Parking Regulation

Lola McEvoy Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. The issue we are addressing today is symptomatic of a country where people who have done everything right are being burdened and bullied by a system that is weighted against them. I want to use this debate to tell the stories of some of my constituents in Darlington, and to outline why I am urging the Government to take action to regulate the private parking industry.

The reason people are so enraged by this issue is because it is a microcosm of people’s broader experiences. What was once an ordinary, day-to-day, unremarkable occurrence has been allowed, through the incompetence of the last Government, to become a truly unacceptable experience for ordinary people. While many simply pay the fine, for a lot of people in Darlington an unexpected bill of £170 really affects their budget.

I pay tribute to the people who have shared their stories; it has helped me greatly in my conversations with Ministers, colleagues and the companies. Each of the 140 people who have reached out to me since I was elected has been treated unfairly, and I am confident that they are just the tip of the iceberg nationally. I am convinced that we absolutely must regulate private parking companies, and that action is long overdue.

The car park that the majority of my constituents have complained about is situated right next to the Darlington Economic Campus, which houses the Treasury. While I was visiting that car park in my first week, a man using a wheelchair was trying to use the machine to pay for his parking. It had taken him longer than five minutes to get to the machine, so he had missed the window to pay without a fine. He was rightly shocked and angry about the unfairness of the rule. The fact that I witnessed him getting caught out in real time convinced me, there and then, that this was happening so frequently that something had to be done. Ten months later, the five-minute rule has been stopped, but we need to go further to protect people. We need proper reporting, proper regulation and an independent ombudsman for appeals, and we need it quickly.

Many Members will be familiar with the story of Hannah Robinson. She received a staggering £11,000 in parking fines from a single company across 67 tickets. In every case, she paid for her parking. Her only fault was that she did not do it within the five-minute window set by the operator. Often that was not even possible. Machines did not work, phonelines were unresponsive and the internet signal was too poor to pay online. The five-minute rule has now rightly been banned following campaigning efforts by MPs such as my hon. Friends the Members for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) and for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), whom I have been proud to work alongside. However, Hannah and others like her should never have been charged in the first place, or dragged through legal proceedings or forced to fight ruthless companies to prove they had done nothing wrong.

Another Darlington resident, Kim, had her life completely knocked off course for parking in the same facility. Like Hannah, she paid for her parking but was unable to do so immediately because of technical issues. She was sent a £170 charge, but she never received the letters. Completely unaware of the issue, she received a county court judgment. Her credit score collapsed. She and her partner were both working full time, doing the right thing, and were blocked from getting a mortgage. The fact of the matter remains: we must take action on this issue, as it is long overdue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), and my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) for the work they have done on this issue.

I am not the only Member to have people stop me in the street or message me to tell me how angry and frustrated they are at having to fork out for penalty charges in circumstances they think are wholly unfair. I have been there myself: as a mum of three, I have had to get my children out of their car seats, pull out the pushchair, unload the bags and try to ensure they do not run out in front of oncoming cars, all to the chorus of one or more children trying to get my attention—the usual juggle. Try finding a working payment machine or downloading an app when you are the only thing standing between children and soft play.

When I read about the case of Rosey Hudson, who was taken to court for nearly £2,000 of unpaid charges because she had not paid within five minutes, I became really keen to raise this issue in Parliament. The cases that have been raised with me have involved not just those caring for young children, but people with mobility issues, and machines not working. One person could not even find a parking space and was still charged.

Unlike Rosey, not everyone feels able to stand up and contest the fines. Many are put off by the threats of legal action and are worried about going to court. Of the 3.8 million private parking tickets issued in just three months last year, 80% were uncontested. When I convened a roundtable with MPs, car parking firms and consumer groups, I was asked what a fair time limit would be, but if a person pays for the time they have parked, there is no loss to the car park, so they should not face penalty charges. I am glad that the time people have to pay has been doubled to 10 minutes, but the only way to have a fair system is to have a statutory code. We want to protect drivers from unfair practices, plain and simple—particularly given that the number of parking tickets issued to motorists has nearly doubled since 2018.

[Lola McEvoy]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the sheer volume of parking tickets could be having an impact on people’s desire to visit our high streets and town centres, as they worry about parking without getting fined?

[Catherine Atkinson]

I completely agree. Firms hand out more than 43,000 parking tickets to motorists every day—one every two seconds. In line with what my hon. Friend said, I acknowledge the important role that private car parking plays, especially in our city and town centres. I want people to shop in our brilliant independent shops, such as those on Sadler Gate. I want people to be able to go to our fantastic restaurants, such as Lorentes, BEAR, the Dining Room and the Bookcafé. I want them to visit Derby theatre and our brand new 3,500-capacity performance venue, Vaillant Live. We need to ensure that when people use private car parks, they do not feel ripped off.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) on securing this important debate, and so many others on campaigning on this issue.

I speak on behalf of the people of Weston-super-Mare, Worle and the villages. Our proud coastal community has stunning beaches, three glorious piers and a tourism and hospitality sector that plays an essential role in our local economy, but parking is a growing problem that is echoed across communities up and down the country. Far too often, the cost and availability of parking acts as a barrier, deterring visitors, frustrating local businesses and making it harder for residents to enjoy the very places that they call home. The issue has been hugely compounded by unscrupulous private parking companies, especially in recent years.

In Weston, we want both locals and tourists to come and enjoy our seafront and our high streets. We want them to visit our small businesses, our events and our attractions, but when a family find that parking for a day at the beach can cost as much as their fish and chips, they think twice. They might not come at all. The prospect—so often reinforced by these unscrupulous companies—of unfair and unclear fines further exacerbates the issue. We need to dramatically rethink our approach to parking regulation in coastal areas. That goes further than having a code of practice for private regulators; it is a wholesale issue about how we reinvigorate our town centres generally.

We must see cheaper and more flexible parking options, particularly during peak season, when towns such as Weston thrive on day visitors. Those might include capped daily rates, off-peak discounts, or partnerships with local businesses to validate parking. Too often, we have seen a “computer says no” attitude when such initiatives have been suggested, and far too often we are told, “We’ve outsourced this to private companies rather than innovating in-house.” Governments can make local decision makers shift their thinking on the subject.

Accessibility is also key. We have heard a lot about people with disabilities, older people, and those with Parkinson’s, such as my mum, who has been stung by parking charges simply because she cannot access the app or she does not do things quickly enough. Often, those are the people most at risk of extortionate fines, which are so out of proportion with the perceived error. It is not just about convenience; it is about fairness.

[Lola McEvoy]

In Darlington, there are car parks with no signal, so people have to go outside to download the app, log into it and then pay for their parking, by which point they have often incurred a charge. Does my hon. Friend agree that in our code, we should include the provision of multiple payment methods in every car park?

[Dan Aldridge]

Absolutely, and this goes to the heart of a lot of what we have talked about in this place in respect of the shift to a digital-first world. In many ways, that is great, but it excludes so many people. We need to continue to have other options, including cash payment, available for people who need them.

Coastal towns face unique economic challenges. Hospitality and tourism are two of the few industries that we rely on in Weston. If visitors are put off before they even step out of the car, or are punished by opportunistic private parking companies, we all lose out—local people, shops, cafés and attractions alike.

Let us be clear: better parking regulation is not about free-for-all parking; it is about sensible, locally driven policies that work for both residents and visitors. It is about supporting coastal regeneration by making it easier, not harder, for people to spend their time and money in our towns. Let us make it easier for people to get to our town centres, and for our communities to thrive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lola McEvoy]

On the appeals process, constituents across the country are attending court to find that their hearing has been cancelled by the company at the last minute. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is a waste of their time and a waste of the court’s time?

[Mr Kohler]

I do. These companies use tactics simply to increase their profits and our frustration, and to make people impotent in the face of their abuses.

Even when individuals take the trouble to appeal, the process is opaque and impossible to navigate, as the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) so eloquently noted. I have experienced that myself. When one of my constituents got in touch about an incorrect parking penalty notice from Britannia Parking, it was well-nigh impossible to find the contact details of the company, while the links it provided to appeal did not work.

The Liberal Democrats stand for fairness and accountability in the private parking system. Although we welcome the Government’s promise to introduce a code of practice, as always the devil will be in the detail. We must scrutinise the new code when it materialises, to ensure that motorists are properly protected from rogue parking firms. We remain of the view that the Government should go further and introduce a regulator with appropriate powers to enforce the code of practice and put an end to the abuse.

Renters' Rights Bill (First sitting)

Lola McEvoy Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)]

I used to work at Shelter, which is giving evidence today.

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

My husband works for Shelter, which is giving evidence today.

[The Chair]

I welcome both our witnesses to our session to answer questions following their evidence to the Committee on the Renters’ Rights Bill. Please introduce yourself briefly. Members will then ask questions about your evidence.

Ben Beadle: I am Ben Beadle, the chief executive of the National Residential Landlords Association. We have 110,000 members, who provide for nearly a million homes in the private rented sector.

Theresa Wallace: My name is Theresa Wallace and I am chair of the Lettings Industry Council. I think it is the only group that is made up of stakeholders across the property redress scheme, including tenant groups, landlord groups, professional bodies, government bodies and agents large and small.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

A large number of Members want to come in, so brevity would be helpful.

[Lola McEvoy]

Q It is really interesting to hear your evidence. Thank you for raising Ayesha’s story, because it makes a real difference to us as Committee members. Good landlords and good tenants are welcome in this. What do you see as an opportunity for the people you represent to support the work of the landlord database? What is the best way that we can ensure it affects people such as Ayesha?

Ben Twomey: Relating the database to rent repayment orders would be useful. If there is a way in which tenants or tenant groups can access the database to make sure that landlords are compliant with the database, it would be helpful. Adding the actual rents to that database would be useful, because we would finally get an honest and clear picture of what people are paying in rent. That would start to change the inflated idea that a landlord can stick their finger in the air and charge whatever they like just because it is a new tenancy. We would start to see the patterns appear for when people are in tenancies.

We should also have certain restrictions for evictions. We think eviction notices should be logged on the database. That would give a clearer picture of why people are being evicted, so that measures later down the line can be taken to reduce the number of evictions. It is helpful that in the Bill they will now have to have a reason for eviction, because currently we do not know why landlords are evicting. We know that it coincides far too often with complaints made by a tenant, but we could continue to track that through the database. We think that landlords should be restricted from making evictions or even rent hikes if they have not registered with the database and the redress scheme.

Tom Darling: I would agree with all that. I know that the Government intend to set out what will be on the database in secondary legislation, but I think it would be helpful to have a steer from Ministers throughout this process on what they intend to be on the database.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

Q I have a couple of things to ask. First, I would like to hear your views on the arguments that the first panel of witnesses made that assured shorthold tenancy abolitions would remove some security from tenants, particularly students but also people who have longer tenancies.

On your point about the idea of limiting rent increases to wage growth or inflation, how would you respond to the counter-argument that it might lead to landlords setting a much higher baseline rent between tenancies, knowing that they would not necessarily be able to increase the rent as much within a tenancy?

Tom Darling: To take the first point about the lessening of security, similar reforms in Scotland led to an increase in average tenancy length. The idea that abolishing fixed-term tenancies will lead to Airbnb-lite, as we heard earlier, is ridiculous. Clearly, the people proposing that have not been through joining a tenancy recently, because it is an incredibly stressful experience. That is the last thing people would think of to do to go on holiday or to stay for only two months. There has been no evidence of that in Scotland, despite similar reforms in place there, so I would dismiss the idea.

The ability to leave the tenancy to be used in very rare circumstances—for example, where you realise there is some black mould that you did not see, which was being hidden from you when you viewed the property, or you have a serious change in personal circumstances—is an essential protection. It is to be used by tenants in very rare circumstances. Actually, the arguments about that are more about landlords: they would prefer to have the certainty of six months’ rent up front—I am sure they would. We think the Government have the balance right on that particular point at the moment.

Ben Twomey: To add to that quickly, the point made by the letting agents about someone on a two-year fixed-term contract who might find themselves at risk of a form of no-fault eviction by the end of one year is a valid concern. We would welcome support in calling for a longer protective period from no-fault evictions in that case. At the moment, one year is in the Bill, which we welcome as security for renters, but doubling that to two years would be very welcome to make sure that people on such contracts do not find themselves disadvantaged.

To address the point about rent-stabilisation measures, it is important that the vast benefit to potentially millions of private renters is weighed against any potential disadvantages. Millions of renters finding themselves better protected from arbitrary evictions through a rent hike, and from being driven into debt, poverty or homelessness, is an enormous success.

In Scotland, which introduced such measures recently, there has not been an enormous increase in market rents disproportionate to what has happened in England, Wales or indeed Northern Ireland. It was similar tracking of rent inflation with new tenancies. While doing that, we have protected all those people, yet what is happening in the market is similar. One of the ways to solve part of that market problem and to begin to drive down rents is, as has already been said, to build lots of homes at the same time. Some of the most successful rent-cap regimes across Europe are in places with lots of social housing, which takes some of the pressure off the private rented sector.

Renters' Rights Bill (Second sitting)

Lola McEvoy Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[David Simmonds]

Q What I am hearing from constituents affected by it is that rent in advance is the method by which they get around this, as well as guarantors potentially, but if the Bill removes that scope, then the one route they have to negotiate—because of their bad credit history—is effectively removed and they are potentially excluded from that market. I am just trying to understand whether this is genuinely a problem.

Liz Davies KC: So it is the rent-in-advance point. We would have to look at what the Bill says about guarantors. I am sure the Minister knows, but that would be the answer—something around advance rent or guarantors. It negates the point earlier, I accept that. This needs some thought.

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

Q I want to interrogate further what opportunities you see the landlord database providing for private renters and good landlords as a result of the Bill. Your area of expertise is vast and it is a joy to listen to you contribute, so I would like you to elaborate on any positive outcomes you think could come from the Bill—we want to make sure those can happen.

Liz Davies KC: The fact that landlords are required to be registered will raise the bar for good landlords. We do not yet know what information should be on the database. I cannot remember whether it is in the Bill or the explanatory notes, but it is assumed that any enforcement action or rent repayment orders they have had to make—anything that affects their quality as a landlord—will be there. That must raise the bar and set a minimum standard for landlords, which we currently do not have. Tenants, frequently those at the bottom of the market, are then subject to the consequences and disadvantages of that, so having that bar is really important.

The other thing is that making the information, when we know what it is, publicly available is extremely important because it holds landlords to account. Finally, it also affects the local authority’s ability to bring the various enforcement measures they have under both the Housing Act 2004 and the Bill.

Justin Bates KC: I did not hear Ben Beadle’s evidence this morning, but if you get the right details on the database—so that it is a publicly searchable database that shows you whether your landlord has done anything in a list of prohibited things and so that it has details about the safety of the building, for example whether the gas safety certificate has been uploaded or not—I would have thought that he and the NRLA would have been crying out for something like the landlord database. It gives them what they have always wanted: a way of differentiating the good landlord from the bad landlord and a simple way for a tenant to identify the good landlord and the bad landlord. If I put your name in and it comes up on the database that you are subject to a banning order, I probably should not rent from you. If I put the property address in and discover a prohibition order—those are registered on the database—I probably should not live there. That is what you should be able to do if you can get the database to work properly.

The way you have done it, for obvious reasons, it is all at the level of principle. The critical information is what you will do in secondary legislation about what is accessible. But if you get the database right, you go a really long way towards helping tenants to make informed decisions and helping good landlords to drive bad landlords out.

[The Chair]

We have time for one quick question, if anyone has one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q You mentioned unintended consequences, a topic that I have come back to repeatedly today. We heard evidence earlier that rents in Scotland have outpaced those in the rest of the United Kingdom quite considerably in, I think, the last five years. You mentioned the 2022 rent control legislation and the impact that that has had on rents. If you can strip that out in your own mind and give us an assessment of what impact rent reform has had on rents over the past seven years, can you give the Committee a flavour of whether rents have gone up as a result, stayed the same, or reduced?

Anna Evans: We show in the report that the rents increased at a similar rate to the rest of the UK until ’22. If you were trying to isolate why there was a more considerable increase since that time, you could probably fairly conclude that it was because of the 2022 legislation, but it is very difficult to isolate out. The range of legislation that has been implemented in Scotland is significant, but there was a tipping point in ’22 when rents in Scotland appear to have increased at a greater rate than in the UK. The key point was the 2022 legislation.

I should also caveat all of that—as we have in our report—by saying that the Scottish rent data is not as good. It is based on advertised rents rather than any survey of in-tenancy rents. The published data on rent levels and the hike in Scotland will be for new tenancies, and therefore, that will naturally be inflated compared with most tenancies, because we know that landlords do not tend to increase rents in tenancy. They prefer to keep them at a level that keeps tenants content and therefore they have a longer rental period. That evidence has to be considered with caution, because it is based on advertised rents.

[Lola McEvoy]

Q Just for the eradication of any doubt, are you under the impression that the introduction of rent controls has led to an increase in rents?

Anna Evans: As I said, I do not think it is possible to absolutely isolate this out, but on advertised rents—new advertised rents—there was an increase post 2022 when that legislation came in. But you must remember that that does not include evidence of in-tenancy rents, which would be lower. So we cannot say that all average rents have increased as a result of that—we cannot say that at all.

[Lola McEvoy]

Q So you cannot say that all average rents have increased because of in-tenancy rents, and you do not have the data on that, but in terms of advertised rents, since the introduction of rent controls, you have seen an increase in Scotland?

Anna Evans: Yes.

[Lola McEvoy]

Thank you.

[The Chair]

Would anybody else like to ask a question, very quickly?

--- Later in debate ---

[Connor Naismith]

Q Helpfully, the question I wanted to ask has been answered, so I will just give you the opportunity to say anything that you have not been able to cover in other answers, but that you would like to see from the Bill.

Anny Cullum: As I said, the five areas that I wanted to cover were illegal evictions, landlord licensing, capping rent up front to one month, withholding rent for disrepair and making renting more affordable. We see even the cap on in-tenancy rent rises as not really about affordability, but mainly about preventing back-door economic evictions or section 21s. We feel that, while this Bill goes far on improving security for renters, it is not going to do enough to address one of the No. 1 problems our tenants and members are coming to us with every day, which is affordability. Rents are outstripping wages all the time. We would like to see the Government set up a commission to look into ways we can bring rents down and keep them affordable once and for all. That is something that we would like to see.

[Lola McEvoy]

Q Do you agree that the fact that renters can challenge rent hikes under this legislation will, as an action, militate against unreasonable rental increases by landlords? Do you agree that the fact that we are going further in this legislation to make sure that renters have more support and that they can challenge any unreasonable rent hikes in the courts will, in and of itself, have an impact on landlord behaviour?

Anny Cullum: It might have a small impact, but I think that the reality is that most landlords will expect most tenants not to make use of that scheme.

[Lola McEvoy]

Q Surely the threat of it, for most reasonable landlords, which we know the majority are, just like the majority of tenants are reasonable—that behavioural change will be seen and will be a positive thing.

Anny Cullum: The problem with this is that it is going to be judged by the market rates—what the going amount for other-sized homes in your local area is for new tenancies—and those are going up all the time. Unless we do something to stop those rates going up all the time, you as my landlord could say, “I want to put your rent up by 50%”, and if I challenge it at the tribunal, if I have been there for three years, for example, I suspect that could be what the going market rent now is in my local area, because the system, as Ben Beadle said earlier today, is absolutely mad and out of control.

We need more drastic action to bring down rents, because it is unreasonable to ask someone to pay 50% more than they are paying at the moment, but in some places—

[The Chair]

Order. Thank you very much. I am afraid I have to interrupt, because otherwise we will not have time to listen to the Minister. Thank you for your evidence.

Examination of Witness

Employment Rights Bill

Lola McEvoy Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—I am a proud trade union member. It is with great pride that I rise to speak on the Bill today. I have spent my career championing a better deal for working people at the Living Wage Foundation, the organisation that works tirelessly to champion the plethora of business benefits of being a good employer, as well as at the GMB union, where I was proud to work alongside an army of volunteer trade union reps who have great courage in standing up for their colleagues, day in, day out.

The Bill has been warmly received by business because it is not radical. The Bill is reasonable, and it is illustrative of the way that Labour will govern for the time we are given that privilege. It is reasonable that people can earn a minimum wage that meets the cost of living. It is reasonable that people cannot be forced to sign away their current terms and conditions or lose their job. It is reasonable that people are not sexually harassed at work. It is reasonable that people working the same shift pattern, week in, week out, are given contracts that protect and reflect that. The Bill will do all that and more. The Bill will right some of the wrongs that have been pushing working people into wholly unacceptable hardship over the last 14 years.

In the spirit of that mission-led approach to Government, I ask the Minister to consider the following points that will improve physical and mental health outcomes, as well as support more people back to work. Will the Minister consider paid time off for preventive cancer screenings? I met a woman who worked in a hospital as a key worker for a private company. She could not afford to take unpaid leave to get her smear tests, so she missed them and then discovered she had stage 4 cervical cancer. Paid time off for preventive screenings, which good employers already offer, will support our health mission as well as save lives. People must not have to choose between catching cancer early and feeding their families.

On parental rights, I welcome the strengthening of maternity rights in the Bill. For too long women have been penalised for having children, and the hard truth is that mothers are being forced to leave the workforce or take low-paid part-time work to make ends meet. I appreciate that the Bill will make paternity rights a day one right, and I look forward to the review on parental leave, because we need to normalise fathers being able to support their new families and bond with their babies. Protecting fathers to enable them to take paternity leave will help level the playing field and improve men’s mental health, as fathers want to be with their babies.

[Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)]

Sixty-one per cent of people in my constituency are in poverty despite being in work. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that it is only when work is made secure that we can truly grow our economy?

[Lola McEvoy]

I absolutely agree, because people want to work, and they want to work in good-quality jobs that allow them to spend a decent amount of time enjoying the things that matter in life.

The Bill will make thousands of my constituents in Darlington better off, safer and more secure at work. More than that, it will benefit businesses’ bottom lines, as they will have a happier, healthier and more productive workforce. That is essential for the growth we need to see, it is good for working people, it is good for business, and it is great for the economy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Katie Lam to make her maiden speech.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lola McEvoy Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

I echo comments from others about the fantastic maiden speeches that we have heard across the Chamber today. I am proud to rise in support of this landmark legislation—the most significant reform to the private rental sector in more than 40 years. Like many new Members on the Government side of the House, I have seen at first hand the consequences of our broken rental sector. Just days before Christmas, I received an email from my landlord having lived in my home for five years. I was told that he would be “willing” to let me stay if I accepted a 29% rent increase. Meanwhile, we went for days without hot water because of a faulty boiler that repeatedly broke down. My gym membership was not to keep fit but to ensure that I could have a shower each morning before heading into work.

However, the stories I heard from my constituents during the election campaign were so much worse than anything that I have experienced. I have heard of landlords converting homes into houses in multiple occupation, cramming strangers into what used to be families’ living rooms. I have spoken to mothers in tears because they have been forced to uproot their kids once again because landlord decided that it was time to sell. I will not spend too much time dwelling on some of those problems, because other Members have spoken about them, but obviously the effect on families is pretty severe. But there is a much wider effect on our society as well. It affects our economy. A stable and productive workforce depends on individuals having security in their personal lives, which section 21 evictions undermined. We have also heard about the effect that the issue has on the funding of our local councils.

To be clear, the Bill does not seek to stop good landlords removing bad tenants. Tenants must, of course, always pay their rent, look after their properties and respect their neighbours. Under the Bill, all landlords will still be able to end tenancies if there are legitimate reasons, such as wanting to sell the property. However, I urge the Government to consider extending the protected period to two years and providing clear guidance on how landlords will need to prove their intentions on those grounds.

Obviously, I agree with the Bill’s approach in not introducing rent caps, which we know can create unintended consequences, but we must ensure that landlords are not able to exploit that by excessively raising rents mid-tenancy as a back-door way of evicting tenants. It is right that the Bill stops landlords from raising rents above market rates, but I would also like to hear more about how market rates will be determined; I speak from personal experience.

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the landlord database is a great opportunity for us to avoid clogging up our tribunals? If the landlord database had a tenants’ portal, it could help to aggregate the data so that, at local authority or postcode level, people could see what the average rent really was in their area, thus avoiding more tribunals.

[Chris Curtis]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I agree. In my experience, the 29% rent hike was deemed justified because right down the road there was a property being advertised on Zoopla at that new price—but of course that property was newly furnished and had not been agreed by a landlord yet, so it was likely to be inflated above market value. We should consider using the rental database to track actual agreed rents and give us a more accurate picture of market rents, not just speculative rents.

I have a minute and a half left, so I would like to make one final point—this is my first experience of trying to scribble bits of a speech halfway through. We have heard lots of heartbreaking stories, but I want to bring the House’s attention to Zeke’s story. Zeke was an adorable cat who, just one day shy of his first birthday, ended up in Battersea after his family faced an impossible choice. They loved him dearly but, when it came to finding a rental home that welcomed pets, they hit wall after wall. In the end they had no choice but to give him up. Can you imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, having to choose between a roof over your head and a loyal companion you had raised as part of your family?

Zeke is not alone. Housing is now the second most common reason animals like Zeke end up in shelters—not because their owners did not care, but because the system failed them. We are a nation of animal lovers and nearly two thirds of tenants would love to own a pet—I know that feeling; I was one of them—but for many families it is simply not possible. Properties that allow pets are few and far between, and when they move, pet owners are often forced to choose between a place to live and keeping their pets. That cruel choice leads to heartbreaking stories such as Zeke’s. I warmly welcome the provisions on pets in this Bill, and the many other provisions that I know will make life better for private renters across my constituency and across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

I draw to the House’s attention to the fact that my lovely husband works for the housing charity Shelter. I pay tribute to everyone who today made their maiden speech, which is nerve-racking. Well done; they have been excellent contributions.

I welcome the Bill and thank the Minister for his diligence and personal determination to bring it to the House. It is a truly transformational piece of legislation that will dramatically improve the lives of nearly 10,000 of my constituents in private rented accommodation in Darlington. The Bill delivers on our mission to break down the barriers to opportunity for everyone. In our manifesto, we pledged to offer families security, and I am proud that three months into our Government, we are already forging ahead with that.

In my constituency, we have really wonderful historical housing, from Georgian mansions created to house the giants of the railway industry, to rows of lovely bungalows built to house retired railway workers. Across the town, people take pride in their houses. The creativity shown in people’s gardens, especially as we approach spooky season, brings joy to many of us who live there. That said, while most people live a decent life in my town, too many renting privately are struggling to get what I believe is a fundamental right—a secure and safe home. This Bill will help them.

I will highlight a couple of stories from my constituency to illustrate why we need this legislation. On a dark and rainy evening, I met a woman who was a carer for a family member. She had paid her deposit, and paid her rent on time every month, yet she was not given a legal tenancy. She knew she was vulnerable, but had nowhere to turn. The Bill will give her the right to contact, for free, a new private rented sector ombudsman, who will help her to sort out her situation. The Bill will give our councils the power to administer fines to landlords who refuse to comply with the law.

Another of my constituents’ stories highlights that the Prime Minister’s support for better veterans’ rights is desperately needed. My constituent, a father and a veteran, has been served a section 21 notice, meaning that he will be evicted without grounds. He already has mental health challenges, and his elderly mother has offered to take him in, but she lives in a small bungalow, and fears that that might jeopardise the agreement that gives him shared custody of his daughter. That is a wholly unacceptable way for anyone to be treated, let alone those who have served our country. The Bill will help this family. Banning section 21 no-fault evictions would give him more security.

While I have chosen to highlight two difficult cases, it is vital that I commend the majority of landlords, who do right by their tenants. The Bill will help them, too. I ask the Minister to use the full potential of the landlord database to support tenants and good landlords alike. The landlord database could have a tenant portal, allowing those who are looking for rented property to see the tenancy advantages of having a good landlord. That would put those who do right by their tenants at a competitive advantage. The landlord database could also show aggregated average rents by postcode and property type, and at local authority level, so that tenants and landlords know what a fair rent rise would be; that would alleviate the pressure on tribunals.

I also want to highlight the provision ending discrimination against those in receipt of housing benefit when it comes to renting certain properties. That is long overdue. Those who have been unfairly banned from renting properties—often working mothers—will be helped by the change. Making that discrimination illegal is necessary, given the hugely depleted social housing stock in constituencies such as mine, but I am proud to say that the Government will rebuild the housing stock. On the discrimination clause, I ask the Minister to give due consideration to indirect forms of discrimination, such as the requirement from some landlords for several months’ rent in advance. That is unaffordable for many working people in my constituency. Anything that can be done to stipulate a maximum of a reasonable number of weeks, such as four, would mitigate that.

Finally, the many pet owners and animal lovers across the House will applaud the Bill. I welcome it, and the right of all tenants to secure tenancy, fair rent and good-quality homes for their family and their furry friends.