Proportional Representation: General Elections
Alex Sobel Excerpts(3 days, 18 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered proportional representation for general elections.
Before I speak on the matter at hand, I note that today is the funeral of one of my party’s and our country’s greatest politicians, John Prescott. I send my thoughts to his family and friends. They include some who would otherwise have been with us today; equally, some of us here would have wished to be there.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time in the Chamber for this crucial debate, and the many colleagues from across the House, and from every nation and region in the UK, who co-sponsored or supported the application. It is right that the House should provide time to consider proportional representation for general elections to this place. Just last month, the House voted in favour of PR for the first time ever, by giving leave to bring in the ten-minute rule Bill on the subject moved by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who I see in her place.
That historic vote was an indication of the strength and breadth of feeling among Members on both sides of the House that our first-past-the-post electoral system is not working. It is desperately in need of an upgrade, and we need seriously to consider the alternatives. The last time we did so was through the Jenkins commission in 1998, when elections produced results in which the numbers of seats more closely matched the numbers of votes than they do now. My hope for today, and it is one I know many others share, is that Members can explain why so many colleagues and so much of the public at large have reached the conclusion that it is time to think again about our electoral system. In doing so, I want to encourage the Government to be bold and to be honest about how unrepresentative British general elections have become.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful opening speech. Turnout at the general election in July last year dropped to below 60%, which means that two in every five people did not participate. Does my hon. Friend agree that that shows we need change, so that more people engage in our democratic system?
Alex Sobel
Absolutely. The turnout and engagement of voters in general elections should be a matter of concern for everybody in this place and in the country at large.
The truth is that first past the post is failing on its own terms. It is becoming less and less representative and producing more and more random results; there are more outliers and more MPs are elected on less than 30% of their constituents who voted. In reality, some MPs represent constituencies in which perhaps 85% of those they represent did not vote for them. These are the lowest figures since the beginning of universal suffrage. The numbers do not lie, and they can no longer be ignored. The public know it, our parties know it and we in this place know it.
These growing failures of representative democracy—the widespread feeling that ordinary people do not have a fair say over who speaks for them or how they are governed—are feeding the record low levels of trust in politics and faith in democracy, and that should worry all of us. The Government have a responsibility to face up to those problems and address them before the next general election, starting with the launch of a national commission for electoral reform. The 1997 Government were brave enough to undertake this work at a time when confidence in the electoral and political systems was much higher and those systems were less stressed than they are now.
Let me begin by looking at last year’s general election. Most people got neither the party they voted for into government nor the candidate they voted for as their local MP. Labour won a historic majority, and like other Labour MPs whose seats are perceived as safe in the living memory of all party members and probably all parties, I travelled around the country to work in many marginal constituencies where we needed to get votes to win. However, this speaks to the failure not to the success of our system. The 2024 general election was a culmination of years of falling vote share for the winning party, and we—the Labour party—won on just one third of the national vote.
Of course I always work extremely hard for my party to be in government, and I am delighted that almost 10 million people voted for us. However, 19 million people voted for other parties, and we must admit that they are the vast majority of those who took part in the election. They did not get to influence the kind of Government the country has, and it can no longer be acceptable to have a winner-takes-all culture on the basis of a third of the country’s vote. That erodes our democracy.
One of the arguments of supporters of first-past-the-post elections is that people are not really voting for a Government, but just for a local MP. Let us take this at face value. Only four out of 10 voters got the local MP they voted for at the last election, and six out of 10 did not get the MP they voted for. We have a system that ignores those six out of 10 people. We are now in an unprecedented situation where 554 MPs—85% of us—were elected by less than 50% of the voters who turned out to vote. I am one of the lucky few who received over 50% of the vote, so this debate and the changes I am proposing are not of personal benefit to me. Some 266 MPs—41%—were elected with less than 40% of the vote. A few colleagues— I am not sure any are in the Chamber—were even elected with less than 30% of the vote. When most people’s representatives in Parliament do not reflect how they voted, it feeds the all-too-pervasive sense that Westminster is some distant, unresponsive institution in which voters have no real voice.
Like all first-past-the-post elections, 2024 was one in which some votes and areas mattered more than others. A system that forces parties to prioritise small groups of votes in a handful of marginal seats also forces them to neglect large parts of the country—where to go, who to speak to both directly and through the media, and the policies put forward. People in non-battleground seats, which make up the majority of seats at every first-past-the-post election, never have the resources spent on them that are spent on marginal seats. Candidates and activists are directed away from those perceived safe seats to marginals, meaning less contact in those seats. That is usually reflected in the turnout of safe seats compared with marginal seats, as voters are generally well aware of the relative importance of their constituency. It is hugely corrosive to our trust in politics, and we end up with most people and communities up and down the country saying that they feel “invisible to politicians”, to use the words of the Brown Commission. People can tell when they are being ignored. They can also smell unfairness a mile away.
First past the post means that people’s votes are not equal in value. Sometimes, I fear that we in this place are used to that gross unfairness in elections and have become numb to it. But for millions of people, their stake in national politics is the vote that they get to cast in a general election every few years. When they see that a party won 2 million votes and got four MPs, or a party won 4 million votes and got five MPs, it is clear to them that the system is not fair. It drives voters either into the margins or away from voting at all. If we in Westminster are content to say, “That’s just the way it is”, it is no wonder that hardly anyone trusts politics.
Florence Eshalomi
My hon. Friend may be aware that an Electoral Commission poll from 2023 found that more people were dissatisfied with our democratic election system than were satisfied. Does he think that looking at changing our current voting system would make more people feel satisfied?
Alex Sobel
I am coming to that exact point shortly, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising it.
The 2024 general election was a stark illustration of the problems with our voting system, and it is important to understand that it was not a one-off. These problems have been getting worse for decades, and that is set to continue if we keep the system as it is. We have gone from 97% of people voting for Labour or the Conservative party in the 1950s, to just 58% doing so in 2024—a record low. In the first-past-the-post system, that produces hugely volatile and erratic results—electoral chaos theory, as Professor Rob Ford has called it.
Back in the mid-20th century, parties needed close to 50% of the vote to win a majority of seats, but that threshold has been falling to new lows for decades— 39% in 1974, 35% in 2005 and, as I said, one third last year. There is every reason to think that this trend will continue. That a party, even an extreme one, can win a huge majority with less than a third of the vote is not just senseless but dangerous. If we do not address this now, I fear that election results will become even less representative. Governments and MPs will be elected with lower support than ever, and there will be increasingly chaotic and random results. That will drive trust and engagement still lower. That is unsustainable, and I think the Government know it.
Labour’s official policy on first past the post is set out in the final national policy forum document that the party produced in the previous Parliament, which set the policy platform for our manifesto. It stated:
“The flaws in the current voting system are contributing to the distrust and alienation we see in politics.”
I agree, as do almost all the parties on the Opposition Benches. We know that the public agrees—two thirds want the flaws in the voting system to be addressed before the next general election, according to Survation. The long-running British attitudes survey found record majority support for changing to PR, with those who trust politics least the most likely to support change. Are they not the people we need to engage? Just this month, YouGov found that support for PR hit an all-time high, with support for first past the post at an all-time low.
Every single MP in Great Britain has been contacted by constituents in recent days asking them to support PR in this debate. I have received hundreds of emails, even though my name is on the debate. The Prime Minister has made it clear that restoring trust in politics is a key priority, calling the fight for trust
“the battle that defines our age”.
If the Government are to win the battle, they must address our flawed voting system—one they know is driving distrust and alienation in politics, which means that millions of people’s votes do not count, and which most people do not want to continue with. That is why I urge the Government to take this first step by establishing a national commission for electoral reform, as recommended by the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, which I chair.
The Government have said that there is no consensus on a new system, but that is exactly why there is a great opportunity to set up a process that begins to build consensus: a national commission to examine the issues that first past the post is causing, and to recommend a fair and democratic alternative.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a good case, though one that I fundamentally disagree with, as he will hear later. He has just outlined his own Government’s position on proportional representation. We have already had an answer on that, so where can he go now? On 2 December 2024, when asked by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), the Deputy Prime Minister said that this Government would not set up a national commission and would not examine proportional representation any further. What does the hon. Gentleman propose to do to make the Government change their mind?
Alex Sobel
I have just said that the first step would be for the Government to set up a national commission. This debate is the first step for the APPG to try to persuade the Government to set up that national commission. We are on a journey. Not everything the Government announced at the start of the Parliament is what they are still announcing. Change is possible.
The commission could draw insights from the experience of devolved bodies and other democracies. It could allow citizens, as well as experts, to contribute to evaluating the options and finding a way forward that would command public trust and confidence. None of this need distract from Government’s core mission of delivering their manifesto priorities, but it would demonstrate beyond doubt that they are serious about giving a stronger voice to millions of people who feel increasingly excluded from British politics.
Alex Sobel
I will be brief, because we have had a long and thorough debate. I thank everyone who took part in it, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal), who cut a lonely figure in opposing a change to the voting system. I thank him for his bravery in the face of such opposition; it is a shame that we could not have had more Members speak against changing the voting system, as so many spoke in favour. I thank the Minister for committing to work with the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, which I chair, and I will follow up on that.
Let me make just one substantive point, because I feel that there may be a lack of understanding about something. I am well aware that we had a referendum on the alternative vote system in 2011. The alternative vote system, which is used to elect the Australian Parliament, is a preferential system, not a proportional system, so we have had a referendum on preferential representation but we have never had a referendum on proportional representation. I do not see why we need to wait a generation, as has been suggested. I certainly do not think that we need to have another referendum on a preferential system, but we need to consider, as I laid out in the debate, a commission to look at the failures in our electoral system, and whether we should move to a more proportional system.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered proportional representation for general elections.
Holocaust Memorial Day
Alex Sobel Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
On Monday it will be 80 years since the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. I find this debate quite difficult, so please bear with me. I went with my own family, my father and my two sons, to Auschwitz-Birkenau in the summer of 2023. I know that many Members here have been to Auschwitz-Birkenau, and although it is a difficult place to visit, those who have not definitely should. I thank the Prime Minister for his recent visit to Auschwitz-Birkenau.
When you are there, you can imagine the industrial scale of murder that happened there. You see many skulls, shoes and clothes. You see the cabins where people had to live. You go through the killing stations where the Nazis murdered millions of people: Jews, the LGBT community, the Gypsy Roma community, trade unionists and others they decided had to be removed in their genocide—in our Holocaust. That really commits you to wanting to see the future education of generations on this subject.
I have also been to the POLIN museum in Warsaw, which documents the history of Jews in Poland. It has a significant section on antisemitism in that country, which I will come to later in my speech. When you visit such places, you can better understand the rise of antisemitism and how things could get to that point.
This year the theme of Holocaust Memorial Day is “For a better future”, which is uplifting. My own grandparents returned to Poland and Lithuania after the Holocaust. Following the Yalta agreement, they were very different countries from what they were before the war. My grandparents hoped to rebuild their lives, as did the few members of my family who survived the camps and ghettos, but it was still very difficult after the war.
When I visited Warsaw with my father, he took me to the tower blocks where he grew up and told me stories of how, as a child, he received antisemitic abuse and bullying from Polish children after the war—this was after everybody knew about the Holocaust and the camps. Unfortunately, that was the reality for Jewish people. The state authorities had antisemitic attitudes too, which in the end resulted in the mass emigration of 13,000 Jews—almost the entire remaining Jewish population of Poland—in 1968. That was just 23 years after the war, which was very much in recent memory for those people. All of this made attempts to rebuild lives in eastern Europe very difficult, not just in Poland but in other countries. My own parents emigrated from eastern Europe in the ’50s and ’60s, and in the end arrived in Leeds in the 1970s. Similarly, thousands of Jews came out of communist and post-communist countries, found homes and contributed economically, socially and culturally to their new countries.
I want to tell a story about two of my former constituents—they are no longer with us—who were very close family friends. When I was growing up, I spent a lot of my time in their house, and they certainly contributed a lot to my own Holocaust education. Yanina Bauman was a Holocaust survivor, having escaped the Warsaw ghetto with her sister and mother. Like other Jews, they were hidden by amazing Polish families in the countryside. Yanina and her husband, Professor Zygmunt Bauman, came to Leeds in the 1970s, and he worked as a professor of sociology. He was one of the most decorated sociology professors in the world, and his books are world class and outstanding. His literature discussed the theoretical effect of the “Holocaust mentality”, and he came up with the theory of “liquid life” as part of post-modernity. I do not want to get into a sociology lecture, because the Chamber is not the place for that, but people who are interested in those subjects should certainly look up his work.
Yanina, who survived the ghetto, wrote two books about her own life and history; one was about her life in Poland before the war, and one was about her experience during and immediately after the war. Those books are recognised as part of a very important canon of literature on the Holocaust. I am really proud that Yanina and Zygmunt both lived.
Dawn Butler
I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful speech, which shows just how important it is that living memory is passed on and why we should continue to have this debate in Parliament.
Alex Sobel
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Professor Zygmunt Bauman died in January 2017. He was a great supporter of mine and always had placards outside his house when I stood for election, but unfortunately he never got to see me elected to this place. I want to record my thanks to the Baumans.
This debate is about a better future for people from conflict and post-conflict zones, and for those who have suffered genocide. All the subsequent genocides recognised by the United Kingdom happened in my lifetime, including Cambodia, Rwanda and the regime of Slobodan Miloševic and the Serbs. Since I became a Member of Parliament, we have had the atrocious murder of the Yazidis by Daesh and, looking at Syria now, I am afraid that genocide is probably not yet concluded. We need to act on that today so that they can have a better future for tomorrow.
I have met victims of Slobodan Miloševic’s regime in the Balkans—people exactly the same age as me, with similar backgrounds and experiences, who witnessed and experienced the most awful and traumatic events. I have seen some of the exhibits from the Miloševic regime’s genocidal actions, and many of them reminded me of what I saw in Auschwitz-Birkenau, including single shoes and items of clothing belonging to children who were disappeared and whose fate is unknown—they never found the bodies. Obviously, the genocide in the Balkans was different from the Holocaust, but we recognise it as genocide nevertheless. After the conflict, people in those countries are still suffering, and they still do not have stable countries. Bosnia is still experiencing tensions.
The Minister for Housing and Planning, who is no longer in his place, made an excellent contribution on issues in the Balkans, and I hope we can have a further debate with the Minister for Europe, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), on the contemporary situation in the Balkans, and particularly Republika Srpska.
I am planning to visit the Balkans again this year, and we all have that duty because the Balkans are very near, and those events happened in the political lifetime of some of those in charge of Serbia—some of them, including the President of Serbia, were involved in the regime of Slobodan Miloševic. The events are still very close. For the better future of people in the Balkans, these issues are not yet resolved. We need to work on them in this place, not in an historical or educational way but in a very real and political way.
It is our duty as a country to support a better future for everyone who has suffered in conflict and post-conflict zones.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Alex Sobel Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Simmonds
I promise the hon. Member that that is exactly what I am going to do. I am going to make an apology to all those in the private rented sector. [Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position that I have only four hours. I am afraid that I will not be able to go through all the private tenants individually, but the apology will be fulsome. I say to those in the private rented sector, 82% of whom are very satisfied with their accommodation, that I am sorry that they will be faced with the mess that this Bill will create, whether they are seeking to rent their first home or need to move to a new one.
Alex Sobel
I express my gratitude to the Minister and the Secretary of State for tabling amendments on regulating the student lettings season, and on rent in advance. Both are issues that I have been campaigning on. Over a year ago, I went to Leeds University Union’s cost of living event, where those issues and others were brought home to me starkly. They were also brought home to me by the National Union of Students’ cost of living inquiry, and the all-party parliamentary group on students, which was led by our former colleague Paul Blomfield, and on which I served.
I really thank the Government for tabling amendments 18 and 53 on regulating the student letting season, building on the work of Paul Blomfield, who spearheaded work on this in his constituency of Sheffield Central. I will not press my new clause 4, and I urge Members to support those Government amendments. If there is no regulation of the letting season, students are pressured and intimidated by the rental market into signing tenancies with people they hardly know, sometimes nine months before they are due to move in. Students of all backgrounds are forking out deposits to hold properties. Care leavers, estranged students and students from low economic backgrounds are left to either spend money that they do not have or risk housing insecurity for the next academic year. The Government’s decision to limit the letting season to six months gives students the space and time to create healthy social relationships and save money for a deposit for the next academic year, drastically improving their mental wellbeing.
Government new clauses 13 and 14 are landmark measures that ensure that students are not subject to excessive and exploitative up-front costs by limiting rent in advance. That creates a fairer, more accessible rental market. For example, my constituent Olivia was once required to pay £2,500—six months’ rent up front—to move into a four-bed shared property. She is moving to Leeds to begin her masters. Leaving her without savings for a move to a new city is not how we should treat any person vulnerable to the rental market or looking to be an asset to the community. The Government new clauses will help prevent such unreasonable demands and alleviate financial pressure on tenants, so I am withdrawing my new clause 3 on limiting rents, and urge support for the Government new clauses.
My constituent Olivia’s up-front costs were so high because she could not get a guarantor. Now that we have set limits on rent in advance, we must deal with the other side of the issue: the requirement for tenants to provide guarantors. The practice can exclude individuals who cannot meet those demands, or limit their access to secure housing. Adults who earn their own income can be excluded from signing up to rent basic accommodation in a shared house simply because they are not related to someone who owns UK property. My new clause 11 would place tighter restrictions on the requirement for tenants to provide a guarantor, especially when a tenant’s rental history or income offer sufficient security. By refining those provisions, we can balance the legitimate interests of landlords with the rights and needs of tenants.
My new clause suggests that the need for a guarantor should be restricted when the following circumstances apply: when a reasonable assessment shows that personal income, including state benefits received and any other lawful source of income, is sufficient for the tenant to pay the full rent due under the tenancy; when arrangements are made for housing benefit or the housing element of universal credit to be paid directly to the landlord; when the landlord has entered into a contract of insurance, through which they are insured against non-payment of rent—that has been covered by other amendments—and in such other circumstances as may be prescribed in regulations by the Secretary of State. That gives the Government a wide avenue for implementing my new clause.
The expectation that tenants, despite entering into legally binding rental agreements, must secure a third-party guarantor undermines the very purpose of their rental contract. For many students, particularly those who cannot rely on family support, such as care leavers and estranged individuals, that requirement can make renting nearly impossible. The Bill provides a generational opportunity to raise standards of living in the UK to where they should be. As I will not push my new clause to a vote, I would welcome further discussion and engagement with the Minister as the Bill progresses on how we can change the reliance on guarantors in our rental markets. I know that he is open to that discussion.
In my constituency, 44.8% of constituents live in private rentals, compared with a national average of 19.4%. Leeds is home to a population of over 36,000 non-home students. The Bill is imperative to my constituents. Through its measures, I am hopeful that we can establish a rental market that promotes fairness, reduces inequality and strengthens communities across the UK. I am very happy to support the Government amendments.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill, and all hon. Members on the Bill Committee who gave their time to consider with gravity this long-overdue reform, which will provide greater security and stability for millions of renters across the country. The Bill is particularly important to my constituency, where more than 31% of households are in the private rental sector. That figure is as high as 55% in some wards such as Bournemouth Central, and up to 45% in the wards of Winton, Westbourne and West Cliff.
The private rental sector should provide people with flexibility and be a stepping stone to home ownership, and it should support our local economies, but for too many, as we have heard from many hon. Members, it exacerbates instability and adds financial stress, locking people out of building the savings that they need to get on the housing ladder, as well as adding to mental health issues. That is particularly salient in my constituency, where the cost of housing is disproportionately expensive, given the wages that people can command. The average rent and property price is above the national average in Bournemouth, but average wages are 5% lower than the national average.
The Bill is timely, because in recent months I have been deeply concerned about the growing number of residents who have been in touch to raise issues about housing, to the point that we are hosting three additional housing super-surgeries, aimed at providing constituents with the opportunity to share specific issues, and at giving them advice and guidance from many local organisations that specialise in these issues.
I want to raise a few issues relating to the amendments that many hon. Members will find apply in their constituencies. The first is poor-quality accommodation. In my constituency, one young woman and her daughter have been bounced from mouldy bedsit to mouldy bedsit while they wait for an appropriate social home. In the process, the woman’s daughter has developed asthma. I welcome the reforms relating to the decent homes standard and Awaab’s law.
Lots of people have been in touch who are being forced into homelessness by eye-watering rental increases or section 21 notices. The average increase last year for a one-bed flat in my constituency was 10%. Another young woman and her daughter were made homeless by a section 21 notice following an unaffordable rent increase. She has been unable to find anything that meets her physical and mental health needs—but in any case, she cannot meet the up-front cost of much private rental sector accommodation in our constituency. I welcome the amendment to address up-front costs. Her situation is compounded by long social housing waiting lists. I welcome the wider housing reforms that the Government are bringing forward, including the increased targets for social housing and the wider house building programme.
There are almost 20,000 students living in my constituency. I recently met student union representatives from Bournemouth University and the Arts University Bournemouth, who told me about the struggles their students face, from the stress of finding an appropriate place to live to the timetables for finding accommodation and the struggle to rent. Many students are forced to couch surf because they cannot afford the deposit money or do not have a guarantor who meets the requirements.
Bournemouth is one of the top 10 most expensive places to be a student in the UK; some 95% of the maintenance loan is eaten up by housing costs, leaving many students with about £4 a week afterwards. That is not a sustainable situation. I therefore welcome the measures to protect student tenancies and address the up-front costs for students. It is my hope that in the longer run, many students will benefit from these reforms, will fall in love with Bournemouth and want to stay, and will be able to find appropriate and affordable places to live.
As we have heard, good and responsible landlords have nothing to fear from these reforms. I welcome the measures to give landlords more clarity and a better understanding of their legal obligations, and to address repossession rights. The abolition of section 21, Awaab’s law and the up-front cost provisions will allow my constituents and many across the country to breathe a sigh of relief. I therefore welcome the Bill and new clause 13.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Alex Sobel Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
The Renters’ Rights Bill will bring much-needed security and safety to renters. I praise the Minister for Housing and Planning and the Secretary of State for bringing forward the Bill, which is much stronger than the previous Government’s Bill.
As the MP for a constituency with one of the largest private rented housing sectors in the UK—it has 17,740 private rental properties, the majority of which are rented to students—I want to use the debate to highlight problems faced by student renters, both in my constituency and across the country. Students are shouldering the burden of 14 years of Tory mismanagement of our economy. The dual housing and cost of living crisis is being compounded by landlords making it increasingly difficult for many students to secure housing. This leaves many in increasingly precarious situations.
Students in my constituency have told me of landlords asking them not just for a UK guarantor—the criterion for which is that the guarantor must own a UK property—but for deposits of up to 100% of annual rent. Such requirements disproportionately affect working-class students, care leavers, and those estranged from their families—groups that are already more vulnerable to poorer economic, educational and health outcomes. International students, too, face significant challenges, as most do not have family members with property in the UK. As one of my constituents, an international postgraduate student at Leeds University, told me:
“My only viable option was using the guarantor service ‘Housing Hand’, which costs me an additional £50 a month on top of rent. I am a PhD student receiving the UKRI minimum stipend…The cost of living for food and rent alone is already difficult on this stipend, and, during the final week before the stipend is paid each month, I often struggle to maintain a healthy and balanced diet due to financial strain.”
Research conducted by students from the Centre for Homelessness Impact found that just 36% of universities provide help with rent guarantors, that even fewer provide a rent guarantor service for students, and that, as universities themselves are facing extreme financial difficulties, such a service will become ever more unlikely.
Renting as a student is already an uphill struggle. We know, for example, that student accommodation prices have increased by 61% since 2012. Information from the National Union of Students shows that two in five students have considered dropping out because of the cost of rent. When we are trying to encourage people to attend our world-leading institutions, which strengthen the skills potential of our country’s workforce, why do we put up so many barriers?
Our universities are the UK’s strongest source of soft power. International students in particular are left with nothing but bad choices: they must either find a UK guarantor or pay six months’ rent, or more, up front to their landlord. As one student told the all-party group for students:
“International students often face more challenges than home students. We have heard stories of students paying months of rent, only to find out that they have been scammed, and that the place they thought they’d secured does not even exist.”
It is for those reasons that I would like the Government to consider banning landlords from demanding either UK rent guarantors or huge up-front payments, and perhaps limiting deposits to just three months’ rent. I would also like them to end the pressure for joint tenancies to be signed too early in the academic year, so that students need not commit to accommodation before they are ready, creating artificial panic in the market. Ultimately, we must remove barriers for care leavers, students and international students. We have heard from students that access to a rent guarantor is often a determining factor in their ability to continue their degree, or even access a university education in the first place.
Everyone deserves the opportunity to succeed in their academic journey without the added stress of housing insecurity. The Government have the opportunity, through this Bill, to break down a major barrier to all students’ right to pursue higher education. I hope that they will work with me on this.