Homelessness: Young Adults
Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts(5 days, 23 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My noble friend knows how strongly I agree with the comments she has just made. The Government view the Vagrancy Act as antiquated and no longer fit for purpose. No one should be criminalised for simply sleeping rough on the streets. We must ensure that we avoid criminalising those who are the most vulnerable, while also ensuring that police and local authorities have the wide range of tools they need to make sure that communities feel safe. We are in the process of making sure that happens. As my noble friend will know, repeal of the Act needs to be included in forthcoming legislation. Colleagues in the Home Office are exploring options to do just that, and I want to make sure it is done as quickly as possible.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, a very high proportion of young people who become homeless were originally in care, with one survey indicating that a third of care leavers become homeless within two years. The Children and Social Work Act 2017 requires local authorities to continue to support care leavers until they are 25. Is the Minister satisfied that local authorities are doing all they can in that respect?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As I said in my initial Answer, we continue to strive to make sure that we offer the best support possible for care leavers. The noble Lord is right to say that they deserve to have that support right through to the age of 25. Earlier this year, we introduced a measure into the DfE’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to make sure that no care leaver in scope of corporate parenting duties can be found intentionally homeless. We also made the decision to further strengthen legislation as the Government are all too aware of the long-term impact that pre-care and post-care experiences can have on young people. It is essential, as part of local authorities’ role as corporate parents, that this vulnerability is recognised and that care leavers are provided with the care, stability and support they need to build a secure and successful future.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts(1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to this group of amendments and to thank my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for their amendments.
Before I get into the substance of the debate, I would like to issue a plea. I hope the Minister knows that I have the utmost respect for her. However, so far in Committee, we have been disappointed with the responses we have received to our debates and amendments. I can say in good conscience that, when I sat in her seat on her side of the Chamber, I treated every amendment put before me with respect; I often took issues back to the department to consider and, where possible, made changes. That is because I understood that it was the role of the House of Lords to scrutinise, revise and improve legislation. Unfortunately, it does not feel like this is still happening. Questions go unanswered and suggestions are dismissed without sufficient consideration.
This House has always been more about reason and substance than blind political ideology. I hope that the Minister can approach our debates going forward in that vein. I know full well that Ministers cannot always have the answers at their fingertips, and I am very happy to have written answers on points of details. However, I do ask that the Minister treats our House and our suggestions seriously, in the nature that they are intended.
This group addresses a critical issue that will determine the success or failure of the Bill: the capacity of our courts to deliver it. Let me say from the outset that we fully support the ambition to strengthen security and fairness in the private rented sector. That commitment was made clear in the previous Renters (Reform) Bill. Within that, the previous Conservative Government set out that Section 21 would not be abolished until meaningful court reform had been undertaken and sufficient progress achieved. Such caution was not merely prudent but essential, considering the challenges facing our courts system.
This Bill abandons the careful sequencing we set out under the previous Renters (Reform) Bill. Under our approach, Section 21 would not have been abolished until meaningful improvements had been made to His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service. We also committed to a six-month implementation period for new tenancies to ensure that the system could cope. These safeguards were not incidental; they were essential.
However, in this Bill, those safeguards are gone. There is no clear commitment to upgrade court capacity before abolishing Section 21 and no phased rollout to protect the system from being overwhelmed. As a result, we face a real risk that our courts will be asked to carry out a far more demanding role without the necessary resources, reforms or readiness.
The ambition of the Renters’ Rights Bill is commendable, but ambition alone is not enough. We must also confront the operational realities. This legislation will place significant demands on our already stretched courts and tribunals system. If we press ahead without ensuring that the system is properly resourced, modernised and fully functional, we risk undermining the very objectives that the Bill sets out to achieve. Tenants and landlords alike need a process they can trust: one that is timely, fair and accessible. Without that, this reform will falter at the first hurdle.
Let us be clear about the scale of what we are asking the courts to do under this legislation. With the removal of Section 21, we are fundamentally reshaping the legal framework for possession. Possession cases that might previously have been resolved swiftly, albeit controversially, will now be channelled through more complex, contested grounds. This is a just and necessary step, but it is one that demands an equal and opposite increase in our ability to administer justice efficiently.
Yet the system is not ready. The Civil Justice Council, the Law Society and countless court users have been sounding the alarm for years. Backlogs are rising, court rooms lie unused for lack of staff and overburdened judges are stretched too thin. In some parts of the country, landlords wait months, not weeks, for a simple hearing. In turn, tenants are left in limbo and often under the threat of eviction without resolution or recourse.
We must remember that delay is not neutral. It is not a benign inconvenience. It is a deeply disruptive force in people’s lives. For a landlord, it might mean months without rental income, with mortgage arrears mounting. For a tenant, it means living in a state of uncertainty. That silence—those weeks and months of not knowing—is not just stressful but debilitating. It leaves tenants feeling powerless and unable to plan their future and move forward.
It is for that reason that I urge the Minister to consider carefully Amendment 69 in my name, which requires the Lord Chancellor to conduct an assessment of the possession process. This assessment would examine how county courts handle applications from landlords for possession of properties under both assured and regulated tenancies, and how those orders are subsequently enforced.
This is a foundational step. If we are to move away from Section 21, we must be absolutely confident that the remaining legal routes for possession are functioning effectively, fairly and in a timely manner. This is not just a tick-box exercise; it is about ensuring we have a legitimate understanding of where our courts stand, their capacity and whether they are in any fit state to take on the increased volume and complexity of cases that this Bill will inevitably bring.
The amendment ensures transparency, accountability and evidence-based implementation. Without such an assessment, we risk walking blindly into a situation where the courts become the bottleneck, where neither landlords nor tenants can get timely access to justice. Likewise, Amendment 283 provides an essential safeguard. It would ensure that Section 21 cannot be abolished until the assessment outlined in Amendment 69 has been published and, crucially, that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the courts have the capacity to manage the increased demand. This is not an attempt to delay reform indefinitely; it is a commonsense measure to ensure that reform is deliverable. It puts the infrastructure in place before the policy takes effect. Without this step, we risk setting both tenants and landlords adrift in a system that simply cannot cope.
I look forward to hearing from other noble Lords on this very significant group. The amendments from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, in particular, underscore the necessity of certifying that the court system has the capacity to manage the anticipated increase in possession cases. Amendment 279 in his name stipulates:
“None of the provisions of this Act, other than this subsection, come into force until the Secretary of State certifies that the average time for the court’s disposal of landlords possession actions in respect of residential property is as timely as in the year ending 23 March 2020”.
This benchmark is not arbitrary. It reflects a period when the system was functioning at a level that we can reasonably expect to return to. Furthermore, Amendment 280, also in his name, reinforces this by requiring the Secretary of State to certify that the courts are not only timely but efficient and adequately resourced to handle the increased caseload.
These amendments are not about delaying progress. They are about ensuring that progress is achievable and that the reforms we implement are not undermined by an overburdened and underresourced court system. As we have discussed, the abolition of Section 21 will undoubtedly lead to more contested possession proceedings. Without the necessary court capacity, we risk exacerbating the very issue that we seek to address: delays, uncertainty and a lack of access to justice for both tenants and landlords. The amendments before us today provide a prudent and responsible approach to ensuring that our court system is ready to meet these challenges.
In conclusion, I urge the Government to give serious consideration to these amendments. They represent a balanced approach that aligns the ambition of the Renters’ Rights Bill with the practical realities of our courts system. We have noble Lords present who are experts in that system and I look forward to listening to their contributions. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 205 in my name has much in common with the other amendments in this group, which are probing amendments to see whether the capacity of the courts is up to dealing with the cases that are likely to come before them—not least the likely increase in possession cases when the Act is implemented, and of course to deal with any backlog that has accrued between now and when it comes into effect.
Amendment 283, in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott, is the most demanding of the amendments. It basically defers the abolition of Section 21 until an assessment of court capacity has been completed and the Secretary of State is satisfied about capacity. Amendment 69 finds her in a more conciliatory mood. That amendment does not delay the abolition of Section 21 but requires the Lord Chancellor to monitor progress and ensure that the capacity is there, and it sets no time limit on that assessment. My Amendment 205 finds a middle way, requiring the assessment to be carried out within six months of the passage of the Bill, while Amendment 264, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, is more generous, allowing two years. Neither would hold up the abolition of Section 21.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as an owner of a rental property. I shall speak to Amendments 99 and 103 in this group, both of which would go towards preventing the situation where it has become almost mandatory for a tenant to take any increase to a tribunal. As that has been pointed out by the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Cromwell, I will spare your Lordships the repetition of those arguments, but it would be silly for a tenant not to take any proposed increase to a tribunal. Under present proposals, there is no risk or disadvantage to the tenant. The very worst that can happen to the tenant is that an increase, if agreed, is postponed until such time as it has been dealt with by the tribunal.
Amendment 99 proposes that any increase agreed by the tribunal could be implemented from the date when the increase was due to take effect. That would remove some of the incentive to automatically apply for reviews.
As has been mentioned, according to government statistics, there are 4.9 million private rented homes in England. Some of those will have an annual rent review, for some it will be less frequent, but, if one takes a conservative average of, say, three-year rent reviews for each dwelling, that would mean over 1.6 million possible applications to the rent tribunal per annum. I think every three years is an exaggeration—it is much more likely to be more frequent—but let us assume that we take the three years, and that one-third of the people who have received increases in rent do not apply to the tribunal. By my conservative calculation, that leaves 1 million applicants to the tribunal. How are His Majesty’s Government planning to deal with that? Could the Minister tell the Committee the number of challenges taken to the tribunal in the last period for which the information is available? What is the present delay or wait time for applications to the tribunal being heard?
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 99 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, which, as my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising explained, would ensure that, if there was an unsuccessful challenge to a rent tribunal on a rent increase, the increased rent would become payable on the date proposed by the landlord.
Before turning to that amendment, I will say that I have some sympathy with Amendment 87 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, which proposes an alternative means of filtering appeals before they reach the tribunal by enabling the tenants first to check with the VOA whether their challenge has any prospect of success. However, many of the arguments that the noble Baroness used are equally applicable to Amendment 99.
Turning to Amendment 99, what Clause 8 proposes is exactly the opposite of what happens at the moment, and what indeed has been the case since the Housing Act 1988. At the moment, if a landlord serves a Section 13 increase on the tenant, giving a month’s notice, the tenant can appeal. But, if the tribunal decides the rent should be increased, the increase is payable from the date given on the Section 13 notice. That is the position at the moment, which the Government propose to overturn. The CAB website gives advice to a tenant on this subject, saying that
“it’s probably best to save money towards your rent increase if it’s due to start before the tribunal makes a decision. That way, you won’t have to find a large sum of money if your rent is increased”.
It goes on to make the point that it can take up to 10 weeks for the tribunal to make a decision.
I agree with what has been said. I do not see how this proposal, as it stands, can possibly survive. As many noble Lords have pointed out, from the tenant’s point of view they have nothing to lose by appealing against any increase. The rent cannot be put up, and the increase is not effective until it has been endorsed by the courts.
No satisfactory reasons have been given for this, so I looked in Hansard to see what happened in the other place. The Minister, Matthew Pennycook, said on 29 October last year:
“Tenants should not be thrust into debt simply for enforcing their rights”.
But the relevant right of the tenant is to appeal against an unfair rent increase. There should be no additional right to the tenant if that appeal is subsequently lost, but that is what is proposed.
My honourable friend Jerome Mayhew intervened in the Minister’s speech. He said:
“The Minister says that it would be unfair on the tenant to have a significant increase in rent and a backlog after the determination of the tribunal, but that is rent that ought properly to have belonged to the landlord and has been unjustifiably denied them for the period of the process. Why is it fair for the landlord to be denied a just rent as a result of the delay in the process, yet it is for some reason not fair for the tenant?”
The Minister then in effect conceded the case:
“The hon. Gentleman is right that if the tribunal determines that the rent increase is reasonable, a landlord may have missed out on a short period of the rent increase—not the whole rent, but the rent increase”.
It is not “may have missed out” but will have missed out and, as we have heard, not for “a short period” but potentially for a very long period.
The Minister then sought to defend the position:
“I will be very clear about this: we took the view that it was better that tenants were not, by facing the prospect of significant arrears, disincentivised from taking any cases to tribunal to challenge what could be, on a number of occasions, completely unreasonable within-tenancy rent increases”.
But what the Minister described as “significant arrears” were sums which actually a tribunal will have deemed to be fair, and which current advice from the CAB is that tenants should make provision for. The argument the Minister uses is at odds, as I have said, with the position at the moment.
The Minister’s case was further weakened by a subsequent intervention. Again, my colleague Jerome Mayhew asked:
“I understand that the Government’s intention is that tenants should not go to the tribunal unless they are clear that the asked-for rent is too high, but what prevents them from gaming the system, as we discussed?”
In reply, the Minister said:
“What I would say to the hon. Gentleman—I will expand upon my argument in due course—is that I think he underestimates how difficult it is to take a case to the tribunal”.
In a spare moment over the weekend, I put into Google, “How do I appeal against my rent increase?”. Up came the answer: use form Rents 1 on the GOV.UK website. I downloaded the form. You can appeal, free and online. All credit to the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham, and others for simplifying and digitising government forms. You fill in your name, address and contact details, the name and address of the landlord or agent, the amount of rent you are paying, when the tenancy began and the details of the property. You add a copy of the Section 13 notice from the landlord increasing the rent and a copy of the tenancy agreement, and send it off online to the nearest tribunal regional office. I estimate that it would take about 10 minutes. The tribunal will then ask you what type of hearing you want. Most tribunals for rent increases are based on the evidence you send—they are paper hearings—so there is no need for an appellant to do anything more than I have described.
I hope the Minister will not repeat what her colleague said in another place:
“However, I think the hon. Gentleman underestimates the onerous nature of taking a case to tribunal. It will not be as simple as the tenant deciding on a whim one day that they can do that, and that it is a no-lose situation, but I recognise the incentives at play on both sides”.—[Official Report, Commons, Renters’ Rights Bill Committee, 29/10/24; cols. 145-46.]
It is not onerous, and it is no lose. What is onerous is the pressure on the tribunals. I urge the Minister to reflect on the many amendments to this clause and, in her reply, indicate a willingness to think again.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
The points earlier expanded on the point about affordable rent. Is the Government’s policy still that affordable rent means that it should be no more than 30% of total household income? That immediately implies—it is a glimpse of the obvious—that for one tenant a property is affordable and for another tenant with fewer assets it is not affordable.
Secondly, where I support my noble friend’s entry into the argument is on this business of the fixing of rent by the tribunal. How long does that continue? Could that be spelled out clearly? Does it apply merely for the length of time that particular tenant is there? Would it be continued if there were to be a change of tenant and the next tenant said that was the rent the tribunal had set? If we are to have tribunal-set rents, we must be told exactly how they operate.
Finally, unless the Government can answer fully and confidently the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, this Bill will certainly fail in its objective.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, makes a very relevant point—we will have a look at both things.
Although I appreciate the intention behind Amendment 90, I have concerns about whether it would be practical to attribute a portion of the market rent to energy improvements. We need to think about how we might do this. I hope that the alternative approaches I have outlined and the steps we have taken to allow tenants to challenge egregious rents, for whatever reason the increase has been put on, provide some reassurance. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, not to press the amendment.
Amendments 91, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 101 and 104 all deal with the backdating of rent increases. I do not agree that tenants should be forced to pay backdated rent. To ensure that tenants are not unexpectedly thrown into debt that could cause further difficulty, the Bill provides that the new rent will apply from the date the tribunal directs, not earlier than the date of determination. We are clear that tenants should submit an application to the tribunal only where they believe that a rent increase is above market rates, and all parties should communicate about the level of rent increases that would be sustainable.
One noble Lord mentioned 1.6 million tenants taking landlords to court. I find that unlikely, to say the least, but we would quickly know. I have already undertaken to noble Lords that we will monitor this very carefully. If that did start to happen, we would certainly know that it was happening and would deal with it immediately. Allowing the backdating of rents risks disadvantaging the most vulnerable tenants—those who may forego challenging a rent increase that is designed purely to force them out of their home.
I turn briefly to each amendment in turn. My noble friend Lord Hacking has spoken to his Amendments 91, 94, and 97. Amendment 91 aims to backdate a rent increase to the date specified in the Section 13 notice. Amendment 94 seeks to backdate a rent increase where the tenant has challenged the relevant notice at tribunal. Amendment 97 is a consequential amendment linked to Amendment 94, which aims to ensure that, where a tenant challenges a rent increase notice at tribunal, any rent increase determined by the tribunal will be backdated to the date on the Section 13 notice. I have already set out why the Government do not agree that tenants should be forced to pay backdated rent. I therefore ask my noble friend not to press these three amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, set out the process as it is now. If it really is as straightforward and simple as he said—I am not arguing with him, and I am sure he has been as diligent as he always is in looking up the facts—surely we would already be swamped with tenants appealing their rent increases, and that is not the case.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
The key difference is that it is backdated at the moment. The Bill changes that, which provides the incentive that is not there at the moment.
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.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I signed Amendment 77 because it is a really sensible amendment. My Amendment 275 goes a little further. If I was enthusiastic about my Amendment 90, I am delirious about my Amendment 275.
Back in 2001, I was the Green Party member of the London Assembly. Our group persuaded the Mayor, Ken Livingstone, to set up a Living Wage Commission. It looked at what it really cost to live in London, rather than what the minimum wage paid. The commission then went about the work of persuading employers to sign up to a living wage, rather than the inadequate minimum wage. It was a real success, one that Tory and Labour mayors have kept going. It used common sense and facts instead of relying on market forces, and many people had easier lives as a result.
I now suggest a living rent commission to do a similar job, with local mayors given the power and discretion to bring in rent controls that match the conditions in their area. We need this simply because the privatisation of the rental market since the 1980s, with a decline in social housing and the right to buy, has a been a disaster for poorer people and, of course, young people. We have a two-tier economy in which the rich get richer and the rest of us barely manage to tread water. Because the rich can buy only so many yachts and overpriced handbags, they spend their money on buying assets, which often means properties. When BlackRock buys thousands of properties for rent in the UK and another US investment firm, Blackstone, spends £1.4 billion doing much the same, what chance do a couple earning an average income have of getting on the property ladder? We have a younger generation working hard but being sucked dry every month by a rental system that benefits the rich and big corporations.
The Resolution Foundation found that private renters were spending on average a third of their income on housing costs. This is getting worse rather than better, and it is not just a London problem. Rightmove reports that asking rents outside London have risen 60% since 2020, far outstripping inflation and wage growth.
Rent control is an established part of private renting in 16 European countries, so why not here? If the Government want to save money, bring in rent controls. Between 2021 and 2025, the Government are set to spend £70 billion of taxpayers’ money on housing benefit, with an additional £1.74 billion annual spend on temporary accommodation. Why not save money on housing benefit and use that to build more social housing, and reduce the millions of pounds spent every month on temporary accommodation? I have heard a lot from this Government about affordable housing; I have not heard quite so much about social housing. We need to bring it back into use.
Creating a living wage in London made sense because people in low-income jobs spend nearly all they have on just getting by, and by giving them more money you benefit the local economy because they go out and spend it. By contrast, the more money that goes to rich people and corporations, the more that money forces up the price of homes as they outbid everyone to buy more assets.
The Government can break that cycle by establishing a living rent. When one in five private tenants are spending half their wages on rent, our economy is not working for everyone. The Government are doing their best with this legislation, but if you want real change then we need big ideas—like a living rent.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I do not share the delirium of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for the reintroduction of rent controls, not least because I was a Housing Minister in the 1979-83 Parliament, which dismantled the rent controls that had strangulated the private market.
I want to add a brief footnote to the excellent speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, on Amendments 79, 84 and 85. Of the many reasons he gave, the last one attracted me. I see it as avoiding all the problems that arose in the last debate on the Government’s proposals for dealing with rent increases, in which there is no incentive for the tenant not to appeal. We all listened to the Minister’s defence of what is proposed. I may have misread the mood of the Committee, but I am not sure she carried the Committee with her.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, set out the reasons for avoiding overloading tribunals with appeals by inserting a formula for rent increases for four years. Other amendments propose different formulae. In the other place, the Minister explained that he wanted to avoid rent controls. I fully understand that institutional investment will be deterred by the reintroduction of rent control, which effectively nearly ended the private rented sector. The proposals in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best, to restrict increases to RPI to four years, strikes the balance between rents falling out of line with market rents and the regime proposed in the Bill, with all the risks that were referred to in the last debate. Over four years, it is unlikely that there will be a serious deviation between RPI and rents.
I did a little research on this; the average annual rent inflation in the UK from 1989 to 2023 was 3.71%. I recognise that figure may have been depressed by rents in the public sector. The long-run average in RPI is 3.6%, so there is not a lot of difference between those two figures.
My final point, which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Best, is that the Minister and I are at one in wanting long-term institutional investment in rented accommodation. In our last two exchanges at Oral Questions, she has confirmed that we are at one on this. The institutions want the rent to go up each year, either in line with RPI, as proposed in the amendment, or in line with market rents, as in the Bill. They do not want reasonable increases to be regularly challenged by tenants who can simply defer any increase by appealing. What consultations has the Minister had with the pension funds, insurance companies and long-term institutional investors about whether they prefer the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Best, or want to live with all the risks in the Bill? She may not have the answer at the moment, but I hope she will consult with those people, whom we want to invest in housing, and see which of these alternative measures they are in favour of.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
“(7A) Any regulations made under subsection (7) must make specific provision for shared ownership leases.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment probes what effect the Secretary of State considers clauses 1 and 2 will have on shared ownership leaseholders who currently rent out their apartments under licences.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, these probing amendments draw attention to the problems already facing many shared owners following the cladding scandal but also problems for them with the provisions in the Bill as it stands. I note that the Government’s impact assessment makes no mention of shared owners who have become accidental landlords.
This form of tenure, shared ownership, occupies the space between owner occupation on the one hand and tenancy on the other, as a shared owner owns part of the property and rents the other bit from a social landlord. Shared owners are individuals who are unable to buy a property on the open market and use a government-backed affordable housing scheme to buy a share of a property, increasing that share as their circumstances improve. So, by definition, they are not well off. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation analysis in 2020 indicated that around 20% of shared owners are in poverty—double the rate for outright or mortgaged home owners—suggesting a demographic that is vulnerable to shocks such as those following the cladding scandal.
To complicate matters, shared owners can simultaneously be both a tenant and a landlord. In its 2025 survey, the Shared Owners’ Network found that 22% of its members are now subletting, with 90% doing so because of the cladding scandal. They have to sublet to move on with their lives, because their properties are not sellable. The Government do not collect data on the number of shared owners who sublet, but the Government recently amended the Homes England Capital Funding Guide to facilitate subletting for shared owners who are trapped—so I expect that the numbers are substantial and are to increase.
Conventional leaseholders have the right to let their property, but shared owners do not. Subletting is seen as an exceptional measure, subject to social landlord and lender approval, with commercial gain from subletting prohibited. Social landlords’ approval remains inconsistent on the ground.
The Bill abolishes fixed-term tenancy and moves all tenants on to periodic tenancies, but shared ownership tenants who sublet cannot give a periodic tenancy. Any permission they get from their social landlord is time-limited and can be withdrawn. Withdrawal often happens when a compliant EWS form becomes available for the building and the social landlord argues that this makes the flat sellable. However, major lenders have agreed only to consider lending on these properties, and often other issues, such as a very high service charge and high insurance, impact mortgageability and the property is not in fact sellable. Where a licence to sublet is not renewed, shared owners are required to evict their tenants, even if they are not able to sell their property.
So how will they cope with the Bill, which, on enactment, converts all tenancies into periodic tenancies? How will any existing agreements interact with the provisions in the Bill that give tenants the right to stay in a property for a minimum of 12 months, when, as I have just explained, consent can be withdrawn by the social landlord before that period has expired?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for his amendments relating to shared ownership licensing and for his usual clarity and coherence in the way that he proposed them. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for their contributions to this discussion.
Amendment 19 would require any regulations made under the power in Clause 3 to include provision for shared ownership leases. As noble Lords are aware from our previous debate, the current Clause 3 will be subsumed within part 2 of Schedule 6, but that will still deliver the same effect. I will therefore respond to Amendments 19 and 20 with reference to the fact that these measures will sit elsewhere in the Bill.
As I set out in the discussion on the previous group, the new part 2 of Schedule 6 will ensure that landlords with superior leases can continue to sublet in the future system if they currently have permission to do so. Superior leases or agreements may currently require subletting to be on an assured shorthold or an assured tenancy with a fixed term. Part 2 of Schedule 6 will ensure that, where a sublease transitions into a new periodic assured tenancy, the intermediate landlord will not be in breach of the terms of their superior lease and can continue to sublet under the new system. This will include sectors such as shared ownership and leasehold, where these kinds of restrictions in superior leases are commonplace.
The Government do not believe that Amendment 19 is necessary. It would lead to additional and otherwise unnecessary drafting in any regulations made under this power. The power already requires the Government to specify what sectors the regulations will apply to.
Amendment 20 defines shared ownership for the purposes of Amendment 19. The Government believe this is unnecessary for the same reasons that I just set out for Amendment 19.
Amendment 107 would exempt landlords who are shared owners from Clauses 7 and 8. The effect of these clauses is to prevent unscrupulous landlords using rent increases as a backdoor means of eviction, while ensuring that rents can be increased to reflect market rates, as we have debated previously. Of course, the Government, and I personally, have every sympathy with shared owners who have been affected by building safety issues—such as Stephanie and James, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Young, gave testament—and who, through no fault of their own, are unable to sell their homes. We know that subletting their homes, whether it is accidental or not, is an important way in which shared owners can mitigate the effects of building safety issues.
To respond briefly to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, my honourable friend Alex Norris is making good progress with the remediation action plan. Both he and the Deputy Prime Minister are determined that the targets set in that plan are achieved, and we are moving that forward. I can assure noble Lords that it is a top priority for the department.
The Government have made it clear that such shared owners should be able to charge up to full market rent when subletting their homes. The Homes England and Greater London Authority capital funding guides have been updated to make this explicit. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to that point. Adherence to this guidance is a condition of receiving grant funding through the affordable homes programme. Moreover, the Government have made clear their expectation that this guidance should apply to all shared owners, regardless of how their home has been delivered, and the department is working with the sector to ensure that this is implemented across the board. As the noble Lord requested, I am very happy to meet before Report to discuss this matter further.
It is therefore unnecessary to exempt these landlords from the important protections that Clauses 7 and 8 provide. These clauses will still allow these landlords to increase the rent in line with market rates, and their subtenants will be protected from egregious rent increases and enjoy the same protections as other assured tenants.
Amendment 143 would exempt landlords who are shared owners from new Sections 16E and 16F of the Housing Act 1988, as inserted by Clause 15. These sections will prevent landlords reletting or remarketing a property if they have used the selling or moving-in grounds for 12 months after the date the relevant notice was served. These sections also set out other prohibited landlord behaviours, such as trying to create fixed-term tenancies. Although we appreciate that landlords’ circumstances may change, new Sections 16E and 16F contain critical protections for tenants. The 12-month restriction will stop unscrupulous landlords using grounds 1 and 1A to evict a tenant with the intention of immediately reletting. It will be unprofitable to evict a tenant simply to increase the rent and it will stop landlords using these grounds as a backdoor Section 21.
We believe that all tenants must benefit from these protections. It would not be right or fair to compromise tenants’ security of tenure simply because of who their landlord is and the circumstances those landlords might find themselves in when selling a property. That said, I am happy to meet again with the noble Lord and anyone else who is interested in this topic before Report, but for now, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Young, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who took part in the debate: the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, my noble friend Lord Jamieson, and, of course, the Minister, who gave the sympathetic reply that we would all expect.
As I understand it, periodic tenancies will continue to be allowed after the Bill because there is an exemption in another part of the Bill which enables these tenancies, which are not assured tenancies, to continue. Therefore, a shared owner who is subletting will continue to be able to let on fixed-term tenancies or tenancies subject to notice from the social landlord without granting a periodic tenancy.
Where I was disappointed by the Minister’s reply was on the issues I raised about the four-month notice and the 12-month ban on subsequent letting. It simply is not possible for a shared owner, who we have all agreed is somebody on a limited income, to give four months’ notice when an offer is accepted before contracts are exchanged because these sales are particularly vulnerable for all the reasons that I have explained. A shared owner who does not want to have additional financial liabilities would therefore give notice to a tenant only once contracts have been exchanged. Otherwise, they are even more at financial risk. As I understand it, the Minister is inflexible on the exemption I am seeking for the four months’ notice for shared owners.
Likewise, I think the Minister was also, at this stage, resistant to an exemption to the 12-month ban on subsequent letting. A shared owner whose sale falls through, through no fault of the shared owner, is banned—unless we get an amendment—from reletting that property for the next 12 months. How on earth are they going to survive? They have no income and they continue to have all the outgoings.
I am grateful for the Minister’s offer of a meeting, and those are two issues that I will certainly want to pursue. Even if we get all these amendments, shared owners will still be running at a loss, but the long-term solution is either for them to resell the property back to the social landlord, which would solve the problem, or to get ahead with remediation of all these blocks so they can sell these properties on the open market. The first is unlikely and the second will take time, so that brings me back to the point that, in the meantime, we really must take all the pressure off shared owners where we can. I have already indicated two issues on which I will wish to press the Government to think again at the meeting, which I readily accept. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Housing: New Homes Target
Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they will meet their target of building 1.5 million new homes by 2029.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government remain committed to our ambitious target of delivering 1.5 million homes over this Parliament. We have already taken decisive action to increase the supply of new homes, including bold reforms to the planning system and the launch of the new homes accelerator to tackle delayed housing schemes. In our Spring Statement, we announced a £2 billion down payment to deliver 18,000 new social and affordable homes and we are investing £600 million in construction job training that will help deliver those further homes.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the measures the Government have just mentioned to increase supply, but is not the real threat now to the Government’s ambitious target the lack of effective demand? Housebuilders will not build unless there is a buyer, and with the recent increase in stamp duty and the reduced growth forecasts, there is now uncertainty in the market. What is the role of the Government’s promised new mortgage guarantee scheme, due in a few weeks’ time, in rebuilding that confidence, and, crucially, will it help first-time buyers with a deposit for their first home?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord that we have to pay attention to the demand side as well; today’s under-30s are less than half as likely to be home owners as those of the same age in 1990, so there are real affordability challenges which we are determined to tackle. In addition to increasing the supply of homes, we have committed to launching a new, permanent comprehensive mortgage guarantee scheme, meaning that first-time buyers will be able to take their crucial first step on the property ladder with only a small deposit. New details of that will be announced in due course. Alongside that, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has written to the Financial Conduct Authority setting out the Government’s support for its proposal to review mortgage rules. The Government have made it clear that they want the FCA’s review to be as ambitious and as rapid as possible.
Local Authorities: Temporary Accommodation Costs
Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. A number of factors are driving the high level of temporary accommodation costs, such as Section 21 evictions, which we are addressing through the Renters’ Rights Bill—there will be plenty of discussion on that later today. There is also the cost due to supply issues. We have a target of 1.5 million homes, which is a stretching target but achievable. There is the lack of social housing, to address which we will have the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. Some £800 million has already been allocated for the affordable housing programme and £2 billion for future years. There is also not enough homelessness prevention work. We have increased the homelessness prevention grant for 2025-26 to the highest level it has ever been, meaning that almost £1 billion is allocated for homelessness.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, one reason for homelessness that the Minister mentioned is Section 21. Some 41% of private landlords are now planning to sell their property and many of them are issuing Section 21 notices, which are now the biggest cause of homelessness. On top of that, there are 35,000 asylum seekers in hotels whom the Government wish to move into rented accommodation. Will the group to which the Minister referred look at persuading the financial institutions to invest serious long-term money in good-quality accommodation to relieve the pressure on local authorities and to make good the shortfall?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord is quite right to highlight the importance of attracting funding into housing. I recently attended a session in the City to encourage that, and there was a lot of interest in investing in the housing sector. We are also determined to restore order to the asylum system so that it operates fairly and properly, and we recognise the importance of a smooth transition out of asylum support accommodation for individuals granted refugee status. We are working with the Home Office to ensure that those individuals can successfully integrate into local communities.
Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025
Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her explanation. I have no difficulty at all with the thrust of this statutory instrument, but I have one or two queries.
Throughout her speech, the Minister referred to Crown development, but the Explanatory Memorandum says that this concerns
“planning permission for the development of Crown land”.
Does this apply only to development on land that the Government already own? Or, as the Minister said, is this about Crown development, possibly on land owned by other people or organisations? If I am right and this is confined to the development of Crown land, as the Explanatory Memorandum says on pages 1 and 3, is there a definition of “Crown land”? We are familiar with the Crown Estate but what exactly is Crown land?
Secondly, can the Minister give us some examples of the sorts of development that might be relevant to this statutory instrument? I understand the process that she described, but I did not get a picture of exactly when this would be used by the Government. It would be helpful if she could flesh that out.
Thirdly, this measure applies to development that is urgent and in the national interest or
“securing planning permission for nationally important and urgent Crown development”.
Is that justiciable? In other words, would it be possible to slow down the whole process if somebody came up and said, “This is a misuse of this statutory instrument. This is not nationally important or urgent”? In that case, the whole objective of this SI—to speed things up—could be nullified if the decision to use it was justiciable.
My final point is a petty one. I notice that, on pages 2 and 3, a whole lot of legislation is being amended. It is not clear to me why the Caravan Sites Act 1968, for example, has to be amended as a result of what we are doing in this SI. Is there some particular caravan site occupying a site of enormous national importance that might have to be used for the purpose of some giant infrastructure scheme? Looking at pages 2 and 3, one sees a whole series of pieces of legislation, and it is not absolutely clear why they all need to be amended to bring this SI into effect.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond satisfactorily to the points that he raised.
Reading the Explanatory Note, my question is: who decides whether an application for a development is “of national importance” or “a matter of urgency”? I assume that there is a proposal from a department, presumably from the relevant Minister, that then goes to the Secretary of State in the noble Baroness’s department, and that the final decision is made by the Secretary of State, but on the recommendation of the relevant department. I assume that this means that the relevant department cannot itself define that something is urgent and of national importance. I think I have concluded that it is both, but that the final decision will lie with the Secretary of State. For me, the vital question for the Minister to clarify is: will the public be able to object? The Minister talked about the need to try to ensure consultation with local people, but will local people be able to object to an application, or will the decision lie simply with the Secretary of State?
I noticed the Minister’s comments on scrutiny. I think she said that there will be full scrutiny of the use of powers, but paragraph 10.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum says:
“The instrument does not include a statutory review clause”,
and paragraph 10.2 says:
“The Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government will monitor the overall effect of the implementation of the Crown Development and Urgent Crown Development routes for planning permission”.
It is not clear to me to what extent that will involve Parliament. I want to hear from the Minister that the monitoring review will be thorough and part of normal parliamentary procedures on matters of this kind.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a helpful debate. As ever, our great experts on planning in the House contributed to a good discussion. I will, of course, attempt to answer all the questions. I am sure that noble Lords will pull me up if I do not if I do not answer them. I will, of course, check in Hansard afterwards and reply in writing on anything to which I have not responded to fully.
The noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Shipley, asked who is able to apply for planning permission through these routes. Section 293 of the Town and Country Planning Act defines who is an applicant known as an appropriate authority for the purpose of applications under these routes. For example, this includes where land belongs to a government department or is held in trust for His Majesty for the purposes of a government department. That department is considered to be an appropriate authority. For land belonging to His Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Chancellor of the duchy is the appropriate authority and for land belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall, a person that the Duke of Cornwall appoints is the appropriate authority. So land that goes into any of those routes will be appropriate for this route.
The uses for Crown development and confirmation of which developments Crown development can be used for was the subject of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Young. I am sure that he will ask again if I have got that wrong. It will be for the Secretary of State to assess on a case-by-case basis what is deemed nationally important, and it would not be appropriate to comment now on specific schemes. However, it is likely that the Crown development route will be used most for HMG programmes relating to nationally important public service development. For example, this would include, but not be limited to, new prisons or border infrastructure. Traditionally, those things are difficult in the planning process. The route could also be used for defence-related development, as PINS is able to put in place special procedures to handle information dealing with matters of national security. Special provisions exist whereby the Secretary of State can issue a direction limiting the disclosure of information relating to matters of the security of a premises through Section 321 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Crown development route can also be used for particularly sensitive or significant development being brought forward by, or on behalf of, the Crown. We expect few applications to be submitted through this route every year. It is not going to be used all the time; it would be an exception.
In terms of urgent Crown development, again, it will be for the Secretary of State to assess on a case-by-case basis what is deemed nationally important and needed urgently. When I looked at the papers for this SI, the first thing that came to my mind was the time when, during Covid, we were getting desperately short of mortuary space. This is a bit of a morbid subject but, in the middle of a pandemic, it is vital that you think about that and you may want to have an urgent process to deal with that sort of thing.
It would not be appropriate for me to comment on specific schemes, but the urgent Crown development route is expected to be used very rarely, where other planning application routes just cannot be used to secure a decision quickly enough. The pandemic might have been one of those instances. It will be used only where development needs to be put in place quickly, in a matter of days or weeks, and where it is in the national interest—for things such as medical centres, the storage and distribution of key goods and services in the event of a pandemic or, potentially, mortuary space.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked who makes the decisions—he was correct in his assumption on that; I hope that that is helpful—and whether the public will be able to object. I will come to those issues in a moment.
The noble Lord asked about how national importance is defined. The Government are committed to a planning system in which decisions are made locally. However, it is a well-established principle that, in limited circumstances, it is necessary for the Secretary of State to make planning decisions where issues of more than local importance are involved. In general, the Secretary of State will consider a development to be of regional or national importance only if it would: involve the interests of national security or foreign Governments; contribute to the provision of national public services or infrastructure, such as prisons or border infrastructure; support a response to international, national or regional civil emergencies; or otherwise have significant economic, social or environmental effects and strong public interest. The applicant will have to set out, as part of a statement accompanying the application, evidence demonstrating that at least one of those principles has been met.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked how “urgency” is defined. The applicant will be required to provide a statement to accompany the application setting out why they consider that the development is both nationally important and needed as a matter of urgency. The Secretary of State will accept applications through the urgent development route only where the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed development is both of national importance and needed urgently. The applicant will need to demonstrate that the proposed development needs to be made operational in an accelerated timeframe and that it is unlikely to be feasible using other application routes, including the Crown development route, and will need to evidence the likely consequences of not securing a decision within the accelerated timeframe. I hope that that is helpful.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, asked me about mayoral powers and strategic planning. I share her pain, as any local councillor will, over the planning process. I will never get back the hours that I have spent in discussion about great crested newts and rare species of bats and insects, so I feel her pain on that. However, these reforms are for national and very urgent issues only.
On mayoral or strategic powers, the Crown reforms will affect the ability of combined or mayoral authorities to call in applications of potential strategic importance. The relevant combined authority will instead be consulted for development coming forward through the Crown development route, so it will be done at that strategic level.
In response to all noble Lords’ questions about how further information on this will be provided, we will publish updated planning practice guidance to reflect the new routes coming into force. We intend to publish the amended guidance closer to the implementation of the routes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, asked about transparency. As I said, applicants need to demonstrate that the application is of national and urgent importance, and the Secretary of State can accept that application only if she considers that that is the case.
When a decision is made to accept an application, as I set out in my opening speech, a letter will be written to the MP whose constituency the development falls in and will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. Application documents will be available and applications to both routes will be determined on planning merits, with the reasons behind whether to grant or refuse set out in the inspector’s report or the Secretary of State’s decision letter. I hope that that is helpful.
In my opening speech, I set out in some detail how community engagement will work; the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Jamieson, raised it again. Of course, community engagement is very important. Any comments made during the consultation and publicity period that raise material planning matters will be taken into account as part of the decision-making process. The local planning authority will also have a role to play. It will need to place the application and documents on its planning register and, as PINS does not have a local presence, the local planning authority will be required to affix site notices during the mandatory publicity period and notify owners or occupiers who adjoin the site. So, for that purpose, it will work just the same as the local planning process.
Regarding urgent Crown development community engagement, as I said, we would encourage consultation with local communities, where possible. If it is possible to do meaningful engagement in a timeframe, we would encourage that. Where it is not possible, the Secretary of State should use alternative methods to make sure that community views can be taken into account.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, talked about fixing the planning system; we hope we will be able to do that. Working very quickly, we have already managed a major consultation on the NPPF and published a revised version in December. Yesterday, the other House had a long debate on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which will come to this House shortly. My belief is that there will always be a need for an urgency procedure for decision-making in councils. There will always be a need for some kind of urgent process and for the Secretary of State to be able to make a decision on national grounds. I hope that that has answered all noble Lords’ questions.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
The Minister has been enormously helpful in answering the questions, but she did not touch on the question of whether a decision to use this route would be justiciable. She may not be able to answer that, but I assume that it would be.
The Minister mentioned the case of Covid and the mortuaries. As I understand it, this system can be used only where the Crown owns the land, so if it does not own the land, it will have to buy it before it can use this SI. If something is urgent but the Crown does not own the land on which the building is needed, I wonder whether the CPO will hold things up, or whether that can be part of a streamlined process.
High-rise Buildings: Safety Remediation
Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress has been made on the remediation of high-rise buildings with safety defects.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, before I answer the noble Lord’s question, I pay tribute to all the campaigners and survivors of Grenfell who have moved this along, following seven years when little progress was made. Now, over half of 18 metre-plus buildings identified with unsafe cladding have started or completed remediation. On 2 December last year the Deputy Prime Minister announced the remediation acceleration plan, which sets out key measures to get buildings with unsafe cladding fixed faster, identify remaining buildings still at risk and ensure that residents are supported through the remediation process. This Government have been clear about our intention to deliver remediation faster, with more action from freeholders and developers.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. Since this Question was tabled, the Public Accounts Committee in another place has published a further progress report on remediation that is highly critical of this Government and indeed the last one. It points out that, of the 5,000 buildings known to the Minister’s department to require treatment, work has started on half, and that 3 million people are living in unsafe buildings, are unable to sell their flats and face exorbitant insurance claims. It also points out that the contract with developers did not require them to remedy all the safety defects. In the meantime, not a penny has been paid by the manufacturers of unsafe cladding. The PAC says that the date of 2029, by which all treatment should have been completed, is unrealistic. Surely we can do better than this.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord is right to say that we can do better, which is why we have introduced the remediation acceleration plan. The plan’s targets provide greater certainty to residents, a significant acceleration in pace and much greater certainty about when cladding remediation will be resolved. We have never had targets like these before. This Government have put in place a plan to deliver; it is now up to those responsible for making their buildings safe to do so. The plan has been criticised by campaigners for not being ambitious enough and by industry for being too ambitious and unachievable. All plans like this must strike a balance; we believe this plan gets the right balance and is ambitious but also achievable.
Plan for Neighbourhoods
Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I extend my appreciation to my noble friend for all the work that she does in this area. She speaks with great experience, skills and depth of knowledge.
I do not want to pre-empt the upcoming spending review by making any commitments to expansion, but I recognise that other places want to join the plan for neighbourhoods—this was raised also by several Members in the other place. While I cannot make any commitments, the Government welcome correspondence from interested parties. We have taken inspiration from the new deal for communities, the work of John Prescott that my noble friend was talking about, which provided the stability of long-term funding, backed by the support of central government. We have learned what has worked well in the past and are utilising that same methodology.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I welcome the Statement, which builds on initiatives from previous Administrations. The noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, referred to her pioneering work at the beginning of this century. Going back even further, I was a Minister in the Department of the Environment in the 1980s. We had inner-city partnerships, where the Government provided two-thirds of the money and the local authority one third. We funded a range of projects exactly the same as the projects that are hoped for under this programme.
I can see a range of bids coming to the neighbourhood boards. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned improved recreation facilities. Looking through the Statement in the other place, I see there were demands for community shops. People may want to rescue a theatre. However, the first priority listed in the Statement is the modernisation of social housing. I am all in favour of social housing being modernised, but there is a mainstream programme to do that. To what extent will the smaller projects that I have been referring to and which the programme is aimed at be swamped by the modernisation of social housing? Is that really one of the objectives, or is that put in to patch up a deficiency in another mainstream government programme?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very interesting point. My only answer at this time is that, of course, as a country, we want to see the modernisation of social housing. The Deputy Prime Minister has announced that 1.5 million houses are to be built in this Parliament, and that is still the ambition, but the specifics of what the money can be spent on are entirely up to the local regeneration neighbourhood board—the people. They need to look at what the priorities are for their area and work out how they can put this £2 million a year into various projects. If that means putting some money into modernising housing, it is a decision for them to reflect upon. As central government, we have our focus and manifesto commitments on housing overall, but whatever is needed in the local area is for the board to deliberate and decide upon.
Private Rented Sector: Affordable Rents
Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question. Of course, I am always happy to meet with trade union colleagues, particularly on important issues such as this. I thank him too for his reminder of the information in that UNISON report. Many of the issues raised in it are being tackled in the Renters’ Rights Bill, and in the leasehold and commonhold reform Bill which we will be bringing forward later in the year. On the right to buy, we have already taken significant steps to make sure that the funds from the sale of social housing go back to those councils to enable them to build more social housing.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, further to the Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, rents in the private sector are rising because supply is falling as many smaller landlords decide to sell up. While there is much of value in the Renters’ Rights Bill, there is nothing in it to increase supply, which is what tenants want. Will the Minister turbocharge the discussions between her department, the Treasury and the pension funds and insurance companies in order to get serious, long-term institutional finance into good quality accommodation for rent and to redress the imbalance between supply and demand?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question and for all his expertise on this subject. A few weeks ago, I attended an investors’ summit in the City of London where there was great enthusiasm about investment in the housing market. We welcome those institutional investors and recognise the crucial role that the build-to-rent sector in particular is playing in building those 1.5 million homes. Last year, we announced a £700 million extension to the home building fund to support housebuilders and to catalyse that institutional investment. This should support the construction of 12,000 more homes, including build-to-rent. We also announced a £3 billion guarantee for SME and build-to-rent housebuilders through the reopening of guarantee schemes, which should deliver the construction of around 20,000 new homes.
Council Tax
Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, we all know that there are problems caused by outdated valuations and the regressive nature of council tax. However, a widescale reform of the system would be time-consuming and complex, and we are committed to keeping tax on working people as low as possible. The Government will carefully consider the impact on councils and taxpayers before taking any further decisions on council tax.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the last time we discussed this, on 19 November, the noble Baroness also said in response:
“We all know that problems are caused by outdated valuations and the regressive nature of council tax”.—[Official Report, 19/11/24; col. 118.]
So why are the Government so reluctant to act?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
If there were to be a revaluation, there would be winners and losers. This is one of those issues where whatever we did would cause further problems in the system. It is a widely understood tax and there are high levels of collection. However, the Government are taking part in the fair funding review—we have issued a consultation on that—to make sure we level up the playing field for local authority funding, so that areas which need the money most get the most money.