Homelessness: Young Adults

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Baroness Taylor of Stevenage

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate makes a key point about supporting young people leaving prison. We have provided an uplift of £192.9 million to the homelessness prevention grant, which brings the total funding up to £633 million, the largest investment in that grant since it began. We are also setting out our plans in relation to all types of homelessness and housing in a housing strategy that will come forward later in the year. The ministerial working group on homelessness is paying particular attention to homelessness among young people, because we know the long-term damage it can do.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, in light of the rising rates of youth homelessness, can the Minister let me know how much of the £1 billion grant that has gone to local authorities has been specifically directed to homelessness among young people—or has none of it been directed? If not, why not?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We trust our colleagues in local government to direct money to where it is most needed. We will be looking, under the ministerial working group that is looking at homelessness, to see whether we need to take any further specific action on youth homelessness, but our colleagues in local government are very good at making sure they tackle the areas of most need in their local areas.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Baroness Taylor of Stevenage

Monday 28th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

That is completely correct. We need to make sure we are taking account of the impact on the system from the start. We believe that over time it will reduce the volume of cases going to the court service. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, pointed out, not many cases end up in the courts system, but there are some that go down that route. We will be monitoring them from the outset.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

On that point, I have just gone online and it is still being quoted that there is a seven-month delay, as my noble friend Lord Northbrook said. If it becomes clear during the process leading to the implementation of the Bill that the courts cannot cope and it will have a severe impact on people’s lives—the lives of both landlords and tenants—will His Majesty’s Government be brave enough to slow down the implementation of this Bill?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As I hope I have already made clear, we do not want to slow down implementation. We think the reforms we are bringing forward are really important and very much overdue. We do not expect that it will have the impact the noble Baroness has just outlined, but we will continue to monitor it and we will support our friends in the courts service with whatever help they need to make sure the impact is mitigated.

I turn finally to Amendments 279 and 280, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. I thank the noble Lord for his continued engagement on the Bill, particularly on the judicial impacts. It has been incredibly valuable to me to have that input. Amendment 280 would require the Secretary of State to certify that landlord possession actions in respect of residential property are processed by the courts in no greater time, on average, than they were in the year before the first Covid-19 lockdown. In addition, Amendment 279 would delay the commencement of important reforms until this proposed assessment had been carried out.

As I have previously outlined, I recognise that landlords need a smooth and efficient process in the county court for the minority of cases where court action for possession becomes necessary. But we will not tie the implementation of these urgent reforms to an arbitrary target of court timeliness. The sector has already waited too long.

As noted, the Ministry of Justice already publishes quarterly statistics on the operation of the county court possession process, and court rules specify that possession cases requiring a hearing should be listed between four and eight weeks from the issue of the claim. If the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, says that that figure is still disputed, I am happy to get back to her on that.

Setting a target for the possession process as a gateway for the operation of other Bill provisions would not be meaningful. A key stage of the process is the application for a warrant of possession. This is dependent on the actions of the landlord and is therefore outside the control of the courts service. Where a tenant stays in a property beyond the date set out in the possession order, a landlord can choose whether to apply for a warrant immediately to enforce a possession order granted by the court, and whether to apply to transfer the case to the High Court. We will continue to work closely with the Ministry of Justice on implementing these reforms. This includes ensuring that the county court has the resources it needs to adjust to any changes in case loads, and that the relevant rules and procedures are updated. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, requested a meeting. I am very happy to continue meeting on the progress of digitisation and the other interim steps that we are likely to take.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl for clarifying that point. Indeed, I was talking about the claims to order median timeliness being eight weeks. It is difficult to take measures from different places—there are lies, damned lies and statistics, as we all know—but, as I mentioned, in the longer term we expect the reforms we are introducing to reduce the volume of possession claims. That is why the monitoring that I set out in response to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, is really important, so that we can see where this is taking us. We expect that only those cases where there is a clear, well-evidenced ground for possession will be able to proceed, and that should, over time, reduce the volumes overall.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the insightful contributions made during this debate and the amendments we have discussed, particularly those proposed by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. I thank my noble friend Lord Wolfson for speaking to them with such in-depth knowledge, which was much appreciated. The whole debate underscores shared concerns across the Committee about the capacity of our courts to effectively implement the Bill.

As I made clear throughout the previous days in Committee, the ambition to reform the private rented sector is commendable, yet without a robust and adequately resourced court system, these reforms risk being totally undermined. Amendments 283 and 69 in my name would create a foundational aim to ensure that the necessary infrastructure is in place before significant changes are enacted, thereby safeguarding the interests of both tenants and landlords.

The Minister remarked on the first day of Committee and has continued to say that the Government are working with the Ministry of Justice to complete a justice impact test. This assessment is intended to identify the additional burdens on the system arising from the new policies in the Bill and to ensure that the system is fully prepared for any increases in workload. This commitment is welcomed, but we need to know how long this justice impact test will take to complete. Will it be ready before the Bill progresses through Parliament? Given the significant implications for the court system, it is imperative that this assessment is thorough and timely and that the Bill is impacted only once we know the court system is ready for these changes.

The capacity of our courts is not a peripheral concern; it is central to the success of this legislation. As we have discussed, delays in the court process are not merely procedural; they have a real-world consequence for tenants and landlords alike. I urge the Minister to expediate the impact test and to ensure its findings are fully considered before any further steps are taken. I reiterate the importance of aligning the ambition of the Bill with the practical realities of our court system. The amendments before us provide a prudent approach to achieving this balance. I look forward to the Minister’s response and to continuing our discussions on how best to deliver. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment at this point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for bringing Amendment 70 before the Committee today. It is a thoughtful and considered probing amendment that rightly recognises the significant impact that housing stability can have on a child’s education. During the pandemic, our children and grandchildren suffered greatly. Schools were closed, youth clubs shut down and extracurricular activities ground to a halt. The disruption left many young people adrift at a crucial stage of their development, and only now are we beginning to understand the effects. It is therefore incumbent on us all to support and uplift the next generation. However, the Government must ensure that the burden does not fall disproportionately on individual landlords. It is not, and should not be, their moral obligation to serve as the final safety net for vulnerable families. That responsibility lies with us—with the state, with local authorities and with society.

Owning a property does not automatically confer great wealth. It does not equip an individual to shoulder the complex needs of a struggling family. The Government must tread carefully to ensure that their actions do not drive up costs in this sector, which fall most heavily and disproportionately on low-income families and the most vulnerable members of our society. A sustainable housing market depends on both tenant security and landlords’ confidence. This is a very tough balance to strike, but I believe that the onus is on us all to strike it.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her amendment, which would allow the court to grant an order for possession of a property that houses school-aged children only during school holidays, and I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Scott, for their comments. I understand the probing nature of the amendment and the compassion that sits behind it. However, I gently point out that at the latest count, we have 160,000 children in temporary and emergency accommodation, a situation driven by the lack of attention to the housing situation paid by her Government. Therefore, while we want to do as much as we can to support families and children, I think it takes quite a lot of front to come before this Committee with this kind of proposal when we have that terrible situation of 160,000 children in temporary and emergency accommodation. I heard this morning of a three year-old who has been homeless for his entire life—astonishing.

Anyway, I appreciate the sentiment; however, I am going to talk about the practicality of delivering it. It would likely mean that, where possession has been sought, the courts would need to check whether the property contains school-age children and whether it is the school holidays or not, before scheduling a hearing. Not only would this create additional work for the courts—we have just spent quite some time debating the pressure the courts are already under—it could cause delays for landlords in obtaining possession orders. That is an issue the Opposition have taken great interest in. For example, a landlord’s case could be next in line to be heard, but, because it is the beginning of the school summer holidays, the hearing would be delayed for six weeks.

Furthermore, although provision is made within the amendment for regulations to be made annually to define the school periods, it would be an onerous task. School holidays vary across local authority areas and sectors; they can even vary within an individual area. My grandchildren live at the same address but go to different schools and have different holidays. This would likely cause confusion and added complexity for landlords who wish to seek possession of their properties.

While it is absolutely right that tenants enjoy a greater level of security in their homes, we have said that landlords must enjoy robust grounds for possession where there is good reason for them to seek to take their property back. It would not be reasonable to add additional barriers, complexities or delays to the possession process.

Our reforms give renters much greater security and stability, so they can stay in their homes for longer, build lives and communities and avoid the risk of homelessness. That is why we are introducing the many protections for tenants, such as banning Section 21 evictions, increasing notice periods and introducing a 12-month protected period at the beginning of a tenancy during which landlords cannot evict them to move into or sell the property. However, that must be balanced with the needs of landlords, who must enjoy those robust grounds we have already spoken about. Judges already have some discretion when deciding the date on which a tenant should give up possession. Even if an outright possession order is made, pursuant to a Section 21 notice or on a mandatory ground, the date for possession can be postponed for up to six weeks if a tenant can show that this would cause exceptional hardship.

As well as it being impractical, there is also a principled argument against this amendment. Being evicted will almost always be a significant upheaval for tenants—I accept that—particularly for those with children, so I understand the intent behind it. However, it would not necessarily—as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, pointed out—always be easier for parents to deal with a possession order or eviction during the school holidays. During termtime, parents may have significantly fewer caring responsibilities, particularly if their children are younger. Therefore, many parents find the school holidays a time of increased responsibility and stress. Families being evicted during school holidays may also mean having to take up that school holiday with the necessities of moving, rather than doing activities with the children. So it may make it more difficult for families, not easier. It is for these reasons, both practical and principled, that I ask for this amendment to be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am not saying that; I am saying that the penalty for the person challenging their rent would be in the debt that accrued from the backdating. That is the point I was trying to make.

Amendment 97 is a consequential amendment linked to Amendment 94 which aims to ensure that, where a tenant challenges a rent increase notice at the tribunal, any rent increase determined by the tribunal would be backdated to the date on a Section 13 notice. I have already set out why the Government do not agree tenants should be forced to pay backdated rent.

Amendments 96 and 98, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, should be considered in the light of his Amendment 103. Amendment 96 would allow a rent increase to be backdated to the date of the notice. It would, however, limit this to cases where the tribunal has determined that the rent increase proposed by the landlord is the same as or lower than the market rate.

Amendment 98 would similarly change when the rent increases apply after the tribunal determines a rent. It would mean that, if the tribunal finds that a landlord’s proposed rent is lower than the market rate, the rent increase would take effect from the date the landlord originally intended. However, where a landlord has proposed a rent above the open market rate, it would apply from a date on or after the date of the tribunal hearing. I understand the noble Lord’s concerns about the potential for the courts to be overwhelmed. We have had extensive discussions on this capacity issue.

I believe I answered his points around the ECHR in response to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, last week, but I am happy to take that back to the department’s lawyers again. I have also responded previously to the noble Lord’s points about the impact on build-to-rent investment. The Government do not agree that tenants should be forced to pay backdated rent.

I have more amendments to get through, but I see that I am out of time. If noble Lords are happy for me to carry on, I will.

Amendment 99, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, seeks to backdate a rent increase to the date of the notice. It provides that tenants may either pay the backdated rent in one payment or in 12 equal instalments. Amendment 104 is consequential to Amendment 99 and seeks to define the terms “the uplifted rent” and “the rent difference”. Amendment 101, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking, similarly proposes that tenants pay a backdated rent increase in equal instalments for a period of up to six months after the date of the tribunal’s determination. I am sympathetic to the underlying premise of these amendments, which is that tenants might face financial problems in paying a rent increase approved by the tribunal. Although these amendments seek to smooth out the impact of an increase, it is much better to remove the cause of the problem, which our current policy achieves by ruling out backdating in the first place. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press these amendments.

Amendment 100, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking, seeks to remove the tribunal’s ability to delay a rent increase for up to two months after the date of determination in cases of undue hardship. The Government strongly believe that being able to defer rent increases for a short period is a necessary protection for renters. This will give them time to adjust and consider their options, while ensuring that the landlord can achieve market rent. I therefore ask my noble friend not to press his amendment.

Finally—noble Lords will be pleased to hear that—Amendment 106, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would require the Secretary of State to carry out a consultation on the resources available to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). My department has worked closely with His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service and the Ministry of Justice throughout the formulation of this Bill. This collaboration has carefully considered implementation and resourcing issues. Our shared aim is that the tribunals are well equipped to implement our reforms effectively, as I have repeated a number of times during our debates. Work is progressing in the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) to increase capacity, as well as to review resource and working practices. The noble Baroness’s amendment understandably reflects the need to ensure the tribunals are equipped to implement these reforms, but the proposed consultation would not provide any new information beyond the work that is already under way. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Baroness not to press this amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, as expected, this has been a technical and densely packed group of amendments, with numerous contributions from noble Lords who clearly possess deep knowledge of this Bill. I have found their insights invaluable, and I trust the Government will reflect seriously on the points raised today.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, for rightly seeking clarification on the mechanism available to social housing providers to increase rents. Amendments 80, 80A, 82 and 83 are thoughtful probing amendments and we thank the noble Baroness for bringing these to the attention of everyone in the Committee today. This is an important issue for both social housing providers and for tenants living in social housing. Clear rules and understandable mechanisms build trust and transparency. Furthermore, a standardised approach, underpinned by clear and consistent rules, ensures confidence in the process that governs rent and tenancy management. The Government have a duty to communicate these mechanisms, not only to this House but to those forced to respond to this incoming legislation. In fact, I would argue that the latter is much more important. As we have repeatedly noted throughout Committee, this legislation is technical and detailed, and so the Minister has an obligation to clarify. I trust she will welcome any further amendments brought forward with the purpose of testing and probing the Government’s rationale and decision-making process.

I now turn to Amendment 87, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich. Any amendment brought to the attention of this Committee which seeks to alleviate the pressures on the tribunal process must be considered by the Government. This is an important area, and the noble Baroness should be commended for putting forward ideas to help filter out appeals which simply do not have any prospect of success. Prolonged uncertainty is not good for the landlord or the tenant. Delays in resolving disputes will keep both parties up at night and add to the pressures of everyday life. Additionally, backlogs will reduce confidence in the system and many will lose faith with that service as a legitimate protector of their interests. This is not an exhaustive description of all the issues arising from an overburdened system, but it highlights the serious risks we face if these concerns are not addressed.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, rightly highlighted the critical issue of resourcing within the tribunal system. This is a thoughtful amendment which clearly commands support. Ensuring that the tribunal system is adequately resourced is vital. The Secretary of State must take responsibility for ensuring that their own policies do not undermine or overwhelm the very system intended to deliver justice and security for tenants and landlords alike. My noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, among many others, spoke with his usual vigour and clarity on this issue. On many issues in Committee he has shown his understanding that it is only by striking the right balance in this legislation—I will say it again—that we can we hope to achieve an efficient and effective rental market for the future.

Amendment 88, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, seeks to reduce the backlog by adding a drawback or consequence of taking a case to tribunal if unsuccessful. I recognise the determination of the noble Lord to take the pressure off the tribunal system.

Amendment 90, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, raises an interesting probing issue in relation to government grants. I was interested to hear that the Minister is going to look into this further. I welcome that and will be interested in what she comes forward with.

I turn to Amendments 91, 94, 97 and 100, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. The Committee is right to consider amendments that tighten up and clarify the timing of when a rent increase or notice becomes effective. The Committee is also right to explore options that ensure a predictable timeline for this process, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for tabling these amendments.

Lastly, I briefly allude to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. Amendment 104 highlights the importance of clear, conscious definitions within law. Definitions provide certainty and consistency in application, and every Bill should have well-defined terms. Our courts rely on this, our public bodies rely on it and those who are expected to follow the law deserve it. I hope that the Minister agrees with this principle.

Next, Amendment 99, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is a useful probe into rent tribunals. To remind the Committee, this amendment would ensure that, if a rent challenge were unsuccessful, the reviewed rent would apply from the date that the increase was due to take effect, rather than the end of the legal process. We must consider the incentives and signals that the legislation sends to tenants, but additionally we must seek to protect landlords from financial losses caused by legal delays firmly out of their own control. I listened to what the Minister said on this, but we will be bringing this back for further discussion in the future. Across the Committee, we must consider proposals that ensure that tenants are not hit with sudden, unaffordable lump sums, but also ensure that landlords are properly compensated for a lawful rent increase. This amendment would bring this consideration front and centre, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for speaking to it today.

Briefly, Amendments 96, 98 and 103, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, are interesting and quite thoughtful proposals. Where it is possible to do so fairly, rent should indeed be determined at the open market rate. Ensuring that rents reflect genuine market conditions helps to maintain balance and fairness in the market, for both tenants and landlords.

This was a packed and detailed group, with numerous proposals from across the Committee. Not only did I find it a fascinating debate, but once again it highlighted noble Lords’ understanding of the key issues facing the sector. I hope the Minister is listening carefully to the knowledge and expertise across this Chamber and can therefore help the Government make this a successful Bill at the end of the process. We have to ensure that we can enhance the availability of houses, alleviate the burden of unaffordable rents and really deliver security for tenants. Right across the Committee, we agree that renters need a better deal, but I fear that this group is yet another part of the story and, as it stands, the Bill is not quite the answer. However, at this time, I wish to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Market rates are usually driven by demand, not by what happens in the courts, so I do not think that will be the case.

On Amendment 95, for too long tenants have been afraid to challenge an unreasonable rent increase for the fear that the rent can be raised beyond what the landlord has asked for. The Bill will reform how the tribunal works to ensure that tenants feel confident in challenging poor practice and can enforce their rights. The tribunal will not be able to increase rent beyond what the landlord initially proposed. That strikes the right balance between empowering tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases and ensuring that landlords can increase to the market rent.

Amendment 95 would require the tribunal to backdate a rent increase to the date of the rent increase notice, except where this is likely to cause undue hardship to the tenant. This amendment would punish the most vulnerable tenants who may already be struggling financially. Therefore, to ensure tenants are not unexpectedly thrust into debt, it is right that the new rent amount would take effect no earlier than the date of the tribunal determination. This will give tenants the time to prepare for any changes to their rent and seek independent advice on how best to manage their finances. For the sake of clarity, I repeat that the tenant will continue to pay the rent that they were paying before—it is the increase in the rent that is being challenged through this process.

Turning to Amendment 102, I reiterate that applying to the tribunal should be a last resort for a tenant. Good landlords and tenants will discuss what rent is sustainable for both parties but, if they cannot come to an agreement, a tenant has the right to challenge a rent increase at tribunal. As I have said, for too long tenants have been afraid to do that. I note, too, that the Opposition once supported our position on this matter. Their original White Paper said the tribunal will no longer have the power to increase the rent above the amount the landlord asked for. It is regrettable that they now disagree with themselves and want to make it easier for tenants to be evicted by the backdoor.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Can the Minister explain this? If a tribunal is taking quite a long time, then the decision is made and any increase happens from the date of that tribunal’s decision, and the landlord can go to a tribunal only every 12 months, does that 12 months start from the date of the tribunal’s decision, or can it go back six, seven or eight months prior, so that it could be nearly two years rather than one year?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I understand the noble Baroness’s question. My understanding is that the year starts from the date the tribunal decisions are made, but I will check that and write to her.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

So you could lose six or eight months—it could be nearly two years. If the Minister could confirm that, it would be useful.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will clarify that in the letter.

Amendment 105 would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the impact of Clause 8 on the First-tier Tribunal, and to consult the Competition and Markets Authority on whether further measures are needed to prevent distortion of the rental market by the tribunal’s determinations on rent. As I have made clear on similar amendments, the department is already collaborating extensively with His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service, as well as the Ministry of Justice, to ensure that the property chamber of the First-tier Tribunal is prepared for the implementation of the Bill, including any changes to its role in determining rent.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Baroness Taylor of Stevenage

Thursday 24th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group represent yet another instance where the rights of renters intersect with those of landlords. This group of amendments is indicative of the broader Bill and, rather than increasing the availability of homes, we believe it risks reducing the supply of rental properties. This could drive up costs for renters at a time when the cost of renting has already risen significantly. It is, of course, important to make sure that the legal framework which governs this relationship protects those who are renting, but we cannot forget the landlords. They should also have their rights upheld. Landlords should have their rights over their properties respected and retain the ability to recover possession of their homes when they need to.

I start by speaking to Amendments 24 and 30, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe. They assume that the landlord is in some way liable to pay compensation for exercising rights, which surely are theirs by virtue of the fact that they actually own the property. Determining when in specific cases compensation is required is surely the responsibility of a court. To assume that compensation is always required tips the balance against the landlords and would likely discourage many responsible, principled landlords from entering the market and meeting the high demand for rented properties that we see across the country.

In the same vein, Amendments 26 and 27, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would place an administrative burden on landlords, which would have a dampening effect on the housing market. Houses are important personal assets. Piling on layers of regulation will further suffocate the market and limit the agency of landlords to use the assets that they own.

Conversely, we believe that Amendments 60 and 61, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, strike an appropriate balance, recognising that landlords need to be protected from bad actors, who could have a devastating financial effect on them. Landlords should not be punished for supplying rental properties to the market. Maintaining the existing possession grounds for rent arrears would mean that they can operate in the market with confidence that they will not be left out of pocket.

Amendments 63 and 64, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord de Clifford, further speak to the fact that landlords should retain the right to make use of their own property as they see fit. It is neither the role nor the place of government to dictate to home owners how their personal property should be used.

Amendment 71, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, seeks to conflate the rights of the landlords with their responsibilities. The landlord, by owning the property, has the right to make decisions about how that property is used. The tenant, in renting from that landlord, is expected to respect the rights of the landlord as the property owner. This relationship does not in any way suggest that the landlord should be liable to forgo income while still providing the service. This measure would clearly disadvantage landlords in their legal relationship with their tenant and would depress the market, which is already undersaturated.

Finally, I welcome that Amendments 142, 165 and 166, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Hacking, strike the appropriate balance between the rights of the renters and the rights of the landlord. We need to remember that we are talking about a market, which requires flexibility and adaptability so that it works for consumers and providers. Allowing landlords to make these decisions without being hamstrung by long-term obligations means that they can act in the mutual interest. A flourishing market benefits renters as much as landlords. This balance is imperative to achieve a flourishing market. I urge the Government further to consider, between now and Report, this crucial balance between landlords and tenants, most importantly to protect the tenants in this sector.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lady Warwick and Lord Hacking, the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill, Lady Grender, Lady Jones, Lady Bowles, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Scott, the noble Lords, Lord Carter, Lord Carrington, Lord de Clifford, Lord Cromwell, Lord Northbrook and Lord Pannick, and the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for their amendments and comments during this debate. It was great to hear from the noble Earl about the long-term tenancies that he has, of 21 to 45 years. I made the point at Second Reading and on Tuesday about the symbiotic relationship that can and should exist between landlords and tenants. Our aim is to foster that relationship and the balance that makes it work properly as we go through the process of this Bill.

Amendment 24 and Amendment 30 seek to make possession under ground 6B contingent on compensation being first paid by the landlord to the tenant. Amendment 24 specifically prevents a court making an order for possession unless compensation has been paid; Amendment 30 sets out that landlords must pay compensation at a level set by the Secretary of State in regulation before they can take possession. Ground 6B allows a landlord to evict tenants where they are subject to enforcement action and eviction is the only way that they can comply. It is intended to prevent landlords ending up in the legal limbo of having broken the law but having no route to comply with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments. Amendments 32, 33 and 34 seek to expand the definition of a family member for the purposes of possession ground 1. This mandatory possession ground is available if the landlord or their close family member wishes to move into the property. These amendments widen the ground to allow a landlord to claim possession from an existing tenant to move in relatives of their spouse, partner or co-habitee, along with nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles or cousins.

In choosing which of the landlord’s family members can move in under ground 1, we have reflected the diversity of modern families while drawing a line short of where some might wish. But we are of the view that to expand the ground any further would diminish tenant protections too far. It would open tenants up to evictions from a wide range of people—potentially very significant numbers indeed where families are large—while providing more opportunity for ill-intentioned landlords to abuse the system.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked why “family member” is used in Clause 21 while close family member is used in the moving-in ground. The moving-in ground is designed for very specific circumstances where a landlord’s family member is in need of accommodation, so it is right that this definition is narrower, as tenants risk losing their home. New Section 16N of the Housing Act 1988, “Guarantor not liable for rent payable after the tenant’s death”, as inserted by Clause 21, is specifically targeted to stop those grieving being held liable after a tenancy should have been ended, and it is right that this is a broader protection. The use of guarantors is wide ranging and, as such, a wider definition is needed to encompass all relevant persons. However, that is not the case when a tenant is facing eviction from a property.

For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister. These amendments may appear complicated in their drafting, but they have one simple objective which is to deliver a consistent definition of the family across the Bill. While I am very disappointed that the Government do not feel able to accept the amendment today, I hope that the Minister is willing to discuss a way to resolve this inconsistency in future meetings as we make progress on the Bill.

The law should be as simple as possible and, crucially, consistent, so that those who have to deal with the legislation in the real world can do so without unnecessary confusion. It is clear that two different definitions of the family will create confusion. A consistent definition would prevent that confusion. While I reserve the right to bring this back on Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for bringing a debate on possession grounds. This is an important issue, as it ensures that a landlord—who is often also the employer—can regain possession of a property when it is needed to house a new employee.

I will address Amendments 48, 49, 51 and 52, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. These amendments raise an important and complex issue concerning agricultural tenancies, particularly in the light of the proposed reforms to tenancy law, including the abolition of fixed terms and the removal of Section 21 no-fault evictions.

At present, agricultural landlords can avoid creating an agricultural assured occupancy—an AAO—by serving notice before the tenancy begins, thereby establishing it as an assured shorthold tenancy, or AST. This provides access to Section 21, which allows landlords to regain possession without the need to demonstrate fault. It is a mechanism widely relied on in the agricultural sector, where housing is often tied to employment or operational needs. With the removal of Section 21, this option will no longer be available. As a result, there will be a significant shift in the way in which agricultural landlords recover their properties. We must ensure that alternative grounds for possession are workable and fair, and can lead to the recovery of a property.

I do not suggest that there are easy answers here. However, I believe that this area requires careful scrutiny and targeted solutions. I believe the noble Lord’s amendments offer a useful starting point for this discussion and he has rightly brought this to the attention of the House. I urge the Government to consider these issues closely and to engage further with agricultural landlords to ensure that they have the means to house new farmers under their employment.

Finally, I will talk to the remaining amendments in this group: Amendments 50, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 63. We must recognise the value of maintaining the availability of essential employment-linked housing and consider how best to safeguard it in practice. This of course must have thoughtful consideration, as the implications of any decision made affect not only the landlord and the employer but the broader rental market. I hope the Government will give serious consideration to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, as part of a broader and much-needed discussion on how landlords can fairly regain possession of a property when a tenancy is tied to employment that has come to an end. I have milked many cows in my life, and even at Easter I was lambing ewes, so I know a lot about this.

Many roles with occupational housing are time-sensitive and hands-on. A new employee may require immediate access to the same accommodation as the previous employee in order to perform their duties. Herdsmen and herdswomen are often up at 3.30 in the morning to begin milking and shepherds may be lambing right through the night into the dawn, and for their own welfare as a family they need to be on site to fulfil that role. Animal welfare on farms also requires staff to immediately be available at all times, whether it is for calving, lambing, farrowing or just for sick animals, so accommodation on site is absolutely critical. The same applies to those managing diversification of agricultural properties and businesses, managing holiday accommodation or providing security for storage facilities on the farm, for example.

Failure to ensure timely access to such housing can have significant operational impacts. It can delay essential work and place considerable strain on the profit-making enterprises already operating within tight margins. This debate is therefore not only about the protection of property rights; it is fundamental to supporting those agricultural businesses, the people employed in them and the welfare of the stock on those farms, which rely so heavily on occupational housing as a practical necessity.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for these amendments relating to agricultural tenancies, and thank him, the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their obvious farming expertise as they have taken us through the rationale for the amendments. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for her comments about the long relationships that are often prevalent in rural tenancies. It is important to make the point that one of the aims of the Bill is to facilitate those longer tenancy relationships.

I will make a few general comments, particularly that we appreciate that the agricultural sector has distinct requirements, and it is often vital for workers to live on-site to carry out their duties, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, very ably described to us. That is why we have included ground 5A. However, this must be balanced with the needs of the wider rural community. This ground balances both. It allows agricultural workers to be housed while protecting other tenants who may work in critical local jobs.

Widening the ground—for example, to include contractors—could, we believe, open the ground to abuse and decrease rural security of tenure. For example, a landlord could contract someone to do a nominal amount of agricultural work for their business and, on that basis, use the expanded ground to evict a tenant in respect of whom no other grounds were available.

The noble Earl, Lord Leicester, talked about the self-employed and contractors. We recognise that it is sometimes necessary for landlords to move tenants on where accommodation is intended for a particular purpose, and understand that employee accommodation plays a critical role for many employers, so we are strengthening the possession ground by making it mandatory. It would not be right to broaden the ground too much, and thereby reduce the security of tenure for more tenancies, as this would be contradictory to the purpose of the Bill.

There are other arrangements that a landlord can use to help their contractors with accommodation when they are working away from their home, such as paying expenses for the contractor to make their own arrangements, using licences to occupy, or paying for them to be hosted in an Airbnb. As people working away from their home are often working on short-term projects—for example, in the construction industry—tenancy agreements are unlikely to be the right solution in these circumstances.

Taken together, Amendments 48 to 53 would expand the types of agricultural worker that other rural tenants can be evicted in order to house. Amendment 48 replaces the word “person” in the ground with the term “agricultural worker”. As I have discussed, we do not support the overall intent of these amendments, which would reduce security of tenure for all rural tenants with a landlord engaged in agriculture.

Amendment 49 removes the requirement for the incoming tenant to be employed by the landlord, replacing it with a broader definition of “working for a business operated” by the landlord. Amendment 50 specifically mentions service occupants, who are defined later. Amendment 51 changes the wording of the ground from “employee” to the broader “agricultural worker”. Amendment 52 adds a definition of “agricultural worker” for the purposes of the ground which is far broader than an employee. Amendment 53 defines “service occupier” for the purpose of the ground.

The current drafting of ground 5A allows for tenants to be evicted only in order to house employees. Together, these amendments expand this group to include service occupants, contractors and self-employed persons. This definition is far too broad and would endanger security of tenure for existing rural tenants. It would give a landlord running an agricultural business a much freer hand to evict anyone living in their property by, for example, creating a contract with another person to do a nominal amount of work for them. It is just not the right balance. Rural tenants do not deserve less security than others, and the amendments proposed would open up tenants renting from a landlord involved in agriculture to being evicted in a much wider range of circumstances. For this reason, I ask for Amendment 48 to be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Can the Minister explain how this scenario will work? It happens quite a lot, particularly on dairy farms, in my experience. Let us say that an employee milking as a herdsman, living in the one herdsman’s property on the farm, leaves at quite short notice. The day after that employee goes, the cows still have to be milked. The only way to get somebody in quickly to milk them is on contract—that is an easy way of doing it. How will you get that person living close enough to be able to look after the welfare of that herd of cows and milk them twice or three times a day when you do not have any property because you cannot get rid of the employee who has left?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Presumably there would be a time lag anyway because of the notice period that is required. Whatever arrangements are made in those circumstances would need to be used in the circumstances that the noble Baroness describes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope that I can explain this very quickly and simply. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendment regarding the form of notice for proceedings. Clause 6 allows the Secretary of State to publish the prescribed form to be used when landlords serve notice of intention to begin possession proceedings. The form will continue to be published on GOV.UK. Amendment 68 by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would not affect whether the Government are required to prescribe that form. This requirement is already laid out in Section 8(3) of the Housing Act 1988 and is not repealed by any measure in the Renters’ Rights Bill.

Clause 6 provides that regulations may allow the Secretary of State to publish and update the required form without the need for any updates to be made by way of statutory instrument, as is currently the case. It is crucial that the information that landlords are required to provide reflects current law. This clause will allow regulations to be made so that we can update the forms at speed and respond to changing circumstances. As the notice of possession proceedings remains a prescribed form under Section 8(3) of the Housing Act 1988, the requirement for the Government to prescribe the form persists; however, Clause 6 provides a simpler mechanism in which the form can be updated—it is the mechanism that changes.

I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. I am afraid that I am still confused, and what I would like to do is to read her explanation in Hansard and reserve the right to bring this back if we do not think that it is clear. It did not quite make sense to me, but I am sure that it might if I read it in the next couple of days. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Baroness Taylor of Stevenage

Thursday 24th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing these amendments before the House and for clearly setting out the minor and technical corrections to the legislation. Ensuring legal consistency is crucial, and aligning the wording with the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 will help maintain uniformity across legislation.

As we will discover in coming days, the agricultural aspects of the Bill are both detailed and complex, containing numerous references to specialised terminology. Any technical amendments that help harmonise such language are most welcome on these Benches.

I trust the Minister will continue to approach these proceedings with a collaborative and constructive mindset. These amendments demonstrate that the legislation, as drafted, is not beyond improvement, and we welcome the Government’s recognition of that fact. It is our hope that suggestions from your Lordships’ House are given due consideration and are not dismissed too readily from the Dispatch Box.

We trust that the Minister will also view forthcoming amendments in the spirit intended: to test and to probe the Government’s rationale in pursuing particular policy choices, particularly when it comes to the inclusion or the omission of specific clauses and definitions in the Bill. We are grateful for the opportunity to raise these important issues and we welcome continued constructive dialogue on how we can best improve the technical framework of the legislation.

On that note, I wish to ask further questions of the Government on government Amendment 183. From our understanding, this amends the Charities Act, as the Minister said, to ensure that the disposition of leases which are assured tenancies will be subject to that Act. However, as she said, the requirement to obtain a written report from an independent property adviser could be costly. The costs of these reports vary, and they can impose a significant burden on whoever is footing the bill for them. So I would be grateful if the Minister could just clarify in writing that no charities will be required to obtain this particular report and, if there are some that will continue to need it, can she set out the conditions on which those reports from an independent adviser will be required?

If trustees do not comply with the law, they may be personally liable if this report is required and they do not do it; therefore, it is really important that we get absolute clarity on who, if anybody, will be required to do that. I reiterate the importance of keeping the core text of the Bill simple and, where possible, as focused as we can.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Just to respond briefly to the noble Baroness, I understand that the change to the Charities Act 2011 means that charities would not be required to obtain the designated adviser report prior to granting. They would be required to obtain advice and consider whether the terms of the lease are the best that can be reasonably obtained by the charity; that would be the requirement for trustees. But I will respond in writing to the noble Baroness just to confirm that that is the case.

Housing: New Homes Target

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Baroness Taylor of Stevenage

Thursday 24th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, but does the Minister agree with the OBR’s experts that the Government are set to miss their 1.5 million homes target?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness. The OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook forecast net additions to the UK housing stock to be 1.3 million, but we have to take alongside that the work that we have done since then on skills, the new homes accelerator and government funding for social and affordable housing. The trajectory of all that is very much in the right direction. We know there is more work to do; we are determined to do it; and we are very happy to stick with our ambitious target.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Baroness Taylor of Stevenage

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments relating to anti-social behaviour, and I agree with her powerful statement on ASB. As a councillor, I saw at first hand, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Eaton, did, the utter misery that is caused to individuals and communities through the irresponsible actions of others and I properly understand why it is important that we have provisions to tackle it.

Amendment 14 seeks to reintroduce social landlords’ ability to apply for a demotion order in response to the anti-social behaviour of a tenant. This amendment seeks to enable landlords to demote social tenants to a less secure form of tenancy because of anti-social behaviour. However, the amendment as drafted would not work; the Renters’ Rights Bill will move tenants to a simpler tenancy structure where assured shorthold tenancies and the ability to evict shorthold tenants via Section 21 are abolished. There will therefore no longer be a tenancy with lower security to demote tenants to. To work, it would require a reversal of measures in the Bill to remove demoted tenancies and assured shorthold tenancies; that is the issue with the amendment as drafted.

I reassure the noble Baroness that tackling anti-social behaviour is a top priority for our Government and a key part of our safer streets mission. The Bill will shorten the notice period for the existing mandatory eviction ground, with landlords being able to make a claim to the court immediately in cases of anti-social behaviour. In addition, the Bill amends the matters that judges must consider when deciding whether to award possession under the discretionary ground. This will ensure that judges give particular regard to whether tenants have engaged with efforts to resolve their behaviour and the impact on other tenants within HMOs.

As well as the positive changes that the Bill makes towards tackling anti-social behaviour within the rental sector, we will crack down on those making neighbourhoods feel unsafe and unwelcoming by introducing the new respect order, which local authorities will be able to apply for and which will carry tough sanctions and penalties for persistent adult offenders. Together, those changes will ensure that the needs of victims are at the heart of our response to anti-social behaviour—that is what is important. Too often victims have felt that the power is all on the side of those who are committing the anti-social behaviour and not on the side of victims—that cannot carry on.

In response to the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, about local authority housing tenants, the Bill introduces reforms to the assured tenancies framework, which applies to both the private rented sector and private registered providers of social housing. Local authority tenants are provided secure tenancies under a different tenancy regime. The vast majority of local authority tenants are secure lifetime tenants, and therefore they already enjoy a high security of tenure. Local authority landlords also have existing powers to tackle ASB, including eviction grounds similar to those in the Bill.

The point is taken from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, about the further information about evidence and where the bar is going to be set; I will take that back to the team and come back to her. For these reasons, we feel this amendment is not needed and kindly ask that the noble Baroness withdraws it.

I turn to Amendment 66, which seeks to remove the requirement imposed upon judges, which has been introduced by the Bill, to give a particular consideration to whether a tenant, against whom a possession order is sought under ground 14 for anti-social behaviour, has engaged with attempts by the landlord to resolve the behaviour. We believe this change represents the wrong approach, for two reasons.

First, the Government believe that landlords should attempt to resolve problematic behaviour issues with tenants before attempting to evict them. By directing courts to particularly consider whether a tenant is engaged with these efforts, landlords will be incentivised to make them. Secondly, it is right that the court should give particular consideration to whether a tenant has engaged with attempts to resolve the behaviour so that courts may be more likely to evict a tenant who has, for example, been obstructive throughout the process. Where a tenant has shown willingness to engage constructively with the landlord, it is right that the court considers this factor, and it is for those reasons that we introduced the requirement.

I turn to Amendment 67, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, which seeks to expand the factors that a court is specifically directed to consider when deciding whether to make an order for possession against a tenant in a house in multiple occupancy for anti-social behaviour under ground 14. Currently, courts will be directed to give particular consideration to the past impact of the tenant’s behaviour on their fellow HMO tenants. This is in recognition of the increased impact that anti-social behaviour can have when victims have to share facilities and live in close proximity with the perpetrator, as the noble Baroness mentioned. Judges will also consider all factors relevant to the case and will already be directed generally to have consideration of the future and ongoing impact of that behaviour. As such, we do not think this amendment is strictly necessary to achieve the intended effect, although we are very grateful to the noble Baroness for flagging up that point.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, first of all, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Eaton and Lady Thornhill, and the Minister. All are from local government and understand anti-social behaviour over many years and the effect it can have. We on these Benches recognise that what is often described as anti- social behaviour may indeed be a symptom of much deeper, complex personal struggles. Those underlying issues, of course, deserve serious compassionate attention. So it is important that the Government are looking at the issues surrounding anti-social behaviour. I am particularly interested—I do not need an answer tonight —in bolstering the capabilities of support services within local government, to ensure that intervention can give people a real chance to turn things around before they get to the stage of being evicted.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Baroness Taylor of Stevenage

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lords, Lord Willetts, Lord Evans, Lord Young—albeit that his amendment was very ably proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts—and the noble Lord, Lord Best, for their amendments, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Wolf and Lady Warwick, and the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Fuller, for their comments during this debate. All these amendments seek to revise or introduce provisions in the Bill related to students, and I say well done to King’s College for having its team approach to this Bill in the Chamber today.

We do not expect that removing fixed terms will have a destabilising effect on the student rental market. New possession ground 4A will give landlords confidence that they will be able to regain their property to move in other students in line with the academic year. If tenants leave a tenancy early, the landlords will be able to find new tenants to take their place. The end of a fixed term does not automatically give the landlord possession. Landlords still have to follow the correct possession procedure. If fixed terms remained in the future, landlords would still need to follow the correct possession procedure.

Amendment 7 would allow fixed-term assured tenancies if the tenant was a student at the beginning of the tenancy. It would not be either right or fair for students to have less flexibility than other tenants just because of their educational status. Students who drop out of university could be required to pay rent for the rest of the fixed term, which could potentially reach thousands of pounds. All renters, including students, should have access to the benefits provided by the Bill.

The opportunity referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, is, as he rightly said, the meeting between housing and higher education. As someone who undertook a degree as a mature student with three children and a full-time job, I say that we simply must not assume that all students are the same. This is the opposite of elitism. It is ensuring that all student circumstances are taken into account and that those who need the greater stability that assured tenancies offer can have that option.

We have introduced a new possession ground to allow the cyclical nature of the student market to continue and provide landlords with confidence. This strikes the right balance and, in our opinion, is the much better approach. Referring to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about tenancies in halls, the Government intend that any new purpose-built student accommodation tenancies created after transition will be exempted from the assured tenancy system following transition, as long as the landlord is signed up to a government-approved code of conduct. I hope that answers her question. For these, reasons I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Amendment 40 seeks to expand ground 4A, which allows student tenants living in HMOs to be evicted in line with the academic year. It would allow students living in self-contained accommodation—one-bedroom and two-bedroom properties for example—to be evicted each year, and it seeks to address the concerns of some noble Lords that the existing scope of ground 4A does not cover all student properties. We have thought very carefully about the design of ground 4A. Limiting it to HMOs captures the bulk of typical students—that is, groups living in a house share. Meanwhile, students who need more security of tenure, such as single parents living with their children, postgraduate couples living together who have put down roots in an area, or families containing students, will be protected.

The core principle of the Bill is that tenants should have more security in their homes, and we think it is right that these groups should not be exposed to potential eviction using ground 4A. Self-contained one-bedroom and two-bedroom homes are also easier to let to non-students than student HMOs are, so, if a landlord cannot gain possession in line with the academic year and the tenants leave in the middle of the next one, the landlord is highly likely to be able to let the property out to non-student tenants. The noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, referred to student accommodation in London, and I imagine that there are other places where costs are prohibitive, such as Cambridge and Oxford. However, the Government’s action to increase supply is critical here. It is only by increasing supply that we will be able to stabilise rents. I do not think that the action proposed in the amendment would have that effect.

Amendments 41 and 45, taken together, seek to remove the requirement for a landlord intending to rely on ground 4A to give prior written notice to the tenants. This would mean that landlords renting to students in HMOs who satisfy the student test would be able to rely on ground 4A without giving tenants written prior notice, before the tenancy was entered into, of their wish to be able to recover possession using ground 4A. We cannot accept these amendments. The core aim of the Bill is to enhance the security of tenants in the private rented sector, including students. The prior notice requirement in ground 4A is key to this. If tenants are liable to be evicted through no fault of their own simply because of their student status, they must be informed of this reduced security before entering into a tenancy. Amendment 45 is purely consequential on Amendment 41, removing a later reference to the paragraph that Amendment 41 removes, and I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, not to press these amendments.

Amendment 42 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, seeks to allow the use of ground 4A in student tenancies agreed up to nine months in advance, rather than the six months in advance limitation that is currently in the Bill. Noble Lords will be aware that we introduced this measure in response to engagement with stakeholders and Members in the other place—I hope that answers the noble Lord’s question about consultation. They were concerned that students are often rushed into important decisions around accommodation before they have formed friendships or had time to properly judge a property’s condition or location.

This measure was intended to act as a strong disincentive to landlords who seek to sign students up to contracts early in the academic year. Increasing the time limit to nine months will push early sign-ups to too early in the academic year—before Christmas for a tenancy beginning in July. This entirely undermines the point of the deterrent. Six months strikes the right balance, allowing those who want to to agree a tenancy well in advance before exam season, but not too early before students have formed firm friendship groups, for instance.

Amendment 43, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, goes even further and would extend the time limit to 12 months. For the reasons I have highlighted previously, we are of the view that six months is the right balance. Very few students sign contracts more than a year in advance, and this amendment would essentially destroy the entire premise of the provision, which is designed to prevent students being pressured into contracts too early in the academic year. For these reasons, I ask the noble Lord not to move these amendments.

Amendment 44 seeks to remove the restriction on the use of ground 4A to the summer of the traditional academic year. This would mean that students on a traditional term date, who are the majority, could be evicted in the middle of the academic year through no fault of their own. We recognise that the intent of the amendment is to ensure properties are available for students starting their courses on non-traditional dates, such as in January. However, we are content that supply will be available for these groups as previous groups on the same cycle would leave at the end of their courses, so there will be students leaving in January and students starting could take those properties. It would be wrong to expose all students to eviction in the middle of their academic year simply because, for example, a landlord found a group with different term dates who were willing to pay more. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness not to move this amendment.

Amendment 46 would allow landlords to evict approved English apprentices, as defined in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, using the student possession ground 4A, provided all conditions for relying on that ground were met. Ground 4A was designed to capture the most typical students, such as those living in groups and away from home, on an annual letting cycle. Apprentices tend not to live that way, as they earn an income and are much more likely to live in a home they expect to stay in. I am therefore of the view that apprentices should enjoy the same security of tenure as other tenants and not fall under the scope of possession ground 4A. For that reason, I ask that this amendment not be moved.

Amendment 189 seeks to remove the private rented student tenancies from the assured tenancy system. I know there has been a lot of concern and debate over this at Second Reading and today. It would achieve this by allowing the Secretary of State to create or approve a code of conduct for student landlords and then allow landlords signed up to the code to offer tenancies that are completely removed from the assured tenancy system. This is the wrong approach: it would be wrong for students renting off-street housing, often indistinguishable from the property next door, to have an entirely different set of rights from their neighbours.

I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Young, is seeking to create consistency between private student landlords and landlords of purpose-built student accommodation, which we will exempt from the assured system through regulations. However, these are very different types of accommodation. Purpose-built student accommodation can often be rented only to students due to the nature of the property, and to be exempted in the future a private PBSA landlord will need to be signed up to the government-approved code of management practice. This code is managed by Unipol, an established organisation.

Other private rented accommodation let to students is significantly more diverse and often indistinguishable from other houses in the area. It would be wrong to remove the protections of the assured system. Other students renting privately should not be locked into fixed-term contracts or open to eviction without good reason. In addition, there currently exists no government-approved code that is relevant to such accommodation. Developing this would take a great deal of time and is likely to delay implementation of the Bill. We recognise that the student market has a cyclical business model and have therefore introduced ground 4A, allowing landlords to evict full-time students from HMOs in order to house incoming groups in line with the academic year. Ground 4A addresses the issues that the various amendments tabled by the noble Lord are, in effect, seeking to address. As such, I ask him not to move this amendment.

Amendment 266 seeks to exempt private purpose-built student accommodation from discretionary licensing where the landlord has signed up to a code of practice for managing such accommodation. Although codes of practice offer students assurance that a good standard of management is being met by their landlords, they are not tailored to addressing local issues in the way that licence conditions under licensing schemes are. Membership of the codes is voluntary, and members have an incentive to comply to ensure they can continue to present an attractive offer to students. While a failure to adhere to code standards can result in a landlord being removed from a code, licensing allows for stronger action to be taken where necessary. For example, local authorities can issue a financial penalty where there has been a serious breach of licence conditions.

We recognise that licensing can place a greater burden on landlords with large portfolios, such as those operating private purpose-built student accommodation. That is why local authorities already have discretion to streamline licence application processes and fees for such landlords. We trust local authorities to take a proportionate approach and work together with code operators and providers of these types of accommodation to make sure that licensing schemes remain focused on tackling the issues they were designed to address. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Best, not to move his amendment.

I turn to government Amendments 47, 188 and 202. Currently, university-managed accommodation is exempt from the assured tenancy system, while private purpose-built student accommodation usually is not. Government Amendments 47, 188 and 202 would allow private PBSA to be subject to the same exemption, recognising that the two share many similarities. Students do not move into their accommodation expecting long-term residence, and it is right to ensure that this accommodation is available to new cohorts of students each year.

We intend that the exemption will apply only to private PBSA that is a member of the government-approved code of practice, which sets vigorous standards for the management of property and the relationship between managers and student tenants. If their membership of the code ends for any reason, so does their exemption. There will be no delay in requiring them to provide assured tenancies to new tenants. Although there is an existing power in the Housing Act 1988 to exempt PBSA landlords, it would have required government to frequently update secondary legislation with a list of landlords, causing a duplication of work between code administrators and officials and a lag in the link between code membership and exemption status.

We are also proposing an amendment to an existing power in the Housing Act 2004 that clarifies that educational establishments exempt from HMO licensing can be specified by reference to code membership and that the power can be exercised in the same way for private purpose-built student accommodation in future. The amendment also allows the scope of an exemption to be narrowed to certain groups of building, or building manager, within the membership if required.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in what I consider an extremely important debate and contributed thoughtfully and constructively with their insights.

First, I would like to recognise the contribution by my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow, who tabled Amendments 42 and 43. On these Benches, we believe the limitation may, as my noble friend said, inadvertently push the hunt for student accommodation into the January exam season and disrupt a vital time for many students up and down this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, first, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that this is not a wrecking amendment. It is trying to find a solution which does not potentially destroy the private rental market. If it is destroyed in any way, only one group of people will be affected, and that is the tenants.

I am grateful to noble Lords who—

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My apologies, but does the noble Baroness not want to hear first from the Minister on the amendment?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Well, the noble Baroness knows what I am going to say, so that is that.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for moving Amendment 8, and the noble Lords, Lord Jackson, Lord Empey and Lord Murray, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for their comments. This amendment would allow fixed-term initial tenancies where the landlord lets fewer than five properties. As I am sure the noble Baroness would expect, the Government cannot accept this amendment. It would be neither fair nor justified for some tenants to have fewer rights, simply because the landlord happens to have a smaller property portfolio at the point at which the tenancy is entered into. All tenants must enjoy the benefits of the new system and the flexibility that periodic tenancies provide.

I have already commented on the likely impact on the market under Amendment 1. As I mentioned earlier, the noble Baroness referred to changes to the law in Scotland, which was very different in the important matter of rent controls. I met with the Scottish Housing Minister during the recent British-Irish Council and discussed this with him in order to learn lessons from what happened in Scotland.

The English Private Landlord Survey shows that 83% of landlords have four properties or fewer. Accepting this amendment would mean fixed terms remaining available for half of all tenancies. This would clearly fly in the face of what this Bill is trying to achieve. It would definitely break the manifesto commitment that we have already clearly set out and which we stand by.

It is also important to clarify that retaining fixed terms would not preserve the Section 21 eviction process, although this is a common misconception. Nor would it automatically retain the accelerated court procedure used for Section 21 claims, which allows cases to proceed without a hearing. If this amendment were accepted, landlords would still be required to seek possession using one of the grounds in Section 8 of the Housing Act 1988, for which the accelerated court procedure is not available. The removal of Section 21 evictions is the cornerstone of this legislation, and the Government will not accept its reintroduction to reduce court costs or for any other purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, was a Minister in the last Government. I remind him that his Government also had the policy of removing Section 21 evictions. The noble Lord must have had a memory lapse in the Chamber this afternoon.

The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, referred to the cost of court possession hearings for smaller landlords. We are confident that the Bill does not levy unfair new costs on landlords. However, it is reasonable to expect landlords to ensure that their business model covers the possible cost of possession cases proceeding through court. The current accelerated court procedure is not a guarantee of avoiding court proceedings or the associated costs.

I will comment briefly on the points made by the noble Lord—

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Lord has a figure in mind. I will write to him; as he would expect, I do not have that figure at my fingertips.

The availability of court hearings is vital for tenants’ access to justice, especially in the new system whereby landlords must always evidence that grounds are met. We are working closely with our colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and HM Courts & Tribunals Service to make the possession process more efficient and easier to understand. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, made a very good point. It can be difficult for both landlord and tenant to understand the process. They may be deterred from accessing the legal redress to which they are entitled because of difficulties in understanding how it works.

We are also committed to digitising the process. I can reassure the noble Lord that we are working closely with the MoJ to make sure that the justice system is fully prepared to implement the Renters’ Rights Bill once enacted. I am not going to guarantee end-to-end digitisation of the whole court system—that is way beyond my remit in this Chamber—but we are working on it in relation to renters’ rights. This includes a commitment to digitising the county court possession process to create a modern, efficient service for court users. I was reassured to find that this is being built on to an existing system, rather than being created from scratch. Work is proceeding at pace on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill—

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Will all these changes to the court system, and digitisation, be totally in place before this part of the Bill is enacted?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I was just about to respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, which may answer that question. As usual, we are working with the Ministry of Justice to complete a justice impact test. This will identify the additional burdens on the justice system arising from new policies in the Renters’ Rights Bill, and it will ensure that the system is fully prepared for any increase in workload. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will respond to that in two ways. First, the work that has been done on the court system is both for landlords and tenants. We want it to work for both sides, so that when a landlord needs to seek possession they can do that quickly. I think any landlord’s business model should account for the possibility of a slight break in rental payment, but obviously we want to resolve these issues as quickly as possible, and to do the same for the tenants. There needs to be quick access to recourse if they need it, and we will do that.

Secondly, in respect to the point about local authorities, I have covered extensively the Government’s assessment of whether this will have an impact on supply issues. I reiterate that the Bill’s impact assessment has received a green rating from the Regulatory Policy Committee. We do not believe there will be a sustained or significant impact on supply, but we will monitor that very carefully once the Bill is passed.

I hope I have answered all noble Lords’ points on this but, for the reasons I have set out, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Again, I apologise to the Minister. First, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that it is not a wrecking amendment but one trying to find a workable solution that does not potentially destroy the private renters’ market as the only people who will suffer from that will be tenants in the future.

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and to my noble friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Murray of Blidworth for their thoughtful and constructive insights into how we deal with this issue. Across the Committee there is clearly a shared ambition to improve the private rented sector for tenants, and I believe today’s discussion has shown that doing so must include supporting the landlords who make the sector possible.

As I set out earlier, Amendment 8 is a carefully considered proposal aimed at safeguarding the position of small landlords—those who let fewer than five properties and who make up the overwhelming majority of the sector. These are not large-scale investors or corporations. They are individuals, often couples, pensioners or families, who rent out a single property or two as a way of securing long-term stability for themselves. This amendment is not about undermining tenant protections. It is about recognising that those protections will be meaningful only if the rental homes remain available in the first place.

The removal of Section 21 without adequate alternatives risks pushing small landlords out of the market. As we have heard, this is not hypothetical, it is already happening. Once again, I will talk about Scotland, because I do not believe—and nor do the people in the industry who I have spoken to—that this was just about rent control. In Scotland, it has been made clear what can happen when reforms are introduced without properly accounting for market balance. There has been a sharp reduction in landlord numbers, escalating rents and a shrinking supply of rental homes. This is not the future we want in England for our tenants and is exactly what this amendment seeks to prevent.

Recent findings from the Paragon Bank, based on a survey of over 500 landlords, reinforce this concern for us. An alarming 65% of respondents indicated that they are now more likely to scale back their property holdings as a direct result of current and proposed reforms. This is a clear indication of the potential real-world consequences of the Bill if the needs of small landlords are not adequately considered. Amendment 8 offers a modest but vital safeguard. It enables the Government’s reforms to proceed while providing breathing space for the small-scale landlords who play such a crucial role in meeting the housing needs of this country.

To conclude, I urge the Minister to listen carefully to the issues raised in this group and to give serious consideration to Amendment 8, not as a dilution of the Bill’s aims but as a necessary and constructive contribution to its long-term success. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. Indeed, it follows on very neatly from our earlier debate on fixed-term tenancies. My noble friends Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Moynihan made compelling arguments for why we should permit fixed-term tenancies for both professional athletes and police officers. The benefits were set out with conviction and clarity, and I hope the Government Benches have listened. Of course, I would prefer that fixed-term tenancies continued to be available for everyone.

I will not rehearse the arguments made earlier, but does not the growing list of amendments seeking exemptions highlight the real value that fixed-term tenancies offer, supporting people from all walks of life, from athletes to police officers and everyone in between? Nurses, doctors, students, military personnel and even performers can all benefit from a fixed-term tenancy. The Government should consider these benefits. In removing fixed terms altogether, the Bill risks taking away short-term lets that serve as a real benefit for many thousands of people.

I turn to the Minister’s Amendment 59, which expands ground 5C to account for police officers. These Benches understand the importance of an employer’s need to regain possession of rented property if the tenancy is linked to a tenant’s employment. I thank the Minister for setting out details of the amendment.

Finally, I wish to note Amendment 62, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I thank him for the chat we had about it, because I had no idea that this happened within the Church of England. Enabling a debate on possession for the purposes of housing a person leaving tied accommodation is most welcome. This is an important issue, as it ensures that a landlord, who is often also the employer, can regain possession of a property when it is needed to house a new employee, but also—as in the case of the Church of England—allows the Church to regain a property that is required for the retiring employee. We must recognise the value of maintaining the availability of essential employment-linked housing, and consider how best to safeguard it in practice. Additionally, we must not discourage landlords from helping tenants by giving them extra time to move out, providing references or offering alternative housing, especially in sectors such as education or farming—or, indeed, in the Church.

This debate has encapsulated the depth and breadth of the Bill, and the numerous areas that it covers. A modern, dynamic workforce needs the freedom to move, adapt and pursue opportunities wherever they arise. We must have a laser focus on occupational needs when considering any changes to the rental market.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, before I respond to these amendments, I congratulate Leeds United on their promotion to the Premier League. They are not my team, but what an achievement. We were all shouting when they got through the other day, so well done to Leeds. I have several close friends who are Leeds supporters, and they will be listening to that with interest.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Moynihan, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for their amendments, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Scott, for their comments. These amendments are on fixed terms and occupational possession grounds. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, is quite right to highlight the insecurity of assured shorthold tenancies. They are not secure tenancies, and I do not accept that it is better for tenants to have a fixed-term tenancy than a periodic tenancy, which is theirs until they decide to end it and give the necessary two months’ notice.

I will start with Amendment 10 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and Amendment 11 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. These would retain fixed terms where the property is let to any ranking serving police officer and to professional athletes. As with Amendment 7, the Government believe tenants should not have reduced flexibility and greater financial obligation because of their personal circumstances. I am not convinced there is any case for police officers, who put themselves on the front line in the service of others, to benefit any less from the new tenancy regime. I do not think the case for that has been made.

We have heard concerns about ensuring provision of housing for the police, and that is why government Amendment 59 amends possession ground 5C to ensure it is available to police forces and others who provide accommodation for their officers. This will allow landlords to take possession where a tenancy was granted to an officer in relation to their service in the office of constable, and the tenancy is no longer required for the purpose for which it was granted. I do not consider it necessary to retain fixed terms in addition to this.

Needless to say, we all want to see the UK’s excellent professional athletes succeed in their endeavours. The whole Committee is aware of the sporting achievements of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and his advocacy and service on behalf of British sport. However, it would seem a shame to lock athletes into fixed terms, which might prevent them moving around the country in pursuit of sporting greatness. We would not want to do that. However, if an athlete is in accommodation provided by their employer, then ground 5C would apply and the tenancy could be ended, as necessary.

Amendment 62, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, seeks to create two new grounds for possession. The first, new ground 8A, would enable a landlord to seek possession from an existing tenant in order to re-let that dwelling to a former employee—of the landlord, we assume—who was housed in accommodation tied to their role. It would also apply to other types of workers, such as officeholders. I appreciate the aim of the right reverend Prelate’s amendment and, following engagement with bishops, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, we are sympathetic and understand that the Church wishes to house retired clergy. However, after very careful consideration, I genuinely believe this should not be at the expense of existing tenants. We have already created expanded or strengthened possession grounds to cover situations—such as housing employees or evicting tenants to use the dwelling as supported accommodation—where we believe that the needs of those involved can be deemed to overrule the general principle that renters deserve security of tenure and should be able to put down roots in their long-term homes.

We are not of the view that housing a former employee of the landlord meets the bar to overrule the general principle that private renters should have secure homes. In order to house the former employee, another tenant would need to be evicted, through no fault of their own, placing them in the position of needing to find a new home. This simply moves the problem around. As such, we are content that the current grounds strike the right balance.

The second proposed ground, 8B, seeks to enable possession of a tenanted property so it can be relet to a surviving spouse, civil partner or dependant of a person described in the previous proposed ground who died before being required to vacate the accommodation linked to their role. Although I appreciate the reasons behind wanting to help people in these circumstances, again, this proposed new ground would mean an existing tenant could be evicted through no fault of their own, simply moving the problem around and creating more insecurity for more tenants. For the reasons I have set out, I ask that noble Lords not press their amendments.

Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) Order 2025

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Baroness Taylor of Stevenage

Monday 24th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, on the question of the manifesto and devolution, I do not think it was very clear to communities or individuals that “devolution” also meant local government reorganisation.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I hear the noble Baroness’s view, but the councils that have come forward feel that they need that reorganisation to enter properly into the devolution process. If we are going to get powers and funding out of this bit of Westminster and out to the areas, that elected representation at local level is key.

The Motions put forward by the noble Baronesses would be an unprecedented step by the House of Lords, with serious constitutional and practical consequences. The Motions undermine the convention of the primacy of the Commons and the principle of delegated powers, which have been given in primary legislation granted here and have been previously used in this way. All appropriate steps were taken, and both process and precedent carefully followed.

A vote to agree with these Motions for Annulment at this stage, the evening before the last day by which elections must be called, would throw areas into chaos, damaging the safe running of those elections and confusing the live consultations that are under way, in which we are receiving significant public interest, with, as I said, over 13,000 responses already. The people engaged believe, as we do, that the order is in the interests of the people we all serve. The Motions would slow down the delivery of the benefits of mayoral devolution and strong unitary local government to those areas. It is these Motions, not the order they object to, that are damaging to local democracy. I urge you in the strongest terms to deny them.

High-rise Buildings: Safety Remediation

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Baroness Taylor of Stevenage

Monday 24th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord that it is very important that the enforcement we set out is carried out. We have already committed £14 million to local authorities to build the capacity and capability to take that enforcement action, and the Deputy Prime Minister has announced increased funding to double that enforcement activity. In addition to enhancing the national joint inspection team, we will ensure local authorities continue to have access to expertise they can call on around their most complex and high-risk buildings. But it is vital that those who are responsible for this are both brought to account and contribute to the remediation work that needs doing.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have identified that barriers to development-led remediation include disputes between developers and freeholders over access to buildings, delays in securing the necessary regulatory approvals and access to independent assessors to carry out the quality of assessments. Will the Minister set out what the Government are doing to overcome these barriers to vital progress?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The remediation action plan points to the action that we need to take to move this on more quickly. Developers have determined whether work is required on about 80% of buildings for which they have taken responsibility under the remediation contract. Both developers and the Government are committed to accelerating that progress, which is why we have the plan that we published on 2 December as a joint plan. Thirty-nine developers have signed up to that and we will be moving that forward. If they fail to hit those joint plan targets, further action will be taken.

Local Government: Electoral Quotas

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Baroness Taylor of Stevenage

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I have heard this view from the Liberal Democrats for many years in local government. The first past the post system means that the electorate decide who is in charge of our local councils. That is up to them. It is a straightforward system which is widely appreciated by the people who engage with it. That is not to say that we cannot do more to encourage involvement in local elections. We will continue to do so.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, if His Majesty’s Government do not have any plans to restructure London councils or any other metropolitan areas such as Manchester or Birmingham, can the Minister explain why the Government believe that those living in more rural parts of our country deserve less representation than those living in our cities?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We believe that everybody should have proper representation. While we are undergoing the devolution programme in the rest of England, we will not be looking at those metropolitan areas, but that is not to say that it will never happen.

Council Tax

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Baroness Taylor of Stevenage

Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a good point about the link between universal credit and council tax, but there is significant support. All local authorities are required to run local council tax support schemes, which provide council tax reductions for those on low incomes. Some 3.7 million households currently receive this support. There is also a range of discounts and exemptions that reflect personal circumstances. I urge anyone struggling to pay their council tax to contact their local council, because they might be missing out on some of the benefits that are available.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, last year, Labour-run Birmingham City Council imposed a 21% council tax hike on residents over a two-year period after it mismanaged its finances. This year, Labour-run Bradford Council is proposing a 15% hike. Can the Minister explain why it is Labour-run councils that are imposing some of the worst council tax increases on local people this year?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is not only Labour-run councils that apply for exceptional financial support. My honourable friend the Minister will be making a Statement later today about which councils have been successful in gaining that exceptional financial support. There are any number of reasons why councils need to apply for that. It is not necessarily poor financial management: it can be the circumstances they find themselves in, particularly those areas that have low funding because the fair funding was not looked after.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Baroness Taylor of Stevenage

2nd reading
Wednesday 29th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I rise to close the debate. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. The great strength of your Lordships’ House is the hugely knowledgeable and informed debates we have, and this has been a great example, with experience from across sectors such as business, education and many other areas—even veterinary practices—so I am very grateful to noble Lords for their contributions. They have demonstrated their enthusiasm and interest for our high streets, the important role they play in our local communities and the small businesses that are their lifeblood, and for ensuring that all children are able to receive a high-quality education. There is certainly consensus on that, if perhaps not on the means of achieving it, but there is a consensus that every child deserves to have all the opportunities that should be available to them.

I will make a few general comments on remarks made by noble Lords, and then I will attempt to answer most of the questions, but I expect I will run out of time long before I get there. I assure noble Lords that anything I do not get to, I will reply to in writing.

Both the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Barran, referred to the overall policy, in relation to some of the really tough decisions we have had to take. I understand that these are tough decisions and why people think they are. However, yet again in this House we have had a bit of a swerve around the reason why those decisions were necessary; it is the inheritance we picked up when we came into government. We have to balance the books and get the fiscal picture straight so that we can deliver the reform to public services that we want to see, and tackle some of the cost of living issues that everybody faces.

I have another general comment on a point raised by a number of noble Lords. The Bill is not intended to achieve the comprehensive reform of business rates that we have set out as our intention. We are working on it and there is a consultation paper out at the moment, and I hope all noble Lords who have contributed this afternoon—and anyone else who has an interest in the business rates system—will make a contribution to the ongoing work on business rates. Having been a councillor for many years and listened to many complaints from both the public and private sectors about how business rates operate, I am in no doubt that we need comprehensive reform.

I hope that has picked up some of the general points and I will turn now to the specific points that noble Lords made.

There were, rightly, a number of questions regarding the impact of the proposed new multipliers. The noble Baronesses, Lady Scott, Lady Pinnock and Lady Barran, and the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord de Clifford, all mentioned this issue. As I explained in my opening speech, the actual tax rates to the new multipliers will be set at the 2025 Budget, taking into account the effects of the 2026 business rates revaluation, which we have to do, as well as the broader economic and fiscal context at that time. It is for my right honourable friend the Chancellor to make those decisions at the right time. Tax policy and legislation are not subject to the same requirement for an impact assessment that accompany other non-fiscal policy decisions. Nevertheless, the Treasury is committed to publishing an analysis of the effects of the new multipliers at Budget 2025, taking into account the broader factors that I just mentioned. I hope I set out clearly in my opening speech why we need to take these steps.

On the VOA and its property rateable values, which were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on 5 February the VOA will publish an ad hoc release relating to properties with a rateable value of over £500,000. That will provide a breakdown by category of property type by local authority for all those properties with a rateable value above and below £500,000, so we will be able to see clearly which properties are impacted by which parts of this reform.

On the issues around the multipliers policy approach, I have heard the message that noble Lords may think this is a blunt tool for dealing with this matter—the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Pinnock, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, mentioned this. The permanent tax cut for retail, hospitality and leisure properties, including those on the high street, from 2026-27, will ensure that much-needed certainty and support. That tax cut has to be funded, so we intend to introduce that higher rate on the most valuable properties. The Government’s view is that it is the fairest approach to ask all properties with a rateable value of £500,000 and above to pay a higher tax rate to support the viability of our high streets. It is the fairest way and, as I said in my opening speech, the higher rate will apply to less than 1% of all properties, and we will know which those properties are once the VOA has published its assessment.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Pinnock, raised the approach being detrimental to anchor stores. I understand the concern around this. Unfortunately, we lost our Marks & Spencer store in Stevenage town centre; luckily, we managed to attract it back, and it is operating there very successfully, and it is much appreciated by our residents.

The Government intend to introduce two permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties, which will give certainty. I understand concerns that the higher multiplier may catch some of the largest and most valuable retail businesses. However, we think that the fairest approach is to ask all properties above £500,000 to pay that. This is a property tax, so whether large stores are based on the high street or in retail parks, it will still have the same impact. I remind noble Lords that the upper rate will impact on only 1% of businesses.

Retail, hospitality and leisure relief was extended year by year by previous Governments, but it has been a stopgap measure. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Jamieson, raised the issue of our process being a temporary measure. This is a permanent measure which will give certainty to those businesses. Before the intervention we are taking now, retail, hospitality and leisure relief would have ended entirely in April 2025, creating a cliff edge for those businesses. We have decided to offer that 40% discount to retail, hospitality and leisure properties up to a cash cap of £110,000 per business in 2025-26. By extending that retail, hospitality and leisure relief instead of ending it entirely, the Government have, for example, saved the average pub with a rateable value of £16,800 more than £3,300. We are doing our best to support the sector, in spite of the difficult fiscal picture that we see.

On wider business rates reform, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and many other noble Lords, the discussion paper has been published. It builds on our plans announced at the Autumn Budget to support high streets by further highlighting areas for reform, incentivising investment and modernising the system so that it is fit for the 21st century. A number of noble Lords mentioned business rates avoidance. We will shortly publish a consultation on adopting a general anti-avoidance rule for business rates in England.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, raised the issue of the small business rates relief which is in place to support all of our small businesses. I want to highlight that that provides 100% relief to small businesses which occupy only one property with a rateable value of £12,000. A taper of relief down from 100% is available to such ratepayers with rateable values up to £15,000. That scheme ensures that over a third of all properties, or about 700,000 ratepayers, are not paying any business rates at all. The Government have no plan to remove small business rates relief, which is permanent and set down in legislation.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, raised the issue of business rates being too high overall and I understand those concerns. We all know only too well that economic and fiscal stability is critical to business confidence. At the Budget, the small business multiplier for properties with a rateable value under £51,000 was frozen at 49.9p, meaning that, together with the small business rates relief, over 1 million properties will be protected from a 1.6% inflationary increase.

The Budget honours the manifesto commitment not to raise corporation tax. The UK has the lowest corporation tax in the G7, the joint most generous plant and machinery capital allowances in the OECD, and the joint highest uncapped headline rate of R&D tax relief in the G7 for large companies. I will come on to the noble Earl’s other points later, but I thank him, as usual, for his expertise, which we experienced during the levelling-up Bill and have once again had the benefit of this afternoon.

Supporting the high street and the broader government approach was mentioned by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox. We are committed to rejuvenating our high streets and town centres. The measures in this Bill to introduce permanently lower tax rates for RHL properties will help, but they are only part of our work. In December, we introduced the high street rental auctions, a new power which allows local authorities to auction off the lease of persistently vacant commercial units. The new regulations will make town centre tenancies more accessible and affordable for businesses and community groups, while helping to tackle the vacancy rates on our high streets.

In addition, through the English devolution Bill we will introduce a new strong right to buy for valued community assets, such as shops, pubs and community spaces. That community right to buy will give local people the power to purchase community assets that go up for sale, helping to keep assets in the hands of the community. I have seen the great benefit of this in the Station Pub, in Knebworth, which the community has taken over and made a great success of. Like the pub mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, it is a great place, and if noble Lords are ever in that area, they should visit. The Government continue to invest in a number of initiatives to boost town and city centres, including our high street accelerators. As part of our plan for change, we are working hard to support our high streets, and the measures in the Bill are part of that.

I thank all noble Lords for their comments on private schools, and in particular on special educational needs. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and other noble Lords mentioned pupils who do not have an ECHP. I used to be the education spokesperson at Hertfordshire, so I am very familiar with the sometimes lengthy delays in obtaining EHCPs. The approach adopted in the Bill has sought to ensure that the impact on pupils with the most acute special educational needs is minimised.

The Government are aware that some parents may make a choice for their child to attend private school, but this is a choice, like that made by any parent using the private sector. For most pupils with a special educational need, support is provided within a mainstream state school, and all children of compulsory school age are entitled to a state-funded school place if they need one. We support local authorities to ensure that every local area has sufficient school places for children who need them, and that appropriate SEND support is available, if needed. I recognise the issues around obtaining an EHCP. I am concerned by what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said about stigma around obtaining an EHCP, and I will discuss that with my noble friend the Education Minister.

The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, spoke about what will happen to pupils with an ECHP when a school loses its charitable relief. Business rates are a tax on property; it is not possible to differentiate at the individual pupil level. Where a private school has only a few pupils with EHCPs, it will lose its eligibility for charitable rates relief. However, where a private school has been named on a pupil’s EHCP, the local authority funds the pupil’s place. Therefore, in the event that a private school loses eligibility and chooses to pass through some of that additional cost to fees, these pupils and their families will remain unaffected. In private schools, including private special schools, just 5.7% of pupils have an EHCP, predominantly in private special schools, and 97% of such pupils have their place at a private school funded by their local authority. I hope that helps clarify that point.

The Government are committed to reforming our SEND provision overall to improve outcomes and return the system to financial sustainability. We have provided a £1 billion uplift in high-needs funding for the next financial year. We know that that will not solve all the problems, but it will make a start. As part of our plan for change, we want to make sure that we are doing our very best to provide those opportunities that SEND children need, as with all children. This Bill is part of the process of driving that forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, spoke about SEND and the state sector, and said that this approach will increase costs. We are absolutely committed to improving inclusivity and expertise in mainstream state schools, restoring parents’ trust so that their children will get the support they need to flourish. If an EHCP assessment concludes that a child can be supported only in a private school, the local authority will fund that place.

The noble Lord, Lord Lexden, whose great knowledge on this subject I respect, spoke about the Government not caring about pupils in private schools. The Government believe in parental choice, but we are determined to fulfil the aspiration of every parent to get the best education for their child. To eliminate barriers to opportunity, we need to concentrate on the broader picture and the state sector, where most of our children—93%—are educated.

Ending the tax breaks on business rates—and VAT—for private schools is a tough but necessary decision. We need to secure vital additional funding to help deliver those commitments to education and young people. As I said, there is a consensus on what we need to do, but perhaps not on the means of getting there.

The noble Lord, Lord Lexden, also mentioned the impact on faith schools. Again, the Government value parental choice but all children of compulsory school age are entitled to a state-funded school place if they need one, and schools are required to follow the Equality Act and requirements relating to British values. We expect them to foster and promote an environment that encourages respect and tolerance of children and families of all faiths. The Government have listened carefully to arguments on this matter and have decided that a carve-out for faith schools cannot be justified. However, children can attend faith schools and have their faith respected in the state sector.

The noble Lord, Lord Lexden, referred to private school closures. We expect those numbers to remain relatively low and they will be influenced by various factors, not just the removal of VAT and business rate tax breaks. Parents can seek places in other private schools or find a state school place through their local authority. There has been a traditional number of around 50 private schools closing each year, including independent special schools, but we must also note that private schools have continued to open, even after the Government announced that they would end tax breaks for private schools. The register of independent schools shows that 77 independent schools have opened between January and October 2024.

The noble Lord, Lord Lexden, felt that the timing of this was poor. Ending tax breaks on VAT and business rates for private schools is—I will say again—a tough but necessary decision, and we have had to take some measures to fill the gap in the budgets. Delaying implementation of the business rates policy would forgo around £140 million a year that is intended to fund the Government’s investment in state education and young people.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

But if I remember rightly, the decision about the taxation of independent schools was made well before the Chancellor got into place and saw anything in the books.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Knowing the Chancellor as I do, I am sure she was extremely well prepared for taking on the commitment and had some idea of what was going on well before she came into office. I am sure that that was her being well prepared.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lords, Lord Waldegrave and Lord Maude, raised the impact on charitable activity if schools stopped or reduced their activity. They will continue to operate as charities and there will be no other tax changes specific to their charitable status.

I see I am running out of time, so I will close. I have a number of other points, including on several points of detail made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton.

Future Homes Standard

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Baroness Taylor of Stevenage

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes some very important points. I have a lot of sympathy with what he says about how we take this forward. I think I was very clear in what I said: the intention of our Government is to make sure that there will be no further retrofitting needed when new homes are built. They will be built to the standard we set as soon as that standard comes into being. The discussions I have had with the construction industry lead me to believe that it is waiting for that standard and will be ready for it as soon as we are able to set it. I hope that will be the case. I will take the other ideas the noble Lord put forward back to my department.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, it was my understanding that this Government had said that rented properties must achieve at least an EPC rating of C by 2030, but I thank the Minister for correcting me on this. However, many listed properties cannot achieve this without substantial investment, which many private landlords simply cannot afford. This will only push more landlords to sell up, further restricting an already strained rental market. What assessment have His Majesty’s Government made on the impact of these new requirements and the impact they will have on the number of rental properties available?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Just to clarify, we are in consultation at the moment on the new EPC framework, which will require all properties to have an EPC registration of C. I will report to the House later on that issue. In relation to historic buildings, I have met the Historic Houses association and visited at least one historic property to try to discover for myself what the real issues are. There is further work to be done on that, but I am aware of all the issues related to the retrofitting of historic properties.

Local Government Reorganisation

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Baroness Taylor of Stevenage

Thursday 16th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, what local residents want from their local council are good quality services at a reasonable cost, however it is organised. When the Conservatives took control of Harlow Council in 2021, they cut council tax, and have kept it frozen ever since. Under this Government’s new local government funding formula, Harlow will lose approximately 30% of its grant funding next year. Why is the Government’s new formula punishing councils that are keeping taxes down and providing better value for money for taxpayers in their area?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

I find it astonishing to hear the party opposite challenging us on funding issues in local government, when it has punished the whole of local government for 14 years in this respect. I agree with the noble Baroness about what the public want from their local government services. They are not worried about the overheads of additional councils; they want to see good public services at local level and good value for money. That is what the devolution and local government reorganisation programme is all about.

The review of the funding formula will happen as we go into the spending review in the spring, and is there to make sure that funding is directed where the need is greatest. That will be what we set out to do. It is what we said we would do in our manifesto, and we will continue to do so. Let us not take any lessons in that from the party that has starved local government and brought it to its knees over 14 years.

Political Parties: Funding

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Baroness Taylor of Stevenage

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I take it that that was a question about a cap on donations. That is not a current priority for the Government, but strengthening the rules around donations really is. Political parties play a vital role in our democracy, and it is important that they are able to fundraise effectively and communicate with the electorate as a very important part of our process. By law, it is the responsibility of political parties to take all reasonable steps to verify their donors and whether they are permissible. We will take necessary steps to ensure that those requirements are tightened and stuck to.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, during the Lords stages of the National Security Bill, the last Conservative Government and Conservative Ministers pledged to enhance data-sharing powers to allow public bodies to share data with political parties. That is what we need; it is not about the honest ones who come through but knowing who is coming through a tenuous route, so that political parties are assisted in their due diligence. Can the Minister tell me the status of those plans to provide more information to political parties?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As I explained in my earlier Answer, we are reviewing all matters related to electoral donations. Those will be taken into account as we go through the process of developing any new legislation, including the issue raised by the noble Baroness.

Combined Authorities (Borrowing) and East Midlands Combined County Authority (Borrowing and Functions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Baroness Taylor of Stevenage

Monday 13th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this SI is a key step in advancing the devolution agenda, continuing the work set out in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 under the previous Conservative Government. As we have heard, it extends the borrowing power to the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority, the North East Mayoral Combined Authority and the East Midlands Combined County Authority, empowering them to invest in critical areas, such as housing, regeneration, transport, education and health. This is part of a broader effort to decentralise power from Westminster and empower local authorities to shape their own futures, which His Majesty’s Official Opposition support.

In terms of economic development and regeneration, the regulations grant the EMCCA the general power of competence to support local businesses, tourism and other sectors. This is a notable shift, allowing the EMCCA and its constituent councils to carry out more comprehensive projects, including potentially accessing grants from central government, but we must ensure that, while these powers enable growth and development, there is robust accountability in place to ensure that resources are used effectively and in the best interests of those local communities.

A public consultation was conducted regarding the proposed changes, particularly focusing on the economic development and regeneration powers of the EMCCA. While the feedback was largely positive, with no significant objections, it is important to note that support for these new powers was not overwhelming. The absence of major concerns from stakeholders, including the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, suggests broad acceptance, although this should not be construed as unanimous approval.

I have a number of questions for the Minister. While the regulations aim to empower local authorities, several questions need to be answered to ensure these powers are used effectively and responsibly. On effective devolution, the work of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act promoted decentralisation, but how much autonomy will local authorities truly have under these regulations and at what point will central government oversight become excessive? On oversight, without a statutory review clause noted, how will the Government ensure accountability for these new borrowing powers? Are there safeguards in place to ensure that borrowing is managed prudently? Finally, on regional equity, could the new powers create disparities in regional development, potentially leaving smaller regions behind? How will the Government ensure that these powers, to be granted to certain areas, do not exclude or disproportionately benefit specific regions at the expense of others?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank both noble Baronesses for their participation and broad support for this SI. I will address some of the questions raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked about the powers of mayors; I simply point to the success of existing mayoralties, delivering real things for their communities that have made a huge difference—in transport, skills and, in some places, health economies—in the areas where people live. Of course, you can only really do that if you are part of the community that you are representing, and the Government’s push for devolution is to help those local areas with skin in the game to have the powers and funding they need to drive their areas forward, particularly for growth but also for the conditions for the people in their areas.

We now have the Council of the Nations and Regions, which is a very important body for driving forward growth in our regions and nations. It is very important that every part of the UK has a seat around that table. That was the thinking behind the English devolution White Paper—it is still out for consultation, so we will see what comes back from that.

On capital borrowing, it will be the responsibility of mayors to drive growth in their areas, but I realise that borrowing will have to be paid back. Debt caps have been agreed with the Treasury. There has been an extensive process to agree them, and it has been done on the basis of what is affordable for those areas within their current envelopes.

The noble Baroness spoke about powers in relation to housing and planning. The English devolution White Paper set out strategic and investment powers, and possibly development corporations that mayors will have powers over. Planning powers on a day-to-day basis will stay with the constituent local authorities, which is right and proper because they are the people on the ground.

The noble Baroness also spoke about local government funding. The last person in the world who would underestimate issues in local government funding is me. I lived with them on a daily basis for many years. There have been substantial steps forward in funding for local government. In spite of a very difficult financial settlement this year, our Secretary of State has achieved significant additional funding for local government. Off the top of my head, I think the figure is £3.7 billion altogether for local government, and I am sure that officials will wave at me if I am wrong. We know that will not solve all the problems. We have to increase growth in the country to improve that situation more substantially. I have just been given a great big written note which I am supposed to read, while I talk at the same time, but that is not possible, so I will answer off the top of my head and, if I do not answer all noble Lords’ questions, I will respond later in writing.

On the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act and non-constituent members, the noble Baroness is quite right that we had substantial debates about them during the passage of the Bill. For one type of authority, there are not voting rights, but for the other type of authority, there are voting rights. As we move into the full picture of devolution, there will be further consideration of that. It is right that in mayoral combined authorities the upper tiers will take the decisions. How they decide to involve their constituent members will be broadly up to them. I have heard some really creative ideas, such as having key committees chaired by the constituent councils. As we move into a picture where we have all unitary authorities, I think we will continue to look at that and review it.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. The three of us are part of the LURB club who sat through many hours debating the Bill. I agree with her about what a key step this is and that the East Midlands Combined County Authority will need to undertake the more comprehensive projects that were set out in its devolution agreement, and it needs these powers to do that. Of course we need robust accountability for all of them.

There was some consideration of consultation, but extensive consultation had already taken place on this so, having looked extensively at what had been done before, it was felt that there was no need for further consultation. I take the noble Baroness’s point that support was not overwhelming, but there was enough support for us to feel comfortable that we could go ahead.

The question about autonomy is important. The way that we have set out the picture in the English devolution White Paper is that, the more established an authority becomes, the more autonomy it will have. It is perhaps the opposite way from what the noble Baroness suggested. Central government oversight will not overwhelm those authorities once they are established. Look at some of our more established mayoral authorities: Greater Manchester is always the standard example and it has extensive powers and funding to lead the way for growth, transport, skills and so on. We want to see that with the more established authorities. The more established they are, the more they prove themselves in terms of accountability of all kinds, especially financial, and the more powers they will get.

On accountability and safeguards for borrowing, that is why debt caps have been set with the Treasury. They have been looked at very carefully. The White Paper also sets out a wider process of accountability which may, depending on what comes back from the consultation, include something like local public accounts committees to have oversight at local level of what is going on within mayoral combined authorities.

I hope that answers all the questions but, if not, I will go through Hansard and make sure that we respond.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I asked how we would ensure regional equity.

National Insurance: Employer Contributions

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Baroness Taylor of Stevenage

Thursday 9th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I have heard a great deal from that side of the House about NICs. If we had not had to fill a £22 billion black hole, we would not have had to do it in the first place. None of us on this side of the House would have made that choice unless we had to. We recognise the need to protect small businesses and charities, which is why we have more than doubled the employment allowance to £10,500 and expanded it to all eligible employers. The OBR expects 250,000 employers to gain from the changes to the employment allowance and 840,000 to see no change at all. That is more than half of all businesses, including charities.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Is the Minister aware that the OBR has said recently that it assumes that most of the Government’s increases in national insurance costs will be passed directly on to workers and consumers? Do this Government still claim to serve the working people of this country, or will they now come clean and admit that they are raising taxes on ordinary working people?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The denial of responsibility from that side of the House is quite astonishing. Public services were broken by neglect from the party opposite for 14 years. I am surprised that they do not see the irony in complaining about the measures we are having to take to sort out that mess, including our commitment to an additional £680 million for social care, further funding for local government and a real-terms boost for local government funding. I would rather hear some other ideas from that side of the House than complaints about what we are doing.

National Policy Planning Framework: Housing

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Baroness Taylor of Stevenage

Monday 6th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate raises a very interesting point about space standards. Coming from a new town, I remember the standards that were introduced when my town was built. On the issues around the National Planning Policy Framework and the social aspects of it, as the Planning Inspectorate goes through the process of assessing local plans—it is important to remember that fewer local authorities do not have them than those that do—it takes account of the social aspects of the plans as well as of the straightforward housing numbers. That is part of the work of my department, and we will be looking at that closely. The social aspects of the planning framework are equally as important as the technical aspects.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, first, I offer our condolences from these Benches to the friends and family of Baroness Randerson. She will be very much missed in this House.

Affordable homes should be built where they are most needed, meaning near jobs and existing infrastructure such as public transport networks, schools and doctors. With that in mind, can the Minister tell us why London’s mandatory housing target has decreased while some rural constituencies have seen increases in hundreds of per cent? Will the Government reconsider their targets to build more affordable homes in London, where there is the highest need for them?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The new methodology has been carefully considered. It strikes a balance between meeting the scale of need right across the country and focusing additional growth on places facing the biggest affordability pressures by more than doubling the affordability multiplier, which is in the method. It produces a figure for London of nearly 88,000—more than double recent delivery—and London has the biggest proposed percentage increase against existing delivery of any region in the country by a significant margin.

Landlords: Long-term Rentals

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Baroness Taylor of Stevenage

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I could not agree more with the noble Lord that for some people in the housing market, the only affordable housing is social rented. The Chancellor set out in the Budget that we will make an immediate one-year cash injection of £500 million into the current affordable homes programme. I can confirm that that can be used to purchase property on the private market. That will support the delivery of up to 5,000 new social and affordable homes. In addition, at the multiyear spending review next year, we will set out details of new investment to succeed the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme. That will deliver a mix of homes for sub-market rent and home ownership, with a particular focus on delivering homes for social rent. I hope our Deputy Prime Minister’s promise to deliver a revolution in the delivery of social homes will come to fruition.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, there will always be a market for rental accommodation and, under the Conservative Governments, the number of households in the private rented sector rose from 3.1 million to 4.4 million between 2009 and 2021. How does the Minister intend to ensure that the Government’s legislative agenda does not reduce the number of properties available for private renters and risk rent increases?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

First of all, I would say that the number of people who were able to own their own properties actually fell under the last Government. I am surprised, with the record that we have heard many times in this House of the number of people who are currently on housing waiting lists and 150,000 people in temporary and emergency accommodation, that the previous Government want to stand up and question this issue in the House. The PRS has doubled in size since 2002. We will continue to do what we can to support both landlords and tenants in that sector. We are about to introduce the Renters’ Rights Bill to this House. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have already engaged on that. If there is anybody who has not yet, do get in touch with me, but I look forward to working with the House to deliver a very effective piece of renters’ rights legislation.

Cladding Remediation

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Baroness Taylor of Stevenage

Monday 25th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for the action she has taken already in this respect. The Government are committed to improving building safety, and to accelerating the remediation of unsafe social housing just as much as we are for those in private rented and private owned property. Investment in remediation will rise to record levels of over £1.5 billion across 2024-25 and 2025-26, and that includes new investment to speed up the remediation of social housing. The Government will set out further steps to accelerate remediation in the remediation acceleration plan. Social landlords have access to existing government grants, and the Government are committed to providing £400 million of grant funding to the social housing sector for the removal of unsafe cladding. With social housing, as with other types of housing, there is no excuse now for not getting on with this as quickly as possible.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, following on from the Question of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, this Labour Government have allocated only £1 billion of funding for the removal of the cladding, in contrast to the £5.1 billion allocated by the previous Government to fix the most dangerous cladding through the cladding safety scheme. Can the Minister explain how the Government came to the figure of £1 billion, and will she commit to comparable levels of support to those seen under the last Government?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, we have waited seven years for action to be taken on this. The remediation acceleration plan will set out the full details of how we intend to take this forward, and the funding that has been set aside. Of course, we would have wanted to put more into this, but with a £22 billion black hole, it has not been possible to do so.

Council Tax

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Baroness Taylor of Stevenage

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, when it comes to local government, the Chancellor is giving with one hand and taking away with another. The increase of employer national insurance contribution will hit local government hard, particularly through its contracted services. Can the Minister explain how the Government expect councils to cover their increased costs without raising council tax, or are His Majesty’s Government happy to see yet another tax increase on working people as a result of their Budget?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government have committed to provide support for departments and other public sector employers for additional employer national insurance costs. This applies to those directly employed by the public sector, including local government. We will set out further details of how this support will be delivered in due course.

Barnsley and Sheffield (Boundary Change) Order 2024

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Baroness Taylor of Stevenage

Monday 11th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister said, this order provides for the boundary between Barnsley and Sheffield to be revised so that the whole of the area of Oughtibridge Mill housing development will be in the City of Sheffield, as well as providing for consequential changes to corresponding wards and parish boundaries. I am pleased that the councils concerned both support boundary change, as do the affected parish councils. I also note that the LGBCE published a draft of this and asked for responses locally. There were 19 responses, I understand, including six from residents, five of whom were in favour and only one opposed. Therefore, one can say that the proposal is accepted locally.

His Majesty’s loyal Opposition do not oppose these sensible boundary changes, as they suit not only local residents but the relevant public authorities and bodies. I also accept the late minor changes in the draft SI.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the two noble Baronesses who have made excellent and important contributions to this debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for her correction to my southern pronunciation of Oughtibridge. I am very grateful. I will not get that wrong again, will I? Thank you very much for that.

A number of points were made, which I will respond to. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised the issue of the process for review. I have to say that the measure probably was slightly held up by the election, but it has still taken quite a long time. I will take that back, because all of us who have been councillors—I think that everybody taking part in this debate has been—will know that such anomalies often occur. If the process needs to be made more straightforward, we should look at that, because all the reasons given for this SI would apply similarly to other areas where there are revisions to boundaries.

As for councillor qualification, I understand that that is set out in Article 7 of the order, which allows for a change of councillor. I am not aware that there is an issue there in this case, but I understand the residency qualification issue. Of course, councillors can qualify if they have a business or for other reasons but, if it is a residency qualification, that would need to be taken into account. However, as both participants were supportive of this proposal, it is probably the case that there was no issue, but we will bear that in mind if any future SIs like this come forward. We have to be very clear about what is happening in relation to councillor representation, because if a residency qualification is at issue, there may be implications, but that is all set out in Article 7.

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England recommendation meets the statutory obligation to secure effective and convenient local government while reflecting the interests and identities of local communities. That sits right at the heart of this SI. In short, the order makes a small boundary change, supported by both local councils and recommended by the Local Government Boundary Commission, and I beg to move.

Spending Commitments to Local Councils

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Baroness Taylor of Stevenage

Monday 22nd July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. Council tax increases, of course, are ultimately decided by local authorities, but the Government are committed to keeping taxes on working people and households as low as possible. We will carefully consider the impact on councils and taxpayers before making any decisions on taxes. Decisions on referendum principles will be part of the next spending review process and of course we will seek the views of local government before we take any decisions on those.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, since the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, tabled her Question, I understand that a number of local councils have had spending commitments suspended, including Harlow in Essex, which is now set to lose out on £20 million towards the rebuilding of its town centre. Can the Minister tell me how many councils have had these disappointing letters, and what the Government plan to do to support councils such as Harlow which were relying on these commitments to deliver growth and regeneration that I am sure His Majesty’s Government would want to support?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, there has to be a short pause while we seek clarity on existing funding commitments, as I said earlier. The Government are fully considering those funding arrangements and I know that a great deal of work has been put in. Many of those projects are aligned with the growth that we want, and we hope to be able to give all local authorities the answers in very short order.