Renters’ Rights Bill

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

Today is a momentous day, because, subject to agreement from this House, the Renters’ Rights Bill will have completed all its stages and will therefore shortly become law. This House last legislated to fundamentally alter the relationship between landlords and tenants in 1988—I was just six years old. In the decades since, England’s private rented sector has changed beyond all recognition. It now houses not just the young and the mobile, but many older people and families with children, for whom greater security and certainty is essential to a flourishing life.

The need to overhaul the regulation of the private rented sector and, in so doing, level decisively the playing field for landlords and tenants is pressing. That is why we introduced the Bill within months of taking office. We promised that we would succeed where the previous Conservative Government had failed by legislating to transform the experience of private renting. I am delighted that we are now within touching distance of seeing the Bill become law. Before I turn to the final amendments agreed to in the other place, I want to put on the record once again my profound thanks to Baroness Taylor for so ably guiding through its House of Lords stages.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I, too, welcome the Bill becoming law. Personally, I wish that it also regulated rent levels, but my question is: how quickly will it become law to protect people? While this Bill has been winding its way through Parliament over the last year, many have faced the appalling situation of no-fault eviction. Many have lost their properties as a result, whereas they would have been protected had the Bill become law more quickly. Can the Minister give me some idea—so that I can give some comfort to my constituents who are facing no-fault eviction—of how quickly they will get protection, and will there be any retrospective element to it?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point. We want to provide both renters and landlords with certainty about how the new system will be implemented. I will say a bit more on that in the course of my remarks.

--- Later in debate ---

To conclude, my constituents cannot wait any longer for these vital protections. They need a ban on section 21 evictions, they need a right for private renters to speak up against bad landlords, and they need these long-overdue rights granted. My generation in particular, which has been stuck in private rented accommodation for so long, really needs those rights. I fully support the Renters’ Rights Bill.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I will be brief, because this is a time-limited debate. I welcome the Bill, although it has deficiencies, because it does not regulate the amount of rent that is charged. In my constituency, a two-bedroom flat in the private rented sector goes for about £2,000 a month, which is way above what most people can afford. There is a desperate need, in inner-city areas in particular, for rent regulation.

I am pleased that we are ending no-fault eviction, but I absolutely agree with the points made by the hon. Members for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) and for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) about the extraordinary way in which the Bill has been delayed. Thousands of tenants all over the country have lost a home that the Bill, had it become law, would have prevented them from losing. It is outrageous, the number of people who have become homeless or been forced to move to an even more expensive place. I would be grateful if the Minister could assure us that the no-fault eviction protection will come in immediately when the Bill receives Royal Assent, and that there will be no delay. Some of us are concerned that there has been too long a delay.

There are two quick points that I want to put to the Minister. The Bill requires local authorities to play a much greater role in the private rented sector, but they lack the resources to do that. Is there a guarantee that they will get the resources to ensure proper monitoring of the Bill, and proper support for tenants? In the same vein, the provision of housing advice has disappeared in many parts of the country, so the demand grows on local authorities and organisations such as Citizens Advice for advice for tenants. Many tenants are simply unaware of their rights. If they are unaware of their rights, they can be exploited by unscrupulous landlords—and sadly often are.

[Matthew Pennycook]

With the leave of the House, I will close this brief but thoughtful debate. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken for their contributions. In the time available, I will respond to as many of the issues raised as I can.

Let me start by saying that I welcome the broad support for the Lords amendments expressed by both shadow Front Benchers. In our view, the amendments are reasonable and proportionate, and respond to legitimate concerns that were raised. They have the safeguards in place that we felt were needed, and we are happy that they are being incorporated into the Bill.

The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), raised the issue of supply. We acknowledge that it will take time for the sector, including build-to-rent providers but also landlords of any type, to adjust to this significant change in regulation, but we do not believe that the legislation will have a destabilising effect on the rental market, or a harmful impact on future rental supply, which, it should be noted, we are taking steps to boost, not least by providing more opportunities for investment in a growing build-to-rent sector.

According to the English housing survey, the size of the private rented sector has remained broadly stable since 2013-14. Landlords have been aware of successive Governments’ plans to reform the sector since 2019. It is worth noting that a study from the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence looked at whether regulation of the PRS over the past 25 years, in the UK and internationally, had affected PRS supply. It concluded that there was no evidence to support the assertion that non-price regulation impacts supply. We will, of course, continue to work with landlords and their representative associations throughout implementation. We are committed to robustly monitoring and evaluating the private rented sector reform programme, and we will, of course, continue to monitor trends across the PRS, including the supply of properties, to understand how the market is responding to our reforms.

The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) raised the issue of rent controls. He knows that the Government are opposed to introducing rent controls. As I have made clear on many previous occasions, we do not support them, including rent stabilisation measures, because we believe that they could make life more difficult for private renters, both by incentivising landlords to increase rents routinely to a cap, where they might not otherwise have done so, and by pushing many landlords out of the market, thereby making it even harder for renters to find a home that they can afford.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me about implementation. Following Royal Assent, we will allow time for a smooth transition to the new system. We will support tenants, landlords and agents to understand and adjust to the new rules, and ensure the sector has enough time to prepare. As he is aware, the Bill will ensure that the new tenancy system for the private rented sector is introduced in one stage. At that point, the new tenancy system will apply to all private tenancies. Existing tenancies will convert to the new system, and any new tenancy signed off on or after that date will be governed by the new rules.

As I said, I am glad that there is broad support for the Lords amendments relating to shared owners. It is worth saying that the Government will make provision during implementation to ensure that shared owner landlords with an existing tenancy will have an opportunity to provide the information in question to the tenant after the Bill comes into force. We want to take the time to get this right, and find a solution that works for shared owners. We intend to do that using the delegated powers to make transitional provision provided by clause 147.

The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), asked about various issues relating to the amendments about service family accommodation. In particular, he asked about investment. As I outlined in my opening speech, the Ministry of Defence has announced an additional £1.5 billion investment in SFA as part of a £7 billion commitment over the next five years to improving and modernising defence housing. That investment will unlock rapid work to tackle the poor state of forces housing, helping to support recruitment, retention and morale. As I mentioned, the defence housing strategy, to be published later this year, will also set out wider plans to improve service family homes.

It is also worth saying that redress is already available to service personnel, who already have a robust system in place for raising a complaint about the standard of their accommodation and receiving remedy or reimbursement. If not resolved, complaints can be escalated to a service complaint, for which there are further powers of reimbursement, charge reduction and policy redress, and ultimately to the employment tribunal in cases of potential discrimination.

Birmingham Bin Strikes

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

I thank the right hon. Member for taking my advice and not making this party political—a bit more refining and we will get there in the end.

Surely the right hon. Member would expect that the local authority would enter a trade union negotiation in good faith and would go as far as it can lawfully go in making a settlement offer that respects the workers who are losing pay as a result of equal pay, because that is surely the right thing to do. I hope he would not expect the council to disregard that entirely. The council rightly cares about its workforce, not least because many of them will be Birmingham city residents themselves, and it wants to make sure that it supports that process. The council, like us, was not happy that the offer was rejected by the union, but that is not to say that we cannot use this time for the conversation to continue, so that we can reach a resolution that puts the people of Birmingham first.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Could the Minister explain this? I understand the issues of equal pay, and I think equal pay is essential, important and legally necessary, but what we have here is a reduction in pay for a significant group of workers. How can they possibly be held responsible for the financial problems that Birmingham city council has? Is their case not entirely justified—that they are protecting their own wages and conditions, as any good trade union would do in any negotiations? Cannot he simply accept and understand that, and that be the basis on which a settlement is agreed, so that they can return to work?

[Jim McMahon]

The way the right hon. Member starts is where I would hope most local authorities do when looking at equal pay, but the reality is that there will always be winners and losers in equal pay where women have been underpaid for a long time. Councils have options here: they can either compensate and pay upwards for all the female workers in post to the comparable male worker, which for most councils in most circumstances will not be affordable, because there are huge sums attached to that; or, to make a package affordable, they have to equalise it out in consultation with the trade unions. That is exactly what has happened in Birmingham.

The issue in Birmingham is very particular to the waste service, where a previous agreement was reached that honestly does not hold when assessed against equal pay in terms of the tasks that are carried out by those workers. In the end, it does not pass the equal pay test, but that is not to say that we are not urging the council and Unite the trade union to continue negotiations to resolve this. We absolutely want the right outcome for the workers and the residents of Birmingham.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I strongly support what the hon. Lady is saying, and any specific protection for chalk streams. Does she feel that the Bill goes far enough on that, or is specific legislation needed to preserve these beautiful, almost unique things that we have in this country?

[Alex Brewer]

The right hon. Member has anticipated my next point. To ensure that development is approached effectively and sustainably, there must be legislation to protect chalk streams. The Government should use the Bill to expand the list of irreplaceable habitats that are severely threatened and include chalk streams in it. Mitigation schemes will not help these unique habitats. They need protection. Unbelievably, this is the second Bill in six months that the Government could have used to protect our precious chalk streams, as the Water (Special Measures) Bill also failed to mention them specifically.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I welcome what the Minister just said. Is he aware that a lot of landlords are using unreasonable arguments to terminate tenancies or raise rents ahead of this legislation coming into force, and is there anything he or his Department can do to protect tenants during this stressful period for them?

[Matthew Pennycook]

There is a lot of bad practice out there. That is the very reason why the Government have acted so quickly to introduce these reforms, and we are confident that once they are in place, they will provide tenants with the protection that they deserve. In the interim, I am afraid that there will continue to be bad practice of the kind that the Bill will stamp out.

For the reasons that I have just alluded to, we have tabled amendments 19 and 22 to give private registered providers an alternative route for obtaining possession for redevelopment and for decant accommodation. Where the landlord seeks possession on ground 6 or ground 6ZA because they intend to carry out redevelopment work or want to move a tenant on from decant accommodation, they will need to provide alternative accommodation that meets specific requirements. That includes the accommodation being affordable, in a suitable location and not overcrowded. The accommodation must also be let as an assured tenancy or equivalent, unless it is being let for a temporary period pending the tenant being moved to an assured tenancy or equivalent. To use ground 6ZA, landlords must give tenants prior notice to ensure that they are fully aware that the accommodation is provided for temporary decant use. If the landlord does not do that, they are liable for a fine of up to £7,000.

Where landlords wish to accommodate tenants temporarily in properties that are earmarked for redevelopment, social landlords must give prior notice, and set out in a written statement the intention to redevelop the accommodation and the timeframe for redevelopment. Under those circumstances, alternative accommodation will not need to be provided. Social landlords will also be required to pay removal expenses for social tenants when using ground 6 and ground 6ZA. We do not expect that the need to use those grounds will arise often in practice through the engagement of PRPs with tenants, but where needed, the amendments will ensure that significant redevelopment work is not unduly delayed.

Government amendments 12, 13, 17, 20, 21, 23, 28 to 30 and 54 are related and consequential provisions to reflect the new ability for landlords to gain possession for redevelopment and for decant accommodation. We think that this group of amendments gets the balance right, enabling PRPs to progress redevelopment and use temporary decant accommodation during redevelopment works, while ensuring that tenants are provided with appropriate alternative accommodation and removal expenses.

Let me turn finally to amendment 34. Clause 30 ensures that long leases can continue to function by excluding leases over seven years from the assured regime. Those leases are typically used in purchases of leasehold and shared-ownership properties. I am grateful to stakeholders for raising concerns about the possibility of some unscrupulous landlords using clause 30 to circumnavigate the new assured regime by issuing leases of over seven years with a break or early-termination clause that is operable in the first few years. Tenants must not be cheated out of the protections of the assured tenancy regime. The amendment will therefore exclude all leases over 21 years from the assured regime. That will act as a much stronger deterrent to landlords who seek to avoid the assured tenancy regime. The amendment also excludes existing leases of between seven and 21 years, to ensure that they can continue to operate as currently intended. It also ensures that regulated home purchase plans can continue to enable consumers to purchase properties using the principles of Islamic finance by adding them to the list of excluded tenancies in schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1988.

The amendments that the Government have tabled for consideration today are a series of targeted changes designed to ensure that the Bill works as intended, and I commend them all to the House. I thank hon. Members for their efforts to improve the Bill, and for the scrutiny and challenge that the Bill has received so far. I look forward to listening to the remainder of the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Florence Eshalomi]

I start by paying tribute to Members from across the House who have tabled an amendment at this stage, and to the Minister, who has engaged constructively with Members between Second Reading and Report.

As we debate this Bill today, it is important to remember why it is so badly needed: the dire situation that many tenants across all our constituencies are facing through no fault of their own. We have to ask ourselves how we got to a position where tenants have the threat of eviction held over their head for no good reason. How did we get to a position where tenants can be given only a couple of months to raise thousands of pounds for rent in advance, on top of moving costs and the deposit? How did we get to a position where the average rent went up by 9.1% last year? For far too long tenants have been the innocent victims of an unjust power balance in the rental market. As a result, many of them have been unable to keep a roof over their heads and, sadly, have fallen into homelessness. This cannot continue any longer. We need a fairer deal for renters.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Has the hon. Member noticed, as I have, an increase in the number of threatened evictions at the present time, as well as no-fault evictions, excessive rent rises and harassment by landlords of private sector tenants? Does she believe that there is any immediate and urgent protection that we can give those tenants?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

I must declare an interest: my husband works for an organisation that funds the Renters’ Reform Coalition, which has been referred to today.

It is a privilege to speak in this debate after serving on the Bill Committee, which took a thorough approach to each element of the Bill. This topic is of great importance to me, I having worked in housing for my entire working life and representing 27,000 private renters in the Cities of London and Westminster. I speak today thinking of those constituents and their experiences.

One landlord revoked a promise to provide free heating for their tenant’s home, leading to it becoming infested with mould. The landlord later refused to respond to repeated reports of pests in the property, before subsequently charging that tenant £1,500 to fumigate the house. I also bear in mind my constituents who were evicted under a section 21 notice, are now living in temporary accommodation with three children and have been on the social housing waiting list for nearly 15 years.

After being let down by dither and delay from the Members on the Conservative Benches when they were in Government, renters such as my constituents have been denied the crucial powers to hold their landlords to account in even the most basic fashion. If those Members had delivered on their promise and tackled the dissenters in their midst, renters would already have the protections that we are introducing in this legislation. Yet the Opposition have the audacity to claim that the legislation and principles that they had tried to introduce when they were in power will, mysteriously, not work now.

On the amendments, the Opposition claim that the legislation will lead to landlords exiting the market, but they repeatedly fail to suggest where the homes owned by landlords would go. Even in his case for new clause 20, the shadow Minister started talking about where the homes might go, so I take the opportunity to ask him directly whether he thinks the homes would disappear. Would he have rather let a home lie vacant than let it out or sell it if it were unprofitable? And if a sale took place, would the mysterious buyers not live there? I will happily give way if he wants to answer—okay, he does not.

To continue on to my main point, I want to focus on the parts of the Bill that consider local authority enforcement and the new clauses that address that. Current regulations in the private rented sector have suffered from a lack of enforcement by local authorities due to a lack of knowledge about private rented stock, limited enforcement capacity and the range and complexity of laws relevant to enforcement. The legislation goes a long way towards addressing those issues. The Bill puts local authorities clearly in the driving seat in enforcing regulation, cleaning up the confusion of the past regime. It expands the range of civil penalties that can be used by local authorities to crack down on poor behaviour. Importantly, it introduces mandatory reporting for local authorities’ enforcement activity, ensuring that councils are accountable to their constituents and to central Government.

The introduction of the private rented sector database will also fill a key gap in the existing regime: a lack of knowledge of the location and nature of private rented properties. The remaining gap in the regime will be funding, and it is essential that fees for the private rented sector database are sufficient to fund the enforcement measures in the Bill. It is therefore encouraging to see that recognised by Government amendment 40, which I am happy to support.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I support what the hon. Member says about resources for local government. Does she also accept that there is a real problem, particularly in London, where there is simply a lack of advice available for tenants because the advice agencies are completely overwhelmed and underfunded? We therefore need to fund independent advice agencies as well.

[Rachel Blake]

I will come on to some of the incredible work that advice agencies do in my constituency.

Funding will need to be met with an active approach by local authorities to recruit the right individuals with the appropriate skills to act as inspectors for the regime. Additional funding may be needed for the immediate recruitment and upskilling of inspectors, and to deal with a backlog of cases related to enforcing existing regulations. Most importantly, landlords must have as many points of potential accountability as possible. That means that reporting on enforcement activity should be published publicly, with the naming and shaming of poor-performing landlords.

The Bill marks not just an era of rights for the millions of private renters across the country, but a step change in the necessary enforcement activity by councils and by renters themselves. The campaigning groups and advice agencies that have stood up for renters for years, including Generation Rent and also Z2K, which operates in my constituency, deserve a mountain of praise for their work in keeping this issue on the agenda of parties and actors across the political spectrum, and I pay tribute to them for their work. The scale of support that this Bill has from Members on the Government Benches demonstrates the significance of this issue. It is important that we work together across Government and civil society to enforce this new rights framework and provide renters with their long-overdue protections.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Hayes]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I will speak in a moment about evidence I have received that this issue is more widespread than any of us might have imagined. I raised the issue at Prime Minister’s questions, and after that I was contacted by many people, including families who had experienced exactly that, as well as letting agents who told me that they explicitly did not use such clauses, and that such clauses were not necessary because the loss of rental income in the event of the death of a tenant is an insurable risk for landlords.

I am grateful to Members across the House who have supported my campaign, including 48 Members who signed new clause 10, and those who signed my amendment to the Renters (Reform) Bill in the last Parliament. I engaged extensively with two different housing Ministers in the previous Government, both of whom said that they were sympathetic but declined to take action in that Bill or support my amendment. I am therefore grateful to the Minister for Housing and Planning for his compassionate and rigorous engagement on this issue. He has listened and, more importantly, he has acted where his predecessors did not. Government new clause 15, tabled this week, bans the use of guarantor agreements in the event of the death of a tenant who is a family member. That is what my constituent asked of me, and I am proud that that is what we will achieve today. I hope my constituents will take some small comfort from knowing that by speaking out and contacting their MP, other families faced with the heartbreak of losing a loved one will not be pursued by a greedy landlord or letting agent, adding financial stress and hardship to an already unbearable situation.

New clause 15 does not go as far as new clause 10, extending protection only to bereaved guarantors who are related to the tenant. While that protection would have helped my constituent, and while I agree that institutional guarantors should not automatically be released from their responsibilities on the death of a tenant, the limitations of the new clause mean that there could still be hard cases in future—for example, a close friend who is bereaved. I therefore trust that the Minister will keep the situation under review to ensure that new clause 15 is as effective as he intends. As a consequence of the Minister’s engagement on this matter, I am content to withdraw new clause 10 and support Government new clause 15. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to do the same, and to support this Bill, which will deliver the step change in regulation of the private rented sector that we have all been needing for far too long.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), and I pay tribute to her for the work she has done in trying to alleviate the pain caused when someone dies and all the demands then descend unexpectedly on those who were rent guarantors. She has done a very good job on that and I welcome Government new clause 15.

My constituency, like other constituencies in London and most of our big cities, has a huge number of people living in the private rented sector, with probably more than one-third of the electorate living in private rented accommodation. Collectively, they face insecurity. Collectively, they are often stressed. Collectively, they are often paying high and excessive levels of rent. It is heartbreaking to see the number of people who make their home in the area, become active in the community and make a huge contribution to our community life in lots of ways, but then the rents go up and up, and they simply can no longer afford to stay. Anyone looking for private rented accommodation within the local housing allowance in most inner London constituencies would search for a long time and be unlikely to find anywhere remotely near that allowance. I see my friend the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) nodding, and the same situation exists in many other cities across the country.

People on average earnings and working-class communities are simply being driven out by the greed of the private rented sector and the market that goes with it, with rents going up by 10%, 15% and sometimes 20%. That is why I intervened on the Minister earlier, and I am grateful that he gave way and acknowledged the real crisis happening day in, day out across the country. Long-term private sector tenants are at threat, because their landlords know this Bill is coming and that there will be greater restrictions—perhaps there should be more—on their raising of rents and doing no-fault evictions, so they are presently trying to evict large numbers of tenants. I meet many constituents who are going through incredible levels of stress about that. I realise that the Bill is not yet law and has to go through the House of Lords, and I am not clear what date it will be finally enacted; I just hope it is soon. I urge the Minister to consider any kind of urgent action and advice he can give to protect existing tenants in the run-up to the introduction of this legislation.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) for the amendment she has tabled on rent levels. While there is much in the Bill that I welcome, it is sadly a bit of a missed opportunity. Although it restricts the ability of landlords to raise rents in the future, it does not protect those rents being at a reasonable level. Her amendment, which is a good step forward, would link all rent increases to a combination of wage levels and CPI and give local authorities the power to enforce that. We surely should return to that. I hope that the Government will accept one or other of the many amendments that talk about the ability to review this legislation a year on and two years on to see its effects on rent levels and, above all, on security of tenure and whether ways have been found to get around it.

New clause 9, tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol Central, concerns the protection of tenants with disabilities to ensure that they are not discriminated against, and it is important. It has been widely supported across the House, and I hope the Government will agree it, or at least introduce something similar on Report in the Lords if necessary. The hon. Member is representing an important and genuine need across the country.

Lastly, we have a housing crisis in Britain that is utterly beyond belief and utterly unnecessary. I talk to people every day where I live who are rough sleepers. They are walking around, spending the whole day trying to sell The Big Issue to raise £10 or £20 to pay for a bed in a night shelter that they can only access in the evening and have to leave in the morning. It is not accommodation, it is literally just that: a night shelter. Their life is searching for £20 in order just to survive. I am not saying that the local authority does not do all it can to help—it does. I am not saying there are not lots of housing charities that do the same—there are.

But we have a well known number of people living in destitution in our society, grotesque overcrowding in many council and housing association homes, and insecurity in the private rented sector. The Bill goes a long way in reducing insecurity in the private rented sector, but it must be a wake-up call for our society to invest far more in council housing and in sustainable, affordable social housing.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I thank the hon. Member for his comment. I hope that he recognises from my opening remarks that good landlords have nothing to fear from this Bill, and we will help them. The new database will help landlords to understand and meet their legal duties, and we will provide clear guidance. I will talk more about how that database will work.

Part 1 of the Bill will introduce a new, modern tenancy system that removes fixed-term tenancies, meaning that tenants can stay in their home until they decide to end the tenancy, and they will only need to give two months’ notice. This will end the injustice for tenants who want or need to leave at short notice but cannot, and allow both landlords and tenants the flexibility to respond to changes in their circumstances.

I want to make it clear that our Bill ensures that landlords will still be able to reclaim their properties when they legitimately need to, through clear and robust possession grounds. We have also considered the unique situation of student accommodation and specialist sectors such as stepping-stone accommodation, for which the Bill also includes a possession ground. In most cases, tenants will have four months’ notice, so that there is time to find a new home, and landlords will have to wait a year from the beginning of a tenancy before they can use the “moving in and selling” grounds for eviction. This honours our commitment to level the playing field decisively for renters, which goes further than the last Government’s ambitions. Of course, landlords will still be able to quickly evict tenants who engage in antisocial behaviour and make other people’s lives a misery, to protect the strong communities that we want to see flourishing around the country.

The Bill will also empower tenants to challenge unfair rent increases that are designed to drive them out. It will prevent tenants from being bound by rent review clauses, putting them in a stronger position to challenge unreasonable rent hikes at tribunal.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I welcome most of what is in this Bill. A third of my constituents live in the private rented sector. The last time I looked, there were hardly any available properties to rent in my constituency that were within the local housing allowance. The level of rent is astronomical, unaffordable and driving working-class communities out of inner-city areas. Does the Secretary of State not agree that the Bill needs to go further and bring in rent controls, so that housing is available for all people?

[Angela Rayner]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but I disagree on how to resolve the issue. Rent controls restrict housing supply, which does not help anyone, but our Bill takes practical measures to help renters by empowering tenants to tackle unreasonable rent hikes and prohibiting unfair rental bidding, and we will continue to assess potential action on sky-high rents. Hopefully, we are taking measures that will help his constituents and others across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I pay tribute to all the new Members who have delivered their maiden speeches, and I wish them well as Members of the House. I draw particular attention to the maiden speech made by the Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan), my colleague in the Independent group.

The issue of housing that we are debating today should have been a huger issue in the general election than it actually was. A quarter of a million people in this country are homeless at any one time. In my own area, 2,000 people are living in temporary accommodation —or, sadly, sleeping rough—including 850 children. I pay tribute to the many organisations in my area that do a huge amount of work to try to alleviate the problems of homelessness, including Streets Kitchen, the Single Homeless Project, Shelter from the Storm, and Acorn, which represents private sector tenants.

I welcome the Bill. Much of it is very good. It is a huge improvement on what has gone before. Frankly, it should have been law a long time ago. However, there are one or two areas that I think we should consider. British renters, on average, spend 30% of their income on rent, and the proportion is far higher in London. One in five private tenants spend more than half of their salary on private sector rent. Young people, especially those moving into inner-city areas, for instance in London, Birmingham, Newcastle and Manchester, are saddled with student debt and, on top of that, are paying phenomenal amounts of rent, usually in shared flats. It is quite normal for young people in my constituency to be renting flats for more than £2,000 a month, which they have to share with three or four other people. They might be happy sharing for a short time in their 20s and 30s, but as they get older they want their own place. They have no savings and no ability to save, and they have no security of tenure either. Something has to change.

I made this point in my intervention during the Secretary of State’s opening speech. I welcome the Bill, because ending no-fault eviction and providing security of tenure is a huge step forward. Providing for some predictability when it comes to getting repairs done and rights of representation is good, and the role of local government in these measures is also good. However, unless we address the fundamental issue of very high rents in the private rented sector, we will not make any progress.

In my constituency, about a third of people live in the private rented sector—up from less than 10% when I was first elected to the House many years ago—and the figure is rising all the time. The rents are incredibly high. When somebody who is on universal credit and eligible for housing benefit looks for a flat in my area, none is affordable within the local housing allowance. It is simply far too expensive, so the only thing that happens is that people move out. We need to bite the bullet and introduce rent controls in this country. It would not be the end of the world, and they would not destroy the private rented sector. Rent controls have been introduced in Berlin, and they are quite common across much of Europe and in the United States. Unless we introduce rent controls, we are going to have a continuing long-term problem.

I want to finish by saying that we are dealing with a desperate housing shortage in this country, and it will be resolved only by the comprehensive building of council housing with secure tenure and genuinely affordable rent. That will deal with the scourge of homelessness.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

For the benefit of new colleagues, one does not stride past a Dispatch Box once a debate is taking place.

Building Safety and Resilience

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered building safety and resilience.

I rise to open this debate on the critical issue of building safety and resilience, following last week’s publication of the Grenfell inquiry’s final report. Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s findings on an entirely avoidable national tragedy were devastating, and I begin by remembering the 72 people who died, 18 of them children, in the biggest loss of life in a residential fire since the second world war. I pay tribute to the bereaved, the survivors and the wider Grenfell community, who have waited too long for the answers and justice that they deserve. It is thanks to their tireless crusade for truth, accountability and change that we are here today.

The final report of the Grenfell Tower inquiry represents a defining moment in the journey for justice. As Sir Martin stated:

“The simple truth is that the deaths that occurred were all avoidable, and those who lived in the tower were badly failed over a number of years and in a number of different ways by those who were responsible for ensuring the safety of the building and its occupants.”

The report shines a light on a terrible culture in the industry in the years leading up to the tragedy—a culture of putting profit before people, and a culture in which safety took a back seat. It reveals a building safety system that was fundamentally broken, with deficiencies that went unchallenged by different Governments. The consequences of these failures are still with us today; there are too many buildings with unsafe cladding and the pace of remediation has been too slow. We will consider all the recommendations in detail, and we will respond within six months. As part of that work, we will listen to and engage with the bereaved, survivors and residents in the immediate community. We will update Parliament annually on progress against every commitment we make. As the Prime Minister said,

“There must…be more radical action to stop something like this from ever happening again.”—[Official Report, 4 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 313.]

The recent fire in Dagenham showed us the dangers that many residents continue to face. My east London constituency is among those with the most cladded high-rise blocks in the country, so I have long campaigned for the urgent remediation of affected buildings, and I know that Members across the House grapple with similar issues in their constituency. I have seen at first hand how relentless the work can be for residents who are trying to get remediation started. Our constituents not only have to endure the fear and uncertainty of living with unsafe cladding, but face the higher insurance premiums and service charges that go with it. The delays are holding people back. They cannot make plans or get on with their life. They live in fear. They feel stuck.

As Minister for building safety, I am honoured to have the opportunity to work alongside the Deputy Prime Minister to make things right and ensure that last week’s moment of truth becomes a legacy of change, so that no other community has to go through that suffering. We will bring the full power of Government to bear on this task. Above all, we will accelerate the pace of remediation and go further and faster to drive change across the industry.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I thank the Minister for what she just said. On the remedial works that will be done, some will be in the public sector; most will be in the private sector. In many cases, residents are paying the price in very high insurance premiums, as she rightly acknowledged. Could those residents who have suffered a great deal of stress and cost over the past few years expect some form of compensation for their losses, because of the failure of Government and the industry to undertake the proper remedial works?

[Rushanara Ali]

We recognise the impact on those with high insurance premiums. We will take action to protect them, and will have the necessary dialogue to address the right hon. Member’s points and ensure that there are not high insurance premiums.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), to her position. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) said in an intervention a few moments ago, it is probably one of the most challenging and difficult jobs in Government. We all saw the struggles faced by Conservative Ministers who had to deal with these issues over many years; indeed, we are still struggling because we have not got to the position that we would all like to be in.

I want to comment on the many reports produced by the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee in the last Parliament and the one before, when I was privileged to chair the Committee. We produced two reports after Grenfell, following Dame Judith Hackitt’s initial report on the issues to the Government. We also did pre-legislative scrutiny of the Building Safety Bill, followed up with a report, did quite a lot of work on things like construction products, and had correspondence with Ministers on those subjects. Every one of our reports was agreed unanimously by that cross-party Committee, and I am pleased that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), has indicated the Opposition’s support for the general approach to these matters; we all want to see building safety carried out on all the buildings in our constituencies in a timely and proper manner.

As I was looking back at Dame Judith’s report and deciding what I should say today, as well as picking out one or two bits of the Select Committee’s work, something struck me. She said that it was about not just building rules and regulations but culture. The Grenfell report clearly sets out that there needs to be an overall comprehensive review to avoid the gaps in regulations. That is absolutely right, and the Government will no doubt follow that through and report on what they are going to do, but Dame Judith said that there was a “race to the bottom” culture in the building industry—that it was about how cheaply could things be done. That was shown in Grenfell, as there were examples of cheaper products being substituted for others.

In the end, the safety of individuals was put behind financial returns. Unfortunately, that is far too common in the construction industry. The Minister may even struggle more with that fundamental reform to attitudes and culture than she does with the review of building regulations, which will be a struggle enough itself. That has to be borne in mind right the way through. Nevertheless, we look forward to the Government’s response to all the recommendations of Sir Martin Moore-Bick and his inquiry.

The Minister said in a written answer to me the other day that about 4,000 homes still have dangerous cladding on them. After all this time, that really is quite shocking. I wonder whether the Minister might consider updating that figure regularly—maybe placing it in the Library every three months—so we can all look at whether progress has been made quickly enough. She might even like to provide a list of all the buildings, their owners and their developers so we can start to see who the guilty parties are. Some have legitimate reasons for not having made changes yet, which we want to know, but others simply are not interested in getting on with the work that is their responsibility.

There are some other problems and challenges that the Minister might also like to address. My attention was drawn to a particular block that could access the building safety fund for the removal of cladding, but not for other safety work that needed to be done, including replacing missing firewalls and dangerous fire doors. That is okay when developers are involved, who should be pushed to put right their wrongs of their construction, but in this case, the developer had gone bust and the building was owned by its leaseholders. Where did they go in that situation? Well, actually, the building work just stopped.

We ended up with a building safety fund that is not comprehensive—the Select Committee recommended it cover all aspects of building safety work—and covers just cladding, and because other elements of building safety are not covered by the fund, there are situations where buildings are left unsafe and there is no one really to point the finger at and say, “They’re responsible.” The Minister probably cannot give me an answer to that point today, but I hope she will think about it. If we can start to identify precisely where these buildings are, many more such situations may emerge.

Where there are recalcitrant developers and owners, how can the leaseholders get help? As has been mentioned, they are often faced with high insurance costs and enormous worries about what happens next in their life. The Select Committee talked to people who were in despair, and that was a few years ago; they are probably still in despair now because nothing has changed in their situation. On top of that, they can be faced with legal costs to challenge the developers and owners. Can the Minister give us some assurance that her Department and officials will stand ready to offer all assistance possible to leaseholders in that situation, who are really struggling and desperate in many circumstances? The Leasehold Knowledge Partnership has done good work in providing assistance, but the technical and legal advice should really be coming from her Department.

I wanted to mention one or two other key issues, although if I tried to go through all the building safety issues that came up in the Select Committee, I would be here for a lot longer than today’s debate. Skills have been mentioned. When the Committee looked at the Building Safety Bill, we recommended a national system of third-party accreditation and registration for all professionals working on the design and construction of high-rise buildings. That did not include all the people who work on buildings, such as labourers and those with other skills, but all those involved with professional skills—whether it be architects, those overseeing construction work or building safety managers—should be properly accredited, and there ought to be a national system. It is clear that there are gaps in that regard.

As for those who work in the trades involved, it is a disgrace that under building electrical safety regulations, it is still the case that the only rules relate to “competent persons”. In a high-rise building, an electrician who does work in a kitchen where there is water, or in the garden where there is water, will not be covered by any building safety regulations. An electrician who does work in the bathroom will be covered, but will have to be part of a competent persons scheme—which does not mean that the person doing the work must be competent; it simply means that the company must be registered as having someone who is competent to sign off the work at the end of the day, even if the person never sees the work that has been done. The Committee reported on that several times back in 2015 and never got any further with it, so it needs to be looked at.

Construction products were clearly a problem at Grenfell, and I welcomed the comments about that in the Grenfell report. We called over and over again for a comprehensive review of the testing of products and their safety. We called for the publication of information not only about the products that had been tested and found to be safe, but about those that had failed. What Dame Judith Hackitt found initially in her review was that companies were going from one testing house to another with their products until they found one that passed them. No one was ever notified of the failures, and that cannot be right. Sir Martin Moore-Bick has called for more transparency over product testing, so can we ensure that failures are reported, as well as successes?

In all the costs of Grenfell, while developers are being held to account to some degree, not one construction product manufacturer has been asked to pay a single penny towards the cost of building remediation, although many of them are clearly responsible for some of the problems. Why is that? We pushed the then Government about it. We last wrote to the relevant Minister in March last year. The Government commissioned a report by Paul Morrell on construction products and safety, but never responded to it in detail. Will this Minister now look at it and give a response? Will she look at the testing and categorisation of products, and at how manufacturers can be made to pay some of the costs that should not fall on leaseholders or on social housing providers?

I am pleased by the recommendation in the Grenfell report that building control officers should always be appointed by an independent third party. The developers should not be choosing—in some cases—their own friends to sign off a building. In the case of the highest-rise buildings, the building safety regulator is now responsible for appointing building control officers.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Let me compliment the hon. Gentleman on all his work on this. Does he agree that one of the problems is the systemic underfunding of local authorities—leading to the inadequacy of all their inspection regimes, building control in particular—which has had such a devastating effect on the quality of building in so many parts of the country?

[Mr Betts]

Yes, I do. The Committee has made many recommendations in many reports about the whole issue of local authority funding and the squeezing of resources in respect of services of this kind, given the priority that authorities have to give to social care in all its forms and, now, temporary accommodation. As well as the question of resources, however, there is the question of independence. The building control officer will be beholden to the developer, whoever the developer is, because the developer will say, “If you give me a difficult time on this building, I will not give you any work for the next one.” That must be stopped. The last Government would say that they did so in respect of the highest-rise buildings, but it needs to be stopped for all buildings, and I am pleased about what Sir Martin said about that in his report.

Let me now return to the issue of social housing. I am sorry, but I must tell the Minister that I am not going to let it go away. Both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister made comments about the discrimination against and bad treatment of social housing tenants. For a long time we have had the attitude that this is poor housing for poor people who do not really matter. We must challenge that, because they do matter. Landlords in the social housing sector, housing associations and councils, will always do their best to make buildings safe, and in some cases—because there is no access to the building safety fund unless they can show that they cannot do the work, and they can always find some money to do it—that will mean squeezing the headroom in the housing revenue account or housing associations’ business plans. That squeezed headroom would otherwise be available for the building of new homes.

If the Government want to build 1.5 million new homes—and I fully support that; I think it is one of the best commitments that they are making—they will not be built by the private sector alone. A substantial number of social houses will have to be built, and that requires HRA resources and resources in the housing associations’ business plans. The more we squeeze them with other responsibilities that are not financed by the building safety fund, the less money will be available to build new social housing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I am delighted to be able to speak in this debate. I compliment and congratulate the Members who have made their first speeches: the hon. Members for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) and for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson), which is the town where I was born.

This debate, about building safety, comes on the back of the report by Sir Martin Moore-Bick on the Grenfell fire, which should be sobering reading for anybody who has any sort of public duty or is in public life. It catalogues how privatisation, underfunding, inadequate surveillance and inadequate supervision led to a vulnerable group of tenants being left in a desperate situation in which a large number died. He concludes in his report that every single one of those deaths could have been avoided, had there been proper regulation and protection. His proposals are far-reaching, and I look forward to the Government responding in detail, in the near future, on how they will ensure proper regulation and supervision and, above all, a role for local government as the local inspectorate of all buildings to ensure that they are all safe and that all the materials are correctly put together. The idea that deregulation can bring about safety is obviously nonsense, and this report has shown it to be such.

[Sarah Gibson]

Recent changes to building regulations require approved inspectors to be certified. That is welcome, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the original scheme, under which supervision was by local authorities, which were not financially tied to the contractor, developer or employer, was considerably safer than this deregulated system with approved inspectors? Perhaps the Government should look carefully at changing that.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. The watchword has to be independence, of both inspection and regulation. The idea that developers can mark their own homework has to be got rid of sharpish, because it is a dangerous precedent, and we can now see the results of it.

This horrible fire at Grenfell did not come from nowhere. There was the Knowsley fire and the Lakanal House fire. There were constant references to the dangers of inadequate or inappropriate cladding, the lack of fire equipment, and the fire risk that goes with that. This has to be the most massive wake-up call there has ever been. It also shows that communities, such as those in Grenfell, were treated with contempt by their local authority, regulators and others. They simply did not care. In Grenfell, there was a mixed group of working-class tenants living in a dangerous place. On the day that the report came out, one of the residents was asked about it, and he said that the cladding might as well have been made of firelighters, given the danger it presented to them all. Something quickly needs to be done about that.

We must look at how we deal with the need for remedial action. When the Grenfell fire took place, inspections were immediately made of buildings all over the country; that was the right thing to do. By and large, local authorities responded well and removed cladding. In my local authority, Islington, cladding was discovered on one local authority building, Fyfield House, and that was immediately removed by the authority. However, I find that buildings in the private sector and other buildings in which leaseholders live have not been dealt with in the same way or with the same efficiency, and tenants, residents and leaseholders are paying the price for that. To give an example, there is a nice leasehold development in my constituency called Highbury Square. It was apparently well built and has good facilities. The problem is that it has cladding that has not been certified or approved, so the insurance costs are very high. The developers do not want to pay for the remedial work, and despite numerous meetings being held with Ministers in the previous Government and so on, no action has been taken. The families living there cannot sell or move. They cannot do anything. They are absolutely stuck.

I said in my intervention on the Minister that those who have had to incur huge insurance costs just to remain in their flat should be compensated, and the stress among people who live in such places should also be recognised through compensation. If there is a huge dispute about who will pay for all this—I am quite sure that many companies will try to take legal action against the Government—surely it is the Government’s responsibility to step in, if necessary, and do the work. They can charge it to the owners of the freehold or leasehold who are the cause of the problem. In the case I mentioned, Aviva pension fund is responsible. In the case of the Drayton Park development in my constituency, which the Ministry is well aware of—I had several meetings about it with Ministers under the previous Government and many officials—it is Galliard Homes, which seems to be trying to evade its responsibility to ensure that the work is carried out.

I appeal to the Minister to look carefully at the excessive delays caused by endless arguments with developers and the owners of freeholds. Those delays have put people at risk and have led to enormous cost for them. I come across other developments all the time that seem to be in the same situation, including some of those at the former Arsenal stadium site. This debate is about all that.

In this debate, we also recognise how communities respond, and how they responded to the Grenfell fire. I went there the day after the fire, and met the firefighters who, unbelievably bravely, had been trying to deal with a fire the likes of which they had never seen before. They did not really have the wherewithal to deal with it. Their bravery was enormous and their stress was huge. Some of them received abuse from our media and others, who tried to put the blame on them. They are the last people who should be blamed. I also saw how the community came together. I have been on every one of the silent walks for Grenfell that take place every year on the anniversary, usually in the company of the former Member of Parliament for Kensington, Emma Dent Coad, who did a fantastic job, not just at the time as the MP, but since then, campaigning for safety and justice for the victims of Grenfell. It needs to be recognised that the community came together to support and to demand, and they expect answers from this Government, so that they can live in a place of safety in the future.

The last thing that I want to say—I know that others wish to speak—is that fundamentally this debate is about housing and how we treat people. We have had market domination of the principles of housing. We have gone away from the principle of housing as a human right and instead to a market solution to it all. We can see the results: several thousand people rough sleeping every night; tens of thousands of people living in grotesquely overcrowded conditions; and many people—in my constituency, a third of them—living in the private rented sector, which is largely unregulated, insecure and very expensive.

I have been leafing through the Renters’ Rights Bill just produced by the Secretary of State. I welcome much of what I have read, but unless the Bill addresses the fundamental issue of the cost of private renting, instead of leaving it to the market to set the cost, areas like mine will suffer from social cleansing for a long time to come. Working-class families will be moved out because they simply cannot afford to stay.

We want to maintain the communities in our inner-urban and city areas in all parts of the country, so we need rent regulation, as well as security of tenure and all that goes with it. That means public intervention, building more council houses and taking the market element out of how planning decisions are made on building council housing. Instead, we should say, “The priority for all our community is a sufficient supply of good-quality, well-designed council housing.”

I finish on this thought: we have the potential to build some wonderful places, but also to take over many empty properties and convert them into some form of council or social housing. We need to ensure that housing is well designed, with sufficient open space and good room sizes. When developers are creating a home for someone to live in, they should think it through—changes in life, disabilities that may occur and everything else—and ensure that we have the highest possible quality social housing design for the future. This report could be a great turning point in the way that we deal with housing in our society—or it could be shelved and forgotten in a few years’ time. The people of Grenfell, who suffered and are still grieving the loss of others, will never let us forget it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Chris Curtis to make his maiden speech.

Renters (Reform) Bill

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 24th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

There are many amendments on which I could speak—indeed, the book of amendments seems to be almost as long, if not longer than the Bill itself—but I will limit myself to new clause 12, which I have tabled in my name and those of hon. Friends and colleagues, and on which amendments 44 to 47 are contingent. First, I declare my interest in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as chair of the quality and safeguarding board for a children’s company.

New clause 12 goes to the heart of my interests, as it deals with care-experienced children. Essentially, its purpose is to ensure that landlords do not discriminate against people who have grown up in the care system when making a decision on whom to rent a property to. It would place a specific duty on landlords, preventing them from denying those who have grown up in the care system a tenancy on that basis. Landlords found to be in breach of the new clause could be subject to penalties. That is the thrust of what I am trying to achieve, and it might strike a chord with many colleagues here.

Some may remember a recent case that highlighted the potential problem. The Guinness housing trust, in advertising a property for rent, specifically said that it was not available to care leavers. That was an extraordinary piece of discrimination, redolent of the bad old days when people put up signs saying, “No dogs, no Irish, no blacks”, if we can remember back that far. In that recent case, there was potential discrimination against young people who, through no fault of their own, had been through the care system. Guinness fortunately withdrew that straight away and apologised, but the case reinforced the vulnerabilities of some of the most vulnerable young people in our society when trying to get the most basic of daily requirements: a roof over their head. That is what is behind the new clause.

I thank the coalition of various charities and organisations that have done a lot of the heavy lifting on this issue, led by Barnardo’s and the charity for care-experienced young people, Become, as well as others. Let me say at the outset that new clause 12 is a probing amendment, and I am grateful for the positive engagement I have had from the Minister already. I am wholly optimistic that he will say some helpful and constructive things when he comes to respond. I will flesh out why this is an important amendment to this important Bill, in which I fully admit there are many other priorities.

As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have a long-standing interest in championing care-experienced young people, whether formerly as Children’s Minister or now as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for children and vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for care-experienced children and young people. Why do we need to do more to support care leavers when accessing accommodation in the private rented sector? It is imperative first for us to consider the bigger picture with the issues that our young people leaving care face. More than 85,000 children and young people are in the care system in England, which is a recent high. Every year, more than 12,000 of them leave that care system. We all know that unfortunately, despite all the best efforts and endeavours of successive Governments and Ministers, care leavers still have much poorer outcomes than their peers. They are less likely to gain good qualifications in the education system. Nearly half of the children in the care system have a mental health problem, and it is estimated that a quarter of homeless people have been in care at some point in their lives. They are also disproportionately represented in the justice system and make up over a quarter of serving prisoners.

From the age of 18, care-experienced young people are often expected to be financially independent and manage their own household bills, but research over many decades has shown that care leavers are much more financially vulnerable than their peers. A significant number live on or near the poverty line and struggle to make ends meet. [Interruption.] I am being echoed; as if Members cannot get enough of me once, they are now getting it in stereo with a time delay.

While inflation is beginning to come down, certain sectors continue to see large price increases, including the private rented sector. Private rental prices paid by tenants in the UK rose by some 6.2% in the 12 months to January this year, unchanged for the second consecutive month, and that puts huge pressure on all tenants. Young care leavers living independently at the age of just 18 have no support from the bank of mum and dad, and for them things can be especially tough.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

The Member is making a very important and excellent point about care leavers. Does he agree that one of the problems is that on reaching the age of 18 they are deemed to be able to be independent but they have no support network in the way other young people of 18 often do, and therefore while they are getting housing support they might not be getting the necessary emotional and advice support that all other 18-year-olds get and benefit from? There is therefore a need for some sort of arrangement to ensure there is a continued level of support well after the age of 18, if the individual young person actually wants that.

[Tim Loughton]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman up to a point, and of course young people do not magically become much more self-sustainable and resilient the day after their 18th birthday, but there have been many improvements over the years. There is extended support for care leavers up to the age of 25, and there are arrangements whereby they can still have a relationship, including a financial relationship, for example with foster carers, through the “staying put” scheme the Government have come up with, and many charities and organisations do very good work in providing support, but the point the right hon. Gentleman makes is right. Most of us are lucky enough to be able to go running back home to birth families for help and support in difficult times, but that is not always available to young people in the care system, although many do have the continual support of good quality foster carers and other carers they relied on when they were under the age of 18. However, they are vulnerable, and ensuring these young people have a safe and stable home to start their adult lives is really crucial.

Housing can act as a vehicle for stability, and without access to good quality accommodation young people will face challenges in getting a job, staying in education and ongoing training, accessing health services and everything else. However, despite the key role housing can play in helping a young person transitioning to independent living, many care leavers are struggling to find suitable accommodation in those early years after leaving care. It is estimated that one in three care leavers become homeless in the first two years immediately after they leave care, and one in four homeless people have been in care at some point in their lives, as I mentioned earlier.

Young care leavers face many barriers in accessing appropriate accommodation, and many will not be able to be addressed in this Bill. However, it does offer an opportunity to address one of those barriers: that landlords sometimes feel reluctant to rent to young people who have grown up in the care system. Young people in care tell charitable organisations in the youth sector that they come across landlords who are reluctant to rent to them because of their circumstances, and evidence from a survey of care leavers carried out by the charity Centrepoint found that over one in 10—some 13%—said they had been unable to access accommodation because the landlord was unwilling to accommodate them because of their status. That is not fair.

The problem is also likely to get worse given the growing evidence of a reduction in the number of private rental properties available across England. An investigation by the BBC found the number of properties available to rent across the whole of the UK had fallen by a third in the 18 months up to March 2023, and increased competition for the properties that are available has enabled more landlords to pick and choose which tenants they like, often going for the highest bidder, which of course makes it especially challenging for vulnerable groups such as care leavers.

In the last few years Barnardo’s has been running a campaign to try and improve access to suitable accommodation for care leavers. I certainly support the campaign, which calls on all local authorities to offer rent guarantor and deposit schemes for care leavers seeking to rent in the private rented sector. The MacAlister report on children in social care, which the Government commissioned and which was published last year, made a recommendation that being a care-experienced child should be a protected characteristic. So far in excess of 60 local authorities, including my own in West Sussex, have voluntarily acknowledged that, although the Government have not made it a statutory addition at this stage. So some local authorities are already providing help to care leavers, with deposits or a scheme where they can act as a corporate guarantor.

Such schemes greatly help make care-experienced young people more attractive tenants, and a number of local authorities report that such schemes have had significant successes. The scheme operated by Kent County Council has had no rent defaults from when it started in 2018 until 2021; however, such schemes are not offered by most local authorities. A freedom of information request by the Care Leaver Local Offer website to the 151 local authorities in England with a children’s social care department showed that 60% will not act as a guarantor for care leavers.

Building Safety

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter of low-rise blocks. According to the evidence that the Department has seen when looking at properties less than 11 metres high, it remains the case that the overwhelming majority do not require fire safety remediation, but I should be happy to meet my hon. Friend to talk about that in more detail. It is important that we continue to highlight the lower likelihood of a problem such as we are discussing today, but it is also important that there are routes to redress. The extension of the Defective Premises Act 1972 provides an opportunity in that regard. It is important for residents, leaseholders and others to be aware of such avenues, and I should be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss those further as well.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I thank the Minister for his statement, and for the meeting I had with him and his staff recently about an issue facing my constituents. It concerns Galliard Homes and residents of Drayton Park in my constituency, who have been denied access to necessary information. Galliard Homes claims that the fire safety regulations have been adhered to, but that is hotly disputed by just about everybody else. As a result the residents are paying vastly enhanced insurance rates and are unable to move, unable to sell their homes, and unable to move on with their lives in any way. That is causing unbelievable levels of stress, of which many Members are well aware from events in their own constituencies.

The Minister is engaged with the issue and fully understands it. May I ask him to do two things? First, will he release all the information about the fire safety assessment so that an air of transparency surrounds all this? Secondly, will he ensure that the developer, Galliard Homes, steps up to the plate and does the remedial work that is necessary to bring down insurance costs and enable the residents to move on and get on with their lives?

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for highlighting this issue, and I am also grateful for the meeting that he arranged with the representative of the leaseholders and the time that he gave for us to go through it. It is very useful to work through individual cases: although they are often the trickiest, the knottiest and the most challenging, it is important for us to understand the policy implications.

Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman—without going into the details of the individual property, which I should be happy to discuss with him separately—that in general we seek to be as transparent as we possibly can, hence the publication of some of the additional data today. We remain committed to making progress on both individual buildings and properties as a whole, and I hope that both the property and the developer that the right hon. Gentleman has highlighted will make progress as soon as possible.

Extremism Definition and Community Engagement

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Again, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and commend him on the work he did in the Home Office during his time there. He will have known that there was an already existing definition, with which there was an obligation on Government not to engage with certain groups. He will also know that while he was there Sir William Shawcross pointed out that that definition needed to be updated and those engagement principles reinforced. We are simply continuing the work that my right hon. Friend did so diligently and effectively while at the Home Office. Organisations such as the British National Socialist Movement and Patriotic Alternative, which I mentioned, are ones that I hope no Member of this House would want to deal with. Obviously, however, each individual must look to their own conscience about the organisations with which they engage. This is purely about Government; Parliament is, quite rightly, sovereign.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Following the point made by the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), I urge the Secretary of State to be cautious in all of this. Those of us who campaigned against apartheid in the 1970s were often condemned, and although the African National Congress was never banned in Britain, there were calls to ban it. Things change and history moves on; those who marched for peace in Ireland were condemned at the time, and later we had the Good Friday agreement. So I ask the Secretary of State: what is the status of this statement? Does it have legal force? Will it be an instruction to the police? Will it be an instruction to local authorities? Exactly how will it be implemented?

On pages 5 and 6 of the Secretary of State’s statement, he rightly makes the point that we have rights of religious assembly, free speech and organisation. It is important to state those, and they are all enshrined in the European convention on human rights. Will he assure us—because this is not mentioned anywhere in this document— that there is no plan by the Government or the Conservative party to withdraw from the European convention on human rights and therefore from the European Court of Human Rights? For all its failings and inefficiencies, the convention underpins human rights in a very important way.

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the points he makes. His question gives me an opportunity to clarify that we will proceed with caution and that this definition governs only Government engagement and funding. Other autonomous organisations must and will make their own judgments; this is simply about what Government and their agencies do. He makes the point that people and organisations can change over time, and that is true. There are people who have been members of extremist organisations and have then changed their view and been invaluable in helping us to challenge the work of extremists: those who were formerly members of Islamist organisations such as Hizb ut-Tahrir have been valuable in countering that hate; and those people who were formerly members of neo-Nazi organisations have been invaluable in making sure that we can police their activities. Of course, it is always within the human heart to have the capacity to change and reform.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 25th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens]

My hon. Friend is correct that they should. I suspect they will not receive it from either the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Senedd, for many reasons. As he says, there is clearly an impact on devolution.

Devolution was approved overwhelmingly by the people of Scotland, and any erosion of it is strongly opposed by most, but not all, parties in that Parliament. I will let Members guess which party is least protective of Scotland’s interests. Scotland’s current legislative powers are guarded jealously, and there is strong demand for many—possibly all—reserved powers to be transferred to Scottish control. That is not surprising.

I and others will continue to explore the Bill’s deficiencies again today, pointing out its many contradictions.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I compliment the hon. Gentleman on his excellent speech. He has given very good democratic, social and moral reasons for why the Bill is in deep defect. Does he not think a better process would be for the Secretary of State now to withdraw the Bill altogether?

[Chris Stephens]

That would be very helpful indeed. The right hon. Gentleman is right. Those of us who have tabled amendments are trying to clean up a dog’s breakfast, which is very difficult. We are all trying to make the Bill a little better but, as my good friend says, the ultimate solution would be to withdraw it entirely.

I have highlighted the Bill’s contradictions, counter-productiveness and profound consequences, and I will be seeking to divide the House on amendment 28. I look forward to hearing other Members pursue their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call Jeremy Corbyn.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I have not put in to speak.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call John McDonnell.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge)? If we descend into accusations that those who do not support the Bill are antisemites, or that those who support it are Islamophobic, I think we are lost, to be honest. It is important that we are careful about our language.

There is a profound misunderstanding about what we are debating. If this is about the BDS movement itself, there are mechanisms that the Government can use to proscribe an organisation. But the debate on this Bill should be about BDS as a method, a tactic. I have supported boycotting, disinvesting and sanctioning a whole range of regimes. I campaigned with and supported the anti-apartheid movement of BDS with regard to South Africa. Actually, a large number of Members on both sides of the House supported that. I also did so with regard to Saudi Arabia and its execution—tragically, it is still doing this—of members of the gay community. I have campaigned with others across the House with regard to Sri Lanka and the persecution of the Tamils, including the murder of a number of my constituents when they visited their families. I am doing the same at the moment with regard to Bahrain because of its imprisonment of the political opposition. It is the same with Russia. I was a founder member 10 years ago of the Ukraine Solidarity Campaign and we have been calling for sanctions against Russia for years—in advance of even the Government, to be honest. It is the same with Iran. I chair the Iranian workers’ movement committee, which supports trade unionists campaigning in Iran, many of whom are unfortunately in prison. There is also the Uyghurs.

On all of those, I have urged the use of BDS because when other representations and diplomacy fail, there are not many options left. One of the options, unfortunately, is the use of arms. In not promoting that, we have tried to find a middle lane, and that is economic isolation to try to influence. To be frank, it did work in South Africa. That is why we have tried to ensure that it is a mechanism that can be drawn upon. I agree, however, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) on the Front Bench. The important thing is to ensure that if we use this mechanism, it is used properly and fairly and that we do not discriminate against one particular country. That is what I have not done. I have called for BDS with regard to goods coming from the occupied territories and Iran because they are against the international order.

Having sat in this House for 25 years and listened to speeches from Conservative representatives, I have learned a bit about conservatism, so what I find extraordinary is that this Bill is profoundly unconservative. Those on the Government Front Bench seem to be rejecting many of the individual amendments in front of us. I have listened to Government Members arguing that the Conservative party stands for freedom of speech, support for the law, the rights of property, the democratic rights of this Parliament, local government and other agencies, devolution of decision-making, and support for the action on the environment and human rights.

Let me turn to the amendments on freedom of speech. Amendments 28 and 3 prevent the Government introducing a gagging order on even just talking about this—having a debate about it. That is profoundly unconservative. I cannot believe that Government Members are not supporting those amendments. On the issue of rights of property, I say to the Conservative Member whose constituency I cannot remember that we are both members of the local government pension fund. The Government are overriding the rights to my property, which is my pension fund. I cannot believe that the Conservatives are doing that. That is my stored wages for over 20 years of service in local government over which I now lose control, and the amendment simply says that the members of that pension fund will be allowed to decide.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

My right hon. Friend will recall the days when we managed to persuade the GLC pension fund not to invest in apartheid South Africa, but, as I am sure he will agree, the fundamentals of the Bill are that it actually reduces a very large area of freedom of speech for elected local councillors. That, to me, undermines the whole principle of representative democracy within our society.

[John McDonnell]

I agree. I was chair of finance at that time. It was interesting because there was an awful lot of cross-party support on that, as we were then at the stage of the imprisonment of Nelson Mandela, and the worst oppressions that were going on, including what happened in Soweto.

Let me go through the amendments themselves. On devolution and local decision-making, all that amendments 5, 16, 34 and new clause 2 do is ensure that local democracy takes place. The arguments that I have heard from those on the Conservative Benches on several occasions is that local councillors should have the right to represent their local communities and, above all else, they should listen to their local communities. When there have been rows on the Government Benches, it is often as a result of councils not having listened to their local communities, and sometimes I have agreed. These amendments simply enable the local community to express their views and for that to be taken into account.

On environmental concerns, amendments 8, 10, 15 and 11 are simply reinforcing many of the policies that the Conservative party has been advocating in our attempts to get to net zero and protect animals at the same time. I have often heard Government Members saying that upholding the law is an essential part of conservatism. Well, that is what amendments 6 and 17 do. They are simply saying that the use of this mechanism can be helpful in upholding international law.

This Bill is a bad Bill. I agree that there might be the potential to gain consensus on it. One way forward is through the amendment that the Labour Front Bench has tabled to try to look at human rights in general to see how statements defining human rights can be made by Government, and that then influencing what happens in other decision-making areas, such as in local government, pension funds and so on. I believe that there is an opportunity for that, but what I come back to is that this is not the time to do something that in any way divides our communities. If the Bill is in any way amendable, let us just pull it. The Government have done that before. There has been a pause on legislation, allowing wiser heads to come together and to come back with something that actually might work.

If there are arguments about the BDS movement, and I totally condemn some of the statements that I have heard from some of the leaders associated with it, that is a separate issue. This is about a method of trying to influence individual countries to behave in line with international law, protect the environment, and so on. It is about trying to set standards in other countries that we want to promote globally anyway.