David Simmonds MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

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

  More

  I would be grateful if the Minister shared the Government’s thinking on the interaction between this issue of liability for council tax and the legal duties on local authorities to collect it, where they have an obligation to ensure that, as part of the efficient delivery of public services, they maximise the level of council tax collected. I understand the purpose of what the Minister has just described. I would try to ensure that, in situations where there may be an end to the tenancy, we do not create a situation both where the liability is difficult to assign and there is potentially an issue of who needs to be pursued for that council tax. Clearly, it is important to ensure that local authorities with a separate set of legal obligations in that respect are fully sighted on what the impact of this may be, and on the performance of their duties.

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

  More

  The Minister will be delighted to know that I do not have a detailed, technical question to ask him on this clause, but I am sure that if he gives me some time, I will be able to come up with one.

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

  More

  The Opposition broadly welcome the work the Government are doing in this area. Bringing clarity to the process is very important. In our work as constituency Members of Parliament, we will all have seen many cases where a lack of clarity on whether a notice has been properly served, or on whether a tenant or landlord fully understands their responsibilities and duties, is at the heart of a dispute or difficult situation. I have a brief question for the Minister, but I wanted to be clear on the record that bringing this level of clarity is important. The enforcement process that the Minister referred to rests on a number of different organisations. Principally, the Bill envisages local authorities as the agent of enforcement. The fire brigades are a significant part of determining the suitability and safety of properties, and they bring prosecutions in the magistrates court when they find properties that have been occupied and rented to tenants but are clearly not safe on grounds that give them the power to prosecute. What consultations has the Minister undertaken with fire brigades about those prosecutions and the evidence that emerges from them about the circumstances of tenants found in such conditions? Those tenants are often among the most vulnerable, and they may not even have a written tenancy agreement, never mind a good understanding of their rights or a landlord who understands their duties and responsibilities.

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

  More

  One issue that we have debated—I think, once again, it falls to a small p political and philosophical difference—is ensuring the availability of appropriate options for levels of term, in pursuit of our aim of freedom of contract for those to whom these terms would most lawfully and best apply. The purpose of this amendment is to move us on towards achieving that, and I believe that it would.

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

  More

  My hon. Friend raises an extremely good point. As he outlined, this is very much about perverse incentives. We do not want to create a situation in the market where it is always in the interests of the tenant to push this to the tribunal. We need to make sure that that point is effectively addressed, and the amendments seek to do that.

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

  More

  Amendment 47 relates to an issue that was briefly aired in the previous debate: the capacity and ability of tribunals to deal effectively with the workload that is likely to come their way once the Bill has made its passage through Parliament. I understand that for a new Government there is a great deal of desire to bring forward legislation to address things that may be manifesto issues, but there has also been criticism of the risk. We have seen a lack of impact assessments that would enable us as Members of Parliament to consider properly the likely impacts of the legislation, and what resources will be required to mitigate those impacts. That issue ran through the previous debate on the ability of tribunals to make timely and efficient decisions so that both landlords and tenants are treated justly. It will also run through other debates, such as that on local authorities’ capacity to enforce effectively so that both tenants’ and landlords’ rights are protected in practice, notwithstanding what the legislation says. Amendment 47 is designed to address the issue and ensure that the Competition and Markets Authority, which has a much wider remit in looking at how regulators and markets interact, can examine this issue and, having considered the impact of the legislation, provide us with some evidence that would then inform our thinking about the timing and operation of these facets of the Bill.

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

  More

  On the basis of those assurances, I will withdraw the amendment. Clearly, we will have the opportunity to return to this debate later on. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendments made: 6, in schedule 1, page 168, line 30, leave out “situations has occurred” and insert “applies”. This changes the opening wording so that it works better with the provision which follows. Amendment 7, in schedule 1, page 169, line 30, at end insert— “(g) compliance with a planning enforcement notice or injunction would be, or is, incompatible with continued occupation of the dwelling-house by the tenant.” This enables the landlord to obtain possession where planning enforcement action has been taken and compliance with that action would be incompatible with continued occupation under the tenancy. Amendment 8, in schedule 1, page 169, line 37, at end insert— ““planning enforcement notice or injunction” means— (a) an enforcement notice issued under section 172 or 182 of the TCPA 1990 that has taken effect, (b) a breach of condition notice served under section 187A of the TCPA 1990, (c) an injunction granted under section 187B of the TCPA 1990, (d) a listed building enforcement notice issued under section 38, 45 or 46 of the P(LBCA)A 1990 that has taken effect, or (e) an injunction granted under section 44A of the P(LBCA)A 1990; “P(LBCA)A 1990” means the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990; “TCPA 1990” means the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;” . — (Matthew Pennycook .) This defines the term “planning enforcement notice or injunction” which is used in Amendment 7 .

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

  More

  I will withdraw the amendment, because again the numbers are against me. It is important to recognise as we consider it, however, that there are examples—loud music is one—that might not within the definition of “likely” to cause nuisance or annoyance, but potentially would fall within our proposed definition. I hope that the Minister and the Government will consider this issue. We know that a children’s party—I speak as a guilty individual in this regard—can be a very noisy occasion that generally takes place in the middle of the day for a brief period of time, whereas playing loud music for one’s own freedom of enjoyment all day and night may cause significant issues. Most of us, as Members of Parliament, have seen examples of behaviour that of itself and on an individual, case-by-case basis would not cause a nuisance, but that can cause significant upset to neighbours when repeated. That can range from the environmental impact of an activity such as servicing cars or maintaining vehicles to things such as loud music, and people can do those things at times of the day and night that are antisocial in the context in which the home is located. It is important that the Government give further consideration to the matter, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment made : 9, in schedule 1, page 172, leave out lines 29 to 32.— (Matthew Pennycook.) This is in consequence of Amendment 5. Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the First schedule to the Bill.

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

  More

  These amendments relate similarly to the issue of notice periods for grounds for sale. It is important to recognise that a very significant part of our housing supply continues to come from the private rented sector—in particular, from the buy-to-let market. Drawing on my experience as a financial adviser, one of the key issues for lenders in advancing buy-to-let mortgages arises because of the risks associated with them—in essence, people are much more likely to pay their mortgage payments on their own home than when they are borrowing to secure a home for investment purposes—so there is a risk premium, or a rating, on the mortgage interest. Consequently, a significant supply of finance is required to support the development of the buy-to-let market. The introduction of significant restrictions on the length of notice periods will mean that when there is a default on those payments and they are not being made, it will be more difficult for the possession for the purposes of sale and the settlement of the outstanding debt to the bank to be progressed. That could have a chilling effect on the ability to secure finance and, in turn, an impact on the supply of properties available to those needing to secure a home in the private rented sector. Once again, it is part of a broader, small “p”, philosophical and political argument. We are very much of the view that securing the maximum possible supply is very important, and we need to strike the correct balance so that we do not see a chilling effect having the unintended consequence of a reduction in supply.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I hope the Committee will forgive me; this is the first time I have served on a Public Bill Committee as a shadow Minister. I think it is the Minister’s first time as well. I am sure we will crave your indulgence as we go forward to make sure that the Committee runs efficiently and effectively. Amendments 48 and 54 aim to address a number of issues, relating to the situation students face when securing appropriate accommodation, that were raised both in our oral evidence sessions and in evidence that several organisations submitted to the Committee for consideration. In summary, the amendments aim to ensure a carve-out— as previously considered in deliberations on the Renters (Reform) Bill—so that not just purpose-built student accommodation but student lets more generally fall outside the direct scope of the measures in the legislation. There are in the evidence a number of examples of how the Bill will affect the ability of students to access the accommodation that they require while they are at their place of study. International students are a significant part of our UK university financial infrastructure, and the ability for them to secure, often from another country, appropriate accommodation in advance, for a fixed period of time, and sometimes for groups of students, is extremely important, not only to them, to meet their housing needs, but to the university because of the fees they contribute. We heard representations about the impact on students of the need to take properties off the market to make them available to rent again, which occurs largely around the time of examinations, because of the annual cycle of student accommodation. Student organisations expressed a deal of concern, particularly in the context of student mental health—a significant issue that universities are concerned about—that the pressure created would be considerable if people are required to seek new accommodation at the same time as studying for examinations. We need to ensure that the student market retains the degree of flexibility that enables student landlords to address that issue. The Bill has a broader interaction with areas where there are student communities. Most of us will know, either from our constituencies or nearby, that where there are universities, student communities have grown up and become established and there are landlords that specifically serve that market. Accommodation that may historically have been family homes has been converted specifically for student use, with landlords who specialise in that market. We would not wish to see that supply of student accommodation significantly diminished because, given the changes in the Bill, it may become more profitable for a landlord to make a property available to the local authority for temporary accommodation, or simply to move it entirely into a different area of the private rented market. Where there is an established market for student accommodation that is vital for the local economy and for the university, we want to make sure that that is preserved. Finally, there is the article 4 direction issue. Because of the proliferation of houses in multiple occupation in areas proximate to universities, many local authorities have introduced controls with a view to ensuring that an appropriate supply of student accommodation remains, without other types of houses in multiple occupation springing up. That is despite the fact that the physical nature of the accommodation would lend itself to a number of different uses in that market. Ensuring a carve-out would help to guarantee the long-term supply of student accommodation, so that young people who study can secure the accommodation they need at an affordable price. I hope I have summarised the Opposition’s thinking in tabling the amendments and look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 48, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end insert— “unless the tenant meets the student test where the tenancy is entered into. (1A) For the purposes of this section, a tenant who meets the student test when a tenancy is entered into has the same meaning as in Ground 4A.”

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

  More

  I want to probe the Minister a bit on the point about substantial redevelopment. We are aware that to remedy issues of damp, for example, it is not uncommon for a landlord to need to remove all the plaster and potentially take out the flooring or ceiling for a lengthy period of dehumidification. Following that, extensive works would need to be undertaken to ensure that the damp does not reoccur. Those works being completed does not represent redevelopment of the property by, for example, building an extension or adding an additional floor, but leave the property substantially the same as before. It therefore does not seem to us that it would meet the test of redevelopment envisaged in the Bill. The argument we are advancing is that in examples that may represent a significant risk to the health or safety of the tenant but the tenant does not wish to move, we need those additional grounds to be absolutely clear that that is a reasonable basis on which a landlord can seek to regain their property, so that they can carry out those works.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 56, in clause 4, page 6, line 14, leave out “1A,”.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 60, in schedule 1, page 168, line 26, at end insert— “20A After Ground 6 insert— “Ground 6ZA The landlord or superior landlord who is seeking possession intends to undertake such works as are necessary to ensure that the property meets the standards set out by regulations under section 2A of the Housing Act 2004 and the intended work cannot reasonably be carried out without the tenant giving up possession of the dwelling-house because— (a) the tenant is not willing to agree to such a variation of the terms of the tenancy as would give such access and other facilities as would permit the intended work to be carried out, or (b) the nature of the intended work is such that no such variation is practicable, or (c) the tenant is not willing to accept an assured tenancy of such part only of the dwelling-house (in this sub-paragraph referred to as “the reduced part”) as would leave in the possession of his landlord so much of the dwelling-house as would be reasonable to enable the intended work to be carried out and, where appropriate, as would give such access and other facilities over the reduced part as would permit the intended work to be carried out, or (d) the nature of the intended work is such that such a tenancy is not practicable.”” I have realised, in the course of debate, that the Minister has the benefit of being a bit closer to the overhead microphones than I am, so I will do my best to direct my remarks in a skywards manner, Sir Christopher. The amendment seeks to bring in additional grounds for possession, and it is partly on the basis of evidence that we are aware of as a Committee and which stems from the social sector, where we know that there are many examples of landlords, including local authorities, that have to go to enormous lengths to access a property to carry out basic maintenance—often, in the case of local authorities, at no cost to the tenant, who is a council tenant—and to ensure that minimum safety standards, for example gas inspections, electrical safety inspections and remedial works to deal with issues such as damp and mould, are applied. We know that there has been extensive debate and consideration of evidence in relation to Awaab’s law and the need to ensure that properties meet the decent homes standard. Therefore the aim of this proposal is to ensure, where it is necessary for a landlord to recover the property in order for those works to be carried out and the tenant does not wish to co-operate, that there is provision in the Bill to achieve that.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 61, in schedule 1, page 170, line 13, at end insert— “23A In Ground 14, in each of paragraphs (a) and (aa), for ‘likely to cause’ substitute ‘capable of causing’”. Amendment 61 seeks to broaden out the debate on the opportunity for a landlord to seek possession on grounds where antisocial behaviour on the part of the occupant is a factor. We have considered this quite extensively in Committee, but it is clear that it remains a significant issue in some cases. As I have said, most of us will have had experience, as constituency Members of Parliament, of matters arising from the antisocial behaviour of tenants. We will be aware of the enormous frustration, at both the landlord and the community level, at the inability to tackle that effectively under the current system. We want to ensure that those powers are as strong and as flexible as possible.

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

  More

  Each new Bill is an opportunity to consider as widely as possible the issues that our constituents may face. A property that has been adapted for occupation by someone with care needs may have been rented out by, for example, a military family who need to move to a placement abroad. They may find that they cannot access the property on their return, when it is essential that they are able to do so in order for those facilities to be available. We think it is reasonable to raise such situations. Recognising the points that have been made, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

  More

  Amendments 62 and 63 also deal with grounds for possession. Amendment 62 is intended to address situations where possession of a property may be required for persons on whom the landlord may rely in order to carry on living their lives, such as a carer. We heard evidence from organisations representing landlords in the more rural parts of our country on situations where grounds for possession may be necessary to enable a person with caring responsibilities to occupy the property. Amendment 63 deals with a similar process in respect of antisocial behaviour. We have already debated the issue extensively, so I will not speak further to that amendment now.

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

  More

  The Opposition welcome the points made in this debate. We want the following issue to be addressed. If it is expected that a dispute resolution process will be undertaken or that some form of external mediation will be accessed, there needs to be sufficient capacity to ensure that that happens in a timely manner. We do not have an example of a case in which someone who is evicted on grounds of antisocial behaviour is expected to endure a considerable period of time in order for mediation to take place, following which grounds for possession might then be sought. We need to make sure that the process is done swiftly and effectively, but we support the concept behind it. Question put and agreed to. Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 6 Form of notice of proceedings for possession Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

  More

  I shall do my best. It may be that, although seeking to comply with the rule of speaking to the Chair, I need to turn around more regularly to address the Committee. The point I was making is that while we have a lot of sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Bristol Central, given that the changing nature of the UK rental market will result in these becoming more significant issues, we believe the issue of notice periods needs to be addressed through amendment 58.

• 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 rise to speak to amendment 58. In general terms, I am very sympathetic to the points made by the hon. Member for Bristol Central. In comparison with the UK housing market, most European countries have a much higher degree of long-term rental as part of their housing supply. The UK has a more mixed supply with a more significant owner-occupation sector. That is a challenge for the new Government, as it was for previous Governments, as we see overall demographic change bringing us a bit more in line with the housing markets of other countries. The UK, however, still remains significantly adrift of that position, which is why I am concerned that the hon. Lady’s amendments would potentially have, as with mortgage finance, a chilling effect on supply.

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

  More

  The Minister has given a helpful and comprehensive overview of the matters that we have debated so far. Although we clearly have a different opinion about how to strike the correct balance, I accept that he is acting in good faith and, to a great degree, in line with the points previously made and the content of the Renters (Reform) Bill. The key issue we remain concerned about is the impact that all these regulations will have on supply. We all know that we have a constrained private rented sector, with areas in which significant numbers of people are chasing properties. We need to ensure that properties remain of a decent standard, at an affordable price, and in sufficiently ample supply. We have debated those concerns, and I hope that we can continue to deal with this Bill in the same co-operative and constructive spirit. Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to. Clause 5 Possession for anti-social behaviour: relevant factors Question proposed , That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

  More

  I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response. When we consider the history of this sector of our housing supply, it is clear that there have been many attempts by Governments over many years to address the challenges that reflect different eras. Having sought the advice of the former Member for Henley, who was the Secretary of State who introduced the assured shorthold tenancy, I know that it was originally conceived as a means of increasing supply and reducing cost, so that tenants could more easily access accommodation of the necessary quality at an affordable price. There is no doubt that it achieved that end, but we also recognise that, although according to the Government’s own figures tenants in the private rented sector expressed the highest level of satisfaction with their accommodation, compared with occupants in any housing sector, there continue to be issues that partly reflect supply but also reflect the presence of some of the unscrupulous landlords the Minister referred to. Clearly, there is a degree of philosophical and political difference, in that we on the Opposition Benches are strongly committed to the concept of freedom of contract. We can identify many examples, including those I mentioned, where people wish—for example, because they have a fixed-term contract with particular employment —to secure accommodation for a specific period. People coming for a course of study also may wish to secure accommodation for a fixed period, especially international students who are here for a period and then wish to leave the UK to return to their families elsewhere. In such cases the opportunity to have such arrangements is significant, and it is in the interests both of the landlords who specialise in providing that type of accommodation and of the tenant themselves that freedom of contract continues to be available. Amendment 54 explores the issue that was raised previously in Parliament by the former Member for Totnes—the Mangnall amendment. Given that, as the Minister said, the Government are not minded to accept it, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 Sections 1 and 2: effect of superior leases Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

  More

  I managed to make the dubious mistake of making the wrong points when I moved the amendment, but the Minister has brought us back to exactly the points I omitted to make. Concerns remain, particularly where there may be delays in accessing the courts to get a decision, either because of a lack of capacity—as we know, that remains a problem—or because of future resourcing issues in the new world that this Bill seeks to introduce, in which a number of routes will be open in the event of a dispute. The Opposition remain concerned about the risk that those who wished to could seek to game the system. Most Members of Parliament will have had constituents who have been affected by tenants who failed to pay the rent. Those constituents may be accidental landlords renting out the property of a deceased relative while waiting for probate, and they may find that someone is occupying their property and perhaps sub-letting it for cash without passing that money on, leaving them in an incredibly difficult position. We want to ensure that people who behave in that way cannot continue to game the system. Having acknowledged the Minister’s points, however, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

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

  More

  I certainly do not want to imply that there would be any degree of political love-in, but on this matter, I agree with the Minister. It is worth saying for the record that we in the Opposition understand that when the courts are considering this matter, the first issue will be an evidential test: has the necessary threshold for the mandatory ground to be triggered been met? If the court’s opinion is that there is some doubt about that, clearly it has the discretion to act differently because it considers through an evidential test that the threshold has not been met. In practice, courts deal with this matter with a high degree of discretion, as they do with all other matters that are alike. As Members of Parliament, we will be aware of situations where constituents have been victims of serious, persistent, long-term antisocial behaviour. The grounds outlined are examples where evidence has been accumulated and a court can swiftly make a decision to grant possession in order for the situation to be resolved for the wider benefit of other people affected. We therefore support the Government’s position that the mandatory grounds should be framed in this way and that moving to make all grounds discretionary would add an element of doubt over and above the evidential test. That would, in turn, enable those who wish to perpetrate long-term antisocial behaviour to get away with it for a longer period of time.