Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

253: After Clause 101, insert the following new Clause—
“Use of licence conditions to improve housing conditionsIn section 90 of the Housing Act 2004 (licence conditions), for “the management, use or occupation of the house concerned” substitute “all or any of the following—“(a) the management, use and occupation of the house concerned, and(b) the condition and contents of the house concerned.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable local authorities operating selective licensing schemes to use licence conditions to improve housing conditions.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 254 and, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, Amendments 267, 268 and 269.

Amendments 253 and 254 would remove unnecessary barriers to the use of licensing schemes to improve housing standards. Licensing is an important tool for improving housing standards because it is proactive. It provides a means for local authorities to inspect privately rented housing using enforceable conditions, and to identify and resolve problems without the need for tenants to have complained.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Young of Cookham, for their amendments relating to selective licensing, and I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for moving the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Young, in his absence. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his comments.

Amendment 253, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seeks to allow local authorities to use selective licence conditions to improve housing conditions. We acknowledge and share the noble Lord’s intentions to improve housing conditions. We believe that all renters deserve to live in safe, secure and quality homes. With the introduction of a decent homes standard and the application of Awaab’s law through this Bill, the Government will reform and improve conditions across the sector. We think it is important that these measures benefit all renters and local authorities in tackling poor-quality homes, regardless of whether they are in selective licensing areas.

Amendment 254, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seeks to allow local authorities to increase the maximum duration of selective and additional HMO licensing schemes from five to 10 years. As many noble Lords will be aware, the Government recently removed the requirement to obtain Secretary of State approval to introduce larger selective licensing schemes. We think it is right that local authorities have greater autonomy to implement schemes provided that they meet the statutory criteria. However, we also recognise licensing schemes do, as noble Lords have said, place additional burdens on landlords. It is therefore important that local authorities monitor any schemes to make sure that they are proportionate and are continuing to achieve their aims. A maximum scheme duration of five years strikes the right balance in giving local authorities time to make this assessment, while also ensuring that landlords are not by default subject to increased regulation for prolonged periods. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, to withdraw his amendments.

I turn now to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. Amendment 267 seeks to streamline the selective licensing application process and cap the total fee that local authorities can charge for licensing similar properties in a block under single ownership. The Government recognise that selective licensing imposes a burden on landlords. The financial and administrative cost can be particularly significant for large portfolio landlords, such as those operating in the build-to-rent sector.

Local authorities already have discretion to streamline licence applications and fees for landlords whose properties meet the requirements for block licences. Where appropriate and consistent with the aims of their licensing schemes, we would encourage local authorities to make greater use of block licences. This reduces the burden on large portfolio landlords and can better reflect efficiencies for local authorities in licensing such properties, for example, the ability to inspect multiple properties in a block during a single visit.

It is right that licensing schemes continue to be determined locally and that local authorities have the flexibility to decide the best application process and fees to support delivery of schemes. Placing a cap on application fees could cause issues due to regional differences in costs between local authorities and potentially undermine the success of some schemes.

Amendment 268 seeks to allow the transfer of selective licences in circumstances where the licence needs to be passed to an employee of the same corporate body. As noble Lords will be aware, under Section 91 of the Housing Act 2004, licences currently cannot be transferred, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, explained. A new licence application is needed where a change to a licence-holder is required after a licence has been issued. A crucial part of the application process is ensuring compliance with the fit and proper person test. This is designed to ensure that prospective licence-holders do not pose a risk to the welfare of tenants. I am sure it is not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Young, but accepting this amendment might mean circumventing those important checks for any new licence-holders within the same organisation.

I accept that it may seem excessive for a local authority to require a full licence application to be submitted where a licence needs to be transferred due to changes in staff in cases where there are no other changes to the management or use of the property. We would encourage local authorities to take a proportionate approach in these cases, for example, by requiring only details of the new licence-holder to be provided in the application and charging a fee that covers only the essential parts of the application process, for example, the fit and proper person test.

Amendment 269 seeks to allow a local authority to grant a temporary exemption from selective licensing to an applicant where it has determined that it requires more time to process the relevant licence application. I recognise the issues this amendment attempts to address. Where a local authority has received multiple licence applications from the same applicant, it needs sufficient time to review them. As a result, applicants may receive a decision after the period they deem reasonable. I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about digitisation of this process and making the whole process more efficient.

Local authorities are already required to determine all licence applications within a reasonable time. We would encourage them to set out clearly their expected processing timelines when inviting applications. When planning a licensing scheme, local authorities should also carefully consider the level of resources needed to process applications to avoid large backlogs being created.

However, regardless of any challenges a local authority may face in processing licence applications, landlords with licensable properties should apply for licences. This ensures that they are protected from enforcement action being taken against them for having control of or managing an unlicensed property. With this in mind, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Young, not to press his amendments.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very full explanation. I think the best course of action would be to review in Hansard what she has said and look at ways in which we might progress some of these issues by the time we reach Report in a few weeks’ time. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 253.

Amendment 253 withdrawn.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

My Lords, it may not surprise noble Lords that, before we start the debate on the first group, I again remind the Committee of the protocol around declaring interests. As I mentioned last week, noble Lords should declare relevant interests at each stage of proceedings on a Bill. That means that in Committee, relevant interests should be declared during the first group on which a noble Lord speaks. If a noble Lord declared an interest during the previous two days in Committee, that is sufficient, but if this is their first contribution, any relevant interests should be declared.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for what he has just said, reminding us of the importance of declaring interests in Committee if they have not been declared so far, but will he make a statement to the Committee about the Government’s plans for further consideration of this Bill, given that we were promised six days of consideration? We lost more than two hours last week through dinner-hour business, and today—for extremely good reasons—we have now lost more than five hours of consideration. I hope the Government have now decided that they must give this Committee an extra day, because we were promised six days and we have not had six days. I hope the Government’s intention is not simply to go through the night tonight and through the night on Wednesday. This would not mean reasonable discussion of the 132 amendments that still stand to be debated in your Lordships’ Committee.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for those comments. We will try to resolve this through the usual channels, but there are six days and this is the fifth day. We want to make progress today and we want to complete Committee on the sixth day, which is Wednesday this week.

Clause 17: Landlords etc: financial penalties and offences

Amendment 145

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

171: Clause 22, page 40, line 13, leave out “has” and insert “and all joint tenants have”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Lord Shipley aim to ensure that the provisions contained in section 22 apply to joint tenancies as well.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, there are four amendments in this group relating to Clauses 22 and 23 on notices to quit, so I wish to move Amendment 171 and speak to Amendments 172, 174, and 175.

The background to these amendments has been raised by front-line advisors of Citizens Advice. I thank them for their contribution to our consideration of this Bill, and I hope the Minister will be able to allay the concerns that they have expressed when she responds. These concerns relate to how tenants serve, withdraw or reduce notice in joint tenancies, and the length of notice that tenants must give to leave before the expiration of an eviction notice that they had been served using the new, no-fault grounds 1 and 1A.

It may come as a surprise to some to realise that, in joint tenancies, one tenant can serve a notice to quit to the landlord, ending the tenancy for all tenants without the other joint tenants knowing that this has happened. Tenants remaining in the property might not know that a notice has been served until the landlord expresses an intention to issue a claim for possession on the basis that the tenancy has been ended by a notice to quit. This would put the remaining tenants in a very vulnerable position, at risk of homelessness and liable for court costs. This is the status quo with periodic tenancies, but it could become a more common problem when all tenancies become periodic. It is important for one joint tenant to be able to end a joint tenancy unilaterally—I accept that—but a mechanism is essential to ensure that all joint tenants are notified.

Similarly, while it is welcome that the Bill provides for reduced notice by agreement between landlord and tenant, it should be stipulated that this is only where all joint tenants agree in writing. Otherwise, there is a risk that a departing joint tenant and their landlord will agree to bring a tenancy to an end very quickly, potentially without the remaining joint tenant being aware. In terms of the withdrawal of notice, there is a similar problem. In theory, one joint tenant could issue a notice to quit, and the other joint tenant and the landlord could agree that it will be withdrawn. The solution is to require that the agreement of all joint tenants is needed for the withdrawal of a notice.

There is a further issue when a tenant serves notice, but when the other tenant would have sought to transfer the tenancy solely to them if they had known notice was being served. This happens most often when joint tenants go through a relationship breakdown and the tenant who leaves serves a notice to quit, sometimes with the intention of harming the remaining tenant. Yet the remaining tenant could have gone to court to get an injunction to prevent the departing tenant from serving the notice to quit, allowing time for the tenancy to be transferred to them under family law. The remaining joint tenant would then retain the security of tenure and not be made homeless. It is important to note that many of these cases involve children.

When a tenant receives an eviction notice based on the new no-fault grounds 1 and 1A, they must still give two months’ notice, even if they need to leave the property before the expiration of the eviction notice. Yet in a fast-moving rental market, tenants often have to move quickly to secure an appropriate new home before their eviction notice expires; tenants may therefore face having to start a new tenancy before their current one has ended in order to avoid homelessness. There would be a new deposit, a first month’s rent, and often household bill costs on the new property, while also paying rent and household bills on their current home. This creates a very high-cost burden for tenants and can push those on a lower income into significant debt or put them at risk of homelessness if they cannot cover these costs or find a property with an aligning tenancy start date. This issue will be amplified with the Bill’s increase in tenant notice from one month to two.

This group of amendments would, first, require joint tenants to be notified by both the landlord and any tenant giving notice, that a notice to quit has been submitted and the tenancy will come to an end on a specified date. We should note that this amendment reflects the notification requirements of Section 130 of the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016.

Secondly, the amendments would ensure that a tenant’s notice to quit can be reduced or withdrawn, through agreement with a landlord, only if all joint tenants agree to it in writing.

Thirdly, they would allow withdrawal of a tenant notice in circumstances where a transfer or assignment of the tenancy to a remaining tenant is a viable option, which would remove the need to anticipate and pre-empt a notice to quit with an injunction.

Finally, they would reduce the notice a tenant must give to one month when notice has been served to them on grounds 1 and 1A, which would give much-needed flexibility to tenants and help them manage the high cost of moving, which is unaffordable to many low-income renters.

I hope the Minister will give due consideration to those issues, which I think are very important. I have learned a little about joint tenancies that I did not know before Citizens Advice got in touch. I hope that the Minister will be willing to give further consideration and detail to this so that, on Report, we can produce the amendments that are necessary to solve the problems that have been identified.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I was intrigued by the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, today and it is interesting to hear that they have come from Citizens Advice. I am conscious that things have evolved over time, and he mentioned relationship breakdown. As somebody who used to rent with other people, I know there was always a certain risk when you took on a tenancy that somebody could walk out and you would be left liable.

I guess I am trying to understand—perhaps I was not listening quite closely enough—whether we will get to a point where, instead of people coming together, this will drive more accommodation into houses of multiple occupation.

I will give your Lordships my personal experience. I was working for a very large company when I moved to another city, which reflected the job situation that I needed. There is no doubt that I deliberately sought out situations that were not exactly HMOs but where individual contracts and tenancies were allowed with the landlord, so that it would not fall on my shoulders to think about these issues.

I suppose I am trying to understand how this amendment would address the situation of making sure that there are enough tenancies and enough accommodation available, without putting more risk on to the landlord. We are already seeing quite a substantial change. I understand why the Government set this out in their manifesto and similar. I appreciate that there may be some differences on some of the impact but, perhaps when the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, follows up—I am happy to discuss this outside—it would be useful to discuss how much of a genuine, as opposed to theoretical, problem this really is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his amendments, which relate to tenants ending an assured tenancy and joint tenancies. In doing so, I thank him for raising the very important issues brought to him by Citizens Advice, which has been in touch with the department as well. I thank Citizens Advice and all the other stakeholders for engaging with our officials on these issues. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Scott, for their comments too.

Where a joint tenant has served a notice to quit, Amendment 171 would require any agreement to a notice period of less than two months to be with not just the landlord, as the Bill requires, but with all other joint tenants as well. Although I genuinely think there is merit to this approach, I am cognisant of the potential impacts on tenants who do not wish to inform their co-tenants that they are leaving. There may be a number of reasons why that might be the case. We would need to give very careful consideration to any change in this direction, to make sure we understand any impacts that it might have. We are currently working through that.

Amendment 172 would allow a tenant to provide only one month’s notice to end an assured tenancy if the landlord had already provided a notice of their intention to seek possession using ground 1 or ground 1A. The Government understand that tenants may find new properties to let within the four-month notice period the landlord has given them, and that market pressures would mean that, ideally, they could go when they need to. However, it is right and fair that tenants provide landlords with the usual two months’ notice so that landlords have sufficient notice, as they may need to change or alter their plans as a result. We think that this strikes a fair balance. Tenants will benefit from slightly longer notice periods, and it is right that landlords can plan for the ending of the tenancy too. Nothing prevents the agreement of a shorter notice period. We expect that, in many cases, landlords will gladly facilitate a quicker end to the tenancy to allow them to sell or move in more quickly.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, raised a number of questions around subletting. I will come back to her on those points.

Amendment 174 would require joint tenants to notify each other when serving a notice to quit an assured tenancy, and landlords to inform all joint tenants that such a notice has been served and to provide a copy of the notice. The Bill does not require joint tenants to inform each other when ending an assured tenancy. I understand the point that there is an inherent risk that tenants may not find out until late in the notice period that their tenancy is ending. However, at the moment, the Government are concerned about the potential impact—for example, on domestic abuse victims—of being required to inform the perpetrator that they are ending a tenancy, possibly in order to flee. On the balance of risks, we believe the needs of domestic abuse victims must be allowed to prevail, although I recognise it is a difficult decision and we are giving it further consideration.

Finally, Amendment 175 would require all joint tenants to agree to withdrawing a notice to quit. This amendment is unnecessary, as it has already been established in law that all joint tenants must agree to positively sustain the tenancy. It is very unlikely that a court would determine that a single tenant could unilaterally withdraw a notice to quit, because there is not the positive consent of all tenants. For those reasons, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendments.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, these are essentially probing amendments and I am glad that the Minister and her department have had discussions with Citizens Advice. I understand some of the points that she has made. To take up the point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, I think the aim is to avoid unintended consequences in a new Bill such as this. So it is important that all these issues are thought through and examined so that the best answer can be found. I hope it might be possible, between now and Report, for some of the issues that the Minister has raised to be looked at in detail. I shall look carefully at her response in Hansard to see whether there are ways in which some of the problems that have been identified, and some of the responses with perhaps unintended consequences that the Minister has identified, might find a solution. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 171 withdrawn.

Birmingham: Waste Collection

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The costs are included in the issues that Birmingham is facing overall. We are working with the council on options to address those costs. The commissioners in Birmingham have been working very hard to do that. The additional £131 million funding we put into Birmingham this year will help to address some of the deficit it has faced recently. In fact, we included in our funding for Birmingham a new one-off recovery grant of £39.3 million, which shows our commitment to correcting unfairness in the funding system. We also put in place an in-principle agreement to exceptional financial support totalling £1.24 billion across the country. We are helping Birmingham with its financial issues, but they are of long standing. The overall funding formula we have been looking at as we go into the spending review across the country does not deliver funding in a way that delivers the best funding settlement to where the most need is. That is something we will have to address going forward.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, concern has been expressed about this situation arising again following local government reorganisation. When we discussed this matter in the Chamber previously, I suggested that one way of preventing it happening again was to revive the Audit Commission, which has not existed now for just over 10 years. I think it would help, and I am not sure whether Ministers have taken on board seriously the suggestion that an improved audit system is necessary in local government.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know, because I have stated this before in this Chamber, how much I agree with him about the problems that not having an effective audit system in place in local government has caused. We need to reinstate a sound audit that the public can rely on to know that their money is being spent locally in a way that is accountable and transparent; that is an important part of the process. At the moment we are at the White Paper stage of bringing forward the English devolution Bill, and when we get the Bill it will contain information about how the audit system is going to be progressed.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

At its core, this Bill is about achieving the right balance, but it falls short. It fails to meet its purpose and its promises. The Minister cannot simply stand by as thousands of homes fall out of the rental market while still claiming that this Bill will deliver for renters. Getting this balance right is paramount. It is the difference between a functioning, accessible rental market and one that is suffocated. It is the difference between tenants being able to find a secure and happy home they can afford and landlords leaving the sector. It is the difference between young people being able to build independent lives or being priced out of renting altogether. That is why this amendment matters. It would place a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the core purposes of this Bill: the improved performance and sustainability of the rented housing market.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the Committee that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook. I can see the merit in a clause defining the Bill’s purpose, and Ministers will advise us on that—except that the whole Bill defines its purpose.

I noticed that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, used the word “secure” several times in her speech, confirming that:

“The purpose of this Act is to improve the ability of renters in the rented sector to obtain secure, fairly priced and decent quality housing”,


as in subsection (1) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 1. I do not understand how the noble Baroness can propose an amendment that talks about the security of decent-quality housing at the same time as Amendment 8 proposes that small landlords—that is, those having fewer than five properties—could continue to be able to issue Section 21 no-fault notices.

I have to assume that it is now the Conservative Opposition’s intention to withdraw Amendment 8, for otherwise I do not see how, in all honesty, a statement can be made in Amendment 1 that the objective is for secure, decent-quality housing in the private rented sector when for many properties no-fault evictions would be allowed to continue under the Conservatives’ Amendment 8.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My noble friend Lord Shipley has eloquently kicked things off for our Benches. I will make a few general comments about how we will conduct ourselves during the course of the Bill.

We do not agree with the assertions made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook. We think that the intentions in the Bill are perfectly clear. Whether it will live up to those intentions only time will tell, which is why we too would be looking at reviews. In fact, the noble Baroness’s Amendment 261 is very similar to my own Amendment 263, so I will reserve comments on reviews until we discuss that group.

I say to the Minister that we really want the Bill to go through, and for that to be done professionally and swiftly, in a well-scrutinised way, so we will not be making Second Reading-style speeches or commenting on every single item and amendment. I would therefore like the Minister to take it that silence means we agree with the Government’s position. However, we will probe, challenge and seek evidence and reassurances, and I think the Minister would expect no less from us.

We all know that the main problem is the shortage of homes, particularly social homes. The Bill is not intended to solve that problem. It has to be seen as part of a suite of policies that the Government are trying to bring in—and, to use the same phrase again, only time will tell. However, landlords have cried wolf before—over the Tenant Fees Act, I believe—and Armageddon did not happen. That is not to say we should not take their concerns seriously, nor that the Government should not monitor and review, but the most important thing in the Bill is the abolition of Section 21. That was promised by the noble Baroness, Lady May, when Prime Minister, back in the mists of time, so it is long overdue. It is time that we cracked on with this, and we will do our bit to ensure thorough scrutiny but swift passage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I have Amendments 4 and 5 in this group, which are purely probing amendments to enable the Minister to explain clearly the Government’s rationale for abolishing fixed-term tenancies. In Amendment 4 I lit on a six-month period and Amendment 5 relates to two months, and I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, has a period of three months in this group.

The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, warned of unintended consequences, and it is almost inevitable with a Bill of this kind that there will be unintended consequences almost whatever we do. However, in this situation we have to avoid it happening unnecessarily. I can envisage that there may be situations where a very short tenancy is wanted by both tenant and landlord. As I said, I have proposed two-month and six-month periods and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, has proposed three months. The reason is that it would reduce paperwork and the procedures would become much easier. However, in the context of periodic tenancies—which is what the Government are doing— I understand that it is actually quite difficult to fit in a very short-term system such as that, even though it might be in the interests of the tenant, with the agreement of the landlord, to have that kind of tenancy. So I hope that the Minister will explain clearly why that should not be permitted under this Bill.

I will add one further factor that we will debate on a future day: the issue of paying rent up front. There are those who have real difficulty in securing the credit rating necessary to persuade a landlord to give them a tenancy. In some cases, it is very much in the interests of the tenant to be able to pay more than one month up front. I understand how the Government have finally decided not to have two months as a limit on upfront payment, plus a deposit, and have brought it down to one month. However, I think, as the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, advised us, that we have to be very careful about unintended consequences.

We need to think carefully about the wish of a tenant to pay for a short-term rental up front at the start of the tenancy. Can the Minister see any means whereby the Government, through this Bill, could be more flexible in situations of that kind?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, briefly, I support Amendment 40, to which I added my name. I am concerned to ensure that we do not inadvertently damage further the student accommodation market. There is already a very severe shortage in student housing. The proposal to end fixed-term tenancy agreements could have such an impact. I have received very detailed briefings from UniHomes—supported, I know, by Unipol—Universities UK, HEPI and other organisations intimately involved in student housing.

Purpose-built student accommodation will be exempt from this decision, but student accommodation provided by the private rented sector is not offered that exemption. I know that the government objective, which I fully support, is to deliver security and stability to tenants, but I do not believe that the Bill, as it stands, will deliver that for all students. As the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, pointed out, on average, private sector accommodation is cheaper than purpose-built accommodation, so it is an important source of housing for domestic students who are economically disadvantaged. I hope that the Minister will recognise that possibility and not jeopardise such provision, as many think this might. It would be worth considering granting the exemption granted to purpose-built student accommodation to the student private rented sector in total. Other suggestions have been made and I hope that the Minister will consider them all to ensure the stability of student accommodation.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, along with the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Wolf and Lady Warwick, I have signed this amendment. I spoke about this issue at Second Reading.

The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, reminded us that there are three totally different rental regimes for students: purpose-built accommodation, including large blocks; the HMOs, which are larger properties in the private rented sector; and the smaller private rented sector accommodation. The noble Lord was absolutely right to say that the achievement of so many young people in going to university has been dependent on the availability of accommodation in the private rented sector. From my time in Newcastle upon Tyne, I know how fundamentally important the PRS was to the growth of the universities in the city. I think the Government accept that a special arrangement is needed for an academic-year contract, but that has to include those in one-bedroom or two-bedroom properties; they also need to be exempted as part of ground 4A, which currently restricts the exemption to houses in multiple occupation.

The Government have Amendment 202 in this group, and I am keen to hear what the Minister will say about that and to what extent she feels it will help us solve the problem. There is a danger that unscrupulous landlords will define properties as being for students when they are not, in order to bypass the impact of this Bill when enacted. I thought a lot about that and believe that the Government can mitigate that possibility. It might be done through the register; there may be ways of delivering a solution by that means. It occurred to me that it may be possible to use non-liability for paying council tax as the basis for a system for identifying those who would qualify for Ground 4A. It would require local authority co-operation and proactive management of the private rented sector, but it can be done—and it needs to be done because students are very important to the lifeblood of many cities and towns across the country. Having a vibrant private rented sector for them to use matters.

If the Government decide that the smaller private rented sector properties do not need additional help, the likelihood, given that students would be able to give two months’ notice under the revised terms of this Bill, is that landlords will decide to stop letting properties in the private rented sector to students, or to reduce their exposure to the student-letting market.

It is a complex area. I recall the Minister saying when she summed up at Second Reading that there are difficulties and issues that have to be considered. I hope that, once she has replied and we better understand the intention of Amendment 202, we can produce something much better when the Bill is on Report.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 266 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. This is my first intervention in Committee, so I declare my interests: my wife owns privately rented property; I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association and of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute; I am currently chairing an inquiry into intergenerational housing, and I am on Business in the Community’s Blackpool housing advisory board.

My Amendment 266 in this group concerns student housing, but it is on a slightly different tack. While there are strong grounds against a general option of fixed-term tenancies, separate arrangements are justified for student accommodation, as indeed the Government acknowledge. My amendment is a modest tweak to the change already made by the Government to exclude student housing, except in smaller accommodation, from the prohibition on fixed-term tenancies. It would address a rather different issue. It would exempt certain purpose-built student accommodation from the private rented sector licensing schemes of local authorities, which enable councils to inspect and enforce standards for private rented property. This exemption for PBSA accommodation is justified because these schemes are already subject to high levels of scrutiny and compliance through government-approved codes of management. I am grateful to the British Property Federation for bringing this issue to my attention.

As the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and many others have eloquently explained, purpose-built student accommodation is an important part of the rented market. It provides 724,000 beds throughout the UK, split between university owned and privately owned. There are nearly 200,000 more beds, mostly privately provided, in the pipeline. Without this sector, students would have to rely on, and would put more pressure on, the wider private rented sector, where satisfaction levels are rather lower. Lack of suitable accommodation is a major problem for students and for universities. Removing barriers to tackling the undersupply of student housing is also important in easing the strains on the rest of the private rented sector.

Local authority licensing can definitely help raise standards for the PRS, but its value does not extend to that part of the PBSA sector, which is already heavily regulated. The sector has government-recognised codes of practice under which members are inspected on a regular rolling programme, which covers the property’s condition, management and regulatory requirements. Because of the level of scrutiny required by these codes, a 2019 government-commissioned independent review found that licensing was not required for purpose-built student accommodation. It said:

“This accommodation, as a normal condition of operation mandated by the attached University, is required to implement a strict, Government recognised code of management practice … Such a code holds the accommodation to much higher standards of management and condition than any licence conditions could reasonably achieve. Properties are rigorously inspected on a regular basis (typically three times per year)”.


This MHCLG review concluded:

“Given that these properties are already highly regulated, and equivalent properties managed by Universities (to an almost identical code of practice) are exempt from licensing, licensing of such properties is manifestly redundant and extremely expensive for the operators”.


In relation to the expense for operators, local authorities can operate a licensing scheme charge on average of £700 per license, but they can charge up to £1,200, and since these fees are often charged per unit, not per scheme, not per building, a scheme of several hundred units—for example, studio flats—can incur costs in excess of hundreds of thousands of pounds. While some local authorities already offer exemptions or discounts for PBSA providers that adopt these codes of practice, this is not standard practice, and many local authorities do not offer any reduction in licensing charges. This is not really fair. PBSA was never a target for the licensing scheme, and the cost and time incurred by the licensing process does not add any benefit for students. Exemption from licensing would remove an unnecessary expense for providers, saving some of them hundreds of thousands of pounds and improving the viability of PBSA schemes.

Birmingham City Council

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I certainly agree that the people of Birmingham are at the heart of this issue. They are first in our thoughts. I agree that urgent action is necessary. That is why I spoke with the leader of Birmingham City Council today to see whether there was anything further we could do to support them. He believes that the way to resolve this is to get around the table as quickly as possible, and that is just what he aims to do.

On the noble Lord’s comments on how the situation arose in the first place, there had been serious financial and governance failings. Birmingham City Council issued a Section 114 notice, which effectively says that the council does not have control of its finances, in September 2023. It did so due to accepting a £760 million liability that arose from those equal pay claims, along with in-year budget deficits that arose from the Oracle IT system. It has been working through a very intense programme of activity to put those issues right. It has not been easy for the leadership of Birmingham City Council; nobody goes into local government to cut services or make things less easy for their residents. It has been doing that with the commissioners, who are working very well with the council and have produced a frank and honest report. There is a copy in the Library if any noble Lord wants to look at it. I agree that preserving public health is vital. That is why the director of public health in Birmingham and the UK Health Security Agency regularly review what is going on there, to make sure that everything is done that can be to ensure that the public health situation does not deteriorate any further.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has referred to serious financial failings in Birmingham, and the Statement admits that:

“Practices in the waste service have been the source of one of the largest equal pay crises in modern UK history, resulting in costs of over £1 billion to the residents of Birmingham. This situation simply cannot continue”.


Does the Minister agree that this situation might not have arisen had it not been for the abolition, just over a decade ago, of the Audit Commission, which had a role in delivering best value as well as formal audit responsibilities? Taking Birmingham as an example, might the Government consider whether that decision was wise and whether something needs to be done to improve long-term audit of local authorities in England?

Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her explanation. I have no difficulty at all with the thrust of this statutory instrument, but I have one or two queries.

Throughout her speech, the Minister referred to Crown development, but the Explanatory Memorandum says that this concerns

“planning permission for the development of Crown land”.

Does this apply only to development on land that the Government already own? Or, as the Minister said, is this about Crown development, possibly on land owned by other people or organisations? If I am right and this is confined to the development of Crown land, as the Explanatory Memorandum says on pages 1 and 3, is there a definition of “Crown land”? We are familiar with the Crown Estate but what exactly is Crown land?

Secondly, can the Minister give us some examples of the sorts of development that might be relevant to this statutory instrument? I understand the process that she described, but I did not get a picture of exactly when this would be used by the Government. It would be helpful if she could flesh that out.

Thirdly, this measure applies to development that is urgent and in the national interest or

“securing planning permission for nationally important and urgent Crown development”.

Is that justiciable? In other words, would it be possible to slow down the whole process if somebody came up and said, “This is a misuse of this statutory instrument. This is not nationally important or urgent”? In that case, the whole objective of this SI—to speed things up—could be nullified if the decision to use it was justiciable.

My final point is a petty one. I notice that, on pages 2 and 3, a whole lot of legislation is being amended. It is not clear to me why the Caravan Sites Act 1968, for example, has to be amended as a result of what we are doing in this SI. Is there some particular caravan site occupying a site of enormous national importance that might have to be used for the purpose of some giant infrastructure scheme? Looking at pages 2 and 3, one sees a whole series of pieces of legislation, and it is not absolutely clear why they all need to be amended to bring this SI into effect.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond satisfactorily to the points that he raised.

Reading the Explanatory Note, my question is: who decides whether an application for a development is “of national importance” or “a matter of urgency”? I assume that there is a proposal from a department, presumably from the relevant Minister, that then goes to the Secretary of State in the noble Baroness’s department, and that the final decision is made by the Secretary of State, but on the recommendation of the relevant department. I assume that this means that the relevant department cannot itself define that something is urgent and of national importance. I think I have concluded that it is both, but that the final decision will lie with the Secretary of State. For me, the vital question for the Minister to clarify is: will the public be able to object? The Minister talked about the need to try to ensure consultation with local people, but will local people be able to object to an application, or will the decision lie simply with the Secretary of State?

I noticed the Minister’s comments on scrutiny. I think she said that there will be full scrutiny of the use of powers, but paragraph 10.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum says:

“The instrument does not include a statutory review clause”,


and paragraph 10.2 says:

“The Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government will monitor the overall effect of the implementation of the Crown Development and Urgent Crown Development routes for planning permission”.


It is not clear to me to what extent that will involve Parliament. I want to hear from the Minister that the monitoring review will be thorough and part of normal parliamentary procedures on matters of this kind.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her explanation of how we got from there to here; its clarity is welcome. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Young of Cookham, for their forensic questioning, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. We on these Benches are in agreement that projects in the national interest, especially those deemed urgent, must and should be expedited as swiftly as possible. We are also in agreement that the present system has failed to deliver the improvements necessary to promote economic growth and improve the productivity of our vastly unequal regions.

Subsidiarity, a word we do not hear very often, cuts to the heart of this SI and the changes it introduces. Decisions must and should be taken at the most appropriate level, proportionate to the impact of the decision, which this SI attempts to do. Only time will tell whether it has been successful.

However, to me, this is a two-way street, with powers devolved down as well as taken up. It is nothing short of madness that when I was an elected mayor, I had to go through a four-year torment and two judicial reviews needing the Secretary of State’s approval—of which there were many during those four years—to be able to turn an allotment site into much-needed facilities for our local hospital. Conversely, it is also unacceptable that plans to build a third runway at Heathrow have been in discussion for decades. Evidence abounds that something needs to change and the system is failing. I am therefore interested in the Minister joining the dots for me as to how the new regional super-mayors will be involved in this process, given that the Government are also giving them greater planning powers.

We can also see how this joins up to the Government’s broader agenda. We have all lived through the Crown Estate Act and agree with its aims to use land—we look forward to the clarification mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham—to create lasting and shared prosperity for the good of the nation as a whole. We can see how the SI is designed to drive through nationally significant projects at pace. However, the then Opposition, us included, were greatly concerned that such powers would be used only when necessary and with appropriate safeguards in place.

We will have to watch to see whether the safeguards and processes envisaged by these changes are effective, and whether the definition of “national importance” has been consistently applied and the criteria as laid out adhered to. Perhaps the Minister can give us some examples of what applications constitute a matter of urgency and warrant an expedited planning process.

Our overriding concern is the need for accountability and transparency. Can the Minister clarify what is envisaged—in the words of the Minister in the other place—to ensure that

“the House as a whole”

will have

“the opportunity to consider and scrutinise their general operation”?—[Official Report, Commons, 13/2/25; col. 33WS.]

Is this for each application or the generality of the process? To paraphrase my noble friend’s question, we would seek clarity on the review.

There are legitimate concerns around the erosion of local democracy—of not listening to local voices and their elected representatives. Can the Minister reassure us that all voices will be heard and consultation will be wide ranging, as appropriate to the application? I underline that phrase. Does the Minister agree that the undeniable right to be listened to and consulted does not confer a right of veto?

I am unconvinced that a retrospective annual report in the form of a letter of decisions taken, placed in both Libraries, fulfils the commitment to make sure this is scrutinised and accountable. We are looking forward to the changes to come in the context of the new Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which I am sure we are all eagerly looking forward to—or not. However, that is an argument for another day. We support this SI, with caveats on future scrutiny and transparency.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, as this is the first time I have spoken at this stage of the Bill, I declare an interest as a chartered surveyor, a member of the Rating Surveyors’ Association, and a member of the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation. In fact, these are the three bodies referred to in Amendment 32, which is in this group, under the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow.

I thank the Minister for his willingness to engage and for yesterday’s meeting—I appreciate that very much. If it is any comfort to him, that is at least part of the reason why I felt that I should not press these amendments today, most principally because they go to the heart of the philosophy of how the financial backcloth of rating is dealt with. That would be a very diffuse target at which to try to aim at this stage in the Bill.

Before dealing with Amendment 2 and speaking to Amendment 11, which is also in my name in this group, I remind your Lordships how we got here. During our deliberations in Grand Committee, the Minister referred to the 2024 Budget, in which the Chancellor set out a Budget to “fix the foundations” and to take

“difficult but necessary decisions on tax, spending and welfare to repair public finances, to increase investment in public services and the economy … Part of that agenda included transformation of the non-domestic rating or business rates system, including delivering on the Government’s manifesto pledge to support the high street”.

The Government’s manifesto pledge did a good deal more than just support the high street: it talked about dealing with the online giants. That is why Amendment 1, which we just voted on, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, causes me to remind your Lordships of what I reminded them of at an earlier stage of the Bill: the very large number of non-target species that are swept up by this particular Bill. I enumerated a significant number of them—not all, I might add—of which hospitals were one.

The Minister went on to say that the Government intended to provide

“a permanent tax cut for qualifying retail hospitality and leisure properties and, in doing so, better ensure the ongoing vibrancy of high streets up and down the country”.

He then referred to this whole

“challenging fiscal position that the Government inherited”.

We can fairly say that business ratepayers have been subject to an unsatisfactory means of levying this particular tax for a very long time. I have been on my feet on innumerable cases during the two periods that I have been in this House challenging that perception and showing how this is very negative in its effects on business confidence.

The Minister said that the system

“should work in a sustainable way”.

There are two bits of sustainability: whether the Treasury can balance the books and find the most convenient shortcut through in dealing with its affairs, and what you might call the politically most expedient way. The other way is the one that looks at how businesses make decisions and how the prospect of a surcharge impacts on what businesses do. I have said many times in this House that it is a poor tax that itself starts shifting the dial for people trying to get away from its effects.

The Minister said that

“the Government are asking those with the most valuable 1% of properties to pay more to support the viability of high streets”.

I find it difficult to relate the benefit to the high street by the means shown in this particular Bill. The Minister also said that the process that the Government has alighted on would be equitable and would

“capture the majority of large distribution warehouses, including those used by online giants”.—[Official Report, 24/2/25; cols. GC 444-45.]

Fair enough, but it catches an awful lot else besides, so it is very poorly targeted.

On 17 March, in the other place, in a Written Answer to a Written Question from the shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up, the Exchequer Secretary commented first on the Valuation Office Agency publishing its official statistics detailing the number of non-domestic properties in England with a rateable value of £500,000 and over, broken down by sector. He then went on to say:

“There is no special category code for ‘internet retail warehouses’. You may find the data for ‘retail warehouses and food stores’, and ‘large distribution warehouses’ helpful”.


I do not find that in the least bit helpful. These are charging people who are not part of the target species. It appears that the Government have no idea how many large warehouses are occupied by the online giants that they claim to be targeting in the first place.

There are lots of questions here, some of which have already been put on previous occasions by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. Why was this threshold set at £500,000? What is the metric? How are the Government able to justify this figure? The manifesto said that the reforms would

“raise the same revenue … in a fairer way”.

When the Government are planning to raise an additional £2.65 billion by making businesses pay for the retail, hospitality and leisure relief and discounts, which up to now have been funded centrally, that makes me wonder precisely what the business of raising the same revenue in a fairer way amounts to.

If the intention was really to charge more to online giants, one would have to ask why the 90% of hereditaments to which the supplement might apply—the £500,000 rateable value and above—are dealing also with warehousing and other things that are clearly outside that. Some 90% of what they propose to charge does not fall within the category of online giants. It goes on from there. I have already raised the question as to why we cannot get to a more comprehensive reform of business rates—already referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock—because this is starting to be an active disincentive to businesses.

That question is not answered by saying that other variable cost elements for businesses are better in this country than elsewhere. This is a direct, in-your-face fixed cost that businesses have to deal with. I cannot see that this is consistent with a growth agenda that intends to attract inward investment.

My interrelated Amendments 2 and 11 are aimed at not worsening the situation for the large retail, hospitality and leisure properties, the inclusion of which in the supplement cannot be justified on property terms. I would prefer the discounts to be applied to all such RHL properties, but this would be even less acceptable to the Government. However, it involves the removal of less than 25% of the total rateable value to which the Bill proposes to apply the supplement. When one looks at the mathematics of this, it really does not stack up. Even at the maximum level of potential supplement, it is substantially less than the extra revenue that the Government will raise from shifting the costs of the RHL relief from the Exchequer to the business rate payer—so it is not very large beer.

I said yesterday in a meeting with the Minister, and I say again, that I and a lot of rating practitioners, and certainly business rate payers, would be a great deal happier if we could have an assurance that the Government will move at reasonable pace to remedy the deficiencies of the current business rate system by whatever means. There needs to be comprehensive thought about this whole process so that we do not simply drift on and create more and more division and less and less confidence. Even at this late stage in the process, can the Minister give a reassurance that this is forthcoming within the current Government, for the better achievement of their aims on investment and growth? I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I have great sympathy with the contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and agree with the conclusions that he has so carefully reached. I know that these Benches would support his amendments.

Amendment 32, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, concerns an important issue. The Government promised in their manifesto to make the payment of business rates fairer and more balanced between retail distribution warehouses and high street shops. Indeed, the Chancellor said in the last Budget that she wanted to shift the burden. Yet all the signs are that nothing will happen until next year at the earliest. I hope that the Minister can give us an update on the timing for the outcome of the review that the Government apparently are undertaking. I say that because this is, as the noble Earl made clear, an urgent matter. Business rates are a major burden on retail high street shops. Sainsbury’s said a few months ago that half of its total tax bill is for business rates.

The system needs urgent reform. One step would be to accept the proposals in this group of amendments. In particular, Amendment 32 sets deadlines for when the Government must have acted. I hope that, if there is an opportunity, we on these Benches can support the amendments in this group.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I do not wish to talk for more than a moment, as I have Amendment 32 coming in the next group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 3 in my name and to speak to its consequential Amendments 8, 12 and 16.

These amendments seek to retain the standard multiplier for anchor stores, given their ability to drive business on our high streets. Throughout Committee, there were several noble Lords who acknowledged the importance of these stores and the role they play in the commercial ecosystem of our high streets up and down this country. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for their support on this matter.

As anyone who has worked in local government will know, when you get an anchor store such as a large Tesco, M&S or Primark—or one of those rare but well-loved independent department stores—on the high street, it allows the high street to flourish. I can certainly attest to that from my experience. The importance of these stores absolutely cannot be overstated. Without them, many high streets would seriously suffer due to the reduced footfall.

It is those very shops that draw people to the high street, and their presence encourages people to spend in the smaller, independent businesses. So the reason that these anchor stores should not be subject to the changes in the Bill is due to their role in aiding those small businesses. The Government claim that the Bill helps small businesses because it will leave them with reduced business rates, but if the anchor stores move away from the high street, they will not be able to sustain themselves at all. The Minister has many times continued to state that there are only a few of these stores in number, but if it is your high street that contains one of these, or if you want to bring one into your high street, then it is very important to you.

Not only will this push current stores away from the high street, but it will also mean that in future, when businesses are evaluating where to open new branches, they will be increasingly likely to choose locations out of town, where property costs less and where they will not be forced to pay the new higher multiplier. Large businesses will leave town centres, and I am concerned about the impact that that will have on the future of our high streets and the reduction in footfall that it will cause.

If the Government continue to increase costs on businesses in the same way as they have begun, there will not be any businesses left on our high streets to tax. The combination of the minimum wage, which we support, and the increase in employers’ national insurance has already led to many businesses increasing their costs or reducing their head count. This may well not be the most costly tax they face, but it could end up being the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

My amendments would give the Treasury the power to define specifically what an anchor store is. I am sure we are all aware that it is not the easiest term to specify, as the Minister mentioned in Committee. I understand that it might be difficult but, with the input of or indeed the discretion for local authorities included, I am sure the definition can easily be reached.

In order to safeguard our high streets, we must protect the businesses that allow them to thrive. We understand the need to create a more fair and equitable system, but that is not what the Bill promotes. As such, we are highly concerned about the consequences, whether intentional or not, that it will have.

I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on the topic of manufacturing. It is a sector of huge importance and must be protected.

I hope the Minister will recognise the importance of exempting these stores and will accept these amendments. If he does not, I intend to test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook. The issue of anchor stores seems fundamental in increasing footfall into traditional shopping centres, and it is right that there should be a power to exempt those anchor stores from higher rates.

One note of caution that I want to mention is that a Government would need to ensure that there was not a tendency by landlords to try to increase rents in the face of lower business rates. I am sure there are ways in which that can be done. Where councils are the landlord then they would have control of that, but when the landlord is in the private sector we need a mechanism to ensure that that can be done—and it should be done. If the noble Baroness decides to test the opinion of the House, I am sure she will have the support of these Benches.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned Amendment 4 on manufacturing. My noble friend Fox is in another meeting in the House at this very minute, so I will be saying a few things about that amendment. It is important that something is done to support the manufacturing sector. There has been a drop in confidence in the sector since the autumn. There is a big increase in manufacturers’ costs. Reductions in markets, making business development more difficult, have become very clear. Orders in general are reported to be smaller in size. The Brexit impact urgently requires a reset with the European Union. Manufacturing industry has high energy costs, and there are now concerns surrounding tariffs which are affecting confidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 31 in my name. I am grateful, as always, to my noble friend Lord Lexden for his support. I also strongly support Amendment 30 from my noble friend Lady Barran. I refer noble Lords to my previous declaration of interests.

Let me explain why this amendment is important. Throughout all the debates on independent education that we have had in this House, as indeed they have had in the other place, the Government have shown themselves seemingly impervious to rational argument. Frankly, they have buried their head in the sand, wilfully refused properly to engage with the independent sector and ignored the strength of feeling in this House and the opinion of experts in the field.

The unpalatable truth that they will not acknowledge is that their policies, of which the measures in this Bill are one central strand, simply will not end up benefiting the state sector in any meaningful or visible way. The 6,500 teachers promised are likely to be a fantasy and will end up being just another broken promise. But the policies will end up profoundly impacting the independent sector and the lives of tens of thousands of pupils and their hard-working parents, and that will have far-reaching consequences not just for the schools themselves but in countless other areas.

Heartbreakingly, as we heard in the debate on the previous group, it will impact on the way in which our society cares for vulnerable children, those with special needs and disabilities, and their carers and families. It will impact on local communities that currently benefit from thriving and imaginative partnerships with state schools, on faith communities and on military families. It will impact on gifted children who benefit from bursaries, something that many independent schools are cruelly being forced now to review, and of course it will impact on jobs at independent schools, especially when closures of schools inevitably and tragically happen.

It is crucial that all this is rigorously scrutinised and that Parliament has an opportunity to examine the consequences of the policies contained in the Bill, taken alongside the other tax changes being made on VAT and on national insurance—a combination of measures that the Government’s impact assessment failed to do, as it related only to business rates. That is what we, particularly in this House, are here for: to scrutinise, examine and challenge. But we need a comprehensive assessment of the facts, undertaken by the Government themselves, to be able to do that, and that is what this amendment would deliver. The Independent Schools Council, which does such an exceptional job in championing the sector, and the other associations that form part of it will conduct their own analysis. Ultimately, however, it is the Government who are responsible for the delivery of public policy in these areas and who must be held accountable by Parliament and the electorate.

The Government say that their measures, including those in Clause 5, will raise a certain amount of money to be invested in state education. I doubt it will raise anything like that, but let us see. They say they will be able to recruit additional teachers. I very much doubt it, but let us see. They say there will be no consequences for children with special needs and those in faith schools—let us see. If they are really confident that their policies can deliver what they say without damaging consequences elsewhere, why would they not want to have a review of them to prove the point? What are they fearful of?

Perhaps it is just possible that they might be wrong and will end up undermining and weakening the independent sector, which is the envy of the world, without delivering for the state sector—which means, of course, that they would have to think again. We need answers to that. That is why I believe they must commit to a thorough review of their policies, then Parliament, including our House, can scrutinise it, debate it and make recommendations for change.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with both amendments in this group. If you believe in “education, education, education”, you should not tax independent schools in the way that the Government have decided they want to. The Government have argued that taxing independent schools will increase the number of teachers in state schools, but the Government’s own figures show that they reached only 62% of their postgraduate secondary ITT recruitment target in 2024, so there will be pressure to increase the pay of existing teachers rather than to appoint new ones. In any case, most of the extra £1.5 billion estimated to come per year from this clause will go on special educational needs.

I suggest, very much in line with Amendment 25 from the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, that the Government’s priority should be to cut the backlog in assessments for education, health and care plans, rather than taxing parents who want the best for their child with special needs and think it can be delivered only in the independent sector. There is a very basic issue of principle here: the right of a parent to opt out of a state system where they believe their child would benefit from that. When they have paid their share of general taxation and foregone a place in the state system, thus saving the state money, then paid additionally for their child’s schooling, I submit that it is wrong in principle to tax them yet again for that decision to send their child to an independent school.

I have concluded that Clause 5 is a distraction. It will fail to deliver the Government’s ambitions for the state sector, and it is better for our education system as a whole to remove Clause 5.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, again, I support the amendments in this group. Perhaps I should clarify for the Minister that I do so, to paraphrase something said in a different context, on the basis of being without a directly selfish economic or strategic interest in the issue. Let me highlight why I say that, in coming from a background of education in Northern Ireland.

This provision does not affect Northern Ireland, as the Minister rightly pointed out; it is an English-only matter, because all these aspects are devolved issues. Consequently, from that point of view, it will not impact on any of my former constituents in that regard, nor indeed on Northern Ireland. We have a strange patchwork of school types across the United Kingdom in our delivery of education. Northern Ireland’s background is largely one in which the independent sector is extremely small. Indeed, you could make an argument, particularly at post-primary level, that on the definition of what most people would regard as independent schools, there is perhaps one independent school in Northern Ireland that is directly akin to those in England.

I am trying to look at this as objectively as possible, but from that point of view there are three main reasons why these amendments need to be supported. First, the prospect of imposing additional burdens and taxation on schools sits deeply uncomfortably with me. The idea of penalising parents by saying, “Because of the educational choice that you are making, we are going to single out your schools for an additional financial burden to tax education” is fundamentally wrong.

Secondly, there is at least a perception—I am sure the Government would deny it—that this is a highly ideologically driven proposal and part of a wider set of seeming attacks on independent schools, as seen particularly by the changes in VAT. As such, there is a concern that, rather than looking at what is of educational benefit, this is some red meat being thrown out to some ideological Labour supporters. It is an easy target to go after.

The third reason is that of unintended consequences. We are asked to look at different figures and projections as to the impact that these various changes will make. As I highlighted in the previous group, this is perhaps a less significant change than the changes to VAT, but again, it will have a level of tipping impact and lead to the closure of schools. This is not mere theory.

If I may draw on an example of relatively recent history in Northern Ireland, roughly 12 years ago, the then Minister of Education, who was a member of Sinn Féin, made changes to a level of funding that was available to preparatory schools in Northern Ireland. In those circumstances, the vast majority of fees were paid by parents and the schools were largely supported directly by them; it was at least 70%-plus. The state paid a small proportion of what would normally go to support children in state schools. There was a significant cut made to that. It was not completely wiped off the face of it, for the reason that the then Minister would have had to bring it to get executive approval had it done so. The arguments used were that it was some sort of financial benefit, which could then be ploughed back into state education, so it was an egalitarian move.

What was the ultimate impact of that? For many of those schools which were already under a level of financial burden, it became the final nail in their financial coffin, with the end result that, 12 years on, the number of prep schools in Northern Ireland has gone down by just over a third and the number of pupils going to those prep schools is down by more than 40%. That single move made a number of those schools unsustainable.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I, like my noble friend Lady Grender, welcome the Bill. I thank the Minister and her colleagues for getting the Bill to this stage after several years of waiting. I agree with her that the Bill brings forward the most significant changes in the sector for 40 years.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield, on his outstanding maiden speech and I look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Silvertown.

A key difference of this Bill when compared with the Renters (Reform) Bill of a few years ago is that Section 21 is to be abolished before court reforms are delivered. Anything further that the Minister can tell us about how processes in the courts can be speeded up would be helpful. There will I think be significant discussion of that in Committee.

That said, the Bill takes us in the right direction. My party conference a few years ago debated Section 21, and two conclusions emerged. Conference wanted repeal of Section 21 and it wanted to protect good tenants from bad landlords. But it also wanted to protect good landlords from bad tenants. So, as the Bill progresses, I hope we can assess it against those criteria.

I suggest that there needs to be a third test. There are lots of solutions proposed in the Bill, but we must beware of just solving one problem when, in so doing, we create another. One example is restrictions on taking rent in advance: should it be one month or two months? On the face of it, one month in advance plus a deposit would seem to be sufficient. Yet some prospective tenants might find it easier to pay more rent up front, particularly those from overseas who have difficulty providing traditional affordability checks. So Committee will be important in assessing the policy of one month’s rent up front, which I understand was a late decision by the Government.

Another example of unintended consequences would be in relation to student housing. The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, has amply covered that issue, and I think there are problems there. Purpose-built student accommodation is rightly exempt from the Bill, and ground 4A allows student houses—that is, houses in multiple occupation—to be reclaimed to prepare for the next yearly intake of students. That exemption is the right approach, but what about the wish of many landlords to extend ground 4A to one-bedroom and two-bedroom houses and flats? They are not HMOs, but the removal of fixed-term tenancy agreements may worsen things for landlords renting out such accommodation because two months’ notice given midway through the academic year could lead to a loss of student accommodation, as landlords might then decide to leave the student housing market altogether and release those one-bedroom and two-bedroom accommodation units on to the wider private rented market. We must use Committee to examine that issue further.

Clause 98 and Schedule 4 refer to the decent homes standard. The Government are introducing a decent homes standard into the private rented sector for the first time, and I fully support their wish to do so. However, timeframes for improvements and more information on who will be responsible for resourcing them are needed, because one-fifth of homes in the private rented sector do not meet the decent homes standard. The Government will need to be clearer about the minimum standards that will be shown on the private rented sector database, which I strongly welcome because it will bring key information together in one place and can be used to assist with enforcement and rent repayment orders.

I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association because I want to say that, for the decent homes standard to be met, it would help if licensing schemes could provide a way for local authorities to inspect privately rented housing without the need for a tenant to have complained. As we know, many tenants are discouraged from complaining. In the Housing Act 2004, local authorities can create selective licensing schemes to improve poor standards, but they cannot require the physical state of a property to be improved as part of that licence. That is an issue for us to examine further in Committee, which I hope to be involved in doing.

Another question that I have is about market rents. Market rents have to be defined, and there may well be problems in doing so because the market is different across the country. Rental increases will be limited to once a year, but tenants would benefit from clarity on what level of rent increases would be appropriate. I suggest that uprating in line with CPI would be an appropriate method. Again, I look forward to examining that further.

There have been a number of claims at Second Reading today that restrictive regulation will reduce the supply of rental homes. I am not sure that is true. At the moment, there may be some signs of it, but we will have to wait a while until we see exactly what the circumstances are. I accept that we have to be careful about assessing whether the prohibition of fixed-term contracts increases the number of landlords choosing to offer short-term lets outside the private rented sector.

At its heart, this Bill is about standards in the private rented sector. It is not about pursuing good landlords but about pursuing bad ones and improving standards. For that reason, I strongly support the Bill in its overall intentions.

Council Tax

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

If there were to be a revaluation, there would be winners and losers. This is one of those issues where whatever we did would cause further problems in the system. It is a widely understood tax and there are high levels of collection. However, the Government are taking part in the fair funding review—we have issued a consultation on that—to make sure we level up the playing field for local authority funding, so that areas which need the money most get the most money.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, council tax is a regressive tax and for the past 10 years, Governments have been loading part of the increasing cost of adult social care on to council tax. Poorer households are therefore having to pay more in council tax than they otherwise would. The Government are going to spend the next three years coming up with a plan for adult social care. Is that delay fair on poorer households?

Building Homes

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for that question, because in a housing crisis where we have so many people in need of affordable homes, it has been such a shame that Section 106 homes that could have been funded were unable to be picked up because of the lack of capacity within affordable housing providers.

The Government have been very aware of the problems affecting the sale of Section 106 affordable housing. Alongside the National Planning Policy Framework, Homes England also launched a new clearing service to help unblock the delivery of these homes. This is a great role for Homes England to fulfil. The Government are now calling on all developers with uncontracted Section 106 affordable homes to proactively and pragmatically engage with this new service. We hope that this will be able to unlock some of the stalled Section 106 affordable homes which we know are there, waiting for those families who are desperate for housing. I hope that this service will take things forward.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, this Statement is about building the homes we need, but it talks about housing targets, not targets for homes, particularly homes for families to live in. What is the Government’s view on office conversions, potentially of poor quality, masquerading as homes when they are not and are simply contributing to a 370,000 a year housing target? What steps will the Government take to ensure that homes are of sufficient quality to merit the term “homes”, as opposed simply to being part of the achievement of a housing target?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. We have an Oral Question on exactly the same topic tomorrow, when I am sure I will be able to give a fuller answer.

The noble Lord is quite right. As I come from a new town, I recognise the benefit of not just designing the homes but planning the areas where they are to be situated. They should, of course, be sustainable, healthy and have all the infrastructure that everybody needs. The Government are committed to taking steps to ensure that we not only build more homes but that they are high quality, well designed and sustainable. That is why we have made changes to the NPPF to make clear the importance of achieving well-designed places, and how this can be achieved holistically through local design policies, design codes and guidance. We will be pushing this forward further in the new year.