The Resolution Foundation found that private renters were spending on average a third of their income on housing costs. This is getting worse rather than better, and it is not just a London problem
I can foresee a lot of stories like this in local newspapers. It could be extremely damaging to local politicians. There will be a lot of people blaming net zero for tenants being forced from their homes, or blaming the Government because they did not think this through.
Tenants such as Maya and her family can and should benefit from the warm homes plan. The Government are right to say that nearly half of private renters should not be living in leaky homes that do not reach even a level C energy performance certificate. The Government are being generous with landlords by allowing them until 2030 to get the work done, but I do not think it appropriate for landlords to take all the profit from a government grant so that the tenant does not benefit as well; this is in danger of discrediting a really good idea. I know the Minister will say that tenants can challenge rent hikes through the First-tier Tribunal, but the tribunal uses market rents to determine decisions, and a warm home is clearly more desirable than a leaky one.
My amendment would mean that improvements to a property facilitated by means-tested, energy-efficient grant schemes could be disregarded by a tribunal when determining a new rent for a property, by ensuring that this taxpayer subsidy could not be used as grounds for increasing rent levels. The Bill started off extremely skeletal. The Government have packed in an awful lot of amendments to try to flesh it out and make it workable. I argue that this is a very good amendment to slot in with those government amendments.
I signed Amendment 77 because it is a really sensible amendment. My Amendment 275 goes a little further. If I was enthusiastic about my Amendment 90, I am delirious about my Amendment 275.
Back in 2001, I was the Green Party member of the London Assembly. Our group persuaded the Mayor, Ken Livingstone, to set up a Living Wage Commission. It looked at what it really cost to live in London, rather than what the minimum wage paid. The commission then went about the work of persuading employers to sign up to a living wage, rather than the inadequate minimum wage. It was a real success, one that Tory and Labour mayors have kept going. It used common sense and facts instead of relying on market forces, and many people had easier lives as a result.
I now suggest a living rent commission to do a similar job, with local mayors given the power and discretion to bring in rent controls that match the conditions in their area. We need this simply because the privatisation of the rental market since the 1980s, with a decline in social housing and the right to buy, has a been a disaster for poorer people and, of course, young people. We have a two-tier economy in which the rich get richer and the rest of us barely manage to tread water. Because the rich can buy only so many yachts and overpriced handbags, they spend their money on buying assets, which often means properties. When BlackRock buys thousands of properties for rent in the UK and another US investment firm, Blackstone, spends £1.4 billion doing much the same, what chance do a couple earning an average income have of getting on the property ladder? We have a younger generation working hard but being sucked dry every month by a rental system that benefits the rich and big corporations.
The Resolution Foundation found that private renters were spending on average a third of their income on housing costs. This is getting worse rather than better, and it is not just a London problem. Rightmove reports that asking rents outside London have risen 60% since 2020, far outstripping inflation and wage growth.
Rent control is an established part of private renting in 16 European countries, so why not here? If the Government want to save money, bring in rent controls. Between 2021 and 2025, the Government are set to spend £70 billion of taxpayers’ money on housing benefit, with an additional £1.74 billion annual spend on temporary accommodation. Why not save money on housing benefit and use that to build more social housing, and reduce the millions of pounds spent every month on temporary accommodation? I have heard a lot from this Government about affordable housing; I have not heard quite so much about social housing. We need to bring it back into use.
Creating a living wage in London made sense because people in low-income jobs spend nearly all they have on just getting by, and by giving them more money you benefit the local economy because they go out and spend it. By contrast, the more money that goes to rich people and corporations, the more that money forces up the price of homes as they outbid everyone to buy more assets.
The Government can break that cycle by establishing a living rent. When one in five private tenants are spending half their wages on rent, our economy is not working for everyone. The Government are doing their best with this legislation, but if you want real change then we need big ideas—like a living rent.
The complete debate is available here
