Migrants: Hotel Accommodation
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Evans of Rainow
To ask His Majesty’s Government what standard of hotel accommodation they provide to migrants who have entered the United Kingdom in small boats from France.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my noble friend’s name on the Order Paper.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I thought I was going to get a “two for” there. All accommodation meets relevant legal requirements, as well as contractual standards, to be safe, fit for purpose and properly equipped. The contractual standards are contained in the Asylum Accommodation and Support Contracts.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
I thank the Minister for that Answer and apologise for not being my noble friend Lord Evans. He has a contact who runs a series of hostels for backpackers, many of whom are young men who must, in the course of things, share facilities. But when my noble friend’s contact applied to the Home Office to take illegal migrants in his hostels, he was told this was impossible because not all the facilities are en suite. So my noble friend would like to know why shared facilities are suitable for young male legal backpackers but not for young male illegal migrants.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Perhaps the noble Lord could ask the previous Home Office Ministers under the last Administration, because all the contracts with the current asylum accommodation were signed by the previous Ministers. I am very happy to look at the issue, but I repeat, for the avoidance of doubt, that all the contracts were signed by previous Ministers under the last Administration.
Lord German (LD)
The accommodation is not suitable for either the community or the asylum seekers. Given that there are two main ways in which the Government could improve this situation dramatically, can the noble Lord tell us how they are getting on with reducing the backlog of cases being heard, and whether they will allow people to work so they can pay for their own accommodation?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We are getting on quite well, actually. If noble Lords will bear with me, the supported accommodation as of 31 March 2025 is 15% lower than at the end of 2024 and 42% lower than at the end of September 2023. We are moving people through supported accommodation, and we are trying to get the backlog down. We have used money saved from the wasteful Rwanda scheme to put into people examining asylum claims and processing them quickly. I note again the noble Lord’s helpful suggestion that we look at how people can work. That is a pull factor, and we should have an honest debate on that issue, but again, we keep all options on the table.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, report after report has documented what one described as the “cruel, unsafe and degrading” treatment experienced by many asylum seekers living in hotels, especially LGBTQ people, women and children. What steps are the Home Office taking to strengthen safeguarding procedures so long as hotels—usually of low quality—continue to be used to house asylum seekers?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. Safeguarding is extremely important, and it is the Government’s ambition to remove all asylum seekers from hotels as soon as is practical. We have reduced the number of hotels: in fact, we have fewer hotels now, in the week of the general election anniversary, than we had last year when the Conservative Party left office. It is our ambition to further reduce that. When the Conservatives were in office, hotel costs peaked at £9 million per day. This time last year they were £8.5 million per day, and this year they are £6 million per day. That is still too high, but it is on the right, downward trajectory, and we will continue to safeguard in doing that.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, I have a pal who has a fairly good-grade job. Many months ahead, he had booked four-star accommodation two days a week at a well-known hotel chain. He had a phone call out of the blue and was told, “I’m very sorry but your months-ahead booked accommodation in our four-star hotel has now been cancelled because the hotel of 150 rooms has been taken over for migrant accommodation”. Does the Minister agree with me that the pull factors of good accommodation are clear and obvious? The pull factor of the ability to get a delivery job in this country is very clear, and we can see illegal working on every high street. Until we get a grip on this issue, I am afraid that it will not get any better. We need rather more than “let’s smash the gangs”.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I would be grateful if he could write to me with the details of his friend’s hotel, because that is a great surprise to me. We are not opening new hotels; we are trying to reduce the number of such hotels and reducing the bill, under his Government, of £9 million a day to the current £6 million a day that I mentioned.
If the noble Lord wants to tackle illegal working, I recommend that he supports the Bill on employment rights currently before this House, which is about reducing the pull factors of illegal working and cracking down on illegal employers. As I recall, the Opposition have voted against that Bill on several occasions and plan to do so again.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, according to a report by Migrant Voice, in 2023 the Home Office received 1,500 complaints about migrant hotels. They included lack of privacy; having to share rooms and sometimes even beds with strangers; overcrowding; dirty rooms, bathrooms and toilets; little access to healthcare; sexual harassment; intimidation; racism; out-of-date food and so on. These conditions are dehumanising. Are the Government aware of the conditions in these hotels?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. He mentioned a report, which was from 2023. This Government have been very clear that, as I said in my original Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, we need to provide accommodation that meets all contractual standards and is safe, fit for purpose and properly equipped. The contractual standards, which are in the Asylum Accommodation and Support Contracts, must meet decency levels and be maintained. That is the objective of this Government. As I say, the details my noble friend gave are from 2023.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, if the Minister wants to talk about voting against the Government, perhaps he might like to recall that his party voted more than 130 times against our Bill designed to avoid this situation. Under the Conservatives, the number of asylum seekers being housed in hotels decreased in three consecutive quarters prior to Labour coming into office. Since Labour gained power, the number of asylum seekers housed in hotels has risen by some 29%. At what point does the Minister think his Government will honour their manifesto, given that small boat arrivals are now over 20,000, which is an increase of around 50% on this time last year?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government set a clear direction of travel on reducing hotels, tackling the asylum backlog, trying to prevent people coming to this country unfairly in the first place and, when they do claim asylum, processing those claims much quicker. I point the noble Lord to one figure, which I hope is helpful to him. That figure is 9,208, which is the number of people who have been removed from the United Kingdom up to the end of 2024, since the general election. This compares with an average figure of around 2,000 for the previous Government during their term of office. The noble Lord and his Government got us into the position of a rise in hotel numbers to a maximum of 400, a rising cost to £9 million, a record number of people coming to this country, a failure to remove people who are being denied asylum, and a failure to process asylum claims in a speedy and effective way. We are clearing up his mess and doing the best we can to achieve that.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, can the noble Lord bring us up to date on the position of unaccompanied migrant children who are in hotels, and is he satisfied that their safety and safeguarding are being properly addressed?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. We took an early decision, as he knows, to work with the local authority, Kent, to ensure that safeguarding was in place, and that is in place now. There are still a number of unaccounted migrant children, who precede this Government’s responsibilities, and we are making efforts to track them down as best we can. I assure him that we are taking every step we can to make sure that that situation does not occur again.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
Are the Government making any progress in their search for safe third countries where applicants for asylum could have their case processed before being admitted to this country at all? That is the only policy they have that would avoid the need for hotel accommodation almost completely in future. Is this still the Government’s policy? Is there any prospect of progress being made in the near future?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government, as the noble Lord knows, have been discussing a number of matters with a number of countries. I cannot bring him up to date today on the final details of those projects. We have scrapped the Rwanda scheme, which was costly, ineffective and did not remove people. We are continuing to work with our French, Dutch and Belgian colleagues to look at how we can stem the flow of people coming here through irregular migration, so that we can look at proper asylum assessments and proper removals, in conjunction with those European countries most impacted in the European community.
Plastic Pollution
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Parminter
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to secure agreement to a global treaty to counter plastic pollution.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the UK Government are committed to securing agreement to a global treaty on plastic pollution when the negotiations resume in August 2025. At the UN Ocean Conference in June, the UK joined over 95 signatories of the Nice wake-up call statement to demonstrate support for an ambitious treaty. We are working with other countries, including allies in the High Ambition Coalition, to develop text options to facilitate an agreement.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
In the last 20 years, global plastic production and plastic waste have doubled, despite national and voluntary initiatives, so it is fantastic that the Government have signed up to the Nice declaration. Can I press the Minister to ask exactly what conversations and discussions are being had to ensure that the minority of low-ambition countries and narrow interests do not derail the opportunity for a legally binding, ambitious plastics treaty in Geneva?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
That is a really important question. We are high ambition, but we are working closely with low-ambition countries—some are developed countries, and there are others such as the Gulf states. We made progress previously, and it is important that we continue to do so. We are doing a number of things, particularly Minister Hardy as the leader on this. She is working closely with others to develop a shared position on how we can finance the treaty and take the lead on engaging with the private sector, for example. We are doing some co-leading work with Chile to progress discussions on product design. We are co-leading work with Panama on releases and leakages of plastic. Minister Hardy co-hosted a ministerial event at the UN Ocean Conference to bring together Ministers from a range of countries with different positions and ambition levels to look at how we can move forward. She hosted an interesting round table last week attended by His Excellency Ambassador Vayas, who is the INC chair. There is a lot of work going on behind the scenes to ensure we get the best possible result out of next month’s conference.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, plastic pollution starts with packaging. Will the Minister therefore join me in commending the British retail sector, which has done so much, particularly recently, to produce packaging of a better environmental nature for recycling and to draw to the attention of all customers who visit retail outlets the benefits of these improvements?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am very happy to commend any producer or retailer that wants to reduce the amount of damaging plastic that goes into our environment. The noble Lord is right: a lot of work has been done in recent years by some very forward-looking companies. However, there is still far too much plastic going into our environment. We have to do more to progress this. Others have to come on board, which is why I am really pleased that the UK has been absolutely clear that the treaty should address the full cycle of plastic, including sustainable production and consumption.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, a large amount of British plastic waste is not recycled because it is too complex to sort. What steps are the Government taking to encourage innovative research which will allow for new ways of recycling complex plastics and ensure that more plastic is recycled and less ends up in incinerators?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Of course, we need to do more to ensure that less plastic ends up in incinerators. Research is not just about what you do with complex plastics but about ensuring that the plastics produced are recyclable in the first place. We should also ensure that that then happens and that they do not get dumped somewhere. The work that Defra is carrying out on the circular economy is really important and will look at exactly these sorts of issues.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister indicate whether the Government have any plans to restrict the export of plastics through powers under the Environment Act to encourage recycling at home, rather than offshoring the problem?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I have said, we really need to move away from this. Many members of the public, me included, put their plastic into recycling bins in very good faith and expect it to be recycled—I buy things made out of recycled plastic—but we have to look at how we can stop plastic that should be recycled just being offshored and dumped. We have seen too many photographs of the appalling outcomes of that. That is why we want to get this treaty finalised, why we are really determined to move forward and why we are also concentrating on having a genuinely effective circular economy strategy within Defra.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, I commend the Minister on the work being done on plastics. One other major threat to marine life is illegal and unauthorised fishing around the world. What steps are being taken by the international community to address that problem?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Absolutely. I think that anyone who has been to a beach will have seen abandoned fishing gear on the beach, particularly the rope stuff—the blue twine that fishermen use. Rope stuff is the technical term; you can tell that I am not a fisherman. Abandoned, lost and otherwise discarded fishing gear is one form of plastic that causes the greatest harm to the environment. The UK has been looking at ways that we can use alternatives—alternatives are being explored—so that we do not constantly end up with blue bits of plastic scattered over every single beach that we see in this country.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I want to move the agenda on to microplastics, which are endemic in our water systems, in our bodies and now in our soils. A lot of research is showing that crop fertility—in other words, crop yield—will go down quite dramatically in the next 10 years because of microplastics in the water system. While I do not expect an answer directly, I would love to know what the Government are doing in the way of researching this, working with people such as at the John Innes Centre, which is looking at what on earth we do about this, because it is pretty difficult to get rid of.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes an extremely good point. We were probably all quite shocked recently at the figures showing how endemic these tiny pieces of plastic are in our drinking water and, indeed, in ourselves. It is extremely worrying, and it is incredibly important that research is carried out. I know that the John Innes Centre does great work. I am not involved with that, but my colleague Minister Hardy is. I will go back to her, find out exactly what work we are doing and then get back to the noble Baroness, if that is okay.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, the UK throws away more plastic per person than every other country in the world except the US, with 81% of that plastic consisting of food and drink packaging from supermarkets. It is evident that effective measures must be taken to reduce this waste, an opinion shared by 74% of the British public. Will the Minister confirm what steps the Government are taking to prevent further delays to the Government’s proposed deposit return scheme?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
First, I am very pleased that we have announced that we are doing a deposit return scheme. It is something that was discussed for many years by the previous Government, so I am pleased that we have acted quickly to announce that we are bringing that in. However, it needs to be brought in effectively and to work properly; we are doing it in a way that we think will have the greatest results. It is also part of our bigger picture around the circular economy. It is part of our commitment to reducing plastic, which comes right back to the initial question from the noble Baroness about our support for the treaty, because, although we want our own ambitious plans for reducing plastic waste in this country, this is a global problem, and we have to work globally.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, to return to the plastics treaty, at the last round of talks, fossil fuel interests sent 220 lobbyists. They are known to be the people who are fighting very hard against any targets for putting less plastic into the soils, into the water and into our bodies. What are the Government going to do to block the influence of those fossil fuel interests? Could we not do as the WHO has done with tobacco and ban people with fossil fuel interests, who should have no place in these talks?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We are trying to move forward on a global scale while bringing people with us. This treaty will have more impact if every country is signed up to it. Because of that, we were very disappointed that we were not able to conclude negotiations last time around. However, behind the scenes, a lot of work has been going on to try to move forward. My understanding is that the countries that the noble Baroness refers to are more concerned about including methods of production in the treaty, and that is something we are looking very hard at resolving. We want to see the ambitious treaty that we and other high ambition countries want to achieve. We are working very closely with middle to low-income countries to get there.
UK Weapons Systems
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Empey
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they have complete control over the use of all UK weapons systems without needing to consult, or seek approval from, other governments or third parties.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
His Majesty’s Government have complete control over the operational use of all the United Kingdom’s weapons systems, without needing to consult or gain approval from other Governments or third parties. This includes the nuclear deterrent.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I expected the Minister to say that he had operational control over all weapons systems, but all weapons systems require maintenance, and require to be renewed. It is my understanding that not all of that process takes place in the United Kingdom. Therefore, third parties or other Governments must have an influence over the maintenance of our weapons. Therefore, the question is: how independent is “independent”?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Well, “independent” means what it says. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the House, that we have complete operational use in terms of independence. We can use all our weapons systems in the way that His Majesty’s Government choose to. Of course there are arrangements about how you maintain that and what you do, but independence means independence and we work to ensure that we maintain all our capabilities to the standard that the noble Lord and this House would expect.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, when the Conservative Government announced in 1957 that we had again an independent deterrent, they meant independent of the United States—a British warhead and a British weapons delivery system. Since then, we have compromised the delivery system with dependence on American missiles, and the recently announced airbase delivery will also have an American warhead. If I understand it correctly, some of those warheads will be stored on US bases in Britain. How far does that mean we can depend on the next American Administration, let alone this one, to give us permission when needed, in what might be a prolonged war rather than an immediate crisis?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We need to unpick that. It is a very good question the noble Lord asks, but no Government will comment on the storage of nuclear weapons, for obvious reasons. The strategic nuclear deterrent is completely operationally independent. It cannot be used without the agreement of the United Kingdom Prime Minister. As for the F35A, which I presume he referenced with respect to the Government’s announcement, that forms part of the nuclear mission of NATO. For that capability to be used for a nuclear mission, it will require the agreement through the nuclear planning group of the United Kingdom Prime Minister. So both the strategic deterrent and the fighter deterrent of the 12 F35As will require the authorisation of the United Kingdom Prime Minister.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Given the answer that the Minister has just given, can he clarify that, while it may very well be the case that at NATO level the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom would be required to give consent, is it conceivable that the United States in that scenario might refuse consent?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Let us deal with this, and I apologise to the House if this takes some time. The strategic deterrent, CASD, remains, as we have always had it, operationally independent and a UK weapon. As for the 12 F35As that the Government have announced, that forms part of NATO’s nuclear mission. The F35As are UK jets and they are dual-capable aircraft, so they can be used normally or, in a particular crisis or a particular sense in which we felt and NATO felt that they should be used, they would become part of the nuclear mission. At that time, they would be armed with American nuclear missiles.
Of course, that means that the authorisation of the use of those missiles remains US-controlled, because, in the same way that we control our UK nuclear weapons, US nuclear weapons remain subject to US approval. The point I was making to the noble Lord is important. Of course, the authorisation for the use of those weapons within the context of a NATO mission has to be agreed by the NATO planning group and the UK is part of that. In that sense, the Prime Minister would have to authorise those UK planes being used to deliver that nuclear capability. I hope that is clear to the House and to the noble Baroness, because it is an important point for us to make with respect to the nuclear shield and the nuclear capability that this country has, and how it will work in practice.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that, along with my noble friend Lord Robertson, we got rid of gravity nuclear bombs back in 1997. That was in a particular context, and I fully accept that the world has changed, so I have no objection to now maintaining or restoring that capacity. However, since we are getting the F35As, what is the implication of that for any offset arrangement in the previously considered demand for F35Bs?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I am going to either pass or fail this exam. As it stands, we have 41 F35Bs, and by March 2026 we should have 48. That is what is called the first procurement phase. The F35As will be brought within the second procurement phase, which will take the whole F35 programme from 48 to 75. That is an additional 27 aircraft, of which 12 will be F35As and 15 will be F35Bs. I will give a further answer in response to the noble Lord, Lord West, by saying that they will form part of an operational group. The F35As will go to that group, which will free up the F35Bs that are currently doing that training exercise with them. So the carrier and others will always have the full complement of F35Bs that they need.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the security of this country against major threats in high-intensity warfare is based on our membership of NATO, and that within NATO we rely upon many of our partners to provide crucial capabilities —not least, for example, a number of strategic capabilities that at the moment only the Americans provide? So, in terms of warfighting, to be too nice on the point of purely national capabilities does not make sense.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I agree with what the noble and gallant Lord has just said. It is an important point to make, and I should have made it to the noble Lord from the Liberal Benches: of course our alliances matter and are important. We have a shared interest in the geopolitical threats that we face, and the noble and gallant Lord is quite right to point that out. I say again, as I often do from this Dispatch Box, that the US is our prime ally. The US is our most important ally. It is the ally that we depend on to work with to guarantee our security in Europe and across the globe. We should celebrate the closeness of that relationship, as we should celebrate the closeness of our relationships with all our friends and allies in Europe and beyond.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
Anything to do with nuclear does not have time for planning discussions. It is almost immediate. It can take place in hours. The military have to make a decision in minutes as to what they are going to do. What do we do then?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Whether it is nuclear or any other capability, but particularly with nuclear, you have to be calm, rational and reasonable about it. One of the successes of our strategic deterrent has been the fact that it exists. People know about it and understand the situation and the context that we have for it. As I say, the decision to go ahead with the F35A, with its dual capability, is in light of the changed strategic geopolitical context in which we operate. As such, it is a perfectly rational and reasonable decision for us to take with respect to our NATO colleagues in order to ensure that we can defend our country and the things that we stand for.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am not sure whether in this context the SNP can be described as a Government or a third party. To be generous, its policy in this area is best described as “flexible”. I wonder whether the Minister could help by explaining what it actually is.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I would like to think I had been able to answer most of the questions that have been asked so far, but I am not sure about this one from my noble friend. I will have a go. First, what the SNP stands for is completely and utterly incoherent. I remember the time a few years ago—I think it was 2012—when SNP members debated nuclear weapons but also, along- side that, whether they should be members of NATO. At that time they agreed to be members of NATO and, if I remember rightly, and others here will know, some SNP MSPs resigned because, they said, you cannot be a member of a nuclear alliance and be against nuclear weapons; that is incoherent. It seems to me that the SNP policy is that it accepts NATO’s nuclear umbrella and the security that that brings but does not want the nuclear weapons themselves to deliver it. In George Orwell’s famous terms, it seems to be “NATO nuclear weapons good, UK nuclear weapons bad”.
F35A and F35B Jets
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord West of Spithead
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether the recently announced procurement of twelve F35A jets capable of carrying nuclear weapons will affect the planned procurement of F35B jets.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
I draw noble Lords’ attention, on my noble friend’s very serious point, to the fact that just last week I was in Singapore with the carrier strike group. What a proud moment it was for our country to see the “Prince of Wales” in Singapore harbour at the invitation of the Singapore Government, with F35Bs and helicopters all over it, to see the crew there and to visit the other ships that are part of it. I just wanted to say that but, in answer to my noble friend’s Question, I can confirm that the second procurement phase will consist of 12 F35As and 15 F35Bs, which will enable the stand-up of the third front-line squadron focused on F35Bs. Forty- one of the 48 F35Bs in the first procurement phase have been delivered, with 617 Squadron and 809 Naval Air Squadron both currently deployed on HMS “Prince of Wales” for Operation Highmast. We remain committed to 138 F35s across the life of the programme, and the defence investment programme will examine options on further purchases in the coming months.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply, although my question has been rather shredded of various elements by the previous debate. It is worth remembering that 80 years ago as we speak, the British Pacific fleet was leaving the waters around Okinawa, heading towards the Japanese homeland. It consisted of a mere 21 aircraft carriers, four battleships and dozens of destroyers and frigates, which were in the same waters that the “Prince of Wales” is in now. They were under almost continuous attack by kamikazes, which you could argue are the ultimate drone. Whenever we discuss the military, we ought to remember those who have gone before and what they did to enable us to be here.
As for my question, I now have two bits left after everything that has been discussed. The first one is: does my noble friend believe that now might be time for us to review our nuclear doctrine? One could argue that it goes on all the time, but might it be time to do a proper review of our nuclear doctrine? The other one is: I had understood that major investment decisions—and this is one, bearing in mind the costs of having bases ready to take nuclear weapons and all of this sort of thing—were going to be made in the autumn as part of the defence investment plan to check out the national armaments director and the new strategic headquarters. Does the fact that this decision has been made now, without waiting for the autumn, mean that all the decisions from the SDR that we were expecting in the autumn will be taken piecemeal before then?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his questions. On his very serious and important point about those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the Far East, he will be pleased to know that, on my visit to Singapore, I visited the war grave cemetery there, and that when I was in Jakarta a day or two later, I visited the war grave cemetery there and laid a wreath to remember those who had gone before. I think that is really important.
On the issue of the nuclear doctrine, of course one always reflects on these matters but, as it stands, the nuclear doctrine is as it is. The major investment decisions, in terms of the money and the direction of travel, remain the same. It was felt important, given the serious geopolitical challenges that we face and although the number of planes remains the same, that there should be some movement from F35Bs to F35As. It was important that we made that decision at this particular time in the light of the threat that we face.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the procurement schedule for the F35As, but delivery of the F35Bs has not been free of problems. Does he have confidence in the delivery schedule for the F35As being achieved?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I do. To reiterate and clarify, the procurement phase for the 48 F35Bs should, and will, end by March 2026. For the second procurement phase for the additional 12 F35As and the 15 F35Bs, which will give us 75 in total, our expectation is that they will be procured by 2033. It is important we meet the schedule and I have every confidence that we will be able to do so.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the following precis of programme A activity rings true? The F35As are not additional to the programme; they replace 12 F35Bs. The 12 F35As cost $20 million less per plane than the F35Bs, therefore resulting in a saving to the programme of $240 million. However, we have no sovereign capacity to air-to-air refuel an F35A. Therefore, we will create an allied dependency unless some additional programming action is taken.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The answer is yes to all those points. The F35As come from the F35 schedule, so 12 of the additional 27 will be F35As instead of F35Bs. F35As are some 20% cheaper than F35Bs, so the noble and gallant Lord is right: that creates an additional sum of money which can be used in a way that the Government feel is appropriate and consistent with the SDR. He is right about the refuelling capability; there will need to be allied support for that. Many of our capabilities require allied support and help to function. I do not see a particular problem with that, but he is right to point it out.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the SDR and the national security strategy emphasise the threats to us locally and regionally, as opposed to the global projection of power to Singapore and the South China Sea, which is what the aircraft carriers are for, above all. Are we sure that we still have our priorities right in wanting to stand firm with our prime ally, the United States, in the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea, or should we pay more attention in our defence priorities to the North Sea, eastern Europe, the Baltic and that part of the world which is closest to our insecurity?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I understand the point the noble Lord makes, but I do not agree with it. We, with our allies, simply have to guarantee the security of regions across the world, whether it be the North Sea, the Mediterranean or the Indo-Pacific. Our carrier went through the Red Sea, through the BAM into the Indian Ocean, which is under threat from the Houthis. The sailors and others on the ship had to write a letter home saying what might happen. We should celebrate the fact that we have people with a sense of duty that allows them to put their lives in danger to ensure that trade, communication and all the things we depend on can get through that narrow bit of sea. If that did not happen, our shops would soon be empty and our data would not work. Many of the things on which our standard of living depends would not function.
That is why it is important that we go to the Indo- Pacific and stand alongside the Americans. Let us be clear: we do not go there because only we want to—Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Singapore and Malaysia want us to go there. All those countries ask us to go there because they recognise the importance of ensuring the global trade routes stay open—it is the trade and prosperity on which our nation, and the nations of the world, depend.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Labour Benches now.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the announcement of the procurement of the F35As. Some 15% of every single F35A will be produced in the UK. Does my noble friend agree that those who are calling for us to limit our involvement in this programme to try to restrict the export of these components would do huge damage to the UK economy and our standing in the world?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
As always, my noble friend makes a really important point. He points to UK domestic production of the F35A. Of course, our exports are also really important. With that, and as I know my noble friend would, I welcomed the court’s decision yesterday in the al-Haq judgment, which was really important for our country.
Lord Soames of Fletching (Con)
My Lords, would the Minister confirm that the F35A is capable of being fully marinised?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The F35A has a number of different capabilities, but I just need to check so I do not misinform the noble Lord. It is dual capability in terms of the weapons it can carry, and it normally operates from airfields. If I understand the noble Lord’s question right, I will check it, write to him and put a copy in the Library, because I need to make sure that I do not misinform him and, indeed, the House.
Renters’ Rights Bill
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:33 - Division on Amendment 5 - Ayes: 221 / Noes: 196 - Amendment 5 agreed.
18:20 - Division on Amendment 8 - Ayes: 253 / Noes: 150 - Amendment 8 agreed.
18:53 - Division on Amendment 21 - Ayes: 230 / Noes: 137 - Amendment 21 agreed.
19:05 - Division on Amendment 23 - Ayes: 169 / Noes: 176 - Amendment 23 disagreed.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, before we start the debate on the first group, I want to repeat my reminders to the House in Committee on declaring interests. As we set out previously, noble Lords should declare relevant interests at each stage of proceedings on a Bill. That means that in their first contribution on Report, noble Lords must declare any relevant financial interests in a specific but brief way. Declarations do not need to be repeated in subsequent speeches on Report. As my noble friend the Chief Whip reminded the House last week, it is no longer sufficient to say that interests are set out in the register.
Clause 1: Assured tenancies to be periodic with rent period not exceeding a month
Amendment 1
Lord Hacking
“unless the landlord and the tenant mutually agree to have a fixed term during which period the landlord agrees to suspend the ability to seek possession under Ground 1 (Occupation by landlord and family), Ground 1A (Sale of dwelling house), Ground 1B (New ground for possession after rent-to-buy agreement) or Ground 6 (redevelopment) in Schedule 1.(1A) During a fixed term tenancy agreed under subsection (1), the landlord shall not be entitled to increase the rent.”
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I start off with my declaration, which is in the register, that my wife and I own five one-bedroom flats in the next-door house to ours, and we have been renting out those flats for the last 30 years.
As we approach the 126 amendments now tabled for Report, and before I introduce my Amendment 1, I suggest that we take stock of where we are after seven days in Committee. I start by giving praise to my noble friend the Minister. Throughout Committee, she was always very well briefed, and she spoke to every amendment with great politeness, naming and thanking everyone who spoke. She was always available to have meetings and discussions about the Bill. I know, too, from her days as a councillor in Stevenage, about her great concern that landlord and tenant legislation should not make families homeless—she feels that very strongly. I say to her: thank you, Sharon.
However, there has been a big problem. Out of the 300-odd amendments tabled in Committee, the Government did not accept a single one—I think I am right in saying that; if I am wrong, I hope that somebody will correct me. It is true that, in the Minister’s letter of 24 June, the Government, through the Minister, have accepted three amendments. I am very grateful for that, but that is a very small number against the rejection of 300 amendments. By applying normal averages, it cannot be right that the Government were always right in Committee on all these amendments and that the rest of us were always wrong.
Moreover, in Committee, there was considerable expertise in landlord and tenant matters among Members of the House. At least a dozen of us have had that direct experience. At least half a dozen of us were declared landlords of the good and honest variety. When I joined this House 53 years ago, there was good willingness in the House to listen to the expertise of its Members—after all, that is what we are here to provide. It now seems that the Government were not prepared, during the passage of the Bill, to listen to the expertise of the House. To put it bluntly, the rejection of over 300 amendments shows that they are not listening to this House. I do not blame the Minister; I simply do not know who was responsible for the decisions that resulted in those multiple rejections.
The consequence is quite serious. As I will seek to show in relation to Amendments 1 and 41, there have been occasions when the Government have got it plain wrong, because they were not listening. As a Labour Back-Bencher, I want the Government to succeed—and they would do that much better if they were able to listen more. Therefore, on Report, may the Government start listening to us.
The purpose of Amendment 1 is to allow landlords and tenants, if they wish, to agree a fixed-term tenancy. My and my wife’s experience is as follows. We have nearly always let 12-month tenancies to our tenants. Our tenants—currently the whole lot—are couples in their 30s who are planning to own a home of their own. It therefore suits us, as well as our tenants, to agree a 12-month tenancy. After the first 12 months, we meet to discuss whether our tenants want to stay on for another 12 months; they sometimes want to stay on for three or four years or even longer. If any of them want to go early, within the 12-month period, we give full co-operation. We immediately seek new tenants. The outgoing tenants pay their rent as long as they are present in their flat and not thereafter when the new tenant has arrived. Indeed, I do not think that we have ever failed promptly to find new tenants, which is because we let out lovely flats with private use of the garden at the back of the house.
Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support Amendment 1 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. As mentioned previously, I have an interest as a landlord of over two decades, and as a former renter in the private rented sector for some 16 years, I have a combined experience in the PRS of 40 years.
The amendment before your Lordships’ House would allow a tenant and landlord to mutually agree a fixed term, as we have just heard, while restricting the landlord’s ability to regain possession of a tenanted property. It would further mean that the landlord would not be able to increase the rent over the period of the fixed term. Very many tenants would welcome such agreements and the increased security it would give them. Under the proposed periodic tenancies, after 12 months tenants would have no security as the landlord can seek possession on a number of grounds.
Polls have shown that a majority of tenants and landlords want to have fixed terms, and His Majesty’s Government have given no reason why they think they know best. The arguments against mutually agreed agreements on fixed tenancies are, frankly, unconvincing and threadbare. They result in more, not less, security for tenants, and less chance of familial disruption. The Renters’ Rights Bill rightly cracks down on rogue landlords, improves standards in the PRS and seeks to ensure a fair, workable and sustainable rental market.
Noble Lords may recall my Amendment 173 in Committee, which called for tenants to give notice not earlier than four months after agreeing to an assured tenancy, resulting in a minimum tenancy of six rather than two months. Why are the Government insisting that six months would be a disaster, as under today’s assured shorthold tenancies, but two months will be a panacea? The outcome of exclusively two-month periodic tenancies will be less security for tenants and landlords alike, and higher rents.
While I accept the need for flexibility for tenants, I do not see why an additional four months should be regarded as so unacceptable by the Government. Responsible landlords require the certainty of a minimum period to defray the cost of establishing a new tenancy. Many of these costs are one-off and cannot be passed on to the tenant under the Tenant Fees Act 2019. These cover things such as cleaning, inventories, referencing, credit checks, admin and so forth. A higher turnover of tenancies under periodic tenancies, and the financial risks associated with it, will otherwise put up rents. All long-term tenancies could potentially turn into short tenancies and the landlord will have to factor that into the rent. Another concern of landlords will be if a tenant quits in the middle of winter, when much fewer tenants are seeking rental properties. Rentals are often seasonal, and longer void periods will be the outcome. Again, this will be reflected in higher rents.
Ministers argue that it is highly unlikely that tenants will move in and out of rental properties, in effect turning long-lets into short-let properties. But that is exactly what will happen in many cases, especially in coastal resorts and city centres, already plagued by Airbnb and other short-let platforms. Figures produced by Hamptons show that properties being marketed as short-term lets are advertised at prices on average 49% higher than the same types of property for long-term rent. In the London Borough of Camden, short-lets can cost four times higher than long-lets. Deposits for short-let properties are about the same as those for long-term rent. This would make it cheaper for tenants to just rent a long-term property for two months than secure a short let for the same period.
To suggest that people will not game the system is naive. Why would short-term tenants volunteer to pay up to four times the amount of rent when they can save themselves thousands of pounds taking a property advertised for long-term rental for just two months or even less? On day one of the tenancy, they will have the legal right to give two months’ notice. Two-month period tenancies will open the floodgates to legal backdoor short lets which will be impossible to police. This will have other implications, which we are already witnessing. Landlords will gravitate increasingly to short-let platforms such as Airbnb which are more profitable than long lets and virtually unregulated.
With the associated abolition of upfront payments, which will make vulnerable people, the self-employed, pensioners and students—including foreign students—unable to prove their income, why should many landlords continue to take the risk when there is a more profitable alternative? In any event, only 7% of tenants pay anything up front, so I fail to see why this is also an issue for HMG. Banning upfront payments, which your Lordships will discuss later, was very much a last-minute government amendment in the other place, and I suspect it was badly thought through.
All this will result in fewer long-term rentals being available to tenants, less security and a profound shortage of long lets for local people in tourist hotspots. It is already happening, as people in Cornwall, Devon and Wales will know.
Nothing in the Bill will increase the supply of rental property in the PRS which, by some estimates, needs an extra 50,000 rentals per year just to stand still. A six-month minimum tenancy would underpin the viability of the PRS and ensure that more homes, not fewer, are provided for those tenants who need and want a long- term home.
Those should be where people need homes; those landlords entering the market at the moment tend to chase higher yields in the north, ignoring the south, where buy to let is rapidly becoming unprofitable. A six-month minimum fixed tenancy, if mutually agreed, gives all parties plenty of flexibility. As the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, mentioned, many tenants prefer to have even a 12-month fixed tenancy to give them added security.
The amendment would also implement a recommendation by the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee in its report on reform of the PRS in 2023, chaired by the very knowledgeable Labour MP, Clive Betts. The recommendation was
“that tenants be unable to give two months’ notice to leave until they have been in a property for at least four months”.
It noted:
“This will give landlords the legal certainty of at least six months’ rent at the start of the tenancy”.
After this period, the tenancy agreement could continue on a periodic basis as envisaged by this Bill.
I fear that, unless His Majesty’s Government amend the Bill on fixed terms and upfront payments, it will make the PRS unstable, uncertain, increasingly expensive and less viable, which would be bad for both tenants and landlords. Sadly, His Majesty’s Government are showing no sign of introducing the significant amendments necessary. As the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said, the Government listen but take no notice. As we have seen in the other place, this does not always work out well.
On 28 April, the noble Baroness the Minister, who cannot be accused of not listening, told the Committee:
“We are committed to robustly monitoring and evaluating the impact of our reforms. We retain powers to amend these measures should the evidence arise that they are having a significant impact on a particular group … We maintain the powers to amend, should we need to”.—[Official Report, 28/4/25; col. 1085.]
I hope that His Majesty’s Government bear this very much in mind, before some of the unintended consequences and regrettable flaws in the Bill see the light of day. I was just one of 26 Peers who voted against HS2 in your Lordships’ House, and it gives me very little pleasure to say after the event “I told you so”.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak strongly in favour of Amendment 1. I declare my interests as I rent properties in Norwich and commercial properties in Great Yarmouth through a directorship.
We live in a free-market economy, which is underpinned by the law of contract, a codified agreement between consenting counterparties. Of course, we must have safeguards and regulatory guard-rails to ensure that one party does not hold the other over a barrel, but the freedom of contract so that mutual needs can be codified and agreed is a fundamental part of the way in which we live and is one of the reasons why we have so many learned friends in this place.
I want to give some examples, from my experience as a landlord, of the type of persons who value the ability to customise the standard contract to suit themselves by entering into a fixed term. It is not the majority, but it is a significant proportion that cannot just be wished away. They include: employees on a fixed-term employment contract engaged in a particular project; students, singly or more commonly in groups, who want to secure their ideal house in advance and are able to do so only if the current occupants are sure to vacate in the summer; the busy doctor, who gets passed around the hospitals each August; and the foreign person, who is used to the concept of fixed terms in their own country and cannot understand what business it is of the state to interfere in these private arrangements. Those tenants value contract certainty so that they can focus on their work and generate wealth for our nation.
I like this amendment because it gives an additional benefit to the tenant: not just the fixed tenancy but the fixed rent. That seems a fair compromise, not least because the landlord does not need to price uncertainty into the contract—the uncertainty of a void. As a landlord I value certainty, even at the expense of locking out rent rises, because if I know there will not be a void, I can give a better price and everybody wins. I cannot see what is wrong with that.
The Government boast a commitment to
“transform the experience of private renting”.
They are doing that all right; they are making it harder for a significant minority to meet their reasonable needs. There are so many unintended consequences—the noble Lords, Lord Hacking and Lord Truscott, mentioned some of them. For a moment I thought I was going to be on my own, but I am delighted to see that there is cross-party consensus on the importance of this amendment.
I too was thinking about the abuse in holiday hotspots, where it is common ground that we want to encourage year-round occupation of homes in these coastal areas—although not the second council tax that appears to be emerging alongside. I fear the unintended consequences of this Bill. Let us contemplate a tenancy in Cornwall, taking on in June. The proposed tenant says, “Yes, I’m going to stay for a whole year”, but in the event they leave just after the August bank holiday. The problem is that by giving two months’ notice, it is a clear abuse; and to counter that abuse, landlords will factor in the risk of the vacancy. So they will jack up rents, and the person who genuinely does want to stay for the whole year is disadvantaged. Of course, they may wish to show good faith by paying in advance, but that will be discarded as well. I just cannot see how this helps anyone.
I will talk about students in more detail later, but I am concerned that we are going to seriously disrupt the student market, not just for their convenience. Often in freshers’ week—I saw it in my own experience when I was younger—friendship groups get rammed together and pretty quickly decide they want to go into a house together, and why not? Halls do not suit anybody. The purpose of the fixed tenancy is the discipline that binds them all together. They are not related—at least not when they start; I have been in houses where that does happen—but you get a situation where one person may want to quit half way through, and it reverses the obligation. Rather than that person being forced to find another student to take his or her place, it becomes the obligation of all his former friends to undertake that core activity. The responsibility is flipped, and I do not think that is good either.
There are so many other things I could say, but this is a good amendment. It does not wreck the Bill but enhances it. It works with the grain of the way a significant minority of people, consenting adults, wish to conduct their affairs and come to a sensible contract for those it suits. I agree strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said. There are limits to where the state should interfere; it should allow free citizens to exercise the choices that they should be entitled to make. This amendment deserves our full support.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I listened almost with shock at what noble Lords were saying because I feel as if I am living in an alternate universe. They live in the cosy one—I smiled when the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, talked about him and his wife as landlords, and I can absolutely believe that his tenants loved him and enjoyed living with him. But sadly, that is not reality—it is not the situation. People say the Government have no right to interfere; if a Government have no right to interfere in making a roof over people’s heads—the basic issue of having a home—part of government business, please tell me what they can interfere in. Defence of the realm, yes, but ensuring that people can have a safe, secure, affordable home certainly has to be the business of government.
This Bill is scarily radical. I am often guilty of saying that the rhetoric does not match up to the reality, but the rhetoric around this Bill—the biggest changes since whenever, radically changing the system—is correct. The system is meant to be changed because it is broken. It is very brave and very bold. His Majesty’s Official Opposition probably think it is very stupid, which they are entitled to think because that is their job. The real issue around this Bill is that we are leaping into the unknown. We do not know what the impact will be. We have been told that Armageddon will happen; we will have to see. We and the Official Opposition do agree that there should be formal reviews in the Bill where its impact can be scrutinised in Parliament in full—because it is that radical.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association. As we begin the first day on Report, I would like to start by thanking the Minister for the meetings she has held with me and my noble friend Lord Jamieson on the Bill—we really appreciate those meetings.
I suspect that, since Committee concluded, few days have passed without Members of your Lordships’ House receiving a steady stream of questions, concerns and comments about the Bill, because despite the Government’s amendments, it remains, in our view, a flawed Bill. It is a Bill that uses the powers of government to tell two consenting adults that it knows best; a Bill that fails to acknowledge the realities of the rental market and the consequences it may bring. We are united in the belief that tenants deserve safe, secure and decent homes at a fair price, but to deliver that, we must ensure a functioning rental market with enough good quality homes to meet growing demand. That means building more homes in the right places and encouraging investment in this sector.
Regrettably, this Bill puts that at risk. Rather than increasing supply, it threatens to drive landlords out of the market, reducing the number of available homes and pushing up rents even higher. If we get this wrong, it will be the renters who pay the price. Balance is essential, and we on these Benches do not believe the Bill strikes the right balance. The Government should have brought forward a Bill that targets rogue landlords—those who break the law, put tenants at risk and undermine the proper functioning of the rental market. Instead, we have this Bill, which risks driving out good landlords while allowing the rogue ones to continue operating completely unchecked.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for leading on this group, and all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. Diversity, choice and a range of tenancy contracts all contribute to a housing sector capable of meeting a wide variety of needs, as we have heard. In that context, it is reasonable to ask the Government why they are pursuing a one-size-fits-all approach through the proposed abolition of all fixed-term tenancies. Having listened to the contributions in Committee, it is clear that there is widespread concern about this element of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, is right to challenge the blanket removal of fixed-term tenancies and to reintroduce much-needed flexibility into what is currently a very rigid clause.
Industry stakeholders share these concerns. Propertymark has warned that abolishing fixed terms could destabilise the position of tenants with lower incomes or poor credit histories. Many of these individuals rely on guarantors, who, in turn, require the legal certainty of a fixed term. Without that structure, these tenants may find themselves excluded from the market entirely, excluded from finding a home, and excluded from getting on with their lives. These tenants include students without parental support, young adults leaving care, and individuals with health conditions or irregular employment. They often rely on guarantors to access housing, but those guarantors understandably require the legal certainty of a fixed-term contract. Without that assurance, the door to the rental home quietly but firmly closes.
The Government’s rebuttal is by now well-rehearsed. They claim there is no cause for concern because tenants will have the ability to give two months’ notice, thereby shaping the tenancy to their preferred timeframe. But this argument is weak and raises serious questions. How can it be right to require landlords to fundamentally alter the contracts they offer? How is it reasonable to expect a landlord to accept a tenant who cannot demonstrate their ability to pay, particularly in the absence of the legal structure and certainty that fixed-term agreements provide. Equally, why should tenants be denied the option of a fixed-term tenancy if they believe it best serves their interests? Removing that choice is not empowering, it is restricting. Tenants, like landlords, have diverse needs and circumstances. Many actively seek fixed-term arrangements because they offer clarity, stability and peace of mind. For tenants in transitional phases of life, that assurance is vital. A fixed-term tenancy can provide security that their home cannot be taken away, even within the grounds of possession remaining. This is particularly important for those on temporary contracts, such as nurses relocating to hospital placements, families seeking to remain within a particular school catchment area or individuals from overseas who require time-limited accommodation.
To remove fixed-term tenancies is to ignore the lived realities of both tenants and landlords and to strip the sector of the very flexibility it needs to function effectively. For landlords, fixed terms provide the certainty required to plan and manage their properties effectively. Removing that certainty could prompt many to exit the sector, and already is, further reducing the already strained supply of rental housing. Ironically, this supposed flexibility could leave both tenants and landlords facing greater instability.
The proposed abolition of fixed-term tenancies may lead some homeowners who currently let their properties on a fixed-term basis to withdraw from the market altogether. Faced with the uncertainty of an open-ended tenancy, some may even choose to leave their properties empty rather than risk loss of control over future use. Why are the Government not listening to landlords, the very people who maintain the foundations of the private rented sector? They are not just participants in the market; they are the backbone of the market. We on these Benches support choice and the freedom to decide a contract that works for both the tenant and the landlord, and I hope the rest of the House agrees. We will support the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, if he tests the opinion of the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hacking for his very kind comments and—with slightly less enthusiasm—for this amendment, which would retain a form of fixed term, during which the landlord could not use a number of “landlord circumstance” grounds, including selling. My noble friend referred to his role as a landlord, and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill: I am sure he is a very good landlord. Good and honest landlords have nothing to fear from the Bill; it is not them we are dealing with here
The issue of fixed terms is one we have debated at some length and on which I know there is great strength of feeling on both sides of the House. For many noble Lords, this is an issue of free will. They believe that the Government should not interfere in a tenant and landlord’s ability to agree terms between them, and that both parties should have the choice between a periodic or fixed-term tenancy. In my view, however, that argument mischaracterises the balance of power between tenant and landlord in any negotiation. Here, I agree very strongly here with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Landlords have the choice of many tenants, all competing to offer the most favourable terms, while tenants have far less opportunity to choose between properties. Tenants cannot simply walk away if they do not like a landlord’s terms—a choice between homelessness and a fixed term is no choice at all.
To speak to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, it has been symbolic of that imbalance that, until this Bill, landlords have been able to issue a Section 21 eviction notice and remove tenants through no fault of their own. Not only does that cause distress to families; it also places a huge burden on the state as our beleaguered local authorities pick up the cost of over 100,000 families in emergency and temporary accommodation. It is therefore incumbent on the Government to ensure that tenants do not lose out. We must step in to ensure that tenants are not forced into agreeing unfavourable terms that act against their interests and remove fundamental rights to move when needed.
I accept that fixed terms have some benefit for tenants under the current system because they offer some respite from the awful threat of Section 21, which hangs like the sword of Damocles over tenants’ heads. With Section 21 gone, that advantage will be extinguished, so there is even less reason why a tenant would agree voluntarily to a fixed term. Even if freely agreed, there is nothing equal about a fixed term. Under the current system, landlords can rightly seek possession during a fixed term if a tenant breaches the terms of their rental. Possession grounds are available if a tenant misses rent payments, damages the property, commits anti-social behaviour or indeed breaches any term of their tenancy.
Noble Lords would then imagine that, in a fair contract, a tenant could also terminate the tenancy if the landlord failed to fulfil their responsibilities during the term, but in almost all cases tenants do not have this choice. Landlords can allow properties to fall into disrepair, leave properties unsafe to live in, and still tenants must pay rent month after month. This is fundamentally unbalanced. It is critical that we act to reset the scales.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, before I reveal my answer to the question just put to me by the Minister, I will make a few observations. The central one I have already made: under English contract law, parties are entitled to agree what they want to agree, and they are entitled to agree to a fixed-term tenancy. I have illustrated —as has the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, with students—the value to the tenant of having a fixed term. It has been so with our many tenants over the last 30 years; it runs to their benefit.
I thank all those who have taken part—the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Thornhill, the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, and the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. It would have been a dangerous thing for me to do, with the Chief Whip sitting in front of me, but I was minded to divide the House on this issue. However, I do not have the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and that of the Liberals. I am not quite sure about the Cross Benches; the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, has not participated, so he has given me no comfort that I will get support from the Cross Benches. Therefore, it is with great regret that I feel I must withdraw the amendment, which I believe was very carefully drafted and provided all the protections necessary on an agreed tenancy. It was, therefore, a good amendment that, alas, is now being lost as I beg leave to withdraw it.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“unless the tenant meets the student test when the tenancy is entered into.(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 in Schedule 1.”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, at the heart of the Bill is a duty to protect young people, because it is primarily young people who rely on the private rented sector. Students are no exception: many are leaving home for the first time, stepping into higher education with courage and ambition. For them, the need for clarity, stability and fairness in housing is especially pressing.
Fixed-term tenancies for students, as proposed in Amendment 2, are not a loophole; they are a solution that works. They have brought order and predictability to a cyclical market. The Government recognise this, having already made concessions for purpose-built student accommodation, but that exemption applies only to the most expensive end of the market. What if the student cannot afford a glossy new block with a gym and a neat working space, and instead shares a modest flat in a converted home? We urge the Government to take a consistent approach and extend this provision across the board, because there is a great student migration and a releasing and re-letting of homes at the end of each academic year. It is a finely balanced cycle, and if we tamper with it blindly, we risk breaking it altogether.
That cycle is already under pressure. Student towns and cities are seeing a decline in student-appropriate housing. If we continue down this road, we will put higher education out of reach for many, in particular those from disadvantaged backgrounds who rely on affordable shared housing.
That is why my Amendment 5 is so vital. The current restriction on ground 4A, which limited it to properties with three or more bedrooms, is both arbitrary and unfair. Many students, in particular postgraduates, international students and mature students, live in one-bedroom or two-bedroom properties. In Committee, the Minister said:
“Limiting it to HMOs captures the bulk of typical students”.—[Official Report, 22/4/25; col. 589.]
The Minister is right: it captures the bulk, but not all of them. When housing is scarce, we need all available options. When choices are limited, we must protect every viable home. Let us be clear: ground 4A is not about throwing students out of their homes, it is about ensuring that landlords can confidently re-let for the next academic year and that students can confidently plan their lives.
Amendment 6 rightly asks why six months has been chosen as a cut-off point for ground 4A. This blanket time limit could disrupt rental cycles, discourage landlords from letting to students and ultimately shrink the student housing supply even further.
The Government worry that students may rush into housing decisions too early. That may be true for some, but many students want to secure accommodation early to avoid the stress during exams. Many student tenancies begin in late summer, and students typically start looking well in advance. Limiting searches to up to six months before an August move-in means starting in February. Under the current proposals, properties may not be listed until much later in the year, forcing students to house-hunt during their final exams. That is not necessary, fair or workable. The Government should let students decide when they wish to sign the contract.
Without fixed terms and a workable ground 4A, students will face prolonged uncertainty, and it will be harder for them to plan, budget and study. We must also remember that eviction proceedings are exceptionally rare in this market. The problem is not landlords turfing students out but students facing unnecessary delays and stress when trying to secure accommodation. The current proposals simply do not address this reality.
Finally, Amendment 7 seeks to include apprentices in the definition of students. Like university students, they would benefit from a fixed-term tenancy aligned with their training periods, offering much-needed stability. I hope, having listened to the Government’s arguments in Committee, that they have reflected and that we can agree that it is only fair that apprentices and their landlords have access to the same arrangements as university students.
The Government have already made partial concessions, but now we need a principled and wholehearted attempt to preserve a functioning, fair and inclusive student rental market. Amendments 2, 5, 6 and 7 are constructive and proportionate. They reflect what is already working, they address what is currently broken, and they would help ensure that going to university remains a viable choice for young people across the country. I urge the Minister and the House to support these amendments. We would be minded to test the opinion of the House, for the reasons that I have underlined. I beg to move Amendment 2 in my name.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I declare once more my interest as a landlord who rents properties, often to students. Your Lordships will be delighted to know that I will not be jumping up and down on every group today, but I do want to challenge the quite obstinate prevention of fixed tenancies for students—and, importantly, groups of students—many of whom will be moving into their first home outside hall.
I want to outline some of the adverse consequences of this Bill if enacted unamended. It will reduce the supply of rental properties by discriminating against private landlords. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, speaking in the earlier group, seemed to fail to understand the dynamic effect: if landlords leave the market and there is lower supply, costs will rise and students will pay more.
It will reduce the choices of property available to students, because this Bill allows student tenancies only in halls of residence. This will not suit everybody. It reduces the choice of landlord. It favours the monopoly supplier—the institutional provider of halls of residence —rather than the private landlord. In my personal experience, my wife has become “mother”, so to speak, in particular to foreign students who have rented with us on their first time overseas. All that will be swept away, because institutional providers of student accommodation do not have that in their ambit.
It will create an overheated market in September, that is for sure, and—guess what?—that will cost more for students. It will also cause massive inconvenience for second-year and third-year students at university. I agree with my noble friend that this should not be just about universities; those with apprenticeships should also benefit from these amendments. But it means that second-year and third-year students will have to fly back. They may have got a work placement overseas. They will have to fly back early to try to secure a home when they could have sorted it out well before, in February or March.
The consequences of this Bill mean that it will be harder for friendship groups to get the certainty of a house with their friends. I have mentioned issues around clearing. The Bill will prefer established students from good backgrounds, with parents with sharp elbows, who understand and are able to transact draft contracts more quickly. It will aggravate the difficulty of getting guarantors lined up at pace.
It introduces protections for the current students— I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said in the previous group—but we need to balance that against the disadvantage to students one year behind, who also have rights and who also want to secure a place in their following year.
Students will be forced into these new student blocks. Some of them are really luxurious. There are cinema rooms and pizza places—the whole thing—but it is costing a fortune, and not everybody wants to go to that expense when they can make savings in the private market.
I spoke earlier about the importance of the fixed tenancy, which is a discipline that keeps everybody together and protects everybody’s interests. It is important that we dwell on this, particularly for students. Unlike in the wider private rented sector, where family relationships or other stronger forms of relationship exist, friendship groups at university can be more transient. We have spoken a lot already about the balance of power between tenant and landlord, but we should also consider the balance of power when someone in a friendship group in a house wants to cut and run, leaving his former friends high and dry. That is a real perverse situation that runs against natural justice and good order.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I support the excellent amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in particular Amendment 5, which strongly resembles an amendment which had cross-party support at an earlier stage of our deliberations on the Bill and I hope will continue to have that support. It seems to me that the proposals that we have before us will lead to a two-tier system, in which advantaged students who can afford the higher rents will go into the purpose-built accommodation, but the lower-cost, more flexible accommodation—often smaller, private lettings—will be much reduced, and that will be very bad news for access to university.
I do not by and large believe conspiracy theories, but on this occasion I think that the interests of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are very different from the interests of the Department for Education. If students are no longer travelling to university so much, if some students are deterred from this accommodation, and if other types of tenants move in instead, that is not a problem for the department sponsoring this Bill; in fact, it might almost be a help. It will then be able to say that other people have been able to find private rented accommodation and the adjustment has been borne by a particular group of students. Meanwhile, the Department for Education, with its commitment to social mobility and opportunity, will be facing the consequences of fewer students going to university since they cannot afford the high-rent environment which is now being promoted. So, I am concerned that the department steering this Bill is not taking proper account of the legitimate interests from a different perspective of education and social mobility.
I very much regret that the Minister, despite her courtesy in meeting up with myself and others, which we have appreciated, has not been able to make any concessions, even moving from three rooms to two rooms or one room. I hope at least, however, she will be able to flesh out a statement she made a few minutes ago in the debate on the previous amendments, when she said that the Government would “continue to monitor the market”. Will she assure the House that this monitoring of the market will include monitoring student access to the private rented sector as part of their participation in higher education?
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
My Lords, I too offer strong support to Amendment 5. In that context, I declare an interest as an employee of King’s College London.
The profound change, in varying ways, to the rental market that the Bill will introduce is not very well understood outside this Chamber, but some of the people who have become very aware of it, in my experience, are people who currently let to students. I first became aware of this when told by a number of people that they do not see themselves letting to students in future, thank you very much. These are people who have small rental properties. I know that that the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, whose amendment I was happy to support in Committee, is also aware of this. He has highlighted the fact that we now have a bifurcated system.
The Government have rightly acknowledged that student housing is a major issue and have introduced some clear provisions that cover purpose-built student accommodation, and indeed student halls, but fail to cover anything that does not have at least three bedrooms and is being let to students. The problem is that a large proportion of the cheaper student housing outside major cities is of exactly that type. What somewhat astonishes me is that we have a situation in which there is not likely to be any harmful impact on the provision of student housing at the expensive top end of the market but a very major impact on smaller, cheaper rental properties at the lower end, which are of course the ones taken by students from lower-income families and people who are not in the major cities but are in other places. I am somewhat puzzled that the Government have been so determined not to extend ground 4A to, at least, properties with two bedrooms. I really do not understand it and I therefore strongly support the amendment.
I would like to lay something for the future about Amendment 7. I notice that it is a probing amendment and, of course, apprentices are not students—they are employees, many of them rather adult employees—but in future, if and when we revisit the issue of making accommodation easily available to people who are, in effect, students, and that will include apprentices, we should pay this considerable attention.
If we look back 200 or 300 years, especially in London, we see that it was full of apprentices who had come from elsewhere in the country. They served their apprenticeships in London and then went back out, and they could do so because part of being an apprentice was that you lived with your master. We do not have that any more, and the result is, again, enormously reduced opportunities for people who live in less economically advantaged places. If you are a low-income school leaver, you will have far fewer apprenticeship opportunities open to you in your hometown, and we are not doing anything to make accommodation easily available to apprentices who might want to be employed in economically more favoured regions.
Apprentices are not students so it is too late for this Bill to do anything about them, and it probably was not possible anyway, but I flag this conundrum as something that—if we ever come back, review the consequences of the Bill and make some changes—I hope the Government might put something on the table about at the same time.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. In Committee I was one of those probing the Government’s intentions on purpose-built student accommodation, houses in multiple occupation—HMOs—and the application of ground 4A to those properties but not to smaller units in the private rented sector that some students might choose to live in.
I listened very carefully to the Minister’s reply in Committee and have thought further. Indeed, I have listened carefully to the debate so far and I am sorry to have to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, although I agree with him that it will be very important for the Government to monitor the impact of the student market on the private rented sector. I will explain why I take that view.
I have reached the conclusion that there is a good reason to restrict the application of ground 4A to purpose-built student accommodation—the very large blocks—and houses in multiple occupation. The danger of not doing so is that some unscrupulous landlords renting smaller units of accommodation which do not qualify for the term HMO might decide to call tenants students when they are not students, to get around the provisions of the Bill. I think that would be a serious defect in the Bill. Indeed, as the Minister said in her reply on this issue in Committee:
“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”.—[Official Report, 22/4/25; col. 589.]
I have come to the conclusion that the Minister is right on that matter and, for that reason, ground 4A, I submit, should be restricted to purpose-built student accommodation and houses in multiple occupation.
Lord Fuller (Con)
It is quite straightforward that we know who students are. The universities issue certificates and those certificates are handed to the local authority in the case of council tax, so they can get the 100% council tax allowance. It is not difficult to identify who those students are. Does the noble Lord agree? Has he thought whether the existing statutory process for determining who a student is would be sufficient to avoid the jeopardy that he has suggested?
Lord Shipley (LD)
The very point that the noble Lord raises is that I do not think it would be sufficient. Indeed, when I spoke on this issue in Committee, I suggested that the council tax register, because whole-student households do not pay council tax, would potentially be sufficient; I just do not think that is the case. It is not just about university accommodation. it is about students more generally. Indeed, there is an amendment coming up on the Marshalled List to define who is a university student. So I think it is a great deal more complicated than the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, has indicated to us.
I have concluded that those students who are in smaller units of accommodation will be protected anyway, as tenants under the Act. I have concluded that, on this matter, the Government should be given the benefit of the doubt, but I hope very much that the Minister will be able to meet the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, which is that they have to keep this matter under review.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, as this is the first time I have addressed the House at this stage of the Bill, I will just remind your Lordships that I am a chartered surveyor. I think that is probably the only interest I need to declare, other than being the father of three children. They are now long out of university, but I witnessed the process of them living in halls and subsequently in the private rented sector, two of them within the city of Bristol, and I got to know one or two of the people who let to students as a business model. The properties are not necessarily large—some of them are very small; it depends on what model they are using. I am worried about what seems to be an acceptance of what the Minister said will be a process of review.
Review done by government is an incredibly blunt and ponderous instrument. I predict that if there was a review looking at a particular problem, a lot of serious damage would have occurred by the time it had been completed or the matter actioned and put into regulation, or whatever other form it was going to take.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments on students, and all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. As noble Lords will be aware, the proposals on student accommodation have been subject to great consideration and debate both inside and outside this Chamber and in the other place. I thank all those who have written to me, and I am sure to other noble Lords, on this subject.
Amendment 2 seeks to retain fixed-term tenancies for students living in private rented accommodation. I can only repeat that fixed terms serve only to lock tenants in. They oblige them to pay rent even if the condition of the property is poor, or if their circumstances change and they need to move out as a result. In the current system of fixed-term tenancies, we often hear of students who have dropped out of university but are still obliged to pay rent for their accommodation— I could mention some examples, but it is probably not appropriate to do so. This is not the right approach. We want all tenants, including students, from whichever demographic group they come from, to benefit from the increased security and flexibility that the Renters’ Rights Bill provides.
Students pay the same rent—often higher rents—as other tenants and so should have the same rights as everyone else. We have introduced a new possession ground to allow the cyclical nature of the student market to continue and to provide landlords with confidence. I recognise that the noble Baroness is trying to create parity between students in the private rented sector and those in purpose-built student accommodation, as their tenancies will be exempted from the assured system and landlords will be able to offer fixed-term tenancies. However, we have exempted purpose-built student accommodation from the assured tenancy system due to its unique business model. Often, PBSA cannot be let to non-students due to its location or the services it provides alongside accommodation.
We have also exempted this sector from the protections of the assured tenancy system because we are satisfied that the Unipol codes of management practice provide an alternative route to ensuring that tenancies are at a high standard. There is no such code for private student landlords, and it would be wrong to mirror the exemption.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, who asked about monitoring—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt, but does the Minister accept that purpose-built student accommodation is for the more wealthy? Young people who are struggling to go to university will go with the private rented sector and not the expensive specific accommodation. Has she done any work on that, and does she realise that that is what is happening out there?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Students who take up accommodation should have the same rights as anybody else who is taking up accommodation. That is why we do not want to exempt from the benefits of the Renters’ Rights Bill students who want to rent in the private rented sector.
To come on to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, about monitoring, we will monitor this element of the Bill, along with all aspects of it, and I will give noble Lords more detail about that—it comes up under a future set of amendments, but as he has asked the question, it is important to respond to it. We will evaluate the process, impact and value for money of the reforms in line with the department’s published Housing Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy. The evaluation will involve extensive data collection through interviews, surveys and focus groups with a range of stakeholders, as well as trusted data sources. We will talk to tenants, landlords, letting agents, third sector organisations, delivery partners, the court service and government officials. I will say more about the court service later on, because, to some extent, that needs a much more immediate and dynamic monitoring process.
The primary data will be supplemented by monitoring data from existing surveys and new data produced by the reforms. Reports will be produced for publication approximately two and five years after implementation, in line with commitments made in the Bill’s impact assessment to publish findings. Therefore, they will be available for parliamentary scrutiny. It is important to say at this point that we want to make sure there is a process by which we can review the provisions in the Bill.
Lord Willetts (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for that very full explanation of the monitoring. In her long list of organisations that would be consulted, I do not think she had universities. Will she assure the House that they will be included as well?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My apologies to the noble Lord; that was probably my speedy reading rather than an omission on the part of the information I have—so, yes, I agree with him that this is part of the monitoring process.
Amendment 5 seeks to expand ground 4A, which allows students living in HMOs to be evicted in line with the academic year. It seeks to address the concerns of some noble Lords that the scope of the ground needs to be expanded to all student properties. It would remove the HMO restriction and allow students living in self-contained accommodation—one and two-bedroom properties for example—to be evicted each year. We have thought carefully about the design of ground 4A, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for also giving it great thought. We want to ensure the cyclical nature of the typical student market is maintained. We therefore believe limiting it to HMOs achieves this by capturing 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, or post-graduate couples living together who have put down roots in the area, will be protected.
The core principle of the Bill is that tenants should have more security in their homes, and 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. I do not agree with the conspiracy theory that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, spoke about, but if a landlord cannot gain possession in line with the academic year, they are more likely to be able to let the property out to non-student tenants. That gives another way through for landlords.
On Amendment 6, noble Lords may remember that, in the Committee evidence session in the other place, it was highlighted that students are often pressured into signing contracts for the next academic year very early in the term, before they have had a chance to form stable friendships or assess a property’s proper condition and location. To discourage this practice, we amended the Bill to prevent landlords using ground 4A if they had agreed a tenancy more than six months in advance of tenants gaining the right to possession. This amendment seeks to extend this six-month limitation to allow landlords to sign tenancies up to nine months in advance. I am not convinced that this would be the right approach.
As I have highlighted, in many cases students are expected to commit to properties within just months of arriving at university, before having the opportunity to form lasting friendship groups or evaluate whether a property meets their needs in terms of condition or location. The purpose of this measure is to act as a strong disincentive to this practice, while striking the right balance. It avoids pushing students into signing tenancies before Christmas—when students are still settling in—but continues to allow flexibility for students who prefer to secure accommodation in advance of the summer period and does not interfere with typical exam periods. Extending this limit to nine months would undermine that balance and risk reinforcing the practice that this measure is intended to discourage; for example, tenants in a competitive market may be forced to search for tenancies starting in September during their January exam period.
Amendment 7 seeks to expand the student ground for possession, so that it can be used to evict a tenant undertaking an apprenticeship. While I understand the support for apprenticeships and share the noble Baroness’s wish to support people undertaking them, I do not believe that this would be the right approach. Ground 4A was created in recognition of the unique, cyclical nature of accommodation for those in traditional higher education. Those in other types of education, such as apprenticeships, are less likely to live in cyclical accommodation and need the security of tenure that the Bill gives tenants. Those on apprenticeship schemes, for example, earn a wage and tend to hope to stay at their company once the apprenticeship is completed; they live lifestyles much more akin to the working population than to university students. They will therefore benefit from all the increased security of tenure that the Bill will give them. For the reasons I have set out, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and all noble Lords who have spoken; they have considerable interest in and knowledge of the sector. Having listened carefully to the debate, and given that the House has rejected the principle of fixed-term tenancies for all, I intend to withdraw Amendment 2.
On Amendment 6, concerning the timing of student tenancies, and Amendment 7, on expanding the definition of students, I recognise that there is sympathy for the concerns I have raised. However, I do not believe that there is enough support in the House to carry them; I will therefore not move those amendments.
Over the past number of months, we have listened to student organisations and universities across this country about the supply of student housing and the types of housing that students—of many different types—want to be made available in the sector. I have listened on the issue of monitoring, but I am worried that, when we eventually find out that it will have a detrimental effect on the sector, a cohort of young people will have suffered during that period of time. We do not think that is correct.
The other issue is around taking out certain types of accommodation from the sector. What will happen then? The rest of the accommodation will become more expensive for the students who need it. That concerns us as well.
There is an issue of capacity and supply in the market, and that remains very pressing. We believe that the Government’s response could have been better; it is pretty unconvincing. Therefore, we will test the opinion of the House on Amendment 5.
Lord Jamieson
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would retain social landlords’ ability to demote tenancies for anti-social behaviour.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. Anti-social behaviour is a scourge on our communities, but it is particularly devastating from a housing perspective. It undermines community spirit, leaving tenants feeling trapped and helpless. It strips away the very essence of what makes a house a home. Too often we overlook the consequences. It is not just the cost of repairs, increased security and time-consuming administration of complaints, placing an unsustainable burden on housing associations and local authorities, but the misery and social breakdown it can cause in communities. As currently drafted, the Bill weakens the powers available to local authorities and social landlords to tackle anti-social behaviour. That is why we have sought to bring back Amendment 3 today to preserve the ability of social landlords to demote tenancies in response to such behaviour.
Demotion is not about punishment for its own sake. It is a vital tool—a proportionate deterrent that enables landlords to uphold community stability. Whether it is loud noise, vandalism or intimidation of tenants, those engaging in persistent anti-social behaviour must know there are consequences. Without the option to demote, how are landlords expected to maintain safety and harmony in their communities? Those with experience in local government will know that when a tenant causes disruption, it is often the landlord who receives the enforcement pressure from the council. If landlords are to be held to account, they must also be empowered to act. Amendment 3 would ensure that social landlords retain this power. It is not a radical departure but a practical necessity to deal with real-world situations where one tenant’s behaviour causes misery to many others.
This is about protecting the quiet minority—the families, the elderly and the vulnerable who rely on their home being a place of safety. It is about ensuring that social landlords are not left powerless in the face of persistent disruption. I urge the Government to reflect on the value of demotion as a tool of last resort and the message it sends that anti-social behaviour has consequences and that community cohesion matters. In conclusion, if we are serious about supporting tenants and local authorities, we must ensure they have the tools to act decisively and fairly. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, we say ditto to every single thing that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said about anti-social behaviour. We all know it blights people’s lives and how difficult it is to stem it. We have arrangements where councils work with their local strategic partnerships to deal with it. Nobody is disputing that.
The reason we have come to the conclusion that demoted tenancies are not needed is really very simple. I contacted the National Housing Federation, whose members are social housing providers. It genuinely does not see a need. It is comfortable enough with the Bill and how it deals with anti-social behaviour. It wants to know that it has effective tools to deal with anti-social behaviour and is concerned about the capacity of the courts to deal with evictions based on anti-social behaviour.
My instinct straightaway was to support the amendment on demoted tenancies, but the National Housing Federation said it did not see the point of it but did want to know that it was going to get the tools to deal with things. Many providers, ones I know personally, feel that they deal effectively with anti-social behaviour, including my own council and I suspect the Minister’s. They were concerned about having those tools and the capacity of the courts to deal with that ground when they choose to use it.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for this amendment. It seeks to reintroduce social landlords’ ability to apply for a demotion order in response to the anti-social behaviour of a tenant. I can honestly say that one of the most frustrating things I dealt with in 27 years as a councillor was anti-social behaviour. While we all agree with the need for tackling the blight of anti-social behaviour on individuals and communities as a priority, I cannot accept the amendment as a way of dealing with that. It would fundamentally go against one of the core principles of the Renters’ Rights Bill—to improve security of tenure for renters. There is also a technical reason, which I shall come to shortly.
The amendment would seemingly enable landlords to demote social tenants to a less secure form of tenancy. As I said in Committee, as drafted, the amendment would not work: the Renters’ Rights Bill will move tenants to a simpler tenancy structure whereby assured shorthold tenancies and the ability to evict a shorthold tenant via Section 21 are abolished. There will, therefore, no longer be a tenancy with lower security to which one can demote tenants. For the amendment to work, a reversal of measures in the Bill to remove demoted tenancies and assured shorthold tenancies would be required.
Tackling anti-social behaviour is a top priority for our Government and a key part of our safer streets mission. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, many councils and housing associations already do a great job in tackling this in partnership with each other, but I accept that it can still be an issue.
The Bill will shorten the notice period for the existing mandatory eviction ground, with landlords being able to make a claim to the court immediately in cases of anti-social behaviour. The Bill also amends the matters that judges must consider when deciding whether to award possession under that discretionary ground. This will ensure that judges give particular regard to whether tenants have engaged with efforts to resolve their behaviour and the impact on other tenants within HMOs.
For all those reasons, we feel that the amendment is unworkable and unnecessary, and ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her comments, and I am grateful for the wide recognition of anti-social behaviour and the problems it causes. While we will not press the amendment today, I hope the Government have truly heard the problems that this causes. Evicting someone and going to court is very draconian, and this proposal would provide the opportunity of an interim step without the need for eviction. That is a useful tool, but I recognise the Minister’s comments. I hope that the Government will reflect and consider how the Bill can more robustly support those affected by persistent anti-social behaviour. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jamieson
“(a) the landlord;(b) the spouse, civil partner or co-habitee of the landlord;(c) a person who is—(i) a child,(ii) a grandchild,(iii) a parent,(iv) a grandparent,(v) a sibling,(vi) a niece or nephew,(vii) an aunt or uncle, or(viii) a cousin,of the landlord or of the spouse, civil partner or co-habitee of the landlord;(d) a person who is the spouse, civil partner or co-habitee of a person falling within paragraph (c).For the purposes of this Schedule—(a) one person (C) is the “co-habitee” of another person (P) if P lives with C as if they were married or in a civil partnership;(b) a “niece or nephew” of a person (P) is a child—(i) of a sibling of P, or(ii) of a person who is the spouse, civil partner or co-habitee of a sibling of P;(c) an “aunt or uncle” of a person (P) is a sibling of a parent of P;(d) a “cousin” of a person (P) is a child—(i) of an aunt or uncle of P, or(ii) of a person who is the spouse, civil partner or co-habitee of an aunt or uncle of P;(e) “sibling” includes a sibling of the half-blood and a step-sibling.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to apply the same definition of family member which is used in clause 20 of the Act in Schedule 1 to ensure the internal consistency of this Act.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, we return to the issue of equalising definitions across the Bill, not just for consistency but for fairness, and ensuring that the definition of “family” is the same when it comes to guarantors and grounds for possession. It is not about expanding the law, but about clarity and equity. We want to place on record and state clearly that we believe the Government are making a mistake in resisting this change.
Amendment 21 is sensible and necessary; possession, for the purpose of housing a carer, is an issue of growing importance. Many families are already making plans for future care needs. With social care under increasing pressure, we believe that this amendment is timely and proportionate. We must allow older or less able people to stay in their own home if that is what they choose. Having a carer close by or even in the annexe next door would enable them to do so. I hope that the Minister understands the value of this ground.
Finally, Amendments 22 and 23, the first in the name of my noble friend Lord Leicester and the second in my own name, speak to the need for a clearer message around redevelopment, not only for commercial purposes but for private regeneration as well. Really good regeneration in urban areas requires a certain scale. When a large site is available, something truly transformational can be achieved, as we have seen with the King’s Cross redevelopment. But large sites like King’s Cross are the exception: they just do not exist. Many forward-thinking investors and developers seek to build up a site of sufficient scale through piecemeal acquisition over many years, continuing to let the housing and commercial properties in the meantime.
We believe that we should support and encourage those seeking to do these high-quality regeneration projects. Are the Government seriously suggesting that the tenancy should be terminated on change of ownership and the home left vacant, potentially for many years, thereby not only reducing the rental housing stock but undermining the viability of such large-scale regeneration projects and blighting the neighbourhood? Would it not be far better to allow property owners to continue to rent their homes until such time as the property is needed for redevelopment? I beg to move.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, I will speak on Amendment 21 in my name; I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted and Lady Neville-Rolfe, for their support. This amendment makes a very small change to the Bill, but it could make a significant difference to the lives of individuals who need long-term full-time care due to their age or disability.
I also thank the Minister for her time in meeting with us to discuss the amendment. We have listened, but still feel strongly that our amendment is important to those who need care. We do not see that it would create a loophole, which was one of the Government’s concerns, or that it treats tenants unfairly when trying to ensure that they have security of tenure and are not moved on unnecessarily from a home that they enjoy and are settled in.
For a loophole to be abused, there must be opportunities in the wording or function of the clause for this happen. We believe we have addressed this, as the property needs to be in close proximity to the landlord’s residence—for example, an annexe or a flat within the same block, or in the same street or village—so that daily and emergency care can be provided to the person who needs care.
Due to the proximity, the tenant would be aware of where the landlord lives. If there were a caring requirement for the landlord or a member of their family and notice was given on the grounds of the need for a carer, they could investigate, ask neighbours or visit the landlord for confirmation. If they were not satisfied that the requirement was met, they could use the provisions in the Bill to challenge the notice.
One of the principles of the Bill is to provide more security of tenure. This amendment would change the Bill in only a very small way as it would apply only to a small number of properties, but for a very important and valued reason for a family.
We have spoken to several national care organisations, which support our amendment. There are many benefits if a long-term carer lives close by, and these were pointed out to me by the National Care Association.
Continuity of care is so important. Carers have private lives, and this separate property would give the carer the opportunity to live their own life in their own space, thereby improving retention and their own mental and physical health. It would also give private space to the family in their own home, which can only help with all the family’s health needs.
During Covid, a lot of live-in carers suffered from loneliness when living in the same property as the person they were caring for. Allowing them their own housing would be a big advantage. Caring is a professional and skilled job, and therefore, when care is provided, it should be done by the most appropriate skilled person. Surely, this could be a professional carer.
If the individual being cared for has a family member living with them who could be the carer, would it not be more appropriate if that individual went out to work and did an appropriate job with the skills they have, rather than doing the job of the carer, when a professional carer might provide better care? Is not one of the Government’s primary objectives to get people into work? Surely, this must involve doing roles that they are most productive in.
Many people of different ages require full-time care, and this can be for many reasons and can come unexpectedly due to age, significant health reasons or sometimes, sadly, an accident. If there is a need for long-term care then surely, if you have a property in proximity, you should be able to gain possession. Is it not reasonable and fair to extend the grounds to allow a professional carer to live at the property, rather than a reluctant family member providing care services?
In terms of care, surely keeping an individual in their own home rather than in a care home or another institution, would benefit not only them but society in general. This amendment achieves this without adding pressure on the already stretched social care sector. We acknowledge that some tenants will suffer disruption by having to leave their property. This is the same as if the landlord wishes to sell the property or move a family member in, but this is for a very specific reason and most tenants would understand why notice has been given.
The amendment is all about family and landlords gaining possession for the use of a property for the family. That is what ground 8 lists. All we seek is to extend the provision for what is an essential service for a family in a time of need. We hope that the Government consider this amendment and make this small change for the benefit of those in care. If they are reluctant to do so, I may need to test the opinion of the House on this matter.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I added my name to this amendment and spoke during previous Bill stages. I declare my interests as a private landlord, in my own right and also as a trustee, and as having a relative who purchased the flat above theirs when a carer was needed, which was going to be the case in due course. That planning is now, of course, in some disarray: they wonder whether they must evict the present tenant and bring forward the employment of a carer, even though that is not yet necessary.
Since the discussion in Committee and since speaking with the Minister, whom I thank for her time, I have spoken to various care organisations, which are all supportive of the amendment. They made some recommendations that lie behind the changes in language since the amendment was tabled in Committee. The care organisations have taught me that there is a very wide way in which carers are used, both in the regulated sector and outside it, on which many people rely for vital tasks, health and personal care. Absent the voluntary sector, a lot more costs would fall on health and social services.
However, it is not always easy to find a family member who can do this. Families are much smaller nowadays—my husband and I were adding up what has happened in our own family and, if we chase it back, 14 at our age level will end up being replaced by far fewer at the grandchild level. With those kinds of circumstances, with many more people working, women not wanting to stay at home and families spreading much further from where they grew up and from where parents or others needing care within the family might be, the care organisations say that the reliance is on what they term “loved ones”. It is a very wide phrase; quite often, it means friends and neighbours whom they have lived close to who have helped one another during their lives. When one of them falls ill or becomes disabled or, in many sad cases, is a survivor of cancer who has been left with life-changing circumstances, they become the carer who helps them. As their condition deteriorates, it may be necessary for the carer to be nearby.
The care organisations that I have spoken to, and which support the amendment, are the Homecare Association, Care England, the National Care Forum, the National Care Association and Carers UK. I thank them for their time and recommendations.
We are quite aware that the Minister does not want to create loopholes—that was the main feature of the discussion that we had. For that purpose, we have provided that regulations can be made to amend the definition of “carer”. In many ways, I would prefer it if we did not have that there, because the Minister could make regulations that took away anything useful, but I am hoping that it would be done only in the light of experience if one found that the term was being somehow abused.
In considering carers, we also need to look at care patterns. Many people who need serious care have several carers, who have to operate in shift systems, whether that be daily, weekly or monthly. Sometimes, the carer may come from overseas and stay for six weeks, and then they go back and somebody else comes in, so there is a rolling pattern. It will be very difficult if they cannot necessarily be conveniently located.
So I ask the Minister to think again. Yes, there may not be a great number of people who would be helped by the amendment in the way that a huge number of renters will be helped by the Bill, but in a civil society being a minority has never been a ground for discrimination. Therefore, I ask the Minister to think about this and to understand that, like her, we do not want cheaters to abuse this; we want people who are in need of this service to be able to avail themselves of properties that, often, they have bought to plan for their care—and, indeed, in order not to be a burden on the state. Should they not be allowed the peace of mind that they will be able to fulfil those plans?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I also support Amendment 21 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, to which I have added my name. I am particularly grateful for the warm words of my noble friend Lord Jamieson and for the support of the various carers organisations which do such an important job in our society.
The Bill will allow a landlord to take possession of a property for a family reason. Our small extension would allow a nearby property to be taken back in hand if it were needed to house a carer. In the meantime, it would be available, for example, as a dwelling for a struggling local couple or an individual seeking a home.
With ever-growing numbers of the aged and disabled, with the move to smaller homes and smaller families, and with a scarcity of care homes and hospices, the provision for short-term housing of professional carers, often changing at short notice, will become more and more important in coping with our ageing population. This is particularly true in rural areas, which are being so battered by other changes the Government have felt it necessary to make.
I declare an interest, recorded in the register, as the owner of such a cottage bought specifically for a carer and generally let to a local on a shorthold tenancy. Such tenancies have expanded the rental market hugely in this country and will be completely swept away by the Bill. So, we need to do what we can together in this House to moderate its perverse consequences—notably in this case to make things better for carers. Fortunately, neither my husband nor I yet need a carer, but we may need one eventually, and my concern, like that of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, is a general one. I can guarantee that I am not alone.
I have no idea how the Government will find the 1 million more rented homes Savills believes we need by 2031 unless they make some sensible technical changes to the Bill, which is being constructively debated by knowledgeable experts here in this House. Our Amendment 21 falls into that category. I hope others will join us in the Lobby and in calling on the Government to think again on this issue.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I did not intend to speak to this amendment but, since I am, I declare that I do not rent out any residential property, but my children are tenants and rent out property in their own right. There are two sources of potential misery here: one is turning out a tenant, the other is being unable to provide care for a family member. I know how I would feel if I was in a situation where I had to deny a family member professional care despite owning a property that could accommodate a carer. I am interested to hear how the Minister feels about this, what she would do in those circumstances, and what other Members of this House would do if the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, calls a vote on this matter.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to my Amendment 22, I also express my support for Amendment 21 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and Amendment 23 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. I declare an interest as a property owner of both commercial land and residential houses. If one acquires planning permission on a parcel of land that might have, to take a brownfield example, a few workmen’s terraced houses or, in a rural setting, perhaps a farmworkers’ cottage that might be in the middle of a proposed development, my amendment seeks to allow the landowner or developer to gain possession of said property or properties.
When I look out of the window of my flat in King’s Cross, which the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, alluded to and which was developed by Argent—a brilliant place-maker that has worked in Manchester, created a marvellous area in Tottenham Hale, and produced a high-quality mix of leisure, retail, high-end accommodation, medium-level accommodation and affordable accommodation, but which takes decades to assemble land—I see commercial property that has been bought by developers and converted into flats. Many of these developments have a high proportion of affordable accommodation, which seems to be the largest amount of development happening in Britain at the moment.
However, this should go both ways. We in this country hear we are losing industry and are only a service economy. We should be doing our utmost to produce jobs. The unemployment figures are already rising. If the examples I have mentioned achieve planning permission and the tenant is removed—the reality is that the developer or landowner would do that by negotiation and try to find suitable alternative accommodation for that person—but the tenant then says, “No, I’m not leaving at all”, then the whole opportunity for growth ceases. Were the development to go ahead then, because of the planning permission it has achieved, a great number of jobs would be created in the short-term in its construction, which might take two to four years, and then in the occupation of those commercial buildings. It is a win-win. The Government say they want growth, but if they do not allow my amendment, nor that of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, then they are not acting in the best interests of growth.
I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, on providing accommodation for a carer, which is very well thought through. We should all support it. It seems that there is a great deal of support around the House for it. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, is somewhat wider than mine—it is on redevelopment and regeneration—but they are effectively the same thing: they are looking for growth.
I have sat in on much of this debate. It is a shame that the Government are not listening. Good Governments listen to differing views and take note. There are many good amendments being put forward. Government through ideology and a large majority does not lead to good law.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 22 from the noble Earl, Lord Leicester. I declare my direct interests in the private rented sector, with lettings of cottages in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire, and in direct farming and agricultural lettings in those counties. I said in Committee that a number of Bills, reviews and reports are in motion that cover the whole issue of farm and other diversification in rural areas, which the Government are keen to encourage in the light of falling profitability in farming, as subsidies are withdrawn or concentrated on environmental activities and concerns.
Farmers are therefore looking carefully at their assets to see whether they can be put to a more profitable use. Obviously, this can involve farmstead cottages and buildings, rather than just stand-alone farm buildings. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill is relevant in this context, together with the rural England prosperity fund, which specifically targets facilities and building conversions that help rural businesses to diversify.
This amendment would assist in enabling diversification if the necessary planning permission has been granted or there is a permitted development right. I am thoroughly aware that the Minister is keen to protect all assured tenants from eviction for whatever reason, and keen not to reduce the housing stock. However, in granting that planning permission, the authorities will already have given due consideration to the potential conversion and any loss of residential buildings through change of use. They will have agreed that the merits of the planned development outweigh the retention of the residents. I therefore hope the Minister will include this new ground 8A amendment as a sensible ground for possession, which would assist in the development of the rural economy.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I will mainly speak to Amendments 4 and 21. It is fairly obvious that we will support Amendment 21 from the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford.
We have a problem with Amendment 4—or we did to start with, but then I took legal advice. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asserted that we needed clarity and consistency across the Bill. I suspect we have more lawyers than any other profession in this House, and guess what: I got slightly different answers. However, the message was quite consistent: we absolutely do not need to have the same definition of family, in this case, across a whole Bill because we are dealing with very specific, different things.
My understanding is—and I am certain that the Minister will correct me if I have this slightly wrong—that the amendment to ground 1 deals with the diversity of the modern family and the kind of things that can happen, but it is about the repossession ground, so it has been drawn fairly tightly for obvious reasons. However, the definition in Clause 20 is clearly broader because it relates to the removal of the guarantor liability for rent after a family member in a joint tenancy dies. It is a sympathetic amendment and a sympathetic broadening, casting the net a little bit more widely, as it seeks to protect bereaved families, whereas we necessarily want to keep the definition in ground 1 fairly tight to avoid abuse. We have resolved our position on that, so we will not support Amendment 4.
I want to hear what the Minister has to say on Amendments 22 and 23, because I believe there are grounds to do what they would do already in the Bill. I am genuinely interested to hear the Minister’s response to those amendments.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, the noble Lords, Lord de Clifford and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for their amendments, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Carrington, for their contributions to the debate.
Amendment 4 seeks to expand the definition of “family member” for the purpose of the moving-in ground, ground 1, to a much wider range of relations. This mandatory possession ground is available if the landlord or their close family member wishes to move into a property. This amendment would allow landlords to evict their tenants in order to house nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles or cousins. It would enable the ground to be used to house the equivalent relatives of their spouse, civil partner or cohabitee. The family members we have chosen who can move in under ground 1 aim to reflect the diversity of modern families, but this is balanced with security of tenure for the existing tenant, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, indicated.
I appreciate that this draws the line short of where some might hope, but to go too far would open up tenants to evictions for a wide range of people, potentially very significant numbers of cousins, nieces and nephews, where families are large. I know that this depends on families—it would certainly be a large number in my family. This would provide more opportunities for ill-intentioned landlords to abuse the system. It is right that the definition used here is narrower than the definition in Clause 20, which removes guarantor liability for rent after a family member in a joint tenancy dies. That is because this is a possession ground, so it results in people losing their homes; whereas Clause 20 protects bereaved families, where the net should be cast more widely.
Amendment 21 aims to introduce a new ground for possession that would permit the landlord to seek possession of their property for the purpose of housing a carer for them or a member of their family who lives with them. This is qualified by the requirement that the property is within sufficient proximity to the landlord’s residence to facilitate emergency callouts. I thank all noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for their considered and passionate engagement on this proposed ground in Committee and when I met Peers to discuss the proposal in the run-up to Report. I recognise the difficulties they highlighted that may be faced by landlords who wish to evict their tenant in order to house a carer. We are all aware of the importance of carers and the remarkable work they do in supporting individuals and families in difficult circumstances. These amendments clearly come from a good place, and I am sympathetic to noble Lords’ concerns.
However, there are some practical considerations that weaken the rationale for this intervention. Adding more possession grounds increases opportunities for abuse by those unscrupulous landlords who, sadly, exist in the market. We are committed to giving renters much greater security and stability so that they can stay in their homes for longer. That is why we have developed very specific grounds. We also think that there are very few landlords who would be in the position of both needing a carer and owning a second property close to their home to accommodate that carer. I appreciate the examples that both noble Baronesses gave. Given the potential risk of abuse and the very narrow group of people who might benefit from this ground, we do not think the additional ground is warranted. Our view is that it is not fair that a tenant should lose their home, with all the disruption that entails, in order for another person to be housed in those circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, talked about supporting people into work, but this amendment might involve another local worker being evicted to house that carer. Indeed, if the evicted tenant were also a carer, it would be likely to deprive one of the very organisations that have been contacting noble Lords of a key member of their staff, so we have to be careful that we do not cause those kinds of circumstances.
Amendment 22 seeks to create a new ground for possession to enable landlords to convert a residential property to non-residential use. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, that I too visited the King’s Cross development when I was looking at the development of the central part of Stevenage. The work that has been done there is fantastic.
As I stated in Committee, in response to a similar amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I do not believe that the proposal in Amendment 22 is the right approach. The Government have thought carefully about where landlords should be able to take possession of their properties, particularly where it would lead to a tenant losing their home through no fault of their own.
Encouraging residential lets to be converted to other uses, at a time of such chronic pressure on housing supply, would not be right. It is for the same reason that the Bill abolishes ground 3, which enables landlords to evict long-term tenants in order to turn the dwelling into a holiday let. Where landlords wish to convert their property to non-residential use, it is right that they should do this as tenants move out, rather than by evicting a tenant who has done nothing wrong.
It is also worth noting—as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to—that the existing redevelopment ground, ground 6, could potentially be used in some circumstances. This is the right approach, not the approach put forward in the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Leicester.
I turn to Amendment 23. This well-intentioned amendment would create a new mandatory possession ground to allow landlords to evict tenants in order to redevelop their property, if they have received planning permission for the works and these works cannot be carried out with the tenant in situ. I am pleased to be able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, that landlords will already be able to evict in these circumstances. They can do this by using the existing, broader mandatory redevelopment ground, ground 6. This also does not require the landlord to prove that they have planning permission, which may not be necessary in all circumstances. In effect, this proposed new ground would merely duplicate ground 6, but with additional constraints. For the reasons I have set out, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, can she be categorical that anybody seeking to redevelop their property would be able to terminate a tenancy to do so?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
You can use the existing, broader mandatory redevelopment ground, ground 6, when you are redeveloping property.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
In respect of Amendment 21, does the Minister accept that denying someone the ability to move in a carer to look after their family in the way that was outlined will be an enormous temptation for abuse? The best outcome in that context is likely to be that people will simply hold the property empty for very many years in case they might need it. That will not create much help for the rental sector.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will reiterate my comments. When evicting one tenant to put another tenant in, you may well be evicting somebody else’s carer to put your carer in. Of course, we do not want to see properties sitting empty but, if people have a property, that is their choice. The idea that you might evict one carer to put another carer in, for example, is just not acceptable.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I hear what the Minister is saying about pushing a tenant out to put a carer in, but she is touching on a very specific case, where you are putting out a tenant who happens to be a carer so as to put another carer in. I would submit to her that that is a very tiny example.
The sheer emotional impact of not being able to care for somebody by putting a carer in will simply invite people to abuse the system: to find ways to get around it, or simply to hold the property empty. I wonder how Members of this House would react if they were in the situation of not being able to provide care to a loved one because, despite owning a property, they were unable to put a carer into it.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I simply add that it does not have to be another carer; it could be any of the key workers who we talk about so often who are in need of housing. There are other options for people. If landlords are receiving rent for that property, while I appreciate that there may be further shortages making it difficult to find somewhere near enough to the property, but there is the option of using the rent secured on one property to rent alternative accommodation for a carer.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
Those of us who deal with economic matters will have to point out that there would be tax paid on the rent, so there would not be a great deal left to be able to rent the next home. That is not an economically viable solution, even if there were another adjacent property to rent with what was left of the rent after deductions.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sorry; I can only come back to my point. It does not seem equitable to evict one family to house another family. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions. Turning to my first amendment, I recognise that the Minister has given some serious consideration to the definition of family and is satisfied with the Government’s position. We respectfully disagree, but I will not press Amendment 4 and will therefore withdraw it.
We have had an excellent debate on Amendment 21. I thank the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for introducing it and the many noble Lords who raised issues on it. They have spoken with clarity and conviction. We believe that allowing a property to be used to house a carer in a time of need not only is reasonable but can be vital to the well-being and living standards of the property owner, and on these Benches we are pleased to support this amendment.
Finally, turning to the issue of redevelopment and regeneration, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for his amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his contribution. Revitalising areas is key to improving living standards and supporting the long-term well-being and development of communities, delivering the growth that this Government have said is their number one priority. It is also crucial to delivering the homes that are so vital, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the Minister said earlier in the debate. I appreciate the Minister’s comment that this may already be covered, but we are not satisfied that it is. The Minister’s comments were not conclusive when I sought clarification. I will therefore test the opinion of the House on Amendment 23.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the restriction of Ground 4A to accommodation of three or more bedrooms only.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of the young people looking for student accommodation in the future at a reasonable rent, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Carrington
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Lord Carrington would enable the landlord to gain possession of the dwelling-house to house their agricultural worker, who will be working at least 35 hours per week for the landlord, regardless of the worker’s employment status (i.e. employee, worker or self-employed person).
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak also on Amendments 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17. I apologise that there are so many; I actually tabled only one but the Table Office divided it.
The amendments cover grounds for possession as they relate to self-employed agricultural workers. It is clearly understood that the key aim of government is to provide more security for tenants in the private rented sector—hence the abolition of Section 21 no-fault evictions. I thoroughly support this policy, but reforms must be implemented carefully when it comes to the rural economy to take into account the particular circumstances of the agricultural sector in order to avoid negative impacts, such as the necessary housing of farm workers who are crucial to the nation’s food security, as well as to a thriving rural economy.
Accordingly, special protections specific to agriculture are required. That is already partly recognised in the Bill in ground 5A, but limited to direct employees. Agriculture is unique in terms of tenanted housing, as often agricultural workers are provided with accommodation to enable them to be close to their place of work. A worker can often be required to work long hours during certain seasons, such as lambing or harvest, or unsocial hours, such as early mornings and late evenings, in the case of dairy farming. There are also animal welfare considerations that require workers to be close at hand at all times.
Following Committee in the Lords, I withdrew the original amendments to address the Minister’s concerns. She said then that there were other arrangements that a landlord could use to help their contractors with accommodation when they are working away from their home, such as paying expenses, using licences to occupy or paying for them to be housed in an Airbnb. She is absolutely correct, as contractors can be somewhat different from employed or self-employed farm workers. I have therefore removed contractors from this amendment.
The Minister’s suggestion that the same could be achieved by allowing self-employed workers to occupy a property under licence would not be appropriate for longer-term workers, which this amendment seeks to address. I also point out that licence agreements are generally unsuitable for long-term occupation, and in some instances can actually be considered as a tenancy, especially when the occupant of a dwelling has exclusive occupation of all or part of the dwelling.
I know the Minister was worried that these amendments could open up an exemption for a wider group of workers, and I hope I have reassured her that this specifically covers only genuine full-time agricultural workers. The revised amendments, which add only self-employed agricultural workers to this category, also deem that the nature of the self-employment should be genuine and meaningfully full-time. Hence, reference is made to working a minimum 35-hour week. Furthermore, the revised amendments confirm that there is no intention to alter the security of tenure afforded to assured agricultural occupants. That is because the Bill states that grounds 5A and 5C do not apply to this type of worker.
We believe that the ground for possession should be available where there is a need to house self-employed agricultural workers—for example, a self-employed party to a share-farming arrangement on a farm or a self-employed shepherd. It is increasingly common in the agricultural industry for workers to be self-employed but, given the nature of their work, especially if it is with livestock, they need to live on site. Some examples of workers who might fall into this category are dairymen, sheep shearers, relief milkers or tractor drivers. Currently, ground 5A provides a means of getting possession where the dwelling is required to house someone who will be employed as an agricultural worker. However, it does not cover the situation where that worker is self-employed.
On the same theme of self-employed workers, ground 5C does not adequately provide for possession where a self-employed worker has been provided with a dwelling but the work contract has ended; it applies only where the tenant has been employed by the landlord. In summary, we would like to see extensions to both ground 5A and ground 5C to reflect modern farming employment practices and cover situations where the worker is self-employed as well as employed. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to accept this amendment, which purely reflects current employment practices in farming, is non-political and is not designed to cover non-agricultural workers.
My two other amendments in this group, Amendments 10 and 12, cover the status of service and key workers. Much of the debate, within this Chamber and beyond, is rightly focused on the Bill’s impact on the private rented sector in urban rather than rural areas. These amendments seek to address two critical concerns: first, how we ensure that rural businesses can continue to function effectively and house employees; and, secondly, how to support the housing needs of key workers, in both urban and rural areas.
In many rural communities, landlords have typically also been a major employer in the area, and the convention is that they house employees of their businesses. Traditionally, the most common form of employment was in agriculture, and this is reflected in the specific legislation for agricultural worker tenancies. But, as successive Governments have encouraged rural diversification, we have seen a growing number of businesses beyond farming employing and housing workers. This has become more frequent as affordability challenges have meant that accommodation often needs to be offered as part of an employment package to attract and retain staff. Alongside this, more properties have been let to non-employees under assured shorthold tenancies, which have maintained flexibility. This system has allowed landowners to regain possession at the end of a fixed term, enabling them to house new employees as business needs evolve. Without a clear right to repossess in such cases, we risk seeing vital rental properties in rural areas either being sold or left empty. This is not hypothetical: we have already seen the consequences in Scotland following the ending of its equivalent of Section 21.
These amendments aim to ensure that rural businesses can continue to house the workers they need, while also supporting the broader functioning of rural and urban communities. In Committee, the Minister raised two objections to a similar amendment: first, that ground 5A already covers this issue; and, secondly, that we must protect tenants in critical local jobs. However, ground 5A, while welcome, does not go far enough. As the Minister acknowledged, the agricultural sector has unique needs, hence the inclusion of ground 5A, but 85% of rural businesses do not relate to farming or forestry. Many of these businesses still require staff to live on or near the site to perform their duties effectively. If the logic behind ground 5A works for agriculture, it should also work for these other rural enterprises. These amendments would extend repossession rights to cover incoming service occupancy workers—those who are required to live in a property for the better performance of their duties.
A good example is a rural business that diversified into hosting weddings to remain viable under changing agricultural policies and profitability. It now needs to hire a full-time wedding planner, someone who must be on site at short notice, work irregular hours and take on responsibilities for security and caretaking. However, the business cannot recruit because there is no housing available nearby. One of this rural business’s cottages is currently let to a non-employee. If the business were to seek repossession of this property to house this wedding planner, ground 5A would not apply and it would be unable to obtain possession. Amendments 10 and 12 would allow repossession of this property to protect the viability of the business.
I appreciate that the ambition of the Bill is to protect the security of tenure of more households. However, if we do not strike the right balance and make it more difficult for businesses to employ and house staff, they will simply hold properties vacant for potential future employees or sell them. This will further restrict the availability of private rented housing in rural areas.
I turn to the second point, which is the protection of tenants in vital local roles. The amendment is needed to address the efficient functioning of the rural economy, which includes housing those in vital local roles. The principle has been accepted for housing incoming agricultural workers; this is simply an extension of that. The Government are concerned about housing vital key workers in rural areas, so I have strengthened the amendment to include a provision allowing repossession where the property will be used to house an incoming key worker. Such workers are broadly defined as certain NHS employees; carers, who we have already talked about; teachers; and police and security staff, et cetera. In many rural areas, key workers face long commutes due to a lack of suitable housing. This undermines recruitment and retention and ultimately harms local services. These amendments would allow rural landlords to offer housing to key workers, ensuring the viability of rural areas.
While my focus is primarily rural, the benefits extend to urban landlords, such as NHS trusts or housing providers, and to key workers such as firefighters, on-call carers and others whose proximity to work is essential. In short, these amendments would make the private rented sector more responsive to the needs of both rural businesses and urban communities. They strike a balance between tenant protection and operational necessity and I urge the Minister to support them. I beg to move.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for bringing what is a quite small technical issue, even if there are many amendments related to it, particularly regarding farmers and their tenants. We understand that, technically, Amendments 8, 9, 11 and 13 to 17 relate to one very small, specific, technical issue, which is that if a dairy farmer, say, is on a contract, or is a freelancer but needs to be moved in to the site, then that repossession should be able to happen. So it is about viable businesses and about ensuring that somebody who is highly relevant can live next door to where they are working.
We understand, or we thought we understood, that licence to occupy would cover this. We also worry about the hours relating to this, although we note that one of the amendments specifies a 35-hour week. Therefore, I want to know from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington— I am happy to sit down and make way for him to answer—whether it would be possible to apply a loophole so that someone could work for just one hour and then get through a loophole that has been applied by these amendments.
Lord Carrington (CB)
The answer is “No”. The whole reason for putting 35 hours a week in there is to make sure there is no loophole, and it is drafted as such.
Baroness Grender (LD)
I thank the noble Lord.
On Amendments 10 and 12, we on these Benches are concerned that they technically widen the scope beyond where we are comfortable. However, regarding Amendments 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 16, we hope that the Minister has heard the technical detail that is required for a very specific profession and will look favourably on taking this away and having another look.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the agricultural sector of this country and its workers are without doubt the lifeline of the nation. I therefore thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his proposed amendments that make provision for agricultural landlords and workers, bringing the welfare of the agricultural sector into overdue consideration.
Today, the British agricultural industry contributes £14 billion to our economy and puts food on our plates three times a day. Agricultural landlords lie at the heart of this. They provide the means for this essential lifeline by providing on-site housing for workers who are required to be at hand to fulfil their duties 24 hours a day. From milking cows daily at three o’clock in the morning to delivering lambs throughout the night in the spring, on-site and proximity housing ultimately facilitates workers’ ability to produce the food on which we all depend. It is therefore crucial that we consider the effects of the Renters’ Rights Bill on these agricultural workers and, in the case of the Bill’s failure to protect their livelihoods, consider proposed amendments so that the Bill does not obstruct one of Britain’s lifelines.
As drafted, the Bill clumsily allows for occupants to remain in a dwelling house even if they no longer work for the landlord, which is usually the requirement for the occupancy of such housing. Similarly, as my noble friend Lord Roborough stated on 12 May, the wording of this Bill also does not allow for the possession of a house dwelling as long as the occupant remains in agricultural employment, with no indication as to the specific type of agricultural work that the occupant carries out, or whether proximity to certain facilities or animals is necessary.
This ultimately risks the deprivation of housing for current full-time workers, who may depend on the occupied dwelling house to be able to fulfil their duties, not to mention simultaneously risking the inability of the agricultural sector to function effectively, due to an inefficient proximity to work that this lack of provision may cause.
Amendments 8, 9 and 11 to 16 therefore ensure that such damage may be averted by allowing an agricultural landlord to possess their property for the use of their own full-time agricultural workers, and thus retain the efficacy that fuels this industry. Amendment 11 is particularly important, because our country’s modern agricultural industry is changing. One of those changes is that many of the employees are self-employed, particularly in jobs in the dairy industry and the sheep industry, where milkers and shepherds are often self-employed. So we will support the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, if he moves his Amendment 11.
As previously emphasised, it goes without saying that the agricultural sector serves to provide for every one of us, and it is in the same vein that proposed Amendments 10 and 12 also serve. In the Bill’s current form, the absence of provision for service occupants overlooks the reality that many agricultural workers’ contracts express: the worker must live in a particular residence where they can better perform their duties. This is of particular relevance to the contracts of agricultural workers who, out of both duty and British custom, are often housed by their employer, who is also the landlord.
By allowing possession to be made for service occupants and key workers, in Amendments 10 and 12 the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, rightly seeks to uphold the implements and customs that facilitate effective and key agricultural operations, and the welfare of agricultural employees. However, with the more comprehensive inclusivity entailed by service occupants and key workers, the amendments also make provision for workers in other vital sectors where similar contracts exist. These include, but are not limited to, the NHS, healthcare, education professionals and emergency service workers. With Amendments 10 and 12 in place, whether one of those key workers needs to rise in the early hours in the lambing season to check the ewes, or provide immediate care for an elderly person, or is putting out a fire, their crucial duties can be carried out only with the due expediency granted by their proximity and not if they are hindered by the limitations put in place by the Bill.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendments 8 and 9, et cetera, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about treating self-employed agricultural staff as full-time staff members on a farm for the purposes of the Bill. As this is the first time I have spoken on the Bill—probably the only time I am going to speak on the Bill—I declare my interest as a farmer and someone who has a dairy, because it is about dairies that I want to speak.
Cows have to be milked twice a day. It is not only from the point of view of the welfare of the farmer, and perhaps his or her bottom line, but from the point of view of the welfare of the cows. The cows have to be milked twice a day or they really suffer. Cows can actually die from not being milked, so it is really important that they are milked twice a day. Most dairy farmers now employ their dairymen or dairywomen— I am pleased to say there is a considerably greater number of women who are dairy farmers these days than in the past—through an agency, because it is the duty of the agency, if the dairyman suffers a heart attack or gets run over, or something terrible happens, to produce a dairyman literally the next day so the cows can continue to be milked. It really is very important for the welfare of the cows and the farm.
These staff, who are self-employed through an agency, are treated on the farm as part of the farm team. Although technically they are self-employed, they must be treated as being employed members of the farm for the purposes of the Bill. They usually occupy a vital house, probably close to the dairy. There is not only milking twice a day; a good dairy person has to spend two or three hours a day, in addition to the milking, watching their cows, seeing that their welfare is okay and they are in full health, and that their feet do not need treatment, and whether they are on heat. It is a really important role.
Although I am only speaking about dairy people, I am sure the same applies to herdsmen in a beef herd, or shepherds looking after a flock. The point is that these people are employed through an agency, therefore they are self-employed. It would really not be at all right—and I am talking about the welfare of the cows, apart from anything else—if these people were excluded from being treated as ordinary members of staff for the purposes of the Bill.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for these considered amendments, which reflect the debate we had around his similar suggestions in Committee, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for speaking in our discussion.
As noble Lords will be aware, we have responded to the needs of the agricultural community and incorporated ground 5A in the Bill. We appreciate that the agricultural sector has distinct requirements, and it is often vital for workers to live on-site to carry out their duties. However, this must be balanced with the needs of the wider rural community. We believe this ground balances both: it allows agricultural employees to be housed while protecting other tenants who may work in critical local jobs.
Widening the ground to include, for example, self-employed workers could open the ground to abuse and decrease rural security of tenure. For example, a landlord could engage someone on a self-employed basis to do a nominal amount of agricultural work and on that basis use the expanded ground to evict a tenant in respect of whom no other grounds are available. Amendment 8 would expand ground 5A, which, as drafted, will allow landlords to evict assured tenants to house an agricultural employee. The amendment would mean that landlords could evict their tenants to house self-employed workers and other types of workers engaged in agriculture.
As we have made clear, a key aim of the Bill is to increase tenants’ security, and the grounds for possession have been designed narrowly to reflect situations in which we think it is right that a tenant could lose their home, often through no fault of their own. Expanding the types of workers a tenant can be evicted in order to house goes against this principle and would reduce the security of tenure in rural areas.
Amendment 9 works with Amendment 8 to ensure that tenants could be evicted only to house workers who would be working for the landlord for at least 35 hours a week. I understand the intent behind this: it aims to address the concerns I expressed in Committee that the similar expansion of the ground that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, proposed then would open up the ground to abuse. However, I am still not convinced that any expansion of the ground is the right approach. Amendment 11 is purely consequential on Amendment 8, removing a reference to “seasonal or permanent employee” which Amendment 8 has moved so that it appears earlier in the text of the ground.
I ask the noble Lord not to push these amendments to a Division for the reasons I have set out. In short, we do not wish to degrade the security of rural tenants to house wider categories of workers. The narrow drafting of the ground proposed by the Government is proportionate, and by focusing on agricultural employees it achieves a fair balance for all.
Amendment 10 seeks to expand the agricultural worker possession ground, 5A. This would permit a landlord to seek eviction of a tenant to house key workers and service occupants as well as agricultural employees which the ground as drafted allows. Ground 5A is designed to allow landlords to house employees working for them in agriculture. This ensures workers who genuinely need to live on-site can be accommodated and recognises that employees may need to live on-site only for a limited period. We have balanced this with the needs of all tenants for security and stability in their homes.
Expanding this ground to other types of workers from different sectors would not be right. It would allow tenants to be evicted through no fault of their own to house a wide range of employees; for example, a teacher or a healthcare worker who is an employee of the landlord. For this wider group of employees, we do not believe that landlords directly provide accommodation on a large scale or that in most cases such individuals need to live on-site. In fact, this might see one key worker being evicted to house another, a point I made under a previous amendment.
Amendment 12 works with Amendment 10 to clarify the definitions for both key workers and service occupants. It also seeks to give power to the Secretary of State to amend the key worker definition by regulations. This would allow a future Government to potentially expand the definition to include many other types of worker without suitable scrutiny, which could significantly degrade tenant security. Employment ground 5C may be available to landlords who need to provide accommodation to tenants as a consequence of their employment. In our view, if a landlord needs to accommodate someone on-site, it is right that housing is kept for this purpose and that other tenants do not see their lives disrupted after a short period in a property.
Amendment 13 works together with the other amendments in this group to expand ground 5C to allow landlords to evict a wider range of workers rather than just tenants who are employees. The amendment would change the condition within the ground that the dwelling was let to a tenant as a result of their employment by expanding it to include “work” as well as “employment”.
I am clear in my view that expanding the ground for possession is not the correct approach. Ground 5C is narrowly drafted to allow employer landlords to evict tenants when the accommodation is no longer required for their employment. Expanding this ground further would reduce security of tenure for a much wider group. I am not persuaded that opening the ground more widely is justified for more informal working arrangements. If a tenant is an employee, it indicates a long-term relationship which could require accommodation, whereas this is much less likely to be the case for other types of worker.
Amendment 14 works together with the others in this group to expand ground 5C, as I have described. The amendment would expand the condition that the tenant has ceased to be employed by the landlord to include circumstances in which they have ceased to work for the landlord—a much broader definition. For the reasons I have explained, I am not convinced and have not been persuaded that any expansion of the ground is the right approach.
Amendment 15 also works with other amendments in the group to expand ground 5C. In parallel to Amendment 14, it would expand the condition that the tenancy was granted for an early period of the employment—for example, to help with relocation—to include circumstances where the tenancy was granted for an earlier period of the tenant’s work, a much broader definition.
Expanding the employment ground to allow landlords to house and evict non-employee workers is not the right approach, as I have explained. Workers who are not employees are also much less likely to require the long-term accommodation a tenancy entails. Other arrangements, such as licence to occupy or service occupation, may be more suitable for shorter-term contractors or self-employed workers.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, on self-employed workers in the agricultural industry, has MHCLG discussed this issue with Defra? Defra would know how the industry has changed over the past years and how critical it is to have self-employed workers on specific jobs in agriculture. It is going to be very difficult for farmers, particularly livestock farmers, to manage in certain circumstances on the farm, as we have heard from the noble Lord opposite.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have not personally discussed the issue with Defra, but I am sure that officials in MHCLG will have done so, and—
Lord Rooker (Lab)
If my noble friend the Minister does discuss it with Defra, she will find that Defra has nothing like the numbers of people with experience of farming that it had 10 years ago. It has been completely denuded and she would not find the answer to the question asked by the noble Baroness opposite.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I was about to say, before the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, intervened, that I am always happy to discuss these important issues further with noble Lords and to refer back to colleagues in Defra and elsewhere. Nevertheless, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carrington (CB)
I thank the Minister very much. I appreciate her response, but I am afraid that I am somewhat disappointed by it. It demonstrates a lack of understanding of the farming industry and the rural economy.
I greatly appreciate the words of the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Scott, as well as of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, who brings very practical experience as a dairy farmer, whereas I am only a sheep and arable farmer.
To pick up on what the Minister said about this being a loophole, the whole point of my amendment saying that the person has to be a genuine worker, working 35 hours a week, is surely sufficient to deny that claim. Reluctantly, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that it has been agreed that a number of amendments are regarded as consequential on Amendment 8.
Amendment 9
Lord Carrington
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Lord Carrington would enable the landlord to gain possession of the dwelling-house to house their agricultural worker, who will be working at least 35 hours per week for the landlord, regardless of the worker’s employment status (i.e. employee, worker or self-employed person).
Lord Carrington
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Lord Carrington would enable the landlord to gain possession of the dwelling-house to house their agricultural worker, who will be working at least 35 hours per week for the landlord, regardless of the worker’s employment status (i.e. employee, worker or self-employed person).
Lord Carrington
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Lord Carrington would enable the landlord to gain possession of the dwelling-house when the tenant stops working for the landlord, regardless of the tenant’s employment status (i.e. employee, worker or self-employed person).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Lord Carrington would enable the landlord to gain possession of the dwelling-house when the tenant stops working for the landlord, regardless of the tenant’s employment status (i.e. employee, worker or self-employed person).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Lord Carrington would enable the landlord to gain possession of the dwelling-house when the tenant stops working for the landlord, regardless of the tenant’s employment status (i.e. employee, worker or self-employed person).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Lord Carrington would enable the landlord to gain possession of the dwelling-house when the tenant stops working for the landlord, regardless of the tenant’s employment status (i.e. employee, worker or self-employed person).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Lord Carrington would enable the landlord to gain possession of the dwelling-house when the tenant stops working for the landlord, regardless of the tenant’s employment status (i.e. employee, worker or self-employed person).
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment retains the status quo, allowing landlords to begin recovering rent arrears after eight weeks—rather than thirteen—where rent is payable weekly or fortnightly, helping to reduce the build-up of rental and mortgage arrears.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to group 6 and to Amendments 18 and 19 standing in my name. These amendments concern the point at which rent arrears become a valid ground for possession, an issue of considerable importance to landlords and tenants alike. 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 over four-fifths of landlords operate on a very small scale, far from the image of institutional landlords with deep financial reserves. These are individuals and couples, often retirees, who rely on rental income for their own stability. They form the backbone of our rental sector.
With that image in mind, I turn to the amendments in this group. Under the proposals in the Bill, landlords will be prevented from initiating possession proceedings for 13 weeks of arrears in the case of weekly or fortnightly rent, or three months where the rent is paid monthly. That is a significant extension from the current thresholds of eight weeks and two months, respectively. Amendments 18 and 19 in my name are not about undermining tenant protections—far from it; they are about retaining the status quo, which has for many years struck a workable balance between supporting tenants through temporary difficulty and allowing landlords to respond promptly when rent is not being paid. When landlords are prevented from acting until arrears have been built up to such a degree, the financial consequences can be severe, not only for landlords themselves but for tenants too, who may find the ultimate possession proceedings more inevitable and more traumatic as a result. Early intervention can help avoid escalation.
Amendment 20 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is fundamentally right in principle. Landlords who provide a private service in an open market in exchange for a fee should not be penalised for government failure. If the Government fail to make payments, that is not the fault of the landlord, and they should not be made to suffer as a result. Therefore, if the noble Lord was to test the opinion of the House on this issue, we would support it.
These amendments speak to a broader principle that must underpin this Bill—balance. Yes, we must protect renters from unjust eviction, but we must also enable landlords to operate viably, to maintain confidence in the sector and to continue providing the homes that so many people depend on.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I have Amendment 20 in this group and declare an interest as a former landlord. Amendment 20 was tabled in Committee, but I have retabled it because I do not feel I have had an adequate answer from the Government. The amendment would continue to permit rent arrears which arise from non-payment of universal credit to be taken into account as a ground for possession. Not to do so is unworkable and unfair.
Taking unworkable first, since this is the point which must surely concern the Minister, I suggest that it is unworkable because, unlike in the social sector, private landlords are not allowed to know, under data protection rules, whether a tenant is in receipt of universal credit. The Department for Work and Pensions is not allowed to tell them. As such, the landlord will have no idea whether rent arrears are due to a non-payment of universal credit and, unbeknownst to them, will be legally prevented from taking enforcement action. A landlord might discover that rent arrears were due to a delayed universal credit payment and therefore unenforceable only once the case reaches court, thereby piling yet further quite unnecessary pressure on the justice system. This creates significant uncertainty and risk for responsible landlords, particularly smaller landlords. Disregarding non-payment of universal credit is therefore completely unworkable. It will lead to unnecessary enforcement action, which is surely the last thing this new system needs.
Turning to why it is unfair, I ask why the landlord should be penalised if the non-payment of universal credit is the fault of the universal credit system breaking down in some way. This is especially problematic for landlords renting out just one or two properties who rely on timely payments to meet their own financial obligations. If the Government are serious about sustaining tenancies, then addressing the root causes of delayed benefit payments would be more effective. In other words, protecting tenants from administrative delays should be the job of the welfare system, not landlords. Otherwise, the upshot could well be that landlords will be much more cautious about taking on tenants on universal credit. Is that what Ministers really want?
In response to this amendment in Committee, the Minister told your Lordships on 24 April:
“It is important that tenancies that are otherwise financially sustainable should continue, with tenants protected from one-off financial shocks. For example, it is feasible that a tenant who lost their job and had to apply for universal credit could breach the arrears threshold while waiting for their first payment. Evicting that tenant and potentially making them homeless would not help the situation, whereas giving them chances to resolve the arrears would ensure that the tenancy could continue, benefiting both them and the landlord and ensuring that the landlord was able to claim the arrears once the payments were made”.—[Official Report, 24/4/25; col. 842.]
With great respect to the Minister, I cannot help feeling that this is slightly naive. Is it really of benefit to a landlord to ensure that the tenancy continues when a tenant has accrued three months’ worth of arrears and, in the process, may have seriously damaged the landlord’s financial position—for example, in being unable to support their family or unable to pay the mortgage and forced to take enforcement action? Why should landlords be penalised for the state’s failure to pay universal credit promptly?
Paragraph 24(d) of Schedule 1 should therefore be omitted. It is unworkable and unfair. If, however, the Minister continues to think that paragraph 24(d) is fair on landlords, can she at least give some assurance that they will have a way—notwithstanding the data protection rules—of finding out whether rent arrears are due to delays in payment of universal credit, so as to avoid clogging up the tribunal system with unenforceable claims?
I can help the noble Baroness here, because Section 16 of the Data Protection Act—a Henry VIII power, in fact—enables the Act to be amended so that the list of exemptions in Schedule 2 to that Act is expanded. It could be amended in that way by regulations to enable the landlord to know whether rent arrears are due to delays in universal credit. This would not deal with the fairness points I have made but would deal with the unworkability points. If the Minister were able to give the assurance that the tribunal system will not be clogged up with unenforceable claims, I would not press my amendment.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, much of what we have been debating is about balance. We have heard that word a lot today, and I guess it is fairly obvious to noble Lords by now that when it comes to a balance, we come down in favour of the tenant. We believe the balance has been tilted very much the other way from time immemorial due to the complete lack of supply, the lack of social housing and the beauty parade whereby landlords can choose whom they want to let their properties to.
We feel that the Bill intentionally aims to give tenants more time to address their financial difficulties and therefore avoid eviction. We believe that is the right and the moral thing to do because of the additional cost to society of more homeless and evicted people and more costs to local authorities; it is a nasty, invidious vicious circle. But we do not totally have rose-coloured specs on: we seek reassurances from the Minister that landlords have robust grounds for possession, when necessary, when it comes to arrears. We all know that arrears are painful for landlords, especially if they still have a mortgage, but the good news is that most of them do not. In the situation that the noble Baroness outlined of a couple having one or two houses to rent for their pension—generally properties that were inherited from their parents that they decided to rent out—almost half of landlords do not have a mortgage, and a further 20-something per cent have only small mortgages. More than 70% of landlords are not in a dire financial situation and, as someone rather flamboyantly said, needing to feed their families. I see no evidence of that.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for their amendments, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her comments.
Amendments 18 and 19 seek to decrease the threshold for mandatory eviction under rent arrears, ground 8, from three months to two, or 13 weeks to eight where rent is paid weekly. I do not believe that this is the right approach. We have taken the decision to restore the threshold for mandatory evictions to the levels originally set by the party opposite in the Housing Act 1988 before they were reduced in the 1990s.
Three months, we believe, is the right balance. It gives landlords facing significant arrears certainty of possession, but allows tenants facing one-off financial shocks enough time to get their financial affairs in order and not lose their home if their tenancy is otherwise sustainable. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that ground 8 is a mandatory ground, but it is worth noting that mandatory eviction is not the landlord’s only route to possession. Landlords facing frequent arrears and late payment of rent that indicate an unsustainable tenancy can also pursue eviction via the discretionary grounds 10 and 11. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 20 seeks to remove a key protection for vulnerable tenants from the Bill. It would allow tenants to face mandatory eviction when they have breached the three-month rent arrears threshold due to not receiving a universal credit payment to which they are entitled. This would not be right. We want to protect those vulnerable tenants who have suffered a change of circumstances, such as redundancy or an accident, by helping them remain in their home. It would not be right for them to face another destabilising event by allowing landlords to evict them, potentially making them homeless because they are waiting to receive universal credit that is due to them. Not being able to pay their rent on time because they have not received universal credit they are entitled to does not mean that they are a bad tenant. It is right that these tenants are given time to resolve their arrears; it is also important that tenancies that are otherwise financially sustainable should continue. That will benefit both the tenant and the landlord.
We have heard concerns that landlords might face uncertainty in pursuing possession claims if they do not realise that arrears are caused by an outstanding benefit payment. That is subsequently used as a defence in possession proceedings. Of course, we would strongly encourage tenants and landlords to communicate; it is clearly in the tenants’ interest to explain their situation before the case reaches court. I note too that there is an element of uncertainty in any possession case, and this requirement is not unusual in that regard.
I have heard the point that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, made about data access and I will take that back to the department. I hope he agrees that we are justified in our approach and that he will not move his amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the amendments before us, in particular Amendments 18 and 19, seek to preserve a workable and fair framework that supports both tenants and landlords. The current thresholds, allowing landlords to begin recovery proceedings after eight weeks or two months of arrears, have stood the test of time because they offer a sensible compromise.
Moreover, early intervention is often in the best interests of tenants themselves. Addressing arrears sooner rather than later can prevent problems escalating to the point where eviction becomes unavoidable—a consequence that benefits no one. Our goal must be to craft legislation that is fair and balanced, which ultimately safeguards the rights of renters while ensuring stability for landlords.
Although it is imperative to safeguard tenants from unfair evictions, we must ensure that the protections do not inadvertently place landlords in an untenable position, thereby threatening the very housing supply we all seek. We will not put these amendments to a vote, but we think that Amendment 20, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, represents a very sensible improvement to this part of the Bill, and we will support him if he chooses to divide the House.
Lord Carter of Haslemere
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would continue to permit rent arrears arising from non-payment of universal credit to be used as a ground for possession.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
I am very grateful for all the support that my Amendment 20 has received. This amendment was genuinely meant. I was concerned about fairness, but above all about workability. The tribunal system, which we will come on to in more detail in later amendments, needs to have before it only the cases that absolutely have to be resolved. The last thing I or anybody wants to happen is for the tribunal system to be clogged up with unnecessary cases, which was my principal concern.
However, I listened to what the Minister said, and I am grateful that she will look more carefully at the data protection point, which, frankly, is a better way of dealing with this than relying on tenants and landlords to speak to each other. On that basis, and if she would be so kind as to write to me once she has had those discussions with the department so that the position is on the record, I will not press my amendment.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I just confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that I will respond to him in writing.
Lord de Clifford
“New ground for possession for property which is required for a carer for the landlord or landlord’s family
24A After Ground 8 insert—“Ground 8A
The landlord seeking possession requires the dwelling-house for the purpose of housing a person who is a carer for—(a) the landlord,(b) the landlord’s spouse, or(c) a member of the landlord’s family who is living with the landlord,where the dwelling-house is in sufficiently close proximity to the person requiring care to facilitate emergency callout.For the purposes of this Schedule, “carer” means an adult providing personal care or nursing care to another person, who may be under the age of 18, under a voluntary or contracted arrangement.The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the definition of carer above.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new ground for possession would allow the landlord to seek possession of a dwelling house where it is needed to house a carer for the landlord, or a member of the landlord’s family, and the dwelling-house is in close proximity to the person requiring care.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, I thank the many Peers who passionately supported this amendment. I listened to the Minister and feel that a concession with regard to possession of a house for carers is not forthcoming. Therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Jamieson
“Possession for redevelopment and regeneration of private rented homes
24A After Ground 8 insert—“Ground 8A
The following conditions are met—(a) the private landlord intends to redevelop the dwelling-house for the purpose of regeneration, and the proposed works cannot reasonably be carried out while the property is occupied; (b) the private landlord has complied with all relevant tenancy obligations up to the date of possession;(c) the private landlord has given six months’ notice; (d) a planning application has been made.In this Ground—“Redevelopment” means—(a) demolition or reconstruction of all or a substantial part of the dwelling-house, or(b) substantial works to the dwelling-house or any building of which it forms part;“Regeneration” means the process of improving an area through coordinated measures that either—(a) secure the redevelopment, refurbishment, or enhancement of land, buildings, or infrastructure,(b) promote economic growth, including through the creation of employment opportunities and support for local enterprise, or(c) advance social wellbeing by improving housing, public services, community facilities, and the overall quality of life for residents;“Private landlord” means a landlord who is not a registered provider of social housing.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment creates a new group for possession where a landlord has made a planning application, and the proposed works cannot reasonably be carried out while the property is occupied.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, we should be supporting regeneration, enabling more housing and employment, and the renting of property in the meantime. While I appreciate the comment from the Minister, I am not reassured. Therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
G7 and NATO Summits
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I sincerely apologise for the discourtesy to the House. I had not realised that the Statement was not going to be read, so I thought I had better get to my place in case the Deputy Speaker had to adjourn the House during pleasure.
Apart from seeing the Leader of the Opposition arriving late, it can be illuminating when a Statement repeat is delayed—I had better go on because the Clock has started—because the Prime Minister’s Statement began with grand claims about fixing social security. We all know what has happened since. Can the noble Baroness the Leader tell the House where the savings lost in this fix of social security since the Statement will come from? I think we all know that it will be tax and tax and tax again on the owners and savers of Britain: on home owners, farmers and small businesses and on the dividends that pay our pensions. As we heard this week, there may be potentially more controls on ISAs, the nest eggs people put aside from their hard-earned income. Gordon Brown invented the cash ISA; now Rachel Reeves is after it.
The Statement also boasts that Britain has a foreign policy for working people. Sadly, thanks to the Chagos deal, it is the working people of Mauritius who are quids in, not the working people of Britain, whose real disposable income is down 1% this year and who will have to stump up £30 billion in taxes to use what they already own. Amazingly, Diego Garcia was not even mentioned in a big Statement on defence.
The Statement was full of rhetoric on more than the botched welfare reform, but the central truth laid bare in the last two weeks is that the Government are all at sea abroad and are increasingly sidelined on the world stage. On 17 June, after sitting next to President Trump at the G7 dinner, the Prime Minister declared:
“There is nothing the president said that suggests he’s about to get involved in this conflict”.
The Foreign Secretary dashed to Washington, then to Geneva, and the call to the US was for restraint. Then, five days later, President Trump struck Iran’s nuclear sites.
The British Government’s response was not to congratulate the US on executing this brilliant action. Instead, they rushed out a statement to say that Britain was not involved, and that the £30 billion giveaway base of Diego Garcia was not used. That did not sound like leadership to me; it was not even followership. I wonder if the Government ever gave President Trump a copy of the reported advice from the Attorney-General saying an attack on Iran would be illegal. If they did, I am not sure that the President would pin that up in the Oval Office to replace the bust of Winston Churchill—out with Churchill’s inspiration and in with the Attorney-General’s injunction.
It is surely indicative that, in this lengthy Statement, the Prime Minister did not once mention those US strikes that resounded around the world this last week. The only mention of President Trump was a reference to the US-UK trade deal signed on what looked like a conspicuously windy day in Canada. That is a deal we welcome as a first step—it was only made possible, actually, by Brexit—but it still leaves our car makers, as the Prime Minster admitted, facing a 10% tariff on exports. Can the noble Baroness say anything about how the Government now intend to build on that trade deal with the US, which I hope was discussed at the G7?
The Statement spoke about stepping up, but where were we as recent major geopolitical events were unfolding? When Israel acted in its self-defence, Britain was out of the loop. Perhaps that is unsurprising when the Government had lately sanctioned two members of the Israeli Cabinet.
The Government have seemed equivocal at times, but I do thank the Prime Minister for his action against antisemitism and I associate this side with the Government’s strong condemnation of the BBC for its shameful broadcast of calls for the killing of Israeli soldiers. The Government were absolutely right there.
The Statement says the UK is using “every diplomatic lever” to keep Britain and the Middle East safe. We support the Government on that and we all pray for a just and lasting peace. But where are those levers and what are they? What progress are we making in addressing the humanitarian situation in Gaza and in ousting Hamas? Those issues rightly concern noble Lords across the House. Will we follow President Trump in easing sanctions on Syria? What of Iran? We agree that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon, but have we had recent discussions with the Iranian regime?
We welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to more defence spending and to the British nuclear deterrent. We welcome the decision to buy 12 F35A aircraft with new capabilities. But can the Minister confirm what was said in the apparent exchanges on this earlier: that this will in fact cut the defence budget rather than increase it, because these are less expensive planes than the F35? The Minister is indicating that that is incorrect, so I withdraw that question. I misunderstood and will look carefully at Hansard.
We continue to back the Prime Minister’s strong commitment on Ukraine, which is rightly underlined in the Statement. But can the Minister explain why NATO’s communiqué was weak on condemnation of Russia?
On defence, can she tell us what the commitment at NATO to spend 5% of GDP on national security actually means? The only solid commitment is to spend 2.6% on defence by 2027. The 4.1% target is based on adding a new 1.5% spending goal for resilience and security to the already stated 2.6% target. What does that mean? The Italian Government have said that might include a bridge. The Prime Minister spoke of “energy networks”, so could it include spending on pylons to enable green energy? Will the spending on the Chagos deal count towards the percentage?
Finally, will the Minister tell us when the Statement promised to the House last night that stirred the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, to pull the plug on his pledges to the Chagos Islanders will be made?
The Prime Minister has done very much that we support in foreign affairs and defence and we will continue to support that. But, over the last two weeks, we have looked unsure and a little behind the game.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, the Statement improbably begins by discussing the Government’s woes on social security, which of course have absolutely nothing to do with its real subject matter. We welcome the Government’s U-turn there, but I do not think that this Statement is the context in which to discuss them, not least because they have been coming so thick and fast that I am afraid I cannot keep up.
There is a wide measure of agreement that the UK faces greater and more diverse security threats than it has for decades and that we are all greatly indebted to our Armed Forces and other government agencies that are working so hard and effectively to combat them. The headline outcome of the NATO summit was the commitment to spend 5% on national security. In the Statement, this is referred to as a “defence investment pledge”, but it clearly includes expenditure on many non-defence items.
In the national security strategy, the definition of “national security” includes
“the health of our economy … food prices … supply chains … safety on the streets”
and the online world. This definition seems so wide as to be virtually meaningless. Can the Minister explain what is within the definition? The Prime Minister says that we will reach 4.1% spending on it in 2027, so he must know how he reached that figure. Will the Government therefore give a breakdown of the 4.1% and then explain how they intend to get to the 5% by 2035?
One obvious item to include in the definition of expenditure that promotes national security is overseas development assistance, particularly in areas such as conflict prevention. To what extent is ODA included in the new definition of “national security” and do the Government have any plans to increase it as they increase all other aspects of security expenditure?
The Statement goes on to say that UK foreign policy
“answers directly to the concerns of working people”.
What specific concerns of working people are meant by that phrase? To what extent are working people affected by foreign policy in different ways from the rest of the population?
One of the biggest challenges ahead is not just to increase expenditure on national security but to ensure that the money is spent as effectively as possible. In that context, can the Minister explain why we are prioritising the purchase of 12 F35A jets capable of carrying nuclear weapons? These planes are extraordinarily expensive, even if they are not quite as expensive as the F35Bs, and for decades we have not judged it necessary to have this capability. As the noble Lord, Lord West, said at Questions earlier today, this change presumably means that we need at the very least to update our nuclear doctrine. Do the Government plan to do so? Will they publish any new doctrine when it has been adopted?
On Ukraine, we welcome the commitment to repeat last year’s commitment on expenditure and also the funding of additional air defence missiles from frozen Russian assets. Can the Minister confirm that this funding has come from the interest on those assets and that no progress has been made on freeing up the capital, which could be transformative to Ukraine’s success?
In the Commons, the Prime Minister said it was very difficult to access the capital because not all countries were in agreement on how to proceed. Estonia has proposed a way forward on this. Will the Minister commit to looking at Estonia’s proposals as a matter of urgency?
The Statement rightly stresses the need to build up the Armed Forces. So does the Minister accept that there is still a crisis of recruitment, particularly to the Army? Will the Government therefore look sympathetically at the Lib Dem proposal to pay a £10,000 signing-on bonus for new recruits as a way of rapidly boosting recruitment?
On Iran, we welcome the current ceasefire, but it needs to be made permanent. The Foreign Secretary recently met the Iranian Foreign Minister, along with EU counterparts, to promote a ceasefire. Do HMG foresee any future role for the UK in securing a longer- term solution?
Finally, on Gaza, we agree on the need for a quick ceasefire, but there is absolutely no sign of this. In the meantime, deaths and starvation continue. Our ability to affect events in Gaza is limited, but we could at the very least recognise the state of Palestine, which is a necessary precursor to a two-state solution. The Prime Minister says that the Government are waiting for the “right time” to do this. The fear is that in the Government’s view there will never be a right time. We should act now.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments. I thought the noble Lord, Lord True, although he made an elegant entrance, enjoyed himself too much at my party’s expense. The focus of today, and what people are looking for in the Statement, was about the G7 and NATO.
I do not think we have seen such a complex and difficult international situation in the lifetime of most of us here. It is not an easy time. Across the world we have existing conflicts, new conflicts, and they seem to escalate quickly and change with new eruptions quickly. What we can do nationally and internationally to help bring peace trumps any other issue we may want to discuss, so I will focus on those issues.
I have to say that the noble Lord was uncharacteristically churlish about the role that the Prime Minister has played on the international stage. I can recall very early on in the days of this Government facing criticism from the party opposite about the Prime Minister going to international conferences, building relations with leaders of other countries, and I said at the time—and it still holds true and has proved to be true—that it is only by building up good relationships that you can have the difficult discussions when they are needed. My party and I are proud of the role that our Prime Minister is playing on the international stage, and I can remember when we have been less proud of a Prime Minister’s or Foreign Secretary’s role on the international stage. So, I make no apologies for the role he is playing. We are grateful to him for doing so.
The issue of the transformative and generational increase in defence spending by the NATO summit was really important. Five percent is greater than it has been for many years. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord True, was querying the new 1.5% target. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, raised this as well. It is almost impossible to divorce national security from resilience. They are both about our security, and our safety in this country is dependent on both. The idea that we could spend national resilience money on pylons for green energy is a frankly ridiculous point for the noble Lord to make. But we must ensure that we have supplies of energy throughout the country for business, domestic and military use.
We have seen what has happened in other countries when there has been a failure of supply of energy. It is vital that we maintain that. To try to make a political point about green energy and the environment is not what this is about. I hope the noble Lord will understand how important a role the issues of supply chains and energy play in national security and resilience. If he does not understand that, we can find more information for him that he might find it useful to look at.
The noble Lord asked specifically about finance. We went through this last week. We will have fully funded plans to increase defence spending in this Parliament from 2.6% from April 2027 to at least 4.1% of GDP on collective defence and security by 2027. That target, I said before, is 3.5% on core spending and 1.5% on security.
I also make no apology for the Chagos deal. I have said this before: the idea that a country would spend a lot of money—and it is a lot of money—if it did not consider it vital and essential to national security is, quite frankly, a ludicrous argument to make. It is because it is so essential that the Government have been prepared to spend the money. We should recognise that and recognise the importance of it. When noble Lords talk about the cost of living, I will take no lessons from a party that gave us the Liz Truss Budget, which did so much damage to the people in this country and to the cost of living. The noble Lord can mutter away, but it really affected the economy of this country, with working people up and down the country seeing their bills and their mortgages rising dramatically.
The noble Lord also asked about the trade deal with the US. Yes, the tariffs were of enormous concern. The fact that we have managed to get them down to the levels they are is something that has been achieved by negotiation and would not have happened otherwise. The noble Lord also made a rather strange point about the F35A. He may have only heard some of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. Yes, they are less expensive than the F35Bs. That means that the money is available for other defence spending. He made that point earlier today. The fact they are cheaper is an asset rather than something to complain about.
I thank the noble Lord, however, for his comments about the Government’s comments on the BBC. Those who watched Glastonbury were quite shocked at the comments that were made by one particular group. The BBC does have questions to answer on why it did not act more quickly. Lessons should be learned from that.
I am just trying to read my handwriting, which can sometimes be difficult. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked about the crisis in recruitment to the Army. It has been a serious issue. I can remember days when you would go down the high street and there would be an Army recruitment shop. In our schools and colleges there were people looking to recruit to the Armed Forces, and a number of my friends joined up. We have not picked the noble Lord’s suggestion of a golden handshake, as it were, but I am assured by my noble friend Lord Coaker that they are working at pace on this issue. They recognise that something has be done to make up the numbers that fell to such a dangerous level under the last Government.
I think I have addressed most of the questions. If I have missed anything, I am sure we will come back to it. These summits are just so important for countries working together. It is clear that, for some of the most dangerous places in the world—places of conflict—the only way forward will be negotiated arrangements and settlements, and working towards peace at pace.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, I attended last week’s NATO summit in The Hague, as a vice president of the NATO PA. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord True, that that is not the position I saw in terms of UK standing. I saw a country that is now again respected and is working very closely with all its allies to engage in the important fight against Russia. In meetings with heads of delegations and foreign Defence Ministers, they all commended the UK on the leadership it has taken, including that of our Prime Minister.
The position of increased expenditure is welcome, but one of the issues that is very important in terms of the fight against the Russian invasion of Ukraine is its financial ability to rearm. So what more can be done to ensure that sanctions do bite and that we ensure that the rearming of Russia is thwarted?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. Certainly, his impressions of the leadership that the Prime Minister has shown chimes with what I have heard from other people at similar conferences. In fact, in our support for Ukraine, the Prime Minister was able to bring European leaders and others into London in support of President Zelensky. Indeed, immediately after the NATO statement, President Zelensky came to London and met the Prime Minister and the Speakers of both Houses. This gives a sense of the leadership that is shown, and also of how close our relationship is with Ukraine.
On sanctions, he is absolutely right. First, he will be aware of the money that has been spent—I cannot immediately recall the amount. As the noble Lord, Lord Levy, said, it is from the interest on the Russian assets. I will come back to that point. It is the interest on those assets that has been used to provide more weapons, including missiles, for Ukraine. It is important that we do that. The Government are still working at pace and have not ruled out legal action to ensure that we can get access to that money for Ukraine where it is needed.
The noble Lord made a point about sanctions. It is an important point. The UK has now introduced new sanctions that target Russia’s shadow fleet. We have blacklisted 20 additional vessels, as well as 10 individuals linked to the country’s energy and shipping sectors. Again, we have seen our partners also taking decisive action. Canada has listed over 200 vessels, and the EU has moved forward with its 18th sanctions package at some pace as well. So, sanctions are an important tool in the armoury supporting Ukraine against Russia. We must never forget the danger that is posed to the Ukrainian people. The Ukrainian people are at the forefront of the fight for freedom that all of us have to respect and know that we can also be in danger if we do not protect Ukraine.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the Minister that leadership on the international stage is crucial, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s attendance at both conferences because you have to be present at the most senior level to ensure that your voice is heard. There is a deep symbolism in the role that the United Kingdom plays on the world stage.
On Ukraine, I am sure the Minister will equally recognise the leadership of successive Governments and the solidarity across all parts of your Lordships’ House on the importance of standing with Ukraine. In that respect, can she share some of the specific conversations that have taken place with our colleagues in the United States on getting peace in Ukraine, in particular on the role of the United Kingdom’s leverage with the Ukrainians, the respect we have and the new relationship that President Trump has forged with President Putin to bring this conflict to an end? I draw attention to my work as chair of the International Communities Organisation, which is committed to resolving conflict around the world.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. His work in this area is particularly respected by this House. It has been a strength of the UK’s response that, whichever party is in government, we have been united across the divide but also across both Houses. I know the noble Lord was there when President Zelensky visited our Parliament. He spoke to both Houses and some of us were privileged to meet him afterwards. You get a sense of not just the huge pressure but, for a man who could never have expected to be in the position he is in, how he has responded to that. That is why he has received acclamation around the world for the stand he has taken.
The noble Lord is right about the symbolism of the UK’s role in this. It is important that we maintain that special relationship with the US, because it is so important to support for Ukraine. There is ongoing dialogue. The ongoing conversations and meetings that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have had with American officials have been important in that regard. They will continue. I think the whole House will say that we should not at any point detract from or retract our support for Ukraine in any way. We will urge others constantly to ensure that support remains solid, robust and united.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
I thank the Minister for what she said about Glastonbury and the BBC, but it should be remembered that more than one act engaged in vile, pro-violence, pro-terror remarks. This Kneecap outfit from Belfast also needs to be condemned and called out for their pro-terrorism activities.
I also welcome what the Prime Minister said about aligning security objectives and plans for economic growth and renewing industrial communities, but given that the Northern Ireland aerospace and defence sectors contribute an estimated £2.2 billion to the economy, will the Minister decry and deplore the remarks today of the Sinn Féin Economy Minister, who said that money should not be spent on defence at all but on public services, whatever that means? Can she ensure that, despite the ideological nonsense of Sinn Féin and the way it behaves, Northern Ireland’s vital defence industries and the people who are contributing so much will be worked with, because this is important for our security and our economy?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord was in the House when Kneecap was raised previously, but I strongly condemned their behaviour at that time and continue to do so. On the other issue he raises, it seems to me that the greatest public service that any Government provide is to keep their citizens safe. That includes, as I said before, defence spending and resilience. Citizens who work in the Armed Forces or our defence industry take on a public service to keep people in this country safe, and we should support them in doing that. I know Northern Ireland has an important defence industry. To say that it is less important does not recognise the threats the world faces at this time. I think we would all love an ideal world where there were no threats, no violence and no areas of conflict, and we did not spend money on defence. That is not the real world. We have to protect our citizens. If we fail to do that, we fail in the first duty of any Government.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, in his Statement, the Prime Minister linked economic security, national security and what he called social security. He said that welfare reform was urgent and that the system was failing people every single day. Is not what has happened at the other end of the building a demonstration that the Government’s credibility is shot to pieces? They have literally taken out of that legislation almost all the reforms that they proposed, so their credibility is damaged on that important issue. That matters to our defence commitments, because our credibility in promising that increase in expenditure in the rest of the Statement is now damaged because the Government have demonstrated that they cannot find those savings. That demonstrates that those things are connected. The Government’s credibility is damaged, not just on welfare reform but reputationally on these important national security issues as well.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord will not be surprised that I fundamentally disagree with the point he made. Every time our Government have made a commitment to defence spending, we have kept that commitment. That is an absolute commitment. The noble Lord wants to tie that in with welfare reform. I have not heard anybody say that the situation that this Government inherited on social security and welfare spending is not one that needs to change. There are many measures within that Bill that practically everybody in the other place has supported. An example is the idea that somebody who gets a PIP and is disabled who wants to try to work should not go to the back of the queue and have to go through the system again if working fails. They should be able to try work to see whether it is suitable for them. The system that we have inherited needs change, and that change will continue.
The Bill has passed tonight. People agreed on the issue of reform. They now want to look at the detail. That is the process of legislation. The noble Lord was a Chief Whip in the other place. He knows how the process of legislation works. He lost enough votes himself to recognise how difficult it can be. What can never be accepted is that it is right to write some people off in the system and say that, even though they want to work, we are not going to help them to do so. Those are the measures that we are going to put in place. To link this to the Prime Minister’s comments about economic, national and social security, all these things make up what is good about life, the importance of life and the resilience we all need. Our safety, our resilience and how we treat the nation all link together, and that is how you have a healthy society that supports each other.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, we should be relieved that we have a Prime Minister who is taking a leading role in the world, where we are and are seen to be a force for good. The UK is a leader on the world stage again. I welcome the Statement, including the fact that there is now an opportunity to push for a ceasefire in Gaza. In the meantime, my noble friend may be aware that more than 170 charities and other NGOs have today called for the controversial aid distribution scheme in Gaza, run by the Israeli and US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, to be shut down. Will our Government make the case to ensure that, in future, aid is once again distributed by UN organisations?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Noble Lords may recall that, when this issue was raised in the House in a Question that I answered a few weeks ago, I said that we had grave concerns about trying to set up an alternative to the tried and tested methods. Aid agencies that had working in Gaza, desperately trying to get enough aid in, were not being used. We know that there were pretty devastating consequences. To deal with that part of the region, the hostages must be released, aid must get into Gaza and then there has to be negotiation. The only way these issues can be resolved is through negotiation and discussion. It is hard work. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness’s point. The aid agencies are absolutely right: they know what matters and how best to get aid to those who need it. They just need to be allowed to do so.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that statement. The Statement says that we need to
“ensure a complete, verifiable and irreversible end to Iran’s nuclear programme”.
Israel identified two existential threats arising from Iran. One was the nuclear programme; the other was the ICBM programme. First, what is our assessment of the extent of the damage caused by the Israeli and US strikes on those two programmes? Secondly, is it also our policy that Iran should not resume the production of ICBMs on the scale at which it was doing before the strikes?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The answer to the noble Lord’s second question is yes, we do think that. Our assessment, which has been quite widely covered, is that the damage done was significant. We are strongly of the view, and I think it is a worldwide view, that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. The danger to the world of Iran having nuclear weapons is enormous. Therefore, the point that he makes about the damage done to those facilities is important.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome what the Lord Privy Seal has said about Ukraine, the role of the Americans in Ukraine and—if I might add—the role of the British in keeping the Americans onside in support of Ukraine. But is it not the case that, if one looks at this period as a historical episode, what is most significant is the agreement to European rearmament?
All the nations, with the exception of Spain, have agreed to this very bold defence target, led by Chancellor Merz of Germany, the new Chancellor. This European rearmament is crucial, and it is something of which we have to be a part. There are industrial opportunities and jobs there. It is very interesting to see that Europe has opened its defence market to Canada. Can I have an assurance that we will work closely with our NATO EU allies on making sure that the best use is made of the funds for rearmament, and that the threat of Putin can be repelled?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a really important point. What it comes down to is that if we were to let Putin succeed in Ukraine, the deterrent effect of NATO’s plans would be fatally compromised, so we have to harden our resolve. He mentioned the industrial opportunities, and there are those industrial opportunities, but the work we are doing with NATO and the UK-EU pact shows a real determination that we are not going to let Putin succeed.
It is a change, is it not? For many years now, we have taken defence and security for granted. More people now realise that the world is becoming a more dangerous place. The role that we play as a nation, and that our Prime Minister plays on the world stage—of being thoughtful and considered, of looking to broker peace and trying to get negotiations—is all the more crucial, but there has to be that defence capability to back that up.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Leader of the House for bringing forward this Statement. It strikes me that some of the carping that we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition here today rather misses the point of what has been happening in the last few weeks. We have had a series of strategies and statements issued by the Government in a number of different areas. Following on from the defence review, we have had an industrial strategy, a trade strategy and a national security strategy. These are all beginning to form a cohesive whole, which demonstrates that what we are trying to do as a nation is bring all these policies together in the interests of protecting our country and its people. Is that not a very positive element and one of the things that we should read from the way in which the Prime Minister is able to operate on the world stage in these areas?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point about how these strategies have formed together. The changes across the world, in the strategic defence of the world and how we have to respond to that, are really important. If we look at the industrial strategy and our national security strategy, on which I spoke last week, we see the linkages there and how they work together.
The defence spending review is something that we should be really proud of. We are able to take that, build on it and use our strategies to deliver it. As they link together, you see a cohesive whole. As the noble Lord, Lord Harper, said, these things do link together in how we protect our nation. If we do not draw all these links together, we will be weaker and poorer for it.
Renters’ Rights Bill
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:42 - Division on Amendment 34 - Ayes: 45 / Noes: 126 - Amendment 34 disagreed.
22:50 - Division on Amendment 43 - Ayes: 23 / Noes: 103 - Amendment 43 disagreed.
Lord Jamieson
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment prevents the Secretary of State from expanding the definition of “relevant low-cost tenancy” by regulations.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking the time to meet my noble friend Lady Scott and me to discuss the contents of the government amendments in this group. We are grateful that she has returned to the House with what has been referred to as a “break glass” provision, finally acknowledging that the Government’s policy may indeed lead to a significant backlog in the tribunal system.
However, on these Benches we struggle to understand why the Government, having recognised the problem, have not sought to take proactive steps to prevent such a backlog in the first place. Waiting until the system is overwhelmed before acting is not good policy. It also cannot be right that rent determinations made by tribunals can result only in the rent being revised downward. This creates a clear and perverse incentive. There is no risk to bringing a case if the rent cannot go up and can only go down. Why not try your luck? You may as well. It encourages unnecessary and speculative tribunal claims.
That is why I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising for their consistent work on this issue and for the thoughtful amendments they have tabled. Both noble Lords have highlighted the problem with clarity. The current system gives tenants an incentive to challenge rent, knowing that they have nothing to lose. We would therefore support Amendment 31 should my noble friend decide to press it to a vote. It would correct the imbalance by allowing for rent to be revised upwards as well as downwards, restoring fairness to the process.
Amendment 42, which stands in my name, would require the Secretary of State to conduct a formal review of the tribunal system responsible for rent determinations. We on these Benches recognise the potential for tribunal backlogs that the “break glass” amendment is supposed to address, but we do not believe that will be the case. Hence, we believe that a comprehensive review is necessary to help us understand the true pressure being placed on the system and how best to mitigate it.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich, for recognising the overburdening of the tribunal system with Amendment 29, but it would add an additional filtering step rather than seek to reduce the incentive to go in the first place, especially when there is no downside to doing so, which we think would be the more appropriate way of addressing the issue.
Finally, I will say a word on Amendment 24, which concerns preventing the Secretary of State expanding the definition of a relevant low-cost tenancy by regulation. This is important because such a power, if exercised without scrutiny, could significantly broaden the Bill’s scope in unintended ways. It is vital that any change to this definition comes before Parliament not simply through ministerial discretion. From these Benches we look forward to hearing from noble Lords across the House on these issues. I beg to move.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 29 in my name and in that of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, but before doing so I will thank the Minister, as so many other noble Lords have done, for the courteous way in which she has discussed this issue with me. My amendment seeks to provide for a pre-appeal assessment process to filter out appeals that have no prospect of success and thus avoid overburdening the tribunals. Its specific and highly practical suggestion is that the Government should take advantage of the technical expertise available to them through the Valuation Office Agency. Rent appeals should progress to the courts only if the Valuation Office Agency considers that they have a chance of success.
It seems appropriate to be making this suggestion on the 100th anniversary of the Rating and Valuation Act 1925, which ensured consistency of property ratings across the country by the use of professional valuation officers. I commend this Act to noble Lords. Reading it is quite possible because it is a relatively brief piece of legislation written in language that a normal person can understand. But the main reason I am commending it is that it set up a decentralised but uniform system which gave people across the country consistent decisions on a regular and predictable timescale, with clarity on who was making those decisions and how they could be contacted. This sort of clarity and consistency is surely what we would like for all tenants and all landlords, but the current drafting of the Bill, which loads more work on to a tribunal system that we know is overloaded, is not in a position to deliver this.
As I explained in Committee, my proposal was prompted by current Scottish practice. It does not in any way reduce the right of tenants to appeal against a rent increase, and I am not sure that it even reduces the incentive to appeal on the off-chance, but it does reduce the likelihood that the courts will be overwhelmed very soon by appeals, in particular by appeals which do not succeed and which swamp the courts, to the detriment of important and merit-worthy cases.
Under the Government’s current proposals, tenants will enjoy a number of new and important rights. Rents cannot be increased as often as at present, for example. Most importantly in the context of this group of amendments, tenants who wish to challenge what they see as an excessive rent increase have access to an independent tribunal. The tribunal cannot propose an increase that is any higher than the one initially proposed by the landlord, as the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, has already pointed out. It can endorse the landlord’s proposal or rule that a lower rent should be charged. Obviously, these charges are of great assistance when landlords are proposing major increases that are out of line with inflation or the market, but, equally obviously, they will encourage a very large number of appeals which are lodged on the off-chance, and I do not think there is any doubt that this would be disastrous. In the other place during the Public Bill Committee, Minister Pennycook observed:
“There is no dispute on the Government side of the Committee as to the fact that the court system is on its knees”.—[Official Report, Commons, Renters’ Rights Bill Committee, 22/10/24; col. 9.]
He added “after the past 14 years” but the relevant point here is that the court system is on its knees.
As first introduced, the Bill provided that the tenant who appealed against a rent increase where the tribunal found this was allowable would pay the increase only from the date of the tribunal decision, which could be many months on. This clearly hugely increased the incentive to appeal, and I think it would also have been seen as massively unfair by any tenant who accepted an increase without appealing and then saw a fellow tenant getting months at a lower rate. So, I was very pleased that the Government recognised this risk and I look forward to the Minister explaining how the government amendments will work in practice.
However, I do not think this is enough to head off tribunal overload, which is why I have retabled my amendment. There will still, for many people, be a sense that they have nothing to lose by appealing. If I were an officer in a student union, for example, and I was asked my opinion, I would have to say that appealing remains something of a no-brainer. I would have to say the same if I was on a radio programme or an online forum. Why would you not? I therefore remain convinced that, in the absence of some sort of prior screening of the type that I have suggested, the courts will be overwhelmed.
In Scotland, the first stage in any appeal goes to Rent Service Scotland. Apparently, on average, it takes just five days to respond and most things stop there; very few cases go further. Obviously, the Scottish situation is very different from ours, but it is also obvious that, when it comes to providing tenants and landlords with quick feedback rather than months in limbo, it is very effective. It is also obvious, given the volumes that Rent Service Scotland deals with, that without this prior system there would be a very large number of cases which were effectively a waste of time.
It would be very easy for us to introduce a similar first-stage process in England. There is a large amount of expertise on rents outside the tribunals and the courts. The Valuation Office Agency already gives the Government valuations and property advice that they need to support taxation and benefits. Rents in social housing are tightly regulated. Registered providers must comply with the Regulator of Social Housing’s rent standard or rent settlement, which is effectively set by the Government, and its annual increases would be an obvious and simple yardstick to use when evaluating whether appeals should go on. Rent officers also still set rents for the remaining group of protected tenancies, so the basic infrastructure is there.
To see what we are facing, I think, as I thought in Committee, that a bit of back-of-an-envelope arithmetic is in order. The Government do not think there will be a huge growth in open appeals. If appeals from private sector tenants tracked the levels going to Rent Service Scotland and they all proceeded to the tribunal, we would end up with another 40,000 cases a year. That compares with 909 cases heard by the tribunals under current legislation in England, so that would be a fortyfold increase. But suppose that it was only a quarter of that level; that would still be a tenfold increase, with 10,000 extra cases a year hitting First-tier Tribunals that are under enormous strain. We hear a lot in the press about pressures and backlogs in criminal courts, but the statistics for the tribunals are at least as grim. In the year 2024-25, the open case load total—excluding immigration and asylum—rose to 745,000, which is an increase of 14% in the course of a single year.
The Minister was kind enough to discuss my amendment with me following Committee and to recognise that a provision for initial screening could be helpful if tribunals were indeed overwhelmed. In the absence of any government amendment to that effect, I look forward to hearing from her about the Government’s current thinking. I also highlight the enormous importance of reviewing the impact on the judicial system, which we will return to later on Report.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 30 in my name. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich, that it is good to have something easy to read. I would say that this amendment is very easy to read: it would amend the Housing Act 1988 so that, when determining rents, tribunals must disregard any improvements funded by government grants for a two-year period.
The amendment, which I feel strongly about, is designed to help renters and the Government. It aims to improve upon a good policy that creates warmer homes and cheaper bills. The climate benefits from the warmer home grant, as do landlords, so why not guarantee that tenants get cheaper bills without a rent rise for a couple of years?
I met the Minister last week. She is very generous with her time, and I was grateful for her comments, but I still do not see the problem with passing the amendment. There are complexities, and the tribunals would have to sort out any details if the property owner added some of their own money along with the taxpayer money, but tribunals make far more difficult calculations every week. I have also heard privately from several people just how difficult it is with tribunals, but that is the sort of thing that must be fixed. They really cannot be allowed to wallow and not be the tribunals that they need to be.
The important thing for me in this amendment is that taxpayer-funded improvements are not used as an excuse to raise rents, and we need the force of law backing that up. Although the guidance is slightly more explicit, it will get ignored and that will discredit a good policy. Generation Rent recently did a poll of renters, asking them about their support for the Government’s policies in this area. There was a net support increase from plus 14% to plus 55% when renters were presented with a scenario where the Government would protect them from rent increases. I do not want to suggest that the Government should be run by opinion polls, but it is wonderful when you can do something that is right, does not cost any extra money and leads to a 41% jump in the popularity of that policy—and also, hopefully, the popularity of the Government.
I had hoped the Government would put this forward as their own idea in some form or another. I have been told privately that it is not nuanced enough, and that is possibly a fault of my nature, but I think it is a good amendment and hope that the Government will give it due attention.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 31 to 33 in my name. I declare an interest as a landlord of rented properties.
When I pointed out in Committee that the Bill as drafted would create a conservative 1 million applicants to the rent tribunals, the Minister commented that that was
“unlikely, to say the least”.—[Official Report, 28/4/25; col. 1045.]
In a recent letter from her, recognition was given that there is an inherent uncertainty about the volume of rent challenges. The proposed new delegated power to backdate rent increases acknowledges the potential difficulties. Welcome as that proposal is, it does not start to address the fundamental problem. At best, it will provide some temporary window dressing. The Government might recognise that the system may be overwhelmed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, pointed out very cogently, but promoting appeals to the rent tribunal in the first place is the crux of the problem when the Bill still provides that the tribunal can only confirm or reduce the rent, not raise it. That creates a no-lose situation for tenants.
Amendment 31 addresses the most fundamental of the structural flaws. It would remove this restriction that the tribunal may only reduce or uphold a proposed rent, not increase it. If a tribunal can only confirm or lower a rent and never raise it, that is a one-way ratchet. As my noble friend Lord Jamieson pointed out, if things can only get better, what possible reason is there not to try it on? There will be no loss, and until and if the Secretary of State regulates to backdate rent increases—and how speedy that will be with two Government departments having to consult over it is noble Lords’ own guess—there will be a decent delay in any increase being implemented. It becomes a virtual necessity for a tenant to challenge.
Amendment 32 would ensure that in the event the tribunal determines that the rent initially agreed was too high, landlords are not retrospectively liable for backdated repayments to tenants of an agreed rent. This is simply a matter of fairness and legal certainty: if a tenant has freely agreed a rent at the outset of a tenancy, it should not be open to the tribunal to rewrite an agreement and impose retrospective liability on the landlord. It would set a worrying precedent.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 34 and the associated Amendments 35, 36 and 40 in my name and kindly supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. First, I thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, for her ongoing engagement with me and other noble Lords and Baronesses throughout the steps that this important Bill has taken thus far. My amendments concern a vital part of the Bill: the right of renters to challenge annual rent increases.
There remains strong consensus across this House and in the other place that stands with the Government in ensuring that unreasonable and exploitative rent increases are avoided. Such increases should not be used in this way across the private rented sector as a means of eviction through the back door. However, despite the Government’s own recent amendments, which I will turn to in due course, I remain strongly of the opinion that the Government’s current drafting of Clause 7 will not work, even with the new failsafe mechanism that has been added in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor.
It remains the case that under the current wording of the Bill, renters will have a universal right to challenge any and every rent increase they receive, in all circumstances and without qualification. Moreover, increases that the First-tier Tribunal agrees will come into effect only once the tribunal has given its ruling. This wording continues to have the very real and dangerous potential to undermine the supply of new rental homes in England and, at the same time, overwhelm the courts.
The Government believe that renters will apply to the tribunal only if they believe that a rent increase is above market rents. Like others, I am afraid that will not be the result of this legislation. The legal text of the Bill still sets out that a rent increase could not come into force until after the tribunal rules. The result of this drafting is to create an artificial incentive for all renters—all 4.5 million of them—to submit a challenge to a proposed increase in rent from their landlord, however legitimate. This would prevent the increase coming into force until the tribunal decides. There is no risk to the renter in this, as it provides a guaranteed delay. Once this is widely understood, as was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, renters will exercise their right as a matter of course. Indeed, I expect a celebrity such as Martin Lewis would immediately note the opportunity to delay rent increases as a money-saving tactic for renters.
This incentive also risks the efficacy of the First-tier Tribunal by burdening an already struggling court with thousands of cases. This would result in those in real need waiting potentially months longer for access to justice from exploitative landlords. The Government rightly want renters in genuine need of redress to have access to the court, but the queue for justice will be too long for this to prove realistic.
My amendments seek to ensure that if a rent increase is challenged, but the increase is upheld by the tribunal, the rent increase becomes effective from the original date of the Section 13 notice. This important detail removes the incentive for spurious challenges that are being used only as a delaying tactic by renters who are challenging their rent increase because they simply want to delay payment of it. By removing this incentive, only those renters with real cause and who are being exploited, and are therefore likely to get the support of the tribunal’s decision, will challenge rent increases. These are the very people who should be at the front of the queue when it comes to these sorts of challenges.
I turn to the amounts of money we are looking at when it comes to rent increases. I want to explain how my amendments, while deterring spurious challenges, also support renters who challenge their rent but with whom the tribunal is not in agreement. The Office for National Statistics notes that the average rent per month in the United Kingdom, in the 12 months to April 2025, was £1,339. The average rent increase across the UK in the same 12-month period was 7%. Therefore, if we were to take 7% as a marker for the rent increase in the next 12 months, we would be looking at the average rent across the UK increasing by around £93 per month.
Now, £93 can be a good deal of money to many across the country, particularly as the cost of living crisis continues. This pressure on household finances has not been overlooked in my amendments, which cover the concerns of the Minister and others that renters may be put under undue financial pressure if they are unsuccessful in their rent challenges and are required to pay back large lump sums of backdated rent at once.
Under the Bill, every renter from the time it is implemented would have the ability to challenge and delay the £93 per month annual increase without needing to provide a reason, be it financial or otherwise, as to why they are challenging that increase. However, if the tribunal, when it eventually gets to each and every challenge, judges in the landlord’s favour, my amendments would ensure that instead of that renter needing to pay their landlord a backdated amount of rent immediately, a 12-month payment plan would be put in place. This means that if it took six months for the challenge to be reviewed by the courts and a decision made, the renter would not need to find the extra rent immediately but would need only to find the extra £46.50 each month over the next 12 months to pay their landlord in backdated rent. This seems entirely reasonable, and I hope the inclusion of this amendment has been carefully considered by the Minister.
I now turn to the Government’s assessment that renters will apply to the tribunal only if they believe a rent increase is above market rents. The Government are placing a great faith in this opinion and have commissioned a new burdens assessment and justice impact test, which is referred to many times throughout the Bill’s impact assessment, from November last year. However, we have not been able to review or scrutinise these two important documents, as they have not been published. Were we able to see and scrutinise them in this place, many of us may be reassured by the Government’s current opinion on levels of renters who will challenge their rent, but while the Government restrict access to these documents, we must rely on what the Bill says and our understanding of renters and the PRS as it stands in a time when household finances are tight and there is every incentive to delay a rent increase.
The Government have tabled a fail-safe amendment to Clause 7, but again there is a lack of detail here too. In Amendment 37 in the name of the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, we are not given clarity around when such a power would be used and what the trigger for this would be. What level of caseload would the tribunal need to face before the Government were to step in and introduce backdating? Therefore, while I applaud the Government for considering Clause 7 and tabling this amendment, I fear it will do nothing to reassure the sector. It is also interesting to note that in the event of the introduction of the fail-safe mechanism, rents will be charged from the date of the Section 13 notice—quite a reversal of policy from the tribunal decision date. If we had the detail around when such a statutory instrument would be enacted, we might be able to agree with the Government on the amendment, but as it stands, sadly I cannot.
To sum up, taken together, I believe that Amendments 34, 35, 36 and 40 in my name would deliver a fair result. They are technical changes that keep the vital rights of renters to challenge from being exploited, while reducing the artificial, jeopardy-free incentive to take any and all landlords to court for reasonable increases in line with the market. The amendment giving protection to renters who lose their challenge with the 12-month payment plan should also be strongly considered by Government.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I put my name to Amendments 34 and 35 from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. The noble Lord has given such a precise and detailed reasoning for all those amendments that there is nothing I can really add to what he said, but I would just like to remind the House—particularly my noble friend the Minister—of the point I made earlier when I was speaking about Amendment 1 of all the amendments before us on Report; that is, the value to the House of having the expertise that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, presents in supporting his argument. Indeed, I ask for particular attention from my noble friend the Minister to the points he raised relating to her amendments, which are also before us in this group. If she does nothing else, I hope my noble friend will take careful note of the improvements that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, suggests should be made to her own amendments.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, which have been supported by the noble Lord, Lord—
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
Not at all.
It is not just obviously fair that the tribunal should be required to backdate the rent; it would also remove the incentive for tenants to challenge every rent increase, come what may. Landlords who increase rent to market value should not be penalised by being unable to backdate that rent to the date of increase where there is an unsuccessful challenge. Otherwise, it makes a mockery of the tribunal process, which is there to determine the legal right of the landlord to increase the rent to the amount proposed. If that right is upheld by the tribunal, like other legal rights that are litigated successfully in our civil courts, it should be upheld from when it arose, with a remedy backdated accordingly. That is how our civil justice system works. For example, if I successfully make a claim against a defendant for negligence, nuisance or breach of contract, damages will generally be assessed from the date the claim arose. That is how justice is meant to work. It should be no different here. The correct market rent, upheld by the tribunal, should be backdated to the date of the original increase.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as the part-owner of a small number of rented properties in West Yorkshire.
I will speak in support of Amendments 29, 34, 35 and 36, which are in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. Your Lordships may recall from my contribution at Second Reading that I am deeply concerned about the impact of this Bill on rented housing supply. I remain concerned about this issue. However, these amendments provide me with the reassurance that I know the rental market is also looking for. The amendments are technical, but sensible and clearly thought through.
If the Government are to get anywhere near reaching their ambitious 1.5 million new homes target, we need to support and give clarity to the responsible institutional build-to-rent landlord sector, which is building thousands of new, high-quality rented homes each year. I know that this part of the rental market supports the Government’s aim to raise standards across the private rented sector. However, with the uncertainty it faces around how much rent it may reasonably receive and how many rent increase challenges it may receive, I worry that its development pipelines will slow or, at worst, completely halt, while it assesses this new landscape where any renter can challenge any increase without any jeopardy.
Amendments 29, 34, 35 and 36 would allow for those providing new, net additional high-quality rental homes to the market to continue to do so without undue impact from Section 13 rent increase challenges. They would allow the institutional landlord sector to continue delivering the net additional rented homes we need without uncertainty. Crucially, the amendments would deter spurious rent increase challenges and allow vulnerable renters the access to justice that they rightly deserve.
I acknowledge the Government’s amendments on Section 13 notices, but they also leave me concerned that, in this place and indeed in the rental market, we and the sector are being asked to place a significant amount of faith in the Government, and the data they have but will not publish, on how many renters might challenge their rent increases. If a renter can save themselves months of rent increase for free and without any jeopardy, why would they not?
I am therefore strongly of the opinion that the amendments in names of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, provide the requisite amount of clarity to the sector, while ensuring renters’ rights are improved. I urge the Government to take them on board to give everyone clarity while improving renters’ rights and access to justice for vulnerable renters.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I will be very brief. I strongly support Amendment 29 so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. I recall that, when we debated this in Committee, the noble Baroness got a favourable response from the Front Bench, and it may be that on this amendment the ice is beginning to melt.
I am also struck by the contrast between the certainty that we get with Amendment 36 from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the absence of any clarity and certainty from government Amendments 37 onwards. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, it is normal procedure in law if a rent increase is valid to backdate it from the date that it was due, so the Government are introducing a wholly new concept in law in their Amendment 67, which does not actually take the trick because, as I understand it, they are going to wait until the system is gummed up before they activate the process.
This is simply no way to govern. The Government ought to accept Amendment 36 with its clarity and certainty, rather than this doubtful procedure whereby there remains every incentive to appeal and only when the system becomes even more clogged will the Government intervene. That cannot be good government, and I urge the Minister to think again about Amendment 36 or the other amendment that achieves the same objective in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising. I just do not think that this takes the trick.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I do not know which amendment to start with really, but I will start with the least contentious. We agree with Amendment 42 that a review is imperative and should definitely happen.
On Amendment 30 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, it seems absolutely right to us that, when the taxpayer funds lovely, significant improvements that will raise the value of the landlord’s asset, the tenant in the house should be protected from a rent rise at least during that tenancy. That seems only right and fair.
Amendment 29 from the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, which I supported in Committee and co-signed, is a sensible amendment that several noble Lords have said they would support. I think she has explained it at length and with clarity, so I need say no more. But anything that acts as a triage system in this process should be looked at seriously.
On the controversial bits, the rent tribunal is clearly causing concern. I say to the Minister that I think there was an invitation in the last speech to look at this again—there will be Third Reading. It seems to me that a lot of work has gone into these amendments that would justify perhaps a little more time and effort than we have now. The Minister has a lot to justify in order to gain support from the House. We are minded to support the Government, but clearly we need answers on the very detailed and sensible proposals put forward today.
What worries us about Amendment 31 is that it risks allowing a tribunal to determine the level of rent increase, which could actually be unaffordable. The idea that a rent tribunal could decide that the rent should be such-and-such would fuel a market in which rents are rising exponentially, more than they have at any other time—the amendment would seem to fuel that further. We certainly do not agree with rent controls, but we believe that some brakes could be put on this; that would seem eminently sensible.
Perhaps I am looking at this through the wrong lens, but I would have thought that a tenant might expect an annual rent rise: “I am in my rented apartment and I am expecting the landlord to put up the rent in a year because I know what’s going on in the area, so I can kind of suss out how much it might be”. But, looking at it from the other way, if we assume all the things that noble Lords have said about everyone applying to the tribunal—Martin Lewis will be saying they should apply and the student unions will be on it—why would a landlord, knowing all that, impose a stupid rent rise if he knows that his tenant can then appeal against it? That should put an instinctive brake on unjustified, unrealistic rises. The system should work with those natural tensions.
We are not happy with it, but we have had conversations and thoughts about the proposal. We would ask the Government to look again at some of the detail. Perhaps with some assurances from the Dispatch Box, we could avoid a load of votes now and at Third Reading because I think that we would want the Minister to look in more detail than I personally, I admit, have done, if that is fair to say.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott, Lady Wolf and Lady Jones, and the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Howard, for their amendments on rent increases and the tribunals, as well as the noble Lords, Lord Hacking and Lord Carter, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Eaton and Lady Thornhill, for their contributions to the debate.
Government Amendment 37 will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations to change the date from which tenants are required to pay a new rent in instances where the First-tier Tribunal has set one following a challenge to a proposed rent increase. Government Amendments 38 and 39 are consequential to that.
Our Government were elected on the clear manifesto promise to empower tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases. It is essential that we deliver on this commitment, not only to protect tenants from undue financial pressure but to prevent rent hikes being used as a form of backdoor eviction once Section 21 notices have been abolished.
During the Bill’s passage, the House has debated at length the capacity of the justice system to enable the smooth implementation of reforms in the Bill. This is particularly the case on the subject of rent increase challenges, in relation to which noble Lords have expressed very serious concerns that strengthening tenants’ rights might lead to the First-tier Tribunal being overwhelmed by a sharp increase in challenges.
Set against that concern, we have heard powerful testimony from many tenant groups that private renters, many of whom are struggling to juggle family life, multiple jobs and financial challenges, are unlikely to spend what little time they have navigating the justice system unless they have a compelling reason to do so. Given the cost and effort that challenging a rent increase at tribunal would require, as well as the risk it poses to a tenant/landlord relationship, there is good reason to doubt that a significant number of tenants will bring rent increase challenges that have little prospect of success—who knows what will happen if Martin Lewis gets involved, but we will wait and see.
We also know that the majority of landlords act responsibly, and we do not expect that many will seek to serve unreasonable rent increases given that this will increase the likelihood of a tenant challenging them at tribunal, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said. If landlords do not impose egregious rent increases, they will not get taken to tribunal. We recognise, however, that there is inherent uncertainty as to the volume of rent increase challenges that will be brought when the new tenancy system comes into force.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, mentioned the system in Scotland; as she will know, the changes made there are very different from the ones that we are proposing.
As the House will know, we are already working very closely with the Ministry of Justice to make sure that the justice system is well prepared for our reforms. In the Property Chamber, work is progressing to increase capacity, as well as reviewing resource and working practices in readiness for any increase in demand.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
Since I cannot withdraw my amendment, I thank the Minister very much for this constructive engagement, and I will not move it.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness.
Regarding Amendment 24, at present private registered providers of social housing can grant secure or assured tenancies. The majority of these are let at social rents. Social rents are regulated by the social housing regulator. The definition of “relevant low-cost tenancy” in the Bill reflects these arrangements. If the Government or the social housing sector were to change how rent is determined or regulated, this power would enable the Secretary of State to make technical amendments to reflect this or other changing circumstances. As the power relates only to the definition of relevant low-cost tenancies, I assure your Lordships that the Secretary of State will not be able to use this power to change the legislation to affect market-rate tenancies. Based on this, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to withdraw this amendment.
Turning to Amendment 30, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for her engagement on this issue. The Government fully support efforts to improve the energy efficiency of homes in the private rented sector, particularly where tenants are proactive in accessing support through government-backed schemes. The amendment as drafted would mean that any increase in value arising from these improvements would be disregarded, even if it was funded partly by public money. Therefore, if landlords have made sizeable investments themselves in improving the energy efficiency of their properties without government grants, under this amendment they would not be able to increase rent to reflect those improvements.
The tribunal has experts, such as surveyors, who will assess what the landlord could expect to receive if re-letting the property on the open market. Both landlords and tenants will have the opportunity to submit evidence on whether or not they think that the rent increase is justified. The tribunal already ignores any improvements to the property made by the tenant, to avoid inflating the rent. However, it is likely to be more challenging in practice for the tribunal to differentiate rent levels based on whether energy-efficiency upgrades were funded through specific grant schemes—particularly where the tenant was not directly responsible for the work. This may complicate the tribunal process.
We recognise that it is very important that means-tested energy-efficiency grant schemes are used to benefit tenants. That is why, for the warm homes local grant, which was launched in April, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has set a clear expectation that landlords should declare that they do not intend to raise rents as a direct result of the upgrades being made. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, rightly highlighted the importance of ensuring that landlords do not profit unduly from government-funded improvements and that the value of these schemes should flow primarily to tenants, given the impact on many people living in poverty, and the threat of eviction. We have carefully considered these points and believe that the measures already being introduced strike the right balance.
In conclusion, the landlord declaration, introduced and overseen by DESNZ through the warm homes local grant, will include a commitment from landlords not to increase rents as a result of improvements made using the grant funding. I hope that this offers the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, reassurance that the Government are taking this issue seriously. For those reasons, I respectfully ask her not to move her amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Howard, has proposed two amendments to the process for challenging rents at the tribunal within the first six months of the tenancy. On Amendment 31, the ability to challenge rent in the first six months of the tenancy is a vital safety valve, ensuring that tenants cannot continue to be ripped off if they have been pressured into an unfair rent. Landlords who have agreed a fair market price have nothing to fear from this mechanism. This amendment would exacerbate the worry that tenants already face about going to a tribunal to enforce their rights. Tenants will not challenge rents if they risk being worse off following a tribunal ruling. The Bill encourages tenants to engage the tribunal when they have legitimate concerns. By reinforcing the rights of tenants to do so, we are disincentivising the minority of landlords from pressurising tenants into unfair rents at the beginning of a tenancy. The way for landlords to avoid this is to make sure that their rents are fair at the start of the tenancy.
On Amendment 32, the Government are clear that tenants should submit an application to the tribunal during the first six months of their tenancy only where they believe that their rent is above market rates or that they have been pressured into an unjustified initial rent. In the first instance, we strongly encourage landlords and tenants to communicate about what adjustments to rent might be reasonable. The noble Lord asked how a tribunal determines a fair rent. To determine the market rate, the First-tier Tribunal considers a wide range of evidence, such as the price of similar properties being advertised online and evidence submitted from both parties justifying or arguing against the rent increase.
The First-tier Tribunal has experts who are experienced in understanding the different factors that result in the market rate and determining whether the rent is reflective of this. The First-tier Tribunal is best placed to do this in the new tenancy system. It is also worth noting that tribunals have had the power to adjudicate rent levels in line with the market rent since the Housing Act 1988, and since then the market rate has continued to increase. However, if the rent is challenged and the tribunal determines that a rent exceeds the open market rate, it is right that the tribunal can backdate the lower rent to the date of the tenant’s challenge and that the landlord repay the difference to the tenant. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Howard, not to press his amendments.
I turn now to Amendments 33 to 36 and 40. The Government recognise that some tenants may avoid challenging unreasonable rent increases out of fear that they will be saddled with significant amounts of backdating, which they will be unable to afford. By removing the ability of the tribunals to backdate a rent increase, tenants, particularly vulnerable tenants, will be empowered to challenge what they believe to be an above market rate rent increase. This reduces the risk of an unreasonable rent increase causing a tenant financial hardship, or even being used to force someone out of their home. This is a really important measure to encourage people to challenge unreasonable rent increases.
Amendments 34 to 36 and 40 in particular may only heighten the risk of vulnerable tenants feeling unable to challenge an above market rent increase. We know that tenants and landlords are usually eager to maintain a positive relationship and will not bring the other to court or tribunal without good reason. As such, I ask the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Howard, not to press these amendments.
I turn finally to Amendment 42. The tribunal has over 30 years’ experience in making determinations of unfair rent increases, having carried out this function since the Housing Act 1988. We have full confidence in the tribunal’s ability to carry out this function in a fair way. I appreciate the need for the justice system to be ready for our reforms and for landlords and tenants to access justice in a timely way. We are working in partnership with the Ministry of Justice to assess the impact of our reforms on the tribunal and to lessen these wherever possible. This close collaboration has been ongoing for a number of years and in a great amount of detail.
The amendment we have tabled to our rent increase measures shows that we are listening to the concerns of the sector and this House about tribunal workloads. It puts in place a safeguard in case it is needed. We will already be collecting extensive data to assess the impact of these reforms. As set out in the impact assessment for the Bill, and in debate, we have committed to monitor and evaluate our reform programme. We will use a range of sources to support this. Existing datasets will be used, and new data will be collected. We are committed to publishing the evaluation findings at the two and five-year points after the Bill’s implementation.
I will respond to the request from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about the justice impact test. The justice impact test we are undertaking with the Ministry of Justice will identify additional burdens on the justice system, but they are internal government documents and are not published. The test is ongoing and regularly reviewed to ensure that it reflects any changes to legislation as the Bill continues its journey through Parliament. We are fully focused on making sure the justice system is prepared for changes to court case load and procedures that will be required for our reforms. We are working with the Ministry of Justice and HM Courts & Tribunals Service to that effect, including investing additional court and tribunal capacity to handle any extra hearings generated.
In this context and in the context of the review that I have already outlined, both in the course of discussing these amendments and earlier today, I do not think it is necessary to commit to undertake any further review. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and for setting out the Government’s amendments. However, we remain disappointed that the so-called “break glass” power is reactive in nature and fails to address the underlying incentives that drive unnecessary cases. Noble Lords across the House have raised the risk of the tribunal system being overwhelmed. Although I listened carefully to the Minister’s comments on mechanisms, there are no firm proposals. Therefore, on that basis, we will support my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising on Amendment 31 if he is minded to push it to the vote.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has raised, and we requested in Committee, the Government have failed to publish the justice impact test. I heard the Minister’s comments, but I asked her to publish it before Report given its importance and the concern across the House about the impact of the Bill on the justice system.
Amendment 42 seeks a review of the impact on the tribunal system. As we have another amendment later, reviewing the impact on the justice system in its entirety, we will not press this amendment now.
Serious concerns remain about the Secretary of State’s discretion to expand the definition of low-cost tenancies. I urge the Government to reflect carefully on the breadth of the powers they are granting. That said, I will withdraw this amendment.
Lord Best
“(4F) It shall be an implied term of every assured tenancy to which this section applies that for a period of four years from the commencement of the tenancy the percentage increase between the existing rent and any new rent specified in a notice given under subsection (2) must not exceed whichever is the lesser of—(a) the percentage of the rate of inflation calculated by reference to the consumer price index since the date on which the existing rent took effect, or (b) the percentage increase in median national earnings calculated over a three-year period by the UK Statistics Authority, ending on the date on which the notice was served.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for in-tenancy rent increases to be index-linked on the basis of CPI or increases in national annual earnings. This seeks to avoid the uncertainties for a period of up to four years of rents being determined at unknown – and potentially unaffordable – market levels.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 25 in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, I will also speak to my related Amendments 26 to 28. I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, the Chartered Trading Standards Institute and the Town and Country Planning Association, and a past chair of the Affordable Housing Commission. My wife owns rented property in Dorset.
I fear the Bill still contains a fundamental flaw in its provisions for rent increases. Quite properly, the Bill seeks to ensure that tenants are not subject to huge rent rises, which can have the effect, as the Renters’ Reform Coalition and Shelter have made so clear, of evicting them from the property. But the Bill’s way of solving this problem creates considerable hazards for tenants and landlords alike.
To prevent exorbitant rent increases, the Bill relies on the renter taking their case to the First-tier Tribunal, which will determine a market rent that cannot be exceeded. That arrangement is fraught with difficulty. The first problem with a system dependent on a tribunal’s judgment is that deciding on a market rent is not a science. The outcome of tribunal hearings can be unpredictable and sometimes appear arbitrary. The second drawback is that renters must take on a daunting task. They are likely to fall out with their landlord, on whom they depend for continuing service, and to appear in person they may need to give up a day’s work, incur travel expenses and experience a troublesome and intimidating process. Thirdly, the tribunal’s decision on what is the market rent may still involve a big rent hike, well ahead of rises in incomes, and can thereby present an impossible affordability obstacle for the tenant, which is the very problem the process was intended to avoid.
From the perspective of the landlord, many of your Lordships have been concerned that the tribunal will get clogged up with thousands of time-consuming appeals. I was pleased to hear that the Minister is looking at an amendment to make use of the Valuation Office Agency to weed out appeals that are likely to fail. She is also introducing an amendment that reduces incentives for renters to appeal by enabling the Secretary of State to allow at a later date a backdating of the rent increase that is determined by the tribunal. By making the appeal process more risky, this new measure could deter renters who have a good case for pursuing an appeal. In any case, it is a fallback, a long-stop that might not be introduced for some time, if at all.
More helpfully, Amendments 25 to 27 would provide clarity and security for the renter and the landlord and give confidence to responsible investors. The amendments would mean rent increases being capped on an indexed basis using either CPI or the rise in earnings averaged over the previous three years. The indexation would be limited to three annual increases, after which the landlord could charge a market rent, if necessary determined by using the process of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. This model surely represents a fair solution to the need for moderation of rent increases without reliance on appeals to the FTT and all the problems that brings.
In returning to this matter on Report, I have added the new Amendment 28, which addresses a criticism of the indexation approach. This amendment tackles the valid objection that there may be exceptional circumstances in which an indexed increase would not be fair to the landlord; for example, the landlord may have spent substantial funds to improve the property which could justify a rent increase that contributes towards the cost. The new amendment enables the landlord—not the tenant—to ask the tribunal to approve the setting of a rent in excess of the otherwise automatic indexation.
The amendments cut out the need for renters to take matters to the tribunal and therefore to enter into a battle with their landlord. Most tenancies do not last more than four years, so for most tenants, the arrangement would mean the certainty of indexation of rent increases, whereas the fickle market might have meant much greater rent increases. I believe this is a far better way of limiting increases than currently in the Bill. It cannot be described as rent control. It is time limited—and not comparable with failed rent control measures in other countries. It is fair to landlords and entirely preferable to the hassle and uncertainties of them being taken to the tribunal. It avoids the clogging-up problem that may mean that the tribunal system is going to be overwhelmed. Here is a package that has real benefit for landlord and tenant alike. With thanks to my co-sponsors, I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best. I will add a brief footnote to what he has just said. As we heard in the last debate, there has been considerable concern about the capacity of the courts to handle the volume of appeals that will go to the tribunals when the Bill becomes an Act. The backlog has been going up: in the first quarter of 2025, the average time between a landlord submitting a claim and getting possession was over seven months—32.5 weeks, up from 29.8 weeks a year ago.
The Minister uses a different figure—eight weeks—but that covers only getting a possession order, not actually getting the property back. In an earlier debate, the Minister implied that it was actually quite difficult for a tenant to challenge an increase in rent. I respectfully disagree with that. There is a whole range of organisations that will give tenants advice on how to challenge an increase from the landlord.
This Government have made it clear that, unlike the previous Administration, they are not prepared to wait until the necessary reforms to the court processes are in place before they activate the Bill. That is a decision they are perfectly entitled to take, and it will be welcomed by tenants. However, a necessary corollary of that decision should be a process to minimise the chance of the courts being overwhelmed, which would be in the interest of neither tenant nor landlord. That is what Amendment 25 does.
The likelihood of the rent—a market rent when it was fixed—diverging significantly from CPI or RPI over four years is quite small. The certainty that goes with that guarantee will be welcomed, I think, by both tenant and landlord. If, after four years, there is a divergence, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, has explained, the rent can then catch up. As someone who voted for the Housing Act 1988, which abolished rent control, I see no problem with this measure to simply smooth increases over a four-year period. Again, speaking personally, if at the end of the four or five years the courts have shown themselves to be up to speed, with no backlog, I would be happy to see this provision lapse, but in the meantime, I hope the Government will smile on it.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
If I may add one note to what the noble Lord has just said, it is very common in commercial contracts to have CPI over a series of periods followed by a reset to market level, in part because CPI may take it up too high and it comes back down to market level. I think that needs to be part of this amendment.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, we support the amendments in this group concerning rent affordability, a matter that strikes at the heart of the lived reality of millions of tenants. We welcome the long-overdue commitment to abolishing Section 21 no-fault evictions but, as Shelter rightly said in a release only this week:
“For every day the government doesn’t pass this bill, another 70 households will be threatened with homelessness because no fault evictions are being kept on life support for no good reason”.
I hope that we will soon get some reassurances about when this key measure will begin, to overcome some of the rumours in the media of late about it being delayed.
We also welcome all the work to fix the issue of the supply of decent homes across all tenures, but private rent inflation is persistently outpacing both wage growth and general inflation. According to the latest data—we heard some of it from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, earlier—average rents in England rose by 7.1% in the 12 months to May 2025. Meanwhile, wages continue to grow more slowly than rents, with the most recent data showing annual growth of 5.2%. Rents have outstripped wages every month for nearly two years; that is, since September 2023. Over the past three years, the average annual rent has increased by £2,650, rising from £12,800 to £15,450, a 21% increase, compared with—for all the owner-occupiers here—just a 4% growth in house prices over the same period. This relentless rise is not just a statistical anomaly. It is a driver of poverty, hardship and, in some—way too many—cases, homelessness.
Amendment 25, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and supported by me and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, proposes a mechanism to smooth in-tenancy rent increases by limiting them to the lower of wage growth or inflation. The Bill currently restricts rent increases to once per year and allows tenants to challenge above-market rents at the First-tier Tribunal, as we heard in the previous group. However, “market rent” is often calculated based on arbitrary information, such as advertised rents for new tenancies, figures that will inevitably and typically be inflated and do not reflect the actual rents paid by sitting tenants. This methodology leaves tenants exposed to rent hike evictions—Section 21 in all but name—undermining the very security that the Bill purports to deliver.
Tenants on lower incomes will be particularly exposed. For the many renters who have no alternative but to rent, the cheapest places they can find at market rent are already, by definition, unaffordable. The tribunal process will help, but not fix, this problem, and certainly not soon. Generation Rent’s analysis found that while 73% of tenants who challenge a rent increase through the tribunal succeed in reducing the proposed rent, the average increase awarded is still 14%, and only a small minority of cases result in annualised increases below wage or rent inflation. The process is also onerous and complex, deterring many tenants from pursuing it at all.
Smoothing in-tenancy rent increases is therefore not just a technical fix but a vital safeguard during this period of transition. It will provide tenants with the predictability and stability needed to budget and to remain in their homes, free from the constant threat of unaffordable rent hikes. For landlords, it offers an indexed yield without the administrative burden and uncertainty of tribunal proceedings.
I ask in particular that the Opposition Front Bench and the Government Front Bench resist the temptation and lure to comment on these proposals as rent controls. That would suggest that the years of knowledge and experience of the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Best, have rendered them somehow incapable of being able to understand the difference between rent control and something else. This proposal is fundamentally different. It is time limited. It applies only to in-tenancy increases. It does not set market-wide caps. It is designed to stabilise rents for existing tenants, not to distort the market or stifle investment.
Beyond these immediate protections, we must look to the medium term while we wait for the much-needed and long-awaited additional supply of homes. That is why I have tabled Amendment 114, requiring the Secretary of State to conduct a comprehensive review of rent affordability with the express aim of establishing a national rental affordability commission. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for her support and the Renters’ Reform Coalition for their work on this issue. The coalition has found that nearly one-third of private renters—an estimated 3.8 million people—always or often struggle to afford essentials such as groceries due to the amount that they spend on rent, and nearly one in 10 have sold or pawned personal items to be able to afford to rent.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, in my Second Reading speech, I drew attention to the role played by high housing costs in driving poverty. I was thus pleased to add my name to Amendment 114, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, although I am supportive also of the other amendments in this group and hope that what I have to say will add to the case for them too.
Evidence from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation illustrates the extent to which high rents in the private sector are associated with poverty. Shockingly, it points out that around
“half of private renters were only in poverty after their housing costs were factored in”.
Two more reports specifically on child poverty, published this year, reinforce the point. The first, by IPPR, argues that:
“Housing costs are core to understanding child poverty”.
It notes that the number of children counted as in poverty is about a third higher when housing costs are factored into the measure, and that the private rented sector has become increasingly significant in the lives of children.
The second report was co-published by IPPR together with CPAG—of which I am honorary president—and Changing Realities, which involves people with lived experience of poverty. The report observed that rent increases are
“stressful for families to manage, and … the Renters’ Rights Bill as currently drafted will continue to enable large increases in rent … providing they are deemed to reflect ‘market rents’”—
a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Best. It suggests that this
“risks exposing tenants to sudden and unaffordable hikes in housing costs, undermining the Bill’s stated aim of providing greater security and fairness for renters”.
The report quotes one tenant:
“I’m getting really worried about my rent going up this year. It keeps rising every year yet the local housing allowance is frozen for this year! … It’s frightening”.
Both reports underline how the situation is aggravated by freezes in the local housing allowance and by the operation of the benefit cap, which hits larger families and/ or those paying higher rents in particular. As the amendment states, any review of rent affordability must include in its remit the effectiveness of policy interventions to improve affordability relative to incomes. I would argue that this would need to include policies on the incomes side, which are making it impossible for some families to meet their rent commitments alongside other essentials.
This seems to me a very modest amendment that would complement the Government’s welcome commitment to an ambitious child poverty strategy. I know that the Child Poverty Taskforce is aware of the importance of housing to the strategy, but it is unrealistic to expect it to carry out the thorough review of rent affordability proposed in the amendment.
I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will be able to give a more positive response than the one she gave in Committee, which I found rather disappointing. What is needed is something more robust and holistic than the regular monitoring to which she referred, important though that might be. A review of this kind would be in the spirit of the Bill and would help to ensure that its impact is not blunted by the continued damage created by excessively high rents in the private sector.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to try to understand what the definition of rent is if we are going to control rents or somehow curtail them or attenuate the increases.
One can see the base rate just by googling property websites. It is a good idea to get a feel for the cost of a basic, low-cost, unfurnished property in the worst part of town, but that is not necessarily the market price, which is determined by a number of factors: the property may be furnished; it may be serviced accommodation; there may be porterage; there may be other benefits— I am not going to go as far as swimming pools and gyms, but I know they are available in some circumstances. Parking would be another one. All these different elements have different cost pressures and inflationary increases, which may be determined by factors outside the landlord’s control. A property that has inclusive parking may become significantly more valuable, one could anticipate, if the local council applies permits on the streets around it.
I am tempted to support Amendment 25, but I am reluctant to do so because at the moment all these extras are rolled into the single price. The logical conclusion of where this debate is going is that we will get menu pricing, rather as we see on low-cost airlines. There may be an attractive flight—£5.99 to fly to Spain or whatever—but by the time you add in the baggage, the booking fee and everything else, it rolls up to a significantly higher value. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham made the point that the risk of the price going up over the four-year period may be somewhat attenuated, but those extras amounting to what I would call the landed price, or total cost of ownership, could vary accordingly.
Another significant point that we need to take into account is that there may be Section 20 repairs or improvements, particularly in the case of furnished accommodation where the landlord is prepared to improve and upgrade the fixed furnishings, such as tables and chairs and possibly soft furnishings as well. All of this complicates what is a rolled-up figure at the moment. The logical conclusion is that all those extras are going to be disaggregated and obfuscated, so it is going be harder to compare for the potential tenant. But it is going to be essential for the landlord to obfuscate in this way in the circumstance of a First-tier Tribunal appeal, which is really concerned with the underlying rent—that £5.99 figure. It is very difficult.
I have a huge amount of sympathy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best, but I cannot support it because I think the logical conclusion of it will be that we will get a fragmentation of the landed rent so that the tail wags the dog. The landlord will be so focused on restricting the base rate that those other things will get lost.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, we have concerns about a number of amendments in this group on the basis that they are unduly prescriptive and risk the introduction of what could be regarded as, in effect, a form of rent control.
The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, seek to protect the tribunal from being overloaded due to the Bill. While we agree that there is significant risk of overload, we have concerns about how the arrangements would function. In particular, we do not feel able to support a system that ties rental increases to CPI. CPI is a generalised index that reflects the prices of bread, fuel, clothing and so forth, but not rental market dynamics. What happens in areas where market rents are falling but inflation is high, or where incomes are stagnant while CPI rises? This approach uses a national economic measure to benchmark against a highly localised rental market, and the result would almost certainly be a distorted rental market. That said, we share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Best, about the impact of the Bill on tribunals’ backlogs, which we discussed at length in Committee.
Amendment 114 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, raises some important points. There is no doubt that rent affordability is a serious issue, and the amendment rightly draws attention to a range of important factors: the regional disparities in rental costs, the strain of high rents placed on household finances and the need to understand how effectively the First-tier Tribunal is working in practice. However, I must also sound a note of realism. We do not need another report for its own sake. We need actual change that improves the lives of renters and restores fairness to a housing system that too often feels stacked against ordinary people. If this review is to go ahead, it must not become just another document left to gather dust on the shelves of the department—it must lead to action. I urge the Minister to use this opportunity to outline how the Government will respond to the concerns raised by the noble Baroness in her amendment, which we agree are all points which matter in this debate.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for their amendments relating to rent affordability and rent controls, and the noble Lords, Lord Young, Lord Fuller and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for speaking in this discussion. I have the deepest respect for the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Young, and their experience, and for the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, who has vast experience in this area too. I am grateful for their contributions.
I do not intend to revisit the detailed discussions we had in Committee. They were detailed and informed deliberations, and I know how strongly some noble Lords and tenant groups feel about helping those who struggle to pay high rents. I absolutely understand the pressure that rents put on the budgets of individuals and families. To come back to the points that we made earlier in the debate, obviously the solution to this is to create a lot more social and affordable housing, but I realise that is not going to happen overnight.
However, I must reiterate the Government’s concern that rent controls, as proposed, would risk reducing housing supply, discouraging investment and ultimately lowering property standards. In the case of Amendment 25, the most relevant international comparator is Ontario, an example that I also cited in Committee. I am afraid that the Ontario model, whereby rent increases are capped according to a measure of inflation, has not led to desirable outcomes. In fact, analysis suggests that the result has been higher rents for new tenants.
In respect of the experience in Scotland, a recent Nationwide Foundation report by the Indigo House Group found that rent control measures had not protected the majority of private rented sector tenants against excessive rent increases or against high advertised market rents, considering average advertised rents in the system as a whole. The measures in Scotland do not appear to have impacted rental price growth, because Scotland has consistently been one of the regions in the UK with the highest growth in asking rents. For example, according to Zoopla, in the year to January 2024, when the rent freeze was in place, Scotland was the only UK region with a double-digit annual rent growth, at 11.6%.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords for their support for my set of amendments, including the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who made the point that the First-tier Tribunal already faces a backlog and there is the danger that it will get a lot worse in the future. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for his inside knowledge that, in the business world, indexation is relatively common as a way of stabilising increases over time. Of course, the market rate may go down when it resumes, in comparison with what has happened on an index basis, so rents could go down at the end of a four-year period.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, who made the point that renters will still be exposed, after this Bill is passed, to much greater insecurity and uncertainty from potential rent increases. We are seeing increases at the moment of 14%, which is miles above inflation. This is very unsettling for tenants and the stability of an index system would be infinitely preferable. I support the noble Baroness’s own Amendment 114, which proposes a government commission on affordable housing. This would match the voluntary sector-supported commission, which I had the honour of chairing a couple of years ago, ready for review. That was supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who pointed out how housing costs increase almost exponentially the number of children and families in poverty—it is housing costs “wot done it” very often, by creating poverty.
The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, is yet to be convinced of the merits of my case. It is true that there could be complications, but any other system is more complicated and difficult than the one that we propose. I am sad to say that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, compared this to rent control—“Oh, not again!” We thought we were at pains to point out that something that hits the market level on a regular basis cannot be called rent control—it is not control of the marketplace—but I thank him for his contribution.
I am afraid I have not convinced the Minister, despite her great generosity in having meetings outside the Chamber. I am grateful to her for listening attentively to the case I make. It has not been sufficient to win her over. I can only say that there is now, on the record, an alternative to the Bill’s formula, and if that proves as unsatisfactory as I suspect it will be, maybe this amendment’s time will come. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(4A) In subsection (2)(b) at end insert— “(iii) any increase in the quality of the dwelling attributable to improvements made to upgrade the minimum energy efficiency that were not funded by the landlord but government or ECO grants, either in part or in sum, made within the previous two years.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would amend the Housing Act 1988 so that when determining rents tribunals must disregard any improvements funded by government grants, for a two year period.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I note what the Minister says about the Government taking it seriously and I accept that there is a move, for example in the warm home local grants, to put in a clear expectation, but that is not compulsory. Guidance is not compulsory. Landlords do not need to do it; they can completely ignore it. It is not okay that tenants have to suffer the noise, dirt and disruption of improvements and then do not actually benefit at all financially and have rent rises immediately. I am not precious about how it is done: it could be in the grant conditions. I imagine there are all sorts of ways of actually making this happen, so that tenants can have some benefit without increased costs.
I thank the Liberal Democrats for being prepared to support this amendment, but—although I bitterly resent saying it—I will not move the amendment.
Lord Carrington
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I very much thank the Minister for her answers to my various questions. However, I also point out that her agreement to work on the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, is an extremely positive step and I look forward to the results of that.
However, with considerable sadness, I am very disappointed by the lack of clarity on Amendment 37. The drafting of that amendment is so vague, with the judgments being called only when absolutely necessary and when significant, et cetera, and there being no data to back this whole thing up, that I want to pursue my amendment, because my Amendment 34, together with associated Amendments 35, 36 and 40, all provide great clarity to this particular issue. They are, in a sense, technical amendments: they are not in any other way political.
In Amendment 36, I propose this 12-month delayed payment for any rent increases that the tribunal comes up with, so I recognise these financial pressures, and we have done something to try and ameliorate them. On that basis, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
“(5A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision so as to substitute, in relation to relevant tenancies, a different date as the effective date.(5B) The effective date may not be earlier than the beginning of the new period specified in the notice served on the tenant under section 13(2) or 13A(2).(5C) Regulations under subsection (5A)—(a) may amend this section;(b) may make different provision for different purposes;(c) may make supplemental, consequential, incidental, transitional, transitory or saving provision;(d) are to be made by statutory instrument.(5D) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (5A) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables the Secretary of State to amend the Housing Act 1988 so as to substitute a different date from which new rent is payable. The substituted date must not be earlier than the date specified in the notice of the new rent given by the landlord. The new date will only apply to applications to challenge the rent made on or after the date on which the regulations come into force.
““the effective date” means a date for the time being specified in subsection (3)(b) as the date from which the rent payable takes effect;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment tabled in my name inserting a new regulation-making power into the Housing Act 1988 in relation to the effective date for proposed new rent.
““relevant tenancies” means tenancies in relation to which an application under section 14(A3) is made on or after the date on which the regulations under subsection (5A) come into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment tabled in my name inserting a new regulation-making power into the Housing Act 1988 in relation to the effective date for proposed new rent.
Lord Hacking
“Restrictions on rent increaseWhen a landlord has obtained possession of a property pursuant to Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988 (as amended by Schedule 1 of this Act) on either—(a) Ground 1 (occupation by landlord or family), or(b) Ground 1A (sale of dwelling house),and the landlord is unable to place a family member in the property or sell the property and is putting the property again into the letting market, the landlord is prohibited from raising the rent of the property for a period of 12 months from the date of the notice to quit as served on the original tenant.”
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I will explain how this amendment came about and be more definitive. It relates to the proposal in the Bill—I think it is in Clause 7—that when a landlord has obtained possession principally on the grounds of a proposed sale of the dwelling and then withdraws from the sale and wants to put the property straight on to the market, he is prevented from doing so for a period of 12 months. The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, moved an amendment in Committee to reduce that period from 12 months to six months. I will leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, to develop the argument again because he has tabled Amendment 58 in this group. Basically, the noble Lords argued that 12 months was oppressive and far too long, and that there would be a sufficient deterrence against the rogue landlord seeking to put the property on the market for the purpose of raising the rent.
I did not move an amendment in Committee on this subject, but I thought about it and I decided to write a letter to the Minister, which I did on 19 May. My proposal was much simpler: that there should be a prohibition on all landlords raising the rent when, following putting the property on for sale that did not go forward, seeking to let it out again. I really thought that that was a very sensible amendment; I had hoped that my noble friend would congratulate me and say what a good solution I had provided.
The immediate advantages of my proposal were that, first, it dealt directly with the problem of the rogue landlord raising the rent. That, as my amendment proposes, will be forbidden. It would also have the advantage that the landlord would not be penalised for a long period; he could immediately put the property on the letting market and then collect rent. The other great advantage was that the property would be on the market and there would not be an absence of a property on the market, which is always regrettable. It would therefore help to house people who needed rented property.
Unfortunately, my noble friend did not congratulate me on this proposal as set out in my letter. She expressed caution regarding other tenant/landlord situations, such as a landlord getting fed up with a tenant constantly asking for repairs to the property. Another example she gave, which was rather simpler, was that the landlord had got to the point where he did not like the tenant. We must remember that, in either of those situations, the landlord has to enter into a ruse, either pretending that he wants to sell the property or possibly finding a phantom member of his family who does not exist so that he could get possession under the alternative of placing a member of his family in that house.
I am asking the House to measure up the difference between the advantage of imposing a ban on any rent increase and the advantages that I have just outlined of having the property immediately on the market, with the landlord being able to collect his rent as soon as the property is rented. We have to balance that because the measure in the Bill will affect every landlord—the good and the bad. We should have a balance between that and the extraordinary. After all, a landlord cannot successfully evict a tenant just because he dislikes him. Equally, when he is fed up with a tenant who constantly asks for repairs, he cannot bring an action for eviction just because the tenant is pestering him. In both those situations, he has to enter into a ruse.
I am suggesting that the proper balance is to look at the market as a whole—everybody in the market is affected by these measures. Therefore, to release everybody else in the market from the measure proposed serves it. So it is a balance, and I suggest that that balance goes to the market and not to the particular circumstances of a landlord disliking his tenant or getting fed up with a number of requests for repairs. I beg to move.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 58 is in my name. I express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who apologises that he is unable to be with us today but who has added his name to the amendment, and of course to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking —and indeed to the Minister and her officials for the time they have taken to discuss the background to this with me.
This amendment is at heart a simple and technical one. The Bill says that if you ask a tenant to leave on the grounds that you are selling the property but then the property fails to sell, as happens in about a third of cases, you are not allowed to rent the property out for a period of 12 months. It simply has to stand empty and impossible to rent out for a year. That means that numerous properties would, for the crime of not selling, be punished by standing empty and unrentable. My amendment does not seek to change the principle or any other element or clause of the Bill. It simply introduces a rational and balanced obligation to stand empty in this way for six months rather than 12. That is all that it does. I will now set out the reasons why.
On financial logic, when I and others suggested that 12 months was too long, the answer given was that 12 months’ lost rent would prevent evil landlords from claiming they were selling simply as a means to eject a tenant and then re-letting the property at a higher rent. The theory was that after the tenant had left, the landlord would jack up the rent to a high level, both to recoup their interim losses and make profits. Let us look at that proposition rationally.
First, if the landlord has a valid claim to increase the rent, the Bill already provides for that. A landlord would simply seek a normal rent increase rather than going to the dramatic and expensive process and risk of requiring a tenant to leave and then hoping to re-let at a much higher rent.
Secondly, in Committee I set out the mathematical calculation behind a six-month void period; noble Lords will be relieved to know that I do not propose to repeat the numerical details here tonight, or those that I provided subsequently in a meeting with the Minister and her officials. However, the numbers demonstrated clearly that the supposedly avaricious landlord, even if having the property empty for only six months, as I propose, rather than 12, would have to put the rent up by a very substantial amount—in excess of 200% or even 300%—to recoup their rental losses. I say nothing of the other costs, including the council tax surcharge bills and the risks of leaving a building empty. Such a huge rent hike would be impossible. The rent asked would be completely uncompetitive against other properties not carrying such an inflated rent level. In short, being obliged to leave a property empty for six months is more than enough of a financial burden and barrier so as to make the strategy so feared by the Minister simply untenable.
Thirdly, it was suggested that those nasty landlords might lie about selling a property or put it on the market at an absurdly high price, presumably in collusion with a disreputable estate agent—there are some, I believe. I therefore draw noble Lords’ attention to the second part of the amendment. This requires the landlord to provide, if necessary, to the local authority or the court hard evidence of marketing, pricing and offers, et cetera. A landlord flouting these requirements would be breaking the law and punishable accordingly. I understand that an agent colluding with them would also be acting contrary to the law. I remind noble Lords that any landlord taking this approach would face not only the legal risk of a false sales process but ending up with the property back on the rental market at an absurd and uncompetitive level of rent and, on top of that, losing six months’ rent.
Turning to other reasons, having made the argument on the rental conspiracy theory advanced in defence of the 12 months of standing empty, I heard that the landlord might have “other reasons” for wanting to get rid of the tenant, such as those that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, touched upon. Let us examine this argument. Whatever these other reasons might be, the Minister has confirmed that the Bill makes it perfectly clear that the landlord has only four grounds for requiring a tenant to leave: sale, anti-social behaviour, moving in a relative or persistent failure to pay rent. If the landlord cannot demonstrate that one or more of these cases applies—for example, through not providing conclusive evidence of a genuine sales process—that landlord will be in breach of the law as well as having the financial penalty of the months of lost rent. It is a fundamental of the Bill to block any attempts to get around Section 21 by other means. I entirely agree with that. However, as I hope that I have demonstrated, this amendment is no such thing. The “no renting out” mechanism to prevent abuse remains, but the amendment makes it proportionate rather than excessive and heavy-handed.
Standing back from the detail, we are frequently assured that most landlords are good landlords. Perhaps some in this House have friends who are landlords. Perhaps some Members of this House let out property. This provision to leave a property unlet will not apply just to a subset of bad landlords. It will apply to anyone who rents out a property and genuinely wants or needs to sell their property but does not manage to do so. It also, for the same 12 months, deprives the market of rental properties—a market already bedevilled by a lack of available property to rent. That does not help tenants. This is not only unnecessary but manifestly unfair and will actively harm the supply of rental property. The Minister has accepted in a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, that landlords will lose out, but says that it will be in a small number of circumstances. Where is the evidence for that—or that the six-month penalty is not enough?
I underline that I am no lobbyist for landlords. I have spoken repeatedly in this House about the need to protect the poorest and the most vulnerable tenants who are abused and evicted by genuinely unscrupulous landlords. I have a later amendment seeking to prevent illegal evictions which is specifically on that theme. However, as the Minister has stressed, a successful rental sector is about a balance of rights. The amendment that I am speaking to does not do away with the relevant part of the Bill. It simply reduces the punishment —and it is a punishment—for not managing to sell a property from 12 months to six months. Those six months of costs and no income are, as I have demonstrated previously, more than sufficient punishment to make unworkable the avoidance strategies that so vexed the Minister and to meet the objectives of the Bill.
To be frank, a prohibition on renting out for 12 months is an impractical and disproportionate sledgehammer level of overkill that does not belong in a Bill that creates a set of checks and balances to produce a new, fairer environment for property rental. It also works against its own objective by artificially restricting the availability of property that is available to rent. That is why I feel strongly that this amendment is proportionate and needed. I will listen carefully to what any others and the Minister have to say, but I may need to test the opinion of the House in due course.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I speak to my Amendment 59. I am grateful to the Minister for the time that she spent with me and a representative of the Shared Owners’ Network after Committee, when we discussed in further detail the problems facing shared ownership leaseholders in blocks that have been blighted by the cladding disaster. This amendment is needed to protect shared owners, who are accidental landlords, from the financial problems that they will face if they are unable to finalise a sale after issuing a ground 1A notice.
Many shared owners, of course, continue to live in the property which they half-bought from the registered social landlord. Many shared owners have simply had to move to get on with their life; they have been unable to sell the property in the meantime, so they have sublet. Shared owners are allowed to sublet—they have to get permission from their RSL to do this—but the rent that they receive from the subletting may not actually be enough to cover their costs, with the mortgage, the rent, the service charge and the insurance charges on a block affected by the cladding disaster. Those costs may well exceed the local market rent.
Many shared owners who have been subletting for a number of years have seen their financial situation considerably weakened, with many effectively losing hundreds of pounds every month as a result of subletting. These are people who employed all the professional people that they should have employed when they bought the property owned by a registered social landlord. They took every precaution available to them and bear no responsibility at all for the problem that has engulfed them.
When we met, although she expressed sympathy for this group, the Minister could not offer any mitigation for the unsustainable costs which a 12-month ban on re-letting would create for these shared owners. This is not a satisfactory outcome for a cohort who qualified for an affordable home because their income was not high enough to buy on the open market; this was their first step on the ladder. The Minister argued that the proposed ban protects tenants, but it fails to protect shared owners who are actually also tenants.
Shared owners face a much riskier sales process with the Bill. They have to give four months’ notice to their tenants, and that means they have no certainty at all that the offer to buy the flat will actually result in an exchange, or indeed a completion. Shared owners have to give the first option to buy their flat back to the registered social landlord so they can find another shared ownership owner, and there are strict qualifications, so they are fishing in a relatively small pool. Prospective buyers need to meet the criteria for shared ownership, and that means that the risk of a failed sale, even at a late stage, is actually much higher for a shared owner, and particularly high if you are selling a flat in a block with unsafe cladding.
Should a sale fall through, as is frequent, particularly for these types of properties, shared owners, like other landlords under the Bill, face the prospect of a 12-month void when they will be banned from re-letting their empty property and forced to cover its costs without any rental income.
These people never planned to become landlords. It was not part of their vision at all. They will have had no ability to plan for this outcome or make provision for extended void periods. This will become completely unaffordable for the vast majority of shared owners who, as I have said, are not as financially resilient as other leaseholders, otherwise they would have bought a property on the open market. They will have to pay for the property they now live in, as well as the property they have been unable to sell.
Of course, they will continue to market their property for sale after the first sale has fallen through, but facing the mounting unmet costs of an empty property will actually put their homes at risk of repossession if they fall into arrears, as is very likely. Also—and this is worse—it puts incredible pressure on them to accept any offer from a buyer as soon as possible, even if the offer is below the RICS pre-sale valuation. If they do that, due to the rules of the scheme, they will have to compensate the registered social landlord for the loss of value on their share, as well as losing out on their own share. So, the unintended consequence of the 12-month ban on re-letting is that it puts shared owners selling a property on the back foot, unable to wait for a suitable offer at a fair market value.
It is just not acceptable to punish shared owners who have had to become accidental landlords, including as a result of the building safety crisis, and have already suffered considerable financial harm. In her correspondence, the Minister explained that shared owners would have the option to ask their provider whether a buyback would be possible rather than leaving the property empty.
This could provide a solution, but it will need the Minister to make some changes, As the Minister knows, buybacks are currently very much at the discretion of the registered provider. At the moment they have only limited access to funding to do this, using either their own funds or recycled capital grant funding.
If the Minister is unable to accept my amendment, will the Government ring-fence some of the dedicated funding to registered providers in its affordable homes programme so that they can swiftly buy back properties from those shared owners who fail to sell after issuing a ground 1A notice? This would enable housing associations to add to the stock of affordable property to rent at well below the cost of a new build and avoid leaving a property empty. If the Minister can neither accept the amendment nor give that guarantee, I am minded to test the opinion of the House at the appropriate time—probably next Monday.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, the three amendments here are interesting. The noble Baroness is well aware that we share the same concerns as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, regarding shared owners. I was allowed to gatecrash their meeting. I admit that it was eye-opening for me. I was aware of the issues around shared ownership, but I was shocked at the costs incurred and the amounts of money lost, which the noble Lord has amplified superbly. I hope the noble Baroness can give us some way forward on this and other issues that seriously affect shared owners—accidental landlords who are trapped in the situations the noble Lord has accurately described and see no way out. The “What can I do?” was quite revealing. It is no surprise that we will support Amendment 59.
We know that the not-able-to-sell situation applies to thousands of shared owners—far greater numbers than, I suspect, Amendment 58 from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, applies to. This is yet another area in the Bill where we do not know the numbers. We do not know how many homes will be affected. I have to pay credit to the noble Lord because Amendment 58 has been patiently worked on and lobbied for by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. I completely understand where he is coming from but perhaps do not agree that the detriment to the relatively few landlords who find they cannot sell their property is worth the abuses that might occur if prohibition on re-letting is reduced to six months rather than 12 as in the Bill. Perhaps this is an area for some compromise.
I have a simple question, and I am sure somebody will tell me I am wrong. If I genuinely wanted to sell my property and realise my capital for whatever reason, given the amount of time to evict, I would probably not serve notice to my tenant until I had sold my property. I can serve the notice; the process of selling, conveyancing and everything else carries on; the tenant leaves at the appropriate time; the buyers exchange contracts and we say, “You can’t move in until that time”. I do not see how that would be unachievable. I am sure somebody will tell me why that would not be the case. I certainly would not evict them before I put it on the market or had some sense of the market or of how things were. As I said in Committee, a letting agent said to me, “All houses will sell, Dorothy. It just depends on the price”.
Amendment 41, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, is clearly designed to act as a disincentive to landlords trying to abuse this ground, but maybe if the landlord is genuine, it is just a little too draconian. We broadly agree that the Bill has got this right, as far as we can tell.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to this group of amendments and to offer my full support to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. Amendment 59 addresses a significant gap in the Bill by providing a vital exemption for shared ownership leaseholders from certain provisions within Clause 14. Shared ownership is an important tenure model that enables many people to take their first step on to the housing ladder, yet it is not without its challenges, particularly when sales fall through, as my noble friend has highlighted. Amendment 59 is a sensible and necessary provision that recognises the realities faced by shared ownership landlords. Protecting this group helps to maintain confidence in shared ownership and prevents unintended consequences that could undermine the Bill’s original intent. If my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham is minded to test the opinion of the House, the Opposition will support him without hesitation.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hacking and the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Young, for their amendments and their engagement on these issues. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson.
On Amendment 58, we want to strengthen tenant security and prevent abuse of ground 1A. A 12-month no re-let period will act as a deterrent to unscrupulous landlords who want to evict tenants so that they can let to a new tenant for more rent or because the tenants are asking for repairs that the landlord does not want to do. We understand this is a strict measure, and it is meant to be. It is intended to ensure that only landlords who genuinely wish to sell their property will wish to use that ground and to deter from using it landlords looking to evict a tenant in order to re-let at a higher rent or to a different tenant. Not only will landlords have to forgo rental income for 12 months after using ground 1A but should they be found to be misusing the ground, they could be fined up to £40,000. It is right that we have these strong tenant protections in place.
This amendment would also bring significant complexity to the system, and I struggle to see how it would work in practice. It would allow the courts to require evidence that the dwelling had been on the open market for six months and that no suitable offers had been received, but it is unclear how the courts would become involved. Additionally, it could place undue burdens on courts which may have to follow up on any ground 1A evictions to check whether the landlord had tried to sell for six months and whether they had received any suitable offers. The court would also have to determine what a suitable offer was, which would be another undue burden. The no re-let rule is a clear and simple rule that would not benefit from further complexity. I believe this amendment would open the no re-let period to abuse, reducing tenant security and contradicting the aims of this Bill.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, indicated, if a landlord is genuinely planning to sell a property, they can market it to gauge interest before upending the tenant’s life by evicting them. This would be more effective for all parties than evicting as soon as they decide to sell and only then putting it on the market and waiting for suitable offers. For all these reasons, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, not to press this amendment.
On Amendment 41, I understand from our helpful discussions that my noble friend Lord Hacking’s intent here is to remove the period during which a landlord cannot re-let the property after using grounds 1 and 1A and instead prevent the rent being increased in the new tenancy. While this amendment addresses one of the goals of the no re-let period by making it unprofitable for landlords to abuse the moving and selling grounds, it does not address the other key reason to prevent abuse. Even if an unscrupulous landlord could not profit from abusing the grounds, they could still, under my noble friend’s proposals, use these grounds with no intention of moving in or selling to pursue retaliatory evictions. This means abusing the grounds to get rid of a tenant who had done nothing wrong but whom, for example, the landlord simply did not like or who they considered raised too many issues with the property.
These abuses of the system are exactly what the 12-month no re-let period aims to prevent. In the current system, under Section 21, we hear all too often of tenants afraid to ask for repairs because the landlord has made it clear that they will evict them if they do. Under my noble friend’s proposal, this could still happen. The opening up of the grounds to abuse must be resisted. The 12-month no re-let period is a strong disincentive for landlords to abuse the grounds, and I believe that it strikes the right balance. As such, I ask my noble friend not to push his amendment to a Division.
I turn now to Amendment 59. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young, for his engagement on this issue and for introducing me to the Shared Owners’ Network. These clauses implement critical protections for tenants. If a landlord has used the selling or moving-in ground, they will not be able to re-let or market a property for 12 months. That period starts from the date of possession proceedings, as specified in their Section 8 notice to the tenant. These clauses also include other important prohibited landlord behaviours.
The Government are aware that some shared owners with building safety issues are facing very difficult circumstances through no fault of their own. The Shared Owners’ Network has provided invaluable insight into this issue. We are continuing to engage with it to determine how best to support these shared owners. We will have a dialogue with the registered providers as well. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestion in that regard. To respond to another of his comments, I will clarify the licence points to him in writing.
However, I do not agree that, by helping in one area, other blameless tenants should have reduced security of tenure or be exposed to the risk of wrongful eviction just because of who their landlord is. We have to get the balance right somehow, to support those who find themselves in this awful position but not at the expense of other tenants. We will continue to work on that. All assured tenants must benefit from the new system.
I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Young, not to press this amendment.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, my Amendment 41 was the first in line in this group. I still think that it was a good amendment and would have produced all of the right results without creating sorrow for the market of the full 12-month waiting period.
It is now very late in the evening. I am not going to press for a Division. I nevertheless argue that my amendment was the best of the three.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would allow a person to mutually agree a tenancy with a landlord which requires them to pay up to six months of rent in advance.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the payment of rent in advance can provide significant benefits to tenants that go beyond simply avoiding late fees or demonstrating financial security. Many tenants choose to pay rent in advance for financial planning, to ease the stress of monthly payments or to manage upcoming financial burdens. Amendment 43 in this group recognises and affirms this choice, firmly rooted in mutual agreement between tenant and landlord.
We did consider introducing a 12-month period proposal at Committee stage. However, in a spirit of compromise, and having listened carefully to the views expressed in Committee, we have instead brought forward a six-month proposal. We hope that the Government will recognise this as a reasonable and constructive step, and we hope that noble Lords can support this.
If a tenant does not wish to pay rent in advance, they would be under no obligation to do so. However, there are particular groups who would benefit from this flexibility, including overseas students and those with poor or limited credit histories. Many tenants with lower credit ratings face barriers to securing housing that are often no fault of their own. By paying rent in advance, these individuals could demonstrate responsibility and financial reliability, improving their chances of obtaining a tenancy.
Similarly, overseas students often lack a UK credit history and therefore require UK-based guarantors, which is not always possible. For those students, paying rent up front for a term or even an entire academic year is a practicality and a common solution. I ask the Minister to clarify what impact these amendments might have on overseas students’ ability to secure accommodation and whether the landlord will maintain incentives to rent to those tenants despite their limited credit history.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, it feels as if we are going back to Amendment 1 at the start of this debate and the theme of that essential freedom to contract between consenting parties, which had support on both sides of the House from the noble Lords, Lord Hacking and Lord Truscott, and others. Amendment 43 is a practical solution and an optional one. It provides a route for an otherwise unrentable tenant to find a tenancy and it is a practical expression of good faith. We have had some examples of where the freedom—it is a freedom and not an obligation—to offer up to six months’ rent in advance can be helpful.
My noble friend Lady Scott mentioned the case of students, especially foreign students. Foreign students often want to secure accommodation before they get on the plane to come to this country. At that point, they may not even have a UK bank account. They certainly will not have references or a track record. The only practicable way they can secure a tenancy with that impaired record is to pay in advance.
Earlier today, we spoke about the potential abuses in holiday hotspots, where somebody may say, “I am going to stay for a whole year”, as they contract in June, whereas in fact they immediately give notice to quit after the August bank holiday. The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, who is not in his place, told the House that the differential between the Airbnb rate and the year-round rate is something like 49%. This is a way for somebody who was sincere about entering into a long-term arrangement for, say, six months—but it would not have to be exactly six months—with a potential landlord to demonstrate that they were not just the carpetbagging, holiday-hotspot people. They could pay in advance and that would be helpful.
My noble friend mentioned those with an impaired record. It would be possible to have a guarantor who stumped up for those people with a weak covenant strength. For those who have cash—I appreciate that not everybody does—coming to an accommodation with the landlord for paying up front sometimes results in considerably less rent, and in those cases both landlord and tenant benefit considerably.
Amendment 43 would help both the landlord and tenant to come to an arrangement to their mutual advantage. I know it is not for everybody, but without this provision the unrentables will remain unrented. The Bill’s objective, as we have heard from the Minister, is to get people into safe, secure, good accommodation, and for a small number of people the amendment would provide the otherwise unprovidable. I support it entirely.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I very much support Amendments 43 and 45, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. I can give a practical example of this. A very nice couple from Chile wanted to rent one of our flats. They had no credit record at all here in England so there was no way to check that. There was no efficient way to check the previous landlord, which is the other step that a landlord normally takes to ascertain whether these are suitable tenants to go into the property. They had the money. Both of them were coming to work in London for a year for an academic purpose. Enabling them to pay some money in advance—I have forgotten whether it was six months or more—was therefore a sensible compromise. They turned out to be delightful tenants and highly reliable, and we were delighted to have them in our house.
I also want to speak to Amendment 46. It is to protect landlords when a tenant has signed up to take the property on a certain date but has failed to pay either the first month’s rent in advance or the deposit. I suggest that it would be entirely wrong, because the tenancy agreement had been signed and so forth, if the landlord were then obliged to take that tenant into the property. Remember that a landlord cannot chase unpaid rent for three months, and then there is the delay in getting a hearing in the county court, so that would be onerous for the landlord to deal with. Moreover, if the tenant has not paid either the first month’s rent or the deposit in advance, he probably does not have the money available, and the high probability is that the landlord will have to suffer that tenant in his property for three or four months without any payment at all.
I therefore thought it would be sensible to make it quite plain—my amendment starts:
“For the avoidance of doubt”—
that the landlord does not have to give the tenant keys to the property or allow them to get into it when the tenant has not paid. I added a further bit to the amendment to enable the landlord, if the tenant fails to pay the first month’s rent or the deposit for a further 28 days, to take the next step of having the lease annulled. That is to make it plain in the Bill what the position of the landlord is after having entered into an agreement with a tenant who then does not pay either the first month’s rent or the deposit.
Lord Carrington (CB)
I support the indefatigable and noble Lord, Lord Hacking, in his Amendment 46. I find it plainly obvious that rent needs to be paid before occupation. I can find preciously few examples of anyone paying for goods and services after they are contracted or consumed. An obvious example is a railway ticket or an air ticket. No one goes to the cinema and pays after the performance or takes a litre of milk at Tesco and then pays after drinking it: it is just not acceptable.
Participating in the private rented sector, as either landlord or tenant, is a serious business. The landlord has made a major investment and may have a mortgage to service, among other costs. A tenant is looking for a safe and secure tenancy which incorporates decent home standards: he is well aware of the financial obligation. Without this amendment, the landlord would be laid open to the possibility of four months with no rent and a longer eviction process under Section 8, possibly taking seven months or so. The position of a landlord is a commercial business, not a public service. I urge the Minister to accept this rather obvious amendment.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, in view of the time, I will speak briefly to Amendment 43. I could simply say the first sentence: “We are strongly opposed to rent in advance because it is discriminatory”.
This amendment is being framed as a cosy option where tenants and landlords can reach a mutual agreement as to whether or not they will do this. No, I do not believe that. If allowed, it will become, as now, a requirement. In effect, it will become a bidding war by any other name, and landlords have their pick of tenants: Zoopla has just reported that there are between 20 and 25 punters for each property and at least 20 requests to view each property. Landlords can pick, it is a beauty parade, so they can choose the tenants who have the money to give them six months’ rent up front against those who just do not have those advantages. But those same people can still afford to pay the rent and would still make good tenants.
We are opposed to anything that prices out poor renters in hot rental market areas. We refute the argument being discussed by landlord groups that this is an option for niche circumstances that allows people to access housing; for example, as was said, where people might struggle with credit checks. If you are struggling with credit checks, it is highly unlikely that you will be able to pay six months’ rent in advance. In a very modest property in Watford, six months in advance is between £6,000 and £8,000. That is a lot of money.
We know that landlords and letting agents often use it as a barrier to reject tenants relying on universal credit or housing benefit, preventing them accepting a tenancy, which means that only those with savings or family support to draw on will comply, which those on low incomes are less likely to have. Shelter tells us that six in 10 renters have been asked for it and over 800,000 people in one of its surveys say they were not able to secure a property because of the demand for rent in advance. The Bill aims to prevent discrimination against renters on benefits. This amendment would allow it by the back door.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and my noble friend Lord Hacking for their amendments on rent in advance, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for speaking.
The Government have been very clear in their view that the charging of rent in advance is unfair. I have not heard anything this evening that has changed my mind on that. Therefore, we cannot accept Amendment 43, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. Six months’ rent is a significant amount of money. For some renters, this will be their entire savings, which were perhaps carefully built up with the ambition of being put towards a deposit on a first home. For many others, it will be an amount of savings which is simply unreachable.
I recognise that it is the noble Baroness’s intention for it to be possible to request large amounts of rent in advance only where this has been previously agreed by the tenant and landlord. However, we must consider what this means in practice. It would allow a landlord, at the pre-letting stage, to insist on a tenancy agreement which would permit them to require up to six months’ rent in advance. In hot rental markets, we could expect such clauses to become simply a fact of renting. This could leave tenants with the “choice” of stretching their finances to the limit or facing homelessness.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, allowing tenants, where mutually agreed, to pay rent in advance of up to six months provides an important option for many, particularly those who may face barriers such as a poor credit history, overseas students without a UK credit record or those who simply wish to manage their finances proactively. This choice should be respected and preserved, not restricted by over-prescriptive regulations.
Housing is a personal and often complex matter, and we acknowledge the complexity of balancing landlord protections with tenants’ rights, particularly regarding initial payments such as deposits and the first month’s rent. However, it demands legislation that is flexible enough to accommodate different circumstances without sacrificing fairness and stability.
I know the hour is late but we believe that this is an important amendment for the freedom and flexibilities that tenants require in this sector. I would therefore like to test the opinion of the House on my Amendment 43.
“(za) to a tenancy entered into before the commencement date (which has the same meaning as in section 146(3) of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025),”Member’s explanatory statement
In line with the original policy intention, this amendment ensures that existing leases (those entered into before the commencement of Chapter 1 of Part 1) will fall outside the scope of the new section 4B.
Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 5 June be approved.
Relevant document: 28th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to this Motion and therefore beg to move formally.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I hope my words did not provoke last night. I was reminiscing with Northern Ireland Members about those days in the 1980s and 1990s in the Commons when we used to speak all night on Northern Ireland business and then my late colleague Eric Forth and I pulled the stunt of having a renegade vote. I have a certain admiration for the stunt that colleagues pulled last night, but I see that there is a full Labour House tonight. If you want to know the Official Opposition line, you will find it in yesterday’s Hansard, column 577.