Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)

My Lords, in my Second Reading speech, I drew attention to the role played by high housing costs in driving poverty. I was thus pleased to add my name to Amendment 114, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, although I am supportive also of the other amendments in this group and hope that what I have to say will add to the case for them too. Evidence from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation illustrates the extent to which high rents in the private sector are associated with poverty. Shockingly, it points out that around “half of private renters were only in poverty after their housing costs were factored in”. Two more reports specifically on child poverty, published this year, reinforce the point. The first, by IPPR, argues that: “Housing costs are core to understanding child poverty”. It notes that the number of children counted as in poverty is about a third higher when housing costs are factored into the measure, and that the private rented sector has become increasingly significant in the lives of children. The second report was co-published by IPPR together with CPAG—of which I am honorary president—and Changing Realities, which involves people with lived experience of poverty. The report observed that rent increases are “stressful for families to manage, and … the Renters’ Rights Bill as currently drafted will continue to enable large increases in rent … providing they are deemed to reflect ‘market rents’”— a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Best. It suggests that this “risks exposing tenants to sudden and unaffordable hikes in housing costs, undermining the Bill’s stated aim of providing greater security and fairness for renters”. The report quotes one tenant: “I’m getting really worried about my rent going up this year. It keeps rising every year yet the local housing allowance is frozen for this year! … It’s frightening”. Both reports underline how the situation is aggravated by freezes in the local housing allowance and by the operation of the benefit cap, which hits larger families and/ or those paying higher rents in particular. As the amendment states, any review of rent affordability must include in its remit the effectiveness of policy interventions to improve affordability relative to incomes. I would argue that this would need to include policies on the incomes side, which are making it impossible for some families to meet their rent commitments alongside other essentials. This seems to me a very modest amendment that would complement the Government’s welcome commitment to an ambitious child poverty strategy. I know that the Child Poverty Taskforce is aware of the importance of housing to the strategy, but it is unrealistic to expect it to carry out the thorough review of rent affordability proposed in the amendment. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will be able to give a more positive response than the one she gave in Committee, which I found rather disappointing. What is needed is something more robust and holistic than the regular monitoring to which she referred, important though that might be. A review of this kind would be in the spirit of the Bill and would help to ensure that its impact is not blunted by the continued damage created by excessively high rents in the private sector.