Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed. This is what makes this House so good at these sorts of debates, because expertise from all parts of this debate has been shown today.
These amendments draw attention to the housing circumstances of non-traditional tenures, in particular residential boat dwellers, mobile home residents and members of the Travelling communities. These are individuals and families whose housing arrangements, as we have heard, do not always align neatly with the frameworks established for the private rented sector.
The amendments in this group, most notably those from the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, raise legitimate questions, from the proposal to classify mooring fees and site fees as rent, to calls for formal reviews on how this legislation impacts riverboat dwellers, mobile home residents, and Gypsy and Traveller communities. The amendments ask us to think carefully about the scope and reach of the Renters’ Rights Bill. We on these Benches recognise that individuals living in houseboats, in mobile homes and on Traveller sites often face unique vulnerabilities, and we must be cautious not to exclude them from appropriate protections.
At the same time, it is essential that we examine whether the legislative instruments proposed in the Bill are the right fit for these circumstances, or whether we risk introducing unintended consequences for landlords, licensing authorities, the Canal & River Trust, which manages our waterways, or even the residents themselves. One of the questions here is whether the current legal definitions, such as “dwelling house” and “rent”, are suitable for application to mobile structures or moorings, as we have heard. However, we must also consider the interests and views of different Traveller communities. Have the Government undertaken proper consultation with these communities? Do they, in fact, want to be brought into the scope of this legislation, and on what terms? We must avoid legislating for communities without engaging with them first.
As we have heard today, particularly from my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, these amendments do not seek sweeping or immediate change—rather, they propose reviews and clarifications—but even the suggestion of classifying moorings or site fees as rent could trigger significant changes to how the law treats these tenures. This could introduce unintended complexity for landlords, many of whom are small-scale, and lead to disputes where the legal framework is unclear or even inapplicable. More work needs to be done on this issue, in our opinion. As my noble friend said, that has already been promised by the Government. Finally, we must ask whether there is a clear and compelling case for bringing these non-traditional tenures within the scope of the legislation, or whether doing so risks creating unintended consequences for both the tenants and the landlords.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I first express my appreciation for starting these debates at a reasonable time today. We have been getting later and later, so I am very pleased. I hope that we finish them at a reasonable time as well.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for their amendments relating to non-traditional tenures, and all who have contributed to this debate. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in saying that it shows the best of this House when you get expertise like that from across the Chamber, from the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller, Lady Bakewell and Lady Warwick, the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Best, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and, of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, herself.
I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness who have amendments in this group for their very helpful engagement on the issues they raised. Before I give my responses to the amendments, I say that I truly understand the frustrations felt by both of them, and those on whose behalf they speak, that these issues have not been addressed by successive Governments. Although I do not believe the Bill is the vehicle to address those issues, as I expect they will have anticipated from our meetings, I will continue to work with them to seek appropriate solutions to the issues they have raised.
I turn first to Amendments 206A, 262 and 271, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. I thank the noble Lord for raising concerns about difficulties faced by houseboat owners in general and the houseboat owners in Chelsea who he has talked to me about in the past. Amendment 206A would give those who own or rent a houseboat and use the boat as their main residence the same rights under Part 1 of the Bill as renters of residential buildings. Although occupants of residential boats may benefit from some protection under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 and some wider consumer protection legislation, the Government recognise that they do not enjoy the same level of tenure security as those in the private rented sector.
However, the Renters’ Rights Bill focuses on the law relating to rented homes, not owner-occupiers, and the tenancy reform measures in Part 1 focus on the assured tenancy regime, which applies to most private renters in England and relates to residential buildings. The assured tenancy regime does not apply to houseboats or other moveable property—an issue to which the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred in his intervention. Those in rented houseboats will have a licence to occupy the boat and will fall outside the assured tenancy regime that the Bill is concerned with.
Specifically on Amendment 262, as houseboats are predominantly owner-occupied—I understand that some are rented but they are mostly owner-occupied—and do not fall within the assured tenancy regime, it is therefore unlikely that a review of the impact of the Bill’s provisions would provide significant new insights into the issues affecting houseboat owners. Additionally, bringing houseboats within the scope of the assured tenancy regime, as proposed by Amendment 271, would raise fundamental and complex issues, about which I will explain a bit more in a moment, including what security of tenure means in relation to a chattel as opposed to land, and what the potential implications for moorings owners and navigation authorities might be.
The policy and legislative implications would be far-reaching and there would be a high chance of unintended consequences, as indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. The Government’s priority is to ensure the smooth and successful implementation of the measures in the Bill that are before the Committee today. On that basis, although I am very sympathetic to the noble Lord’s aims, I cannot support these amendments as they stand.
The Government will, however, continue to engage with parliamentarians and stakeholders on the complex issues about houseboats that the noble Lord has rightly and powerfully helped to highlight. The issues and history raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, illustrated some of the complications in resolving these issues. I will add that providing additional security of tenure to houseboat owners would require engagement with a range of stakeholders, including more than 20 navigation authorities and the owners of land adjoining waterways, and that is just part of the complication here.
I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said there was a working group 19 years ago in which my noble friend Lady Smith took part. I can say only that we have not been in government for the last 14 years so it has been difficult to move any of this forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to security of tenure. As I said, providing additional security of tenure to houseboat owners would require the engagement of those navigation authorities and owners of land, and other users of waterways will have different needs and requirements that would also need to be taken into account. Security of tenure under the Housing Act 1988 applies to tenancies of buildings and land, so would not be suitable for licences to occupy boats without significant amendment. To bring rented houseboats within the scope of the legislation would require a detailed assessment of the implications for the assured tenancy regime and the changes being introduced through the Renters’ Rights Bill and other legislation that refers to it, and, as I said before, a high chance of unintended consequences.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to unfair practice on mobile home sites. My email inbox indicates very much what some of those complications are, but I will talk about the mobile homes amendments now.
I thank my noble friend Lady Whitaker for her work to ensure that the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community has a safe and secure place to live. I have had a number of conversations with my noble friend since I joined this House, and she knows that I share her concerns about some of the issues that she raises. She and I have had many discussions about this, particularly about the standards of communal facilities provided on sites occupied by the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community. We understand the concerns and will continue to engage with parliamentarians and stakeholders on the complex issues about standards on those sites. For those sites owned and operated by local authorities, there is of course recourse both to the local authority’s complaints system and, if that is not successful, to the Local Government Ombudsman, although I appreciate that there are some unique difficulties for those communities in accessing those routes.
Amendment 206B would give those who own a caravan and use it as their main residence the same rights under Part 1 of the Bill as renters of residential buildings. That would include those who already have protections under the Mobile Homes Act 1983. For similar reasons to those that I have already set out in my response to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, while I am sympathetic to the difficulties faced by mobile home owners, a different approach to addressing those difficulties is necessary from that proposed by this amendment. There would be a high risk of unintended consequences if an attempt were made to extend rights under Part 1 of the Bill, which is about rented homes, to mobile home owners.
The noble Baroness mentioned that the Mobile Homes Act 1983 confers on mobile home pitch agreements the key characteristics of a tenancy, rather than merely a licence to occupy. While there may be some similarities between the terms implied by the 1983 Act and the terms of certain tenancy agreements, the fact remains that those occupying pitches on caravan sites only have a licence to occupy the pitch. They have no interest in the land, and there would still be no intention by the site owner to create a tenancy between the parties. Moreover, the pitch agreement does not relate to the occupation of the mobile home itself, just the pitch on which it stands. In that sense, a pitch agreement and a secure or assured tenancy are fundamentally different types of agreement. To bring those with Mobile Home Act 1983 agreements within the scope of the assured tenancy regime, as proposed by Amendment 206B, would raise fundamental and complex issues, including what “security of tenure” means in relation to a chattel as opposed to land, and what the potential implications for caravan site owners might be.
Amendment 275A would commit the Government to carrying out a review of the implications of not extending the provisions of the Act to the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community. Again, while I am most sympathetic to my noble friend’s aims, I cannot support the amendment as mobile homes are predominantly owner-occupied and do not fall within the assured tenancy regime, which the Renters’ Rights Bill is largely focused on. However, I understand and will further consider her points about the amenity blocks and how those issues may be addressed.
In addition, as the Renters’ Rights Bill is focused on the law relating to rented homes, it is unlikely that a review of the impact of the provisions in the Bill will provide significant new insights into the issues affecting mobile home owners. The Government’s priority is to ensure the smooth and successful implementation of the measures that are before the Committee today.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes why definitions which determine who is subject to housing laws, rights, and responsibilities can be amended by regulations.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this group contains just one amendment, Amendment 206C, which stands in my name. This amendment probes why definitions that determine who is subject to housing laws, rights and responsibilities can be amended by regulation. This is yet another part of the Bill that is subject to change at the discretion of the Secretary of State.
Definitions in law are important. In this instance, the ability to change the definition of “private landlord”, “relevant tenancy” and “dwelling” for the purposes of determining which tenancies fall within the scope of the landlord redress scheme and the PRS database is a significant and fundamental power. Will the Minister say why the Government have sought to grant themselves this power through the affirmative procedure rather than through primary legislation? If the intent of these regulations is merely to clarify the position of superior landlords in certain circumstances, surely such clarification is best achieved through a full parliamentary process, one in which your Lordships’ House and the other place can explore the specifics and nuances of niche tenures such as student accommodation or temporary lets.
The Government have committed to lay these regulations as soon as possible following Royal Assent. We are aware that there are to be no transitional arrangements included in the Bill. In previous debates, we urged the Government to reconsider this approach and affirm their long-standing commitment to prospective lawmaking by providing clear commencement dates and reasonable transition periods for all new obligations. This would help protect both tenants and landlords from the risks associated with abrupt and unfair change. However, the Government were clear that they did not share this view. Despite that, can the Minister confirm when these regulations might come into force? Importantly, how are they going to be communicated to the affected parties given the absence of transitional arrangements? Like many aspects of this Bill, this provision is concerning, particularly given the lack of detail in the Bill. This is part of a growing trend from this Government, a pattern in not just this Bill but across others too. I hope we are not going into this, “We will commit now, but do later”. I beg to move.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend very strongly. I declare my interest, as I have done before, as a Suffolk farmer who has converted redundant agricultural buildings into dwellings. It is all still part of the farming operation.
I have already warned the Government that they are in danger of relying on statutory instruments, Henry VIII clauses and subsidiary legislation for what will be primary legislation. The purpose of the Parliament is to legislate, in the first instance, primary legislation. The House of Lords, with its careful scrutiny of statutory instruments, has a particular role and record in doing this. So, this particular Bill is going, in any case, to have a lot of unanswered questions. We are going to try to ask most of those questions and get the Government to face up and give us the answers because it is a very bad principle of legislation for a Government to say, “Oh, we’ll leave that to the courts”, or something like that. That is not what legislating is about. It is important that we do not unnecessarily add into potential secondary legislation what should be primary legislation.
The Government have got to take this very seriously because this is a long and difficult Bill which has many dangers in it and ahead of it, not least—and I shall probably say this again—because the private rented sector plays an important part in the provision of housing. The provision of housing was one of the objectives of the previous Government and of this Government. It is also part of generating economic growth, which the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have repeatedly told us is their priority. I beg the Government to be more rigid and dissective in their thinking before rushing ahead with this legislation.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Scott on the Front Bench and reiterate her very strong arguments and those from my noble friend Lord Marlesford just now.
We have seen a quite significant trend since the general election of the Government seeking to award themselves very wide-ranging, permissive powers in primary legislation with very little detail. That is a significant concern. Certainly, if the boot was on the other foot and a Conservative Government had brought forward a clause such as Clause 64, where we are being invited to take on trust the expeditious post-dated production of a statutory instrument and regulations, the party now in government would, quite rightly, have complained about that.
If we look at the detail, this is an extremely wide-ranging amendment. Clause 64(4)(b) talks about “relevant tenancy” and the adding or removal of any particular kind of relevant tenancy. On “dwelling”, paragraph (c) states,
“in addition to a building or part of a building, it includes any other structure, vehicle or vessel”,
and
“includes a building or part of a building, and anything for the time being included in the meaning of ‘dwelling’”.
That is a very wide definition to be in a Bill when we have an open-ended commitment to produce regulations without any date.
I think, and have said before, that the idea of retrospective legislation is poor. In a different context at the beginning of Committee in your Lordships’ House I mentioned this issue. It is very worrying that there is no opportunity for a period of amelioration and getting used to the regulations.
Finally, given all that, the chance of significant instances of litigation arising from this clause are pretty high, I would think. For those reasons, is the Minister able to write to noble Lords before Report at least to give an indication of when those regulations are likely to be published to reassure your Lordships’ House that this a one-off in terms of how wide and permissive these powers are? Frankly, it is not good enough. It does not allow us to analyse properly the efficacy of the policy and the likely impact it will have on any litigation for both landlords and tenants. I hope the Minister is able to take those issues on board.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendment regarding the definition of a landlord and thank the noble Lords, Lord Marlesford and Lord Jackson, for participating. Amendment 206C seeks to remove subsection (4) of Clause 64. This would mean that amendments to the definitions of “relevant tenancy”, “residential landlord” and “dwelling” set out in the Bill could not be made by regulations. This would affect Part 2, which includes the redress and database provisions.
I fully agree that any changes to the definition of those who bear responsibilities and benefit from rights under this legislation should be made with proper consideration. The definition of “residential landlord” under Clause 64 of this Bill has been drafted with care to capture the majority of typical private tenancies in England. However, the private rented sector has proven itself to be dynamic. I am sorry to say that the unscrupulous use of complicated arrangements, such as certain types of rent-to-rent schemes, has demonstrated the need for flexibility in how we define who is, or is not, in scope of private landlord redress or the database. We are also aware that other forms of occupation, such as occupation under licence, may benefit from the Part 2 protections in the future. A strong case may be made for expanding who is protected if certain arrangements proliferate following the implementation of the Bill.
Our focus at this time, however, must be on getting our reforms right for the millions living in typical private tenancies, rather than extending the redress and database provisions to other kinds of residential occupier whose needs and circumstances may be quite different from the majority. We have included a power to change the scope of Part 2 by regulations in the future if it is considered appropriate. The reason is that the introduction of mandatory landlord redress for the first time is a significant undertaking. The definition of “residential landlord” has been drafted, as I said, to capture the majority of tenancies. We have retained the flexibility to change the scope of rental agreements covered by the database and ombudsman in the future, should that be deemed necessary.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I particularly thank my noble friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Marlesford for their support on what we consider a very important amendment. I also thank the Minister, although I am surprised at her response on having a period of time to get communications in place. I will look back in Hansard but I think that, on a previous group, it was suggested that the implementation would come quite quickly after Royal Assent. If that is the case, I would quite like to know what the timings would be—whether it would be weeks or months—as and when those things are known.
On these Benches, we of course recognise that the Secretary of State should be afforded certain powers to deliver the content of legislation. However, the Government possibly have not fully considered the scale and scope of these regulatory powers, nor the level of trust that landlords, tenants and legislators must place in the Secretary of State on this issue. This is not about questioning the intentions of the Minister or others; rather, it is to suggest that significant changes should be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny, and that both your Lordships’ House and the other place should be given the opportunity to fulfil their constitutional role—quite honestly, that is the reason we are here.
I believe that what the Minister was saying is that these powers are necessary, but I did not hear compelling justification for why that is the case. Perhaps at a later stage we might, as I said, have more information on this and the Minister might be able to give a better explanation and I would be very happy to have that in writing. However, at this point, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hacking and the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Thornhill, for their amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for moving the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.
Before I turn to the amendments, I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, advised of her opposition to having Clause 65 stand part of the Bill. Clause 65 gives the Secretary of State power by regulations to require residential landlords to be members of a private landlord redress scheme. I note her concern over placing a legal requirement on landlords to join a redress scheme. However, having no legal obligation on landlords to do so means retaining the status quo, in which a very small minority of private landlords choose voluntarily to sign up to a redress scheme. I believe only around 100 landlords out of the 2.3 million in the country joined a previous voluntary scheme.
This lottery for private tenants is wholly unfair, particularly as those renting in the social sector have enjoyed universal access to landlord redress through the Housing Ombudsman service for decades. This Bill makes it clear that being a residential landlord is a serious commitment, which most landlords understand, and that it carries responsibilities and obligations towards a tenant. For those who do not understand this, we need to make it clear through the Bill.
Placing a legal requirement on landlords to be part of a redress scheme is necessary and key to delivering a long-promised government commitment. Access to justice for tenants should be not at the discretion of landlords but built into the new tenancy system, promoting high-quality, safe and secure privately rented homes.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I start with the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking— I hope he is going to carry on saying “Hear, hear!” as I go through his amendments.
Amendment 207 would place a duty on the Government to lay regulations requiring residential landlords to be members of a landlord redress scheme, rather than giving them discretion to do so. I understand why my noble friend has put in this amendment and I reassure him that the Government are committed to requiring private landlords to become members of an ombudsman as soon as it is practicable to do so. However, it would not be beneficial to the sector for the Secretary of State to be obliged to require landlords to join an ombudsman scheme before being assured that it is ready to join. We have taken powers in the Bill to allow the Government to make sure that the ombudsman is introduced in the most effective way, with the appropriate sequencing. This will make sure the ombudsman scheme is ready to deliver a high- quality service at the point that landlords are required to join it.
Amendment 210 seeks to set out in legislation that only one redress scheme can operate in the private rented sector at any time. Amendment 216 similarly seeks to remove the ability to set out in regulations the number of redress schemes that can operate in the private rented sector at any one time. It is indeed our intention to approve a single redress scheme, as my noble friend outlined, which all private landlords will be required to join. However, as my noble friend has noted, the legislation allows at the moment for more than one scheme. There are an estimated 2.3 million landlords operating in England, letting their properties to 11 million tenants. Allowing for multiple schemes in legislation offers the Government the flexibility and assurance that, should demand for redress prove too much for a single provider to handle effectively, additional schemes could be brought into this space to take over some of the load.
This approach to allowing for the possibility of multiple schemes has precedent: for instance, in the Housing Act 1996, which makes provision for social housing redress as delivered by the Housing Ombudsman. It is therefore vital that the Government can set out in regulations the number of redress schemes that they will approve or designate for the private rented sector. This will allow the Government to set a limit at first of one scheme, with the assurance that this is not set in stone, should demand for redress prove too much for a single provider to handle effectively.
Amendment 214 would make it a statutory requirement for the private rented sector landlord ombudsman scheme to enable access to the service through offline routes. I fully agree with my noble friend on the importance of ensuring that those who cannot or do not wish to use a computer are still able to engage with the service and access redress. I am pleased to reassure the Committee that the Government intend to ensure that the scheme is accessible, including to those who require offline access. We will expect the new ombudsman service, regardless of whether administered by a public or private body, to meet the same set of high standards for accessibility as outlined in the government service standard and accessibility requirements for public sector bodies. There will be further opportunities for the Government to ensure that this is the case without amending the Bill.
Amendment 215 would expand the role of the private rented sector landlord ombudsman to provide support for tenants with housing-related problems that are outside of their landlord’s control, such as issues with employment, welfare or debt; I found the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about piecemeal amendments to the welfare system, as I think he called them, a little ironic in view of where we find ourselves with the welfare system. This amendment would be an additional responsibility for the ombudsman not directly linked to resolving disputes. We think that it is important that we focus on the main function of the ombudsman, rather than considering other functions that may slow down implementation or direct resource away from delivering against the core purpose of the redress service.
We recognise, of course, that tenants facing housing-related employment, welfare and debt problems should have access to support. It may be appropriate for the ombudsman to signpost tenants to, for instance, their local authority, Citizens Advice or tenant advocacy charities, but we do not think that any amendment is necessary for that to take place. For these reasons, I kindly ask my noble friend Lord Hacking to consider not moving his amendments.
I turn now to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. Amendment 208 would exempt landlords from being required to join the private landlord ombudsman if they use a property agent who is a member of another approved independent redress scheme. We cannot have a situation where tenants have no route to redress for problems that are outside an agent’s control, such as where a landlord refuses to authorise large repair works or behaves badly toward the tenant. This is why we think that it is fair that landlords, including those who use a managing agent, can be held accountable if they have failed to resolve a tenant’s complaint satisfactorily.
We take seriously the noble Baroness’s concerns about duplication. Careful consideration will be given, during the implementation process, as to how the PRS landlord ombudsman service will interact with the agent redress provision. Our primary concern is that the service works effectively for landlords and tenants so that tenants can access redress where needed and treated fairly by the system, regardless of whether their landlord uses an agent.
Amendment 210A seeks to prevent regulations under Clause 65 requiring landlords to remain members of the redress scheme for a specified period after they cease to be residential landlords. Problems can occur for tenants at any point in the rental process, right up to the very end; in fact, the end of a tenancy can be an extremely stressful time for both landlord and tenant, with a lot of scope for things to go wrong as a landlord takes back possession of their property. Requiring landlords to remain members of the ombudsman for a reasonable amount of time once they have stopped being a landlord gives tenants the opportunity to seek redress for harm or inconvenience caused at the end of their tenancy.
As part of the implementation process, we will work with stakeholders to ensure that the period of time for which former landlords are required to remain members of the scheme is appropriate and proportionate. I assure the House that we are committed to ensuring that landlords who choose to leave the sector can exit the ombudsman scheme as quickly as possible; this is not a “Hotel California” ombudsman where you can check out but never leave. However, this needs to be balanced with giving tenants sufficient time for issues to come to light and for them to escalate complaints after their tenancy has ended.
Amendment 210B seeks to require a draft of the landlord redress regulations under Clause 65 to be published within six months of Royal Assent. We agree that transparency is important, and we are committed to giving the sector as much time as possible to prepare for the new redress requirements. However, it will be the published scheme, not the regulations—indeed, not regulations under Clause 65—that will set out how the private landlord redress scheme will operate.
We are committed to working with the sector to implement the PRS landlord ombudsman service smoothly. We intend for the details of the scheme to be published with significant lead-in time and to be piloted before landlords are required to be members. We do not think it would be right to place a legal requirement on the Secretary of State to publish draft regulations within a set time from Royal Assent. This is already a complex landscape, and work on this needs to be carefully thought through. Delivering it in a rush could be counterproductive, creating more problems down the line.
Amendment 212A seeks to remove the requirement for the redress scheme to provide for the appointment of a responsible individual to oversee the investigation and determination of complaints under the scheme. This individual will likely be known as the private landlord ombudsman. We believe that clear accountability is important to promote good performance. Responsibility and authority for oversight of the complaints handling process under a scheme must lie with a single accountable person. This is common practice across other redress schemes and we believe it is right that it should be the case for the private landlord ombudsman. We will set out in the regulations the process for appointing the responsible individual for the redress scheme.
“(2A) A scheme must not be approved or designated under subsection (2)(b) unless it satisfies the conditions set out in regulations made under section 66(2).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that a landlord redress scheme must not be approved or designated by the Secretary of State for that purpose unless the scheme meets the conditions set out in regulations made under clause 66(2).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the Secretary of State is not required to make regulations under clause 65 before making regulations under clause 66.
Member’s explanatory statement
This ensures that a person who has been expelled from a scheme may join another scheme in appropriate circumstances.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, I will briefly comment on two amendments in this group: Amendment 233 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and Amendment 243 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, about databases. I feel that we are overlooking the need to ensure that the rogues in the system are identified and banned or punished for bad behaviour. They riddle the rented sector, I am afraid.
The database is a great attempt to give transparency and clarity to mortgagees, as in one of these amendments, to tenants and to potential tenants to check on their potential landlords. It is not responsible landlords who are the problem; it is the rogues. Rogues like to be invisible. They do not want to be detectable. They certainly do not want enforcement proceedings served against them. Enforcement must have teeth. Without real teeth, there is little point in trying to catch the rogues. The database would go a long way towards achieving that, but I fear that there is not enough determination in the Government to really punish those who are determined to cheat.
Rogues can hide their properties under the names of shelf companies. They can be registered abroad. They can have a tangled web of subsidiaries and further subsidiaries. They will make themselves as invisible and undetectable as possible. I close by simply saying that these are good amendments, but I would love to see sharper teeth in the enforceability.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for opening this group, as it marks the beginning of three vital debates on the database, which is an issue of great interest to stakeholders across the sector. There are 16 amendments in this group dealing with a range of quite complex issues relating to the database so, with the leave of the Committee, I will try to fully address the issues raised, but I might take a little extra time.
Before turning to our specific amendments and those in the wider group, I start by saying that the creation of a private rented sector database is a major change for landlords and tenants in this country. It is an opportunity to seriously improve transparency and outcomes for renters. We have expressed concerns on previous Bills about the overuse of regulation-making powers to deliver the statutory powers that the Government seek. Ministers should, we believe, set out clearly their plans in this Bill as far as is practically possible. Given the lack of detail in the clauses relating to the establishment of the database, we take this opportunity to ask the Minister to clarify the Government’s plans. If she cannot answer today, we will be very happy to have it in writing after today’s debate.
I start by addressing Amendment 228A, tabled in my name. This is a simple amendment that would ensure that the Secretary of State is required to make regulations to ensure that the database entries are regularly updated and maintained. It is essential that the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of the data be maintained if it is to be a useful resource for both tenants and for landlords. This is common sense, and this should be a requirement. I hope the Minister will agree to that. If the Government cannot accept this amendment today, will she please take this opportunity to explain why the Government feel that the Secretary of State should have discretion in this area?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hacking and Lord Best, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Thornhill, for their amendments on database operation and accessing the database, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, for their contributions. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, spoke to Amendment 230, which is in the next group, and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, spoke to Amendment 237, which is in group 6. I will respond to them when we get to those groups, if that is okay.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I apologise. I have two lists that have different numbers in them; I think they are one before the other.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
When we get to this stage of a Bill, especially when we have three or four groups on the same subject, I am not surprised that people get them mixed up.
I start by saying that I very much share the sentiments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy, Lady Thornhill and Lady Scott, about the potential of this database to support both landlords and tenants. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, clearly set out why this is important for responsible landlords as well as tenants. I am sure that landlords who do a very good job, which is the majority of them, get incredibly frustrated by the minority of rogue landlords who certainly do not and I hope that this will help them as well.
Amendment 219 from my noble friend Lord Hacking proposes that a duty be placed on the database operator to ensure that the database be established and operational within a year of the Renters’ Rights Bill coming into force. I know the database will be a vital tool in raising standards in the private rented sector. I assure my noble friend and other noble Lords who raised the issue that we are aiming for the database to be active as soon as possible.
The database is being designed as a bespoke product to ensure that it aligns with the operational and legal details set out in regulations. We are currently focusing on getting the basic functionality right, testing with the sector and local authorities and developing guidance for users. Setting a timeframe for a database in the Bill is unnecessary and could be counterproductive. We simply cannot risk it being brought in when the secondary legislation or technology is not ready. This would make life more difficult for tenants, landlords and local authorities. For this reason, I kindly ask that my noble friend considers withdrawing that amendment.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for Amendment 220, which would require the legislation to state that the database will benefit landlords, tenants, local authorities and other interested stakeholders. I assure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, who spoke to this amendment, that the database is being designed for the benefit of all potential users, including tenants, landlords and local authorities. I recognise the positive intent behind the noble Lord’s amendment. However, the Government are already working towards that and we are continuing to focus on those user groups as the database is designed. I therefore do not believe it is necessary to accept the amendment and for that reason I ask the noble Lord not to press it.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I am very happy to withdraw Amendment 219. The Minister has done magnificently. May I just say on behalf of all of us that she is doing magnificently? She stumbled for a moment just now, but it is amazing that she has not stumbled before. She is covering her brief with extreme detail, and I thank her on behalf of everybody in the Committee.
My noble friend replied to my amendment, which seeks a definite date for the establishment of the private rented sector database. In a sense, I think my amendment was unrealistic because the development of a database obviously takes time. The promise has already been made by my noble friend that they are working on that database and recognise its importance, and that fully satisfies me.
Now I am going to place a burden on my noble friend because I had not seen that Amendment 237 had been regrouped and put into another group. The Whip has told me that I am not allowed to speak again on that amendment, but is there any chance of my noble friend replying to it now, immediately after I have made the case for it?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It is more appropriate for me to respond to that amendment in order because otherwise it would make it difficult for other members of the Committee to reply to it. I shall reply to it in the sixth group, and if my noble friend cannot be in the Chamber, I shall send him a response in writing.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for opening this group. The question of what data is recorded on the database is an important one and the Government need to give the sector greater clarity on their plans. Noble Lords need only look at some of the briefings provided by lettings agencies to landlords over the past few months to grasp the level of uncertainty around this Bill. For the benefit of both renters and landlords, we need greater clarity as soon as possible. As my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook said earlier from these Benches, we believe the Government should be more ambitious. We are broadly content with the direction of travel on greater transparency, but taking this forward through regulations is leaving landlords and tenants in the dark.
We support the challenge from the noble Lord, Lord Best, to the Government on the inclusion of gas and electrical safety checks within the PRS database. Amendments 221, 224 and 227, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, all touch on this issue. The database makes use of official UPRNs and covers the full end-to-end process of property compliance, including the urgent need to mandate digital property safety certificates. This will certainly increase transparency for landlords and tenants. Including gas safety certificates and electrical installation reports would assist tenants who wish to confirm that their property is safe.
That said, we have some concerns about Amendment 227, which appears to place the burden of registering digital gas and electricity certificates on the certificate provider rather than the landlord. We do not think that responsibility should be placed on the providers without a proper impact assessment and a fuller understanding of how this would work in practical terms. Perhaps the Minister can commit to considering this proposal from the noble Lord between now and Report.
Amendment 222, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, proposes expanding the types of information or documents that are required for registration on the PRS database. I commend the noble Baroness on her thoughtful drafting. This amendment highlights further the uncertainty and lack of clarity that have arisen from the Government’s decision to place broadly drafted regulation-making powers rather than detailed provisions in the Bill to enable their plans.
Finally, on Amendments 229 and 230, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, it has already been noted that UPRNs are a universal means of identifying properties. They will be central to this system. The database should be as easy as possible to use for both renters and landlords. We accept that the noble Lord’s amendments are well intentioned and we will listen very carefully to the Minister’s response to them.
We have a separate concern. The Government do not have a strong track record on delivering large-scale IT projects. I make no political comment here. We share the concerns that have been raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, earlier, on the time that it will take to roll out this database. Can the Minister assure us that this project will be delivered—and delivered on time?
I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to these well-intentioned and constructive amendments.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Grender, for their amendments regarding which data should be recorded on the database. I also thank my noble friend Lady Kennedy, the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for their comments.
Amendment 222, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, seeks to expand Clause 76 and mandate the information that landlord and dwelling entries on the database must contain. I thank the noble Baroness for her very thoughtful amendment and for meeting with me to discuss the database in greater detail before Committee. We certainly both appreciate the potential of the database.
I reassure her that we expect to collect much of the information that is set out in Amendment 222 on the database. Detailed regulations about the making of landlord and dwelling entries in the database will be made under Clause 78(1) in due course. Our approach to data collection takes account of the balance of benefits and burdens for different users, to ensure that it remains proportionate. However, I stress that it is vital that the database is designed in such a way that it can evolve to incorporate technological innovation and changes in the sector. Although I very much understand the points made by my noble friend Lady Kennedy and the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, we do not think that, to accomplish this aim, the content of landlord and dwelling database entries should be mandated in the Bill. Rather, this detail should be set out in secondary legislation to ensure that the database can be more easily adapted to meet future circumstances.
Regarding points about when the database will be ready, we aim for the service to be operational as soon as possible following the passage of primary and secondary legislation. We are taking forward the digital development of the private rented sector database in line with the government service standard. We will conduct extensive testing of the new service ahead of implementation and continue to engage the sector on our proposals. We very much welcome the ongoing involvement of all those who have been helping us.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, highlighted the importance of why we must take our time on development, design and testing. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to the difficulty of IT systems. I have had them in past lives, so I know that this can be a tricky issue. However, we have been in government for only nine months, yet the noble Lord accused us of having a track record—or did he mean all Governments? I hope that he did.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Okay, fair point. We need to make sure that we do the development and the testing of the system carefully. I therefore ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.