Private Rented Sector White Paper
Debate between Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Felicity Buchan(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)
I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) and the Backbench Business Committee for securing this important debate on the proposals in our White Paper. I thank Members who have spoken for their considered and constructive tone and for speaking powerfully on behalf of their constituents. I also thank hon. Members for their warm words about my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), who worked so hard on the White Paper. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), who took that work forward.
The Government are determined to deliver a new deal for tenants and landlords in the private rented sector. Hon. Members have made a number of points about reform and I hope to address as many of them as possible in the time I have. If I do not reach some of the points, I am happy to sit down with hon. Members on a one-to-one basis.
I want to make a couple of observations about the sector as a whole. As Members know, the private rented sector has grown significantly in recent decades. It has doubled in size since the early 2000s, with landlords and tenants becoming increasingly diverse. The sector provides a home for 11 million people—19% of all households. At least 1.3 million of those are families with children. However, the sector is also the least secure and has some of the lowest-quality housing. Too often, the current system does not work for tenants, or for the many good landlords operating in the sector.
Everyone in our society deserves to live somewhere decent, warm, safe and secure. The Government are determined to make that vision a reality.
Hon. Members will know that the White Paper sets out a 12-point action plan, and I note that it has received support from Members on both sides of the House. The changes that it sets out amount to a significant shake-up of private renting. We know how important it is to get it right. We are grateful to our partners across the housing sector who have worked closely with us on developing the reforms. We will continue to consult them closely as we move the process forward.
Several hon. Members raised the issue of the poor quality of some privately rented homes. The majority of landlords and agents treat their tenants fairly and provide good-quality, safe homes, but that is not always the case. Too many of the 4.4 million households who rent privately live in poor conditions and pay a large proportion of their income to do so. Poor-quality housing undermines renters’ health and wellbeing. It can affect their educational attainment and it reduces pride in local areas.
I am proud of the action that the Government have already taken to put things right. We have strengthened local authorities’ enforcement powers by introducing fines of up to £30,000, extending rent repayment orders and introducing banning orders for the most serious and prolific offenders. We have introduced new regulations, which require landlords to install smoke and carbon monoxide detectors and ensure that the electrical installations in their properties are safe. We are concluding our overhaul of the housing, health and safety rating system, which is the tool used to assess hazardous conditions in rented homes. That will make it more accessible to tenants and landlords and allow more efficient enforcement.
The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 empowered all tenants—private and social—for the first time to take their own action against landlords who let unfit properties. As a result, conditions have improved over the past 10 years, but we know that there is more to be done. Alongside this we have consulted on introducing a legally binding decent homes standard in the private rented sector. That consultation closed on 14 October and we are currently reviewing responses.
Many hon. Members talked about tenancy reform and, clearly, that is critical. Our reforms will provide tenants with security. They will also ensure that good landlords are still able to gain possession when necessary.
Hon. Members have rightly mentioned the insecurity caused by section 21 no-fault evictions. It is not right that a landlord can ask a tenant to leave without giving a reason. The Government are clear that they want to support the majority of landlords who act responsibly, but it is not right that tenants live in fear that their lives may be uprooted at the whim of the minority of rogue landlords. That is why, as we have set out in our manifesto and confirmed in this House, the Government have committed to abolishing section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 and giving millions of private renters a secure home.
At the same time, the White Paper proposes to simplify complex tenancy structures. It will move all tenants who currently have an “assured” or “assured shorthold” tenancy on to a single system of periodic tenancies. Periodic tenancies will allow either party to end the tenancy when they need to. That will enable tenants to leave poor-quality properties without remaining liable for the rent, or to move more easily when their circumstances change—for example, to take up a new job opportunity. Landlords will always have to provide a specific reason for ending a tenancy.
Good landlords play a vital role in providing homes for millions of people across the country. We want to reassure them that the new system will continue to be a stable market for landlords to invest and remain in. No one will win if our reforms do not support landlords as well as tenants. It is only right that landlords should be able to get their properties back when their circumstances change, or when tenants break the rules. A number of hon. Members mentioned the real issues attached to antisocial behaviour. We will reform grounds of possession so that they are comprehensive, fair and efficient, and we will streamline the possession process, removing unnecessary restrictions on landlords seeking to recover their property.
Alongside that, we will continue to listen to landlords and students, as mentioned by a number of hon. Members —landlords provide much-needed accommodation to thousands of students every year—to ensure that the sector continues to work for those in higher education, and I will continue to have those conversations.
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that going to court should be a last resort, when all other avenues have been exhausted. But we know that sometimes it is unavoidable, and that court proceedings can be costly and time consuming for landlords. That is why we are working with the Ministry of Justice and HM Courts and Tribunals Service to streamline the process and ensure that the most serious cases are prioritised. I just checked on the fax point and can assure Members that people can email or make paper submissions. Alongside that, we are reviewing the bailiff process. That is currently a big source of frustration and delay.
Many Members have mentioned issues surrounding the cost of living—
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Does the Minister not recognise that the lack of legal aid is a huge problem for people in the private rented sector? In the last Session, I introduced a Bill that would have cost the Government nothing but provided £20 million in legal aid and early legal support for private renters by taking the interest from the £2 billion- worth of deposits held in this country and putting it into a special, reserved fund for legal aid for renters. Would she look at that measure, so that the court process is supported?
Felicity Buchan
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that legal aid does not fall within my remit, but I am happy to meet him and have a conversation.
We empathise strongly with those affected by the cost of living issues. That is why the Government have provided over £37 billion in cost of living support this year to those who need it the most. We have given unprecedented support to protect households from high energy prices. For tenants who are unable to afford their rental payments, there is a range of potential support available through the welfare system.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) and the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) both raised the issue of second homes and holiday lets. I am aware of the pressures in their constituencies. The White Paper contains a proposal on that issue, and I point both hon. Ladies to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport’s call for evidence on the topic.
Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill (Third sitting)
Debate between Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Felicity Buchan(3 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Q
Nicola Dandridge: Yes. We think that there is a serious and significant issue in relation to academic freedom and free speech in higher education, and the proposals in the Bill seek to address that and create mechanisms for tackling such issues.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Q
Nicola Dandridge: The Bill does acknowledge that the different mechanisms might need to be interrelated, so that a student or an academic member of staff can take recourse through only one mechanism before they engage with another. That is in the Bill. I do not think it is a question of running rings around the Office for Students. It will be a question of making clear what the advantages and disadvantages are for each route, so that the student, member of staff or any third party affected can pursue the most appropriate recourse for them.
Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill (Third sitting)
Debate between Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Felicity Buchan(3 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Q May I ask a simple question? Do you welcome the Bill?
Nicola Dandridge: Yes. We think that there is a serious and significant issue in relation to academic freedom and free speech in higher education, and the proposals in the Bill seek to address that and create mechanisms for tackling such issues.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Q The Bill would allow a complainant to bypass the Office for Students and go straight to the courts. Is that something you welcome—that there is an ability to run rings around each process—or should they be interrelated?
Nicola Dandridge: The Bill does acknowledge that the different mechanisms might need to be interrelated, so that a student or an academic member of staff can take recourse through only one mechanism before they engage with another. That is in the Bill. I do not think it is a question of running rings around the Office for Students. It will be a question of making clear what the advantages and disadvantages are for each route, so that the student, member of staff or any third party affected can pursue the most appropriate recourse for them.
Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill (First sitting)
Debate between Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Felicity Buchan(3 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Q
Trevor Phillips: There is no right to a backlash. In common law there is a right to protest in this country. I would have gladly seen something in this legislation that referred to that, but the truth is that we do have that right. The issue here is of culture and resilience. For far too long—10 years—I was chair of two regulators: the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Most of our work was not prohibitive; most of it was either permissive or educational. The EHRC publishes books and books of guidance, some statutory, most non-statutory. The aim of that kind of guidance is not to impose threats and hammers, but to give some idea of what the right norms are. That is why this is so important. There is a variety of informal ways in which freedom of expression can be suppressed without breaking any law that you could possibly draft.
Alongside the legislation, there has to be a programme of action to protect diversity of opinion within the higher education sector. That is part of the role of the regulator. The regulator is not a censor; it is there to moderate behaviour, and there are different ways in which that regulator might moderate behaviour. Some of it will be by prohibition and law, but most of it, for every regulator, is through guidance, encouragement, comparison, publication of best practice, and so on.
We ought not to get into a conversation where we simply think of this regulator as a revived Lord Chancellor, with his or her blue pencil, swooping on every campus, looking out for bad guys. The big part of this regulator’s work will be publishing work that demonstrates best practice and the code by which university authorities, and those who are under their aegis, can best guarantee and promote diversity of opinion and freedom of expression.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Q
Professor Biggar: You are right that, by its nature, it is hard to detect and measure, but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence, and I can tell you from my own experience. The clearest evidence of fear and self-censorship among academics was mentioned by Arif Ahmed earlier: his experience in Cambridge of spending a month trying to get 24 academics to put their heads above the parapet to sign a bit of a paper backing a motion against university policy. It took him a month to get 24 people to do that, but when the vote was held by secret ballot, it went overwhelmingly against the university, by several hundred academics. When those academics were liberated to express their views in secret, they did it, but they would not do it in public. That is one instance, but I think it is a signal instance. I urge you not to underestimate the degree of fear, even among senior academics.
Trevor Phillips: Yes, I agree with Professor Biggar. It is pretty difficult—like proving a negative. People who are too frightened to express their opinions will not tell you that they are too frightened to express their opinions. However, we do know that there are many examples.
Personally, I am a bit less concerned about the issue of meetings not being held and so on, and far more concerned about the extent to which academic and intellectual inquiry is being curbed by a culture that says “This thing will be controversial and too much hassle. I’m going to put my effort into something that nobody’s going to argue very much about.” That, I think, is a real, huge danger for the higher education sector in this country. We have lost what the Americans would call the “speak up culture”—the pleasure in disputation and the belief that testing arguments will always improve the state of knowledge. If there is a job for the regulator, it is to restore the confidence of all the members of university communities that it is okay to take a view; that, essentially, it is okay to say things that you know might offend other people, if you believe them to be correct. I do not think we want to encourage gratuitous insult or unnecessary offence, but above all, our institutions are there to encourage intellectual inquiry.
One practical step that might be embodied in the guidance, if not in the legislation itself, is that the default position in universities when it comes to meetings in particular is that they should always be open to all members of that community, so that every point of view is open to challenge. That is at the heart of this: there should be a culture of challenge. Secondly, what we have tried to do at Index is to help students to learn the habits of resilience that allow them to participate in those robust debates.
Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill (First sitting)
Debate between Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Felicity Buchan(3 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Q How do you limit people applying political pressure? What you are saying is that the regulator needs to come in and say that the university has not limited other people’s ability to apply political pressure. I get that universities should have guidelines about balance and civility, but if it breaks down and the regulator steps in, what is the regulator actually checking? That the university has not restricted other people’s political expression?
Trevor Phillips: There is no right to a backlash. In common law there is a right to protest in this country. I would have gladly seen something in this legislation that referred to that, but the truth is that we do have that right. The issue here is of culture and resilience. For far too long—10 years—I was chair of two regulators: the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Most of our work was not prohibitive; most of it was either permissive or educational. The EHRC publishes books and books of guidance, some statutory, most non-statutory. The aim of that kind of guidance is not to impose threats and hammers, but to give some idea of what the right norms are. That is why this is so important. There is a variety of informal ways in which freedom of expression can be suppressed without breaking any law that you could possibly draft.
Alongside the legislation, there has to be a programme of action to protect diversity of opinion within the higher education sector. That is part of the role of the regulator. The regulator is not a censor; it is there to moderate behaviour, and there are different ways in which that regulator might moderate behaviour. Some of it will be by prohibition and law, but most of it, for every regulator, is through guidance, encouragement, comparison, publication of best practice, and so on.
We ought not to get into a conversation where we simply think of this regulator as a revived Lord Chancellor, with his or her blue pencil, swooping on every campus, looking out for bad guys. The big part of this regulator’s work will be publishing work that demonstrates best practice and the code by which university authorities, and those who are under their aegis, can best guarantee and promote diversity of opinion and freedom of expression.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Q One of my concerns is self-censorship and the degree to which it already exists, not only among the academic body but also among the student body. By definition, it is quite difficult to measure self-censorship and the extent to which it exists. Could you outline how large a problem you believe it to be?
Professor Biggar: You are right that, by its nature, it is hard to detect and measure, but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence, and I can tell you from my own experience. The clearest evidence of fear and self-censorship among academics was mentioned by Arif Ahmed earlier: his experience in Cambridge of spending a month trying to get 24 academics to put their heads above the parapet to sign a bit of a paper backing a motion against university policy. It took him a month to get 24 people to do that, but when the vote was held by secret ballot, it went overwhelmingly against the university, by several hundred academics. When those academics were liberated to express their views in secret, they did it, but they would not do it in public. That is one instance, but I think it is a signal instance. I urge you not to underestimate the degree of fear, even among senior academics.
Trevor Phillips: Yes, I agree with Professor Biggar. It is pretty difficult—like proving a negative. People who are too frightened to express their opinions will not tell you that they are too frightened to express their opinions. However, we do know that there are many examples.
Personally, I am a bit less concerned about the issue of meetings not being held and so on, and far more concerned about the extent to which academic and intellectual inquiry is being curbed by a culture that says “This thing will be controversial and too much hassle. I’m going to put my effort into something that nobody’s going to argue very much about.” That, I think, is a real, huge danger for the higher education sector in this country. We have lost what the Americans would call the “speak up culture”—the pleasure in disputation and the belief that testing arguments will always improve the state of knowledge. If there is a job for the regulator, it is to restore the confidence of all the members of university communities that it is okay to take a view; that, essentially, it is okay to say things that you know might offend other people, if you believe them to be correct. I do not think we want to encourage gratuitous insult or unnecessary offence, but above all, our institutions are there to encourage intellectual inquiry.
One practical step that might be embodied in the guidance, if not in the legislation itself, is that the default position in universities when it comes to meetings in particular is that they should always be open to all members of that community, so that every point of view is open to challenge. That is at the heart of this: there should be a culture of challenge. Secondly, what we have tried to do at Index is to help students to learn the habits of resilience that allow them to participate in those robust debates.