Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 275C in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey. I apologise to noble Lords that this is the first time I have spoken on the Bill. I thank my noble friend for tabling this amendment, for a number of reasons: first, as someone who, as a result of injury, has had to be far more reliant on the mobility aid that is my wheelchair than is usual; secondly, because I recognise that one’s disability and resulting need to use a mobility aid, such as a wheelchair, does not change simply because one happens to be a tenant; thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, because it gives me the opportunity to bring to the House’s attention a real-life example which I hope will underline the amendment’s importance.

I should declare an interest. The example I give concerns a person I know—an eminent solicitor with an international law firm who has become severely disabled in adulthood as a result of a condition called Stickler syndrome. For those noble Lords not familiar with this condition—I confess that I was not—common symptoms include vision problems such as near-sightedness and retinal detachment, hearing loss and joint problems such as hypermobility and arthritis. In this individual’s case, it is extremely painful and debilitating and has required extensive surgery, including within the last six months. Remarkably, she is still holding down a demanding job.

However, her suffering is being unnecessarily and even gratuitously compounded by the concerted and blatant disability discrimination she is encountering from HAUS Block Management and the right-to-manage company covering the development in which she lives. This disability discrimination relates directly to her use, as a long-term tenant, of her mobility aids in her rented dwelling, which includes a courtyard garden that she shares with other residents. The amendment refers to a reasonable request from a tenant to install mobility aids in the dwelling. Her request is undoubtedly reasonable, but the irony is that she is not asking for an installation. All she is asking for is the right to use her mobility aids in a courtyard garden, which is part of the dwelling.

There are two aids on which she depends for her mobility to live independently and get to work. Recent deterioration in her condition has necessitated the increased use of a wheelchair and increased visual impairment has required the use of an affectionate, intelligent and furry mobility aid. I refer of course to her adorable, but ageing, canine companion, without which she would immobile and could not function: her guide dog.

The amendment is so important to this individual and other disabled people in her situation—perhaps to an even greater degree than my noble friend appreciated when she tabled it—because despite my friend being a lawyer and having engaged in writing with HAUS and the RTM to explain her legal rights in relation to step-free access to the garden for her guide dog and her wheelchair, all her appeals for kindness, help and basic human empathy have been met with disdain. I know this because I have here in the Chamber a copy of her email correspondence with HAUS and the directors of the RTM. It is a damning indictment of how the rights enshrined in disability discrimination and equality legislation—on which your Lordships’ House has done so much brilliant work over the years to pass—are being traduced by organisations such as HAUS and the RTM. What a sad reflection on society that this could happen in plain sight in 2025, the 30th anniversary of the Disability Discrimination Act. It is heartbreaking—quite literally, in the case of this individual. Her condition is by its very nature isolating. HAUS, her RTM directors and her neighbours know that, and yet they give the impression that they are waiting for her to die, and their callous indifference adds to that sense of isolation.

What is to be done? It would be so easy for the chief executive of HAUS, Gareth Martin, to facilitate the speedy resolution of this situation by ensuring that the RTM directors act in accordance with her rights and with compassion, and that a key was provided, on a permanent and unrestricted basis, to the courtyard garden—which happens to be next to my friend’s apartment—so that she could use her mobility aids in it. As Guide Dogs has explained to in an email to HAUS and the RTM directors, this is vital for the welfare of both her ageing service dog—her mobility aid—and the individual herself.

She is being undeniably persecuted for having the temerity to assert her rights, in a way that would be totally unacceptable were it to be carried out on the grounds of race, for example. Incredibly, as if to add insult to injury, the individual has also been told that a few flowerpots, which contain plants for sensory stimulation and provide her with the very few flashes of colour she can still just about discern, must be removed.

In conclusion, will the Minister meet me so that we can explore how we might persuade HAUS and the RTM to respect this individual’s rights with regard to her mobility aids, in line with the spirit of this amendment? Can directors of companies be struck off, for example, for engaging in what is obviously wilful disability discrimination? If not, how can we ensure that they are? Perhaps their appalling behaviour could be brought to the attention of the relevant regulators—I cannot imagine their clients would be impressed. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I reiterate my deep gratitude to my noble friend for tabling such an important amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for tabling this amendment. I also pay my heartfelt thanks to my noble friend Lord Shinkwin; he always brings enormous knowledge and so much personal experience to any debate, as he has done today.

We briefly discussed support for disabled tenants in an earlier group, and we on these Benches firmly support steps to help disabled tenants access the homes and services they need. With the appropriate support, disabled people can live more fulfilled lives and thrive. We have come so far in recent years on support for disabled people to live full and happy lives in their own homes, so I am grateful to my noble friend for moving this important amendment today.

Amendment 275C seeks to prevent landlords and agents declining reasonable requests by tenants who need mobility aids to have them installed. It is a limited amendment that applies only where a tenant can arrange for the payment and installation of the aids themselves. This is an excellent challenge to the Government and we hope that the Minister will seriously consider this proposal and work with my noble friend to deliver the protections we need for disabled tenants. Perhaps this is something that we could revisit on Report.

We also wish to work constructively with my noble friend on how we might consider broader plans to ensure that the removal of mobility adaptions is deliverable, affordable and—crucially—even possible in practice. This is a vital area that demands serious attention from the Government, and the onus is on everyone across the Committee to put forward practical and compassionate solutions that recognise the real-world challenges faced by landlords and tenants alike around adapted homes. We need to look further at who would be responsible for covering the costs of restoring the changes to the original condition of the property. There is some more work to do, but I am sure that we can all do it before Report, and I look forward to working with the other parties to see whether we can find a sensible solution to the issue. We must ensure that any policy in this area supports accessibility, while remaining realistic and fair to all parties concerned.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Lords Chamber

There is a real risk, drawn out by practical experience, that instead of creating a windfall for the state sector, we end up creating an additional financial burden on the state sector, while destroying the educational opportunities for many of our children. This is a much more clear-cut way of dealing with it, and I urge the House to back Amendments 30 and 31.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 30 in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran and the noble Lord, Lord Storey. In doing so, I should explain that leaving Clause 5 out of the Bill is the only way to protect all pupils with SEND who attend independent schools, like those I attended, where the proportion of children with SEND is much lower than 50%. I understand the Government argue that protecting only schools where a majority of pupils have education, health and care plans, or EHCPs, is adequate—as if they can ignore the inconvenient truth that almost 100,000 pupils receive SEND support in independent schools without an EHCP.

I wonder whether the Government have joined the dots and thought of the impression that this gives. The sad fact is that, in the Government’s eyes, the damage to many of these children’s life chances seems to be a price worth paying. They are expendable, immaterial, inconsequential, collateral damage, caught in the crossfire of what appears to be an ideological obsession with punishing anyone they perceive as rich. Yet many of these children’s families, as we have already heard from across the House, are not rich and the Government know it, but they seem not to care. They seem not to care that this is a deeply damaging and wholly disproportionate measure which, as we have already heard, will not raise significant revenue but will harm schools and particularly pupils with SEND who, as I did, come from modest backgrounds. Their life chances will be badly affected by its implementation. They seem not to care, but schools could close because of it. They seem not to care about the incomprehensible incompatibility of putting, as we have already heard, even more pressure on an already overstretched state sector, which the Government know and the National Audit Office has shown, is already failing to meet demand. They seem not to care, incredibly, about the mental health of pupils with SEND, which will undoubtedly be hurt by the impact of this measure unless Clause 5 is left out of the Bill. I say again to the Minister that I refuse to believe that this is the Government’s intention, but it is definitely the impression given.

So I fear that we have lost sight of the people who matter most: the almost 100,000 children with SEND who receive SEND support in independent schools without an EHCP. This amendment gives us the opportunity to send a clear message as a House that we stand with them in solidarity and with their families. That is why I urge noble Lords on all sides of the House to support it and to remove Clause 5 from the Bill.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I had not originally intended to intervene on this amendment, but I cannot help but see a wider point of principle that is involved with Clause 5 of the Bill.

I should explain that rating law serves to exempt premises used by charities and occupied for their charitable purposes, with 80% mandatory relief and 20% discretionary relief given by the billing authority. There is also some discretion for billing authorities to give similar treatment to local not for profit or community enterprises. I hope I have got that right.

What disturbs me is that, clearly, the Government think that some charities are more deserving than others. This throws up a wider issue of an arguably discriminatory policy on which a wider debate across the country is warranted. What might be more or less meritorious when considering organisations concerned with human disease, animals, wildlife or conservation, building preservation and so on? But education is the very basis of what we leave and pass on to future generations in knowledge, citizenship and values. I fail to comprehend what this clause in the Bill is, and that is why I feel compelled to support these two amendments. If we do not secure its complete removal, we should certainly have the review advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Black.

I will illustrate some of the consequences of this. I recently visited my old school as part of the Learn with the Lords programme. I ascertained that this Bill, along with other measures introduced by the Government, will cost it an additional £1 million per year and that this is likely to be reflected principally in staff reductions. I happen to know that this school has a very firm commitment to its staff, as it does to its pupils.

So Clause 5 is more than unfortunate; it is retrograde and, I feel, discriminatory. The Government ought to think again about the purpose and formulation of this particular clause of the Bill.

Holocaust Memorial Day

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. I congratulate and thank the new Members of your Lordships’ House on their maiden speeches, all of which were deeply moving.

It somehow seems fitting that I should make my first speech since recent surgery to repair an undiagnosed femur fracture—on which I have been unwittingly, if somewhat painfully, hobbling for months—by speaking in this debate. It was, after all, my childhood Jewish refugee surgeon, Hanuš Weisl, who put me back together again more times than I care to remember. He lost almost all his family in the Holocaust. I think of him today and his family members, whom the wonderful Wiener Holocaust Library has established were murdered in Auschwitz in the summer of 1944. May they rest in peace and may their memory be a blessing.

Inevitably, all of us, as we have heard in this debate, turn our thoughts to our precious Holocaust survivors and to the world’s promise to them immediately after the war: “Never again”. How do we best honour them, our Holocaust survivors? I ask myself what “Never again” means. Does it, for example, simply mean no more concentration camps, crematoria or gas chambers—the physical structures which the Soviet troops stumbled upon in disbelief 80 years ago? Does it mean no more Nuremberg laws, to which Matthew Pennycook, in his powerful Statement of 23 January in the other place, implicitly referred in terms of the Nazi legislation discriminating against Jews and depriving them of rights and property? Mercifully, both are very unlikely in today’s world.

So I ask myself another question: how do we counter the challenge that remains? How do we perform the task of eradicating what the Minister described in his poignant opening remarks as man’s darkest impulses? Does that insidious and poisonous prejudice—which informed, by osmosis and within a remarkably short period of time, the culture underpinning the abomination that was the Holocaust—still exist?

We have already heard about the IHRA’s current theme, “In Plain Sight”. That phrase reminded me of something that the remarkable Holocaust survivor, Manfred Goldberg, whom the Minister mentioned, said to me about the promise “Never again”. Manfred told me that he had genuinely taken it for granted that the promise would be kept; he took it at face value at the time and for all time. I know that he is horrified that the hatred is back and in plain sight.

That brought home to me that it is not enough for me to say, “We will always remember you and the 6 million Jewish victims of the Holocaust”. In an age of pernicious poison spread via social media, we need to acknowledge the racism still in plain sight on the streets of our capital most weekends. I refer of course to the demonstrations in central London, the first of which—the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign—unbelievably started organising while the 7 October pogrom was under way.

As well as being the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, 2025 is the 60th anniversary of Labour’s Race Relations Act receiving Royal Assent. As noble Lords will know, the Act made the promotion of hatred on the grounds of race, colour and ethnic or national origins an offence. The vile vitriol being visited on our Jewish communities clearly runs counter to the Act. This is racism, pure and simple, and it is happening in plain sight. I ask the Minister to say in her closing remarks whether she agrees that a fitting way both to mark the Act’s anniversary and to assure the survivors that “Never again” means exactly that would be for His Majesty’s Government to be even more clear that what is happening on our streets is racism and it will not be tolerated.

I take one common, supposedly innocent chant as an example. Now, I know what is meant by “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”—survivors certainly do. It means the destruction of Israel. It means the mass murder of Jews for being Jews, as we saw Hamas perpetrate on 7 October. It means a one-state, not a two-state, solution.

It is understandable that, in our desire to see peace in the Middle East, some want to believe that we are dealing with a peace-loving entity in Hamas. Yet if there is one organisation that has shown time and again that it is absolutely against peace and that it does not want a two-state solution, it is Hamas; rather, it wants to kill Jews and destroy the State of Israel. I refer noble Lords to Hamas’s statements of 24 October 2023, 30 January, 14 June and 24 October 2024. Its racist, genocidal hatred on grounds of race is in plain sight.

In conclusion, I want to take up the challenge set by my noble friend Lady Eaton in her excellent speech. I welcome the assurance given by the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, on Monday that Hamas can play no part in the future of Gaza’s governance. But can the Minister assure the House that its supporters here in the UK will not be allowed to reduce her and our sincere, renewed pledge of “Never again” to a meaningless mantra recited to coincide with Holocaust Memorial Day? Surely we can all agree that that is the least our survivors and the millions of victims of the Holocaust deserve.