16:41 - Division on Motion A1 - Ayes: 192 / Noes: 239 - Motion A1 disagreed.
17:36 - Division on Motion C1 - Ayes: 204 / Noes: 215 - Motion C1 disagreed.
18:24 - Division on Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H) - Ayes: 169 / Noes: 212 - Motion H1 disagreed.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 11, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 11A.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion A I will, with the leave of the House, speak also to Motions E, F, G, G1 and L, which are grouped together.
It is a great pleasure to bring the Renters’ Rights Bill back to the House of Lords to consider the amendments and reasons from the other place. I start by thanking my colleague in the other place, the Housing Minister, for setting out the Government’s position on the amendments agreed by your Lordships. As he outlined, the Government made a clear manifesto commitment to the people to modernise the insecure and unjust private rented sector. The Renters’ Rights Bill delivers on this promise by empowering private renters with more rights, protection and greater security of tenure. I thank the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for their amendments in this group.
I begin with the amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, Amendment 11B, which would allow landlords to require an additional deposit equivalent to one to three weeks’ rent as a condition of their consent to a tenant’s request to keep a pet. A requirement for a further three weeks’ deposit would cost the average tenant in England over £900. This is unaffordable for most tenants and would greatly exceed the average deposit deduction for pet damage of £300.
While I truly appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, has considered these affordability issues to a degree in his amendment in lieu by stating that the additional deposit may be from one to three weeks at the landlord’s reasonable discretion, I am afraid that we still cannot accept this amendment. In practice, this provision would effectively be the same as allowing landlords to request up to three weeks’ deposit, as the original amendment did. Many landlords will charge the full amount, giving rise to the same affordability challenges as the original amendment.
As outlined at Lords Report, the Government have existing powers under the Tenant Fees Act 2019 which will allow Parliament to require a larger deposit where a landlord has consented to the tenant having a pet. We will continue to keep this position under review following Royal Assent. If there is clear evidence that pet damage is exceeding normal tenancy deposits, we have the Tenant Fees Act power, which would allow us to remedy this.
Amendment 39D, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, would introduce an annual reporting requirement on the quality of military accommodation. I express my grateful thanks to the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Thornhill, for their continued engagement on this issue. I also extend my thanks to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, for his tireless advocacy for service personnel and their families. I am sure that the whole House will agree that our armed service personnel and their families must live in safe and decent homes. The Government acknowledge the vital role that accommodation plays in their lives. We are determined to ensure that our personnel have access to safe, high-quality accommodation that meets their needs and reflects the importance of their service to our nation.
As I have previously outlined, the Government are committed to driving up the standards of military accommodation further. Earlier this year, the Ministry of Defence announced an additional £1.5 billion investment in service family accommodation over the next five years, above that already committed. Later this year, the Government will publish a defence housing strategy, setting out clear renewal standards and further steps to improve the lived experience of our personnel.
I welcome the amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Baroness and can confirm that the Government support this approach in principle. We have therefore tabled Amendments 39B and 39C as amendments in lieu, which will introduce a statutory requirement for annual reporting on the extent to which service family accommodation meets the decent homes standard. This amendment will place on a statutory basis the commitments the Housing Minister made in the other place for greater transparency and accountability on the quality of military accommodation. Alongside the Government’s wider actions that I have already highlighted, this will make a real difference in ensuring that service personnel and their families have homes of the quality they deserve. I have discussed the Government’s amendment in lieu with the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Grender, and with Gideon Amos MP, to whom I am grateful for his strong advocacy on this issue in the other place. They have indicated their support, and I hope that noble Lords will also support this amendment.
Finally, Lords Amendments 26 and 27, which were tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, would require local authorities to meet the criminal, rather than civil, standard of proof when imposing penalties for rental discrimination and rental bidding breaches. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, for his constructive engagement on this issue. We believe that local authorities will enforce these measures against the relevant standard of proof effectively. However, we understand the concerns from noble Lords that if this is not the case, there is a risk of an unsatisfactory decision.
With that in mind, I can confirm that the Government will include in the relevant statutory guidance to local authorities advice that a local authority exercises a quasi-judicial function when imposing a civil penalty, and should therefore be satisfied by credible, reliable and sufficient documentary or other evidence on the balance of probabilities that a person has breached a relevant requirement before imposing a penalty. Moreover, the Bill already gives a person against whom a local authority proposes to impose a penalty a right to make representations before a final decision is made, as well as a right to an appeal by way of rehearing against a penalty. I am pleased to have come to an agreement with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, on this issue. I hope this is sufficient to address the concerns of noble Lords and that they will agree to the Motion not to insist from the other place.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard, Amendment 11B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, seeks to allow landlords to request a pet deposit equivalent to up to three weeks of rent. Like many of the charities involved in the animal welfare sector that have campaigned tirelessly on this issue, I am disappointed that we are having to return to this subject after it was clearly rejected in the other place, having been the subject of intense discussion. Charities including Battersea, Cats Protection and the Dogs Trust strongly support the Government’s position, and so do I. The reason for that is clear. Such an obligation would defeat the very purpose of the pet provisions in this carefully balanced Bill, which are designed to make pet ownership easier for tenants and remove the iniquity that owning a pet is the preserve of the increasingly small number of people who can afford to own their own home. I declare my own interests as the owner of a cat.
Let us be clear: as I said in Committee, for tenants seeking to have a single pet in rented accommodation, there is likely to be only very minimal, if any, damage. The standard security deposit is more than sufficient to cover any damage beyond standard wear and tear, as a survey conducted in 2021 by YouGov on behalf of the Dogs Trust and Cats Protection concluded. In rare circumstances, where damage caused by a pet may exceed the value of the existing security deposit, measures already exist for landlords to seek additional compensation from the tenant. As such, charging an additional pet deposit is unnecessarily and wholly disproportionate.
This costly proposal would put the wonderful aspiration of pet ownership beyond the reach of many. Allowing landlords to require a pet deposit equivalent of up to three weeks’ rent could see tenants forced to find up to an additional £1,500 for a one-bedroom flat in high-rent areas such as London—a figure which is unaffordable for many. It would also introduce an unfair geographical disparity, with those living in cities, where rents are higher, being far worse off compared with those living in rural areas.
Another problem with the addition of a pet deposit is the potential lack of transparency regarding what a landlord decides should constitute pet damage and what constitutes the type of damage that would otherwise be funded by the standard security deposit. Many landlords, I fear, would see this as an extra fund to provide an option to withhold more money simply for standard wear and tear.
The pet provisions in the Bill have been thoroughly and energetically debated, both inside and outside this House. It is clear from all those discussions that the standard security deposit is more than adequate to cover any damage caused by a pet and that this amendment is completely unnecessary. Its only result would be to neuter one of the key planks of this vital legislation, destroying the hopes of so many tenants who dream of having a pet in their home. Today, we should make that dream a reality, so I am afraid that, if the noble Lord presses his Motion, I shall be voting against it.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on two matters: first, the Ministry of Defence accommodation, and then the pet deposit. On the Ministry of Defence housing, we thank the Government for listening and engaging so constructively on this issue. The concerns raised have been recognised, and the Government’s response has been both proportionate and pragmatic. On these Benches, as ever, we strongly support our service personnel and the vital contribution they make to us and our country, and we are happy to support the Government’s Motion.
Turning to pets, I support the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, on an issue that has filled my inbox and, I know, that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson as well. When the Bill was first introduced, the Government rightly sought to balance the cost of pet-related damage through the requirement of pet insurance. However, as we pointed out repeatedly, and as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, emphasised, no such insurance product actually existed. Once the Government accepted that fact, the requirement was removed, but nothing was put in its place.
The noble Lord’s amendment would restore that missing balance. It offers a fair and proportionate settlement, ensuring that renters can keep pets in their homes while landlords have reassurance that any pet-related damage can be covered. If there is no damage, the deposit will be returned. Recent research by Propertymark shows that 85.3% of landlords and agents have incurred damage to their properties by pets. Yet more staggeringly, 57% of landlords and agents report being unable to recoup pet-related damage costs.
Allowing an additional deposit of one to three weeks’ rent is therefore a reasonable and balanced step that protects tenants’ rights while recognising the realities faced by landlords, particularly small landlords. Landlords are not always wealthy investors. Many, as we have said many times on this Bill, are ordinary people for whom a second property represents their pension or their life savings. If a property requires major cleaning or repair, those costs can be prohibitive, and in some cases could drive properties out of the rental market altogether. Therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, chooses to test the opinion of the House once again, we on these Benches will support him.
Finally, I thank the Government for their constructive engagement and the assurances given in writing and from the Dispatch Box on the standard of proof. Those commitments provide much-needed clarity and reassurance on how this will be applied in practice, and we are grateful for the Minister’s response.
Taken together, we believe that these measures improve the Bill, and make it fairer, more workable and more balanced for tenants and landlords alike.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I thank again the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for their positive approaches throughout the course of the Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Black, for his support—I will come on to some of the points that he raised in a moment—and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.
I think the responses to this part of the debate are pragmatic. I am afraid that we cannot accept the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. He mentioned the Government’s change in position on pet insurance. We had an extensive debate, in both your Lordships’ House and the other place. We drew on the expertise of Peers such as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lords, Lord de Clifford and Lord Trees. The Government consulted further with the Association of British Insurers and the British Insurance Brokers’ Association. Following that engagement, we concluded that we were no longer confident that the insurance and underwriting sector would have sufficient or suitable products available for landlords or tenants to purchase.
In view of that, we did not want to leave tenants in a position where they could not comply with conditions set as part of the pet consent granted by their landlord, as that would mean they would not be able to have a pet, which would defeat the object of having pet provisions in the Bill. I am pleased to say that, as the noble Lord, Lord Black, mentioned, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home has indicated its support for the Government’s approach, including the approach of not accepting this amendment. I received just today a letter of very strong support from Dogs Trust and Cats Protection, and another email from Shelter expressing its support and hope that this amendment would not be accepted, because it did not feel that it was in the interest of tenants or their pets. We used the information from the University of Huddersfield as part of our consideration.
It is important to say that, as I noted in my opening speech, we will continue to keep this under review. We have powers to allow for higher deposits for pets, if needed. We are satisfied at the moment that the existing requirement of five weeks’ deposit for typical tenancies is sufficient to cover the risk of any increased damage by pet ownership. I know some landlords are concerned about potential damage that may be caused by pets. Landlords can deduct damage costs from the normal tenancy deposit, as they do now. In rare cases, where the deposit did not cover the cost of the damage, the landlord could take the tenant to the small claims court and bring a money claim to recoup any outstanding amounts, in line with the wider rules in the sector.
We do not want to put tenants in a position where they cannot have a pet because there are no suitable insurance products available or they cannot afford the additional cost of a deposit. We will keep this matter under review, and I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his Motion.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
I thank your Lordships for your thoughts and speeches. I am pleased about, and support, the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, being accepted by the Government.
The Minister has not changed her position on my amendment. I understand the comments regarding the deposit scheme. On the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, I am just as passionate about allowing more people to have pets. With this amendment, I am trying to encourage landlords not to leave the sector due to tenants having pets. I would like more people to have pets, and I realise how important that is, but there is a balance to be struck with trying to reassure landlords, because they do not accept pets at the present time. There are very few properties on the market that allow them.
This amendment is trying to create a balance. I appreciate that some tenants will struggle to find that deposit, but I believe that, by having it in place, more landlords would be willing to accept pets, and there would be less disruption between landlords and tenants when tenants ask to have pets. On that basis, I would like to test the opinion of the House on my Motion.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 14 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 14A in lieu—
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will speak also to Motions C, C1, D and D1, which are grouped together.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Young, for their amendments relating to the no-let restriction. Lords Amendment 18, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, is intended to reduce the no-let period to six months where the property has been demonstrably on the market and no suitable offers have been received for that period. The noble Lord and I, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, have discussed this amendment at length and I thank them again for their continued engagement on this issue. The Government understand that there may be situations where landlords genuinely intend to sell their property but cannot do so. However, the reletting and remarketing restriction is one of the strongest safeguards we have in the Bill.
I know that many noble Lords agree with the restriction in principle but disagree with its length. The Government believe that the 12-month period will make it unprofitable for a landlord to abuse this ground. It is vital that these strong protections for tenants remain in place, and I want to be clear about the Government’s position and commitment. This is shared by Members in the other place, and today I was pleased to receive strong support from Shelter, citing research from the Nationwide Foundation that one in five landlord sale evictions does not result in a sale.
Lords Amendment 19, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, would exempt shared owners from the re-letting and re-marketing restriction and other important restrictions. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for taking the time to meet, particularly during recess when he was kind enough to have meetings to discuss this important issue, and for his continued support for shared owners. I also thank him for his amendments in lieu: Amendments 19B, 19C and 19D.
The Government are very sympathetic to shared owners experiencing building safety issues and the particular challenges they face. We have already taken a number of steps outside the Bill to provide greater clarity for shared owners on what flexibilities and support they can expect from providers. These include new commitments in the update to the Government’s remediation acceleration plan, published in July. The noble Lord’s amendments in lieu acknowledge the unique circumstances in which shared owners operate, while not compromising on the core aim of the Bill to improve security of tenure in the sector. The Government are delighted to support his amendments and we encourage the House to agree to them. We will continue to work with the noble Lord as the Bill is implemented. I beg to move.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I will address Amendment 18, Motion C1 in place of Motion C. To recap very briefly on the substance of the amendment, the Bill punishes any landlord who serves notice on a tenant because the landlord is selling the property but the property fails to sell.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for all the contributions to our ongoing discussions on these matters.
On the failure-to-sell points, the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Pannick, queried why we are determined not to reduce the no-let period to six months if the landlord can prove that the property is not selling on the open market. Of course it is imperative that we provide the very strong protections against back-door evictions so that renters have more security and stability and can stay in their homes for longer, build lives in their communities and avoid the risk of becoming homeless.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to 12 months being a disproportionate sanction, but we have carefully considered the balance between the rights of the landlord and the security of the tenant, and that is why we have come to the conclusion that the current 12-month restriction on reletting being introduced will prevent abuse of the possession grounds, for example, by potentially opening up the practice of backdoor Section 21-style evictions to unscrupulous landlords. This length of time will make it unprofitable for a landlord to evict a tenant with the intention of reletting the property to another tenant at a higher rent. Any noble Lords who have dealt with housing cases will know of cases where that has undoubtably happened. In the areas where the markets are very hot, it happens even more. The restriction also ensures that landlords cannot pursue the retaliatory evictions so clearly outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Best. We hear of frequent examples of that as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, referred to me talking about people being forced to reduce the price. I do not think it was a matter of forcing people to reduce the price. If the property is on the market for that 12-month period, it discourages landlords from marketing their property at a price which they know will not sell. It will give time for that property price to be reduced over time and means it is less likely to encourage those Section 21 evictions via the backdoor.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, talked about properties being empty for a whole year. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, very ably demonstrated, there is no need for those properties to sit empty. They can be marketed while the tenants are still there if notice has been given. We do not need to have this protection reduced to six months. It is very important. I have had a plea from Shelter, as well as other renters’ organisations, over the last few days that we do not water down this provision in the Bill. It is a very important part of the protection for tenants. We genuinely believe that we have got the balance right between the rights of the landlord and the protections for the tenant.
On the issue around shared owners, as other noble Lords have commented, I have been very impressed with the way that the noble Lord, Lord Young, has championed the cause of shared owners. We all realise the very difficult situation they find themselves in. I would also like to thank the Shared Owners’ Network, which has been very good in its briefings to all of us and in helping us to come to the conclusions we have reached on this. Shared owners find themselves in a very difficult position—I think the noble Lord, Lord Young, describes them as reluctant landlords, and we know that that is where they are.
The noble Lord asked how the requirement for a shared owner to inform the assured tenant of the exemption will work for existing tenancies. The Government will make provision during implementation to ensure that shared-owner landlords with an existing tenancy will have the opportunity to provide this information to their tenant after the Bill comes into force. We want to take time to make sure that we get the right approach and ensure that we find a solution that works for shared owners. We intend to do this by using the delegated powers to make transitional provision provided by Clause 147 of the Bill. I very much look forward to working with the noble Lord, Lord Young, on this point as we prepare for the implementation of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 18, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 18A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 19, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 19A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 26, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 26A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 27, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 27A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 39, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 39A, and do propose Amendments 39B and 39C in lieu—
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 53, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 53A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move Motion H. With the leave of the House, I will also speak to Motions J, K and K1, which are grouped together.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for their amendments relating to grounds for possession. Amendment 53, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would remove the restriction from ground 4A, which limits it to only students living in HMOs. This would allow students living in self-contained one-bedroom and two-bedroom properties, for example, to be evicted each year.
We have been clear from the outset that this ground has been carefully designed to ensure that the cyclical nature of the typical student market is maintained. We believe that the ground applying to typical groups of undergraduates living together in a shared house is the right position, while a postgraduate couple, for example, who have put down roots in the area and may live in a smaller property, should benefit from the full set of protections that the Bill gives tenants.
Noble Lords have expressed concerns about the impact that this restriction will have on the supply of one-bedroom and two-bedroom properties in the student market. With respect, I do not think that these fears will be borne out. There will continue to be demand for these properties, and many students will continue to move out in line with the academic year, even when not evicted. Renting to students continues to be a buoyant market, and I do not believe that the Bill will dampen this.
As I have stressed at length, one of the core principles of the Bill is that tenants should have more security in their homes. Removing this restriction could lead to students who need more security of tenure being evicted more regularly. I therefore ask that the noble Baroness does not insist on her amendment.
I turn next to Lords Amendment 64, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, which would introduce a new ground for possession for the sole purpose of allowing a landlord to regain their property to house a carer for themselves, their spouse or child. I thank the noble Lord for his thoughtful amendment in lieu. He has carefully considered some of the points I raised when we discussed his previous amendment. It is more specific on the type of care to be given and ensures that the ground can be used only where the dwelling is very nearby to the person requiring care.
The Government of course recognise the vital work that carers do to support people to live independently and with dignity. We will continue to look at what steps we can take to support the care sector, and phase 1 of the independent review into adult social care chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, should report next year. While we are profoundly sympathetic to the needs of those who require care, I am afraid that we cannot support the amendment.
I remind the House that we have already strengthened possession grounds to cover some situations, such as housing employees. In these cases, we believe that the needs of those involved can be deemed to overrule the general principle that renters deserve security of tenure and should be able to put down roots in their long-term homes.
Providing security for tenants in the private rented sector is the Government’s priority, and we have put much thought into the design of the possession grounds to ensure that they balance the needs of landlords and tenants. There must be a compelling case for new grounds, with strong evidence that it is justified for a tenant to lose their home. This proposal does not meet that bar.
We engaged extensively with stakeholders throughout the development of the Bill, and there have been only very limited calls for a ground for landlords who require care. Any added ground increases the complexity of the system, which allows more potential for abuse. The amendment could lead to a long-term member of the community losing their home to house a carer required only for a short period, and there have not been significant calls for it from the sector. I therefore ask that the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment in lieu.
On government Amendment 62A, I would like to extend my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the National Farmers’ Union for their very constructive work with the department to find a solution to the concerns they raised. As the Housing Minister explained in the other place, the Government have reflected on their position and tabled amendments in lieu, which 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 that this is a small technical change that supports the Government’s ambition to ensure that the agricultural sector can continue to function effectively without compromising security of tenure. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the National Farmers’ Union have indicated their support for these changes. I hope that noble Lords will also support the amendment. I beg to move.
Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H)
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 53”.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move motion H1 as an amendment to motion H. I speak briefly to two important possession grounds, those concerning students and carers, and I also thank the Minister for her support on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, which this side of the House supported strongly.
First, on students, as your Lordships know, Amendment 53A sought to expand Ground 4A so that it also applied to one and two-bedroom properties let to students. Extending this ground would maintain essential stability in the market, ensuring that students arriving each autumn are not left without somewhere to live. Without it, landlords may be unable to gain possession in time for the new academic year, reducing availability, pushing up rents and increasing uncertainty. This is not simply about convenience—it is about fairness and inclusion. Many of these smaller homes are occupied by students who need quieter or self-contained accommodation. Often these include those who are neurodiverse and find shared living environments particularly challenging. For them, access to such housing is not a preference, it is a necessity. To exclude these properties from Ground 4A risks creating a two-tier system that leaves the most vulnerable in our society behind. I hope the Minister, and indeed our Liberal Democrat colleagues who once spoke so passionately in defence of students, will reflect very carefully on the points I bring forward.
We have a number of case studies that illustrate the implications of this ill-conceived plan, from Cornwall and Portsmouth to Loughborough. In Portsmouth, a letting agent and Propertymark member reported very high numbers of students renting one and two-bedroom flats, accounting for 20% or 30% of their portfolio—not a small number—and those included many international students. In Loughborough, feedback from another Propertymark agent on student tenancies showed a lower number of HMO lets compared with houses and flats. The evidence flatly contradicts the Government’s claims that one and two-bedroom student properties account for only a small fraction of the market. Regional variations exist, but the pattern is clear. These homes are a substantial and vital component of the student housing sector, and by excluding them from Ground 4A, the Government risk creating a two-tier system both geographically and between students themselves, particularly those with specific or additional needs.
I turn to carers and express my strong support for the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. As I said on Report, this amendment is tightly drawn and provides flexibility in exceptional circumstances, where a property close to home could be used to care for a loved one, enabling people to live independently and with dignity, rather than entering into the institutional care system. Propertymark has also highlighted a helpful precedent from Wales where, under the Renting Homes (Wales) Act, carers can have succession rights if the tenant they care for dies. While I understand that provision does not apply to landlords’ carers, it does demonstrate that such flexibility is possible in law and can be delivered responsibly.
If the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, chooses to test the opinion of the House, we on these Benches will support him. I also beg to move Motion H1.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 64B from the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, to create a new possession ground for carers. I know that every noble Lord here appreciates and values the important work that carers do in our communities. It goes without saying that we should take every step possible, every step we reasonably can, to help them in their work. The noble Lord has been thoughtful and very considered throughout these discussions, and clearly has the best interests of carers at heart, as he has again shown.
I understand that this is a difficult issue and appreciate the arguments that landlords who organise their own care are not burdening the state and that they should be able to utilise their properties to do just that. On the other hand, I note that these debates have previously highlighted—as the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, has again today—the difficulty of housing carers, for example in rural communities.
The scarcity of housing in rural areas also raises the counterpoint of the plight of the tenant. These tenants may be the local teacher or work in the post office—long-term members of the community who do not own their own homes. To evict them to house a carer for a landlord who may possibly be in the area for only a couple of years will upend their lives and leave them potentially struggling to remain in the area. It is worth adding that the only way currently to test whether there is a genuine need for a carer is if the tenant challenges their eviction and the landlord has to go to court to obtain a possession order. Unfortunately, I am afraid, experience shows that many tenants will not do that, as they will simply leave without the landlord ever having to prove a carer was really required.
I appreciate that this is very much a balanced argument but, on balance, I am of the view that allowing tenants to be evicted through no fault of their own in order to house carers for landlords is not the right approach, because of the threat and disruption this would cause to tenants and the scope for wider misuse of this ground. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, we should not underestimate the danger that this could become a loophole for unscrupulous landlords. There are enough of them, as we all know and realise from our experience in the private rented sector, so this could be a real danger.
There are dangers and scope for wider misuse. In my view, therefore, the benefit to a relatively narrow group of landlords should not be allowed to outweigh that disruption, so I hope that the Motion is not moved to a vote.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my register of interests as the joint owner of a small cottage in the village where I live.
I strongly support Amendment 64B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. It has had the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and of caring organisations, which would be helped immediately, not just condemned to wait for the Casey review, which we are all very keen to see. The amendment has been tightened up considerably by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, to avoid any abuse, in response to comments that the Minister herself made in Committee, which is very helpful.
The Government’s negative response is an example of their unwillingness so far to take the demise of carers seriously. Being able to provide accommodation for carers can make a real difference to their availability.
Not every carer wants to be a live-in carer, especially if they have families, yet we need growing numbers of carers. This is because there are ever-growing numbers of the aged and the disabled, as well as a scarcity of care home and hospice spaces. There is an acute shortage of housing and a scarcity of short-term accommodation, partly as a result of this very Bill. At the same time, we have smaller families, more couples having no children and more people seeing their relatives working or moving overseas. The need for hired carers is increasing, therefore, and those carers need short-term accommodation—it can sometimes be for years—as they move, over time, from job to job in different locations. We need to look at this. This change will be a small and totemic positive that would help both the caring sector and families in need. I invite the Minister to think again.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. As previously, I declare my interest as a private landlord. In the context of this amendment, I had a relative to whom it would have applied; that interest no longer applies, as the Bill has caused plans to be advanced and the tenants in the relevant property were given notice under current law, but, of course, that does not take away my general concern around this topic.
This replacement amendment now has a narrower scope, applying only to homes needed to house carers in the immediate family—that is, the landlord, a spouse or children. Thus, it closes a loophole perceived by some of it being used by those with an awful lot of relatives, as was discussed with the Minister.
Some people have live-in carers. Others may need more than one carer or have progressive conditions. Whatever the reason—whether financial or in terms of availability—it may not be possible to have one large house to accommodate all the future carer needs under one roof or to sustain expenditure on such a property before it is required. People have to plan for the future deterioration of the person needing care and of the family members who are part of their support.
Some may have invested in an ideal adjacent property in good faith under current law as it became available. They may be using insurance payouts and—especially in the instance of children—are needing to plan for when parents are no longer around. Such plans have to be scrapped under this Bill, most likely resulting in property sales and earlier evictions. It may be a one-off readjustment, because nobody will make such plans in future, but is it really necessary to hit the vulnerable, such as children damaged at birth? That is among what we are doing.
To suggest that it is easy for affected people to set up and move elsewhere because they have the resources of more than one property is cruel. Avoiding upheaval can be an important factor, for reasons both of the health of the impaired person and of making bespoke adjustments to property—all of the equipment, bars, ramps, bathroom locations and so on. This is really not fair and not caring. I therefore support this amendment; with the narrower scope, I believe that it is a fair suggestion.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I am sorry, but every single person who would use this would be evicting a set of people, and the Bill is about protecting tenants in their place. Very few people will be in that privileged position. We and the Government have to make decisions about where that balance lies, and the decision has been made that way. I am sorry if it offends some people, but that has to be considered when making a decision of this sort.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all those who contributed to this debate. There have been some emotive discussions—I will come on to those in a moment—and some very thoughtful and considered responses to the amendments, and I am grateful for that.
I will start with the potential expansion of ground 4A. The Government recognise that the new tenancy system will have an impact on the way the student market operates. While we believe the ground covers the majority of the market, there is no one-size-fits-all solution that covers all circumstances. We think it is reasonable that the ground will apply to full-time students in larger house-share situations. Removing this restriction could lead to students who need more security of tenure—such as single parents living with their children or postgraduate couples living together who have put down roots in the area—being evicted more regularly. I took my degree as a mature student. I am very sympathetic to people who have to run other parts of their life alongside their student life. They may be working or have families or caring responsibilities to cope with alongside their student life.
Noble Lords have raised concerns that the Bill could cause severe shortages of student accommodation or force students into expensive purpose-built student accommodation. We do not expect our reforms to have that level of destabilising effect on the rental market. I shall quote from Shelter’s email to me today: “This amendment would deny a group of renters the security and stability offered by the Renters’ Rights Bill, many of whom will be in employment or with caring responsibilities that sit alongside their student life”. That is when stability is key, and we do not believe they should be denied that stability. We will continue to work with good landlords and their representative associations throughout the implementation of the Bill.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for his amendment. As I have outlined, everyone in the House is aware of the remarkable and vital work that carers do to support families and individuals in difficult circumstances. However, given the risk of abuse and the very limited circumstances—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, put this very well—in which it might apply or could be used, we do not believe this new ground is warranted. We have ensured that possession grounds are fair to both parties, giving tenants more security while ensuring that landlords can recover their property when reasonable. For example, if the carer is a family member, as set out in ground 1, a landlord can use that ground to gain possession, enabling them to accommodate the carer.
I was grateful to my noble friend Lady Warwick for illustrating some of the issues that may arise, particularly in rural communities, around who may be evicted as a result of this ground. I want to add to the list of those who could be evicted an existing carer living in a rural setting where there might be very scarce housing, so you may have to evict one carer to put another carer in place. If there is scarce housing in that area, you may end up in that circumstance. Of course, the Government will continue to look at ways that they can support carers. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that once the Casey review is published, we will look at all the issues around carer support once again.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his comments. I know that he was not able to stay in the Chamber for the end of the debate, but we had specific issues raised by stakeholders, including the National Farmers’ Union. We listened very carefully to what they said, and we have ensured that the ground now has appropriate protections in place preventing landlords evicting assured tenants to house short-term workers. I am glad that that met the noble Lord’s request in terms of the amendment that he submitted previously.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I still do not understand why a group of students is not being looked after quite the same as other students. Therefore, I urge the House to support my Motion H1 to send the Bill back to the other place with our concerns for equality in the student housing sector, with housing for students who want, indeed need, small homes. Not every student can either work or live comfortably in an HMO, and not every student can afford specific student accommodation. Therefore, I beg to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 55 to 62 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 62A in lieu of Lords Amendments 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 and 62.
“The landlord seeking possession requires the dwelling-house for the purpose of housing a qualifying agricultural worker.
For the purposes of this ground a person is a “qualifying agricultural worker” in case A or B.
Case A is where—
(a) the person will be employed in agriculture as a seasonal or permanent employee under a contract of employment, and
(b) the employer under that contract is—
(a) the landlord, or
(b) in the case of joint landlords seeking possession, at least one of those landlords.
Case B is where—
(a) the person will be—
(i) employed in agriculture under a contract of employment, but the employer under that contract is not the landlord or, in the case of joint landlords, any of those landlords, or
(ii) working in agriculture under a contract that is not a contract of employment, whether the contract is express or implied and (if express) whether oral or in writing,
(b) the person will be employed or working in agriculture under that contract wholly or mainly for—
(i) the landlord, or
(ii) in the case of joint landlords seeking possession, at least one of the landlords, and
(c) the relevant landlord intends that employment or work to continue for at least six months after the relevant date; and here “relevant landlord” means the landlord, or whichever of the joint landlords, the person will be wholly or mainly working for.
In this ground—
“agriculture” has the same meaning as in the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 (see section 1 of that Act);
“contract of employment” has the meaning given by section 230(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.”
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 64, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 64A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to this Motion. I beg to move.
Motion K1 (as an amendment to Motion K)
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 67, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 67A.