sunshine way over the next few days. sunshine and scattered

labour to promise full public ownership of the railways in the next parliament, as keir starmer gambles on renationalisation.

newsnight has the first details of the opposition's plan for our creaking railways, to be revealed tomorrow, taking every major train operating company into public hands, should labour win the election. we'rejoined by a rail expert with links to the party. also tonight... catch and kill. with the trump trial over hush money restarting tomorrow in manhattan, in a british tv exclusive, the former executive editor at the national enquirer, joins us live to explain who paid what to whom, and why it could matter a lot. and housing is the new political battleground, with big reforms promised and debated in the commons today over rental rights and leasehold reform. but rents are rising at record rate and home building has slumped, and many young voters are deeply unhappy. we discuss in the studio with a renter and a landlord. it looks like nationalisation, it smells like nationalisation

but the labour party appear to be shying away from explicitly saying their plans for the railways are nationalisation. nick and ben are here. what's going on, nick? i was talking to one senior labour figure today and they said to me, yes, we are renationalising the railways, 7 yes, we are renationalising the railways.?_ railways, ? then you look at the document. _ railways, ? then you look at the document, the _ railways, ? then you look at the document, the preview - railways, ? then you look at the document, the preview of - railways, ? then you look at the document, the preview of what| railways,? then you look at the - document, the preview of what will be announced tomorrow, is it on the front page? no, it is not turn the page and what do i see? labour's detailed plans would deliver unified and publicly rail network. let's look at what the shadow and sport secretary said at the labour party conference speech last year. she said a labour government must and will bring railways back into public ownership, where they belong. to get an idea of what she thinks now, let's hear what louise haigh had to

say to the bbc about this issue this afternoon. well, look, we're pragmatists. we believe public ownership of the national network is the right thing to do for passengers and the taxpayer alike, but where the private sector can demonstrate a role, for example, through open—access, and we know lumo works really well on the east coast, and hull trains work really well, where they can add value, where they genuinely add revenue, then we'll allow it. because we are not ideologues. we want the best possible outcome for passengers, the taxpayer and the economy. for louise haigh, mainly public ownership, but she talked about open access journals like lumo and ownership, but she talked about open accessjournals like lumo and hull trains to continue. firstly, labour will set up the great british railways that will be set up in legislation. the moment that legislation. the moment that legislation is passed, tracks will be in public ownership. the second phaseis be in public ownership. the second phase is the train operating companies, those are the mostly

private operators or drains, as their contracts run out, they will revert, they will come into state hands and stay in state hands. that will take a parliament to do that, they estimate, and what labour are saying is that will not cost anything and the great british railway company public body will not cost them because that was a great idea grant shapps, in 2021, he set that up, it was known as the shapps williams review, and he is endorsing this labour plan, saying that labour is taking forward the substance of his recommendations. cir. is taking forward the substance of his recommendations. cir, ben, the railwa s his recommendations. cir, ben, the railways are — his recommendations. cir, ben, the railways are already _ his recommendations. cir, ben, the railways are already nearly - his recommendations. cir, ben, the railways are already nearly half- railways are already nearly half nationalised, are they not? yes. nationalised, are they not? yes, this would _ nationalised, are they not? yes, this would really _ nationalised, are they not? yes, this would really continue - nationalised, are they not? yes, this would really continue that trend — this would really continue that trend if— this would really continue that trend if labour do what they are judging — trend if labour do what they are judging to — trend if labour do what they are judging to do. but it is worth

asking — judging to do. but it is worth asking how much difference this would _ asking how much difference this would make to the ordinary passenger because _ would make to the ordinary passenger because we _ would make to the ordinary passenger because we have been through a lot, strikes. _ because we have been through a lot, strikes, fares rising faster than inflation, — strikes, fares rising faster than inflation, patchy services in parts of the _ inflation, patchy services in parts of the country. i think this move in itself_ of the country. i think this move in itself is _ of the country. i think this move in itself is not — of the country. i think this move in itself is not the silver bullet, not least _ itself is not the silver bullet, not least because we understand that labour _ least because we understand that labour are looking to increase the public _ labour are looking to increase the public subsidy going into the railway— public subsidy going into the railway as part of this plant are all things— railway as part of this plant are all things equal there will be furtber— all things equal there will be further upward pressure on passenger fares. _ further upward pressure on passenger fares. and _ further upward pressure on passenger fares, and the broader context is the number of passengerjourneys the number of passenger journeys being _ the number of passengerjourneys being made are still below where it was before the pandemic, there was that very— was before the pandemic, there was that very steep drop—off. there are people _ that very steep drop—off. there are people who — that very steep drop—off. there are people who perceive a potential virtuous — people who perceive a potential virtuous circle as a result of the labour— virtuous circle as a result of the labour plans, a more cohesive and coherent— labour plans, a more cohesive and coherent network which brings in more _ coherent network which brings in more investment at least to better services _ more investment at least to better services and more passengers and so on, services and more passengers and so on. and _ services and more passengers and so on, and there has been a positive reaction _ on, and there has been a positive reaction in — on, and there has been a positive reaction in parts of the industry to what _ reaction in parts of the industry to what labour are proposing. but i don't _ what labour are proposing. but i don't think— what labour are proposing. but i don't think we should expect a transformative effect from this move

towards _ transformative effect from this move towards more public ownership in itself _ towards more public ownership in itself. there are a lot of other things— itself. there are a lot of other things that have to go very right, that have — things that have to go very right, that have to be accomplished, to -ive that have to be accomplished, to give us _ that have to be accomplished, to give us the — that have to be accomplished, to give us the kind of railway that people — give us the kind of railway that people think we should have. more from ou people think we should have. more from you in — people think we should have. more from you in a _ people think we should have. more from you in a moment, _ people think we should have. more from you in a moment, ben. - christian wolmar is a railways expert who has backed labour in the past — he's indicated his desire to stand for the party in the islington north constituency at the next general election. what difference with a hard—pressed commuter railways user c, would it affect fares?— affect fares? that is open to question- — affect fares? that is open to question. there may - affect fares? that is open to question. there may be - affect fares? that is open to question. there may be an l affect fares? that is open to - question. there may be an effect on fares. the most important thing is that labour needs to save some money on the cost of running the railways, and it can do so by integrating the system much more, so, bringing track and infrastructure together, that will make some savings, which, in turn, could be passed onto the passengers. and i think, yes, as ben

said, it might take some time to do that, but there are quick wins they can do, for example, they can set a different kind of level of fares rises and say that we will not have these heavy fares rises, we will have lower fares rises. that these heavy fares rises, we will have lower fares rises.- have lower fares rises. at the moment it — have lower fares rises. at the moment it is _ have lower fares rises. at the moment it is inflationary... it tends to be with inflation. they can say instead that, we reckon if we keep fares down we will get more people using it so it will not end “p people using it so it will not end up costing any money. then;r people using it so it will not end up costing any money.— people using it so it will not end up costing any money. they are not ”romisin up costing any money. they are not promising lower _ up costing any money. they are not promising lower fares, _ up costing any money. they are not promising lower fares, although - up costing any money. they are not. promising lower fares, although they promising lowerfares, although they are putting to the william review saying that if you integrate everything and do not have all of these strange bits of red tape were somebody going from brighton to edinburgh has to use different train companies and has to argue over delays, you can save 1.5 billion a year. delays, you can save 1.5 billion a ear. ., , ., , ., , year. certainly that is a number that i year. certainly that is a number that l have _ year. certainly that is a number that i have heard, _ year. certainly that is a number that i have heard, and - year. certainly that is a number that i have heard, and that - year. certainly that is a number i that i have heard, and that sounds quite reasonable.— quite reasonable. users will want that off of their _ quite reasonable. users will want that off of their affairs. _ quite reasonable. users will want that off of their affairs. they - quite reasonable. users will want that off of their affairs. they willl that off of their affairs. they will want it in terms _

that off of their affairs. they will want it in terms of— that off of their affairs. they will want it in terms of investment, l that off of their affairs. they will i want it in terms of investment, the railways are in a mess, covid has caused that, there was uncertainty over the restructuring which the tories have been doing for six years and they haven't managed to do it, and they haven't managed to do it, and all of this has created a state of any kind of uncertainty in the railways. but now, with a proper structure to work towards, the labour party can make big savings on this and pass those on to users. great british railways has been announced, but is it really a revolutionary change? it depends what ou revolutionary change? it depends what you do _ revolutionary change? it depends what you do with _ revolutionary change? it depends what you do with great _ revolutionary change? it depends what you do with great british - what you do with great british railways. the plan at the moment from the tories is that they would have network rail at the top of the tree, and i think that would be a big mistake and the labour party thinks that as well. you do not really want the industry run by the infrastructure company, you want it run by the companies that are trying to get people in. to run by the companies that are trying to get people in— to get people in. to bring that back toaether to get people in. to bring that back together and _ to get people in. to bring that back together and integrate _ to get people in. to bring that back

together and integrate them. - to get people in. to bring that back together and integrate them. this | to get people in. to bring that back| together and integrate them. this is a crucial point. _ together and integrate them. this is a crucial point. i— together and integrate them. this is a crucial point. i look— together and integrate them. this is a crucial point. i look at _ together and integrate them. this is a crucial point. i look at british - a crucial point. i look at british rail. it was actually a success because it had... rail. it was actually a success because it had. . ._ rail. it was actually a success because it had... was it? since privatisation, _ because it had... was it? since privatisation, you _ because it had... was it? since privatisation, you know the - because it had... was it? since - privatisation, you know the numbers, there are a billion more passenger journeys and passp susnjar service improved up until the pandemic. nothing to do with privatisation because the london underground has gone up by the same amount, it is to do with the fact that people want to use the railways because of congestion on motorways and so on so that has nothing to do with privatisation, nobody a set of these privatised companies that they are so wonderful, they have improved services. �* ., ., , so wonderful, they have improved services. �* ., , , , . services. and what about this public mone that services. and what about this public money that labour _ services. and what about this public money that labour are _ services. and what about this public money that labour are not - services. and what about this public i money that labour are not promising? you can make money through efficiency gains and you can solve the industrial problems which, actually, the tories have been happy to see, because they think that is bad for labour. and the tories have

tried to prise some very difficult reforms of working practices to pay rises, and labour can do away with that straightaway, off the bat, a reasonable pay rise, nothing like inflation over the last five years... i5 inflation over the last five years- - -— inflation over the last five ears... ., ., y' , ., years... is that rowdy 1.5 billion will to? years... is that rowdy 1.5 billion will go? some _ years. .. is that rowdy 1.5 billion will go? some of— years... is that rowdy 1.5 billion will go? some of that _ years... is that rowdy 1.5 billion will go? some of that will - years... is that rowdy 1.5 billion will go? some of that will go i will go? some of that will go there, but some will _ will go? some of that will go there, but some will improve _ will go? some of that will go there, but some will improve morale and i but some will improve morale and make services better, the railways are a people business, and if you bring the people with you, you will find that services improve.- find that services improve. thank ou for find that services improve. thank you forioining — find that services improve. thank you forjoining us, _ find that services improve. thank you forjoining us, christian - you forjoining us, christian wolmar, more detail on this tomorrow, i am sure. the trump hush money trial resumes tomorrow in manhattan, and at the same time the supreme court in dc will consider whether president trump has immunity from criminal prosecution. the new york trial hinges over allegations of conspiracy to corrupt the 2016 election through the buying up of negative stories by key trump allies. at the heart of the argument is the national enquirer

tabloid magazine. we'll hear live from the one time executive editor of that media empire injust a moment. lachlan cartwright was in the room for many key meetings. first, the story so far... not the slogan of a government health campaign, concerned about the spread of germs, but, it's alleged, the scheme this of an american tabloid concerned about the spread of negative stories on donald trump. during donald trump's first run at the white house, the national enquirer paid large sums of money to buy stories and then bury them, while running negative stories about his opponents, it is claimed. it has all been laid bare in the trump trial in new york. the donald had been accused of nodding off during thejury selection process, but he would have been wide awake for the testimony of the enquirer�*s publisher, david pecker. trump's formerfriend, who has been granted immunity to testify against him. it was an agreement among friends, mr pecker told the court,

including trump's personal lawyer, michael cohen, and his cohort of catch—and—killers. the first example given concerned dino sajudin, a former doorman at trump tower. in 2015, he alleged that mr trump had had an affair with a woman who worked at the tower, and that she had given birth to a secret love child. although david pecker told the court he found the claim to be untrue, he agreed with michael cohen to pay dino sajudin $30,000 for the rights to the story, to avoid it getting out and proving embarrassing to trump's campaign, he says. the following year, another story was apparently spiked, concerning hush money to playboy model karen mcdougal. she claims she and mr trump had a long—term affair, which mr trump denies. the court heard that the enquirer paid $150,000 to kill that story. the prosecution hopes to establish that the national enquirer relationship shows trump as someone concerned about keeping negative stories about him from voters,

ahead of the election — a much more serious crime than falsifying business records. the charges against trump relate to accusations of a cover—up a $130,000 payment to the porn star stormy daniels, and the reimbursement of his lawyer michael cohen, which prosecutors say amounts to election fraud. mr cohen has already been jailed for his part in the scheme, and will be a witness. david pecker told the court that trump was... this is done as election interference, everybody knows it, i am here instead of being able to be in pennsylvania and georgia and lots of other places campaigning. and it's very unfair. donald trump has pleaded not guilty to sa counts of falsifying business records, and denies having an alleged sexual encounter with ms daniels. meanwhile, david pecker will be

back in court tomorrow. now we are joined by lachlan cartwright, one of david pecker�*s lieutenants at ami, the owners of the national enquirer, who turned source for many of the revelations that form the basis of the hush money trial, and was the originator of the catch and kill phrase. he is now a journalist at the holywood reporter. thank you forjoining us. explain your role in this. i thank you forjoining us. explain your role in this.— your role in this. i was the executive editor _ your role in this. i was the executive editor of - your role in this. i was the executive editor of the - your role in this. i was the - executive editor of the national enquirer from executive editor of the national enquirerfrom may executive editor of the national enquirer from may of 2014 right through to the summer of 2017, so i was the right—hand man to dylan howard, the editor in chief and chief content officer who reported directly to david becker, and i helped run the newsroom of the inquirer and of radar during this period of time, and then as you mentioned, i turned to become a

source for a number of publications including the wall streetjournal on the eve of the election to get some of these stories out into the bloodstream, and subsequently went on to work... just bloodstream, and subsequently went on to work- - -— on to work... just to clarify you are sat there _ on to work... just to clarify you are sat there in _ on to work... just to clarify you are sat there in 2016, - on to work... just to clarify you l are sat there in 2016, just ahead on to work... just to clarify you - are sat there in 2016, just ahead of the presidential election that brought mr trump to parra, you're in the national enquirer office, and it is known that this hush money is being paid, but you only know about the direct meetings with your ultimate boss david pecker and with donald trump and you only know about that because of what happened with trump. yes, correct, i found yes, correct, ifound out about this deal that forms the basis of this trial, which is the meeting in august of 2015 at trump tower with donald trump and michael cohen, which david pecker is cold too, and he has testified he received

communication from michael cohen asking to meet, and he said he knew they must have wanted something because that's the only time michael cohen would get in touch, when he wanted something. he arrived at trump tower. michael cohen asks, what can you do to help the campaign? an david pecker said, what can you do to help the campaign? an david peckersaid, i'll be the eyes and ears of the campaign. my organisation, the organisation i used to work for, ami, will purchase negative stories of the market, while also writing negative stories about from's rivals and also positive stories promoting donald trump —— negative stories about donald trump's rivals. it's what potential was going on while i was there but were they had no firm evidence, i only learned the structure of this with this arrangement, that forms the basis of the indictment, when the indictment was released, and it was further confirmed to me in david pecker�*s testimony yesterday when in forensic detail he went through how this deal played out. 50 detail he went through how this deal -la ed out. ., , ., played out. so for viewers that aren't familiar _ played out. so for viewers that aren't familiar with _ played out. so for viewers that aren't familiar with some - played out. so for viewers that aren't familiar with some of i played out. so for viewers that l aren't familiar with some of the detail, just go through some of the

headlines you presided over that form part of this, both the ones that are buried and ones that were pushed, that were negative for donald trump's adversaries. yes, you know, i donald trump's adversaries. yes, you know. i am — donald trump's adversaries. yes, you know. i am not _ donald trump's adversaries. yes, you know, i am not proud _ donald trump's adversaries. yes, you know, i am not proud of— donald trump's adversaries. yes, you know, i am not proud of this - donald trump's adversaries. yes, you know, i am not proud of this stuff. i know, i am not proud of this stuff. but back in the fall of 2015, we had a tip to our tip line from a doorman at trump tower, dino sajudin, claiming donald trump had a love child to a woman that worked in the building. we then went about trying to stand that up. we were in the process of staking out both the women and the love child, who i was coming at that time a love adult because she was in her late 20s, and we wanted to get photos on hand in case they went to ground. and once we had those photos in and we then had dino sajudin come in and sit for a polygraph, which was routine practice for sources for legal concerns, and he passed the polygraph but he was passing on something he had heard second hand,

he had heard this rumourfrom donald trump's security chief, but before we could get any further the order came to stand down, david pecker had made the decision to pay dino sajudin 30,000 others and in an extraordinary turn, —— to pay him $30,000 and in an extraordinary turn, he was sent a contract that had a clause that if you don't start anyone else, he would have to pay $1 million, which was a highly unusual clause. what was also highly unusual was the amount of money we were paying kim, $30,000, most sources we paid thousands of dollars for stories, not 30,000. then in 2016, that's when things started to ramp up that's when things started to ramp up into the primaries, where as one of donald trump of the rivals was in the polls, whether it was ben carson, we were running stories about allegations he had stuck a spongein about allegations he had stuck a sponge in woman's brain, then on to ted cruz, we ran a story about his

father being involved with lee harvey oswald. so it was a two prom situation, where you had stories that were spiked off the market, then these negative stories about from public rivals —— a two—pronged situation. from public rivals -- a two-pronged situation. ., , ., ., situation. how did you feel about all this? it _ situation. how did you feel about all this? it was _ situation. how did you feel about all this? it was a _ situation. how did you feel about all this? it was a very _ situation. how did you feel about all this? it was a very dark- situation. how did you feel about all this? it was a very dark and i all this? it was a very dark and troublesome _ all this? it was a very dark and troublesome time. _ all this? it was a very dark and troublesome time. i _ all this? it was a very dark and troublesome time. i lost i all this? it was a very dark and troublesome time. i lost my i all this? it was a very dark and i troublesome time. i lost my father very suddenly. i was in very state, personally. and professionally, i need my visa to stay in the country. i was horrified by some of the stuff we were running but also, i am, you know, came to the conclusion that it was potentiallyjust meaningless. was potentially just meaningless. like, was potentiallyjust meaningless. like, who was going to believe some of these stories? but the thing to remember here is that the national enquirer, say what you will about it, it is on newsstands in every supermarket and every walmart and every airport around the country, and so people, even if they are not buying it, are seeing that cover line of hillary clinton, six months

to live, or going to jail. and it potential did have more subtle messaging to them... do potential did have more subtle messaging to them. . .- potential did have more subtle messaging to them... do you really think it had — messaging to them... do you really think it had an — messaging to them... do you really think it had an impact? _ messaging to them... do you really think it had an impact? not - messaging to them... do you really think it had an impact? not to be i think it had an impact? not to be to read about national enquirer but did you predict really have a central role in the election? it’s you predict really have a central role in the election?— role in the election? it's hard to auali role in the election? it's hard to qualify but _ role in the election? it's hard to qualify but what _ role in the election? it's hard to qualify but what we _ role in the election? it's hard to qualify but what we know i role in the election? it's hard to qualify but what we know is we | qualify but what we know is we weren't running these stories to assist the clinton campaign, and bearing in mind the timeline of some of the stuff that we were hearing about in court which is the stormy daniels story is but of the market in the days following the access hollywood type, when the trum campaign are panicking about the consequences of that type —— the trump campaign are panicking about the consequences of that second, particularly in the minds of female voters, and if a salacious story came out about the president, it could harm his voting with females before the election.— before the election. typically, the -icture before the election. typically, the picture europe — before the election. typically, the picture europe 18, _ before the election. typically, the picture europe 18, if— before the election. typically, the picture europe 18, if proven, i before the election. typically, the picture europe 18, if proven, the i picture europe 18, if proven, the importance of that is it takes what

could be a sort of technical accounting misdemeanour and could turnit accounting misdemeanour and could turn it into the prosecution prosecco case into something much more serious in terms of crime? —— the picture europe painting. that is important is what you're saying? yes, i mean, basically, you have falsifying business records charges, basically, the papering of the stormy daniels payment on the verb, but that is in the furtherance of this much more serious offence that the persecution is alleging, which is the action interference, this plot, this scheme to influence the 2016 election.— 2016 election. donald trump's defence say — 2016 election. donald trump's defence say that _ 2016 election. donald trump's defence say that trying - 2016 election. donald trump's defence say that trying to i 2016 election. donald trump's i defence say that trying to influence the election is not controversial, thatjust the election is not controversial, that just democracy.— that just democracy. that's what sa in: that just democracy. that's what saying and _ that just democracy. that's what saying and that _ that just democracy. that's what saying and that is _ that just democracy. that's what saying and that is what - that just democracy. that's what saying and that is what the i that just democracy. that's what saying and that is what the jury i saying and that is what the jury will have to make up their own minds about, but what michael cohen has pled guilty to and also what is at the centre of this, campaign finance violations, the paying of these large sums of money to help assist a candidate win the election, and that

is also what's central here. this come full _ is also what's central here. this come full circle, _ is also what's central here. this come full circle, you _ is also what's central here. this come full circle, you had a seat in the court right now, they are we starting tomorrow morning. what has it been like in court with president trump, with some of these key figures you have mentioned on the witness stand? it figures you have mentioned on the witness stand?— witness stand? it has been truly surreal. witness stand? it has been truly surreal- i've _ witness stand? it has been truly surreal. i've seen _ witness stand? it has been truly surreal. i've seen david - witness stand? it has been truly surreal. i've seen david peckeri witness stand? it has been truly i surreal. i've seen david pecker up until monday, since i left american media, which was in august of 2017, so to see him after all these years, a person that created an incredibly toxic, paranoid work environment that was driven by fear and his rage, to see him, he is obviously aged because it has been several years, to see him get into the witness stand, he couldn't remember the address of american media, which was a place i worked in for many years, it felt like when he was being asked to help jog his years, it felt like when he was being asked to helpjog his memory,

but it was surreal. there is a situation yesterday when the prosecutors flashed on screen for the jury the dino prosecutors flashed on screen for thejury the dino sajudin prosecutors flashed on screen for the jury the dino sajudin contract, the jury the dino sajudin contract, the contract we made him sign for his $30,000, but also that million dollar close, and that contract was housed in a safe that was in my office that i used as my footrest, and at one point, when i was helping the wall streetjournal try and get these stories out in the wake of the election, i had to open the safe and get the contract out to get the reporter. and the safe wouldn't close, so i am there in my office, panicking that at any moment someone could come in and i'm turning the tv up could come in and i'm turning the tv up loud enough to hammer the old safe closed. so it's moments like that that are so totally surreal, to relieve this very dark chapter in my life, it'sjust relieve this very dark chapter in my life, it's just incredibly surreal. thank you for sharing some of that was us, lachlan cartwright, your memories of your part in what is rather intriguing trial, which resumes tomorrow in new york. thank

you again, lachlan cartwright, of the reported. you again, lachlan cartwright, of the reported-— you again, lachlan cartwright, of the reported.- -- - you again, lachlan cartwright, of the reported.- -- of- you again, lachlan cartwright, of the reported.- -- of the | the reported. cheers. -- of the hollywood _ the reported. cheers. -- of the hollywood reporter. _ rents rising at a record, house—building suffering a slump, mortgage rates having been hiked, and a noticeable anger about the property market. today in the commons, reform of rental rights was waved through, but housing in general could be one of the big dividing lines in the election. labour say it wants to get britain building, and we'll hear from them in a moment. but first nick and ben are back. nick, where are we on rental reform and leasehold reform — big promises from government, but the oppposition say much of this is being watered down? 0n on this bill this afternoon there were a few votes on amendments but on the crucial bill its third reading, should this will go to the house of lords, there was no division, why? because the government supports it, it is their bill, they say they are enacting the pledge they gave in their manifesto for the 2019 election that they would abolish no foot evictions, and jake younge the minister said this is the most significant reform in 30 years, but matthew pennycook who will we will hear from from labour,

he says is long overdue legislation, but as you were saying how they believe it has been watered down. there was the threat of a backbench conservative rebellion, the mp for totnes had put forward an amendment that would have allowed tenants and landlords to sign fixed term contracts if they wanted to. that wasn't called by the speaker, he wasn't called by the speaker, he wasn't happy but if it's not called it cannot be voted on or debated. so now this goes to the house of lords and housing could be a big issue at the general election, one of the big themes of keir starmer�*s speech at themes of keir starmer�*s speech at the labour conference last year, he proudly described himself as a yimby of a guess in my back yard, the labour idea is that decision—making should go to combined regional authorities. —— eight yimby, a yes in my back yard. they believe local councils have been blocking house—building. 50 councils have been blocking house-building.—

councils have been blocking house-buildinu. ., , . ., house-building. so a big election issue, we will— house-building. so a big election issue, we will hear— house-building. so a big election issue, we will hear some - house-building. so a big election issue, we will hear some of i house-building. so a big election issue, we will hear some of the l issue, we will hear some of the retic in the commons, then, what is the picture of what seems like a broken housing market? by, lot the picture of what seems like a broken housing market? a lot of --eole broken housing market? a lot of people describe _ broken housing market? a lot of people describe it _ broken housing market? a lot of people describe it as _ broken housing market? a lot of people describe it as a _ broken housing market? a lot of people describe it as a broken i people describe it as a broken market— people describe it as a broken market and i think we should put it in the _ market and i think we should put it in the context of the 2019 conservative manifesto, that was designed — conservative manifesto, that was designed to, if you like, and break the housing market —— unbreak. in that manifesto on housing, a pledge to abolish _ that manifesto on housing, a pledge to abolish no—fault evictions, also leaseholders, getting rid of ground rent on _ leaseholders, getting rid of ground rent on the shoulders, the government have been accused of watering _ government have been accused of watering down the no fault fiction to the _ watering down the no fault fiction to the point there's nothing there. the suggestion is they will do something similar on leasehold. so the government is facing a lot of pressure — the government is facing a lot of pressure on that. but look at something else, they say, which some argue underpins all of those pledges on housing, which is to build 300,000 _ on housing, which is to build 300,000 new homes every year by the middle _ 300,000 new homes every year by the middle of— 300,000 new homes every year by the middle of the 20 20s. how are they doing _ middle of the 20 20s. how are they doing on— middle of the 20 20s. how are they doing on that? you can see on this

chart, _ doing on that? you can see on this chart, in_ doing on that? you can see on this chart, intbe— doing on that? you can see on this chart, in the most recent data we have, _ chart, in the most recent data we have, which— chart, in the most recent data we have, which is 2022—23, there were around _ have, which is 2022—23, there were around 66,000 below that target. but it actually— around 66,000 below that target. but it actually gets worse because there are credible predictions over the next _ are credible predictions over the next two — are credible predictions over the next two years that gap will go down the even _ next two years that gap will go down the even greater, so in the middle of the _ the even greater, so in the middle of the decade they will be off by around — of the decade they will be off by around 120,000. —— the gap will grow even greater~ — around 120,000. —— the gap will grow even greater. in large part they say that because interest rates have gone _ that because interest rates have gone up. — that because interest rates have gone up, making it difficult for house—builders to fulfil what they wanted _ house—builders to fulfil what they wanted to fulfil, made it harder for social— wanted to fulfil, made it harder for social housing organisations to build _ social housing organisations to build as— social housing organisations to build as well. what would labour do if they— build as well. what would labour do if they come in? as you heard, they say they— if they come in? as you heard, they say they would get planning going and do _ say they would get planning going and do all sorts of things which they— and do all sorts of things which they argue the government has been too timid to do, to break the lock down _ too timid to do, to break the lock down. reality is that labour would face a _ down. reality is that labour would face a lot — down. reality is that labour would face a lot of those headwinds as well on — face a lot of those headwinds as well on housing, there is higher interest— well on housing, there is higher interest rates, those difficulties. so it— interest rates, those difficulties. so it would not be easy for the next government to do what it wants to do on housing, _ government to do what it wants to do on housing, which is build a lot more. — on housing, which is build a lot

more. and _ on housing, which is build a lot more, and it wouldn't be any easier for them _ more, and it wouldn't be any easier for them than the current ones in some ways — for them than the current ones in some ways. we saw the chart was coming _ some ways. we saw the chart was coming up from a low base, so what would labour— coming up from a low base, so what would labour do? _ coming up from a low base, so what would labour do? i _ coming up from a low base, so what would labour do? i spoke _ coming up from a low base, so what would labour do? i spoke to - coming up from a low base, so what. would labour do? i spoke to matthew pennycook, the shadow housing minister and started by asking for his response to today's commons vote on the renters reform bill. it's been over five years since the conservatives promised to scrap no fault section 21 evictions, and as a result of the concessions the government nodded through today, renters will wait years more for those changes to happen. we don't think they should be changed, we think they should be changed, we think section 21 should be abolished from the moment the bill becomes law. the government argues the courts have to cope with the new system, they have had over five years since the commitment to ensure the courts are ready and they haven't put in place the improvements they say are required. we think they could have done so if they really meant it. it is in truth a delaying tactic to kick the abolition of section 21 down the

road, and we think that is betraying renters. they waited long enough for these changes. every month more are put at risk of homelessness because of the section 21 if it info that labour would end no—fault evictions immediately, no ifs, no buts. labour would end no-fault evictions immediately, no ifs, no buts.- immediately, no ifs, no buts. there have been some _ immediately, no ifs, no buts. there have been some concerns _ immediately, no ifs, no buts. there have been some concerns in - immediately, no ifs, no buts. there have been some concerns in the i have been some concerns in the markets about seeing rents going up by a record, and some landlords are exiting the market, partly because of uncertainty, may be about regulations like this. we of uncertainty, may be about regulations like this. we have seen some exit of— regulations like this. we have seen some exit of landlords _ regulations like this. we have seen some exit of landlords from - regulations like this. we have seen some exit of landlords from the i some exit of landlords from the market. after 2018, actually, particularly smaller landlords, mainly as a result of tax changes that george osborne introduced, certainly no exodus of landlords from the market, as some claim. we think good landlords should be able to operate and bottom and overhauled private rental system that gets the balance right —— praet and welcome. the problem with this legislation is it does not strike the right balance between landlord and tenant interests, we believe it is tilted

towards landlords... but interests, we believe it is tilted towards landlords. . ._ interests, we believe it is tilted towards landlords... but you have 'ust towards landlords... but you have just waved — towards landlords... but you have just waved it _ towards landlords... but you have just waved it through. _ towards landlords... but you have just waved it through. we - towards landlords... but you have just waved it through. we send i towards landlords... but you have just waved it through. we send it| towards landlords... but you have i just waved it through. we send it to the house of _ just waved it through. we send it to the house of lords, _ just waved it through. we send it to the house of lords, we _ just waved it through. we send it to the house of lords, we hope - just waved it through. we send it to the house of lords, we hope they i the house of lords, we hope they will try and address many of the weaknesses. it must be strengthened, not weakened further. the government have got to stand up to those unruly backbenchers on their side, a minority of members of parliament in the house of commons, who want to weaken this legislation. so the house of commons, who want to weaken this legislation.— weaken this legislation. so your big icture weaken this legislation. so your big picture solution _ weaken this legislation. so your big picture solution here, _ weaken this legislation. so your big picture solution here, we _ weaken this legislation. so your big picture solution here, we have i weaken this legislation. so your big | picture solution here, we have seen the pictures of the leader of the opposition with the limitless vests on building sites, is to build more houses, to hit the government's targets that it's not meeting right now of 300,000 more homes per year, but you can only do that presumably if you build in the green belt. set out a plan to build on the grey belt, the low quality land in the green belt. unapologetically, there is no way that we can build 1.5 million homes over the course of the parliament as we are committed to on brownfield previously developed land, the government will be

screened out all the time in an inconsistent and haphazard manner, we want to see the right bits of the green belt of the stand when it is released the development that takes place on meats are golden rules, high levels of affordable housing, first—class infrastructure and amenities and access to good green space. we amenities and access to good green sace. ~ ., amenities and access to good green sace. . ., ., , . ,, space. we have not since the second world war had _ space. we have not since the second world war had mass _ space. we have not since the second j world war had mass house-building, world war had mass house—building, when the government build social housing and the taxpayer funds that, you're not promising to reinstitute some of those funds that have been gone over the past ten years so how do you propose to do it?— do you propose to do it? promising on affordable _ do you propose to do it? promising on affordable housing _ do you propose to do it? promising on affordable housing to _ do you propose to do it? promising on affordable housing to get i do you propose to do it? promising on affordable housing to get betterj on affordable housing to get better deals from developers. we want to strengthen the ability of councils to get more public gain more affordable housing out of the developer contributions read, we will grant better than the government have, this government are sending money back to the treasury in terms of housing programme grant. we have got to get it all out of the door. but you're right, we have not built enough houses over many years.

also under labour. $5 a built enough houses over many years. also under labour.— also under labour. as a result the government _ also under labour. as a result the government presiding _ also under labour. as a result the government presiding over - also under labour. as a result the government presiding over an i also under labour. as a result the i government presiding over an acute and intensifying housing crisis and there is no aspect of it that is not ameliorated by not building many more homes. you ameliorated by not building many more homes-— ameliorated by not building many more homes. ., ., ., ., more homes. you would have to get into bed with — more homes. you would have to get into bed with the _ more homes. you would have to get into bed with the house-builders, i into bed with the house—builders, some of them are making more about your party but some of them have questions to answer about land banking and the quality of houses getting built, will you get too close to those house—builders? brute close to those house-builders? we need close to those house—builders? - need them to play their part, we need them to play their part, we need social landlords to play their part, we need every part of the system to play their part. we got to ask more of them and they can expect to play a big part in building those homes. ~ , , .., , ., to play a big part in building those homes. ~ , , , .,, ., to play a big part in building those homes. ,, , ., homes. when push comes to shove, you want house-builders _ homes. when push comes to shove, you want house-builders to _ homes. when push comes to shove, you want house-builders to build _ homes. when push comes to shove, you want house-builders to build more i want house—builders to build more houses that you want housing to be more affordable and the inevitable consequence, it has been a tough question for politicians to answer, you want prices to continue coming down so that they are more affordable. i down so that they are more affordable.— down so that they are more affordable. i think prices will ad'ust in affordable. i think prices will adjust in different _ affordable. i think prices will adjust in different parts i affordable. i think prices will adjust in different parts of. affordable. i think prices will. adjust in different parts of the country, it is different in london where i represent than other parts

of the country. but what we generally want to see is more supply. we have got to make housing more affordable, we got to give help first—time buyers more access to the market, and build many more affordable homes. this is an acute and intensifying housing crisis on many fronts. we have got to take action on all of those once to make sure that it is tackled.— sure that it is tackled. matthew pennycook. _ sure that it is tackled. matthew pennycook, thank _ sure that it is tackled. matthew pennycook, thank you. - now i'm joined by rose grayston, a housing consultant who is also a renter and has been evicted in the past by the use of section 21, and byjudith codarin, who runs a family business which owns and operates a number of properties across southend—on—sea — most of them houses of multiple occupation. rose, that, just explain why. so, it rose, that, 'ust explain why. so, it was the rose, that, just explain why. so, it was the end _ rose, that, just explain why. so, it was the end of— rose, that, just explain why. so, it was the end of 2022, _ rose, that, just explain why. so, it was the end of 2022, it _ rose, that, just explain why. so, it was the end of 2022, it was - rose, that, just explain why. so, it was the end of 2022, it was just i was the end of 2022, it was just after the end of october, and i received notice from my landlord of a section 21 no—fault eviction. the reason for that was because the landlord was selling up, partly because of higher mortgage rates, we

heard about those rising costs for landlords, but i think it was also probably because the elizabeth line had recently opened near the flat in woolwich, that led to a spike in prices so it felt like a good time to sell. the problem for me was not a factor of the landlord selling, thatis a factor of the landlord selling, that is going to happen, it was that we only had two months�* notice to find a new flat and we were evicted right before christmas, and at the time rates were skyrocketing. so my partner and i had almost a full—time job visiting clients every day trying to find somewhere else to live, places would normally go that same day —— visiting flats every day. everywhere had at least a 30% increase in rent and most of them were smaller, worse quality and worse location than when we were living, we eventually found some at 40% increase in rent, we are happy there and we can do that but it is more expensive, it has damaged our ability to save and it means we are likely to be in the private renting sector living now in a very insecure

way after this latest news today that the government has failed to deliver security for renters for a lot longer. brute deliver security for renters for a lot longer-— deliver security for renters for a lot loner. ~ ., ., lot longer. we will come back for a response on _ lot longer. we will come back for a response on the _ lot longer. we will come back for a response on the politics _ lot longer. we will come back for a response on the politics in - lot longer. we will come back for a response on the politics in the i response on the politics in the moment. judith, you own rental properties in southend—on—sea, as you have used section 21, why did you have used section 21, why did you do that?— you do that? mostly because of anti-social _ you do that? mostly because of anti-social behaviour _ you do that? mostly because of anti-social behaviour and i you do that? mostly because of- anti-social behaviour and nonpayment anti—social behaviour and nonpayment of rent _ anti—social behaviour and nonpayment of rent but _ anti—social behaviour and nonpayment of rent but the anti—social behaviour is the bit that really worries— behaviour is the bit that really worries me, in that, it is not a no-fault— worries me, in that, it is not a no—fault eviction. section 21, it is a legal— no—fault eviction. section 21, it is a legal eviction and if that is gone and you _ a legal eviction and if that is gone and you get some very nasty neighbours next to you, the landlord will not _ neighbours next to you, the landlord will not be _ neighbours next to you, the landlord will not be able to get them out. we often will not be able to get them out. often have will not be able to get them out. - often have this debate and you say that there are good landlords who will use these powers judiciously and only in the right circumstances, partly recognise that experience that rose has... partly recognise that experience that rose has. . ._

that rose has... there are bad landlords. _ that rose has... there are bad landlords, obviously. - that rose has... there are bad landlords, obviously. could i that rose has... there are bad | landlords, obviously. could you 'usti landlords, obviously. could you justify what _ landlords, obviously. could you justify what happened - landlords, obviously. could you justify what happened to i landlords, obviously. could youj justify what happened to rose? landlords, obviously. could you i justify what happened to rose? the ro -e justify what happened to rose? the property does belong to the landlord. in my experience, people haven't_ landlord. in my experience, people haven't moved out after two months, they have _ haven't moved out after two months, they have just stayed. if it was within— they have just stayed. if it was within my— they have just stayed. if it was within my business, i would talk to the tenants — within my business, i would talk to the tenants and say, we need to know that you _ the tenants and say, we need to know that you are _ the tenants and say, we need to know that you are going, but we can wait for a _ that you are going, but we can wait for a couple — that you are going, but we can wait for a couple of weeks. do that you are going, but we can wait for a couple of weeks.— for a couple of weeks. do you understand — for a couple of weeks. do you understand the _ for a couple of weeks. do you understand the landlords i for a couple of weeks. do you understand the landlords do i for a couple of weeks. do you i understand the landlords do need to use these powers on some occasions? yes but the bill we have from the government will still allow landlords to evict tenants for asb, for nonpayment of rent, i don�*t understand the need to have a blanket section 21 eviction process where it can be used on anyone for any reason and we know that we are renters that complain legitimately about poor conditions, they are much

more likely then to be evicted using section 21 no—fault eviction, because it is a blank check for landlords to do whatever they like. a blank cheque? it is landlords to do whatever they like. a blank cheque?— a blank cheque? it is a flexibility for a couple _ a blank cheque? it is a flexibility for a couple of _ a blank cheque? it is a flexibility for a couple of things _ a blank cheque? it is a flexibility for a couple of things that i a blank cheque? it is a flexibility for a couple of things that were i a blank cheque? it is a flexibility i for a couple of things that were not covered _ fora couple of things that were not covered in— for a couple of things that were not covered in the laws at the moment, and, _ covered in the laws at the moment, and. to— covered in the laws at the moment, and. to get— covered in the laws at the moment, and, to get an anti—social behaviour personnel— and, to get an anti—social behaviour personnel is — and, to get an anti—social behaviour personnel is very difficult, and if you live — personnel is very difficult, and if you live next door to them you would be totally _ you live next door to them you would be totally upset and furious. the new section _ be totally upset and furious. iie: new section eight? be totally upset and furious. the new section eight? in _ be totally upset and furious. the new section eight? in my - be totally upset and furious. the i new section eight? in my experience, to rove new section eight? in my experience, to prove anti-social— new section eight? in my experience, to prove anti-social behaviour - new section eight? in my experience, to prove anti-social behaviour is i to prove anti—social behaviour is virtually — to prove anti—social behaviour is virtually impossible, because nobody wants_ virtually impossible, because nobody wants to _ virtually impossible, because nobody wants to witness it because they are frightened _ wants to witness it because they are frightened of the people doing the anti—social behaviour. you frightened of the people doing the anti-social behaviour.— frightened of the people doing the anti-social behaviour. you must be ha - - anti-social behaviour. you must be ha - that anti-social behaviour. you must be happy that the _ anti-social behaviour. you must be happy that the law _ anti-social behaviour. you must be happy that the law has _ anti-social behaviour. you must be happy that the law has passed, - anti-social behaviour. you must be happy that the law has passed, or. happy that the law has passed, or you're happy that it been delayed? absolutely. if that goes through,

even _ absolutely. if that goes through, even talking about it, is causing landlords— even talking about it, is causing landlords tojust give even talking about it, is causing landlords to just give up and sell. and evict — landlords to just give up and sell. and evict people already? well, tomorrow. _ and evict people already? well, tomorrow, with _ and evict people already? well, tomorrow, with all— and evict people already? well, tomorrow, with all of— and evict people already? well, tomorrow, with all of this - tomorrow, with all of this discussion going on these solicitors will be _ discussion going on these solicitors will be very— discussion going on these solicitors will be very busy. so all of this is creating — will be very busy. so all of this is creating homelessness for the people at the _ creating homelessness for the people at the very— creating homelessness for the people at the very bottom of the ladder, you may— at the very bottom of the ladder, you may be, who maybe have done something — you may be, who maybe have done something that they shouldn't have done and _ something that they shouldn't have done and cannot get references, and that, so, _ done and cannot get references, and that, so, we. — done and cannot get references, and that, so, we, in orderto avoid anti-societ— that, so, we, in orderto avoid anti—social behaviour, which we, landlords, — anti—social behaviour, which we, landlords, have to control, believe it or hot. _ landlords, have to control, believe it or hot. hot — landlords, have to control, believe it or not, not the police, the landlord _ it or not, not the police, the landlord is _ it or not, not the police, the landlord is supposed to control the anti-societ— landlord is supposed to control the anti—social behaviour, and that is, you cannot — anti—social behaviour, and that is, you cannot prove it, and that is the worst— you cannot prove it, and that is the worst thing — you cannot prove it, and that is the worst thing-— you cannot prove it, and that is the worstthinu. ., . _ , worst thing. you have some sympathy for that general _ worst thing. you have some sympathy for that general dilemma? _ worst thing. you have some sympathy for that general dilemma? the - worst thing. you have some sympathy for that general dilemma? the thing l for that general dilemma? the thing is that homes _ for that general dilemma? the thing is that homes do _

for that general dilemma? the thing is that homes do not _ for that general dilemma? the thing is that homes do not disappear- for that general dilemma? the thing | is that homes do not disappear when they are sold, it is true that a lot of private landlords have been selling properties in recent years, because the government has promised to get rid of section 21 therefore the evictions, it has been coming down the road for a long time, also because there have been targets to increase energy efficiency... 50 because there have been targets to increase energy efficiency. . .- increase energy efficiency... so the su -l has increase energy efficiency... so the supply has gone — increase energy efficiency... so the supply has gone down _ increase energy efficiency... so the supply has gone down and - increase energy efficiency... so the supply has gone down and that - increase energy efficiency... so the supply has gone down and that is i increase energy efficiency... so the l supply has gone down and that is one of the reasons... ltrail“) supply has gone down and that is one of the reasons. . ._ of the reasons... who have landlords been selling — of the reasons... who have landlords been selling to? _ of the reasons... who have landlords been selling to? the _ of the reasons... who have landlords been selling to? the homes - of the reasons... who have landlords been selling to? the homes do - of the reasons... who have landlords been selling to? the homes do not i been selling to? the homes do not disappear and there is evidence that landlords have been selling to other landlords have been selling to other landlords and what you have been seeing is a consolidation and professionalisation of the private rented sector and that might help landlords to properly vet tenants to make sure that anti—social behaviour problems don't happen in the first place so it might be more manageable... place so it might be more manageable. . ._ place so it might be more manaaeable... .,, . a ., manageable... people, accidental landlords, manageable... people, accidental landlords. get _ manageable... people, accidental landlords, get into _ manageable... people, accidental landlords, get into it _ manageable... people, accidental landlords, get into it as _ manageable... people, accidental landlords, get into it as a - landlords, get into it as a sideline... landlords, get into it as a sideline. . ._ landlords, get into it as a sideline... , ., , ., sideline... they might not be enough better place — sideline... they might not be enough better place to _ sideline... they might not be enough better place to manage _ sideline... they might not be enough better place to manage these - better place to manage these problems. better place to manage these problems-— better place to manage these roblems. �* , ., ,. ,, ., problems. because of the discussion around banning _ problems. because of the discussion around banning these _ problems. because of the discussion around banning these no-fault - around banning these no—fault eviction is, people are already

getting evicted?