Ten years on from Byron – are children any safer online?

“The rapid pace at which new media are evolving has left adults and children stranded either side of a generational digital divide.” (Professor Tanya Byron, 2008)

On examining the risks children face from the internet and video games, the Byron Review made 38 recommendations for the government, industry and families to work together to support children’s safety online and to reduce access to adult video games.

Ten years on, are children any safer online?

The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) argues “there is still a great deal of work to be done”.

‘Failing to do enough’

The recommendations of the Byron Review were recently revisited by the NSPCC in its new report which reviewed the progress made in implementing them. Of the 38 recommendations, the report found that:

  • 16 were implemented (only 13 fully);
  • 11 were not implemented;
  • seven were partially implemented; and
  • for four recommendations, the landscape has changed too much to accurately judge.

Despite the changes in the political landscape and in technological developments, however, the NCPCC notes that the vast majority of the recommendations made in 2008 are still relevant and “urgently need to be addressed.”

Professor Byron herself stated in the foreword of the report that “much has changed over the last decade, but one thing has not: Government is failing to do enough to protect children online.”

Byron noted that, excluding the areas where the recommendations are no longer applicable, still 53% of her remaining recommendations “have either been ignored by Government or have only been partially followed through.”

In terms of the implications, social networks are left to make their own rules with no government regulation, online safety is not yet a compulsory part of the school curriculum and responsibility for child safety online falls heavily on parents who may lack understanding of latest trends, or even children who may not be equipped to make wise decisions – all findings similarly highlighted ten years ago. So what has changed?

Progress

The recommendations that were fully implemented include: tighter regulation of new forms of online advertising to children; a more consistent approach to age rating online games; and assessment of e-safety standards in schools as part of Ofsted inspections.

The UK Council for Child Internet Safety was also established as a result of the recommendations – the primary strategy objective. It has since produced various guidance documents for schools, parents and industry.

More recently, as part of the government’s Digital Charter, its forthcoming Internet Safety Strategy will introduce a social media code of practice and transparency reporting. Children are also to be given extra protection online under new data protection laws. Byron describes this as an important step but raises concern that the rules will not be directly enforceable. Moreover, the social media code is expected to be voluntary and does not include anti-grooming measures.

While a voluntary code of practice for websites was a key recommendation of the Byron Review in 2008, Byron has recently argued that “it is much too late for a voluntary code for social networks.”

Just before the NSPCC’s report, it was revealed that there had been more than 1300 grooming offences in the first six months since the Sexual Communication with a Child offence came into force, with almost two thirds of cases involving the use of Facebook, Snapchat or Instagram.

Benefits

Of course, technology has numerous benefits for children and young people. As Byron’s review highlighted, the internet and video games offer a range of opportunities for fun, communication, skill development, creativity and learning.

Digital technology can also be beneficial to children and young people who are disadvantaged. As UNICEF’s recent report – The State of the World’s Children 2017: Children in a digital world – argues:

“If leveraged in the right way and universally accessible, digital technology can be a game changer for children being left behind… connecting them to a world of opportunity and providing them with the skills they need to succeed in a digital world.”

Byron also highlighted the value technologies can have for children and young people living with disabilities that make living in the ‘offline’ world challenging.

As Byron suggested in 2008, what is needed is a balance between preserving the rights of children and young people to reap the enjoyment of the digital world and enhance their learning and development, and ensuring they (and indeed adults) are sufficiently informed to maintain safety.

Way forward

To ensure children have the same rights and security online as they have offline, the NSPCC is calling for:

  • a set of minimum standards and a statutory code of practice for online providers, underpinned by robust regulation;
  • greater transparency on data and information-sharing amongst industry; and
  • clear and transparent processes for reporting, moderating and removing content from sites, verifying children’s ages and offering support to users when needed.

To be effective, the NSPCC specify that these measures would need to be consistently applied to all sites, apps and games where children interact online.

Perhaps the government’s Internet Safety Strategy will introduce more stringent measures as highlighted by both Byron and the NSPCC which will go some way to making children safer in the digital world.

In the words of Byron, “The online world moves too fast for Government to drag its feet for another decade.”


If you enjoyed reading this, you may be interested in our previous posts on the impact of smart phones on young people’s mental health and what technology means for children’s development.

Follow us on Twitter to see what is interesting our research team.

General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): 10 things business needs to know

 

European Union flag with a padlock in the centre.

By Steven McGinty

On 25 May 2018, the data protection landscape will experience its biggest change in over 20 years.  This is because the European Union’s (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will come into effect for all member states. The regulation, which has been described as ‘ambitious’ and ‘wide-ranging’, introduces a number of new concepts, including the high profile ‘right to be forgotten’ – a principle established in a case involving technology giant Google.

Below we’ve highlighted ten of the most important points for business.

Directly effective

The GDPR is ‘directly effective’, which means that the regulation becomes law without the need for additional domestic legislation (replacing the Data Protection Act 1998). However, member states have also been given scope to introduce their own legislation on matters such as the processing of personal data. This may result in some EU states having more stringent rules than others.

Sharing data and monitoring

It also seeks to increase the reach of EU data protection law. Not only will EU-based data controllers and processors fall under the scope of the GDPR, but its authority will also extend to any business which either processes personal data or monitors the behaviour of individuals within the EU.

This will impact businesses who transfer data outside the European Economic Area (EEA). It will be their responsibility to ensure that the country the data is being transferred to has adequate levels of data protection. The most prominent example of this issue was the US Safe Harbour scheme, which was intended to protect European individuals whose personal data is transferred between the EEA and the USA. In 2015, the European Court of Justice ruled that this scheme had ceased to provide a valid legal basis for EEA-US transfers of all types of personal data. It has now been replaced by the Privacy Shield.

Transparency and consent

Greater obligations have been placed on business with regard both to seeking consent for use of personal data and providing detailed information to individuals on how their personal data is being used. The GDPR requires that consent notices are ‘unambiguous’ – not assumed from a person’s failure to respond – and that consent is sought for different processing activities. Law firm, Allen and Overy recommends that businesses review their notices to ensure they are fit for purpose.

Personal data/ sensitive data

Article 4(1) of the GDPR includes a broader definition of ‘personal data’ than previous legislation. It states that any information relating to an individual which can be directly or indirectly used to identify them is personal data. Specifically, it refers to ‘online identifiers’, which suggests that IP addresses and cookies may be considered personal data if they can be easily linked back to the person.

Enhanced rights

New rights and the enhancement of existing rights will require some businesses to improve the way their data is stored and managed. These rights include:

  • Data portability – Business must ensure that individuals can have easy access to their personal data in case they want to transfer their data to other systems.
  • Strengthening subject access rights – Individuals can now request access to their data for no cost and it must be responded to within 30 days (this is a change from the current legislation which requires a £10 fee and there is 40 days to respond).
  • Right to be forgotten – Individuals can request that an organisation delete all the information they hold on them (although this would not apply if there was a valid reason to hold that data).
  • Right to object to processing – Individuals have the right to object to the way an organisation is processing their data.
  • Right to restrict processing – Individuals have the right to request that the processing of personal data is temporarily stopped. This may be invoked whilst a right to object request is being investigated.

Personal data breach

Businesses have an obligation to report breaches to their national regulator, such as the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) in England.  The GDPR requires that notice must be provided “without undue delay and, where feasible, not later than 72 hours after having become aware of it.” This may be challenging for some businesses, particularly if the incident is discovered at the end of the working week.

Failure to comply with GDPR

The regulation introduces two levels of fines. Less serious offences under the regulation will be liable for a fine of up to €10,000,000 or 2% of global turnover – depending on which is highest. However, for more serious breaches, such as a breach of an individual’s rights or a breach during international transfers, a business may be held liable for up to €20,000,000 or 4% of global turnover.

In addition, individuals are also given the right of redress, and those who have had their rights violated may seek to receive compensation. This has led digital marketers to suggest that GDPR could be the next PPI – a practice where insurance was mis-sold to customers, which resulted in a large number of successful claims against financial institutions.

Privacy by design

Technology businesses should also consider data protection at the initial design stage of product development. This could involve adopting technical measures such as pseudonymisation – the technique of processing personal data in such a way that it can no longer identify a particular person. Additional measures, such as policies and programmes, would also show a national regulator’s commitment to compliance with the GDPR.

European Data Protection Board (EDPB)

A new body has been created to issue opinions and to arbitrate between disputes that arise with national regulators.  The board will be made up of heads of national regulatory bodies (or their representatives) and the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), who govern the data processing activities of EU institutions. The opinions expressed by this board may have important implications for data protection legislation.

Impact of Brexit

Evidence suggests some businesses may be delaying taking action until they see the results of the Brexit negotiations. This possibly explains the research by cloud security firm, Netskope, which found that 63% of UK workers have never heard of the GDPR. Similarly, research by Veritas Technologies, a leading information management firm, has found that 54% of organisations have not ensured they will comply with the new GDPR.

However, it would be very surprising if the UK did not ‘mirror’ the protections offered by the regulation, particularly considering the UK’s significant input to the new legislation. Digital minister Matt Hancock has also confirmed that the UK government intends to fully implement the GDPR.

Final thoughts

If businesses already have policy and procedures in place to meet the requirements of the Data Protection Act, then they should have a solid foundation to comply with the GDPR. In many ways, the new regulation simply provides a clear framework for delivering good practice in data protection.

However, all businesses will need to take action to ensure compliance with the GDPR. Otherwise, the financial penalties (as well as reputational damage) of a breach could have serious consequences for their business. And this is not just an IT issue. The whole organisation, starting from board level, must show a willingness to understand the legislation and implement procedures that protect the fundamental rights of individuals.


Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in public and social policy are interesting our research team. If you found this article interesting, you may also like to read our other data-related articles

Rent controls: lessons from Berlin?

 

3953104549_7b217c065d_o

Image: James Carson

In March 2016, a study by the Centre for Economics and Business Research highlighted the growing problem of rising rents in the UK. The Cost of Renting found that the average private rent in England is growing at an annual rate of 2.5%, and forecast that rents were set to rise by 28% on average by 2026. The findings support recent studies suggesting that the UK is now the most expensive place in Europe to rent.

In contrast to the UK, renting in Germany is less expensive. For historical as well as economic reasons, only 43% of Germans are home owners (compared to over 70% in the UK). The rest rent their homes, making rent rises a highly sensitive political issue in Germany.

In recent years, Germany has been experiencing a housing shortage. Last year, the Cologne Institute for Economic Research reported that in 2014 the number of new flats and houses built in the biggest cities was 50% fewer than needed to cope with rising population numbers. As a result, rents in Germany have been rising more steeply.

Introducing rent caps

Last year, concerns about keeping homes affordable for tenants on average incomes prompted the German government to introduce legislation on rent control. The new law means that private landlords taking on new tenants can only raise rents by up to 10% above the local average for similar properties.

Even before the law was passed the state government of Berlin had announced that it would be the first city in Germany to introduce rent controls. In recent years, the German capital has been growing by around 50,000 people a year, putting greater strains on the city’s housing market. Rents in Berlin have risen on average by almost 53% in the past five years, and in some districts, by 79%.

The trend has raised concerns among Berliners that their city could be on the way to emulating London, where growing numbers of people are struggling with the cost of living in their private rented homes. The Cost of Renting report found that Londoners on average spend nearly a third of their disposable income on rent payments, and suggested that worsening rent affordability may push residents on lower incomes out of the capital. Rent control is one measure intended to prevent Berlin going the same way as London.

17333355432_41228f32d5_o

Image: James Carson

The impact of rent controls

Within weeks of Berlin introducing its rent cap, there were signs that the move was having an immediate effect, with the average rents per square metre falling by 3.1%. But in February 2016, a survey of Berlin rents by CBRE found that the year-on-year rise across the city for 2015 was 5% (compared to the 2014 rise of 6.5%).

On the face of it, this looks like the new controls are not working. But the rent cap was always intended to slow down Berlin’s spiralling rents, rather than bring them to a halt, and on those terms the law has been effective. Moreover, while new rents for Berlin’s most expensive apartments rose by 5.7%, rent rises for the cheapest 10% of flats rose by just 2%.

And, as if to underline how serious Berlin is about tackling rising rents, in addition to the rent controls on private landlords, the Berlin state government has also introduced new rules for over 500,000 social and state-owned housing tenants, guaranteeing that rent rises will not price them out of their homes.

Lessons for the UK?

Since Berlin introduced rent controls, other German states, including Hamburg and Bavaria, have followed suit. This has prompted some commentators to wonder if the idea could help to tackle the UK’s housing crisis.

A recent report from Shelter highlighted the serious impact of rising rents in London:

“Those who find it difficult to pay their rent are likely to cut back on food for themselves or clothes for their children. Others get deep into debt to avoid going into rent arrears or to cover the high costs of frequently moving home. At worst, a growing number of London renters lose their home and become homeless.”

Although London has seen the steepest rises, other parts of the UK have also been affected. In April 2016, figures showed that rents on new tenancies in Greater London were, on average, 7.7% higher than a year ago. But in Scotland the increase was 7.3%, just ahead of the East Midlands with 6.8%.

Writing in the Financial Times, columnist Jonathan Eley acknowledged the differences between the UK and German housing markets, including the high numbers of renters in Germany and the larger number of properties owned by institutions (in contrast to the UK, where most private rented sector properties are owned by individual buy-to-let landlords). However, he concluded that the UK had something to learn from the introduction of rent controls in Germany:

“It is not perfect, but it does a much better job of balancing the interests of tenants and owners than the policies of successive UK governments, who have basically ramped up house prices without much thought for the long-term consequences.”

It’s still too early to say whether Germany’s attempt to tackle rising rents will have a long-lasting impact. But if the measures succeed in putting a brake on spiralling rents, there may be growing calls here to follow Berlin’s example.


Further reading
If you’ve enjoyed this blog post, you might also be interested in these previous posts:

Generation rent: are there lessons from Germany?
To regulate or not to regulate? Housing standards in the private rented sector
Support for the squeezed middle: could public subsidies tackle London’s housing crisis?

Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in policy and practice are interesting our research team.

The UK digital economy: how can the government support digital businesses?

By Steven McGinty

Last month, the House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) Committee launched an inquiry into the UK’s digital economy. Iain Wright MP, the Chair of the Committee, explained that:

Digital technology is rapidly changing the economic landscape in which firms operate. Nothing short of a digital and tech revolution is taking place, with new entrepreneurs and business models emerging and existing businesses having to adapt quickly to keep pace.”

The inquiry will focus on three areas:

  • Government actions affecting businesses in the digital economy;
  • how to maximise the opportunities and overcome challenges in the sector;
  • how the sector can contribute to improving national productivity.

The BIS Committee is asking for submissions from those involved in the digital economy, including digital businesses and companies hoping to benefit from technology.

 Why should the government support the digital economy?

Innovate UK expect that, by 2015, the UK digital economy will account for 10% of GDP. Tech City UK report that the sector employs 1.5 million people (about 7.5% of the total workforce); although this is expected to increase by 5.4% by 2020. In 2013-2014, 15% of all the companies formed were digital businesses. Most were based outside of London (74%) and nearly all were SMEs (98%). The majority (90%) of digital companies expect revenues to grow within the next year.

Technology clusters

Technology clusters play an important role in the UK’s digital economy. There are 21 clusters across the UK, with expertise ranging from software development to marketing and advertising. The majority of digital businesses consider themselves part of a cluster (65%). Bournemouth has the fastest growing digital cluster, with a 212% increase in the number of companies formed since 2010. Its specialism is digital marketing and advertising.

This growth suggests specific focus should be given to technology clusters. Tech City UK found that a third of digital companies highlighted access to funding as a challenge, particularly outside of London and the South East.  One suggestion offered by Tech City UK is that businesses need to take advantage of European funding where possible.

Other forms of support could include: providing fast and accessible broadband; access to a pool of skilled employees; suitable workspace, particularly in the South East; and business and mentoring advice.

Digital Economy Strategy 2015-2018

At the beginning of the year, Innovate UK set out a strategy to support UK businesses in getting the most out of digital technology. It sets out five main objectives:

  • Encouraging digital innovators
  • Focusing on the user
  • Equipping the digital innovator
  • Growing infrastructure, platforms and ecosystems
  • Ensuring sustainability.

Within the strategy, actions are put forward for how these goals will be achieved. For instance, to ensure sustainability, Innovate UK would work closely with UK research councils to encourage cross-disciplinary academic collaboration and help connect it to real-world business needs. If even some progress is made with each of these objectives it would be hugely beneficial for the UK digital economy.

Innovation centres – the Digital Catapult

The Digital Catapult is a national centre that aims to accelerate the UK’s best digital ideas to the marketplace, in order to create new products, services and jobs. It was established in 2014 by Innovate UK and is based in the Knowledge Quarter in Kings Cross. There are also three local centres in the North East and Tees Valley (NETV), Brighton, and Yorkshire.

The Digital Catapult centres focus on the challenges associated with: closed organisational data; personal data; creative content; and the internet of things (IoT). The centres are involved in a number of projects, including IoTUK, which has been launched as part of a £40 million government investment in the internet of things (the use of networks to allow the exchange and collection of data from everyday objects, such as fridges). The programme aims to increase the adoption of high quality IoT technologies and services throughout business and the public sector.

Regina Moran, CEO at Fujitsu UK&I, notes that:

The IoT has the potential to turn ideas in a hyper-connected world into fully realised digital services but it has challenges ahead and it’s encouraging to see the Government investing in its development.”

 Regulation

The Prime Minister, David Cameron, has managed to convince the European Commission (EC) to review the VAT regime for tech start-ups, arguing that it punished British entrepreneurs. The regime, which was implemented in January, forced companies to pay tax in every country they traded in rather than their headquarters. It also eliminated a £81,000 threshold for which companies have to register for VAT duty.

However, the Commission has recognised that this was adversely affecting small businesses. Therefore, measures such as the reintroduction of the VAT threshold and a single registration scheme for cross-border taxes, will be included in the Commission’s consultation.

The UK government’s approach shows a commitment to providing a competitive business environment and a single European market in digital services. It’s likely that most digital businesses would support the government’s approach.

Concluding remarks

The upcoming BIS Committee inquiry will provide an opportunity to reflect on the government’s approach so far. Although evidence confirms that the digital economy has been growing, there may be areas that the UK is failing to capitalise on. In a highly competitive globalised economy, it’s important that the UK exploits any strategic advantage, ensuring that innovative ideas are brought to the market quickly.

The inquiry will also provide an opportunity for a dialogue between the government and the private sector. This increased collaboration can only be good news for the UK’s digital businesses.

Here at Idox, we take an active interest in the future of the digital economy and eagerly await the Committee’s findings.


Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in public and social policy are interesting our research team.

Enjoy this article? Read our other recent blogs relating to the digital economy:

IDOX Plc announced on 8 October 2015 that it had acquired the UK trading arm of Reading Room Ltd. Reading Room, founded in 1996, is a digital consultancy business with a focus on delivering websites and digital services that enable its customers to make critical shifts into digital business and client engagement. It has an international reputation for its award winning and innovative approaches to strategic consultancy, design, and technical delivery.

Commissioning the third sector … are we outsourcing authority as well as services?

By Rebecca Jackson

Public sector cuts under the coalition and current Conservative governments’ programme of austerity have been far reaching and severe. Social enterprises and charities have been promoted by government as a new and effective way to deliver public services in a way which meets the needs of service users but are more cost effective than previous models.

But the closure of Kids Company last month raised questions about the difficulties of outsourcing public services. When a body receives public money, but is ultimately a private organisation or business, who is held responsible for how that money is spent, who is responsible for its regulation and who is ultimately held accountable for its failures?

social enterprise 5

Photo By Paul Carttar & Carol Thompson Cole w/ David Gergen and dpict.info Free for editorial and/or personal use only. No sales, no commercial use.

Rolling back the state

Estimates suggest there are 70,000 social enterprises in the UK, employing around a million people. Social enterprises and charities have been incorporated extensively into the delivery of public services. This is not only to provide efficiency, but expertise and personalised service in a way that national government-led roll-outs could not. There have been a number of schemes which have functioned effectively, where social enterprises and charities have successfully integrated to help local authorities deliver public services.

Social enterprises represent an alternative way of doing business in the UK; one which promotes investment in communities and projects which promote sustainability and collaboration. They include organisations from the economic, social, cultural and environmental sectors. Their diversity is one of their major advantages.

However some more sceptical about their use have commented that a growing government obsession with outsourcing public services, to both the private and third sector, has created a “shadow state”. Increasingly people have begun to question whether this approach is a sustainable or suitable method for the delivery of public services in the UK. There’s no doubt that social enterprises provide an alternative approach to service delivery, but at what cost to the taxpayer and government legitimacy?

Questions of legitimacy and authority

Founded in 1996 by Camila Batmanghelidjh in south London, Kids Company provided a range of services to vulnerable children in London, Liverpool and Bristol. Its high profile supporters within government included David Cameron. However Kids Company was forced to close after a very public “funding crisis”. Now there are questions over exactly whose responsibility it was to make sure that the money given to Kids Company by government was spent correctly and who is liable for the failure of the charity and the potential loss of £3m of public money.

There are two key issues. The delivery of specialist services to improve outcomes for hard-to-reach groups, is not easy or cheap. Commissioning these services from the third sector, when there are recognised issues with their ability to access sustainable finance and investment, as well as workforce and skills issues within the sector, is never going to be straight-forward. The situation of Kids Company is actually very unusual as sector surveys show that the main challenge that social enterprises and the voluntary sector face when delivering contracted services is the risk that the focus shifts from the needs of service users to meeting narrow, performance management requirements. Public sector procurement models based on cost and value for money leave little leeway and also put organisations into competition with each other for scarce funding.

Secondly, there is the question of the relationship between transparency, legitimacy and government authority. Kids Company lacked transparency and in the end, by not addressing concerns or applying appropriate scrutiny, government outsourced its authority as well as its services.

Leader of the Conservative Party David Cameron gives a speech at Demos with Frank Field Labour MP for Birkenhead and Camila Batmanghelidjh, Founder and Director of Kids Company, London, Thursday January 7, 2010. Photo By Andrew Parsons Free for editorial and/or personal use only. No sales, no commercial use.

Leader of the Conservative Party David Cameron gives a speech at Demos with Frank Field Labour MP for Birkenhead and Camila Batmanghelidjh, Founder and Director of Kids Company, London, Thursday January 7, 2010. Photo By Andrew Parsons
Free for editorial and/or personal use only. No sales, no commercial use.

Answers in the form of regulation?

What exactly went wrong with Kids Company will hopefully emerge in time as a result of the statutory inquiry which was announced last week by the Charities Commission.

Within the existing structure in place in the UK, charities and third sector organisations in England and Wales are held accountable for their practice and conduct by the Charity Commission, while Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own independent regulatory bodies.

However their effectiveness is disputed. Many smaller organisations are left to largely self-regulate. There is no official stance from government on charity regulation, no mandatory standard of practice, only guidance to direct charity conduct. A damning Public Accounts Committee report in 2014 found that “We are dismayed by the fact that the Charity Commission is still performing poorly and failing to regulate the charity sector effectively. It is obvious that it has no coherent strategy and …it is clear that the Charity Commission is not fit for purpose.

It seems that the government lacks the necessary instruments to scrutinise and challenge the way that charities or third sector organisations operate.

Because of the nature of the organisations involved, what the third sector needs is a regulatory body which is able to effectively set out standards and rules of practice, and explicitly state what is expected of charities in terms of accountability where public funds are concerned, but is not a police force. Too much regulation and scrutiny over charities’ practices would make for a sector which was reluctant to contribute to public services and would reduce their focus on the task of delivering effective public services.

This regulatory challenge is something which needs to be addressed if charities and social enterprises are to continue to be part of the public service delivery structure in the UK.


Want to know more about what we do? Our article Celebrating a different kind of library describes our membership service.

Follow us on Twitter to see what other developments in public and social policy are interesting our research team.

To regulate or not to regulate? Housing standards in the private rented sector

To Let housing signs

Image from Flickr user Locksley McPherson Jnr, licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons License

The Scottish Government published its ‘Consultation on a New Tenancy for the Private Sector’ on the 6 October 2014. The paper states that 333,231 homes are rented privately in Scotland and it puts forward proposals to modernise the sector including giving tenants greater security of tenure, including:

  • Landlords to offer tenancies of not less than 6 months.
  • A bar on repossession except in specific circumstances.
  • The introduction of a model tenancy agreement.

The consultation poses a series of questions relating to rent levels, in particular ‘what action, if any, should the Scottish Government take on rent levels in the private rented sector in Scotland?’ Clearly the focus of the consultation is on the affordable private rented sector, but the implications of legislative change are likely to be far broader and impact across the whole rental sector.

The consultation raises a number of big issues for a range of stakeholders including tenants, landlords, citizens’ advice bureaux, local authorities, and indeed for the broader social rented sector, because any changes may well have knock-on implications far beyond the private sector tenant/landlord relationship.

Continue reading