Renters and landlords were told they should not speak in a Bristol City Council debate on rent controls. Council lawyers said they would have a financial interest in a key vote on whether Bristol should introduce controls on how much landlords can charge for rents.
Around 16 councillors were “banished” from the chamber in City Hall on Tuesday, January 10, ahead of a debate on bringing in rent controls for the private rental sector, as well as new protections for tenants. The move was criticised as “concerning and bizarre”.
Despite the exodus, a majority of councillors backed calls for new rent controls in Bristol, although the council does not currently have the legal power to introduce them. Several other new measures were also agreed, which the council does have the power to bring in.
Read more: Calls for rent controls as housing costs become ‘unaffordable’
An annual “living rent index” will be published, showing what affordable rents would look like in Bristol. A publicly accessible list will also show all enforcement notices issued to landlords in the city — but only if a long-delayed new law does not do that first on a national level.
At the start of the council meeting, councillors were asked to raise their hands if they were a renter or landlord, before being told by the Lord Mayor Paula O’Rourke they should leave the chamber during the debate on rent controls. She later said they had been “banished”.
She said: “I understand that there are a number of declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests in respect of the golden motion, because members are either a landlord or a tenant in the private rental sector. Please note those council members will be leaving the council chamber for the duration of that item — can I have a show of hands please. Anybody who is a landlord or is a tenant will not be in this meeting to take part in the debate.”
Her announcement was met with protests from Labour Councillor Kye Dudd, cabinet member for climate change, who insisted he would stay and vote despite having an interest. He said: “I’m not leaving. I’ve got an interest and I intend to vote. Why do I have to leave? I’ve been elected to vote by the people of my ward, so I’m intending to vote. I’m planning to stay and vote.”
However, Cllr Dudd did later leave the chamber and did not vote in the debate. Others said the move to exclude renters and landlords from the debate was “frustrating” and called for a change in the rules.
Liberal Democrat Cllr Tim Kent said: “Like a lot of councillors I’m concerned that so many of our colleagues have been excluded from today. Perhaps as a council we should continue writing to the Secretary of State to seek guidance from this or maybe even lobby for a change in the law.
“Clearly when you bring forth major items of importance, you shouldn’t be excluding people’s representatives, especially those with actual life experience of what they’re talking about. It seems bizarre to me.”
The rent controls motion was put forward by Labour Cllr Tom Renhard, cabinet member for housing, who said there was a “power imbalance” between renters and landlords. City Hall chiefs are lobbying the government to give councils the power to introduce rent controls, as part of the new Renters Reform white paper which could see major changes to the law.
He said: “I rented in this city for over a decade, and while I was a renter I saw and experienced much. There is a chasm that exists in the power imbalance between the minimal protections that renters have and the powers that landlords and letting agents continue to hold.
“If you complain about the conditions of your property, there may be a threat of retaliation of losing your home. If you refuse to pay the rent increase, you might be kicked out and replaced with someone who will, irrespective of whether it’s affordable to them.
“Of course we need to build more social housing and we’re committed to that. However, the continued marketisation have seen homes become increasingly unaffordable to buy and rent across the country. Homes should first and foremost be a fundamental human right. This means we need rent controls.”
The joint motion was backed by the Greens, with Cllr Tom Hathway adding “practical actions” such as a living rent index and a rogue landlord database. A local database would be set up if a national one is not included in the new Renters Reform bill. However, Cllr Hathway was barred from taking part in the debate as he rents his home.
Speaking on his behalf, Cllr Carla Denyer said: “Cllr Hathway was going to second this motion but unfortunately isn’t allowed to, because the council’s pecuniary interest rules have been interpreted to mean that renters can’t have a say on the rental market in the city. So I’m speaking on this on behalf of a resident in my ward — called Tom Hathway.
“Thatcher’s market deregulation left tenants with little protection from price shocks and the threat of eviction at any time. The private rental sector has ballooned, while social housing — genuinely affordable homes for families — has dwindled.
“Housing should be first and foremost about providing quality homes as a cornerstone for a happy and healthy life. We realise the need for urgent intervention, and it’s great to see Scotland, with Greens in government, carefully but determinedly leading the way on stabilising rent rises.”
Of the councillors remaining in the chamber, 35 voted in favour of the motion, two abstained, and nine voted against. Conservatives claimed rent controls had not worked well in places like Berlin, Stockholm and Scotland.
Cllr Mark Weston, Conservative group leader, said: “Having a publicly accessible list of enforcement notices, where you can actually track what the landlords are doing, is an excellent idea. But rent controls don’t work. Rent controls are not the solution, they never have been.
“It so distorts the market that the only people it helps are the people who are on it at the moment, but the instant they want to move or someone else wants to join it, you destroy that economic basis. Rent controls don’t work. It’s not going to solve a problem in Bristol which is inherently supply and demand. That is the issue here. Your solution doesn’t rectify that.”