Homeless charity issues urgent warning to government
Ministry of Justice figures reveal 11,400 households received no-fault evictions by bailiffs in the year to June, marking an eight per cent rise on the previous year.
Housing charity Shelter has condemned the ongoing evictions as "unconscionable" and warned that nearly 1,000 households could be evicted monthly until the ban is implemented.
The government 's Renters' Rights Bill, which aims to abolish Section 21 notices and introduce new tenant protections, is in its final stages and is anticipated to pass by the end of the year or early 2026.
The bill will also provide a 12-month protected period for tenants, increase notice requirements for landlords, and offer protection against 'backdoor eviction ' via excessive rent increases.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
13 minutes ago
- Spectator
Labour will regret its attack on nature
Environmentalists always feared that Brexit would lead to a weakening of environmental protections, but who would have guessed that it would be a Labour government which would take a bulldozer to legislation acquired through the EU Habitats Directive? Rachel Reeves is reported to be contemplating a second planning bill which would make it far harder for conservationists to hold up infrastructure projects. Reeves has already paved the way – if that is not an unfortunate expression in this context – by saying last month that she cared more about young families getting on the housing ladder than 'protecting some snails'. The ability to use judicial reviews to block projects will be curtailed and the list of creatures offered protection will be shrunk. Reeves is giving these idealistic voters an even bigger incentive to jump from the Labour ship Reeves is right that habitat rules are excessive – even if her party was among the first to scream green murder whenever the Conservative government wanted to build an infrastructure project. Where were she and her colleagues when fracking companies were trying to develop a UK shale gas industry which, by now, could have been producing cheaper energy for UK households? The £100 million 'bat tunnel' on HS2 which so offended Keir Starmer seems to have come as a moment of realisation for the government – that we are becoming a country where it is impossible to build any infrastructure project at reasonable expense thanks to the ability of the green lobby to frustrate and delay. Under existing law even common creatures are granted sacred status. But Labour's about-turn on nature and development is likely to have serious political consequences for the party. The trouble for the party is that many of its voters are already tempted by the Green party, not just for environmental reasons but because it also offers totemic left-wing policies such as a wealth tax, which Reeves and Starmer seem to have ruled out. Now, Reeves is giving these idealistic voters an even bigger incentive to jump from the Labour ship. Nor are Reeves's planning reforms on their own likely to do much to boost the economy. It might help speed up a few infrastructure projects, but they are unlikely to counter the anti-growth effects of other government policies, such as the rise in employers' National Insurance contributions and the Employment Rights Bill. Moreover, Britain, like many countries, has a history of infrastructure projects which are conceived less to boost economic growth than to fulfil some political need. HS2 is a prime example. Its economic case always was weak, based on the false assumption that business people cannot work on trains and therefore would be more productive if they could be sped to their offices a few minutes quicker. The bats in that case would have been better left undisturbed. Does anyone really think that the government will come up with better infrastructure just because Reeves has made it easier for them? It is bound to mean yet more wind farms, solar farms – with their intermittent energy helping to further inflate UK energy prices – more roads and bridges to nowhere. There are many infrastructure projects which will remain difficult to enact even with deregulated laws on habitats. It isn't bats and newts, for example, which have stymied a third runway at Heathrow – it is the government's net zero commitments, which Reeves is unlikely to do anything about. It was carbon emissions on which environmental groups chose to fight to project – successfully arguing in court that the third runway was inconsistent with the government's commitments under the Paris agreement (although that was later overturned in the Supreme Court). The issue of climate change has already steamrollered other environmental concerns. The current government looks likely to take this process further.
The Independent
13 minutes ago
- The Independent
Sally Rooney publicly reaffirms support for Palestine Action
Novelist Sally Rooney has publicly reaffirmed her support for Palestine Action, despite the group being designated a proscribed terrorist organisation by the Home Office in July. Rooney stated her intention to use royalties from BBC adaptations of her books and her public platform to continue supporting Palestine Action. She acknowledged that her support could make her a 'supporter of terror' under UK law, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison. Rooney said the British government is stripping citizens of basic rights and freedoms, citing the arrest of over 500 protesters, including poet Alice Oswald, at recent protests. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper defended the ban on Palestine Action, saying that counter-terrorism intelligence showed the group met the criteria for proscription under the 2000 Terrorism Act.
Daily Mirror
14 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Labour minister pressed on dad Neil Kinnock's benefit demand in awkward TV exchange
Care minister Stephen Kinnock was pressed by BBC Breakfast host Jon Kay on his dad Neil Kinnock's call for Labour to finally axe the two child benefit limit Neil Kinnock's minister son faced an awkward grilling over his dad's demand that the two child benefit cap is scrapped. Care minister Stephen Kinnock was repeatedly asked about his father's comments - made in an interview with the Sunday Mirror. The former Labour leader, who was at the helm from 1983 to 1992, said at the weekend: "I would want them to do it (abolish the cap). They may not be able to do it all at once, but I really want them to move in that direction because the figures are that if that did occur it would mean that about 600,000 kids, fewer, are in poverty." BBC Breakfast host Jon Kay asked the junior Mr Kinnock what his views were - but he pointedly declined to say. The minister said: "Obviously decisions like that have major financial implications. They are a matter for the Chancellor. She will be bringing forward the budget in October. It comes after Gordon Brown blasts the return of 'poverty of 60 years ago' as he makes one big demand. READ MORE: UK facing 'dire' domestic abuse crisis with thousands of victims 'trapped' "So I'm sure you'd agree, it would be wrong for me to start speculating about the Budget at this time." Mr Kay pressed: "But if you are having a chat with your dad, would you say he's right or wrong?" Mr Kinnock responded: "You've invited me onto this program as a government minister, and I am saying very clearly to you, that any decisions which have financial implications, major financial implications for the government, are a matter for the Chancellor and the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, and nobody else." The Government is facing growing pressure to axe the two-child benefit limit - one of the most severe cuts to the welfare state by austerity Chancellor George Osborne. Lord Kinnock senior said doing so would be the "immediate and direct way of trying to correct the conditions the government inherited". The policy, which restricts Universal Credit and Child Tax Credits to the first two children, has been blamed by charities for trapping kids in poverty. The former Labour leader said tackling child poverty - among other issues facing the country - could be paid for by a tax on the assets of the super-rich or a hike in levies on the top 1%. He told The Mirror: "I think people would see the justification of increasing taxes on assets and the very, very highly paid - I'm talking about the top 1% - in order to make the transfer directly to reduce child poverty. "I know it's the economics of Robin Hood, but I don't think there is anything terribly bad about that." Lord Kinnock has previously said a 2% levy on asset values over £10million - a "very big fortune" - could bring in around £11billion for the Treasury. He added: "The thing is we live in a fair country where the instincts are fair, so people approve of the idea of the broadest backs bearing the heaviest burden. "Of course the very rich do make a substantial contribution. It's not enough. And it hasn't kept pace with the increase in their asset wealth. Simple and straightforward as that." Earlier this year official figures showed a record 4.5million children living in poverty. Pressed on what this said about the state of the nation, Lord Kinnock said: "All you've got to do is reflect where we were under Gordon Brown's government when they cut child poverty gigantically by millions. In 15 years, starting from a position where beneficial change was taking place, we've got to the place that would make Charles Dickens furious. "It's been allowed to happen because the kids are voiceless and their parents feel powerless. I defy anybody to see a child in need and not want to help." Keir Starmer has previously vowed to slash the number of kids living in poverty. And Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson, who is leading the child poverty task force alongside Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall, has suggested ending the two-child benefit limit remains on the table.
