English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Debate between Mike Reader and David Simmonds

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

As the Committee will remember, I had just covered Ireland. I will now take Committee members across the world to Australia, where a ban on upward-only rent reviews was relatively successfully deployed, as the Minister rightly said. As with Ireland, it is a very different model to what the Government are proposing. In Australia, the responsibility for setting how the model works lies with districts, so there is no Australian model that the UK can copy. In some states, the measure applies by size and sector, and the legislation is very specific to require an upward-only rent review on a size of property and a sector. In others, it applies to sectors. In at least one state, the legislation applies it to the type of business: it applies to landlords that are multinationals but small businesses can be exempt, as I understand it.

The Minister rightly says that the schemes have been applied around the world, but the scheme the Government are proposing has not. It is important that we avoid the unintended consequences of a broad, cover-all scheme. Investment in warehousing logistics, which employs one in five people in my constituency, or in the development of schemes at the Northampton Gateway, at the Daventry international rail freight terminal and right up the M1 corridor, could be hindered by an unintended consequence of our trying to deal with the issue that the Minister talked about—the unfair management of rent on the high street, particularly for small businesses.

I encourage the Minister to go further than the amendment that has been tabled to stop those unintended consequences. The measure could be applied by class of use or by rental value. In evidence, the British Property Federation suggested a £50,000 rental value cap, which would protect small businesses. That could also be specifically allocated in other ways. There are further things we can do if we want to fulfil the aim in the White Paper, which is to protect high streets, while ensuring that we do not impact the future development of health, data centres, logistics, commercial offices and all the other things we need to deliver growth in our country.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

We have some concerns, which are reflected in the amendments I have tabled. As we just heard, countries approach this issue in different ways. Broadly speaking, it sounds like one of the reasons why Ireland did not see an impact on the market was that what was implemented was the end of upward-only rent reviews almost in name only; there were still many other mechanisms that achieved the same outcome, even if that specific one ceased to exist.

Our concern is that we risk creating a number of complex structures for rental agreements that in practice have the same consequence, but without the benefit of upward-only rent reviews, which is that landlords’ certainty about their position in turn encourages investment in our high streets, the availability of the units we want to see, and those units not being turned into residences or repurposed for things other than business. The loss of upward-only rent reviews as part of the toolkit of available options undermines the confidence to invest in our high streets, and in turn undermines the objective, which we all share, of ensuring that they remain vibrant and successful. That is the purpose of the amendments, which I am sure we will come on to in due course. The Minister may have something to say about that, but that is the Opposition’s clear position.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

Many interpretations can be placed on the facts, but it is very clear if we look at the numbers that Government borrowing costs are now significantly higher even than under Liz Truss. It has been a pretty disastrous period for Government finances. If we are to see the measures to which the Minister has just referred succeed, there must be some imperative around building. We cannot simply see a tranche of mayors granting permissions, assembling sites and failing to deliver in the way that Mayor Khan has in London.

[Mike Reader]

The Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for North West Essex, said at the Conservative party conference that she wanted to cut regulation on building, but she was silent on the Government’s consultation on speeding up building. Is this a change of policy? Are the Conservatives now supporting the Government on build-out programmes? Can we look forward to the hon. Gentleman joining us in the Lobby when the proposal comes forward?

[David Simmonds]

It is a nice try by the hon. Member, but I think we know that there have been areas of deregulation where there is a high degree of consensus. In particular, we know that one of the reasons why some of those 1.5 million homes have not been developed is that, after local authorities have granted consent, delays are created by, for example, waiting for permission from the Environment Agency to proceed. There are elements of deregulation that I think we all support, and we can see how they would be of benefit, but where we have mayors such as the Mayor of London who are just abjectly failing, we need to make sure that there is a degree of compulsion so that the homes that our capital city and our country need are delivered.

Just as we would like to see that level of compulsion apply to private sector developers, who can be as guilty of this as Government—they might be land banking or looking at those permissions not as an opportunity to create homes, but simply as a means of creating a tradeable asset—we need a degree of imperative to hold the feet of those mayors to the fire to ensure that the new homes are delivered. I hope the spirit of the Government’s response signals their support for this amendment, which I will press to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.