Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“Purpose(1) The purpose of this Act is to improve the ability of renters in the rented sector to obtain secure, fairly priced and decent quality housing.(2) The Secretary of State must, in taking any actions under the provisions of this Act, have regard to this purpose.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of the Act, namely, improving the ability of renters to obtain secure, fairly priced and decent quality housing.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 1 and to speak to Amendment 261 in my name. I am delighted to be opening the first day of Committee on the Renters’ Rights Bill and declare my interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The clause I am proposing would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of the Bill when exercising powers under this legislation. In debating this amendment, we seek to test and clarify what the Government are attempting to solve and to understand more fully whether the measures that will be implemented by this legislation will achieve the Government’s intended results.
The “purpose” clause narrows how the Minister can use the discretionary powers afforded by the Bill. The clear benchmark set out in this clause would ensure that the Government must have regard to improving the ability of renters to obtain secure, fairly priced and decent quality housing. We believe the Government must be clear on the Bill’s purpose, and this amendment gives Ministers the opportunity to provide that necessary clarity.
Renters and landlords alike are following the Government’s planned changes very carefully, so it is crucial that Ministers are clear from the beginning of Committee on what they intend to achieve with this Bill. Clarity from Ministers will enable us to scrutinise the Bill much more effectively as we test each part of it against the Government’s intentions as we progress with Committee stage.
This group of amendments also gives us an opportunity to debate the Bill’s impact on the rental sector. Noble Lords across the House agree that we must protect tenants and ensure that they enjoy security, stability and decent housing conditions at a fair price. In order to achieve this, we need a functional market with sufficient supply of good quality homes to meet the growing demand for secure housing.
Ensuring the availability of homes will underpin the obtainability of accommodation and ensure that rents are affordable. Any legislation in this area must tread a difficult but essential line between these interests. Only by striking the right balance with this legislation can we hope to achieve an efficient and effective rental market that delivers the safe, secure, decent and affordable homes renters need. From these Benches we regret to say that the Bill does not achieve that balance. It has become increasingly clear that it will not serve to enhance the availability of homes but risks the supply of rental properties in the market, driving up costs for renters at a time when we have already seen significant increases in the cost of renting.
The surge in rents beyond inflation has been driven by limited housing supply, and rising mortgage costs, maintenance expenses and property taxes. We on these Benches sincerely hope that the effects of this Bill do not add to that list, further exacerbating the challenges faced by renters. Rather than making houses more affordable, this legislation risks increasing burdens on landlords, discouraging them from remaining in the rental market and ultimately reducing supply at a time of rapidly growing demand. In economic terms, this can only mean one thing: higher housing costs for renters.
A survey by Paragon, based on responses from over 500 landlords it works with, paints a clear picture of the real-world consequences of this Bill. A striking 65% of landlords said that they were more likely to reduce the size of their portfolios. An overwhelming 79% said that they were likely to increase rents. Why? Not out of preference, but as a direct response to the pressures introduced by the Renters’ Rights Bill. This is not speculation; it is data-driven and must give us pause for thought.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association and as part owner of rented properties in Bingley, West Yorkshire. I support Amendment 261, tabled by my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, with its proposed new clause:
“Review of the impact of the Act on the housing market”.
Specifically, I welcome the proposed addition of a review of the impact the Bill will have on requests for social housing. The vast majority of landlords in this country are good, honest people who do a real service in maintaining Britain’s housing supply and providing decent homes to people before they start the journey of getting on to the property ladder, but the reality is that, with the ever-increasing regulation placed on landlords, not least the abolition of Section 21 no-fault evictions, which has already been mentioned, the signing of tenancy agreements will become more of a risk.
In reality, landlords will no doubt be more reluctant, under the new burdens placed on them, to take on more vulnerable tenants—for example, those who enter the market for the first time, without references, and those in receipt of housing benefit. Amendment 261, on reviewing the impact the Act will have on social housing, is necessary because local authorities and housing associations are going to come under pressure as never before to provide social housing, either because supply in the private rented sector will become more challenging to access or because rents are likely to spiral out of control under these proposals. I therefore support fully the amendment tabled by my noble friend.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her Amendments 1 and 261, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Eaton, who have spoken in this short debate. I will keep my response to Amendment 1 short, as the purpose and aims of the Bill were debated in full at Second Reading. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that the Bill is perfectly clear in what it sets out to do.
The private rented sector has grown significantly over the past 20 years and is now used by over 11 million renters in England, with the support of 2.3 million landlords. I should say that most of those landlords are very good landlords who look after their tenants very well. Despite this growth, it still provides the least affordable, poorest quality and most insecure housing of all tenures, and that just cannot continue. A functioning private rented sector can provide a secure stepping stone for aspiring home owners, as the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, said, and flexibility for those who want it, but the chronic insecurity embedded in the current tenancy system fails both those tenants looking for a stable home for their families and those landlords who are undercut by the rogues and the chancers who we know are there—they may be few, but we know they are there. This is a drain on aspiration. Reform of the sector is central to our opportunity mission, so that all have the chance to achieve their potential.
Although I understand the aims of the amendment, I do not believe that it is necessary. The Government made a clear manifesto commitment to transform the experience of private renting by levelling the playing field decisively between landlords and tenants—the very balance that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, was talking about. This Bill delivers that promise. As I outlined at Second Reading, the Bill will strengthen the security of tenure for tenants, ensure that they are paying a fair rent, guarantee a minimum standard they can expect from a property, provide new robust avenues to redress, and much more. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, referred to the attempts in later amendments to reintroduce Section 21 evictions. We will debate those when we get to them but I will say that 83% of landlords have five properties or fewer, so those amendments would be significant and really take the guts out of the Bill. The aims I set out align with the purpose in the noble Baroness’s amendment and lie at the heart of all our current and future decision-making.
The Government also recognise the work done by the majority of landlords, who provide safe and decent homes for their tenants. Both these issues of balance were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, but I was surprised at her assertion that the Bill would not achieve that balance. It is a very similar Bill to the one which she herself brought forward a few months ago.
We have been clear that good landlords have nothing to fear from these reforms. The Bill will bring much-needed certainty to the sector after years of inaction and delay. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, commented on the Armageddon that we hear about; I remember hearing something similar many years ago during the discussions on the minimum wage. I understand landlords’ concerns and I hope we can address them as we scrutinise the Bill, but I am sure we can continue to debate the aims and impacts as we make our way through the 300-plus amendments tabled for debate.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for contributing to this group. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that we will debate my Amendment 8 later. I particularly thank the Minister for her reply. While the Government’s ambition to improve outcomes for renters is a worthy goal, and one that I was proud to champion during my time in government, we feel that this Bill fails to account for the serious consequences the measure will have on those who provide the much-needed homes. The fact is that renters need a market that encourages landlords to enter it, not leave it.
These concerns, as I have said before, are not mine alone; they have been echoed right across the industry. From Savills to Propertymark to UniHomes, all have highlighted significant issues. We on these Benches will emphasise in the days ahead the need for balance—one that ensures that tenants are properly protected, while keeping the sector attractive enough for landlords to continue providing homes to rent, as my noble friend Lady Eaton clearly communicated. The recent survey by Paragon highlights just how far this Bill falls short of that balance. It found that only 4% of landlords support the proposed changes. Perhaps more strikingly, 73% of landlords believe the legislation will do more harm to renters than good.
It has become increasingly clear that, in the Government’s ambition to strengthen tenant security, they have been blind to the implications for those who provide the rental homes this country so desperately needs. The Government should think hard about this balance and consider what these reforms will do to the market on which millions rely. This Bill piles unprecedented pressures on landlords, fuelling concern, uncertainty and a fear of financial burdens. Simultaneously, these changes are likely to make it even harder for tenants to find accommodation. The selection process will become more stringent, and the grounds for possession are weakened. The availability of homes will decrease and, in turn, rent will take a larger share of tenants’ income. The Government would do well to remember that the rental sector exists only because individuals are willing to invest in property and make those homes available to others. The strength of the rental market rests on keeping these people in the market.
Landlords are not just participants; they are the backbone of the rental market. Their voices must be heard as part of this conversation, as they will provide the homes our tenants need into the future. If this Bill is to protect tenants, we must ensure that we have the landlords to supply them. By piling on excessive regulation, we are in danger of pushing good landlords out and empowering rogue landlords who simply ignore all our rules. We recognise that reform of our rental market is necessary to protect tenants from abuse at the hands of these rogue landlords. This was made clear in the previous Renters (Reform) Bill, but it was always important to us that we balance the rights of tenants to live safely and peacefully in the homes they are renting with the rights of landlords, particularly their property rights. If that Bill did not quite balance the seesaw, this Bill tips it right over. This is not the same Bill that the last Conservative Government introduced, and the Government are rushing it through without any care for the repercussions that will reverberate throughout the sector.
I urge the Minister to listen carefully to the concerns raised throughout Committee to ensure that we can enhance the availability of homes, alleviate the burden of unaffordable rent and deliver security for our tenants. Members across the House agree that renters need a better deal, but we do not believe that the Bill is the answer to this. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Truscott. I must declare my interest: I am a Suffolk farmer and have been for 50 years and I have seen quite a lot of changes during that time. Historically, there have been ups and downs, so in recent years I have turned increasingly to the private rented sector as a means of diversifying from agriculture when agriculture has been in such difficulties.
I can remember the days when there were rent officers and the whole system was gummed up. Now, assured shorthold tenancies are—lamentably—being abandoned in the Bill. Under that system, there was a resurgence of interest. I, for example, have converted redundant farm buildings into houses. I have fitted houses into spaces where there were no houses, but they fitted well into the particularly attractive and beautiful village which I am fortunate and privileged to live in. All these things are a very important part of the overall scene.
I warn the Government that there is a danger of them proscribing or prescribing practices in the private rented sector that are the practices that make it work. It is a very flexible sector. It is a vulnerable and fragile sector and, when we debate these issues in Committee, we are going to find cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that provisions in the Bill should be modified to avoid the danger of reducing the supply of privately rented accommodation.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, for leading this group and all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. My amendment aims to probe the Government on the proposed abolition of all fixed-term tenancies and to strike a fair balance between the rights of tenants and the legitimate interests of landlords.
While the Government’s desire to strengthen tenants’ security is, of course, a commendable objective, we must take a moment to reflect on the variety of tenancy arrangements that currently support different groups within the sector. In light of that diversity, it is reasonable to ask why the Government has chosen to pursue a one-size-fits-all approach through the proposed abolition of all fixed-term tenancies.
I have listened to contributions from the Committee and there is obvious and widespread concern about this element of the Bill. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Truscott and Lord Shipley, for their thoughtful amendments. Taken together, they seek to challenge the blanket removal of fixed-term tenancies and reintroduce much-needed flexibility into the current very rigid clause. In our opinion, the proposal to allow fixed terms of up to 12 months presents a pragmatic middle ground, maintaining a degree of security for tenants while giving landlords the certainty needed to plan for their future use.
Amendment 6 focuses specifically on protecting very short-term lets of up to three months. These arrangements are critical to people on, for example, probationary employment contracts, to vulnerable individuals in temporary relocation and to professionals on short-term placements. We should not be undermining access to housing for those who rely on flexible short-term arrangements. In removing fixed terms entirely, we risk cutting off access to the rental market for these groups—precisely the kind of unintended consequences this House should seek to avoid. I have also tabled this amendment to give Ministers the opportunity to indicate whether they would be willing to take a more limited step of retaining the current arrangements for very short tenancies.
Industry stakeholders have all echoed these concerns. Propertymark has warned that the removal of fixed-term tenancies could have a destabilising effect on tenants with lower incomes or poor credit histories, many of whom rely on guarantors, who in turn require the certainty of a fixed term. Without that structure, such tenants might find themselves excluded from the market altogether.
What does the future look like for these tenants? These are students without parental support, young adults leaving care, or individuals with health conditions whose employment is irregular. These individuals rely on guarantors to secure housing, but those guarantors require a legal assurance of a fixed term. Without that, the door to a rental home quietly shuts behind them. Imagine a single mother working two part-time jobs, trying to secure a home close to her children’s school. With no guarantor willing to sign an open-ended agreement, she is told again and again, “Sorry—no fixed term, no tenancies”. These are not hypotheticals. These are people who will be locked out of the system, possibly entirely.
Propertymark notes that fixed terms provide security for tenants and a guaranteed rental income for landlords. These arrangements are often actively sought by tenants, including nurses on temporary hospital placements, families wishing to remain in a school catchment area, and individuals from overseas needing time-limited accommodation. The Government will argue that tenants will still have flexibility because they can terminate their rental agreements at will. However, this misses the point. Flexibility is not the same as stability. Tenants need the assurance that their home will not be taken away at short notice, especially when they are in transitional stages of their life.
For landlords, the certainty of a fixed term allows them to plan and manage their properties effectively. Without it, many will choose to exit the sector, once again reducing the overall availability of rental homes. The supposed flexibility of a non-fixed-term tenancy could ultimately leave both tenants and landlords with far less stability than they need.
The abolition of fixed-term tenancies could provoke many landlords to reconsider their position in the market altogether. For home owners who currently rent out their properties on a fixed-term basis, this change in policy, which removes the ability to offer a defined tenancy period, will reduce landlord confidence. As a result, some home owners may choose to leave their properties vacant rather than face the uncertainty of an open-ended arrangement.
Why are the Government not listening to landlords, the very individuals who are primary maintainers of the private rented sector? Landlords are not just participants; they are the backbone of the housing market. Their voices must be heard in this conversation. There is a growing sense that these concerns are being overlooked, and one must ask whether this stems from a principled policy position or from a deeper ideological reluctance to recognise the legitimate role that landlords play. Without the ability to plan for future use or to rely on a defined tenancy period, landlords may well choose to exit the market. If this happens, we risk not only reducing the supply of homes but destabilising the rental sector as a whole, undermining the very intention of the Bill.
Taken together, these warnings from industry stakeholders should give the Government pause for thought. They remind us that while reform is necessary, it must be proportionate and carefully balanced to deliver a market that ultimately benefits renters. The Bill gives us the opportunity to modernise our rental system but, in doing so, we must take care not to discard what works. In removing fixed terms altogether, the Bill risks sweeping away short-term lets that serve a very specific and vital purpose.
These are not theoretical cases; they are everyday realities for many people navigating work, family or education. If we are to build a fairer rental system, we must ensure that it remains flexible and accessible to all, including those whose housing needs are necessarily short-term. That is what Amendment 6 in my name seeks to protect. I hope the Minister listens to voices across the House and calls from industry experts to recognise the diversity of the rental market and to support my amendment, which offers the necessary flexibility and common sense.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, before I speak to these amendments, I should have, at the beginning of the debate, thanked all noble Lords for their engagement in the work that we did before we got to Committee. I have been very grateful for the attendance at drop-in sessions and for the one-to-one meetings that we have had with different Members from across the House. The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, referred to the value of scrutiny in this House; I truly value that scrutiny and engagement, which have been a great help in the early stages of the Bill. The comments that I make are made with due and careful consideration of what noble Lords say in the Committee today and what they have said to me in our meetings prior to that.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lords, Lord Truscott, Lord Cromwell and Lord Shipley, for the amendments, and the noble Lords, Lord Marlesford and Lord Carrington, for their comments on them. These amendments all seek to introduce fixed terms into the Renters’ Rights Bill.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
The Minister namechecked me. I did not have an amendment in this group. My amendments are in the next group and are not about fixed-term tenancies.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
That is my mistake, and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell.
Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, would allow landlords to create fixed-term assured tenancies of 12 months or less. As I set out during the debate at Second Reading, our Government are clear that there is no place for fixed terms in the future tenancy system. Landlords and tenants all want the same thing in the private rented sector: long-term tenancies, well-maintained properties and the rent paid —on time, we hope. That is the balance that we seek to strike.
A core principle of the future assured tenancy regime is that all tenancies will be periodic. As the previous Government also advocated, the removal of fixed terms is fundamental to improving tenants’ rights and ensuring that they can hold their landlord to account. Fixed terms just do not offer the best outcome for renters. They can oblige tenants to pay rent for substandard properties and restrict them from moving house if they need to. All the examples that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, gave are of those who need secure tenancies—they need them for themselves and their families, and for the communities that they live in.
The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, mentioned that I have been a local government leader. My experience with social housing tenants who have long-term secure tenancies makes it clear to me that they help them to stabilise life for their families and to develop the communities we know that people prefer to live in.
I was not going to mention domestic abuse, but I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, and his dismissal of it has provoked me into doing so. Domestic abuse is just one reason to not have this type of tenancy, and I may come back to that later. Just this lunchtime, I met the person I set up the Stevenage domestic abuse service with, and that situation is getting worse, not better. We do not want people to be trapped in properties that they do not want to stay in.
I do not believe that this amendment would offer tenants more choice. In reality, initial fixed terms would become just another way that tenants would be forced to compete in a difficult market. I understand that there are concerns from landlords about the impact of removing fixed terms. However, the move to periodic tenancies does not pose a threat to good landlords—in fact, it will make it easier and simpler for them to operate by preventing them being locked into a fixed term.
Amendments 4, 5 and 6, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would allow for short fixed-term assured tenancies. The amendments would allow assured tenancies to contain a two-month, three-month or six-month fixed term. As I have set out, the Government do not believe such changes are necessary. Where a tenant wishes to live somewhere for a short period of time, the Bill allows them to serve notice at any point as long as they provide two-months’ notice. If one of these amendments were accepted, it is likely that short fixed-term tenancies would become the market norm, forcing fixed terms on to tenants who may not be looking for a short-term let and reducing flexibility for all tenants. In addition, tenants already need to give two months’ notice to landlords. Having two-month or three-month fixed terms would not add anything meaningful to this position, and would be contrary to our aims to simplify an overcomplicated system.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, referred to the issue of rent up front, which I am sure we will debate under future amendments. The point is that it cannot be required as a condition of taking on the tenancy. If, once the tenancy is in place, the tenant chooses to pay rent in advance—and it is their choice—they will be able to do so.
Amendment 173, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, would prevent tenants serving notice to end the tenancy within the first four months of a new tenancy. This, coupled with the two-month notice period, would effectively lock renters into tenancies for six months. I have been clear today that the Government will not support any amendment that seeks to lock tenants in for any period of time. Tenants must have the flexibility to end tenancies when they need to. The noble Baroness referred to people whose jobs change; that might be the case, and to be locked into a fixed term would prevent them doing that. The Bill still requires tenants to provide two months’ notice when ending an assured tenancy, which will give landlords time to find new tenants.
I heard the points from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about build to rent. I do not think there is a case for treating that differently, but no doubt we will return to this in future debates. I look forward to meeting with the noble Lord tomorrow to discuss his concerns in more detail.
It is very unlikely that tenants will move unless they absolutely have to. Moving house is costly and comes with significant upheaval. In practice, tenants will usually be asked to complete a series of steps in order to enter into an assured tenancy, and that will include referencing checks, committing for two months and paying up to five or six weeks’ deposit, none of which they are likely to do if they are looking for a very short-term tenancy.
Finally, I turn to the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to oppose the Question that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill. Clause 1 will prevent the creation of tenancies with a fixed term under the future assured tenancy regime. As I have already set out, the Government do not support the retention of fixed-term assured tenancies under any circumstances. The move to fully periodic tenancies is critical to strengthening tenants’ rights and enabling them to hold landlords to account.
To be clear, fixed terms force renters to pay rent regardless of the property’s condition. This disincentivises landlords from resolving repairs and can force tenants to remain in poor-quality housing. They also reduce flexibility for tenants to move when they need to—for example, if they have had a relationship breakdown or because they need to take up a new job. I am sorry to the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, for coming back to it, but they can prevent tenants leaving potentially dangerous situations such as domestic abuse.
Clause 1 will therefore ensure that all assured tenancies are periodic in future. The tenancy will roll from period to period until either party ends it. It will be prohibited to include a contract term that tries to create a fixed term, and any such term would be legally unenforceable.
As I have already explained, good landlords have nothing to be concerned about with these changes. They will not have to wait until the end of a fixed term to access some of the possession grounds, and a simpler set of rights and responsibilities will also make it easier for them to understand and follow the rules. The removal of fixed terms was the policy position of the previous Government, in which the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, served, and it is the policy position of this Government.
Clause 1 is essential to delivering a strengthened and more secure tenancy system. It will improve the ability of tenants to move house and challenge poor practice. For all the reasons I have set out, I kindly ask that noble Lords do not press their amendments.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
Will the Minister deal with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about institutional investors and their reluctance to invest when there is a minimum tenancy of only two months, and about lenders who are not prepared to lend to the sector? Does she feel that the institutional investors are an important part of the sector or are they not relevant?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I responded to that in an answer I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Young, at Question Time. Yes, institutional investors are important, but it is important that we do not create an idea that these are two-month fixed tenancies; they absolutely are not. They are assured tenancies with a two-month notice period on the part of the tenant. Most tenants will not want to take up a tenancy and go through all the procedures they will need to—as I set out—just to have a tenancy for two months and then leave it. Most tenants want a long-term tenancy where the landlord maintains their property and they pay their rent on time. That is how the system works. I do not think it will deter institutional investors from having the confidence they should rightly have in investing in build to rent, or any other form of rental investment, as a good investment. It is a steady source of income and, with a tenant with an assured tenancy, they will be more assured of that, not less.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
I apologise; I failed to declare my interest as a private landlord of rental property in Hampshire.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, before I start, I ask the Committee to note that I am a councillor in central Bedfordshire and therefore have an interest. I welcome the opportunity to speak to this group and to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for raising this amendment and explaining it so carefully. I am quite grateful that I understood all along that the tenant was still eligible for the two-month notice period.
These amendments offer a clear and practical framework for tenants to request a voluntary extension agreement after four months of occupancy with terms that, as the noble Lord said, provide greater certainty and predictability for both parties. This would allow people the freedom to make a mutual agreement and choice that benefited both sides. As Conservatives, we believe that the Government’s role is not to overregulate or restrict but to create the conditions for stability, co-operation and choice. The amendments do exactly that: agreements built on mutual respect rather than compulsion.
Under the proposals from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, tenants would enjoy security of tenure for an agreed period. Landlords in turn gain the reassurance of occupancy, with their right to recover their property during the term limited to cases of anti-social behaviour or non-payment of rent. These are reasonable safeguards that encourage constructive relationships and stability in the rental market and will benefit both tenants and landlords.
This approach complements the amendments in my name and the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, which we will discuss in due course. Together, they reflect a shared principle that flexibility, where it is entered into freely and transparently, strengthens rather than undermines tenant protections. We often speak in this Chamber about empowering tenants, but that empowerment must include the ability to make informed choices and enter into arrangements that suit tenants’ lives, reducing the risk that they will be forced to move. Voluntary extension agreements offer a proportionate and sensible way of achieving that aim without diluting the core purpose of the Bill. I hope the Minister will give these proposals the thoughtful consideration they deserve as we continue to shape a Bill that is fair, flexible and fit for the realities of today’s rental market. We look forward to working constructively with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, as he considers his approach ahead of Report.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for his amendments relating to mutually agreed voluntary extension agreement in tenancies and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for their contributions as well. Amendments 3 and 12 would allow a form of agreement where tenants can leave the tenancy by providing two months’ notice and landlords could gain possession only for rent arrears or anti-social behaviour. Tenants would be able to request this after four months of the assured tenancy and the landlord would have to agree in writing.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for meeting me to discuss his proposals. No wine was involved, but other beverages are available. I have considered his amendments carefully and the points he made about their potential efficacy. One of the reasons the Government do not want to reintroduce fixed terms or anything like them is that they add complexity into the system. Having a simple, single system of periodic tenancies will make it easier for both parties to better understand their rights and responsibilities.
Having looked at the noble Lord’s proposal, I say that it is not clear that it will be of much benefit to either party. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, rightly referred to the nature of assured tenancies, and I think there has sometimes been a misunderstanding—perhaps concocted—of what an assured tenancy is. It is a permanent tenancy unless the landlord uses the grounds included in the Bill or the tenant gives two months’ notice. It is not a two-month tenancy; it is a permanent tenancy with two months’ notice on the part of the tenant. If both parties wish the tenancy to sustain for a certain period of time, nothing in the Bill prevents this. The Bill already prevents landlords using the key possession grounds for moving and selling within the first 12 months of a new tenancy. This provides tenants with additional protections for a period of time. Landlords can also communicate their plans to tenants if the tenants need that additional reassurance. It is also unclear what this model would offer to landlords, given that the tenant could still leave at any point, so it is very unlikely landlords would agree to it. For the reasons I have set out here and in previous debates, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I thank the Minister for her comments and for the very helpful meeting we had about this amendment. I have tried to strike a balance in my amendment between not going near a fixed-term tenancy and producing something that is of benefit to landlords. I can only tell her that, from my experience of talking to people, they are often keen to find incentives for a tenant to stay, because it is a costly and time-consuming business to change them. Therefore, I do not think one should dismiss too lightly the idea that landlords might forgo some rights in order to encourage a tenant to stay on: in fact, I have seen that in practice.
One should never drink alone, so if the noble Baroness opposite is going to have a glass of wine, perhaps the Minister would like to join in and the three of us could have a useful chat about this. I think there is something here that does not undermine the tenant’s ability to get out in two months but gives an incentive in that marketplace for the landlord to encourage a tenant to remain for the long term. The tenant will decide how long that term is, because they will be the one requesting an extension. It could be 10 months or two years: that is entirely a matter for them. So, I do not want to give up on this at this point. I will withdraw the amendment, but I suggest that we have a further chat to see whether there is something that can be worked up from this particular nugget.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
(1A) For the purposes of this section, a tenant who meets the student test when a tenancy is entered into has the same meaning as in Ground 4A.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow student tenancies to remain as fixed tenancies to provide the certainty that both student tenants and student landlords require.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 44, 45 and 46 in my name.
Although it may have been some years ago, and not all Members of your Lordships’ House chose to go to university, many noble Lords will no doubt recall their own experiences as university students. For those whose memories may have begun to fade, it is likely that a son, daughter or even grandchild is at university today or has recently been at university. I raise this point because those of us who fall into this group will recognise that students have distinct and unique housing needs that set them apart from all other groups. Most students rely on a combination of maintenance loans, part-time jobs and, increasingly, the support of the bank of mum and dad—or even granny—to meet their costs during their studies. Proximity to campus is essential both for academic engagement and to reduce the burden on transport costs. Students typically require leases of nine to 12 months, aligned to the academic calendar. I stress flexibility as an increasing number of tertiary education providers are now offering 18-month courses, moving away from the traditional three-year model. For many students, this marks their first experience of independent living. They are often unfamiliar with housing laws and lack the knowledge that only life experience can bring.
Although the exact legal framework for the exemption requires further clarification, the Government, by virtue of attempting to exclude purpose-built student accommodation from the ban on fixed-term tenancies, have accepted the unique position of students, and we welcome that. However, we feel there is more work to be done.
The Explanatory Notes assume that purpose-built accommodation tenancies are not assured. StudentRent puts this drafting down to a confusion with university halls, which use non-exclusive licences. In reality, most PBSA providers issue exclusive assured shorthold tenancies, meaning that, unless the Bill is amended or exemptions are extended, the agreements will become invalid once the new law takes effect. Could the Minister please use Committee to clarify this? If we cannot reach a reasonable position in Committee, we will have to return to the issue on Report.
In their drafting of the Bill, the Government have missed the opportunity to exempt all types of accommodation. As noble Lords will know, it is common that, after the first year, students often move out of purpose-built student accommodation and into HMOs or other types of property in the private rented sector. Amendment 7 in my name would ensure that student tenants could keep their desirable fixed-term tenancies, no matter what type of accommodation they find themselves in. We must not allow a two-tier system to emerge, where only those who can afford the most expensive purpose-built accommodation are granted the stability of fixed-term tenancies; that would be a perverse outcome from this legislation. It is vital that we resolve this as soon as possible.
Fixed-term contracts provide students with clear start and end dates that not only make financial planning more straightforward but ease the burden of day-to-day administration tasks that can be particularly challenging for those experiencing independent living for the first time, all while managing the demands of their academic studies. Perhaps most importantly, fixed-term agreements provide rent certainty for the entire duration of the contract. That certainty is not only reassuring for students but essential for their families, who rely on clear and predictable costs in order to budget effectively and support their children through higher education. Furthermore, knowing precisely when a tenancy will end helps students avoid disruptive mid-semester moves, which can have a detrimental impact on their studies and exam preparation.
While stability is vital, so too is flexibility. It is on this point that I wish to speak to Amendments 44 and 45. The current provisions acknowledge in part the need for student landlords to regain possession by the end of the academic year, under ground 4A. However, this fails to take into account those students whose studies do not follow a traditional academic calendar. It is important to stress that, under the current model, it is exceptionally rare for student landlords to need to resort to eviction proceedings. In practice, the challenge is far more likely to arise when students wish to leave their tenancies early. The proposals as they stand do not fully address the consequences of such scenarios.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lords, Lord Willetts, Lord Evans, Lord Young—albeit that his amendment was very ably proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts—and the noble Lord, Lord Best, for their amendments, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Wolf and Lady Warwick, and the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Fuller, for their comments during this debate. All these amendments seek to revise or introduce provisions in the Bill related to students, and I say well done to King’s College for having its team approach to this Bill in the Chamber today.
We do not expect that removing fixed terms will have a destabilising effect on the student rental market. New possession ground 4A will give landlords confidence that they will be able to regain their property to move in other students in line with the academic year. If tenants leave a tenancy early, the landlords will be able to find new tenants to take their place. The end of a fixed term does not automatically give the landlord possession. Landlords still have to follow the correct possession procedure. If fixed terms remained in the future, landlords would still need to follow the correct possession procedure.
Amendment 7 would allow fixed-term assured tenancies if the tenant was a student at the beginning of the tenancy. It would not be either right or fair for students to have less flexibility than other tenants just because of their educational status. Students who drop out of university could be required to pay rent for the rest of the fixed term, which could potentially reach thousands of pounds. All renters, including students, should have access to the benefits provided by the Bill.
The opportunity referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, is, as he rightly said, the meeting between housing and higher education. As someone who undertook a degree as a mature student with three children and a full-time job, I say that we simply must not assume that all students are the same. This is the opposite of elitism. It is ensuring that all student circumstances are taken into account and that those who need the greater stability that assured tenancies offer can have that option.
We have introduced a new possession ground to allow the cyclical nature of the student market to continue and provide landlords with confidence. This strikes the right balance and, in our opinion, is the much better approach. Referring to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about tenancies in halls, the Government intend that any new purpose-built student accommodation tenancies created after transition will be exempted from the assured tenancy system following transition, as long as the landlord is signed up to a government-approved code of conduct. I hope that answers her question. For these, reasons I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Amendment 40 seeks to expand ground 4A, which allows student tenants living in HMOs to be evicted in line with the academic year. It would allow students living in self-contained accommodation—one-bedroom and two-bedroom properties for example—to be evicted each year, and it seeks to address the concerns of some noble Lords that the existing scope of ground 4A does not cover all student properties. We have thought very carefully about the design of ground 4A. Limiting it to HMOs captures the bulk of typical students—that is, groups living in a house share. Meanwhile, students who need more security of tenure, such as single parents living with their children, postgraduate couples living together who have put down roots in an area, or families containing students, will be protected.
The core principle of the Bill is that tenants should have more security in their homes, and we think it is right that these groups should not be exposed to potential eviction using ground 4A. Self-contained one-bedroom and two-bedroom homes are also easier to let to non-students than student HMOs are, so, if a landlord cannot gain possession in line with the academic year and the tenants leave in the middle of the next one, the landlord is highly likely to be able to let the property out to non-student tenants. The noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, referred to student accommodation in London, and I imagine that there are other places where costs are prohibitive, such as Cambridge and Oxford. However, the Government’s action to increase supply is critical here. It is only by increasing supply that we will be able to stabilise rents. I do not think that the action proposed in the amendment would have that effect.
Amendments 41 and 45, taken together, seek to remove the requirement for a landlord intending to rely on ground 4A to give prior written notice to the tenants. This would mean that landlords renting to students in HMOs who satisfy the student test would be able to rely on ground 4A without giving tenants written prior notice, before the tenancy was entered into, of their wish to be able to recover possession using ground 4A. We cannot accept these amendments. The core aim of the Bill is to enhance the security of tenants in the private rented sector, including students. The prior notice requirement in ground 4A is key to this. If tenants are liable to be evicted through no fault of their own simply because of their student status, they must be informed of this reduced security before entering into a tenancy. Amendment 45 is purely consequential on Amendment 41, removing a later reference to the paragraph that Amendment 41 removes, and I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, not to press these amendments.
Amendment 42 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, seeks to allow the use of ground 4A in student tenancies agreed up to nine months in advance, rather than the six months in advance limitation that is currently in the Bill. Noble Lords will be aware that we introduced this measure in response to engagement with stakeholders and Members in the other place—I hope that answers the noble Lord’s question about consultation. They were concerned that students are often rushed into important decisions around accommodation before they have formed friendships or had time to properly judge a property’s condition or location.
This measure was intended to act as a strong disincentive to landlords who seek to sign students up to contracts early in the academic year. Increasing the time limit to nine months will push early sign-ups to too early in the academic year—before Christmas for a tenancy beginning in July. This entirely undermines the point of the deterrent. Six months strikes the right balance, allowing those who want to to agree a tenancy well in advance before exam season, but not too early before students have formed firm friendship groups, for instance.
Amendment 43, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, goes even further and would extend the time limit to 12 months. For the reasons I have highlighted previously, we are of the view that six months is the right balance. Very few students sign contracts more than a year in advance, and this amendment would essentially destroy the entire premise of the provision, which is designed to prevent students being pressured into contracts too early in the academic year. For these reasons, I ask the noble Lord not to move these amendments.
Amendment 44 seeks to remove the restriction on the use of ground 4A to the summer of the traditional academic year. This would mean that students on a traditional term date, who are the majority, could be evicted in the middle of the academic year through no fault of their own. We recognise that the intent of the amendment is to ensure properties are available for students starting their courses on non-traditional dates, such as in January. However, we are content that supply will be available for these groups as previous groups on the same cycle would leave at the end of their courses, so there will be students leaving in January and students starting could take those properties. It would be wrong to expose all students to eviction in the middle of their academic year simply because, for example, a landlord found a group with different term dates who were willing to pay more. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness not to move this amendment.
Amendment 46 would allow landlords to evict approved English apprentices, as defined in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, using the student possession ground 4A, provided all conditions for relying on that ground were met. Ground 4A was designed to capture the most typical students, such as those living in groups and away from home, on an annual letting cycle. Apprentices tend not to live that way, as they earn an income and are much more likely to live in a home they expect to stay in. I am therefore of the view that apprentices should enjoy the same security of tenure as other tenants and not fall under the scope of possession ground 4A. For that reason, I ask that this amendment not be moved.
Amendment 189 seeks to remove the private rented student tenancies from the assured tenancy system. I know there has been a lot of concern and debate over this at Second Reading and today. It would achieve this by allowing the Secretary of State to create or approve a code of conduct for student landlords and then allow landlords signed up to the code to offer tenancies that are completely removed from the assured tenancy system. This is the wrong approach: it would be wrong for students renting off-street housing, often indistinguishable from the property next door, to have an entirely different set of rights from their neighbours.
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Young, is seeking to create consistency between private student landlords and landlords of purpose-built student accommodation, which we will exempt from the assured system through regulations. However, these are very different types of accommodation. Purpose-built student accommodation can often be rented only to students due to the nature of the property, and to be exempted in the future a private PBSA landlord will need to be signed up to the government-approved code of management practice. This code is managed by Unipol, an established organisation.
Other private rented accommodation let to students is significantly more diverse and often indistinguishable from other houses in the area. It would be wrong to remove the protections of the assured system. Other students renting privately should not be locked into fixed-term contracts or open to eviction without good reason. In addition, there currently exists no government-approved code that is relevant to such accommodation. Developing this would take a great deal of time and is likely to delay implementation of the Bill. We recognise that the student market has a cyclical business model and have therefore introduced ground 4A, allowing landlords to evict full-time students from HMOs in order to house incoming groups in line with the academic year. Ground 4A addresses the issues that the various amendments tabled by the noble Lord are, in effect, seeking to address. As such, I ask him not to move this amendment.
Amendment 266 seeks to exempt private purpose-built student accommodation from discretionary licensing where the landlord has signed up to a code of practice for managing such accommodation. Although codes of practice offer students assurance that a good standard of management is being met by their landlords, they are not tailored to addressing local issues in the way that licence conditions under licensing schemes are. Membership of the codes is voluntary, and members have an incentive to comply to ensure they can continue to present an attractive offer to students. While a failure to adhere to code standards can result in a landlord being removed from a code, licensing allows for stronger action to be taken where necessary. For example, local authorities can issue a financial penalty where there has been a serious breach of licence conditions.
We recognise that licensing can place a greater burden on landlords with large portfolios, such as those operating private purpose-built student accommodation. That is why local authorities already have discretion to streamline licence application processes and fees for such landlords. We trust local authorities to take a proportionate approach and work together with code operators and providers of these types of accommodation to make sure that licensing schemes remain focused on tackling the issues they were designed to address. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Best, not to move his amendment.
I turn to government Amendments 47, 188 and 202. Currently, university-managed accommodation is exempt from the assured tenancy system, while private purpose-built student accommodation usually is not. Government Amendments 47, 188 and 202 would allow private PBSA to be subject to the same exemption, recognising that the two share many similarities. Students do not move into their accommodation expecting long-term residence, and it is right to ensure that this accommodation is available to new cohorts of students each year.
We intend that the exemption will apply only to private PBSA that is a member of the government-approved code of practice, which sets vigorous standards for the management of property and the relationship between managers and student tenants. If their membership of the code ends for any reason, so does their exemption. There will be no delay in requiring them to provide assured tenancies to new tenants. Although there is an existing power in the Housing Act 1988 to exempt PBSA landlords, it would have required government to frequently update secondary legislation with a list of landlords, causing a duplication of work between code administrators and officials and a lag in the link between code membership and exemption status.
We are also proposing an amendment to an existing power in the Housing Act 2004 that clarifies that educational establishments exempt from HMO licensing can be specified by reference to code membership and that the power can be exercised in the same way for private purpose-built student accommodation in future. The amendment also allows the scope of an exemption to be narrowed to certain groups of building, or building manager, within the membership if required.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in what I consider an extremely important debate and contributed thoughtfully and constructively with their insights.
First, I would like to recognise the contribution by my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow, who tabled Amendments 42 and 43. On these Benches, we believe the limitation may, as my noble friend said, inadvertently push the hunt for student accommodation into the January exam season and disrupt a vital time for many students up and down this country.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would allow small landlords, who are less likely to have capacity to fund legal proceedings, to continue to be able to issue Section 21 notices.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 8, standing in my name. At its core, the private rented sector exists only because individuals are willing to invest in property and rent it out to others. The rental market depends on landlords, many of them small-scale, independent operators who choose to let their homes to others. These are not large corporate entities with huge legal teams and financial buffers; they are ordinary people with one or two properties, often let out to supplement their pension or as a long-term investment for their families.
Let us be clear: the most recent English private landlord survey shows that 45% of landlords own a single rental property and a further 38% own between two and four. That means that over four-fifths of landlords operate on a very small scale, far from the image of large institutional landlords. These landlords form the backbone of the rental sector. Yet, under the proposals in the Bill, particularly the removal of Section 21 without sufficient alternative safeguards—this is to answer the question by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley—we risk driving them out of this market altogether.
That is why I rise to speak to Amendment 8, standing in my name. This amendment proposes a targeted and reasonable exception that landlords who let fewer than five properties—those very small-scale landlords we have spoken of—should retain the ability to use Section 21. This is not about denying renters their rights or undermining the central aims of the Bill; rather, it is about recognising the limitations that smaller landlords face. Unlike larger letting organisations, smaller landlords do not have the resources or the legal support to navigate complex procession proceedings. For them, the loss of Section 21 without workable and efficient alternatives could be and will be the final straw. These individuals are not villains of the piece; in many cases, if not most, they are providing much-needed homes in areas of acute shortage. They do not have the resources to engage in lengthy legal proceedings every time they need to regain possession of their property, whether due to personal financial need or a change in family circumstances or to exit the sector entirely. If the Bill removes Section 21 without offering small landlords a workable alternative, the risk is clear: many will simply choose to leave the market. They are already, altogether.
We know this is already happening: the National Residential Landlords Association found last year that one in four landlords were planning to sell at least one property, many citing rising regulation and uncertainty about future reforms. As these landlords exit, we are left with fewer homes to rent, and the tenants feel the consequences most sharply.
The experience in Scotland offers a sobering lesson. There similar reforms were introduced with the intention of improving tenant security. Yet, as we have seen, they had the opposite effect: a sharp increase in landlords exiting the market and the highest rent increases in the United Kingdom as demand rapidly outpaced supply. Research from the Nationwide Foundation has found that 70% of landlords and letting agents lack confidence in the future of the market. The evidence from Scotland demonstrates that the type of over-regulation proposed here will drive landlords out of the market, reducing housing supply and ultimately leaving renters worse off.
Amendment 8 offers a simple, balanced solution. It allows the Bill to move forward with its tenant protections intact, while acknowledging the distinct position of small landlords and giving them the breathing room that they need to continue letting their homes. If we are serious about building a rental system that is fair, functional and fit for the future, we must ensure that it works for tenants and landlords alike. Amendment 8 does not undermine the principles of the Bill; it strengthens it. It recognises the diversity within the landlord community and offers a sensible, proportionate safeguard for those who make up its majority by allowing small landlords to continue using Section 21 when and where no viable alternative yet exists. We protect not only their role in the market but the long-term interests of renters themselves. I urge the Government to take this amendment seriously and consider whether the future of the private rented sector truly lies in squeezing out the very people who keep it afloat.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in this very important debate in Committee and to support my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook on this amendment. The amendment is about fairness between tenants and landlords, and practicality. It is about the alternative that the Government are offering smaller landlords who are in the situation where they feel it prudent to give notice and seek possession of their own property under Section 21 and Section 8 of the Housing Act 1988. In particular, it is about the bureaucratic and onerous burden and court costs that will fall upon smaller landlords.
Let us look at the figures. Almost half of landlords—45%—own only one property. For the avoidance of doubt and for full transparency, I declare myself to be a landlord; I own one property, which was my matrimonial home, as listed in the Register of Lords’ Interests. Some 83% of landlords are small landlords, and so would be covered by this amendment, in that they own fewer than five properties.
We understand the proper commitment by the Government, as outlined in the manifesto, to abolish Section 21 no-fault evictions, for laudable reasons. We are all committed to the same thing—that good-quality private sector housing should be available in a fair way, to as many people as possible— and we accept that the Government have a mandate to make tenancy reforms. Notwithstanding that, unfortunately, as the previous Administration found, much of the efficacy of that policy will fall upon the reliability or otherwise of the court system and its ability to expedite possession claims in a timely and efficient way.
His Majesty’s Government’s own figures, as at quarter 4 of 2024, show that seven months is the average time taken to process and enforce a Section 8 possession case—especially around the thorny issue of rent arrears and anti-social behaviour. The LGA and the Law Society have raised this issue. The Law Society in particular notes the potential
“increase in contested hearings in the short term, as landlords that would previously have used”
Section 21, because it was less costly and less onerous, will now
“have to show good reason for eviction”.
On page 65 of the impact assessment, the Government, rather elliptically, reference “non-legislative changes” to improve the court system, but they do not give any detail. That is an important issue, as we are being asked to support the Government’s proposals. How do the Government intend to manage the increased demand? The Housing Minister in the other place used the word “ready”, saying that the Government would not take any precipitous action until the court system was ready. What does “ready” mean? This is a problem the previous Government faced and, as the Minister knows, they resiled from going ahead too fast with this policy because the court system was not fit for purpose. What specific measures will be used to deal with the existing backlog in Section 8 claims arising from landlords seeking to take possession? Let us make no mistake, the failings of the court system have the potential to undermine what would be laudable reforms and could have the perverse effect of encouraging landlords, especially smaller landlords, to exit the private rented sector.
Tenants themselves do not have much faith in the court system. Figures provided in 2023 by Citizens Advice show that only
“23% of tenants feel confident applying to court. 99% of tenants whose landlord has taken an unreasonably long time to complete repairs did not bring a claim for disrepair to court … 54% … said they did not … because of the complexity of the process … 45% … said they were put off by the length of time involved”.
It is also the case that the abolition of Section 21, particularly in respect of smaller landlords, will have an impact on the hitherto good relationship between many tenants and landlords, turning it into a much more litigious and disputatious situation. Many of those landlords will not be prepared to give tenants the benefit of the doubt if they fall on difficult financial times or have less benign economic circumstances. Those are the real-world consequences of this policy and one of the issues that this amendment seeks to address and ameliorate.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, first, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that this is not a wrecking amendment. It is trying to find a solution which does not potentially destroy the private rental market. If it is destroyed in any way, only one group of people will be affected, and that is the tenants.
I am grateful to noble Lords who—
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My apologies, but does the noble Baroness not want to hear first from the Minister on the amendment?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Well, the noble Baroness knows what I am going to say, so that is that.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for moving Amendment 8, and the noble Lords, Lord Jackson, Lord Empey and Lord Murray, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for their comments. This amendment would allow fixed-term initial tenancies where the landlord lets fewer than five properties. As I am sure the noble Baroness would expect, the Government cannot accept this amendment. It would be neither fair nor justified for some tenants to have fewer rights, simply because the landlord happens to have a smaller property portfolio at the point at which the tenancy is entered into. All tenants must enjoy the benefits of the new system and the flexibility that periodic tenancies provide.
I have already commented on the likely impact on the market under Amendment 1. As I mentioned earlier, the noble Baroness referred to changes to the law in Scotland, which was very different in the important matter of rent controls. I met with the Scottish Housing Minister during the recent British-Irish Council and discussed this with him in order to learn lessons from what happened in Scotland.
The English Private Landlord Survey shows that 83% of landlords have four properties or fewer. Accepting this amendment would mean fixed terms remaining available for half of all tenancies. This would clearly fly in the face of what this Bill is trying to achieve. It would definitely break the manifesto commitment that we have already clearly set out and which we stand by.
It is also important to clarify that retaining fixed terms would not preserve the Section 21 eviction process, although this is a common misconception. Nor would it automatically retain the accelerated court procedure used for Section 21 claims, which allows cases to proceed without a hearing. If this amendment were accepted, landlords would still be required to seek possession using one of the grounds in Section 8 of the Housing Act 1988, for which the accelerated court procedure is not available. The removal of Section 21 evictions is the cornerstone of this legislation, and the Government will not accept its reintroduction to reduce court costs or for any other purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, was a Minister in the last Government. I remind him that his Government also had the policy of removing Section 21 evictions. The noble Lord must have had a memory lapse in the Chamber this afternoon.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, referred to the cost of court possession hearings for smaller landlords. We are confident that the Bill does not levy unfair new costs on landlords. However, it is reasonable to expect landlords to ensure that their business model covers the possible cost of possession cases proceeding through court. The current accelerated court procedure is not a guarantee of avoiding court proceedings or the associated costs.
I will comment briefly on the points made by the noble Lord—
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Can the Minister give us a rough estimate of the legal costs of repossessing a flat on the grounds of non-payment of rent, from beginning to end of the proceedings?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sure the noble Lord has a figure in mind. I will write to him; as he would expect, I do not have that figure at my fingertips.
The availability of court hearings is vital for tenants’ access to justice, especially in the new system whereby landlords must always evidence that grounds are met. We are working closely with our colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and HM Courts & Tribunals Service to make the possession process more efficient and easier to understand. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, made a very good point. It can be difficult for both landlord and tenant to understand the process. They may be deterred from accessing the legal redress to which they are entitled because of difficulties in understanding how it works.
We are also committed to digitising the process. I can reassure the noble Lord that we are working closely with the MoJ to make sure that the justice system is fully prepared to implement the Renters’ Rights Bill once enacted. I am not going to guarantee end-to-end digitisation of the whole court system—that is way beyond my remit in this Chamber—but we are working on it in relation to renters’ rights. This includes a commitment to digitising the county court possession process to create a modern, efficient service for court users. I was reassured to find that this is being built on to an existing system, rather than being created from scratch. Work is proceeding at pace on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Will all these changes to the court system, and digitisation, be totally in place before this part of the Bill is enacted?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I was just about to respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, which may answer that question. As usual, we are working with the Ministry of Justice to complete a justice impact test. This will identify the additional burdens on the justice system arising from new policies in the Renters’ Rights Bill, and it will ensure that the system is fully prepared for any increase in workload. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness.
Lord Empey (UUP)
The Minister made the valid point that tenants with different landlords should not be treated differently. If a landlord owns 30 or 40 properties, and one or two are caught in a dispute and no rent for them is coming in, that is manageable; but if they own only one or two properties, 100% or 50% of their income goes. I accept that the Minister has a valid point about the treatment of tenants; but given that the majority of landlords own single or small properties, there is a specific issue. Can the Minister say whether she has had any communication with local authorities? They are the people who would have to pick up the pieces if there is a diminution in supply. Has the Minister given any consideration to that?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will respond to that in two ways. First, the work that has been done on the court system is both for landlords and tenants. We want it to work for both sides, so that when a landlord needs to seek possession they can do that quickly. I think any landlord’s business model should account for the possibility of a slight break in rental payment, but obviously we want to resolve these issues as quickly as possible, and to do the same for the tenants. There needs to be quick access to recourse if they need it, and we will do that.
Secondly, in respect to the point about local authorities, I have covered extensively the Government’s assessment of whether this will have an impact on supply issues. I reiterate that the Bill’s impact assessment has received a green rating from the Regulatory Policy Committee. We do not believe there will be a sustained or significant impact on supply, but we will monitor that very carefully once the Bill is passed.
I hope I have answered all noble Lords’ points on this but, for the reasons I have set out, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Again, I apologise to the Minister. First, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that it is not a wrecking amendment but one trying to find a workable solution that does not potentially destroy the private renters’ market as the only people who will suffer from that will be tenants in the future.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and to my noble friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Murray of Blidworth for their thoughtful and constructive insights into how we deal with this issue. Across the Committee there is clearly a shared ambition to improve the private rented sector for tenants, and I believe today’s discussion has shown that doing so must include supporting the landlords who make the sector possible.
As I set out earlier, Amendment 8 is a carefully considered proposal aimed at safeguarding the position of small landlords—those who let fewer than five properties and who make up the overwhelming majority of the sector. These are not large-scale investors or corporations. They are individuals, often couples, pensioners or families, who rent out a single property or two as a way of securing long-term stability for themselves. This amendment is not about undermining tenant protections. It is about recognising that those protections will be meaningful only if the rental homes remain available in the first place.
The removal of Section 21 without adequate alternatives risks pushing small landlords out of the market. As we have heard, this is not hypothetical, it is already happening. Once again, I will talk about Scotland, because I do not believe—and nor do the people in the industry who I have spoken to—that this was just about rent control. In Scotland, it has been made clear what can happen when reforms are introduced without properly accounting for market balance. There has been a sharp reduction in landlord numbers, escalating rents and a shrinking supply of rental homes. This is not the future we want in England for our tenants and is exactly what this amendment seeks to prevent.
Recent findings from the Paragon Bank, based on a survey of over 500 landlords, reinforce this concern for us. An alarming 65% of respondents indicated that they are now more likely to scale back their property holdings as a direct result of current and proposed reforms. This is a clear indication of the potential real-world consequences of the Bill if the needs of small landlords are not adequately considered. Amendment 8 offers a modest but vital safeguard. It enables the Government’s reforms to proceed while providing breathing space for the small-scale landlords who play such a crucial role in meeting the housing needs of this country.
To conclude, I urge the Minister to listen carefully to the issues raised in this group and to give serious consideration to Amendment 8, not as a dilution of the Bill’s aims but as a necessary and constructive contribution to its long-term success. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for moving the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and I thank the noble Lords, Lord Carrington, Lord Jackson and Lord Truscott, for their thoughtful interventions in this debate.
Amendment 9 would retain fixed terms in the future assured tenancy system. Landlords and tenants would be able to agree to include a fixed term in tenancy agreements under which the landlord could not use the grounds for selling, occupation or redevelopment or increase the rent during the fixed period. Amendment 13 would remove the restriction on varying or adding new tenancy terms covering fixed terms or rent periods. I have already set out today why the Government will not accept amendments that would reintroduce fixed terms. I hate to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on the Damascene conversion front, but that is not for me today. Allowing the option of fixed terms only creates the illusion of choice for tenants. In an oversubscribed market, tenants often feel they must sign what is required of them by landlords.
The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, referred to groupthink, with reference to fixed-term tenancies and the purpose of the Bill. I prefer to refer to democracy. We set out an intention in relation to renters’ rights and received a strong electoral mandate for that, which we are now putting in place. So it is not groupthink; it is a democratic mandate that we have to deliver what we have set out in the Bill.
Fixed terms do not place equal requirements on both parties. In reality, landlords retain the ability to end the tenancy when the tenant is at fault, but tenants cannot leave the tenancy for any reason, even if the property is not safe to live in.
The amendments would also create a legal ambiguity about what new contractual terms could cover. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, raised the issues of rural tenancies—I know we will return to that in future groups—and investors, on which I have already commented so I will not repeat my comments around that. For the reasons that I have set out here and in previous debates, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the thoughtful contributions made by my noble friend Lord Jackson and the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Truscott, and for the response from the Minister.
What has emerged from this discussion is a shared recognition that flexibility and tenant protection need not be opposing forces. That is a view held not just within this Chamber; across the housing sector, there is broad concern that eliminating the ability for landlords and tenants to enter fixed-term agreements by mutual consent risks overlooking the real-world complexities of today’s rental market. Propertymark has warned that fixed-term tenancies—when agreed freely—offer tenants a sense of security and help landlords to plan with certainty. It notes that these arrangements are particularly valued by renters with lower incomes, as they offer both predictability and peace of mind.
However, we must not overlook that predictability is just as important for landlords. When there is a clear start and end date, both parties benefit from a secure timeline. For tenants, that means a guaranteed period of stability. For landlords, it means reliable income and the ability to plan financially without the fear of an abrupt vacancy. By contrast, rolling tenancies without the option of a mutually agreed fixed term introduce a level of uncertainty. Tenants may leave with just two months’ notice, potentially leaving landlords with no income and limited time to find a new occupant. This kind of unpredictability is not just inconvenient; it undermines the landlord’s confidence and may discourage future investment in the sector, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, mentioned, given the difficulty of getting buy-to-let mortgages.
These concerns are not hypothetical. In a recent survey of more than 900 landlords, nearly two-thirds said they planned to leave the sector, reduce their portfolio or shift towards short-term or holiday lets, citing this Bill as a central reason. A key concern on this side of the House is the availability of rental property. We remain concerned, and we have not received assurances from the Minister on that score. Many feel that their voices have not been heard during this process and their legitimate concerns have been too easily dismissed.
Of course we must listen to those who raise valid concerns about the historical misuse of certain tenancy models, but these amendments are not about reinstating the past. They are about creating a future where arrangements are respected and supported. This is not about rebalancing the system in favour of landlords but about recognising that trust and stability can emerge where both parties are empowered to agree terms that reflect their own needs.
We cannot afford to ignore the very real concern that excessive rigidity will push landlords out of the market and make it more difficult for tenants, leaving behind a smaller, less responsive and more expensive private rented sector. If a student, contract worker or family navigating a temporary relocation agree on a fixed term that suits both parties, should we really prevent that flexibility? That is precisely what Amendments 9 and 13 in my name seek to preserve. The ability to fix a term by agreement, or to vary the terms of a tenancy, where both parties consent, reflects the real needs of the modern, mobile and diverse rental landscape. It ensures that, where there is mutual understanding, the law does not become an unnecessary barrier.
I say again that this is not about exceptions to the Bill’s purpose but about contributions to it. The right to housing includes the right to enter into fair agreements that are mutual, transparent and freely chosen. That is also why I have included a probing amendment on why the Government are seeking to end certain types of assured tenancy. I hope the Minister will give these proposals the careful consideration that they deserve. There will still be time for a Damascene conversion as the Bill proceeds. I thank all noble Lords for the richness of today’s debate. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly from these Benches, in part to spare my noble friend’s voice—I assure noble Lords that no wine has been taken this evening.
I will stress something that is beginning to cause confusion on these Benches: the suggestion that an assured shorthold tenancy is in some way secure. It has been well documented over many years that huge insecurity is attached to an assured shorthold tenancy. Everything that we have learned about the huge turnover has for so many tenants been attached to the fact that ASTs are sometimes down to six months. A periodic tenancy—which has no end—is surely more secure than these fragile assured shorthold tenancies, which are often for only six months and cause huge insecurity for so many tenants. For that reason, these Benches are extremely concerned about the current direction of travel.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. Indeed, it follows on very neatly from our earlier debate on fixed-term tenancies. My noble friends Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Moynihan made compelling arguments for why we should permit fixed-term tenancies for both professional athletes and police officers. The benefits were set out with conviction and clarity, and I hope the Government Benches have listened. Of course, I would prefer that fixed-term tenancies continued to be available for everyone.
I will not rehearse the arguments made earlier, but does not the growing list of amendments seeking exemptions highlight the real value that fixed-term tenancies offer, supporting people from all walks of life, from athletes to police officers and everyone in between? Nurses, doctors, students, military personnel and even performers can all benefit from a fixed-term tenancy. The Government should consider these benefits. In removing fixed terms altogether, the Bill risks taking away short-term lets that serve as a real benefit for many thousands of people.
I turn to the Minister’s Amendment 59, which expands ground 5C to account for police officers. These Benches understand the importance of an employer’s need to regain possession of rented property if the tenancy is linked to a tenant’s employment. I thank the Minister for setting out details of the amendment.
Finally, I wish to note Amendment 62, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I thank him for the chat we had about it, because I had no idea that this happened within the Church of England. Enabling a debate on possession for the purposes of housing a person leaving tied accommodation is most welcome. This is an important issue, as it ensures that a landlord, who is often also the employer, can regain possession of a property when it is needed to house a new employee, but also—as in the case of the Church of England—allows the Church to regain a property that is required for the retiring employee. We must recognise the value of maintaining the availability of essential employment-linked housing, and consider how best to safeguard it in practice. Additionally, we must not discourage landlords from helping tenants by giving them extra time to move out, providing references or offering alternative housing, especially in sectors such as education or farming—or, indeed, in the Church.
This debate has encapsulated the depth and breadth of the Bill, and the numerous areas that it covers. A modern, dynamic workforce needs the freedom to move, adapt and pursue opportunities wherever they arise. We must have a laser focus on occupational needs when considering any changes to the rental market.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, before I respond to these amendments, I congratulate Leeds United on their promotion to the Premier League. They are not my team, but what an achievement. We were all shouting when they got through the other day, so well done to Leeds. I have several close friends who are Leeds supporters, and they will be listening to that with interest.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Moynihan, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for their amendments, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Scott, for their comments. These amendments are on fixed terms and occupational possession grounds. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, is quite right to highlight the insecurity of assured shorthold tenancies. They are not secure tenancies, and I do not accept that it is better for tenants to have a fixed-term tenancy than a periodic tenancy, which is theirs until they decide to end it and give the necessary two months’ notice.
I will start with Amendment 10 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and Amendment 11 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. These would retain fixed terms where the property is let to any ranking serving police officer and to professional athletes. As with Amendment 7, the Government believe tenants should not have reduced flexibility and greater financial obligation because of their personal circumstances. I am not convinced there is any case for police officers, who put themselves on the front line in the service of others, to benefit any less from the new tenancy regime. I do not think the case for that has been made.
We have heard concerns about ensuring provision of housing for the police, and that is why government Amendment 59 amends possession ground 5C to ensure it is available to police forces and others who provide accommodation for their officers. This will allow landlords to take possession where a tenancy was granted to an officer in relation to their service in the office of constable, and the tenancy is no longer required for the purpose for which it was granted. I do not consider it necessary to retain fixed terms in addition to this.
Needless to say, we all want to see the UK’s excellent professional athletes succeed in their endeavours. The whole Committee is aware of the sporting achievements of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and his advocacy and service on behalf of British sport. However, it would seem a shame to lock athletes into fixed terms, which might prevent them moving around the country in pursuit of sporting greatness. We would not want to do that. However, if an athlete is in accommodation provided by their employer, then ground 5C would apply and the tenancy could be ended, as necessary.
Amendment 62, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, seeks to create two new grounds for possession. The first, new ground 8A, would enable a landlord to seek possession from an existing tenant in order to re-let that dwelling to a former employee—of the landlord, we assume—who was housed in accommodation tied to their role. It would also apply to other types of workers, such as officeholders. I appreciate the aim of the right reverend Prelate’s amendment and, following engagement with bishops, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, we are sympathetic and understand that the Church wishes to house retired clergy. However, after very careful consideration, I genuinely believe this should not be at the expense of existing tenants. We have already created expanded or strengthened possession grounds to cover situations—such as housing employees or evicting tenants to use the dwelling as supported accommodation—where we believe that the needs of those involved can be deemed to overrule the general principle that renters deserve security of tenure and should be able to put down roots in their long-term homes.
We are not of the view that housing a former employee of the landlord meets the bar to overrule the general principle that private renters should have secure homes. In order to house the former employee, another tenant would need to be evicted, through no fault of their own, placing them in the position of needing to find a new home. This simply moves the problem around. As such, we are content that the current grounds strike the right balance.
The second proposed ground, 8B, seeks to enable possession of a tenanted property so it can be relet to a surviving spouse, civil partner or dependant of a person described in the previous proposed ground who died before being required to vacate the accommodation linked to their role. Although I appreciate the reasons behind wanting to help people in these circumstances, again, this proposed new ground would mean an existing tenant could be evicted through no fault of their own, simply moving the problem around and creating more insecurity for more tenants. For the reasons I have set out, I ask that noble Lords not press their amendments.