Renters’ Rights Bill
Lord Carter of Haslemere Excerpts(1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I will wind up on this group and give a little more detail on my Amendment 264. It is a straightforward amendment; I like to be straightforward. Based on the facts given by noble Lords in this debate, there is evidently a genuine concern about the capacity of the courts to deliver. All contributions have been well evidenced and—I will be quite frank—are worrying.
From our perspective, as was evidenced by the contribution from my noble friend Lady Grender, we support this legislation, we want ir to work and, for it to work, we know that the courts have to be efficient. If they are not, it could undermine the core purpose of the Bill, as was passionately said by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. We know of, and understand, the issues regarding the courts. These have been well articulated in every contribution across the Committee, so I will not repeat them. However, many legitimate questions have been posed to which we need answers.
On Amendment 264, it is vital that court capacity is reviewed, and that this is enshrined in the Bill to make sure that it happens formally and can be scrutinised within two years. We feel that two years is probably enough, certainly to sort out the IT—as referenced by the noble Earl—and to feel whether we are moving on to an even keel after an initial transition period. I am sure that, as we go through the rest of the days in Committee, we will look at that transition period.
The amendment looks at all the key components for the effective working of the courts. It asks to look at access to justice. We must ensure that the system is accessible, affordable and understandable for all, regardless of a tenant’s background and circumstances. It is legitimate to ask the Government for their commitment to resourcing the courts and to have hard evidence about case volume, how many cases, and how long they are taking—the last aspect being very important for both landlords and tenants.
As has been mentioned, the current evidence is of the months ticking by, which is unfair to landlords. Their concerns in this instance are valid. Under the new grounds, if eviction is legitimate, it needs to happen quickly. Delaying things by months could put some landlords in financial jeopardy and tenants in real limbo and uncertainty. I am sure that any Secretary of State would want answers to these pertinent questions within a reasonable timeframe to ensure that all is working as intended, or, if not, in time to make some remediation, as the assessment will be based on real data. I am certain that the Government, too, are concerned about this and are doing everything they can to make sure that the courts are ready; I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
However, we do not support in any way Amendment 283 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to delay the abolition of Section 21. The sooner the long-promised abolition of Section 21 happens, the better. Indeed, Amendments 279, 280 and 283, as well as, to a lesser extent, Amendment 69, would certainly result in delays in the Act coming into force. For this critical reason, we cannot support them.
However, this does not mean that we do not take this issue seriously; I am not wearing rose-coloured spectacles. I expect full answers on the readiness of our courts to deal with these radical changes. The criticism and concerns regarding the courts have been known now for some considerable time. Work must have been done, so we would expect the Government now to have some hard answers.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and all noble Lords who have spoken about concerns about court capacity to deal with the huge increase in loads that will come their way. This is not just a serious policy issue; it is an important legal one. Article 6 of the ECHR guarantees rights of access to justice within a reasonable time, and if those rights are delayed then that will impact also on landlords’ rights under Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR, which is about rights to property. I am afraid there is nothing in the ECHR memorandum, which I have with me, addressing the Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 points relating to delays to justice in the courts. That is an important issue that has to be addressed, and I cannot see how this sensible Amendment 264 can be denied. Incidentally, the amendment overlaps with Amendment 106, which we will consider later; for some reason, they have been put in different groups.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, there are a lot of issues in this group, but the bottom line, again and again, is the imbalance of supply and demand, and the imbalance of power between tenant and landlord. Demand significantly outstrips supply. The landlord/tenant balance is surely like a see-saw, with one fairly heavy person on one end and a nice sylph-like person on the other end. I believe this legislation just wants to even it up a little bit.
There are those of us who feel that, in this kind of market, landlords can and do charge what they want. Rents have been going up significantly, driving more people out of the private rented sector and—I think this is a point on which we have so far not joined the dots—into the arms of their local authorities under the homelessness and temporary accommodation route. We need only look at the rising figures to know that this is happening and happening at scale. We have debated it regularly in your Lordships’ House over several years.
I was not surprised to read on the front page of the Guardian this morning that one of its surveys found that private rented sector landlords are fleecing taxpayers as a direct result of the temporary accommodation crisis. The Guardian found:
“Local authorities in England are paying 60% more for rooms in … bed and breakfasts and hostels than it would cost to rent similar-sized accommodation”
in the private rented sector. There are far more details in the front-page article, but it is irrefutable that some private landlords and hotels are cashing in on England’s hidden homelessness crisis. The lack of supply creates a vicious cycle that is costing the country an enormous amount of money. Thus, we support all the measures the Government are taking in the Bill to try to curb unreasonable rent increases and prevent economic evictions. We will discuss this more in the next group.
We are also concerned about market rents being the deciding factor for the tribunal, given a market that is significantly undersupplied, especially in areas of the country with high housing prices. If market rents are used, they should be based on existing equivalent rental properties in the area and not just new builds, which are usually more expensive and can be overpriced. I look forward to debating the amendments in the next group, which are trying to bring some resolution to this.
I will dispatch positively and succinctly all the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. Her commitment to the social housing sector and her work with registered providers is well known. It is no surprise that she was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Best, to whom the same accolades could apply. Such providers are in a dilemma over rents and at the mercy of the Government as to when and by how much they can increase rents, as the noble Baroness outlined very well. We are concerned that there is increasing evidence that a significant number are cutting back on their future development plans to build social and affordable homes at a time when we all want the opposite.
On the First-tier Tribunal, there seems to be a real fear around the Committee that renters will all rush to challenge their annual rent rise, as has been said by many. I am pragmatic about this. I think it is probably wise to expect an increase, which is why we wholeheartedly support Amendment 87, from the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. I was a little too late to put my name to it—the nominations had closed, so to speak—but I would have. If there can be a simple mechanism to weed out claims that have absolutely no chance of success, as has happened in Scotland, it must be worth considering.
We can clearly see from recent tribunal hearings that cases are often contradictory and inconsistent, and seem to rely on different sources to make a judgment, which means they are often based on an incomplete picture. This is why I have submitted Amendment 106, supported by the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Howard, for which I thank them. We are simply seeking assurances that the tribunal is fit for purpose and ready to go, and that adequate consultations have been carried out.
What is worrying is a recent survey by Generation Rent, which I too thank for its work all year round and in particular with this Bill. The survey found that less than one-third of renters had actually heard of the tribunal, with fewer than 10% claiming to know a lot about it. There is clearly a lot more work to do before we even get a trickle of people, let alone a tsunami of people or everyone, making an appeal against their rent. Thus, we could not support any amendments that involve tenants paying landlords’ costs, or allowing the tribunal to award higher rents, as these are new barriers to renters exercising their rights.
However, I have a degree of sympathy with Amendment 99, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and very ably supported by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. The rent should be backdated to when it would have been legally allowed to be raised, otherwise there really is an incentive to appeal: “What have we got to lose?”. To me, it does not seem fair.
Finally, it feels wrong, as has been said by several noble Lords, that a landlord should add value to their capital asset and then use that immediately to hike the rent—a financial win-win for the landlord. Likewise, Amendment 70 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has some merit.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 106 from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. I declare an interest as a former landlord.
Clause 8 of the Bill amends Section 14 of the 1988 Act to allow any tenant to challenge a rent rise in the First-tier Tribunal. It will be free of charge. No tribunal ruling will be able to increase the rent proposed by the landlord. By challenging the rent rise, as we have heard, the tenant will automatically delay any rent rise by several months, however modest and justified it may be.
This will obviously create an incentive for tenants to challenge single rent rises, regardless of the merits, and without any risk to them doing so. As we have heard, if their appeal is unsuccessful, they will then be liable to pay the increase in rent only from the date of the tribunal’s determination. That is incredibly unfair on landlords, for the reasons the noble Lord, Lord Young, and my noble friends Lord Carrington and Lord Cromwell have given. What have tenants got to lose? My focus is to express strong support for seeking to ensure that the tribunal has adequate resources to cope with the likely increase in the number of rent rise challenges it will face. Okay, not 100% of tenants are going to challenge rent rises, but there will be a significant increase unless changes are made to the Bill to remove the incentive to do so, because they have nothing to lose.
Given that the tenant will hold all the aces in the pack, the tribunal floodgates are likely to be, or are at risk of being, opened. Without more tribunal resources, this will greatly increase delays and create even more incentives to challenge rent rises. The Government need to get this right or the system will grind to a halt, landlords will leave the sector in droves and tenants will be at risk of homelessness. As I said at Second Reading, there needs to be balance in the very welcome improvements that the Bill makes as a whole. The relationship between landlord and tenant has to be a two-way street to maximise the effectiveness of the Bill.
As this amendment proposes, there needs to be a proper consultation, including with the senior judiciary, before these provisions are commenced, to ensure that the tribunal system is adequately resourced to cope with the increased demand—what on earth could there be against that? This is such a sensible and unobjectionable amendment, and I am looking forward to seeing it accepted by the Minister and appearing in the next proof of the Bill.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott of Bybrook, Lady Thornhill, Lady Wolf of Dulwich and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, as well as my noble friends Lady Warwick of Undercliffe and Lord Hacking, for their amendments on rent increases, and all noble Lords who have spoken, including the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell, Lord Howard, Lord Young, Lord Marlesford and Lord Carter of Haslemere, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley.
I will start with the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, on the challenge to rent levels. He asked whether that concerned a permanent change to the rent. When a tenant challenges their rent, it will be that challenge that is decided upon by the tribunal. Each time the Section 13 notice is issued, presumably the tenant will be able to go back again and challenge that rent. It is unlikely that they will do that, because if a landlord gets taken through the tribunal for an increase in rent, he or she is unlikely to go back and do that again.
The point the noble Lord made about the lack of affordability in housing sits at the heart of the Bill, to some extent. However, this Bill is only part of the Government’s response to the housing market’s lack of affordability, and not the totality of it. I point to the increase in supply that we are trying to drive forward and the reforms we have made to planning, which will, I hope, increase the supply of housing. There is also the £2 billion we are investing in social and affordable housing, which I genuinely think will help to change things, and the £633 million we have put into relieving homelessness, which I hope will help.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to the cost of temporary and emergency accommodation. Not only is temporary and emergency accommodation devastating for families—it is just awful for them, and we have heard so many terrible stories about that—it has seriously exacerbated the dire financial situation that our councils find themselves in, which is not helped by profiteering. Of course, not all landlords do that, but there is no doubt that some profiteering is going on, as has been reported in the press today.
We have a significant number of amendments in this group; in the interests of time, I will attempt to address each of them thematically. First, Amendment 75, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would allow landlords and tenants to agree a higher rent than the tribunal’s determination. We have been clear that, after the Bill’s implementation, the only way that parties will be able to agree a higher rent is via the Section 13 process.
I am not sure why the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, feels that a tenant would object to and challenge a rent increase that they had agreed to. If a tenant and a landlord come to an agreement on a rent increase, presumably there would be no need for the tenant to challenge that at the tribunal. If the rent is challenged, then the tribunal can determine it. This amendment would leave a gaping loophole for unscrupulous landlords to force tenants to accept a higher rent, even after they have challenged it at the tribunal. Clearly, no tenant would agree to this unless they were under pressure, and it is for that reason that I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I understand what the noble Lord is saying, but putting a backdated rent increase burden on people who are challenging the rent because they cannot afford it in the first place would just exacerbate the problem, rather than make the proper ability to challenge their rent increase available and accessible to them, which is part of the aim of the Bill.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
If you take a civil case to the court and you win your appeal, the appeal court grants you your rights from the date they arose. Your rights are always backdated to the date the rights arose, so this is a dramatic departure from normal court procedure.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I accept that it is a dramatic departure, but it is done for a good purpose. We put the provision in the Bill to prevent tenants being penalised for challenging their rent at tribunal by having a backdated increase.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Lord Carter of Haslemere Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend raises a very important point. The Bill has merit. It also endangers the overall objective of increasing the supply of housing for the people of this country. It is very important that the transitional costs of introducing the Bill, if it becomes an Act, are minimised. The point that my noble friend perhaps did not emphasise sufficiently is that if there is a retrospective element to the Act, particularly if it is a rather obscure and unclear retrospective element, that will result in more confusion and, most importantly, more need for judicial decision. We should bear in mind throughout Committee that the judicial system in this country is under huge stress, the Chancellor is being asked for more money for really crucial cases, and it must be an objective of the Government, as we consider the Bill, to make sure that, in whatever form the Bill eventually comes out, it will require a minimum of judicial intervention.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I support what the noble Lords have said there. The principle against retrospection is long-lasting and fundamental to our constitution and our legal system, and it is enshrined, as has been said, in the European Convention on Human Rights.
There is an ECHR memorandum on the Bill in which the assessment is made that it strikes a proportionate balance between rights of property on one hand and the rights of tenants on the other. I would like to know from the Minister whether that proportionality assessment has properly taken into account the significance and the implications of the retrospection that has been drawn attention to here. What actually are the implications of that retrospection? What does it affect? If those words are kept in the Bill, what rights do they actually affect which are imposed in a new way by the Bill?
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
Not wishing to lower the tone of erudition in the Committee, I would say, “latine non studi”. In plain English, what I would like to say is that the kernel of the noble Lord’s concerns is about certainty and clarity over arrangements. We have all had letters from different people saying, “I don’t know whether this means I now have to change”. So I genuinely think that there is an issue around clarity and understanding and, to that end, I really look forward to the Minister’s response, because what we all need is a clear and flexible framework for tenancies that everyone understands. She spoke in some of her answers about making it simpler, but it seems that, historically, we have inherited quite an amazing array of differences, and it is perhaps no wonder that some people are struggling. So I think that the transition, and transitional arrangements, is something we should look at.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Lord Carter of Haslemere Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a landlord of a residential property. I will speak to Amendments 60 and 61 in this group. I am grateful to the National Residential Landlords Association for very helpful discussions. These amendments would benefit both tenants and landlords.
The first amendment would keep the threshold for mandatory repossession by landlords at two months of rent arrears, rather than increasing it to three months, as proposed in the Bill. The second would continue to permit rent arrears arising from non-payment of universal credit to be taken into account as a ground for repossession.
One might think that my motivation behind these amendments is purely to support landlords but, as I said at Second Reading, I am keen to support tenants as much as landlords in improving the current system, since they are two sides of the same coin, and one cannot exist without the other. This is a golden thread running through this entire Bill.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said on the first day of Committee, there must be “balance” in the Bill. Any weighting of the scales in favour of one—while it might be well motivated—risks being counterproductive and detrimental to both. This is amply demonstrated by the Bill proposing to increase the threshold for rent arrears to three months before enforcement action can be taken.
Tenants in arrears will struggle to recover financially, making it harder for them to access housing in the future. The arrears are likely to mount up well beyond the three-month threshold. For example, if one adds on the one-month notice period, plus the average seven months for a court to process a Section 8 possession application, the tenant could end up having to leave the property with nearly 12 months’ arrears. Is that really a good outcome for tenants?
In addition, responsible landlords will become more risk averse, prioritising tenants who can clearly prove their ability to sustain a tenancy in the long term. This will be particularly damaging for vulnerable tenants, including those in receipt of local housing allowance, especially as support for housing costs has been frozen from April this year. Moreover, allowing rent arrears to climb to three months before enforcement action can be taken risks intimidating good landlords into leaving the sector.
A landlord is not a charity, and some depend entirely on the rent to pay mortgages or for their daily living costs. If good landlords are intimidated into selling up because it is too difficult to enforce rent arrears, tenants will very often have nowhere to live. According to Savills, up to 1 million more homes for private rent will be needed by 2031 to meet growing demand. We must keep good landlords in the sector to avoid making tenants homeless. Again, these are two sides of the same coin, and one cannot exist without the other.
My first amendment would keep the threshold for enforcement action at two months’ rent arrears. I accept that, if we are going to keep the existing threshold, landlords should be required to do more to help their tenants. For example, there could be a duty on landlords, at the first sign of arrears, to seek meaningful engagement with the tenant to prevent further debt, and to show in any subsequent possession proceedings that they had done that, or at least tried to do that. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the National Residential Landlords Association produced some very highly regarded golden rules showing how this and other types of landlord-tenant engagement could work; for example, by the landlord pointing the tenant to a relevant advisory service, such as Citizens Advice and/or the debt charity StepChange. Such measures would improve the status quo while avoiding the damaging effects of moving to a three-month arrears threshold.
I turn to my second amendment. It makes no sense whatever to disregard for enforcement purposes rent arrears arising from the fact that the tenant has not received an award of universal credit under Part 1 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012. This is for two reasons. First, it is unjustifiable to penalise landlords for non-payment of universal credit to the tenant. Why should the landlord suffer if the non-payment of universal credit is the fault of the tenant, or if the universal credit system has broken down in some way?
Secondly, unlike in the social sector, private landlords are not allowed to know, under GDPR rules, whether a tenant is in receipt of universal credit. As such, they have no idea whether rent arrears are due to a non-payment of universal credit, especially if a tenant has multiple sources of income. Disregarding non-payment of universal credit is therefore wholly unworkable since, if the landlord does not know whether rent arrears are due to non-payment of universal credit, the Bill has the effect that they may try to take enforcement action that proves to be pointless, which is surely the last thing that this new system needs.
The upshot is that landlords will be more cautious about taking on tenants on universal credit, contrary to the commendable ethos of the Bill as a whole. I ask the Minister to consider these amendments very carefully and to bear in mind the need for balance and my suggested mitigations so as to keep the status quo, having regard to the need for real evenness of handling on both sides of the landlord/tenant coin.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 60 of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, and will speak to my Amendments 165 and 166. But, before I do, I have two apologies to give to the House. The first apology relates to my failure to speak at Second Reading, although I did speak at the Second Reading of the last Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill. The reason I was unable to speak at Second Reading is that I was, unfortunately, in and out of St Thomas’ Hospital, which looked after me very well, but I was unable to come to the House at the time of the Second Reading of the Bill.
My second apology is for my absence on Tuesday of this week, the first day of Committee on the Bill. My wife had booked a short Easter holiday on the Isle of Wight, not expecting the House to be sitting immediately after Easter Monday. Rightly or wrongly, I took the favour of the family rather than the first day of Committee. I think my noble friend the Minister has forgiven me for this—at least I hope she has. Happily, however, my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, who sits behind me, agreed to be in the House for the first Committee day and to move any of my amendments should they be called. Even more happily, none was.
I should declare interests which are recorded in the register. My wife and I are the landlords of five sets of tenants in one-bedroom flats in the house next door to our own. While we as landlords and our tenants will be subject to the new provisions contained in this Bill, there is nothing contentious relating to our five tenants—or to ourselves—that I will be raising during the passage of this Bill.
Amendment 60, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, which I support, has been grouped among a variety of amendments relating to orders for possession. Most of them have little contact one with the other, but they are all grouped together in this same list. That certainly applies to my Amendments 165 and 166.
I shall say a general word before I go on to the specific argument concerning these amendments. This Bill is, most rightly, directed to redress the balance between the landlord and the tenant in the private rented sector. This is very right, because since the Housing Act 1988, the balance has swung far too far towards the landlords—particularly rogue landlords—which has caused great distress to many innocent tenants. However, we must be sure now that we are getting the right balance between landlords and tenants. Yes, there are rogue landlords, but there are also rogue tenants.
Originally, in Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1988, notices for possession for arrears of rent would not become effective until the rent was overdue for 13 weeks, relating to weekly or fortnightly rentals, or three months, relating to monthly rentals. This was altered in some subsequent legislation, and this Bill now seeks to go back to the provisions of the 1988 Act. What is the reason for this? I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could address it. What is the evidence that shorter periods of eight weeks and two months had been causing any problems?
We need to look at the practical side. The maximum deposit that a landlord is now permitted to collect is calculated against five weeks of rent. The effect is that the landlord is covered for the first failure of paying rent but is not covered during the subsequent two months of non-paid rent. More than that, it will take up to two more months before the landlord is able to get a hearing in the county court for possession and unpaid rent. This means that the landlord will be without rent for at least four months. Even if the landlord succeeds in getting an order for possession and an order for the unpaid rent, the chances are that he will never get back the unpaid rent. The question that I put to the House, and indeed to my noble friend the Minister, is whether this is fair and balanced.
I turn to Amendments 165 and 166, which are directed to the time in which the landlord is not permitted to put the property on the market when he has gained possession on the grounds of family need or other need specified in ground 1 or 1A of the Housing Act 1988. I adopt all that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said in his argument that this period under which the landlord is not permitted to put the property on the market—a period of 12 months—is quite excessive and quite wrong. I need not repeat the noble Lord’s arguments.
The Minister was very kind to see many of us in meetings before Committee. I had the privilege of a meeting with her, at which she explained that there is an abuse by some rogue landlords in using the instrument to remove a tenant from the property, let us say, for members of his family or other persons as specified in ground 1A of the 1988 Act. She described the 12 months as a deterrent against this abuse—a means, so my noble friend said, for the rogue landlord to raise the rent. What about the genuine situation of a landlord getting possession of the accommodation, say on family grounds, to accommodate grandparents, and then one of the grandparents has a severe stroke which prevents both of them taking up the accommodation? Why should the landlord then be left with the property when he was genuinely seeking to accommodate members of his own family for 12 months? The question is: is it fair or right that the landlord is prevented for a whole year from letting out his property? That is a matter that I again address to my noble friend the Minister.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The advice I have is that it is in the ECHR memorandum, so I refer the noble Baroness to that. If she wants further advice once she has looked at it, I am happy to take that back to the department.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
The ECHR memorandum does not address the scenario outlined by the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Pannick. It simply does not refer to that. That scenario looks at how this provision will affect bona fide, good landlords. Yes, there are possibly some rapacious landlords out there, but the vast majority are not. They might need to sell their property, and to have to wait a year to be able to do that is simply disproportionate.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am happy to get further written advice for the noble Lords.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have had meetings with landlord representative bodies, but I cannot tell the noble Lord the number off the top of my head. I will write to him with that.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
I promise this will be my final point. Is the Minister monitoring carefully—I think in the past she said she was—how many landlords are leaving the sector? To state the blindingly obvious, many more people can afford to rent than can afford to buy. If large numbers of landlords are leaving the sector—and it would be really helpful to have some figures on that—where are those people going to live: with mum and dad, or on the streets?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I do not know whether the noble Lord was present on Tuesday, but we had an extensive discussion about the impact of the Bill. I set out the Government’s assessment that it will not have an unreasonable impact on letting, and that the department will carefully monitor the Bill’s impact going forward.
High-rise Buildings: Safety Remediation
Lord Carter of Haslemere Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My noble friend is right to point to the strains on social housing between remediation of all kinds of maintenance defects, including fire safety, and building new affordable housing. From April, we will increase targeted support for social landlords applying for government remediation funding. That will help them meet the costs of planning and preparing for remediation works, and to start remedial work sooner. Social landlords can apply for government remediation funding equivalent to the amount that would otherwise have been passed on to leaseholders, or for the full cost of the works where remediation would render a social landlord financially unviable. We have committed £568 million to support the remediation of social housing through government schemes.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, the Public Accounts Committee points out that developers, social housing providers, landlords and owners—everyone, it seems, except the culpable manufacturers of this cladding—are being made to contribute to the costs of remediation. What is being done to ensure that the culpable manufacturers of this cladding will be made to contribute?
Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 2 Report
Lord Carter of Haslemere Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for the points that she has eloquently raised. I did not mention this, but I pay tribute to the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Pinnock, for the work they have done for many years on this issue, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in her role as a government Minister in this area. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, for her work with the bereaved and victims’ families in this area.
On her particular points, we are taking forward the inquiry’s recommendation on oversight. There needs to be better accountability for and oversight of how recommendations are implemented. We totally accept that. Robust oversight of the Government’s implementation of the response is essential for this and for all public inquiries. The system needs to be improved, and we are taking forward the inquiry’s recommendations on oversight.
We will create a publicly accessible record on GOV.UK of recommendations made by public inquiries since 2024. We will consider making this a legal requirement as part of a wider review of the inquiry framework. My department will publish quarterly progress updates regarding the Grenfell inquiry recommendations on GOV.UK until they have all been delivered. We will report annually to Parliament, to enable Members to scrutinise our progress and hold us to account.
I say to the noble Baroness that my office is always available, and I am happy to sit down with her and noble Lords across the House if there is anything pertinent that they think the Government need to be doing more of.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, my point follows on nicely from that of the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson. I do not find the Minister’s response totally satisfactory because, in the Government’s response to the Grenfell inquiry report, they accept the need for “robust” scrutiny of the implementation of the recommendations of both public inquiries and inquests. But transparency and accessibility by means of a public record of recommendations is not the same as robust scrutiny of implementation—they are two different things.
Both your Lordships’ Statutory Inquiries Select Committee and the Grenfell inquiry said there should be scrutiny by Parliament, and the Government’s response is silent on that crucial point. Without that, we are, frankly, no further forward. We have seen the disaster that happened at Grenfell following a failure to implement the recommendations of the Lakanal House inquest and the coroner’s prevention of future deaths report. If we had had robust scrutiny of implementation following the Lakanal House disaster, Grenfell probably would not have happened and certainly 72 lives would not have been lost. So are the Government prepared to accept that there needs to be scrutiny of implementation of public inquiry recommendations and inquest recommendations by Parliament?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for making that point. The Government are committed to ensure lasting transparency and accountability by creating a publicly accessible record of all public inquiry recommendations. We need to learn from past mistakes to stop them being repeated and ensure that a clear process is there on reforms. As I said in my previous answer, we will report back to Parliament annually, ensure we have quarterly updates on GOV.UK and continue to meet families and victims.
I was with victims yesterday with the Deputy Prime Minister, listening to the concerns and, naturally, frustrations. Lasting transparency is important; we also want to commit to enforcing a legal duty of candour through a new Hillsborough law. Your Lordships may recall that this is something we have talked about. We need to compel public authorities to disclose the truth, ensuring transparency in major incidents, such as the one mentioned by the noble Lord. We want to hold those responsible for failings to account, and we are committed to that.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Lord Carter of Haslemere Excerpts(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, what wonderful maiden speeches we have heard today. I heartily endorse the congratulations given to our new Peers.
Having read the debates in the other place describing the horror stories of damp dripping down walls, mould, infestations, faulty electrics and landlords who just do not care, I welcome the principles behind this Bill. As recorded in the register, I have dabbled with being a landlord myself, and know that nothing is more important than the safety and well-being of tenants. The majority of landlords take their responsibilities seriously, but for far too long a minority of rogue landlords have been able to exploit loopholes in legislation to treat tenants in, frankly, a horrific and wholly unacceptable way. The Bill must put an end to that and provide tenants with the security and certainty they deserve.
Our overall objective must be providing enough safe rented accommodation for all, thereby helping to end homelessness. However, homelessness, in our context, can arise in two very different ways: first, by unscrupulous landlords evicting tenants who have the courage to point out problems in their rented properties; but, secondly, by imposing excessive blanket regulation which causes conscientious landlords to sell up. Both must be prevented if we are to reduce, and perhaps one day eliminate, homelessness.
A delicate balance therefore has to be struck here. There clearly needs to be tighter regulation, but the last thing we want is good landlords being deterred by this Bill from staying in the sector. This would drive up rents and empower those bad landlords who simply ignore the rules. We need to be honest about this reality and not allow well-meaning ideology to trump what is in the public interest.
Therefore, it is alarming to hear the leader of the Opposition in the other place say that 47% of landlords either attempted to sell a property in 2023 or were thinking of doing so, with the biggest reason being their fear of new laws. Good landlords provide a vital service. The private rented sector is essential for those who cannot yet afford a mortgage, young people and those who need to move for work purposes. Landlords giving up rental properties will not help the people who need to rent, and there are an awful lot of them.
What is the answer to getting the balance right? For me, the way to do it is by targeting the new regulatory regime at the unscrupulous landlords, not by using the blunt instrument of blanket regulatory burdens, which will deter good landlords from continuing and risk increasing homelessness. We heard in the other place that four-fifths of landlords are conscientious and want to look after the well-being of their tenants—and, of course, their properties. Yes, there needs to be tighter regulation to target the minority of landlords who give that label a bad name, and many of the measures in the Bill seem entirely appropriate. The question is, rather, how are they to be enforced, by whom and against whom?
Ideally, where there is a dispute, we should be maximising the powers of a judge, arbitrator or ombudsman to adjudicate on the specific circumstances of each case to determine how the regulatory regime should fairly apply in that case. Although I suspect it will not happen, I would drop some of the provisions which may otherwise drive good landlords out, while applying a tighter regulatory framework than currently, so as to ensure greater fairness for tenants. It is a question of getting the balance right.
On the good landlords side of the balance, allowing rent arrears to accumulate over three months before enforcement action can be taken risks intimidating those landlords into leaving the sector, with all the undesirable consequences which will ensue. A landlord is not a charity, and some depend entirely on the rent to pay mortgages or for their daily living costs. The relationship between tenant and landlord has to be a two-way street. Similarly, banning landlords from obtaining rent in advance will create greater risk for landlords and make them risk-averse in selecting tenants. This can only be detrimental to the latter. I also think that any current objections to fixed-term penalties and existing periods of notice are mitigated if there is a mechanism for ensuring that the ombudsman has the power to decide, where a tenant has a complaint, whether a landlord is giving notice for the right reasons.
On the tenant’s side of the balance, the Bill is spot on as to what the reasons for eviction—horrid word—must be. Similarly, I see nothing wrong with being able to challenge rent increases if those increases are being used as a disguised way of forcing the tenant to leave, beyond the reasons permitted in the Bill. Nor do I think that the reference to open market rents being imposed on landlords is unreasonable, provided that there is a detailed explanation of how this will be assessed. I also welcome the extension of Awaab’s law to the private rental sector, to force landlords to address conditions such as faulty electrics, mould and damp.
Finally, I welcome the provisions dealing with landlord redress schemes, registration and the ombudsman, provided there is clarity about how overlap with enforcement by local authorities and the courts will be avoided. The ombudsman scheme is where the focus should be, since consideration will then be given quickly and cost-effectively to the specific circumstances of the case, provided of course that the ombudsman’s office is resourced well enough.
There is lots of promise in the Bill, but it needs to be honest and laser-focused on what is in the all-round public interest: the interests of good landlords as well as of tenants. The effect of the Bill on the housing market and its effect on homelessness then need to be monitored closely. A commitment by the Government to report to Parliament annually to that effect, even if not enshrined in the Bill, would be welcome.
Cladding Remediation
Lord Carter of Haslemere Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
The National Audit Office recently published a report showing that of the £16.6 billion total remediation cost, £6.5 billion would be met by developers, private owners and social housing providers. But what about the manufacturers of the cladding, who the inquiry found had been systematically dishonest and deliberately misled through the test data, so as to mislead the market about the safety of the cladding in question? Are they going to foot any part of the total bill?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a very important question. The Prime Minister stated on the day the inquiry’s report was published that we
“will write to all companies found by the inquiry to have been part of these horrific failings, as the first step to stopping them being awarded Government contracts”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/9/24; col. 312.]
Preliminary letters have been now written to all those organisations mentioned by name in the report, each of which bears a different level of responsibility for the failings that led to the Grenfell tragedy, including construction project manufacturers. We recognise the failings of the system for construction projects, and we announced our commitment to bring forward proposals for reform of the regulatory regime in a Written Ministerial Statement on 2 September.
Grenfell Tower Inquiry Report
Lord Carter of Haslemere Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest, as I played a role, as general counsel in No 10, in assisting Cabinet Office officials in setting up the Grenfell inquiry.
Sir Martin’s report is withering in its criticisms of almost everyone who could have prevented but failed to prevent a tragedy like this, and he makes many essential recommendations on how to stop it happening again. There must, and will, be accountability for the manufacturers, designers, contractors, developers, regulators, et cetera. The inquiry’s findings of systemic dishonesty and incompetence speak for themselves, and I understand that criminal investigations may be afoot.
My focus today, however, is not on the private sector but on the question of why successive Governments were not legally required to take effective preventive measures after previous high-rise block fires, and especially after the coroner’s detailed report on the prevention of future deaths following the Lakanal House tragedy. This raises a wider public law issue for the Government, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, touched on, since these prevention of future deaths reports arise in a multitude of different contexts. Each one records a real tragedy leading to one or more deaths, with invaluable lessons to be learned for the future on how to prevent such deaths. The tragedy of Grenfell is a shocking illustration of what can happen when lessons are not learned from these reports.
As we know, Grenfell was not the first high-rise block of flats to catch fire. In 1991, there was a fire at the 11-storey Knowsley Heights in Merseyside. By the time firefighters arrived, the entire external wall of the 11-storey building was alight, with flames coming out of windows and from the roof. New but combustible cladding had been installed three years earlier, as part of a pilot scheme intended to improve the appearance of high-rise blocks. To anyone who has read the Grenfell inquiry report, this sounds awfully familiar. Although no one died at Knowsley Heights when the cladding caught fire, the Grenfell public inquiry found that the Knowsley Heights fire “laid the ground” for the 2017 Grenfell Tower tragedy.
But before that, we must come to Lakanal House. The 14-storey Lakanal House caught fire in 2009 and six people died, including three children. The resulting inquest found that the fire spread because of combustible cladding on the building. The coroner made a prevention of future deaths report on 28 March 2013 to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. She recommended that the department review Approved Document B to ensure that it provided clear guidance, giving, as she said, particular regard to the spread of fire over the external envelope of the building. She also recommended that it be drafted in such a way as to be intelligible to everybody engaged in construction, maintenance and refurbishment of buildings, and not just to professionals who may already have a depth of knowledge of building regulations and building control. Finally, she recommended that encouragement be given to providers of high-rise accommodation to consider the retrofitting of sprinklers, and that guidance be given to residents on when to stay and when to “get out and stay out”.
Officials in the Department for Communities and Local Government gave the Secretary of State a draft letter to send in response. After internal discussion, it was sent by the Secretary of State on 20th May 2013; the details are in the inquiry report. It is easy with hindsight to criticise it, but this is what public inquiries are for, and the Grenfell inquiry found that it was an inadequate response.
The coroner’s prevention of future deaths report had provided a golden opportunity to consider whether the construction industry understood or applied the regulations and guidance, especially in respect of tall buildings with external walls containing combustible materials. But the inquiry found that the coroner’s recommendations were not treated with any sense of urgency and officials did not explain clearly to the Secretary of State what steps were required to comply with them. The department therefore failed to learn the lessons, which were there for all to see in the prevention of future deaths report, about the inadequacy of the regulatory regime itself, so dominated was it by the Government’s deregulatory agenda.
The omens were not therefore promising for the Grenfell Tower renovation in 2016. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and the tenant management organisation for Grenfell established value for money and appearance, not safety, as the key drivers for the project. So, the cheapest cladding option was chosen: aluminium composite material with unmodified polyethylene cores. The various regulators involved, which approved, certified, inspected and otherwise accredited the cladding, were allowed to act without sufficient vigour and competence—and that is putting it mildly. This was in no small part because of the failure of the Department for Communities and Local Government properly to implement the recommendations of the prevention of future deaths report following Lakanal House, especially concerning the need to provide clear guidance in Approved Document B on the risks of fire spreading over the external envelope of the building.
What exactly are prevention of future deaths reports? Regulation 28 reports, as they are now known, are made under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. A coroner has a duty to make such a report where circumstances exist which create a risk that future deaths will occur and, in the coroner’s opinion, action should be taken to prevent such an occurrence. It is not for the coroner to identify the remedial action. It is for the person responding to a report to set out details of any action which it is proposed will be taken and to set a timetable for that action; otherwise, the response must explain why no action is proposed.
There is an obligation on the person to respond within 56 days and, in the Lakanal House case, the department did that, but there was, and is, no mechanism for holding to account those who respond to such reports. Nothing is more serious than preventing future deaths, and it stands to reason that there should be proper accountability. It should not take a devastating tragedy such as Grenfell and a public inquiry to hold those responsible to account.
The same is true with public inquiry reports, to which the noble Baroness alluded. We all know that public inquiries can cost tens or hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money, but there is no legal requirement to implement their recommendations, to give reasons for not implementing them or even to track the extent to which there has been implementation. This is a shocking lack of accountability.
The Grenfell inquiry itself noted in its recommendations that the department had no system for recording recommendations made to public bodies or keeping track of its response to them. It recommended in chapter 113 that it be made
“a legal requirement for the government to maintain a publicly accessible record of recommendations made by … coroners and public inquiries together with a description of the steps taken in response”.
It went on to say:
“If the government decides not to accept a recommendation, it should record its reasons for doing so. Scrutiny of its actions should be a matter for Parliament, to which it should be required to report annually”.
Similarly, the recent House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee recommended a new committee of Parliament to hold Ministers to account in the case of public inquiries and Regulation 28 reports. The House of Lords committee noted that
“if the recommendations from the inquest into the Lakanal House fire had been implemented, then the Grenfell Tower fire may have been less likely to have occurred”.
That is an understatement, given the more recent findings that we now know from the Grenfell inquiry itself.
In conclusion, my question to the Minister is: will the Government implement the recommendation in the Grenfell inquiry report on introducing proper accountability for responding to prevention of future deaths reports and public inquiry recommendations, and, if not, why not? It might prevent another tragedy.