Renters’ Rights Bill
Lord Shipley Excerpts(4 days, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Shipley
“Use of licence conditions to improve housing conditionsIn section 90(1) 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, in moving Amendment 107, I will also speak to Amendment 108. These amendments would remove unnecessary barriers to the use of licensing schemes to improve housing standards. Licensing raises housing standards: it can help to regenerate areas that are blighted by poor housing and other social problems. Licensing 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.
Licensing schemes pay for themselves through the fees that are charged and enable local authorities to target regulation where it is most needed: in other words, at tackling the worst landlords and supporting the most vulnerable tenants. My amendments would remove unnecessary barriers to the effectiveness of licensing schemes and increase the maximum duration of schemes from five years to 10 years.
Amendment 107 would permit local authorities operating selective licensing schemes to use licence conditions to improve the physical state of the licensed properties. It would remove a peculiar disconnect in current legislation, highlighted by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, whereby local authorities are permitted to introduce selective licensing schemes to address poor housing but are not permitted to include in the licences themselves conditions requiring the physical state of the licensed properties to be improved. The amendment would give local authorities the same discretion in relation to the licence conditions used in selective licensing schemes as they already have in relation to licence conditions used in additional HMO licensing schemes.
In Committee, the Government implied that the introduction of a decent homes standard and Awaab’s law to the private rented sector will make this amendment unnecessary. However, I do not accept that view. Neither the decent homes standard nor Awaab’s law will remove the need for local authorities to be able to use licence conditions to deal proactively with general disrepair in areas with poor housing conditions.
There are four reasons why the decent homes standard will not remove the need for local authorities to be able to use licence conditions in this way. First, when licence conditions are in place, if a breach of these conditions is proved, local authorities can serve a civil penalty notice on the landlord without first having to issue an improvement notice and/or take other action that involves unnecessary delay. However, they will be able to do this for breaches of the proposed decent homes standard only in more serious cases—possibly only where there is a serious and immediate risk to a person’s health and safety—and only where they can prove that the landlord has failed to take reasonably practicable steps to address the issue. Licence conditions would therefore give landlords a much stronger incentive than the decent homes standard to address general disrepair.
Secondly, the enforcement of licence conditions can be funded by licence fees. The cost of enforcing the decent homes standard will fall on council tax payers. In practice, therefore, the use of licence conditions would lead to local authorities undertaking a much higher level of enforcement.
Thirdly, licence conditions give local authorities a clear justification as well as sufficient funding for entering properties to carry out inspections without the tenant having complained. It seems likely that, outside of licensing schemes, the vast majority of inspections under the decent homes standard will be in response to complaints. Fourthly, licence conditions could deal with items of disrepair that would be difficult to address using the decent homes standard.
With regard to Awaab’s law, it will not remove the need for local authorities to be able to use licence conditions to deal proactively with general disrepair in areas with poor housing conditions. The enforcement of Awaab’s law will depend on the ability and willingness of tenants themselves to seek redress and ultimately to take legal action through the courts. It is often difficult for tenants to use legal remedies themselves; areas with poor housing conditions contain many poor and vulnerable tenants, who are particularly badly placed to do so. Licensing would clearly be a much better way of targeting support at them.
Amendment 108 would permit local authorities to implement longer additional HMO licensing schemes and selective licensing schemes without repeating the time-consuming and expensive designation process. Local authorities introduced these schemes to bring about large-scale improvements, but those are unlikely to be fully achieved within five years. This amendment would allow them to advertise longer-term posts for staff and to include training of new staff in these schemes. It would also provide more time for local partnerships formed through such schemes—for example, to resolve anti-social behaviour—to become embedded and effective.
The Government suggested in Committee that a maximum duration for licensing schemes of five years strikes the right balance between the needs of local authorities and the needs of landlords. But that does not take proper account of the time and money wasted through councils being unnecessarily required to repeat the designation process.
In conclusion, the removal of these unnecessary barriers to the effectiveness of licensing schemes would make a major contribution to the regeneration of some of the most deprived areas of the country. A new general approval to establish selective licensing areas came into effect last December, and local authorities are no longer required to obtain confirmation from the Secretary of State before implementing a selective licensing scheme of any size. That is most welcome, but it needs to be accompanied with the powers identified in my amendments, and I hope the Government will now understand the importance of them. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for bringing these two amendments once again to the attention of the House. However, we on these Benches do not consider them to be necessary. We recognise and wholeheartedly share the noble Lord’s ambition to see housing conditions improved. When I was in government, I was proud to support the decent homes standard and helped to lay the groundwork for what has now become Awaab’s law. The Government’s approach should be focused on delivering tangible improvements to living conditions. This includes tackling poor-quality housing wherever it exists, not slowly within selective licensing areas.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his amendments on licensing schemes. On Amendment 107, we share the noble Lord’s desire to improve housing conditions, and we have always been clear that all renters deserve safe, secure and good-quality homes. That is why we are introducing a decent homes standard and Awaab’s law to drive reform and improve conditions across the sector. I acknowledge the work that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, did on Awaab’s law when we were on different sides of the House. As discussed in Committee, we think this is the right approach so that all renters and local authorities are able to challenge and address poor-quality homes, not just those in selective licensing areas.
On Amendment 108, we believe that licensing schemes are crucial in helping local authorities tackle specific issues and improve standards. We also think that local authorities are best placed to make decisions regarding the use of these enforcement tools in their local areas. That is why, at the end of last year, we removed the requirement to obtain Secretary of State approval to introduce larger selective licensing schemes. However, we know that licensing schemes also place additional responsibilities on landlords. Local authorities must therefore keep schemes under review so that they remain proportionate and targeted at delivering the intended outcomes.
As discussed in Committee, a maximum duration of five years for schemes achieves the right balance. It gives local authorities time to assess the effectiveness of schemes while providing landlords with assurance that they will not be subject to increased regulation for extended periods. Where issues in the private rented sector persist after a scheme has ended, a local authority may introduce a new scheme to take further action, provided that the statutory criteria are still met. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for their comments. We clearly have a difference of opinion about the importance of selective licensing and the future operation of the decent homes standard. The Government have accepted the importance of selective licensing schemes because, in December, they removed the requirement for Secretary of State approval, as the Minister just said.
I am reluctant to press Amendments 107 and 108 to a Division because, clearly, the House will vote against them, and I think that would not be helpful in the current situation. Both Front Benches of the two largest parties in this Chamber have indicated their opposition to them, so any Division that I moved would be lost.
It is important for me to withdraw the amendment because two pieces of work are going on in the House of Commons on this matter. One is the consultation on the decent homes standard that the Government are undertaking, which the Minister referred to a moment ago. Also, the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee is taking evidence on housing conditions generally in England. It will be important for the government consultation and the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee to take the evidence from our debate on these amendments to see the concerns that I and professional bodies have been expressing about the importance of selective licensing in driving up housing standards in the private rented sector, as well as in the public sector more generally.
In the hope that there will be sufficient good will around the Chamber to allow this debate to be referred to the bodies now undertaking consultation, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 107.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Lord Shipley Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Shipley
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Lord Shipley aim to ensure that the provisions contained in section 21 apply to joint tenancies as well.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 62, I will speak also to Amendments 63, 65 and 66. In Committee, I raised some problems with the way the Bill was drafted for joint tenants in respect of notices to quit under assured tenancies defined in Clauses 21 and 22. It was anticipated in Committee that the issues raised would be examined further, and I thank for the Minister for having done this.
The problem was that where joint tenants had a breakdown in their relationship, there could be unforeseen consequences for one joint tenant, who might be unaware, for example, that a notice to quit had been served by the other joint tenant. I am grateful for the assistance provided by Citizens Advice, whose front-line staff identified this problem and proposed solutions, and for the work done by the Minister and her department in drafting Amendments 64 and 67, which I welcome.
I look forward to the Minister’s explanations of Amendments 64 and 67 in the expectation that I will then seek to withdraw this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments relates to joint tenancies and the procedural requirements for serving and responding to notices to quit. These amendments, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seek to ensure that the provisions in Clauses 21 and 22 apply expressly and fairly to all assured tenancies. The spirit of these amendments is to promote transparency and fairness, ensuring that no tenant is left unaware of or disadvantaged by unilateral actions.
As we have discussed in this debate and in Committee, joint tenancies are an important and increasingly common form of tenancy arrangement, particularly among families, couples and shared households. Given that multiple tenants hold equal rights and responsibilities, it is only right and fair that the Bill reflects this reality by requiring all parties to be kept informed of significant developments affecting their tenancy.
These amendments propose sensible procedural safeguards. The requirement that any notice to quit served by one joint tenant be communicated in writing to all other joint tenants is fair. Similarly, where a landlord serves notice, all joint tenants should be notified promptly. It is also noteworthy that some amendments specify that certain agreements, such as those shortening notice periods or withdrawing notices to quit, must involve the consent of all joint tenants rather than just one. This is a balanced recognition of the collective nature of joint tenancies and the importance of mutual consent in such decisions.
As the Bill continues to evolve, it is our shared goal to ensure a rental market that is fair and workable for all parties involved. Although we fully understand and respect the intentions behind these amendments and welcome the constructive debate they have sparked, it is important to consider the practical implications. Requiring unanimous consent or detailed notice procedures could, in some circumstances, add complexity or delay, especially in situations where tenants’ circumstances change rapidly. Therefore, although we support the principle of ensuring fairness and transparency in joint tenancies, we urge careful consideration of the balance between protecting tenants’ rights and maintaining workable, efficient processes for landlords and tenants alike.
Lord Shipley (LD)
I thank the Minister for her clarifications and for the Government’s amendments, which strike an appropriate balance, given the explanations from the Minister. As a consequence, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Shipley
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Lord Shipley seek to prevent a landlord from serving a notice (under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988) to seek possession of a property where a tenancy deposit has not been properly protected or the relevant statutory requirements in relation to the deposit have not been complied with.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 68 I will speak to Amendments 69 to 71. This issue was not raised in Committee but it is sufficiently important—again I thank Citizens Advice for raising it—to be discussed on Report. I assure the Minister that I do not wish to press these amendments to a vote, but I hope the Minister might be willing to take away the questions raised in this group to assess whether further amendments are needed at Third Reading.
The amendments in this group
“seek to prevent a landlord from serving a notice (under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988) to seek possession of a property where a tenancy deposit has not been properly protected or the relevant statutory requirements in relation to the deposit have not been complied with”.
Citizens Advice has advised me that the tenancy deposit protection scheme will be significantly weakened if it remains the case in the Bill that landlords will not need to protect tenants’ deposits prior to serving notice, and that this would be a departure from the current position. Reverting to the requirement that a landlord must be compliant at the point that notice is served would give far greater certainty and avoid wasted court time in cases where a tenant may not have known up until the last minute whether a valid defence existed. The tenant may believe that they have a defence, because the deposit has been taken and not protected, but then find that the landlord protects or returns the deposit to them at the very last minute, potentially on the morning of the court hearing. That makes it very difficult for tenants to make informed decisions about defending a claim.
The Bill says:
“Where a tenancy deposit has been paid in connection with an assured tenancy, the court may make an order for possession of the dwelling-house let on the assured tenancy only if the tenancy deposit is being held in accordance with an authorised scheme”.
My Amendment 68 would amend this to say that where a deposit has been paid in connection with an assured tenancy,
“no notice of proceedings for possession under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 (notice of proceedings for possession) may be given at a time when the deposit is not”
being held.
Over 600 clients every month ask Citizens Advice for help with tenancy deposit return issues of various kinds, and things will only worsen if the protections are weakened. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure the House that deposit protection will be strengthened during the passage of the Bill and that no notice of proceedings for possession may be given at a time when the deposit is not being held in accordance with an authorised scheme.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for bringing this group of amendments to the attention of the House. However, we do not believe that these amendments are necessary. Tenants already have clear rights and remedies when it comes to deposit protection. A tenant can easily check online whether their deposit has been lodged in a government-approved protection scheme. If it has not been properly protected and the issue remains unresolved, the tenant has the right to take the landlord to court.
In such cases, the court may order the landlord to return or protect the deposit, and may even award the tenant three times the value of that deposit as compensation. These are significant penalties and they serve as a strong incentive for landlords to comply with the law. Given that eviction proceedings are already subject to considerable safeguards and restrictions, we are not convinced that removing Section 8 grounds in these circumstances is either proportionate or necessary.
In particular, we must ensure that where a genuine error has been made and later rectified, especially where there is no actual harm or financial loss to the tenant, landlords are not barred from recovering possession of their property. To do so would seem unjust. A more flexible and proportionate approach would promote better compliance while avoiding unnecessary hardship or deterrence to good-faith landlords.
Although we fully understand the intentions behind these amendments, having heard the reasoning of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, we believe that existing protections for tenants are robust and that further restrictions of this kind risk being disproportionate.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am once again grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for raising these points, as well as to Citizens Advice for discussing them directly with our department, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her comments. Although I have great sympathy with the intention of Amendments 68 to 71, Clause 27 already ensures that deposits will be protected at the time of the possession hearing, which we think is a more proportionate approach.
Landlords have until the court hearing to comply with deposit protection rules. This ensures that landlords can still gain possession when it is reasonable, while ensuring that the tenant’s deposit is protected before the tenancy ends. I also note that this approach is far stronger than current restrictions, which prevent only the use of Section 21, and not Section 8, if the deposit is not protected.
However, I believe the noble Lord’s approach goes too far. Most notably, if a landlord had failed to protect a deposit within 30 days of receiving it, they would be permanently prevented from serving notice for possession on any ground except anti-social behaviour. Let me be clear: such a landlord should have complied with the law—of course they should—but there are other, more proportionate, mechanisms available to enforce that compliance, including an ability for a court to award tenants up to three times the amount of the deposit if it was not protected properly.
In conclusion, the Bill balances tenant protection with the need for legitimate possession cases to proceed. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s reply but it has extended the doubts that I have had about this, because it is still not clear to me why the Bill is weakening the current safeguards.
It is not clear why a valid defence cannot be assured for a tenant who has to go to court when the court case may not be necessary—in other words, they do not know whether the landlord has managed a tenancy deposit scheme correctly on their behalf. Citizens Advice has produced a strong case here, and it is not clear why the current safeguards are not being continued. I am advised that the tenancy deposit protection scheme will be significantly weakened if it remains the case in the Bill that landlords will not need to protect tenants’ deposits prior to serving notice. That is a departure from the current position. If that is required to happen in future, it will simply encourage wasted court time.
I shall withdraw the amendment and not move the other three, but I hope that the Minister and the Government will look very carefully at this issue because otherwise, I fear that tenants will not be properly protected by the tenancy deposit scheme. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Lord Shipley Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
My Lords, I too offer strong support to Amendment 5. In that context, I declare an interest as an employee of King’s College London.
The profound change, in varying ways, to the rental market that the Bill will introduce is not very well understood outside this Chamber, but some of the people who have become very aware of it, in my experience, are people who currently let to students. I first became aware of this when told by a number of people that they do not see themselves letting to students in future, thank you very much. These are people who have small rental properties. I know that that the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, whose amendment I was happy to support in Committee, is also aware of this. He has highlighted the fact that we now have a bifurcated system.
The Government have rightly acknowledged that student housing is a major issue and have introduced some clear provisions that cover purpose-built student accommodation, and indeed student halls, but fail to cover anything that does not have at least three bedrooms and is being let to students. The problem is that a large proportion of the cheaper student housing outside major cities is of exactly that type. What somewhat astonishes me is that we have a situation in which there is not likely to be any harmful impact on the provision of student housing at the expensive top end of the market but a very major impact on smaller, cheaper rental properties at the lower end, which are of course the ones taken by students from lower-income families and people who are not in the major cities but are in other places. I am somewhat puzzled that the Government have been so determined not to extend ground 4A to, at least, properties with two bedrooms. I really do not understand it and I therefore strongly support the amendment.
I would like to lay something for the future about Amendment 7. I notice that it is a probing amendment and, of course, apprentices are not students—they are employees, many of them rather adult employees—but in future, if and when we revisit the issue of making accommodation easily available to people who are, in effect, students, and that will include apprentices, we should pay this considerable attention.
If we look back 200 or 300 years, especially in London, we see that it was full of apprentices who had come from elsewhere in the country. They served their apprenticeships in London and then went back out, and they could do so because part of being an apprentice was that you lived with your master. We do not have that any more, and the result is, again, enormously reduced opportunities for people who live in less economically advantaged places. If you are a low-income school leaver, you will have far fewer apprenticeship opportunities open to you in your hometown, and we are not doing anything to make accommodation easily available to apprentices who might want to be employed in economically more favoured regions.
Apprentices are not students so it is too late for this Bill to do anything about them, and it probably was not possible anyway, but I flag this conundrum as something that—if we ever come back, review the consequences of the Bill and make some changes—I hope the Government might put something on the table about at the same time.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. In Committee I was one of those probing the Government’s intentions on purpose-built student accommodation, houses in multiple occupation—HMOs—and the application of ground 4A to those properties but not to smaller units in the private rented sector that some students might choose to live in.
I listened very carefully to the Minister’s reply in Committee and have thought further. Indeed, I have listened carefully to the debate so far and I am sorry to have to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, although I agree with him that it will be very important for the Government to monitor the impact of the student market on the private rented sector. I will explain why I take that view.
I have reached the conclusion that there is a good reason to restrict the application of ground 4A to purpose-built student accommodation—the very large blocks—and houses in multiple occupation. The danger of not doing so is that some unscrupulous landlords renting smaller units of accommodation which do not qualify for the term HMO might decide to call tenants students when they are not students, to get around the provisions of the Bill. I think that would be a serious defect in the Bill. Indeed, as the Minister said in her reply on this issue in Committee:
“The core principle of the Bill is that tenants should have more security in their homes, and we think it is right that these groups should not be exposed to potential eviction using ground 4A”.—[Official Report, 22/4/25; col. 589.]
I have come to the conclusion that the Minister is right on that matter and, for that reason, ground 4A, I submit, should be restricted to purpose-built student accommodation and houses in multiple occupation.
Lord Fuller (Con)
It is quite straightforward that we know who students are. The universities issue certificates and those certificates are handed to the local authority in the case of council tax, so they can get the 100% council tax allowance. It is not difficult to identify who those students are. Does the noble Lord agree? Has he thought whether the existing statutory process for determining who a student is would be sufficient to avoid the jeopardy that he has suggested?
Lord Shipley (LD)
The very point that the noble Lord raises is that I do not think it would be sufficient. Indeed, when I spoke on this issue in Committee, I suggested that the council tax register, because whole-student households do not pay council tax, would potentially be sufficient; I just do not think that is the case. It is not just about university accommodation. it is about students more generally. Indeed, there is an amendment coming up on the Marshalled List to define who is a university student. So I think it is a great deal more complicated than the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, has indicated to us.
I have concluded that those students who are in smaller units of accommodation will be protected anyway, as tenants under the Act. I have concluded that, on this matter, the Government should be given the benefit of the doubt, but I hope very much that the Minister will be able to meet the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, which is that they have to keep this matter under review.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, as this is the first time I have addressed the House at this stage of the Bill, I will just remind your Lordships that I am a chartered surveyor. I think that is probably the only interest I need to declare, other than being the father of three children. They are now long out of university, but I witnessed the process of them living in halls and subsequently in the private rented sector, two of them within the city of Bristol, and I got to know one or two of the people who let to students as a business model. The properties are not necessarily large—some of them are very small; it depends on what model they are using. I am worried about what seems to be an acceptance of what the Minister said will be a process of review.
Review done by government is an incredibly blunt and ponderous instrument. I predict that if there was a review looking at a particular problem, a lot of serious damage would have occurred by the time it had been completed or the matter actioned and put into regulation, or whatever other form it was going to take.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Lord Shipley ExcerptsWednesday 25th June 2025
(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 10 June 2025 - (10 Jun 2025)
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I understand the ambition of the Bill to speed up infrastructure delivery. Planning frameworks are complex and can be slow. But I remind Ministers that when the Audit Commission existed, it audited planning performance, publicised poorly performing councils and required improvements from them. I accept the need to enforce shorter timescales on decision-making.
It is wrong to suggest that the planning system is responsible for not building enough homes. As we have heard, there are well over a million homes with planning permission that are not built and councils approve nine out of 10 planning applications for housing. It is not the planning system that causes low house completions but the lack of money—now partially addressed in the spending review, although not entirely—together with the lack of construction workers and materials, added to land banking by major builders that sit on planning permissions while land values rise.
The Government still want to build 1.5 million homes by 2029. That means they must build 374,000 a year from 2027. If that were to be done, at what quality might it be done? I ask that because the Bill could be the means of future-proofing our housing stock, given our ageing population and that we have more people who live with a disability. Many new homes lack quality, and some very poor housing is being produced through permitted development conversions where profits are the driving force. We need to build more healthy homes that last.
My noble friend Lord Russell and others have talked about Part 3. I agree with his conclusions, and I wish that Ministers would stop talking about this being about newts—not in this Chamber, but more generally. It is actually about 5,251 rare and protected habitats that must not lose their current legal safeguards.
Planning reform will help to deliver infrastructure, but many large infrastructure projects in this country have suffered from bad project management and huge cost overruns. It is not just about planning. The Bill includes several positive measures, such as making it easier for councils to purchase vacant land for housebuilding, localising planning fees, and increasing planning capacity. Those measures should be supported, but the national scheme of delegation will centralise decision-making when there is no evidence that decision-making will be improved. The democratic role of councillors in decision-making, which has been central to the English planning system, is at risk. Any reforms must safeguard local oversight and transparency, otherwise there is a risk that the public will not be supportive.
Planning reform will succeed only if there are qualified planning staff to do the work. To build capacity, the number of level 7 chartered town planner apprenticeships must be increased—this at a time when spending on planning has been reducing. According to the excellent brief from the Royal Town Planning Institute, we have a shortage of over 2,000 planners in local authorities and not enough chief planning officers, because that role has been downgraded over the years.
The real reason why planning has been in difficulty is that there have not been enough staff to do the work necessary, and too few chief planning officers with the necessary clout to drive progress and outcomes. Chief planning officers should be statutory, as I have said during the passage of previous planning Bills. The RTPI is right to urge the inclusion of a clause defining the purpose of planning, alongside an audit of the whole planning system and how it interlocks. Its proposed national spatial framework would be a positive improvement.
At this stage of our debate on the Bill, we have to put competency and accountability at the heart of decision-making, but Clause 51 gives too much power to Whitehall. If, under Clause 50, you train councillors to be better, why do you need to take the power away from them and give it to Whitehall? Whitehall does not need to be involved in the size of planning committees or the powers of officers and councillors. Finally, as the RTPI has said, planning is not a blocker; it is an under-resourced enabler, and this Bill could put that problem right.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Lord Shipley Excerpts(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Shipley
“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.
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.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Lord Shipley Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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
Lord Shipley
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.
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.
Birmingham: Waste Collection
Lord Shipley Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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?
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(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.