Renters’ Rights Bill

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that Lords amendments 39 and 68 engage Commons financial privilege. If either of those Lords amendments is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.

Clause 12

Right to request permission to keep a pet

18:06

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 11.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendment 14, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.

Lords amendment 18, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 19, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 26, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 27, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 39, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 53, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 55 to 62, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.

Lords amendment 64, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 67, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.

Lords amendments 1 to 10, 12, 13, 15 to 17, 20 to 25, 28 to 38, 40 to 52, 54, 63, 65, 66 and 68 to 77.

[Matthew Pennycook]

This Government were elected with a clear mandate to do what the Conservatives failed to do in the last Parliament—namely, to modernise the regulation of our country’s insecure and unjust private rented sector, and empower private renters by providing them with greater security rights and protections. Our Renters’ Rights Bill does just that, and it needs to receive Royal Assent as quickly as possible so that England’s 11 million private renters can benefit from its provisions.

Before I turn to the Lords amendments, I want to thank Baroness Taylor for so ably guiding the Bill through the other place. I put on record my appreciation of all the peers who contributed to its detailed scrutiny.

As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Government made several important changes to the Bill in the other place with a view to ensuring that it will work as intended and in response to the legitimate concerns raised about the implementation of specific provisions. In the interests of time, I will update the House only on the two that are most apposite.

The first change concerns the date from which a tenant is required to pay a new rent in instances where the first-tier tribunal has set a new rent amount following a tenant’s challenge to a proposed increase. The Government were elected on a clear manifesto commitment to empower tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases. It is essential that we deliver on that commitment not only to protect tenants from undue financial pressure, but to prevent rent hikes from being used as a form of back-door eviction once section 21 notices have been abolished.

However, recognising that there is inherent uncertainty about the volume of rent increase challenges that will be brought when the new tenancy system comes into force, and as a safeguard against a scenario in which the first-tier tribunal is overwhelmed by a sharp increase in challenges, Lords amendments 6 to 8 introduce a new delegated power that will enable the backdating of rent increases following determinations by the tribunal of new rent amounts. I want to reiterate what Baroness Taylor made clear in the other place—namely, that it is not the Government’s intention to make use of this new power unless and until it is considered necessary to avoid lengthy delays for genuine cases to be heard. If used, it would be subject to the affirmative procedure to allow appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. In addition to introducing that important safeguard, the Government also concluded that there is a compelling case for the use of an alternative body or mechanism to make initial rent determinations. Subject to a final viability assessment, we intend to establish such an alternative body or mechanism as soon as possible, and will confirm further details in due course.

The second important change the Government made in the other place concerns insurance to cover potential damage from pets. As hon. Members will be aware, the Bill as originally introduced, mirroring provisions in the previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill, enabled landlords to request such insurance in instances where a tenant had requested a pet. In response to concerns expressed by several peers that the insurance industry appears unlikely to provide suitable financial products at the speed and scale required, and that the reasonable request of tenants to keep pets might be hampered as a result, Lords amendments 10, 12 and 13 remove the provisions in the Bill which made landlord consent to a request to keep a pet conditional on the tenant taking out, or paying for, pet damage insurance.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Just last week, I was asked a similar question back home; the legislation back home is not covered by this House. The issue for those who have animals is that almost every person who has an animal in a flat, apartment or other property always looks after the property as if it were their own and the issue of animal damage does not come up. It does, however, come up the odd time, so is it not better—I think the Minister is saying this—to have an obligation rather than legislation to ensure that the tenant covers any damage by a pet, because most tenants will be accountable for their pets no matter what?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As ever, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He makes a good point. There is evidence that pet damage is, in many cases, not extensive or a particular issue. Where pet damage occurs, as I will come on to make clear in response to the relevant Lords amendment, we think that the provisions in the Tenant Fees Act 2019, which allow for tenant deposits to be changed in response to such issues, mean that we have the necessary delegated powers, but I will set out further detail on that particular issue in due course.

I will now turn to the amendments made by peers in the other place. We welcome the scrutiny and challenge provided, and are willing to make sensible concessions in some areas, but most of the amendments in question serve to undermine the core principles of the Bill and for that reason we cannot accept them. Let me make clear precisely, in each instance, where that is the case, starting with Lords amendment 53.

Lords amendment 53 dramatically broadens the scope of possession ground 4A, so that it encompasses not only full-time students living in houses in multiple occupation, but non-typical students, such as older students with families undertaking postgraduate studies who may live in self-contained one and two-bed properties. Ground 4A exists precisely because the Government recognise the unique nature of the student rental market and are determined to ensure that the annual cycle of student lettings continues accordingly. However, ground 4A was deliberately designed to ensure that the benefits of the new tenancy system introduced in the Bill were not denied to non-typical students. We believe restricting its use to HMOs or dwelling-houses in HMOs strikes the right balance, and I therefore urge the House to reject Lords amendment 53.

Lords amendment 64 introduces a new ground for possession for the sole purpose of allowing a landlord to regain their property to house a carer for themselves or a member of their family living with them. Everyone in this Chamber recognises the vital work carers do to support people to live independently and with dignity. However, while the Government are profoundly sympathetic to the needs of those who require care, I am afraid we cannot support this amendment for two main reasons. First, while I appreciate entirely that some peers currently own and let rental properties in close proximity to their homes, with a view to one day using them to house a carer for themselves or members of their family, there is no compelling evidence to suggest that this practice is sufficiently widespread to justify the insertion into the Bill at this late stage of a dedicated possession ground to cater specifically for it. Secondly, the definition of “carer” in the amendment—namely, anyone providing any form of care in a voluntary or contractual arrangement, is so broad that the scope for abuse, in our view, is substantial. I therefore urge the House to reject the amendment.

Lords amendment 18 would reduce the prohibition on re-letting or re-marketing a property following the use of possession ground 1A from 12 months to six. We recognise that there will be occasions when landlords regain vacant possession of their property using ground 1A but are unable subsequently to sell it despite repeated attempts to do so, but we are not prepared to weaken the strong safeguard against abuse provided by the 12-month no-let provision. It is essential to prevent landlords misusing ground 1A and evicting tenants who are not at fault, whether that be because they have made a legitimate complaint or simply because the landlord wants to re-let at a higher rate. The Government remain firmly committed to the 12-month no-let restriction, and I urge the House to reject Lords amendment 18 on that basis.

Lords amendment 19 is a related amendment that exempts shared owners from the 12-month re-letting and re-marketing restriction, as well as other important restrictions. I want to make it clear that the Government recognise the plight of shared owners living in buildings that require remediation. I know from my own efforts to support shared owners in my constituency of Greenwich and Woolwich that those affected by the building safety crisis often face unaffordable costs, often with no viable exit route other than a distressed sale.

18:15

It is worth noting that to better support affected shared owners, the Government have already taken a number of steps to provide greater clarity about what flexibilities and assistance shared owners should expect from registered providers, including in relation to subletting at market rates. We also recognise that there is more that might be done, outside this legislation, to mitigate the impact of the building safety crisis on shared owners, and are committed to exploring all options. However, while I very much commend Lord Young of Cookham for championing the interests of shared owners in difficulty, and am more than happy to continue to engage with him to determine if there is a way to provide them with greater support that does not undermine the core principles of the Bill, I am afraid that I cannot accept Lords amendment 19 at this time, purely because the Government remain of the view that it could undermine protections for the small subset of tenants who happen to rent a sublet home from a shared owner.

Lords amendment 11 would allow landlords to require an additional deposit, equivalent to three weeks’ rent, as a condition of consent to a tenant’s request to keep a pet. We cannot support this amendment. Requiring a further three weeks’ deposit would cost the average tenant in England over £900. Such sums would be unaffordable for many tenants and would greatly exceed the average deposit deduction for pet damage of £300. We are satisfied—this speaks to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—that the existing requirement for five weeks’ deposit for typical tenancies is sufficient to cover the risk of any damages relating to pet ownership. Crucially, as I mentioned, we already have the delegated powers necessary, under the Tenant Fees Act 2019, to allow higher deposits for tenancies with pets, should evidence come forward to the contrary. For those reasons, I urge the House to reject Lords amendment 11.

Lords amendments 26 and 27 would require local authorities to meet the criminal, rather than the civil, standard of proof when imposing penalties for rental discrimination and rental bidding breaches. The Government are absolutely clear that the civil standard, which is aligned with similar legislation, such as the wider anti-discrimination provisions of the Equality Act 2010, is the appropriate one to apply in these circumstances. Requiring local authorities to meet the more stringent criminal standard of proof for provisions that cannot lead to a criminal offence where the conduct persists would make local authority enforcement extremely challenging, and would be prohibitively resource-intensive. We cannot accept the amendments for those reasons, and I urge the House to reject them.

Finally, Lords amendment 39 would bring service family accommodation within scope of the modernised decent homes standard that the Government are introducing. I begin by once again acknowledging the integral role that safe and decent accommodation plays in the lives of our service personnel and their families. The Government are absolutely determined to improve the standard of service family accommodation across the entire defence estate—in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as England. However, the Government cannot accept the amendment. As has been debated at length at various stages of the Bill, the Ministry of Defence is absolutely clear that subjecting secure defence sites to local authority inspections, as this amendment would do, is unworkable due to access and security constraints. In any case, as we have made clear many times, the MOD already applies the decent homes standard as a benchmark, has gone further with its decent homes plus standard for service family accommodation, and has committed to complying with Awaab’s law requirements, and to mirroring any of its timescales for dealing with damp and mould in its key performance indicators.

As the House will know, earlier this year, the MOD announced an additional £1.5 billion investment in service family accommodation as part of a £7 billion commitment over the next five years, and in the coming months, the Government will publish a defence housing strategy, setting out clear renewal standards and further steps to improve accommodation for the men and women who serve our country. Importantly, those renewal standards will apply to the whole UK defence estate, ensuring that the different nations of the UK are not subject to different decency standards, as would be the case under Lords amendment 39.

We believe that there are very strong reasons for objecting to that amendment, but I appreciate fully that peers want certainty that all service accommodation will be brought up to the requisite standard. With a view to providing greater confidence about the Government’s clear intentions in this area, I can confirm today that the MOD will lay before Parliament and publish on gov.uk an annual report on the standard of service family accommodation in the UK. I hope that the transparency and accountability that annual reporting will facilitate will provide sufficient reassurance of the Government’s commitment to the commendable objectives that underpin Lords amendment 39. However, for the reasons I have provided, we will not be able to accept it today.

I mentioned at the outset that the Government are willing to make sensible concessions in some areas, and that is the case for Lords amendments 55 to 57, which would expand ground 5A to allow landlords to evict their tenants to house self-employed workers and other types of workers engaged in agriculture. Peers also agreed to Lords amendments 58 to 62, which would expand ground 5C in order to allow landlords to evict a wider range of workers than just tenants who are employees.

Having reflected on our position, the Government have tabled amendments in lieu that narrowly expand ground 5A to allow agricultural landlords to evict assured tenants in order to house both employees and non-employed workers engaged in agriculture. We believe this small technical change will support the Government’s clear intention of ensuring that the agricultural sector can continue to function effectively without compromising wider security of tenure, and I am pleased that both Lord Carrington and the National Farmers Union have indicated their support for these changes.

To conclude, the Bill has undoubtedly been improved as a result of the scrutiny to which it has been subjected, but the Government are not prepared to allow our core principles to be undermined in the way that the amendments would. I urge the House to support the Government’s position, and I look forward to the remainder of the debate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

The UK needs a vibrant and fluid private rented sector. We need it to deliver communities that are happy and cohesive, and to deliver fairness, stability and security for families. I have been looking at the Government’s position on the Bill, and I pay tribute to the Minister for Housing and Planning, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), for the work he has done on it—or is he the right hon. Member?

[Matthew Pennycook]

indicated dissent.

[Sir James Cleverly]

Well, he deserves to be the right hon. Gentleman. He has been doing the hard yards; he has done loads of work on this Bill. I am sure he was disappointed that he did not get to lead the Department—congratulations to the new Secretary of State—but I have no doubt that the opportunity will come in the near future. I would just say: be patient for the moment.

While I have no doubt that the Bill is full of good intentions, it is poorly though through and counterproductive. In fact, I am assuming it is poorly thought through, but it is entirely feasible that the measures within it are well though through, and are designed to undermine the private rented sector. It is inept, either by accident or on purpose—I will go with inept by accident, because that is more in keeping with the Government’s actions in this Department.

The Bill is clearly a mishmash of measures on issues that are Back-Bench hobby horses—issues that those on the Front Bench do not have the authority or the courage to put to bed. It is entirely counterproductive, as has been recognised and highlighted by their lordships in the other place. The Bill risks driving private landlords out of the sector, reducing the supply of private rented accommodation and pushing up rents for those in the private rented sector. Limiting the supply of such accommodation means limiting the options for tenants in the private rented sector, and leaving them worse off.

We do not need to look very far to see what happens when Governments get this wrong. In Scotland, fixed-term tenancies were abolished, rent controls imposed and regulations tightened, and what was the result? Fewer landlords, shrinking supply and the fastest rises in rents in the UK, with Edinburgh and Glasgow facing steeper rent rises than ineptly Labour-run London. The Labour Government in Westminster are about to make the same mistake, because Government Back Benchers are, for whatever reason, obsessed with “fixing” an already highly successful sector. The private rented sector has the highest satisfaction levels of any tenure type—higher than levels in the social rented sector or among owner-occupiers.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

I do not know what correspondence the right hon. Gentleman is looking at, but the correspondence I receive from my constituents in Hillingdon does not tell a story of a sector that is secure and safe; instead, my constituents tell me that they are battling damp and mould, and have had 35% rent increases in recent years. Is that success, in the Opposition’s view?

[Sir James Cleverly]

The hon. Gentleman makes the classic statistical error of assuming that his inbox is representative of all the people in the sector. Has it not occurred to him that people who are happy in their private rented accommodation do not tend to write to their MP, saying, “Apropos of nothing, I just want to let you know that I am happy”? I have it on good authority from my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds)—my good friend and colleague—that the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) is not doing a terribly good job of championing the social rented sector in his constituency. He seeks to deny the private rented sector, while simultaneously denying people the social rented sector. I am not sure where he thinks people in his constituency should live.

The point is that the Bill is a mishmash of incoherent proposals, which, instead of being designed to improve the private rented sector, are designed to keep angsty Back Benchers happy, but Front Benchers are already starting to learn that they cannot pay political Danegeld to their Back Benchers. I give the Front-Bench team due notice: their Back Benchers will be insatiable. They will take whatever red meat they are thrown, and they will ask for more. We have already seen this, Madam Deputy Speaker, with the proposed changes to social security and disability benefits. The Front Benchers had plans, but their Back Benchers had other plans, and guess who won? Those showing courageous leadership on the turbulent Back Benches. The Government will see the same again on this issue.

The Opposition understand that a good tenure mix is good for the UK. We took measures to improve the private rented sector, but we made sure that we did it in the right order. We made sure that the courts were ready.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

I was intrigued by the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks about the success of the private rented sector. If the sector is so successful and is working so well, why have the Opposition consistently held the position—both when they were in government and, I believe, going into the election—that they would go forward with ending no-fault evictions? I am confused. I would be grateful if he could explain.

[Sir James Cleverly]

It is interesting that on the one hand, we have voices on the Front Bench saying that we did not do anything in government, while at the same time, voices on the Labour Back Benches say that we were doing something.

[Rachel Blake]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way again?

[Sir James Cleverly]

No. Perhaps Labour Members should co-ordinate their criticism.

The previous Conservative Government understood that there is a need to reform the system, but that every part of the system needs to be ready. That is why we made sure that the justice system was ready first before we started making changes to the legal frameworks, giving tenants, landlords and courts the time to adjust. However, the Labour Government have abandoned that discipline. The changes put forward by their lordships came about through careful consideration of the provisions in the Bill and their implications in real-world scenarios, not the fantasy world of many Labour Back Benchers.

The Labour Government were defeated in the other place on several important amendments. There is a pattern to the Government’s defeats: time and again, Ministers accepted a principle but when it came to taking action to deal with the principle, they fell short. I will give some examples from amendments on Report in the other place. Amendments 87 and 88 in the name of Lord Keen would raise the standard of proof for financial penalties to “beyond reasonable doubt”. The principle is clear: setting serious penalties requires having serious evidence. The noble Lord Keen made the case powerfully in the other place, yet the Government still refuse to act. In doing so they are introducing a huge degree of uncertainty for both landlords and councils, and uncertainty is toxic to the provision of homes in the sector. Making these changes will reduce the housing supply.

18:30

The Minister mentioned amendment 5 in the name of the noble Baroness Scott, which would extend ground 4A to all student homes, not just those with three or more bedrooms. This is another example of the Government accepting the principle and the need to act but failing to do so. In the student rented sector it is important that tenancies match the academic year to give landlords in the sector a credible chance. The Government established that as a principle and agreed with it but then excluded one and two-bedroom properties as if students were never accommodated in them.

My own son—as Back Benchers were keen to personalise examples—is a student who is currently accommodated in a two-bedroom flat. Why would the landlord of that accommodation be outside of scope but the landlord of a student property with one more bedroom be within scope? The idea that we cannot work out who is or is not letting to students is a nonsense. Students have their own council tax category, and it is often the case that they can only get student accommodation and enjoy the benefit of the student discount for council tax by proving that they are a student. It would be a really easy cut-off to say that all student accommodation falls within scope. The Government accept the principle but then fail to address the issue—they accept the logic but do nothing about it.

Amendment 53A in the name of the noble Lord de Clifford would ensure that tenants who want to rent with pets and landlords who want to rent to people with pets can both have a degree of security. The Government accept the principle that pets are likely to cause more damage to a rental property than would be caused if a tenant did not have pets. They accepted that principle when they put forward the idea of a special insurance product to cover such damage. If they did not believe that pets were likely to cause more damage, they would not have gone down the road of exploring an insurance product specifically for pet owners, but they did. They established the principle, then when it became clear that the insurance products were too difficult and the sector would not bring them forward, they basically said, “You know what, we’re just going to ignore that”—again, recognising a challenge but doing nothing about it.

Amendment 53A proposed a sensible and credible additional deposit to protect against the higher likelihood of damage from a pet. I should declare an interest that I have pets and I rent a property. I need to keep a close eye on my terriers, because they love digging. Sometimes they dig in the garden, but they are not so disciplined not to attempt to dig in the carpet in the house. I recognise that tenants have to take additional responsibility, but I also recognise that it is totally legitimate for landlords to want to seek additional protection. The Government recognise that but then do nothing about it.

Amendment 21, also in the name of the noble Lord de Clifford, is about creating the framework whereby a landlord can evict a tenant in order to create space for someone who would then care for them. The reasoning that we heard from the Government Front Bench just now was quite shocking—that the only people who might be interested in putting this forward would be Members of the other place, with the implication being that they have large properties and it is all about self-interest. The argument was that there is only a small number of people that this might be relevant to and because they are small in number we can ignore them. It is an interesting political philosophy that small groups of people can comfortably be ignored by Governments. That is certainly not the politics I want to put across.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

Earlier in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), the shadow Secretary of State said that my hon. Friend did not need to pay any attention to the people in his inbox who had contacted him. Was he not advocating exactly that—we should not listen because it is a small number of people, and we should accept these amendments so that this legislation can be watered down? Is he not arguing both sides of the same coin on this?

[Sir James Cleverly]

If the hon. Gentleman was going to criticise what I say, he should have at least listened to what I said. What I said was that extrapolating—

[Dave Robertson]

rose—

[Sir James Cleverly]

No, no, get it right first time. What I said was that extrapolating from a Member of Parliament’s inbox is not a good way of gauging the full spectrum of opinion within a cohort of people. At no point did I say—and I would never say—that we should ignore the people who write to us, and no one should assume that we do. I am pretty certain that the hon. Gentleman would not, and I certainly do not. That is absolutely not what I said.

The point I am making is that the Government’s argument was, “There aren’t that many people, and frankly they’re all posh, so we can ignore them.” That was basically the framing of their argument, but tell that to the extended families of people, typically of ethnic minority origin, who often live in close proximity to each other. There will be communities all across the country where the elders of the family have rented properties that have tenants in them, but because those properties are near where they live, they envisage at some point in the future members of their extended family moving into the properties in order to provide care for them. Disregarding and diminishing this as an idea just because it is something that the Government Front Bench accuse only the posh Members of the other place of doing is rather distasteful.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The shadow Secretary of State failed to address the second concern the Government have about amendment 21, which is the substantial risk of abuse that will flow from the definition of a “carer”. The definition under the amendment could be anyone providing any form of voluntary care. It could be someone who provides the weekly shop. Does he not see the risk of abuse that comes with a ground that is so broadly drawn? That was our other concern, and he has not addressed it.

[Sir James Cleverly]

There are always opportunities for abuse, but we cannot be closing off a provision that would be really valuable to many families around the country because there is a risk of abuse. If we were to do that, there would be loads of areas where Government would not legislate. We do not disregard an opportunity just because of the potential for abuse; we manage that potential for abuse.

I will move on a bit more quickly as I want to ensure that all Labour Back Benchers get their opportunity to speak. [Interruption.] It is their legislation.

Lords amendment 58 in the name of Lord Cromwell would reduce the ban on re-letting from 12 months to six months. That is a wholly pragmatic point. There is the idea in the Bill that a landlord would have to wait for 12 months, but if it is clear after six months that, despite genuine efforts—there is provision to ensure that efforts are genuine—there is no chance of selling, it is entirely reasonable that a landlord should seek to re-let. That is not as quickly as Members on the Labour Benches would do so; nevertheless, it is an entirely fair provision.

The largest Government defeat in the other place came on amendment 59 in the name of Lord Young of Cookham, which is about the exemption for shared owners from the 12-month ban on re-letting. The Minister said at the Dispatch Box that he recognised that this area created challenges, but I urge the Government not to dig in their heels on the issue. The cohort of people envisaged by the amendment are often those most in need of flexibility—people who are not of significant financial means—and limiting their options when it comes to, perhaps, a distressed asset would be entirely wrong. I have no doubt that he recognises that. I urge him to move quickly to a resolution on this matter to reassure the Chamber and the other place that those people will not be disadvantaged by the Bill.

The Lords amendments are well thought through. They attempt to take this mishmash of a Bill and knock it into some credible shape, providing protection for tenants and a bit of reassurance for landlords so that they can continue to provide a supply of private-rented accommodation to help people get on the housing ladder and to live in homes they love and value in communities that they cherish. If the Government choose to blindly ignore those amendments, I have no doubt that the Bill will have the effect of reducing the number of landlords, reducing the number of homes and increasing rents, which is the opposite of what any of us in the Chamber should want. That is why the Opposition will support the amendments.

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

Once again, I stand here proud to speak in favour of this groundbreaking legislation that finally brings some balance back between the landlord’s right to profit from an asset and the renter’s right to a home. I oppose in particular Lords amendments 26, 27 and 18 proposed by the landlord lobby in the other place. Amendments 26 and 27 would increase the evidence bar for all civil penalty offences to the criminal standard of proof—beyond reasonable doubt rather than on the balance of probabilities. That would gut the ban on discrimination against housing benefit recipients, the ban on refusing to let to families and the ban on bidding wars. Those measures would be almost unenforceable if the amendment stood.

Discrimination is notoriously hard to prove, and we all know that early interactions between a renter and a prospective landlord are often not in writing, so proving beyond reasonable doubt that a prospective renter was prevented from letting a property because they might be a benefits claimant or have kids would be extremely challenging; it is the same for proving bidding wars. Councils already struggle to pursue civil penalty cases because of the staff time and resource involved in gathering evidence to support those cases. Introducing that new, higher bar of evidence for already challenging cases would make them almost unenforceable. It would also be out of line with other legislation, such as the Equality Act 2010, which require only the civil standard of proof. If we do not oppose those Lords amendments, such unlawful practices will continue unchecked, and renters will continue to face homelessness as a result.

18:45

I also oppose Lords amendment 18, which would reduce the restricted period from 12 months to six months. The Nationwide Foundation found that one in five landlord sale evictions in Scotland did not end up with the sale of a property. It is so clear that this changed period would make it far too easy for landlords and agents to claim they are selling the property, only to re-let it at a higher rent shortly after. Let us leave no loopholes for rogue landlords. A no-let period, with financial penalties for breaches, provides a clear and significant deterrent against such behaviour, but six months is too short to deter abuse—especially for landlords with large portfolios. Twelve months is an effective deterrent against unlawful, dishonest eviction, and we should keep that measure.

As I come to the end of what I want to say, I welcome the new ministerial team and thank the members of the former ministerial team for their work on the Bill, and I make one plea to the Minister, who I am so glad to see still in his place: we must get on with this. As soon as this brilliant, groundbreaking Bill receives Royal Assent, let us get a commencement date in, and let us make that no more than three months later, so that renters on that day will know that, three months further along, no one can throw them out of their home “just cos”.

With every month of delay and every month that goes by, another 1,000 families are removed from their homes by bailiffs following a no-fault eviction. In the year since we took power, 30,000 households have lost their home to no-fault evictions. It is time to get on with it. To everyone who rents their home, I say: this Government and the Labour party will always have your back.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for presenting the Government’s position on the Lords amendments, as indeed he presented their position on the 92 amendments we tabled in Committee. I only regret that, in doing so, he rejected all 92 of them. I was going to congratulate the Secretary of State on his new position, but he has escaped just in time. I will come to our amendments—the other place took a different view on some of them—but I will first declare my interest in a registered provider of social housing.

A generation have been cut off from the dream of home ownership. After half a century of flogging off council houses—over 4.5 million have been sold off since 1980 by successive Conservative Governments—there are now, in effect, none left for the thousands of families who now need them. That is why the Liberal Democrats have a vision to restore hope to millions who aspire to a decent home by building our target of 150,000 social and council rent homes per year, backed up with a commitment of an extra £6 billion on top of the affordable housing programme budget, funded by fairly reforming capital gains tax so that more people benefit from relief but those who make bigger gains pay more. Alongside that, the Liberal Democrats want a new generation of rent-to-own homes so that people can get on to the ownership ladder. It is the biggest and most ambitious programme since council housing was invented by Lloyd George and Addison back at the beginning of the 20th century.

We have also long campaigned for an end to no-fault evictions and for longer and more stable tenancies for tenants. The Government have put both those key measures in the Bill, and that is why we support it and want to see it enacted. Tenants have lived for far too long with insecurity and the fear that, if they speak up, they might lose their home.

Some of the Lords amendments before us would improve the Bill, while others would weaken it. Lords amendment 11 would require tenants to pay pet deposits, which would pile on new financial burdens, putting the right to own pets out of reach for those already struggling. It is not in the spirit of the Bill, so we cannot support it.

Similarly, Lords amendment 18 would cut the prohibition on re-letting unsold properties from 12 months to six. That might sound like a neat compromise, but in practice it would give cover to any rogue landlord looking for an excuse to evict. A six-month ban would be far too short to give tenants the protection from abuse that they deserve. Lords amendment 26 seeks to raise the bar for enforcement by moving the burden of proof from civil to criminal.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

In Torbay, we have almost 50% more people who rent in the private sector than the national average. While the vast majority of landlords are good landlords, sadly there are some rotten apples out there. Pushing against Lords amendment 26 is essential, because we need to ensure that local authorities have the powers to hold these landlords to account. I hope my hon. Friend agrees.

[Gideon Amos]

I do agree with my hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to the sterling work he does in Torbay, and has done in the past as leader of the council, on these issues.

That change in the burden of proof may sound technical, but in fact it would gut the powers of local authorities to hold bad landlords to account, as my hon. Friend has just said. At a stroke, it would make justice for tenants far harder to achieve.

Lords amendment 53 points in the same wrong direction. It seeks to introduce fixed-term tenancies, but the whole point of the Bill is to shift to periodic tenancies—arrangements that give renters both flexibility and more security. Dragging us back to fixed terms, which would become standard across that particular element of student housing, would undermine those core principles.

On the other hand, there are amendments that make the Bill fairer and more workable, which we support. Lords amendment 19 recognises the reality faced by shared ownership leaseholders, who can be can be, and are, hit disproportionately hard when sales fall through, through no fault of their own. Without that exemption, they could face financial ruin. This is a simple matter of justice and we support it.

Lords amendment 64, which would create a new possession ground where a landlord needs to house a carer, is in keeping with the Liberal Democrats’ belief in the importance of supporting the millions of carers out there who are so often overlooked. It is right that the law should recognise the vital role they play, and if there are risks of abuse, it is open to the Government to table their own amendments to set out how they would make the same provision for accommodation needed by carers.

Lords amendment 39, which would legislate for a decent home standard for our military, goes to the heart of who we are as a society and our obligations to those who serve. I pushed for this amendment at earlier stages in the Commons, and indeed this has long been the Liberal Democrats’ position, having been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) in the previous Parliament. It is therefore disappointing that, while the Government have come forward with their own amendments on other matters, they have not come up with any such amendments on decent homes for our military, although that has been agreed across the parties in the other place.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Ministry of Defence itself says that the MOD housing standard is already higher than the decent homes standard, the Government should do the decent thing and accept Lords amendment 39 and put it on the face of the Bill?

[Gideon Amos]

Indeed, our military deserve no less than this being on the face of the Bill, in whichever way the Government wish to do it. If it is so easy and, as my hon. Friend points out, it is the Government’s position, surely it can hold no fear for them.

It would be disappointing not to have those amendments. We are told that 90% of service accommodation meets the decent homes standard—my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) had clearly already read this part of my speech—but those figures come from contractors who are responsible for managing those properties and have an interest in saying that they already meet the standards. There is no independent assessment.

The Defence Committee painted a very different picture, when families reported to it. The Committee stated:

“It is disingenuous for DIO to present glossy brochures about being ‘decent homes plus’ when they are anything but. It is clear that the DIO’s property frequently does not meet the standards.”

Crucially, it added:

“Moreover, there is no local authority”—

or anyone else—

“to hold them to account as would be the case for private and other local landlords.”

We are also told that it would be impractical to extend the decent homes standard to military housing because of access “behind the wire”, yet former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Stirrup, reminded colleagues in the other place that civilian officials already go into far more sensitive areas of military bases, so that is not a serious objection.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Do those on the Lib Dem Benches have any concerns about one of the issues that I raised: applying the decent homes standard to the defence estate in England when a different standard will apply to Scotland and Wales—to other parts of the United Kingdom? Fracturing the defence estate in that way is problematic.

[Gideon Amos]

Any opportunity to give our service people decent homes, beginning with England, should be taken. I am surprised that the Minister has not grasped it with both hands. The Minister and the Government are in the position, with a large majority, to legislate for this in whichever way they choose, but it needs to be on the face of the legislation. That is what our military deserve. Warm words about things improving are not enough; we have heard them before. My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire gained a categoric assurance from the last Government’s Housing Minister at the Dispatch Box that that Government would legislate. They did not.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman says nothing has changed, yet again, but does he not welcome—as I do, as a constituency MP with a significant amount of military housing around RAF Northolt—the significant £1 billion-plus investment into military housing and the insourcing back into public ownership of thousands of MOD homes, after the previous Government’s botched privatisation deal, which cost taxpayers huge amounts of public money?

[Gideon Amos]

I welcome the moves to which the hon. Gentleman refers, including the insourcing, but the responsibility for determining whether the homes meet the “decent homes plus” standard is down to contractors, who have a commercial interest in reporting that. The difference with the decent homes standard generally is that it is subject to independent inspection. That is a crucial difference. Surely there should be a robust and accountable regime set out in primary legislation to ensure that that investment continues and those standards are reached. That is the least that our service people should be able to expect.

As I was saying, my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire was given categoric assurances that the Government would legislate in this regard, but they did not and neither have this Government. Lord Stirrup, the former Chief of the Defence Staff, reminded the Lords, speaking from experience, that this is not a new problem but one that Governments had failed to tackle for decades. He said:

“For decades now, I have seen at close hand the deficiencies in service families’ accommodation…For years, I have listened to successive Governments undertake to get to grips with the issue. For decades, I have seen them fail to do so…So why should I, or anybody who comes after me, put any faith in any Government’s promises that are not backed up by enforceable measures?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 2025; Vol. 847, c. 1759.]

That is the nub of the issue. Service families have heard promises for decades. Now, surely, is the time for action. Our military deserve the gold standard, and that means they deserve legislative provision for decent homes, however the Government wish to do it.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I urge the hon. Gentleman to engage with the clear concession I made from the Dispatch Box: the confirmation that the Ministry of Defence will lay before Parliament—and publish on gov.uk—an annual report on the standard of service family accommodation in the UK, giving transparency, accountability, and reassurance that the standards we all want to see improve and be met will be.

[Gideon Amos]

I welcome any report that will deal with this issue, but the fact is that unless the Government accept an amendment or table their own amendment to provide this protection for service families in primary legislation, our service people will be the only category of renters who are not guaranteed the decent homes standard in primary legislation. Private renters will be, social renters will be, but our military service families will not be. That cannot be right. The balance is wrong and the Government need to do more; they need to legislate.

The Government’s final objection is that they want to do it differently. So be it. I will wait with bated breath, as I am sure the whole House will, for the Government’s amendment giving servicemen and servicewomen the gold standard they deserve. Since the Government have tabled no amendment of their own, however, we shall continue to press ours, both here and in the other place. Our armed forces should not be the only group in Britain excluded from the right to a decent home in legislative terms. That is what Lords amendment 39 delivers, and it must stand part of the Bill.

This Bill is about a vision for better homes and for dignity, security and fairness for renters. That must include the families of our armed forces, such as those of the 40 Commando Royal Marines in Norton Fitzwarren and elsewhere in Taunton. I was proud to start a petition to save Norton Manor camp following its proposed closure by the previous Conservative Government. That commitment must sit alongside our national mission to build more social and council homes—150,000 per year—to restore hope for a whole generation. That is what Liberal Democrats are fighting for, and that is the change the country desperately needs.

18:59

[Danny Beales]

The Bill before us is one of the most important and impactful Bills currently before Parliament. I say that not as someone who has seen a few emails in my inbox, but as someone who has felt the impact of the sector, having experienced homelessness twice in my teenage years and having been evicted through a section 21 eviction. As a renter as an adult for many years in London, I know the worry that many go through when pushing for simple repairs to be made or for mould to be addressed, fearing that ultimately their reward for asserting their legal rights will be a section 21 eviction.

The private rented sector in this country is unbalanced and insecure, and the rights of tenants are far outweighed by the powers of the landlord in our legal system. Like many in this place, I am aware of countless cases of constituents who have experienced section 21 evictions and poor treatment right across the sector—treatment that the Bill will go a significant way to remedying. That is why I hope Members will support the Government in opposing the Lords amendments, which seek to weaken, neuter and undermine key provisions of the Bill. Specifically, I want to mention Lords amendments 26, 27, 11 and 18; I am pleased that the Minister has outlined that the Government will oppose them.

Lords amendments 26 and 27 would require local authorities to meet a criminal standard of proof to impose financial penalties for discrimination and rental bidding. That seems completely inappropriate for the offences, with a relatively small maximum penalty of £7,000. That is also completely out of kilter with other provisions that local authorities would enforce to a similar civil standard. It would be incredibly hard to meet that burden of proof for many of those offences. How would a tenant prove beyond reasonable doubt that, for instance, they had been discriminated against for being on benefits? Anyone in that situation would know quite clearly that that is incredibly difficult—if not impossible—to do. Clearly, the amendment would neuter the provisions of the Bill. Local authorities have incredibly limited resources, particularly for enforcement action, and such a high bar would be likely to deter them from pursuing those offences further.

Lords amendment 11, which would allow a landlord to require a pet deposit of up to three weeks’ rent as a condition of consenting to a tenant keeping a pet in their property, is again disproportionate. First, it would hit the poorest hardest. I am pleased that the Opposition spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), has pets and has no problem with such a provision, but many people not on a parliamentary salary would struggle to pay three weeks’ extra deposit on top of the five weeks’ deposit already in place. The Minister mentioned an average cost of £900. In a constituency like mine in London, the cost would be even more than £900; for a rented three or four-bed family home, it would probably be several thousand pounds. That is a completely disproportionate charge for simply having a cat or dog at home.

Secondly, there is no evidence that such a pet deposit is required to protect a property. Recent research by the University of Hull found that three quarters of pet-owning tenancies result in absolutely no claim against the existing deposit levels, so I would argue that the five-week deposit is more than adequate to support pet-owning households. In fact, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home found that owning a pet increased the length of time someone stayed in a tenancy and reduced tenant turnover, benefiting the landlord financially, not harming them.

I am also significantly opposed to Lords amendment 18, which would reduce the period for which landlords could not re-let their property from 12 months to six months after they had evicted a tenant on the basis that they intended to sell their property. My concern is that this six-month reduction is not sufficient time to meaningfully disincentivise landlords from gaming the system and would reintroduce section 21 through the back door.

Take the London market, for instance, where average rents have increased by 32% over the last five years—the successful sector that Opposition Members have highlighted. Six months is not long enough to dissuade a landlord from benefiting from that sort of rental increase over short periods of time. The inconvenience that a 12-month time period would cause to a well-meaning landlord who is struggling to sell is relatively minor compared with the potential harm caused to the many tenants who would be affected by such a loophole.

In conclusion, houses are homes, not just investments. This Bill was written to rebalance the relationship between the landlord and the tenant in the tenant’s favour, fixing a decades-long power imbalance that has deprioritised the rights of tenants to a safe, stable and affordable home. All the amendments have in common a shared motive to shift the balance back towards landlords to weaken this landmark legislation. That would save some good landlords a small inconvenience, but it would be at the expense of the rights and protections afforded to each and every tenant. That is not reasonable or justifiable, and that is why I will vote against the amendments. I hope that others will do the same and give renters the rights and security they deserve.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Renters have waited long enough: this Bill is overdue, and it is time to deliver. The Conservatives had their chance. They promised reform, then watered it down. The Renters (Reform) Bill gathered dust while tenants were left to suffer, so Liberal Democrats absolutely welcome this Government’s Renters’ Rights Bill. But let us be clear: this Bill must hold firm in protecting the rights of tenants. My inbox is overflowing with experiences that should shame us all: families sleeping on the floor, windows that whistle in the wind, homes riddled with damp and mould, and tenants harassed by landlords to intimidate them out of their homes. This is not just about comfort and health; it is about dignity, justice and fairness.

Energy efficiency must be front and centre. Too many renters are living in homes that make them sick and are paying through the nose to heat them. Fuel poverty is a national scandal, and the Bill has a role to play in ending that. While the spotlight is on private renters, we must not forget those in social housing or in homes owned by institutions. They deserve the same rights, protections and standards.

I want to talk to Lords amendment 39 and Ministry of Defence housing. It is outrageous that the families of those who serve and who risk their lives for us are denied the legal protection that others will enjoy. These families are often uprooted, isolated and left behind while loved ones serve abroad or at sea. Yet they are told that they do not qualify for the same decent housing standards as everyone else. I have met families and service personnel around the country and even around the world through the armed forces parliamentary scheme, and one of the issues most frequently cited by those thinking of leaving the armed forces is their housing. Too many of their homes are below par.

The Government say that most MOD homes already meet the standard—fine, then what is the harm in giving these families the legal right to decent housing? If the homes are good, the law will confirm it. If they are not, that is why we need the law. Let us be honest: many tenants, whether in military housing, Church estates or country manors, are afraid to speak out. They are afraid to challenge their landlord and lose their home. Rights must be for everyone, accessible without fear or favour.

The Government claim that councils cannot access the homes for security reasons, but I am sure the Minister will know, as do those of us who have military homes in our areas, that most family homes are not behind the wire. For those that are, there are solutions. We must find a solution and ensure that these families have the same rights. No one should be denied decent housing because of who they work for. I want to address the attempts to water down the Bill.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

We in this House all know that some landlords use the excuse of selling up to evict tenants only to re-let at a higher price. Does the hon. Member agree that Lords amendment 18, which would shorten that re-let period from 12 months to six months, would severely undermine one of the main aims of the Bill—to end no-fault evictions—by making it disappointingly easy for landlords to evict on just that basis?

[Vikki Slade]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that point and saving me the trouble of doing so. Absolutely, landlords give excuses that are perhaps not all they seem to be.

I have heard from tenants who are terrified of being evicted under section 21, with landlords rushing to act before the law changes and evicting with absolutely no excuses. I have heard from renters who feel like they are in a David and Goliath battle.

Lords amendment 11 is an attempt to treat pets more harshly. The proposers of the amendment have it wrong. As the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) said, tenants with pets are good news for landlords: research shows that their landlords are better off by £3,800 over 12 years thanks to lower vacancy rates and marketing costs for their properties. I would be a landlord who happily took pets.

Amendment 26 requires a criminal standard of proof for a civil matter. In my mind, that is not justice but obstruction. Last week, I met the housing ombudsman service. It told me that one in five calls that it deals with are from people it cannot help: private renters, people in new builds and people in conversions. The system is broken and the scales are tipped too far from our tenants. The Bill must fix that. We need one ombudsman, one law, one standard, one rule: wherever someone lives, if their home is owned by someone else and it is not up to scratch, they should be able to challenge it, get it fixed and live in a decent home. Housing is not just bricks and mortar; it is the foundation of everything else—health, education, family and work. Every renter deserves a home that is safe, warm, and fair.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cats.

As an animal owner myself—I have two cats—I rise to give voice to the many concerns expressed to me by pet owners across the country. Their concerns relate specifically to Lords amendment 11, which would allow landlords to request a pet deposit equivalent to three weeks’ rent. The amendment was narrowly agreed to on Report in the House of Lords in July, in response to the Government’s decision to remove the right for landlords to require tenants to take out pet damage insurance. Cats Protection has argued that the Government’s decision to remove the provision allowing landlords to request pet-related damage insurance was the right one, as the insurance sector was not ready to meet demand competitively.

The Minister in the Lords outlined many arguments against the pet deposit amendment, including that an extra three weeks’ deposit is unaffordable for many tenants. She also referred to a report commissioned by Battersea Cats & Dogs Home and the University of Huddersfield, which found that 76% of landlords reported that they did not encounter any damage caused by dogs or cats in their rental properties. She noted that the Government were

“content that landlords would be suitably protected against the cost of pet damage through existing tenancy deposits”,

and I wholly agree.

Cats Protection is also strongly of the view that charging an additional pet deposit is neither necessary nor proportionate. Measures already exist for landlords to seek additional compensation from the tenant in the very rare circumstances in which damage caused by a pet may exceed the value of the existing security deposit. The amendment could see tenants forced to find up to £1,500 extra for a one-bedroom flat in high-rent areas. That would mean that those without additional ready funds are priced out of having a pet.

Another problem with the addition of a pet deposit is the potential lack of transparency in landlord decisions on what constitutes pet damage and what constitutes the type of damage that would otherwise be funded by the standard security deposit. Some landlords may just see the extra fund as an option to withhold more money for standard wear and tear. Damage can be avoided with the use of throws and rugs, for example. I know that Cats Protection and Dogs Trust adopters are always given information on how to provide enrichment activities to keep pets happy. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) would like to take advantage of those to ensure that his terriers do not tear up his carpet.

I am concerned that the amendment will reintroduce the very inequity that the pet provision was designed to remove, putting the price of pet ownership out of reach for many tenants and entrenching geographical inequality. We all know how beneficial pet ownership is not just for the welfare of the animals, but for our wellbeing. “Cats and their stats”, a 2024 Cats Protection report, found that over half a million households who would like a cat do not have one simply because their rental agreement forbids it. I strongly believe that the additional pet deposit should be withdrawn from the Bill; the standard security deposit is more than adequate to cover any damage caused by a pet. I will oppose Lords amendment 11, and I encourage colleagues from across the House to do likewise.

19:15

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I rise to speak to Lords amendment 11 and on the wider issue of pet ownership, which many other Members have spoken about. Pet ownership in rented accommodation is an issue on which I have campaigned for many years in this House. Some Members will remember the Dogs and Domestic Animals (Accommodation and Protection) Bill, otherwise known as Jasmine’s law, that I introduced to the House in 2020. It supported the principle of a pet in every home.

The British people care deeply for the welfare of animals, especially in my Romford constituency. We all understand how important animals are to the lives of human beings. As the owner of two Staffordshire bull terriers, Buster and Spike, who are sadly no longer with us, I know just how important the companionship of pets is to so many people, especially those who live on their own. Owning a dog or cat, or any kind of household pet, improves both physical and mental health, provides vital companionship and helps to tackle loneliness. In fact, pet ownership is estimated to save our NHS around £2.5 billion a year by reducing the number of GP and hospital visits.

Despite those clear benefits, housing issues remain the second most common reason for animals to be relinquished to animal shelters and sanctuaries such as Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, which I was privileged to visit only a few weeks ago. I have had many links to that charitable organisation over the years, particularly during my time as shadow Minister for animal welfare some years ago. With growing numbers of people renting, it is absolutely essential that the Bill works in support of responsible pet ownership in rented homes, rather than putting further barriers in the way. That is why I must express my opposition to amendment 11, and any clause that makes it harder for tenants to keep pets.

The introduction of large up-front deposits will only serve to price many people out from owning pets, especially in the ongoing cost of living crisis. It is absolutely wrong that someone should be prevented from owning an animal that they love and want to be with because of this situation. The law needs changing, as I have argued for many years, including with Ministers in the previous Government, whom I had to go and see before they eventually agreed that this policy was the right one. I hope that my shadow Front-Bench colleagues will reconsider their stance. I commend the hon. Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) and for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for all their comments on this issue.

What should have been a Bill to unlock pet ownership for those in millions of homes now risks excluding them altogether, entrenching the idea that pet ownership is a privilege for homeowners only—that cannot be right. I do not believe that is what the Government intended.

Earlier proposals on pet insurance—I know issues to do with that have been raised today, but they can be overcome—provided a fairer balance between the concerns of landlords and the ability of tenants to meet the costs. Insurance spreads the expense more evenly across the year, and avoids the burden of large, one-off deposits. It is disappointing that that approach appears to have been set aside by the Lords amendment.

Finally, I urge His Majesty’s Government to work closely with animal welfare charities, and the animal welfare sector in general, when developing the guidance that will accompany the Bill. I speak as an honorary member of the Kennel Club—perhaps I should have declared that at the start—and a supporter of the Dogs Trust, Battersea Dogs and Cats home, and of course Cats Protection; it is important always to remember our cats. We need a clear definition of what constitutes unreasonable grounds for a landlord to refuse a tenant’s request for a pet. That clarity will help landlords and tenants alike, and avoid unnecessary disputes ending up before the ombudsman or courts. Jasmine’s law has always been about the simple belief that people should not have to choose between a home and a beloved companion. We must not let the Bill, through the Lords amendments, and particularly Lords amendment 11, undermine that vital principle.

[Rachel Blake]

I wish to speak against Lords amendments 58 to 62, which expand eviction grounds, and Lords amendment 27. I also wish briefly to revisit the core principles of the Bill, which are: ending no-fault eviction, and providing stability, not just for individuals but for the private rented sector; introducing a private renters’ database and an ombudsman, to restore rights to private renters, as well as transparency, so that they understand their tenancy in more detail; and to establish Awaab’s law in the sector. Those are vital interventions in the private rented sector, which we know is diverse, and it is important that the Bill becomes law as soon as possible. All of us, on both sides of the Chamber, will recognise the impact that uncertainty on the issue has had on the private rented sector for a number of years.

I have to say that it was pretty unedifying to listen to the Opposition reneging on their previous commitments to ending no-fault eviction. The first commitment from the Conservatives to ending no-fault evictions was in 2019—I think that was about four Conservative Prime Ministers ago, but I have given up counting. I understand that the shadow Housing Secretary might not remember the position that the previous Prime Minister took on the issue, but this provision cannot come into law soon enough. The number of private rented sector no-fault eviction notices that my constituents receive, and the instability that they cause in the sector, are causing real harm and distress to those who live in it.

Lords amendments 58 to 62 would expand possession ground 5C, and those completely unnecessary expansions provide yet more uncertainty in the sector. They open up the risk of further additional claims, and of introducing other grounds for eviction, which undermines the overall principles of the Bill. I support my colleagues who have spoken against Lords amendment 27, which would raise the evidence bar. It is completely unrealistic to think that it would be possible to do that, not only because bidding wars and contests often take place through verbal dialogue, but because of the lack of resources available to local authorities to investigate such cases. I do not believe that the amendment is practical, or was tabled in particularly good faith. We want renters’ rights restored, and a balance between renters and landlords. I cannot stress enough the urgent need to bring forward the Bill, to give confidence to renters, all those who rely on people living in private rented accommodation, and those living and working across the UK who need the sector to be successful. I urge Members to vote against the Lords amendments, and to support the Government in getting the Bill into statute.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I welcome the Government’s move to empower tenants. For too long in this country, owning property has been seen as a way to create additional wealth, rather than the intention being to provide a safe, secure and warm home for tenants. Not all landlords are bad, but there are some bad apples out there, and all those who are unable to get on to the housing ladder, or who actively choose to rent, deserve security of tenure, and confidence that they will not be evicted at the whim of a landlord, which often means being forced to move out of the area, and uprooting children from schools.

I declare an interest, because my younger daughter has spent four years renting in London, and for the last two, she has been living in horrific, mould-covered flats. She had to move out of the last one early, because the mould crawling up the walls was so bad that it was affecting the health, and ruining the belongings, of her and her flatmates. In 2025, that is simply not acceptable. For the thousands of people living in unsuitable accommodation, we must ensure that local authorities can take action against negligent landlords. For that reason, the Liberal Democrats do not support Lords amendment 26.

I support Lords amendment 39, which would extend the decent homes standard to accommodation provided by the Ministry of Defence for use as service family accommodation. In my constituency of South Devon, the prestigious Britainnia royal naval college brings a large number of military families to the town of Dartmouth, some of whom live in MOD housing. Those families, who commit to a life of service—the whole family is involved when one member serves our country—deserve, at the very least, a home that is safe, comfortable, warm, energy efficient and decent. I am not sure that I agree with the security argument offered by the Minister, given that much MOD housing is located outside military bases. It is not beyond possibility to find a way to ensure that local authorities can access that housing. Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for decent homes for military families, who deserve exactly the same standards and legal protection as other renters, and I urge the House to support Lords amendment 39.

Turning to pets, a friend of mine recently failed to move back to Devon because she simply could not find rented accommodation in her price bracket, and her search was severely hampered by the fact that she has a much-loved family dog. Being told that she was not eligible even to look at properties because of the dog was discriminatory, and it made a difficult search impossible. We are in an area that is short of houses available to rent. If we take the average rent in the south-west of £1,181 per month, the proposal to allow landlords to request pet damage deposits of up to three weeks’ rent equates to an additional £817 up front, which is simply out of reach for most tenants. The current rental deposit cap of five weeks’ rent is sufficient to cover any potential pet-related damage, and nobody should be priced out of pet ownership simply because they do not own their own home. I therefore do not support Lords amendment 11.

Finally, I turn to agricultural workers. Agriculture is one of the largest industries and employers in South Devon, which is a predominantly rural constituency. Many of those working on farms as dairy workers, relief milkers and tractor drivers are required to live on site, as they have to work incredibly unsocial hours, and living on site makes the job slightly more manageable. I support measures in the Bill that allow repossession when a property is required to house agricultural workers, whether they are employed or self-employed. Farmers regularly tell me how difficult it is to find housing for farm workers, with many having to rely on caravans and cabins that are not suitable for long-term living. As it is increasingly common in farming for workers to be self-employed, we must ensure that they, too, are covered by the grounds for repossession, so I support Lords amendment 55.

[Dave Robertson]

I am glad that I managed to sneak in this speech, and I hope I will finish it. There have been many speeches made by Members on both sides of the Chamber, many of which have focused on the many things that the Bill will hopefully achieve. I confirm that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) does have two very cute cats.

19:30

I now turn to a more serious issue: domestic abuse and domestic violence. One of the most challenging cases that I have picked up as a Member of Parliament since last July is that of my constituent Caitlin, whose situation I have raised on the Floor of the House previously. Caitlin’s partner was arrested for coercive control less than a week after she signed a tenancy agreement with him. Caitlin has never lived in the property that they rented together, but has had to pay thousands of pounds of rent on that property, because her mother is the guarantor and he refuses to pay rent on it.

The simple fact is that Caitlin does not have the rights she needs to be able to get out of that situation, which has had huge financial and personal impacts on her, her mother and her family. I am reminded of what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) said when she came to a fundraiser in Lichfield a few years ago: Governments often talk about the need to defend the nation and their first responsibility being to keep people safe—with more guns, more tanks and more police officers; all things that we need to maintain our freedoms—but too often skate over the fact that for huge proportions of the population we cannot even guarantee their safety at home.

In supporting Caitlin, I have worked with the Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance, an organisation of more than 150 housing associations and local authorities working to ensure that every survivor can choose a home where they are safe and free from abuse. I have spoken to those at the alliance about the Bill and some of the amendments that we are considering. I will read their reflections into the record, as they have important implications for the issues I am raising.

Part of what those at the Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance want to see, and that they urge the Minister to do, does not require a legislative response. We should, however, press local authorities to ensure that, if they are to be given investigative and enforcement powers, their staff are trained to recognise domestic abuse and coercive control as a separate issue, rather than treating that solely as a tenancy or antisocial behaviour issue.

The Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance asks us to ensure that

“the amendments made by the House of Lords, that threaten to weaken the Bill, are removed. These changes would water down rights in England’s least secure tenure and put survivors at greater risk. Halving re-let protections, increasing deposits for pets, and creating new repossession grounds all undermine stability and safety for survivors. The Bill must return to the Commons in its stronger form to deliver real security. Survivors must not be collateral damage in a Parliamentary compromise—the Bill is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to put housing, security and safety at the heart of renters’ rights.”

When I hear that from an organisation such as the Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance, I find it difficult not to be proud to walk through the Lobby and support my Government in getting rid of the watering-down amendments from the other place. We have an opportunity to make real change for survivors, and I am proud to be part of it.

[Matthew Pennycook]

With the leave of the House, I will close what has been a brief but good-natured and considered debate. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken. In opening the debate, I set out in some detail the reasons the Government are resisting the bulk of the amendments made in the other place, but in the time remaining, I will further substantiate some of the Government’s arguments and respond to a number of the issues that have been raised in the debate.

Several hon. Members questioned the Government’s logic in resisting Lords amendment 75 related to ground 4A. They argued that it is too narrow. As I made clear, ground 4A exists precisely because we recognise the unique nature of the rental market. We think that the ground as it exists covers the majority of the market, but the truth is that no one-size-fits-all solution covers all circumstances. We have been clear: we do not want to deny to non-typical students the benefits of the new tenancy system under the Bill. Removing the restriction could lead to students who need more security of tenure, such as single parents living with children or postgraduate couples living together who have put down roots in an area being evicted more regularly. The possession ground as originally drafted strikes the right balance and we will resist the amendment on that basis.

Several hon. Members raised the issue of pet insurance and questioned why the Government have changed their position. Debate in the other place was extensive. Furthermore, alongside that, drawing on the expertise of peers such as the Earl of Kinnoull, Lord de Clifford and Lord Trees, the Government consulted the Association of British Insurers and the British Insurance Brokers’ Association. Following such engagement, we concluded that we are no longer confident—as we once were, and as the previous Government were—that the insurance and underwriting sector will have sufficient or suitable products available at the scale and speed required for either landlords or tenants to purchase.

We do not want to leave tenants in a position where they cannot comply with conditions set out as part of the pet consent granted by their landlord, as that would mean—as several hon. Members have made clear—that they simply would not be able to have a pet, which would defeat the object of having the pet provisions in the Bill. The Government’s position, I am pleased to say, is supported by Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and other organisations. I hope that hon. Members note that.

A report produced by the University of Huddersfield, which was commissioned by Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, found that 76% of landlords reported that they did not encounter any damage caused by dogs or cats in their rental properties. When damage was caused by pets, that was an average additional cost of £300 per property, compared with £775 for non-pet-related damage. The report also shows that renters with pets tend to stay longer in their properties than those without pets, indicating financial and social advantages for landlords in fostering longer and more stable tenancies.

In the rare cases where the insurance and deposit do not cover the cost of the damage caused by a pet, a landlord could take the tenant to a small claims court by bringing a money claim to recoup any outstanding funds. On that basis, and having reflected, we are satisfied that the existing requirement for five weeks’ deposit for typical tenancies is sufficient to cover the risk of increased damage by pet ownership. As I noted in my opening speech, however, the Government will continue to keep that under review. We already have powers available to allow for higher deposits for pets if needed.

The very topical and pertinent issue of shared owners affected by the building safety crisis was raised by a number of Members. The Government are absolutely clear: we recognise their plight. As I made clear, we have already taken a number of measures to better support shared owners in that position. We recognise more can be done outside this Bill. We are more than happy to continue conversations with peers, hon. Members and organisations such as the Shared Owners’ Network about what more we can do in this space on issues such as valuations, sub-letting requests and repurchases.

We remain of the view, however, that the amendment in question could undermine protections for that cohort of tenants who happen to rent a sub-let home from a shared owner. Carefully considering arguments made by the peers and their validity, we will have further conversations. I will carry on those conversations to ensure that we are satisfied whether a solution that does not undermine the core principles of the Bill would allow us to provide that greater support to shared owners.

Carers and the carers ground were raised by a number of hon. Members. We have all recognised the contribution that carers make, but we believe that not only is there not sufficient evidence that the scenario in question is extensive—that it is common—but that there are real risks of the ground being abused. The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), mentioned the example of families across the country who own properties and who may wish to move a family member back in as a carer. I gently point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, if the carer is a family member as set out in ground 1, a landlord can already use that ground to gain possession, enabling them to accommodate a carer. We think that Lords amendment 64 is drawn too widely and is open to abuse. We will resist it on that basis.

Finally, I come to the last couple of issues that were raised. Several hon. Members made a powerful case for not accepting Lords amendments 26 and 27, related to the criminal standard of proof. We are absolutely clear that the civil—not criminal—standard of proof is the appropriate one. The standard of proof is lower for the breaches in question—breaches of the rental discrimination and rental bidding clauses in the Bill—precisely because they are purely civil, rather than criminal matters. Raising that standard of proof to align with other criminal offences would logically result in repeated instances of those breaches on rental discrimination and rental bidding, attracting the higher fine of £40,000, rather than £7,000. I do not understand the logic of the Opposition’s position, but we very much think that those breaches should remain subject to the civil standard of proof, with the penalty of £7,000 and without the impact on local authorities across the country.

I will briefly address the arguments made by Liberal Democrat Members about service family accommodation. We have had extensive debates about the subject and I know that they are coming from an honourable place when they make those arguments, but I gently point out that the Ministry of Defence has made it clear that in its view, subjecting secure defence sites to local authority inspections, as proposed in the amendment tabled by Baroness Grender, is unworkable because of access and security arrangements. As several hon. Members have said, let us find a solution to that. The MOD does not think there is a workable solution and is worried about fracturing how standards are applied across the defence estate, as this legislation applies only to England. As I have said, in the coming months, the Government will bring forward a defence housing strategy, setting out clear renewal standards and further steps to improve accommodation. I have offered a very clear concession from the Dispatch Box that we will provide for annual reporting to give the transparency and accountability that those standards will be met.

[Gideon Amos]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for his engagement in the issue of service family accommodation. Will he consider bringing forward primary legislation, on the face of this Bill or another Bill, so that service families are given the same legislative protection that private and social tenants are given?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am more than happy to continue the conversation with the hon. Gentleman and with Liberal Democrat peers in the other place, but our argument today is that we cannot accept the amendment tabled by Baroness Grender. We think that the concessions that I have offered today from the Dispatch Box should be sufficient to satisfy the concerns that have been raised.

I will briefly address the incredibly important issue of implementation, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance). This Bill must receive Royal Assent as soon as possible. The time that it has taken for the legislation to make its progress through the House is not cost-free. Families across the country have been subject to no-fault section 21 evictions, which we know are a leading cause of homelessness, and renters across the country need the Bill on the statute book.

Following Royal Assent, we will allow for a smooth transition to the new system, and we will support tenants, landlords and agents to understand and adjust to the new rules. We want to make that change as smoothly and efficiently as possible, and to introduce the new tenancies for the private rented sector in one stage. On that date, the new tenancy system will apply to all private tenancies: existing tenancies will convert to the new system and any new tenancies signed on or after the date will be governed by the new rules. We will work closely with all parts of the sector to ensure a smooth transition and we will provide sufficient notice ahead of implementation.

To conclude, this Labour Government are going to succeed where their Conservative predecessor failed. We will level decisively the playing field between landlord and tenant, and transform the experience of private renting in England. While we have shown ourselves more than willing to make sensible changes to the Bill in response to concerns raised, we are not prepared to accept amendments that undermine its core principles. I look forward to continuing the constructive conversations that I have had with peers over recent weeks, with a view to securing agreements across both Houses in the near future, and I commend the Government’s position to the House.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 11.

19:42

Division 279

Ayes: 398

Noes: 93

Lords amendment 11 disagreed to.

Lords amendment 14 disagreed to.

Government amendment (a) made in lieu of Lords amendment 14.

Clause 15

Other duties

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 18.—(Matthew Pennycook.)

19:58

Division 280

Ayes: 402

Noes: 97

Lords amendment 18 disagreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 19.—(Matthew Pennycook.)

20:13

Division 281

Ayes: 336

Noes: 158

Lords amendment 19 disagreed to.

Clause 42

Interpretation of Chapter 3

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 26.—(Matthew Pennycook.)

20:25

Division 282

Ayes: 404

Noes: 98

Lords amendment 26 disagreed to.

Lords amendment 27 disagreed to.

Clause 101

Decent homes standard

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 39.—(Matthew Pennycook.)

20:40

Division 283

Ayes: 325

Noes: 171

Lords amendment 39 disagreed to.

Schedule 1

Changes to grounds for possession

Motion made and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 53.—(Matthew Pennycook.)

20:52

Division 284

Ayes: 401

Noes: 96

Lords amendment 53 disagreed to.

Lords amendments 55 to 62 disagreed to.

Government amendment (a) made in lieu of Lords amendments 55 to 62.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 64.—(Matthew Pennycook.)

21:10

Division 285

Ayes: 335

Noes: 160

Lords amendment 64 disagreed to.

Lords amendment 67 disagreed to.

Government amendment (a) made in lieu of Lords amendment 67.

Lords amendments 1 to 10, 12, 13, 15 to 17, 20 to 25, 28 to 38, 40 to 52, 54, 63, 65, 66 and 68 to 77 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendment 68. Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with their amendments 11, 18, 19, 26, 27, 39, 53 and 64;

That Matthew Pennycook, Gen Kitchen, Harpreet Uppal, Michael Wheeler, Rachel Blake, Sir James Cleverly and Gideon Amos be members of the Committee;

That Matthew Pennycook be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Deirdre Costigan.)

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.