Gideon Amos MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 72, in clause 98, page 117, line 20, at end insert— “(ia) the availability of which is secured by the Secretary of State under paragraph 9 of Schedule 10 of the Immigration Act 2016, or sections 4 or 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; (ib) that is provided by the Ministry of Defence for use by service personnel; or”. This amendment would extend the Decent Homes Standard to accommodation provided to people on immigration bail and to that provided by the Ministry of Defence to service personnel.

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

  More

  The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner believes that the commitment from the last Government that the decent homes standard will be applied to Ministry of Defence housing still stands, but the Minister says that the decent homes standard will not apply to MOD homes and instead that the MOD has it under review.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, particularly as I know your expertise in this policy area. Amendment 72 would apply the proposed decent homes standard both to accommodation for refugees and people seeking asylum, and to accommodation provided by the Ministry of Defence for serving personnel. As I stated on Second Reading, it would be perverse, now that we have a decent homes standard for social housing and this Bill proposes a decent homes standard for the private rented sector, to leave our serving military personnel as one of the only groups not benefiting from decent living accommodation. In debate on the Renters (Reform) Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), speaking on behalf of our hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), spoke about RAF Shawbury and Tern Hill barracks in north Shropshire, where the service accommodation was plagued by black mould, rat infestations and chronic overcrowding, meaning that individuals who have put their lives on the line for our country are not necessarily guaranteed a warm and safe place to live in return. I agree with the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham: “That is no way to treat people who have put their lives on the line to serve this country…they deserve better.” —[ Official Report , 24 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 1004.] I am grateful to the Minister for advising the House on Second Reading of this Bill that “the MOD is reviewing its target standards so that we can drive up the quality of that accommodation separately from the Bill.” —[ Official Report , 9 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 412.] , but this is a long-running issue, and no doubt any Government at any time on any day in any month would say that they were “reviewing” the situation. Frankly, that is not going far enough. Next week, of course, we will be commemorating those who sacrificed everything for our country. It would be appropriate, would it not, for the Government to take the opportunity under this Bill to commit to giving service personnel a decent homes standard for the public buildings in which they live? I have to say that the Government’s current position is a bit disappointing. I hope that the Minister will update that position, the more so because it falls short of the position taken by the previous Conservative Government, which is something of a surprise from where I am on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I hope very much that the Minister will update the position. As the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner will no doubt remember, the former Minister and then Member for Redcar, Jacob Young, in response to the equivalent amendment proposed to the Renters (Reform) Bill by my hon. Friends, made the commitment on Report that the Conservative Government would “ensure that service accommodation meets the decent homes standard”. However, he also said: “Service…accommodation has unique features…including a significant portion being located on secure military sites where there will be issues around security and access for inspections.” Therefore, like the Minister today, he recognised the unique challenges. However, he said that with “the appropriate monitoring and reporting arrangements”, the Government “intend to ensure that service accommodation meets the decent homes standard”. —[ Official Report , 24 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 1029.] Can it really be the case that the new Government are backtracking on the commitment of the last Government when it comes to decent homes for our serving military personnel? I certainly hope not. In earlier sittings, this Minister emphasised that the exact nature of the standard would be subject to consultation, and clause 98(4) makes provision for exactly that consultation. I do not suggest that private rented housing would necessarily have poorer standards than the decent homes standard that applies to social housing. However, it is clear in clause 98 that the Government intend to develop a distinct standard appropriate to the private rented sector. What greater opportunity is there for the clause to ensure that the Government also develop a distinct decent homes standard that would be appropriate for the MOD conditions described earlier? Finally, there is no doubt that tenants taking refuge here from war or other disasters in their own countries, who are awaiting determination of their asylum applications and many of whom have served our military and British forces in theatres of war such as Afghanistan, should also be in decent homes. Incidentally, the Liberal Democrats believe that asylum seekers should be working for that accommodation, so that they can earn for themselves and pay for it, but that does not take away from the fact that those families should not be in poor accommodation and should have decent homes. I strongly urge the Minister, and the Committee as a whole, to recognise that the Bill provides a legislative opportunity, one that may not come again in this Parliament, to do right by those who should have decent homes. I urge the Committee to support the amendment and finally bring a long-running campaign to a successful conclusion, such that military accommodation will meet the decent homes standard.

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

  More

  Given the assurance that the Minister has generously given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendments made: 24, in clause 98, page 118, line 27, at end insert— “(ba) a building or part of a building constructed or adapted for use as a house in multiple occupation if— (i) it is for the time being only occupied by persons who form a single household, and (ii) the accommodation which those persons occupy is let under a relevant tenancy or is supported exempt accommodation, except where the accommodation which those persons occupy is social housing and the landlord under the tenancy, or the provider of the supported exempt accommodation, is a registered provider of social housing,”. This expands the definition of “qualifying residential premises” — and therefore expands the scope of the power in new section 2A inserted by this clause — so as to catch HMO accommodation which is occupied by only one household (and therefore does not count as an HMO because it is not actually in multiple occupation). Amendment 25, in clause 98, page 118, line 34, after “(b)” insert “, (ba)”.— (Matthew Pennycook.) This is consequential on Amendment 24. Clause 98, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 4 Decent homes standard Amendments made: 26, in schedule 4, page 186, line 4, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert— “(3) After subsection (8) insert— ‘9) But unoccupied HMO accommodation is “qualifying residential premises” for the purposes of this Part only to the extent provided for by section 2B(1)(ba).’” This is consequential on Amendment 24. Amendment 27, in schedule 4, page 202, line 5, leave out from second “premises” to “, and” in line 6 and insert “other than— (i) homelessness accommodation (see paragraph B1), or (ii) common parts (see paragraph 4)”. This excludes homelessness accommodation from the scope of the new paragraph A1. Instead it is dealt with by the new paragraph B1 inserted by Amendment 29. (Common parts are already excluded from new paragraph A1.) Amendment 28, in schedule 4, page 202, line 11, leave out from beginning to second “the” in line 13 and insert— “(1A) Sub-paragraph (2) applies in relation to the premises if they are— (a) a dwelling or HMO let under a relevant tenancy, (b) an HMO where at least one unit of accommodation which forms part of the HMO is let under a relevant tenancy, or (c) a building or a part of a building constructed or adapted for use as a house in multiple occupation if— (i) it is for the time being only occupied by persons who form a single household, and (ii) the accommodation which those persons occupy is let under a relevant tenancy.” This is consequential on Amendment 24. Amendment 29, in schedule 4, page 202, line 31, leave out paragraph (b) and insert— “(4) In this paragraph— “common parts” means common parts that are qualifying residential premises by virtue of section 2B(1)(d); “homelessness accommodation” means accommodation in England— (a) the availability of which is secured under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (homelessness), and (b) which is residential premises, whether by virtue of paragraph (e) or another paragraph of section 1(4). Service of improvement notices: homelessness accommodation (whether or not it is qualifying residential premises) (1) This paragraph applies where the specified premises in the case of an improvement notice are homelessness accommodation (which has the same meaning here as in paragraph A1). (2) The notice must be served on any person— (a) who has an estate or interest in the premises, and (b) who, in the opinion of the local housing authority, ought to take the action specified in the notice. (3) This paragraph applies instead of paragraph 1, 2 or 3 (in a case where that paragraph would otherwise apply to the improvement notice).” The definitions are consequential on Amendment 27. The new paragraph B1 provides for the service of all improvement notices relating to homelessness accommodation (and replaces the current provision which only catches notices about requirements under regulations under section 2A). Amendment 30, in schedule 4, page 203, line 5, leave out “let under a relevant tenancy, or” and insert “a dwelling or HMO let under a relevant tenancy,”. This is consequential on Amendment 24. Amendment 31, in schedule 4, page 203, line 8, at end insert “or (c) are a building or a part of a building constructed or adapted for use as a house in multiple occupation— (i) that is for the time being only occupied by persons who form a single household, and (ii) where the accommodation which those persons occupy is let under a relevant tenancy,”. This is consequential on Amendment 24. Amendment 32, in schedule 4, page 203, line 12, after “tenancy.” insert— “(2B) Where— (a) sub-paragraph (2A) does not apply in relation to the specified premises, (b) the specified premises consist of or include the whole or any part of a building containing homelessness accommodation, and (c) the person providing the homelessness accommodation— (i) is a tenant of that accommodation under a tenancy which has an unexpired term of 3 years or less (the “short tenancy”), and (ii) accordingly is not an owner in relation to the homelessness accommodation (see section 262(7)(b)), the authority must also serve copies of the order on any person who, to their knowledge, is a tenant under the short tenancy, a landlord under the short tenancy, or a superior landlord in relation to the short tenancy, and who is not otherwise required to be served with a copy of the notice under this paragraph. (2C) In sub-paragraph (2B) “homelessness accommodation” means accommodation in England— (a) the availability of which is secured under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (homelessness), and (b) which is residential premises, whether by virtue of paragraph (e) or another paragraph of section 1(4).” This requires copies of a prohibition notice to be given where homelessness accommodation is provided by a person who is a tenant of the accommodation under a lease with an unexpired term of 3 years or less. Amendment 33, in schedule 4, page 203, line 13, leave out “after “(2)” insert “or (2A)”” and insert “for “sub-paragraph (2)” substitute “this paragraph””. This is consequential on Amendment 32. Amendment 34, in schedule 4, page 203, line 28, leave out “let under a relevant tenancy, or” and insert “a dwelling or HMO let under a relevant tenancy,”. This is consequential on Amendment 24. Amendment 35, in schedule 4, page 203, line 31, at end insert “or (c) are a building or a part of a building constructed or adapted for use as a house in multiple occupation— (i) that is for the time being only occupied by persons who form a single household, and (ii) where the accommodation which those persons occupy is let under a relevant tenancy,”. This is consequential on Amendment 24. Amendment 36, in schedule 4, page 203, line 35, after “tenancy.” insert— “(2B) Where— (a) sub-paragraph (2A) does not apply in relation to the specified premises, (b) the specified premises consist of or include the whole or any part of a building containing homelessness accommodation, and (c) the person providing the homelessness accommodation— (i) is a tenant of that accommodation under a tenancy which has an unexpired term of 3 years or less (the “short tenancy”), and (ii) accordingly is not an owner in relation to the homelessness accommodation (see section 262(7)(b)), the authority must also serve copies of the order on any person who, to their knowledge, is a tenant under the short tenancy, a landlord under the short tenancy, or a superior landlord in relation to the short tenancy, and who is not otherwise required to be served with a copy of the notice under this paragraph. (2C) In sub-paragraph (2B) “homelessness accommodation” means accommodation in England— (a) the availability of which is secured under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (homelessness), and (b) which is residential premises, whether by virtue of paragraph (e) or another paragraph of section 1(4).” This requires copies of a prohibition notice to be given where homelessness accommodation is provided by a person who is a tenant of the accommodation under a lease with an unexpired term of 3 years or less. Amendment 37, in schedule 4, page 203, line 36, leave out “or (2A)” and insert “, (2A) or (2B)”. This is consequential on Amendment 36. Amendment 38, in schedule 4, page 203, line 37, leave out “after “(2)” insert “, (2A)”” and insert “for “sub-paragraph (2) or (3)” substitute “this paragraph””. This is consequential on Amendment 36. Amendment 39, in schedule 4, page 204, line 4, leave out “let under a relevant tenancy, or” and insert “a dwelling or HMO let under a relevant tenancy,”. This is consequential on Amendment 24. Amendment 40, in schedule 4, page 204, line 7, at end insert “or (iii) are a building or a part of a building constructed or adapted for use as a house in multiple occupation that is for the time being only occupied by persons who form a single household and where the accommodation which those persons occupy is let under a relevant tenancy,”.— (Matthew Pennycook.) This is consequential on Amendment 24. Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to. Clause 99 Financial penalties Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

  More

  That is not consistent with what Jacob Young said in 2023, as recorded in Hansar d , namely that the intention was to extend the decent homes standard to cover Ministry of Defence accommodation. That is the intention of the amendment. That is why I tabled it and why my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire tabled it in the last parliamentary Session. We are hearing that someone in the MOD has it under review. At the moment, that is not a huge reassurance. The whole subject of MOD housing and the need for serving personnel to benefit from it has been omitted. The Minister mentioned the difficulty of enforcing the decent homes standard because MOD accommodation is behind the wire, but according to him we know that 96% of MOD accommodation would meet the standard. That work has been done, surveys have been carried out and the information is being freely exchanged, so clearly it is not that difficult to inspect the accommodation and understand what standard it meets. All accommodation on MOD bases can be easily accessed with the permission of the officer commanding the base. All sorts of inspections are carried out on MOD bases. I accept that the Government are supportive of the principle of improving the standard of asylum seeker accommodation, but as with MOD housing, the fact that it is under review is not much of an assurance. I therefore will not withdraw the amendment.

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

  More

  Is there a timescale within which the MOD plans to report back on its review of the decent homes standard? Does it apply to certain accommodation or is it an open-ended review?

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

  More

  I will bob more enthusiastically in future, Sir Roger. I rise to speak to new clause 7, which is in my name and concerns the proliferation of short-term lets, holiday lets, Airbnbs and the like. In June 2023 there were 432,000 short-term rental properties in the UK, a steady increase from the pre-pandemic levels. Growth is particularly significant in regions such as mine. The south-west has the highest volume of listings, with 81,000 properties, while the east midlands saw a 49% rise. The increase is concentrated in holiday locations—the south-west, Cornwall and the Lake district. In Cornwall, more than one in 10 addresses are used as holiday homes, according to the Office for National Statistics. The Liberal Democrat policy would be to license the system. We would like to see holiday lets controlled in a similar way to other rental properties. A licensing system that aligns short-term lets with the requirements of longer-term properties would address disparities in regulation. The danger that we face today is in regulating the private rented sector but not moving forward on the regulation of short-term lets. That would create disparity and could lead to the leeching of more homes into the Airbnb, short-term let sector. We also want to see the creation of a new planning use class for short-term and holiday lets. I am aware that most recently, in February, although it has repeatedly come up, the then Government stated that planning permission would be required for short-term lets—that is lets of more than 90 nights per year—and that a mandatory national register would be created. We are waiting for that, and we are interested to know what the new Government will do in that policy area. Landlord groups such as the National Residential Landlords Association and Dexters letting agency have argued that the Bill risks pushing landlords out of the sector and into short-term holiday lets. The NRLA estimates a 1% to 2% drop in rental stock. There is agreement on the topic across the sector, and there is a plausible worry that without any additional controls there will be a leeching of stock into more short-term holiday lets. For locations that particularly suffer from that phenomenon, the consequences could be the closure of businesses and services locally. New clause 7 would put into the Bill a requirement for a review of the legislation’s impact on the provision of short-term lets, so that the issue can be controlled.

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

  More

  rose—

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I add the support of the Liberal Democrats for the intent of the new clause. Clearly, tenants should not be penalised for having to move frequently, and we are interested in the Minister’s response on the subject.

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

  More

  On a point of order, Sir Roger. In view of the Minister saying that the matter is beyond doubt, I am happy to withdraw the clause.

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

  More

  I would like to speak.

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

  More

  Will the Minister comment on whether, and how soon, the Government are likely to introduce a use class, which the previous Government committed to?

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

  More

  I did bob, Sir Roger.

• 4 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  Last week’s Budget and its investment in the national health service is, of course, welcomed by the Liberal Democrats, just as we welcome the clawing back of money for carers where, in many cases, the Government made mistakes. The raising of the earnings limit is also very welcome, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) made clear. In Taunton and across Somerset, we are waiting to hear about Musgrove Park hospital. Temporary buildings built for the US army in 1940 still serve as its maternity unit. In the summer, 30° heat causes staff to faint, and rain seeps through holes in the roof during the rest of the year. We are waiting to hear whether that project will make it into the £3.1 billion investment plan, as we hope it will. The hospital needs to know so that it can plan. I recognise that the Government are seeking to provide investment certainty and stability of economic policy, which is something we have not seen in this country in recent years. That aim, at least, is a world away from the empty stunts of the previous Conservative Government, who promised Taunton a whole new hospital, which was not founded on any kind of reality. That was a disgrace, and we need a more stable investment landscape. Investment is welcome, but it has to drive growth and bring in private sector investment. The opening of Wellington and Cullompton stations is an absolute priority for my constituency. No other project is so close to the end of its detailed design and has such a strong benefit-cost ratio—3.67, according to Treasury figures. The knock-on benefits for housing, transport, employment and investment are huge. Sadly, however, the project is on hold. With 2% inflation on a £25 million project, it has cost us £1,600 every day since the pause in July. The Chancellor told me from the Dispatch Box in July that Wellington station will go ahead, and I hope that I will not be disappointed. Having said that, even while I have been sitting in the Chamber, the Minister for Rail has deferred and cancelled a meeting with MPs on rail projects, which is an alarming development that I hope will soon be reversed. The Government have also saved £2.5 billion by scrapping two big road projects in Somerset, which means that the Henlade and Thornfalcon bypass really must happen. Finally, as my hon. Friends have said, the burden of this investment should not fall on small businesses. It should fall on the big banks, the big energy companies and the social media giants. That is what the Liberal Democrats will work towards.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. The shadow Minister’s amendment refers to agents, such as managing agents, and their redress schemes. Managing agents are often also letting agents—they are the same kinds of companies. Can the Minister comment on the case for regulating those agents, for which this Bill provides an excellent opportunity? Members of the other place who are experts in housing have spoken to me about the need to do that. The Liberal Democrats would certainly support such a move, and I would be grateful if the Minister commented on it.

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

  More

  Clause 75 deals with the making of the database, and I want to raise the importance of its content. Had I been quicker off the mark and more used to the procedures, there would be an amendment before the Committee that I would speak in favour of, but it is absent—time ran away. Will the Minister comment on the importance and potential real value of the database, depending on the information that it carries? The Liberal Democrats want to see the Bill include: the accessibility of the property for disabled people; whether enforcement action has been taken against the landlord; the energy performance certificate rating of the property, so that people have some idea of how expensive it will be to heat and live in; and, crucially, the rent that was paid in the first tenancy. As I said the other day, we firmly believe that market rents are often inaccurately described and arrived at, by virtue of looking at advertisements. I appreciated the points the Minister made the other day in response, but none the less it remains the case. As I also said the other day, we believe that the cost of interest is the bigger driver of landlords’ costs, rather than inflation, and it should be a better proxy for limiting rent increases. Even without that, a database with the actual rents paid could be an enormously powerful tool for both renters and landlords, as well as the market generally. More information makes for a better marketplace and will hopefully improve the lot of landlords and tenants. We particularly wish to see all those features in the register and believe that would enhance the market. The other day, in relation to whether the Bank of England rate was a relevant proxy for landlords’ costs, the shadow Minister said that the commercial interest paid by landlords was more important, but there is a relationship between the Bank of England base rate and the commercial rates of interest paid. It is the key driver of commercial rates of interest. My main point is that having on the register the rent, including the level of the last increase in rent, would be a really important and powerful indicator. We wish to press for the details I have outlined to be on the register. If I had been quicker off the mark, there would be an amendment before the Committee.

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

  More

  I am new to the procedures of Parliament, but I understand that some regulations are more easy to debate than others. Is the Minister saying that it will be possible for Liberal Democrat Members to debate the regulations when they come forward?

• 31 Oct 2024 · LGBT Veterans Independent Review · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) on securing this debate—an excellent move. I also thank the Minister and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak, following a somewhat short-notice request. I am confident that the House will come together today to recognise the service of many of our armed forces who were shockingly discriminated against and dismissed for nothing more than being who they are. The Liberal Democrat party constitution includes the belief that everyone should be free from poverty, ignorance and conformity. It is in that spirit that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches add our support to the recommendations of the Etherton review. I also add our support and thanks to the work of the organisations already listed that campaign for the rights of these people. Five minutes from my house is the RAF cadet base, which I see on the way to the Army Cadet Force where I am an adult instructor. I confess that in coming into the Chamber and thanking the Minister, I am not sure whether I should be saluting or bowing—I am only a sergeant! What I want to say is that my constituent Mark Shepherd used to be a member of the RAF cadets in Taunton in my constituency and later went on to pursue the career he wanted as a technician. Mark went on to see active service on the frontline with Tornados in the second Kuwait war and in Kosovo. But he was then questioned about his sexuality and presented with the option of either leaving immediately—immediate dismissal, from which he would have lost £6,000, a considerable sum of money for a young man at that stage in life—or the premature retirement route, which he had to take. That meant he had to stay in the service much longer in very difficult circumstances with a cloud hanging over him, when really all that should have hung over him was our nation’s gratitude for serving our country on the frontline and putting his life on the line. I am delighted that this issue has come to the fore. I genuinely congratulate the hon. Member for Burnley on bringing it forward. I am absolutely delighted that in a few weeks in Taunton I will be presenting Mark with his RAF certificate to recognise the injustice that was done to him. It is my absolute privilege to have the opportunity to do that, and to explain and pay tribute to his service in this debate.

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

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 8 Challenging amount or increase of rent

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

  More

  On a point of order, Dame Caroline. I thought we were going to vote on new clause 6.

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

  More

  I rise to speak to amendment 75 which, as the Minister said, would require the Secretary of State to consult on the adequacy of the existing resources for the tribunal system and on any further need for resources to deal with rent reviews established in the Bill. It is the same for the courts: sufficient judges and resources to ensure that the justice system works and does not seize up are vital to the supply of landlords bringing properties on to the rental market. The Liberal Democrats know that most landlords and tenants are not going to rush to the courts unreasonably, and we do not support the use of court funding as a reason to delay the ending of no-fault evictions and the introduction of the Bill, as happened in the previous Parliament. As I have made clear several times, it is urgent that no-fault evictions are brought to an end. However, that does not mean that the courts and tribunal system is not seriously underfunded; it clearly is. I know the Minister is concerned about this—he mentioned some ongoing review work, and also spoke about it on Second Reading in response to my intervention—but we really need to go further. We need to come up with something concrete that is clear that putting resources into the courts and tribunals system will be taken seriously and will happen. The mutually-owned Nationwide building society, which funds much of the accommodation we are talking about, has made its support for the Bill conditional on increased funding for the courts and tribunals. It says: “In these situations, good landlords need to be confident they are able to gain possession of the property”— I appreciate this relates more to courts than tribunals—and that once “the situation has reached a point where a court is involved it is reasonable to expect that this process should be as quick and efficient as possible. This is not the case with the current…system which needs additional funding and resources to operate effectively”.

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

  More

  Would the hon. Gentleman accept that the main costs landlords face are not from the price of goods in the shops, but the price of borrowing—the price of the loans with which they have acquired their properties—and, therefore, it is about the logic of the increasing costs to landlords being passed on through a relationship to the base rate of interest?

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

  More

  Briefly, Dame Caroline. I am still getting used to the intricacies of the order of the agenda. The new clause would limit rent in advance to sums of one month’s rent. The argument was well made in the oral evidence session, when we heard about the importance of rent-in-advance bidding and the need to reduce the risk of bidding up the amount that needs to be deposited in advance. One month’s rent is quite often the norm as a reasonable amount of rent to be provided in advance. Many years ago, when I was a student and renting, one month in advance was a reasonable amount. Bidding up that amount has a detrimental effect on tenants; hence the rationale for new clause 6. Question put and agreed to. Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

  More

  The intention behind amendment 66, which stands in my name, is to take landlords at their word that they value hugely the opportunity for fixed-term tenancies, which of course are being removed by this Bill. We support the move to longer tenancies—periodic tenancies—in the Bill. Our policy was to extend them to at least three years, and in effect this Bill extends periodic tenancies almost indefinitely. But for the student population, it is a big disadvantage that students can no longer really rent premises or rent accommodation for the 10 months for which they need it. They nearly always face being forced to rent for 12 months, and paying rent over the summer period when they do not want to do so. We are taking landlords at their word that they really value fixed-term tenancies, and that fixed-term tenancies would unlock investment and support from the landlord sector. The amendment would offer landlords and student tenants the option to enter into a 10-month fixed-term tenancy, which would benefit students in not having to rent for 12 months. MoneySuperMarket.com—other websites are available—has said that according to a survey in 2023, average student rents are £535 a month. Saving each student two months’ rent would save them £1,000, which is well worth it from their point of view. From the landlord’s point of view, if, as we heard in oral evidence, landlords value fixed-term tenancies, the option to have such certainty would be of value to them. Having looked at the amendment again in the cold light of day, I will be withdrawing it, because I am not sure that the wording—for which I take full and complete responsibility—delivers my proposal as an option; it seems to indicate a requirement for a rolling 10-month notice period. However, I encourage the Committee to consider the benefits to students of reducing their tenancies from 12 to 10 months.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline—as it was to serve under Sir Christopher’s chairmanship until I was somewhat surprised to be interrupted by the clock. But it reminded me to get a very good lunch, including excellent apple crumble. As I was saying, the logic of the amendment is to attach the maximum rent increase to the Bank of England base rate. We do not accept that that is capping in any other way than in the Bill, which would cap the rent increase at what is considered the market rent through recourse to the courts. In the same way, our application of the amendment would limit it to the Bank of England base rate, which is, as I said, a much better measure of the costs that landlords actually face than market rents, which are susceptible to the effects of price inflation.