It will not have any exhibits. It will all be digital. That does seem reasonable. On the location, more than 50 different sites were looked at.
I apologise for going on for so long; I hope that I will have an opportunity to speak in further debates.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I understand the point that the noble Lord is making, but this Bill allows expenditure. Funding will be allocated through the normal public expenditure arrangements. The House of Commons passes annual appropriation Acts.
The project is also subject to review by the National Audit Office. In July 2022, the National Audit Office conducted a review and produced a report noting, among other points:
“The programme has controls to try to safeguard against substantial cost increases”.
Three recommendations made by the National Audit Office have been implemented. On the points that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, raised about the management of the project, we welcome the National Audit Office’s July 2022 report on the project and have addressed all its recommendations. The National Audit Office also recognises that governance arrangements are in place. The strategic benefits of the programme have been clearly identified and specialists with the necessary skills have been recruited to the programme.
It is also important to make the point that the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, which the noble Lord referred to, currently rates the project as undeliverable because the Bill needs to be passed and planning consent granted in order for it to proceed. That is why there is a red flag rating on this. The project needs planning consent. That was quashed, and it was given a red rating as this Bill needs to be passed.
The £138 million estimate is based on professional advice from cost consultants and allows for inflation.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I do not want to limit myself by saying “yes” or “no” because I do not know the answer. As you would expect, I do not have that knowledge here.
On contingency, the estimate considers potential inflation being more than expected and the risks of the site. Again, the estimate is based on professional advice.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, raised the commitment to raise charitable donations. The commitment to raise £25 million has been given by the Holocaust Memorial Charitable Trust, which is chaired by Sir Gerald Ronson. Specific donations will be agreed once planning consent has been granted.
The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, raised improving records. The testimony of 120 Holocaust survivors has been recorded and is being made available online for all to see before the memorial opens. We have worked with the Association of Jewish Refugees to create an online portal.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, also talked about the operating costs. These have been estimated at £6.5 million to £8 million per annum.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I was responding to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on the operational costs. Operating costs have been estimated at between £6.5 million to £8.5 million per annum, and the estimates draw on comparisons with other museums and galleries of a similar size. Further detailed costs will be developed as the programme proceeds.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
If those costs have been estimated in line with other museums, do they include the extra costs that will be needed for potential demonstrations at that particular memorial, especially as it is so close to Parliament?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
Yes; all the costs associated with the operation of the memorial learning centre reflect the estimation I have just detailed, but further details of costs will be developed.
On the point from the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, on the Explanatory Notes and re-erection, the purpose is to avoid having to come back to Parliament to change legislation in the event of damage and related issues. We have regular discussions with the Palace of Westminster on the issue of other works, including the restoration of Victoria Tower. These will continue to take place and we expect to manage logistics, deliveries, and so on, through sensible planning. The estimated cost of the UK Holocaust memorial and learning centre has been produced in line with the Treasury Green Book guidance. Taking all that into account, the last accounting officer assessment from June 2023 concludes that the project represents value for money. The ordinary mechanisms by which Parliament allocates public funding and holds Ministers to account can apply to this programme, just as with any other programme.
The further Amendment 27, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would introduce an additional step in the process of seeking planning consent for the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre. While the noble Lord is to be commended for his focus on cost control and value for money, the additional step he proposes is not necessary and would simply add still further delay to the decision-making process. Costs are regularly reviewed, and updated figures will be published in due course, in line with the Government’s major projects portfolio reporting process.
A range of options are being considered for operating the memorial and learning centre. As a significant public investment, responsibility for managing the centre will need to rest with a body that is ultimately accountable to Parliament. The Government will continue to be transparent about the costs and future arrangements for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. This should, however, not delay the separate planning determination process.
The Holocaust memorial and learning centre will be a source of pride and an inspiration to the whole of society across boundaries of religion, class, geography or political party. I have only to quote the words of 94 year-old Holocaust survivor Mala Tribich, MBE, to underline why this is so vital:
“As the Holocaust moves further into history and we survivors become less able to share our testimonies this Memorial and Learning Centre will be a lasting legacy so that future generations will understand why it is important for people to remember the Holocaust, to learn from the past and stand up against injustice”.
I just want to echo—
Renters’ Rights Bill
Lord Howard of Rising Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as an owner of rented property. The last Government introduced a Bill to reform the rental market; it was a rotten idea then, and it is a rotten idea today. Although I believe it is extremely well intentioned, it will undoubtedly do more harm than good. I am constantly amazed by the belief of Governments, in the face of evidence and common sense, that they can improve things by intervening in a market that works. Last week, I quoted the late Milton Friedman:
“If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there’d be a shortage of sand”.
If this Bill is enacted, then, in five years, there will be an even greater shortage of rented accommodation than there is at present—that is, if anything more than a token market remains.
Landlords are already creaking under the weight of tax and bureaucracy, and the rental market is shrinking. Rented accommodation will always be needed, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, but the policies the Government are proposing will result in a further reduction of the amount of rented property available. Decreasing supply coupled with the increasing demand will serve only to push up costs for new tenants.
The Government’s tortuous manoeuvring around rent controls will not work. Under the Bill, any tenant who disagrees with a rent increase can go to a tribunal. At that tribunal, rent can only be reduced: it can never be increased beyond the landlord’s proposal, however modest that proposal may have been. It is a win-only bet for the tenant. Even if a proposed rent increase is ruled acceptable, the tenant does not have to start paying it until the tribunal has concluded. Who knows how long that could take? At best, the tenant gets a rent reduction, at worst a delayed rent increase. Why would every tenant not appeal on every possible occasion? The tribunals will be swamped and the delays will become unreasonable.
There is another problem with rent tribunals. The tribunals’ job is to determine what the market rent should be and to ensure that rent increases do not exceed it. If rents never go above an existing market rate, the market rate will not change; it will stay exactly the same. To state the obvious, landlords let their premises in return for rent. To create a situation where the return on investment is static because the rent never goes up, but costs go up, can result only in a reduced supply of rental accommodation.
In Berlin, in 2020, they introduced a law to maintain rents at 2019 levels for five years. Because of that law, the number of new rental properties coming on to the market fell by almost half and the scheme ended after less than two years. Similar legislation in Scotland has resulted in a significant reduction in rental stock and the highest rent increases in the United Kingdom. In Ireland, because of the shortage of rental accommodation, foreign students ended up sleeping in tents. The evidence of the harm that can be done by Governments trying to interfere in the market stares us in the face.
There are many problems in the Bill and I have commented on only one of them so far. To burden landlords with some of the other suggestions in the Bill will only accelerate the landlords’ exodus from the market. As my noble friend Lady Scott said, around 90% of landlords are individuals, of whom nearly half own only one property. Many of them will not have the resources to cope with the Government’s new demands. I remind the Government that landlords already have considerable overheads to maintain their properties: gas safety test certificates are needed every year; electrical installation condition reports are required for each new letting, or every five years; energy performance certificates are obligatory; and the demands of what they must achieve increase every year. Landlords are legally required to vet their tenants, and tenants can complain to their local authority if rules are not complied with.
Those are some of the costs of bureaucracy that landlords face already. The Bill makes the burdens worse. Demands will include limiting deposits to one month’s rent. The existing five weeks in no way covers the damage caused by a bad tenant. Landlords will not be able to refuse pets, despite the almost inevitable damage. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Black, that I have never refused a pet, and they have invariably cost me money way over and beyond any deposit. I will never refuse one either, by the way.
Fixed-term tenancies are to be abolished, even where they are in the interest of both parties, such as the majority of student accommodation. The threshold needed to be breached for eviction for anti-social behaviour or rental arrears is being raised. Up to now, the ability to use Section 21 ensured that tenants behaved in a neighbourly manner.
There will be much to deal with in Committee. I will spare your Lordships any more today.
Holocaust Memorial Bill
Lord Howard of Rising ExcerptsWednesday 4th September 2024
(8 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Holocaust Memorial Bill 2022-23 View all Holocaust Memorial Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee Amendments as at 22 May 2024 - (22 May 2024)
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, I cannot think of any possible or rational reason for objecting to a memorial to something quite so awful as the Holocaust, but I think there are strong reasons for objecting to the proposed monument being located in Victoria Gardens. There is the aesthetic: the proposed design is out of keeping with its surroundings. Anything quite so hideous and inappropriate as this off-the-shelf toast rack, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, described it, would in normal circumstances have been blocked by English Heritage, which has a duty towards the surroundings of buildings of national importance such as the Palace of Westminster. UNESCO’s criticisms and objections have been ignored.
The shocking act of bulldozing through the protections that surround Victoria Gardens so that it can no longer be used for peaceful enjoyment by the generations to come is distasteful. To abuse the generosity of WH Smith would be bad enough; to do so with something so controversial which will destroy the atmosphere and peace of the gardens is vandalism. Stating that only a small percentage of the site will be taken up does not allow for the numbers going through or the necessary security arrangements mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.
From a practical point of view, how will the projected extra 1 million visitors be coped with? The whole area is cordoned off for state occasions and, regularly, for demonstrations. Even today, I had to get out of a car and walk from Whitehall because one could not get to the Palace of Westminster. Sometimes, residents in the area around Smith Square have found that there is only one street by which they can access their house, and that is from the west. Anyone trying to get to their homes from the east may have to go south of the river, come back across Vauxhall Bridge and approach from the west. What will happen when the hordes of visitors are trying to gain access to the memorial and cannot walk through Parliament Square? There are projected to be 11 busloads a day. Where will the buses drop off, and where will they park while they are waiting? When there are demonstrations, spare parking is taken up by police reserves.
Some of the main objectors to the memorial are members of the Jewish community. Their objections are not to a Holocaust memorial but to a location where it would cause offence, inconvenience, controversy and general unhappiness. The proposed memorial could also quite possibly act as a beacon to anti-Semitism. I urge the Government to find a more appropriate location for this very worthwhile project and not put it in a place which creates antagonism and thereby fuels the fires of anti-Semitism.