Carla Denyer MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 5 Nov 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I can see that the Minister is nodding in recognition of that, and I thank him. It does not make sense for local authorities introducing selective licensing schemes to have to spend a lot of money on preparing the paperwork for the scheme without knowing whether it will ultimately go ahead. I have seen at first hand the unnecessary impact on officer time and the cost to local authorities. Similarly, I urge the Minister to commit the Government to removing the requirement for local authorities establishing selective licensing schemes to ensure that the private rented sector forms a high proportion of properties in the area. If there are acute issues in the private rented sector that can be addressed through a selective licensing scheme, it seems arbitrary for local authorities to be unable to establish such a scheme just because that sector does not form a large proportion of the whole housing stock. The reason why those measures are not included in the new clause is that they do not require primary legislation, as far as I understand it, but I raise them because they are directly connected to the content of the new clause. In conclusion, the changes that I am suggesting are small, but they could make a big difference to housing standards on the ground and to the ability of local authorities to do their work. I will not push the new clause to a vote, but I sincerely hope that the Minister will actively consider it. I know that the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health would be happy to meet him to discuss any further details.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  New clause 9 would head in the opposite direction from new clause 5. It is about removing unnecessary barriers to the use of licensing schemes to improve housing standards. The new clause would do two things. First, it would increase the maximum duration of discretionary licensing schemes from five years to 10. Secondly, it would enable local authorities operating selective licensing schemes to use licensing conditions to improve housing conditions. Licensing can be an effective way to improve housing standards for at least three reasons. First, it is proactive. It provides a means for local authorities to inspect privately rented housing using enforceable conditions and to identify and resolve problems without the need for tenants to have complained, and it provides that proactive regulation in a locally tailored form. It makes major contributions to area-based issues such as crime, antisocial behaviour and waste management, and it brings together a range of bodies to focus additional support services—for example, for landlords and tenants, improving public health and reducing burdens on the NHS. There are a huge number of wins, and I have experienced that at first hand with licensing schemes in my local authority. Secondly, licensing is self-funding. It means that the market pays for its own regulation, which is a good principle, rather than relying on the taxpayer. It provides a sustainable and predictable source of income that enables local authorities to maintain staffing levels and support the training of new officers. Thirdly, licensing is targeted. It enables local authorities to target regulation where that is most needed, so that the worst landlords and the most vulnerable tenants get the most attention and landlord costs can be minimised in other areas. The problem, however, is that local authorities have to implement licensing schemes with their hands tied behind their backs, because previous Governments have made various decisions that have placed unnecessary and irrational barriers in their way. Given that licensing schemes are expensive and time-consuming for local authorities to initially introduce, it does not make sense to restrict the period over which they can act to only five years. New clause 9 would amend sections 60 and 84 of the Housing Act 2004 to increase the maximum duration of discretionary licensing schemes, which includes both selective licensing schemes and additional—sorry, jargon again—for HMOs from five to 10 years. That would allow local authorities to advertise for longer-term posts for officers and to include training of new staff in those schemes. It would also provide more time for local partnerships formed through such schemes to become embedded and effective. The new clause also addresses another issue, which was highlighted by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health during oral evidence. That respected body pointed out that it does not make any sense to have the current peculiar disconnect in the 2004 Act, whereby local authorities can introduce selective licensing schemes to address poor housing conditions, but they cannot include a directly enforceable requirement relating to the housing condition as a condition of the licence—so they do not have the tools to do what they are set up to do. The new clause would therefore amend section 90 of the 2004 Act to enable local authorities to use licence conditions to improve housing conditions directly. I stress that the new clause does not cover all that needs to be done to remove barriers to licensing. For example, I also urge the Minister to commit the Government to removing the Secretary of State’s ability to veto selective licensing schemes covering more than 20% of the local authority area.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would ensure that landlords give permission for home adaptations where a home assessment has been carried out. There are 16 million disabled people in the UK—that is more than a fifth of the population—and 19% of them live in the private rented sector. The Equality and Human Rights Commission estimates that a shocking one in three disabled people live in private rented properties that are unsuitable for them. Research by the National Residential Landlords Association found that only 49% of landlords—less than half—were willing to let to a tenant who required adaptations for accessibility needs. That number does go up when landlords are made aware of the funding that is available, but it still falls far short of where it needs to be. Disabled renters need the landlord’s consent to make any adaptations to their homes. The Equality Act 2010 already imposes a duty on landlords to allow and make reasonable adjustments on request from their disabled tenants. Common home adaptations include changes to make the premises safe, facilitating access to things including use of the bathroom, washing facilities, cooking facilities, light controls and so on—things that it is perhaps easy for us to take for granted. Disabled renters who are unable to self-fund may request that their local authority pays for smaller adaptations. That includes things such as grab rails to make it easier to get in and out of the bath. Through the disabled facilities grant, which is in a separate bucket, local authorities provide up to £30,000 to pay for major works that cost more than £1,000. I tabled the new clause to prompt a discussion about the concern raised by Disability Rights UK, which points out that, unfortunately, the disabled facilities grant is a postcode lottery system that is failing and is not fit for purpose in its current form. An investigation by journalist Vicky Gayle found that in nine council areas in England and Wales, people had to wait on average more than a year to see an occupational therapist and complete the pre-application steps. On top of that, 80% of local authorities in England and Wales are using discretionary powers to top up funding, and that extra money varies wildly from council to council. There are many common barriers, including the fact that private landlords often refuse to make adaptations and many are unaware of their legal obligations to do so.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 58 Abandoned premises under assured shorthold tenancies Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 44, in clause 57, page 79, line 31, after “section 1” insert— “— in subsection (4)(a), omit ‘the prescribed sum’ and insert ‘£60,000’; (b)”. This amendment increases the maximum fine for illegal evictions under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 to £60,000.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure we are all aware of the risk that the abolition of section 21 may lead to a rise in illegal evictions. The Renters’ Rights Bill needs measures to protect against that, and that is the purpose of amendment 44. Across the country, a segment of private landlords evade the courts and attempt to evict tenants themselves by taking actions that include changing locks, disposing of belongings, and even cutting off electricity and water supply and harassing tenants. Many illegal evictions take place in the shadow market, where landlords and letting agents deliberately breach the law to maximise rental profits. Many renters in the shadow market are on lower incomes in marginal employment, and they are unfamiliar with their rights. In 2019, there were just 30 prosecutions of offences under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 in the whole of England and Wales. Such a low prosecution rate allows criminal landlords to act with impunity. When sentencing, magistrates are also very lenient; fines of less than £1,000, community service and conditional discharge are common penalties for such behaviour. If the maximum fine is £40,000—as it currently is in the Bill—because of the nature of civil penalty notices, it is unlikely that the fine will ever reach that maximum unless the offence is particularly violent. So—and here is the rub—landlords may still take a calculated risk that they can save money by unlawfully evicting tenants, given the abolition of section 21. Even where illegal eviction is not violent, it is still a horrific crime, so it is appropriate that fines reflect that. I therefore propose a maximum fine of £60,000, to give space for appropriate fines to reflect the criminality and harm caused within that range. The change would help to ensure that, for rogue landlords, illegal eviction is not the path of least resistance, as I fear it could otherwise be. Increasing the maximum will also give a strong indication to the courts that this is not just a technical breach, and that will hopefully therefore have a knock-on effect on sentences issued upon conviction. These cases are particularly complicated and expensive for councils to pursue, and that brings us back to the point about the cost to councils that we discussed earlier, especially where landlords refer a case to the first-tier tribunal. If local authorities are bound to lose money even when they win the case, they will be hesitant to begin proceedings. Increasing the maximum fine will help them to have more confidence that they will not lose a substantial amount of money. That is particularly important in the context of 14 years of council funding cuts, as we all know, which mean that if councils stand to lose a lot, they are disincentivised to act.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am seconds away from finishing my point, so I will give way shortly. My amendments 78 and 79 are designed to ensure that the ambition to eradicate discrimination in the private rented sector is realised, by giving tenants incentives to take the step of reporting and aiding investigations. I ask the Minister to consider that because, to put it bluntly, I am not sure that a public information campaign from councils will incentivise tenants as he suggested.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her question, which I will come to in a moment. I have considered the role of the ombudsman, but the point of amendment 78 is predominantly to incentivise tenants to engage with the enforcement of the local housing authority. Given the seriousness and scale of discrimination, bold measures are required. Though I welcome the Bill’s intention to stamp out discrimination, the reforms will only be as effective as the enforcement that underpins them. Under the legislation, local authorities will remain dependent on prospective tenants reporting a breach in the first instance. Let us bear in mind that we are discussing discrimination before somebody becomes a tenant—it is discrimination in the advertising of a property—so the prospective tenant may well not have an incentive for pursuing it. Local authorities will be dependent on tenants reporting the breach in the first instance, maintaining a potentially lengthy co-operation with the local authority and assisting the inquiry all the way to its conclusion. That is a real burden. A tenant who has been refused a tenancy will likely still be contending with the extremely pressing issue of where they are going to live—they may have just been served an eviction notice or they may have had to move out of their accommodation quickly for another reason. They are unlikely to have the time or energy to volunteer their services for free to the local authority in exchange for no benefit. I want to address a point that the Minister made against the amendment. In the circumstances I mentioned, the chance of tenants falsely or speculatively submitting a complaint is pretty slim, because they will have pressures on their time. If the prospective tenant were to get a cut of the amount received by the local housing authority, that would be a good incentive for them to report discrimination to the local authority, and discriminatory landlords would begin to be rooted out.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have not myself done the calculations and consultations on what that might take a local authority. However, the amendment is based on evidence provided by experts in the evidence gathering part of the Committee’s work. I am trying to get the written evidence up on my parliamentary laptop, which is not co-operating. Off the top of my head, I believe it was from Shelter—I will try to look in a moment, when I have sat down. I am sure Shelter has done the work, so I would be pleased to get back to the Minister on the details when I can lay my hands on them. Apologies, but I have forgotten the second thing the Minister said.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Can I get to my next point? I suspect that I am about to answer the Minister’s question.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will quickly clarify the comments made about my amendment 78 by the shadow Minister, and then I will discuss my amendment and answer some of the Minister’s points. If I heard correctly, the shadow Minister said that he did not support the amendment because it mixes up compensation with criminal penalties, but my understanding of the conversation that we have just had is that the clause uses civil law rather than criminal law, so that point does not stand—or have I misunderstood something?

• 31 Oct 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  A number of the organisations that gave evidence suggested something along those lines, and they had looked into the viability of both mechanisms existing in parallel. I do not have the exact chapter and verse of what they said in my head; we can look at that in Hansard .

• 31 Oct 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 31 Oct 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  In that case, I am pleased to confirm that I have anticipated those questions and concerns, and I can answer them now. Amendments 78 and 79 provide a mechanism for the complainant—the tenant, or the prospective tenant in this case—to receive a portion of the financial penalty imposed by a local housing authority as compensation for being discriminated against. First, let me give a little context. As the Committee has heard in oral and written evidence, discrimination is rife in our private rented sector, and the Bill has the potential to deliver real change for those who find themselves wrongly and consistently locked out of housing. A YouGov survey from last year shows that 52% of landlords harbour a preference against tenants who are in receipt of benefits, and the English housing survey 2021 to 2022 found that one in 10 private renters said they had been refused a tenancy in the past 12 months because they received benefits. That shows the scale of the problem. Families with children also face serious discrimination. There are 1.4 million families in the private rented sector with dependent children, and we have already discussed the harmful effect that it can have on them.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have a few follow-up questions for the Minister based on what he just said. First, does he recognise that 20% of double the amount still leaves a significant increase for the local authority? He was talking about the local authority receiving a reduced amount, but losing 20% of double the amount still means a larger amount than previously.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will follow up with the Minister on the details.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will plough on, because I was indeed going to come to that issue. First, however, I will address one of the Minister’s other points on the convergence of penalty and compensation principles. I understand his purpose in pointing out that these are not normally combined, but there is a precedent. Sharing the proceeds of a civil penalty between public bodies and the person on the end of the wrongdoing is a departure from the norm but, as I understand it, under section 214 of the Housing Act 2004, if a landlord has failed to comply with the tenancy deposit protection regulations, a court can award a tenant a sum of between one and three times the deposit they paid. While there is no question in that legislation of sharing an award with the local authority, it is nevertheless an example of the convergence of penalty and compensation principles in a single move. Although deposit protection rules do not give us a blueprint for the proposal I put forward in amendments 78 and 79, they demonstrate that an acknowledgment elsewhere in housing law of the importance, proportionality and justification of restitution for tenants, which also serves as a form of deterrent and admonition for rule breaking, all in one go. The Minister may be aware that I tabled an amendment to increase civil penalties for exactly the reason that he has highlighted: if the local authority is to share the proceeds with the tenant, the total amount should be higher to ensure that it covers the cost of the local authority taking on the enforcement. That amendment was not selected for debate, so I will not shoehorn in my comments on the subject, but since the Minister specifically asked me about it, I will make the case for increasing the total civil penalty. I proposed that it be increased to £15,000 so as to not harm the local authority’s ability to undertake enforcement activity, as well as to properly reflect the time and expertise involved in the local authority pursuing such cases. I think that addresses the concerns the Minister raised. In conclusion, the tenant is the linchpin upon which a discrimination case such as this depends. On that basis, I believe that some form of financial compensation for the person on the end of the illegal treatment is fair and proportionate. They can pursue a case with the housing ombudsman case as well, and there is an argument for taking into account whether the tenant has received something through the housing ombudsman in determining what they receive in my proposed scheme, or vice versa, but the function of the two tools is different.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My next point relates, so the Minister can probably address them together. Secondly, the Minister said there were good reasons why he had selected £7,000 specifically and not a few thousand above or below that. Will he expand on why £7,000 is the magic number? Thirdly, I would like to understand the Minister’s view on how tenants will be incentivised to have the prolonged engagement with a local authority that would be necessary to see the process through to conclusion—with only a public information campaign?

• 31 Oct 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I remember now that the Minister asked whether I expected the tenants to investigate. I do not expect the tenants themselves to investigate, but I expect that a level of ongoing engagement will be required, which would be onerous if they are trying to flat or house-hunt and move house at the same time. My experience as a councillor for nine years, and as an active citizen, is that it often requires several successive engagements with a local authority to get the desired outcome.

• 30 Oct 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The ICJ has mandated that Israel must ensure access to lifesaving aid in Gaza under article 2 of the genocide convention, yet the Israeli Government have voted to effectively block its delivery. As a human rights lawyer, does the Prime Minister agree that banning UNRWA is a breach of international law? How much more evidence does he need before he calls out what is happening as genocide and acts in line with the UK’s responsibilities as a signatory to the genocide convention?

• 29 Oct 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his response. I, too, have spent a lot of time reflecting on the potential effects of the amendment, including thinking about potential edge cases, exactly as he described. Imagine someone who became an unintentional landlord, perhaps because after buying their home, they got seconded to another country for work for a year or two. While I recognise that it might be inconvenient for a landlord to have a two-year limit, it is also inconvenient for a tenant to have instability of tenure. If someone is, for example, seconded to work abroad for a year or two, with a fixed date of return to be back in their own property, they have to consider their responsibility to provide stable housing for their tenants. If they are not able to do that for a long enough time for the tenant not to be subjected to undue costs and effects on their health, stability, education and so on, maybe the landlord needs to look into short-term lets, rather than creating a situation where somebody believes they are making a permanent home. Say that person was going abroad for a year and a half, and the limit is two years—they might have to find somewhere else to live for a few months before moving back in. Yes, that would be an inconvenience, but we have to weigh that against the huge inconvenience for tenants who have their only home constantly disrupted and moved around. I ask the Minister to look at this again, and to think about the edge cases, as well as where the greatest inconvenience and injustice really lies between the landlord and the tenant. I would be happy to have a chat with him. I will not press the amendment to a vote this morning.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to speak in favour of the amendment and to bring the Minister’s attention to the evidence we received from experts, which highlighted the fact that discretionary grounds do not make it impossible for the court to award possession. In fact, in many cases, especially ones involving antisocial behaviour, it is reasonable to assume that the courts would apply a high threshold for where to exercise discretion. Nevertheless, that does not negate the principle that there may be extremely exceptional circumstances in which discretion is needed. The Government completely tying the hands of the courts so that they are unable to consider those extenuating circumstances is counterproductive.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Would the hon. Gentleman be able to speak slightly louder? It is difficult to hear down here.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Renters' Rights Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Bill rightly seeks to address the fact that tenants do not have security in their homes. Amendments 42 and 43 would amend schedule 1 to lengthen the proposed period of protection against eviction under grounds 1 and 1A from one year to two years. This would be just one measure to start to address insecurity of tenure. It is worth recalling that the King’s Speech background briefing notes explain that one of the primary aims of the Bill is to increase tenant security and stability. Private renting does not have to be insecure. The median length of tenancy in the UK is just under three years, while the average in Germany is 11 years. Insecurity erodes renters’ sense of belonging, and constant moving has a heavy financial cost. For children who are in privately rented homes—the Minister pointed out that they make up an increasing proportion of private renters—this insecurity takes a wider toll. Each school move at a non-standard time of year reduces expected GCSE grades by 0.5. Shelter has found that 13% of tenants with children in their household said that their last house move was stressful or upsetting for their child. The Committee will no doubt be aware that constant moving is a major problem for private renters. Research by Shelter in 2022 found that a quarter of all private renters had lived in three or more privately rented homes in the previous five years—three different homes in five years. Amendments 42 and 43 are part of an effort to urgently change the renting culture and our ideas about what is acceptable when a property is rented out as someone’s home. I hope the Minister will look at them, not least because a central aim of the Bill is about addressing the deep unfairness of private tenant insecurity. That unfairness is a massive problem in my constituency of Bristol Central, where a huge 47% of households are in the private rented sector. It affects many people. To give just two examples, a constituent I spoke to had to move six times in six years, and another constituent literally received her notice as she was moving her possessions into her new flat. That is unacceptable. Security is vital to allow renters to put down roots in their community and plan for the future. It is clear from the evidence gathered by the Renters’ Reform Coalition that the vast majority of tenants want security and the power to decide when to move on. They do not want the anxiety, discomfort and expense of being forced to move by a distorted, malfunctioning market. Unwanted, unexpected home moves are stressful and costly. Generation Rent estimated in its evidence that an unwanted move costs a typical two-adult renting household more than £2,000. Almost half of renters have no savings at all. Moving frequently or a short period of time after the previous move impacts tenants’ financial resilience. For many, those costs are prohibitive and will push them into homelessness, not least because finding somewhere new can often prove impossible or mean accepting dangerous, substandard accommodation. To give one example among many from my constituents, after months of searching with no luck, a constituent and her partner had to settle for a grim place with an “unshakeable smell of damp” that made almost everything she owned “fuzzy with mould”. Competition for properties in the private rented sector is fierce. Tenants often have little time in which to find a new home and little power to influence the terms of their tenancy agreements. They often sign 12 or six-month contracts under the current regime simply because that is the only option available to them, not because they actively prefer to be protected for only one year. Many tenants would prefer long-term security in their home. The proposed two-year protected period in amendment 42, coupled with rolling tenancies, would allow tenants a combination of flexibility and security. We should reflect that the two-year protected period I am proposing is not radical or new—far from it. It was what was initially proposed in the former Conservative Government’s 2019 consultation, “A new deal for renting”, to ensure that security of tenure for tenants would not be undermined once fixed-term tenancies come to an end. However, when legislation was eventually brought forward, that Government watered down the protected period to just six months. The current Minister, then a shadow Minister, rightly supported a two-year protected period with regards to grounds 1 and 1A in the Renters (Reform) Bill Committee. As well understanding its history, it is important to reflect on the fact that a longer protected period has the potential to drive professionalism in the sector. As ever, good landlords have nothing to fear from this provision. A two-year measure of security at the beginning of a tenancy is needed to create a disincentive for any abuse of the exemptions to no-fault eviction, and it would be a triple win: better for renters, for the local communities they move into, and for homelessness reduction. The Renters’ Rights Bill is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to set out clear principles for the roles of both landlord and tenant and to develop a regulatory regime that reflects and incentivises that vision. While some landlords will have to make changes to their business plans, a two-year protected period should not amount to a significant change for many landlords or interfere with their business model. In the Renters (Reform) Bill Committee, when speaking to his amendment to create a two-year protected period, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich rightly said: “We believe that any landlord likely to use ground 1 or 1A in good faith will have some prior awareness that they or a family member may need the property for use at some point in the coming years, or that they may wish to sell it in the near future.” –– [ Official Report, Renters (Reform) Public Bill Committee, 21 November 2023; c. 173.] Buy-to-let mortgages are often made available at fixed rates for two years or longer and, currently, the average tenancy in the private rented sector is longer than two years. This should not be overly disruptive, and it can provide much-needed stability for those in most need of it. To conclude, the change to a two-year protected period would be one of the most important things the Government could implement in the Bill to more fully deliver on their ambition to decisively rebalance renting in favour of renters. The amendment seeks to understand the reasoning behind the proposal for a protected period of one year rather than two years, as was the Minister’s position previously. While 12 months is obviously an improvement on six, we can do better to improve the security of private renting, which has such a big impact on tenants’ health, wellbeing and life choices.