Renters (Reform) Bill

Debate between Wera Hobhouse and Paul Blomfield

Report stage
Wednesday 24th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

While I respect the views of the hon. and learned Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who raised some valid points about the county court system and the pressures on it, as someone representing a large number of private renters, I must nevertheless express my concerns and share those raised by the shadow Minister and others about the Government’s failure to deliver on their promise on no-fault evictions. I rise, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for students, to comment specifically on the proposals in relation to students, to support new clause 41, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), and to speak to amendment 260, which stands in my name.

Students form a substantial part of the private rented sector. Back in July, the all-party parliamentary group organised a meeting to ensure that their views were heard. We brought together people from different nations of the UK and from all parts of the country. The Minister—sadly, he is not currently in his place—would have found it useful, because it highlighted a number of issues in the Bill that have not been properly thought through. I have discussed with the Minister the issues that came out of our meeting, and I am grateful to him for having found that time, but I want to share some reflections at this point in the Bill’s progress.

First, on the decision to extend grounds for eviction from purpose-built student accommodation to houses in multiple occupation and potentially to other student renters, there are mixed views across the country. Some are worried that exempting students makes them more attractive to less scrupulous landlords as potentially second-class, less protected tenants. Others, though, were concerned that giving students the same protection as other renters would force landlords to leave the student market, with that point made by landlords in areas where there was significant pressure on the housing market. Overall, we reached the same view as the Select Committee: on balance, the exemption is probably right, but it needs to be kept under review.

There is, however, a wider problem with the whole approach to students in the Bill. It seems that the Government have approached students with a one-size-fits-all model: they are undergraduates aged 18 to 21, living away from the parental home from the first time, and living there during term time only. However, students at our meeting were at pains to point out that they are not a homogeneous group. There are mature students who are renting in their home city and need to be there all the time, and students with families. Many courses do not start in September and are not on the cycle on which the Government’s amendments are premised. There are postgraduate taught programmes on a different, longer cycle. There are postgraduate research students on full-time programmes over several years, who are like any young professional. There are mixed households of students and non-students, particularly where groups of friends form and perhaps one member graduates.

I discussed all those variations with the Minister— I am glad to see him back in the Chamber—and his view was that any atypical student would simply not be subject to the exemption, partly because these issues have not been thought through properly. That might be in their favour because they will have greater protection, or it might leave them out in the cold because landlords will find them less attractive within the student market. Again, that emphasises the need to keep the impact of the student proposals under close review.

As the Minister resumes his seat I will move to my amendment 260, which raises a further issue that he referred to: the cycle of student tenancies, which I have discussed with him and on which he was sympathetic. When some of us were students, undergraduates would start university in September, settle in and make friendship groups, and towards the end of the academic year, after Easter, they would start looking for accommodation for the subsequent year. We have seen a landlord-driven arms race, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West referred to it, in which they have pressured students ever earlier in the year to enter into contracts for the subsequent academic year.

It is now the norm in many parts of the country that students starting a course in September are put under pressure by landlords the following month to enter into a contract for the following year. That forces them to pay a substantial deposit at a point in their life when they already have significant additional costs. It also forces them into joint tenancies with groups of people who they might discover later in the year are probably not who they want to live with in the subsequent year. Appeals to landlords to step out of the contract into which they entered are invariably rejected.

As the Government’s proposals are to regulate on the basis of that tenancy cycle, my proposition is that we try to make that cycle work better by saying that designated student contracts should not start sooner than March of the year in which students will take occupation in September. That would be in the interests of tenants, for the reasons that all of us who represent students will know. Setting a defined starting point will also end the arms race, in the interests of landlords.

[Wera Hobhouse]

The tendency that the hon. Gentleman refers to is not new. My daughter, who graduated in 2011 and therefore started in 2008, was already under that pressure. He is right that for a lot of young people it is incredibly difficult to find a group of people they want to live with the following year within a month of arriving at university. His proposals are commendable and I hope the Government are listening.

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. It does vary in different parts of the country, but the way in which it has come earlier and earlier each year, to the ludicrous position where students are being forced into contracts for the subsequent year almost at the moment they start their first year, clearly needs to be addressed. As I said, I have discussed this issue with the Minister. When we talked about it he seemed sympathetic, so I hope it is an issue we can address as the Bill progresses.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Before I start my remarks, I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

My amendments—amendments 39 to 41—all refer to the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. I have raised this issue with the Government for the past two years, after one of my constituents, who is a lecturer in law at Bristol University, came to me with his concerns. To be fair to the Government, the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), had a meeting with that group of academics, but then I heard nothing, which was a little bit disappointing. I have, just this afternoon, received a reply from the Minister. I thank him for that, but it was dated yesterday and only sent to me today. I will look at it very carefully, but it is still important that I raise here what I have to say.

There are two parts to amendment 39, which relates to the law on harassment of a residential occupier. At the moment, the law is complex and confusing, particularly for lay people, and difficult to enforce. I have glanced over the response from the Minister. The Government believe that there is currently enough power of enforcement. As I understand it, the 1977 Act is quite unknown. Local authorities and the police do not know enough about it. I wonder how we can work in that space to ensure that any unintended consequences brought in by the new legislation will not allow rogue landlords, or those who do not want to do the right thing, and refer them to other pieces of legislation.

First, the amendment would change the law so that everyone who is harassing a residential occupier to try to get them to move out of the property is subject to the same law. Currently, if a criminal landlord is harassing the tenant, the law is fairly clear. However, it might be another individual who is harassing the tenant to get them to move out. In this case, the local authority has to try to find out whether the person doing the harassing is an agent acting for the rogue landlord.

There is also often deliberate obscurity about the identity of the landlord. Investigating the relationship between individuals to establish their precise legal relationship is time consuming and unnecessary, where the aim of the legislation is to protect residential occupiers from harassment. The amendment changes the law to make enforcement easier for local authorities. The change will not affect the position of landlords. They will continue to be subject to the same law. It is only the local authority that can prosecute this offence, and it would still need to prove that a rogue landlord, their agent or any other person knew, or had reasonable cause to believe, that their actions would have the result of causing the occupier to leave.

The other thing that the amendment would do is clarify the law. Currently, if a rogue landlord interferes with services that are reasonably required for the occupation of the premises as a household, that can constitute harassment. However, it is not clearly stated what those services are—I can think of essential services, such as electricity, cutting the water off or even changing the locks—so it is important that we take that into consideration. We are not talking about decent landlords, as I have always made very clear. It is about getting to those landlords who are clearly not doing the right thing.

As I said, it is not clearly stated what the services are. Amendment 39 sets out a list of such services, including water, gas and electricity, as well as access to “electronic communications networks and services” as defined in section 32 of the Communications Act 2003.

Amendment 40 deals with three issues. First, the law on whether certain occupiers are protected by the legislation on illegal eviction is very complex, and it can be very difficult to establish. That is because some occupiers—for example, those who live with the landlord—are excluded from the protections in the law and can therefore be evicted without a notice or court order. That creates an incentive for sham arrangements whereby a rogue landlord might pretend to live with a tenant to circumvent the protections in the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. The amendment reverses the burden of proof, placing it on the landlord, who must establish that an occupier is not protected by the law. It is based on the idea that everyone has the basic protection of the law unless they are in an exclusionary category for a good reason. The presumption should be that they are protected.

Cost of Living: Support for Young People

Debate between Wera Hobhouse and Paul Blomfield

Tuesday 18th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Ali. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on securing this important debate. It gives us an opportunity to shine a light on young people, who are often overlooked. In my short remarks, I will focus on students.

The last decade will have a long and significant impact on the younger generation. Many entered their youth in the throes of the financial crisis, went through the pandemic in their formative years and are now experiencing the full force of the cost of living crisis. The latest economic shock is presenting a new set of challenges for young people, particularly students.

I recently met a group of students from Bath Spa University. They are hugely worried about the financial pressures that rampant inflation is placing on them, and their concerns are not unfounded. UK students have seen a 7.5% cut in their maintenance loans. That has had severe consequences: research by the National Union of Students shows that a third of UK students are being forced to live on £50 a month after paying rent and bills. Some are having to choose between feeding themselves and carrying on with their education; many are holding down multiple jobs to make ends meet. Mercy In Action, a local charity in Bath, has seen a fivefold increase in the number of young people and students who need to use its food pantry. Inevitably, students from the poorest backgrounds are disproportionately affected.

The cost of living crisis goes far beyond a purely financial hit. The Bath Spa students I spoke to described how the crisis was causing them considerable stress and anxiety. The Student Value Report showed that nearly two thirds of UK students felt their mental health had been negatively affected, while two fifths of students thought that their physical health had been affected. That is no way to go through a demanding course of study, or to sit and prepare for exams. The Government claim to view economic growth as a priority, but growth is not sustainable unless we support our young people. The students of today will shape our future, and should have ample opportunity to do so. The Prime Minister talks about equality of opportunity, yet she is not giving students the opportunity they need to achieve their potential.

Of course, failing to support students has a knock-on effect on local economies. Student spending supports over £80 billion of economic output: that is crucial for places such as Bath, where over a third of our population is made up of students. If students are struggling, the local communities in which they live will lose out too. To prevent the devastating effects of student poverty, the Government need to tie student support to inflation, as we have already heard, and deliver urgent maintenance grants and bursaries to those who need them.

[Paul Blomfield]

I know that the hon. Member regularly takes up student issues and is a strong advocate for her student constituents. Does she recognise that students, particularly those from poorer backgrounds, went into this crisis already at a disadvantage, not least because the salary threshold for eligibility for maximum loans in England has been frozen at £25,000 since 2008? Does she agree that a simple measure the Government could implement, and should not necessarily rule out, would be to adjust the threshold so that those from poorer backgrounds are more able to access those loans in England?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I thank the hon. Member for that remark—I have to admit that I was not totally aware of the detail, but I fully support what he has said about what needs to be done. It is clear that young people, including those who are now in their 30s, have already lost out because of the financial crisis. We need to support that younger generation, but we also need to support the young people who are coming through now, those who have been at a disadvantage as a result of covid. The least we can do is listen, and the Government need to listen to the recommendations that have been made today and act on them urgently.

As I said, the Government need to tie student support to inflation and deliver urgent maintenance grants and bursaries to those who need them. The cost of doing so would be low compared with other recent Government spending commitments. It would support the vital economic growth on which this Government tell us they are uniquely focused. While I applaud universities that have provided hardship funds, those institutions do not have enough means adequately to protect students in need: that is the responsibility of central Government. The Prime Minister has talked regularly about equality of opportunity and about growth. If this Government are serious about growth, they need to invest in people, especially young people.

Leaving the EU

Debate between Wera Hobhouse and Paul Blomfield

Monday 5th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. He is right that we have not always agreed on these issues over the last four years, but we are in roughly the same place now, in wanting to secure a deal by December—not just any deal but the deal that the Government have pledged. That deal was not described by the Prime Minister as something that might be achieved; he said it was there, ready to go and we just had to press the button. I will return to the specific question of Canada, because it is important.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Is it not also true that it is unfair to say that Brexit was not done in the last three years because of all the people who wanted to delay it, when it was the Tories and the Conservative Government who did not get the deal done? They dithered and argued among themselves, and even decapitated their own Prime Minister. Is it not true that the Conservative party was also to blame for Brexit not getting done for such a long time?

[Paul Blomfield]

Indeed, that is the point I was making a moment ago. The agony within the Conservative party, as it tore itself apart, was a significant delaying factor in getting the deal done.

As a number of Members have said, businesses require certainty. We welcomed the Minister back to her place at Cabinet Office questions last Thursday, and I am delighted to see her on the Front Bench today. I will ask her four specific questions, to which I would be grateful for a reply in her closing remarks.

First, can the Minister guarantee to the automotive sector that it will not face any tariffs from 1 January, in accordance with the Prime Minister’s promise, despite the apparent decision by the Government not to press to secure an agreement on rules of origin?

Secondly, can the Minister assure the financial and legal sectors, which are hugely important to our economy, that the Government’s deal will allow them to do business without new barriers, as the Prime Minister promised?

Thirdly, can the Minister guarantee that there will be no weakening of the arrangements that we have had within the European Union to keep the UK safe from serious international crime and terrorism, and, in particular, that we will retain access to systems such as the European criminal records information system, which shares data about prior convictions across EU countries?

Finally, returning to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), given that the Government have insisted that they want a Canada-style deal, which raises the question of why that is off the table, would the Minister confirm that the Government would be willing to accept the non-regression clause provisions within the EU-Canada deal on workers’ rights and environmental protections? Those are precisely the points that were ripped out of the withdrawal agreement after the December election. If the Government were prepared to accept those, it would be a gamechanger in the negotiations.

Those are straightforward questions because they are all based on promises made by the Prime Minister, so it should be relatively simple for the Minister to say yes to each one of them. If not—I hate to think it—the Government might not have been telling the truth.

The coronavirus pandemic, which is referenced in e-petition 300412, makes it even more important that the Government deliver the deal that the Prime Minister promised, to support jobs, the security of our country, business and people’s livelihoods. As we look to the future, rebuilding from the devastating impact of the virus, we cannot face the additional problems of a disruptive departure from the transition. Covid-19 has taken people’s bandwidth in the civil service, politics and the EU. Businesses have not been able to prepare in the way that they would otherwise have done, because their capacity has been stretched.

It was unfortunate that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in his recent statement to the House, tried to point the finger of blame at businesses for not being prepared. They are not helped by the unanswered questions that remain. Businesses around the country have reasonable questions about trade not only in goods, but in services. The agricultural sector has questions about health, food safety, standards and checks. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) talked about the problems of the pharmaceutical sector. I have talked to many other sectors in my role. Businesses representing critical sectors of the economy simply cannot get a hearing from this Government.

The Government have maintained throughout the coronavirus crisis that they could deliver a deal in the timeframe they have allotted themselves. They will be judged by that promise. As it stands at the moment, they need to get a grip and deliver the deal: not any deal, but the deal they promised last December; the deal that we need for the country to move on.