Lords Chamber

Tuesday 22nd April 2025

(began 2 weeks, 1 day ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:45
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Cost Cost billions Cost billions of Cost billions of pounds?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is the council leader of the council that lost thousands and thousands of our homes to Right to Buy, I do believe that the Right to Buy, I do believe that the Right to Buy scheme needed reform and we are reforming that Right to Buy scheme to deliver a fairer and more to deliver a fairer and more sustainable scheme, reducing the Right to Buy cash discounts to pre- 2012 levels and this will allow 2012 levels and this will allow councils to keep 100% of the receipt generated by Right to Buy sales which if we had had that right from the start we would not have had the significant loss that we have had and we are also increasing protections for newly built social plans by raising the cost during which discounts can be reduced from 15 to 30 years.

I hope that will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I declare an interest as a patron of asylum welcome, that works with of asylum welcome, that works with asylum seekers and refugees in Oxford and Oxfordshire. Can I ask what proportion of temporary accommodation provided by local authorities is used to house refugees who are assessed as priority needs after having been granted refugee status? And what granted refugee status? And what steps are being undertaken to identify more suitable long-term accommodation for this cohort?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

accommodation for this cohort? Right reverend Prelate... I don't have the exact figure for him but I will write him with that figure if it is available. I mentioned earlier
14:47
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:50
14:51
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
parking provision at the moment for disabled people. And despite a multiplicity of local authority being involved, there is still a lot of frustration locally that apparently we are going to have a apparently we are going to have a station without any car park. Can I asked the Minister if he could look again, I don't blame him because this problem has been there for years, ask him if yet again, he could call the different parties together to see if a more acceptable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

solution could be found? I would say to the noble Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would say to the noble Lord firstly that there will be disabled car parking spaces. And secondly, that the Cambridge biomedical campus that the Cambridge biomedical campus executive director says, and stands executive director says, and stands by today, currently there are around by today, currently there are around five times as many visits to the site as there are car parking spaces. We have to find ways of making easier for the thousands of making easier for the thousands of staff, NHS patients and visitors arriving daily to get here without needing to use a car.

I would also say to him that actually the green belt adjacent to the site of the new belt adjacent to the site of the new station is Hobson's park. And in the event that the design had taken in event that the design had taken in space in the park the car parking, the Planning Inspectorate in conducting the inquiry said it would be highly unlikely the station would be highly unlikely the station would have received planning permission at all. Does the noble Lord the Minister agree with the recommendation of the Climate Change Committee in its seventh Carbon Budget, that by 2040, all diesel freight and passenger trains should be phased out? If he does agree, could he confirm that East West Rail, which is due to be completed in the mid-to-late 2030s, will not run any diesel powered

**** Possible New Speaker ****

passenger or freight trains? The length of life of railway rolling stock is between 30 and 35
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:56
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My noble friend has raised a very interesting question about Cambridge South, which is more Hobson's choice than Hobson's park as far as motorists are concerned. But there motorists are concerned. But there is a general question about railway stations around the country. In York, the longstay car park is now closed permanently. It is more and more difficult for people to have access to collect passengers from trains or indeed to travel. With the Minister like to comment on the general approach that we should take about getting a proper balance between those who travel by rail and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

those who travel to rail by car? I would completely agree with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would completely agree with the noble Lord that access to the station is just as important as railway travel from the station. In railway travel from the station. In respect of existing stations, the respect of existing stations, the office of Rail and Road has specific office of Rail and Road has specific powers to protect car parking space. I know a little bit about the situation in York, where as been replaced or rather the previous replaced or rather the previous longstay car parking will be replaced by new longstay car parking.

And also, the noble Lord will know that there is a development outside the station to development outside the station to make all interchange easier at the station all passengers who want to use trains. In his initial response, my noble friend mentioned the relationship between Cambridge South and the local park-and-ride facilities. As somebody who once used those park ride facilities frequently and found very effective, may I ask him what actually are the links between the nearest park and ride facility and the new station and how are they maintained? maintained?
14:58
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:03
15:03
Baroness Twycross Portrait Baroness Twycross (Labour)
-
-
ambassador of Italy and I put on a symposium and we learned that since the introduction of Italy's pre- participation screening program in 1992 anyone engaged in organised sport there has been a reduction of sudden cardiac arrest of 89%. I asked the Noble Lady the Minister irrespective of screening committees, would she undertake to sit with the Italian sports minister and learn what they have done to implement a similar program here for testing, to help avoid another parent like Hillary grieving for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their young children. I would like to pay tribute to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to pay tribute to Hilary and all parents who at the worst moment in their lives campaign to ensure that nobody has to go to ensure that nobody has to go through the similar situation. Obviously, I under the relevant minister would be happy to sit down minister would be happy to sit down with Italian counterparts to discuss with Italian counterparts to discuss what more we can do. I would say, however, that we are awaiting the findings of the UK National screening committee and it is right that we do go through these proper processes.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would the Minister look to use the structures that are already the structures that are already there to get a screening process under way? Firstly, that is the under way? Firstly, that is the Academy for football and drug that have young people been prepared for intensive physical activity, to make intensive physical activity, to make sure that they take the lead on this? And I do remember that when we proposed for the football bill that proposed for the football bill that we should look after player welfare.

This might be an interesting first step down that path.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

step down that path. So, I am pleased to be able to let the Noble Lord know that Sport England and others are already working with charities such as cardiac risk in the urine to make sure that screening does take place at a local level. I think there are additional things that can be done in the bottle site which is sporting and social clubs and community organisations, looking to increase organisations, looking to increase the profile of organisations like the profile of organisations like crime organised screening locally in the further refresh of the welfare the further refresh of the welfare and safety and well-being section of the website which takes place imminently.
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:23
None Portrait Legislation: Renters' Rights Bill - committee stage (day 1)
-

15:23
15:24
15:24
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
Noble Lords should declare any relevant interest in each stage of proceedings on a bill. At committee stage, relevant interest should be declared during the first group in which noble Lord speaks. Declaration should be specific and brief. This means members should briefly indicate the nature of their interest and not simply referred to their entry in the register of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord's interest. Renters' Rights Bill. Before

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Renters' Rights Bill. Before clause 1, amendment one, Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Scott of Bybrook. I rise to move amendment one and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move amendment one and to speak to amendment 261 in my name and I'm delighted to be opening the and I'm delighted to be opening the first day of this committee on the Renters' Rights Bill. I declare my Renters' Rights Bill. I declare my interest as vice president of the Local Government Association. The purpose of the clause which I am proposing places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of this Bill when exercising powers under this legislation.

In debating this amendment, we are seeking to test and clarify what the Government is attempting to solve and to understand more fully whether the measures that will be implemented by this legislation will achieve the Government's intended results. The purpose clause narrows how the Minister can use these discretionary powers afforded by this Bill. The clear benchmarks set out in this clause will ensure that Government must have regard to approving the ability of renters to obtain secure, fairly priced and decent quality housing.

We believe the government must be clear on the bill's purpose and this amendment gives Ministers the opportunity to provide that necessary clarity. Renters and landlords alike are following Government's planned changes very carefully. So it is crucial Ministers are clear from the beginning of the committee stage on what they intend to achieve with this Bill. Clarity from Minister will enable us to scrutinise this Bill much more effectively as we test each part of the Bill against the Government's intentions as we progress with Committee stage.

This group will also give us an opportunity to debate the impact of this Bill on the rental sector. Noble Lords across the House agree that we must protect tenants and ensure they enjoy security, stability and decent housing conditions at a fair price. In order to achieve this, we need a functional market, with some wish and supply of good quality homes to meet the growing demand for secure housing. -- Sufficient supply. Ensuring we have the availability of homes will underpin the availability of accommodation and ensure the rents are affordable.

Any legislation in this area must tread a difficult but essential balance between these interests. Only by striking the right balance this legislation can we hope to achieve an efficient and effective rental market that delivers a safe, secure decent and affordable homes renters need. From these benches we regret to say that this Bill does not achieve that talent. It has become increasingly clear that this Bill will not serve to enhance the availability of homes the risks the supply of rental properties on the market.

Driving up costs for renters at a time when we have already seen significant increases in the cost of renting. The surge in rents beyond inflation has been driven by limited inflation has been driven by limited housing supply, rising mortgage costs, maintenance expenses and property taxes. On these benches we sincerely hope DL effects of this Bill do not add to that list, further exasperating the challenges faced by renters. Rather than making houses more affordable, this legislation risks increasing burdens on landlords, discouraging them from remaining in the rental market and ultimately reducing supply at a time of rapidly growing demand.

In economic terms, this could only mean one thing, higher housing costs all renters. A survey published by Paragon, based on responses from over 500 landlords working with Paragon, paint a clear picture of the real world consequences of this Bill. A striking 65 % of landlords said they were more likely to reduce the size of their portfolios and overwhelming 79 % said they were likely to increase rents. And why, my Lord? Not out of preference but as a direct response to the pressures introduced by the Renters' Rights Bill.

This is not speculation, this is data driven and must give us pause to think. But if the Government do not wish to listen to the worker Paragon, perhaps they will take note of the English private landlord survey instead, which shows more landlords are selling up in 2024, 31 % of landlords reported planning to decrease the size of their portfolio in the next two years. Including 16 % who were planning to sell all of their properties. This reduction in rental supply is not good for tenants.

It places added cost pressures on those already just about managing and in many cases, removes the option of renting a home altogether. According to Savills, the number of rental properties available on their books in quarter one of 2025 was down 42 % compared one of 2025 was down 42 % compared one of 2025 was down 42 % compared 42% less choice 42% less choice for 42% less choice for those 42% less choice for those choosing where to live and crucially that is 42% fewer opportunities for people to move, stay mobile, and assess the most reductive parts of the economy.

This is not how we support renters this is how we shrink their options. Delays in section 8 notices, we can cover the court support at the end of fixed term short tendencies in just three areas we will probe for answers across the forthcoming groups. In the coming days in these benches we will set out by why this bill does not go by the Minister's own where the ambitions across the House share to enhance the availability of decent secure safe and affordable homes for all.

If the Government is confident in the positive impact of this bill, what reason does the noble Baroness the Minister have for not reviewing its effects on the housing market? Specifically how the bill will influence the availability of until homes against charged and the House prices and the demand for social housing. If this bill was not to have a damaging effect on the rental market, shouldn't the Ministers know about that? Before concluding, I would like to see a brief word about the SNP led Scottish governance approach.

Their experience offers us a clear lesson. Similar changes to those proposed by this bill were implemented in Scotland with noble aims, but we have seen a sharp rise in landlords leaving the market there, the fastest rent increases in the UK as demand quickly outstrips supply. Research by Indigo house, the housing expert, has found that none of the Scottish legislation since 2017 has protected the majority of private residential tenants against excessive rental or high advertised market rents.

Their research found that tenants found it increasingly difficult to find a place to call home. Perhaps most alarmingly Indigo house has found that it was particularly having a negative impact on those with greatest need, including homeless households and those claiming welfare benefits. This is, at its core, about achieving the right balance. At this bill falls short. It fails to meet its purpose and it fails to meet its promises and the noble Baroness cannot simply stand by as thousands of homes fall out of the rental market, while still claiming the bill will deliver for renters.

Getting this balance right is paramount. It is the difference between a functioning accessible rental market and one that is suffocated. It is the difference between tenants being able to find a secure and happy home they can afford and landlords leaving the sector. And it is the difference between young being able to build independent lives or being priced out of renting altogether. That is why this amendment matters. It places the duty on the Secretary of State to have regard for the core purposes of this act.

The improved performance and the sustainability

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the rented housing market. Amendment proposed. Before clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed. Before clause 1, insert the new clause is printed on the Marshall list. The question on the Marshall list. The question is that this amendment be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is that this amendment be agreed to. I would like to remind the House that I am the vice president of the Local Government Association and I Local Government Association and I listened very carefully to Baroness Scott and I can see the merit in the abyss and Ministers will advise us on that and accept that the whole bill defines its purpose. And I noticed that the noble Baroness Lady Scott used the word secure several times in her speech.

Confirming that the purpose of this act is to improve the ability of renters in the rented sector to 10 secure, fairly priced, and decent quality housing. That is the first of clause 1. I do not understand how Baroness Scott can propose an amendment talking about security of decent quality housing same time as amendment eight. That's proposing that small landlords that is those having fewer than five properties could continue to be able to assume section 21 notices and I have to assume that it is now the Conservative opposition's intention to withdraw amendment eight, but otherwise I do not see how in all honesty a statement can be made in amendment one that the objective is secure, a decent quality housing in the private rented sector when no thought evictions are for many, many properties, to be allowed to continue under the Conservatives amendment eight.

amendment eight.
15:37
15:38
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
about how we will conduct ourselves during the course of this bill. I during the course of this bill. I would start by saying that we do not agree with the assertions made by agree with the assertions made by Baroness Scott Byron. We think the Baroness Scott Byron. We think the intentions of the bill are perfectly clear. With that they will live up to those intentions, only time will to those intentions, only time will tell, which is why we too would be looking at reviews, and in fact looking at reviews, and in fact Baroness Scott amendment is very similar to my own 263 and I will reserve comments on reviews until the time that we discussed that in the group, and in fact what I would like to say to the noble Baroness is that we really do want this bill to go through.

We want it to go through professionally, well scrutinised, and swiftly. What we will not be doing is making second reading speeches. We will not be commenting on every single item and amendment, so I would like the Noble Lady to look at the position but what we will do is probe, we will challenge, and we will see the evidence and reassurances and I think we would expect no less from this. I would like to end by saying the main problem we all know is the shortage of homes and the particular shortage and this is not intended to solve that problem.

It has to be seen as part of a suite of policies that the Government is trying to bring in and to use the same phrase again, only time will tell. But what I will say is that the landlords have cried wolf before in the Tenant Fees Act and Armageddon did not happen. That is not to say that we should not take their concerns seriously and it is not to say that the Government should monitor and review, but I think the most important thing in this bill is the abolition of section 21 which was promised by the section 21 which was promised by the Prime Minister Theresa May back in the mists of time, so it is long overdue, it is time that we cracked on with this and we will do our bit to ensure a very thorough scrutiny, but a very swift passage.

but a very swift passage.
15:40
Baroness Eaton Portrait Baroness Eaton (Conservative)
-
-
I declare an interest as the vice president of the Local Government Association and as a part owner of rented properties in West Yorkshire. I speak in support of Amendment 261 tabled by my Noble Friend Baroness Scott, a review of the impact of the act on the housing market. Specifically, I welcome the addition to the clause around reviewing the impact this bill will have on request for Social Housing Act. The vast majority of landlords in this country are good, honest people, who do a real service in maintaining Britain's housing supply, providing decent to people before they start the journey of getting onto the property ladder.

The reality is that with the ever-increasing regulations placed on the landlord, not least the abolition of 771 which has already been mentioned, the signing of tenancy agreements is going to become more of a risk. In reality, landlords and the new burdens placed upon them are no doubt going to be reluctant to take on more vulnerable tenants, for example, than those who entered the market for the first time without references and those in receipt of Housing Benefit. It is why amendment to 61, on reviewing the impact that the actual have on social housing is a necessary one because the local authorities and housing associations are going to come under pressure.

As never before to provide social as supply in the private rented sector either becomes more challenging to access or because rents are likely to spiral because rents are likely to spiral out of control and these proposals, I therefore support fully the amendment tabled by my Noble Friend.
15:42
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
And I think the noble Baroness Lady Scott for her amendments six Lady Scott for her amendments 61 and two and Baroness Thornhill and the Baroness Eaton who have spoken in this short debate. I will keep my response to amendment one-shot as the purpose of the bill was debated in full during the second reading and I agree with what the Noble Lord has said that the bill was perfectly clear in what it sets out to do. The private rented sector has grown significantly over the last 20 years and is now used by over 11 million renters along with the support of 2.3 million landlords and I should say most of those landlords are very good landlords who look after their tenants very well.

Despite this good, it still provides the least affordable quality, most insecure housing and that just cannot continue. A functioning private rented sector can provide a secure steppingstone as the noble Baroness Eton said for aspiring homeowners, flexibility for those that want it. The chronic insecurity embedded in the current tenancy system fails both tenants looking for a stable home for their families and those landlords who are undercut by the chances who we know are there, they might be few, but we know they are there.

This is a drain on aspiration and sector is central to our opportunity mission, so we all have opportunity mission, so we all have the chance to achieve their potential. While I understand the aims of the amendment I do not believe it is necessary and the Government made a clear manifesto commitment to transform the experience of private renting by levelling the playing field decisively between landlords and tenants, indeed the very balance that the noble Baroness Scott was talking about. This bill delivers the promise, as I outlined at second reading the bill will strengthen the security of tenants, ensure their pain fair rental guarantee a fair minimum standard that they can expect for property, provide new and robust avenues to address and much more.

The Noble Lord referred to the attempts of later amendments to reintroduce section 21 elections. We will debate those when we get to them but I would say that 83% of landlords have five properties or less, so that would have a very significant, it would really keep the guts out of the bill and these are liable for the noble Ladies amendment that we set out that aligns at the heart of all of our future decision-making. The Government also recognises that works by the Government of landlords that provide safe and decent home for that tenants, both of these issues of balance were mentioned by the nobility Baroness Scott that she has spoken about but I was surprised that her assertion that the bill would not achieve that balance and it is a very similar bill that she brought forward herself just if you months ago and we have been clear that good landlords have nothing to fear from these reforms and the bill will bring much-needed certainty to the sector after years of inaction and delay in the novel Baroness Thornhill commented about the Armageddon that we do hear about, I remember that with the minimum wage discussions that were heard many years ago now.

I do understand the concerns of landlords and I hope we can address them as we go through the scrutiny of the bill but I am sure we can continue to debate the aims and impacts as we make our way through the 300+ amendments tabled for debate. Turning to amendment 261 which aims to introduce the legal requirement for the Government to publish an annual review of the impact of the bills reforms and the availability of homes in England and Wales and Scotland. Such a report would be required to assess the four areas in particular, the availability of homes in the private rental sector, rent charged under tenancies, quests for social.

I recognise that underlining this amendment is an interest in the impact of this legislation having on the housing market in England and the future and the question of whether the reforms will drive landlords through the sector. And I know that is a matter of concern. During the debate at second reading the Noble Lady Baroness Scott made reference to a report from right move on the proportion of properties in London for sale that were previously rented. I would like to acknowledge before the committee that the right move report also highlighted the number of new properties coming into the rental market is stable compared to last The report recognised there was no sign of a mass excellence of landlords all that it was affecting the dynamic the market.

According to the 24 English Housing survey, the size the PRS has remained broadly stable since 2013 / 14. There have been successor plans to reform the private rented sector since 2014. I would also like to reiterate before the committee that the bills impact assessment has received a green rating from the Regulatory Policy Committee, indicating it is fit for purpose. Therefore noble Lords I remain confident in repeating the government view, we do not expect this Bill to have a destabilising effect on the rental market.

And that our proposals will make sure that landlords have the confidence and support they need to continue to invest and operate in the sector. Those I have spoken to have confirmed that it is the answer like that it is the certainty they need, once this Bill is through and they know exactly what is on the agenda they will be much happier. The noble Baroness Lady Scott and the noble Baroness Eaton preferred to evaluation. Of course it is right we evaluate our reforms effectively and appropriately.

Our approach will build on the Department existing long-term housing sector monitoring work. We will conduct our process impact, value for money evaluation in line with the Department published evaluation strategy. Our evaluation findings will be published in a timely manner, consistent with our policy for publication of research. And will include analysis of the bills impact on the housing market in England. We will use a range of data to support our monitoring and evaluation work, including established datasets like the English Housing survey.

Data generated from the reforms themselves and data from trusted stakeholders, including local councils. I hope this reassures noble Lords of the Government's commitment to a busy monitoring and evaluating reforms introduced by this Bill. However, setting arbitrary deadline in law for this work, as this proposed clause would require, is neither necessary or proportionate. To do so would compromise the quality of evaluation and hinder the department in conducting as robust an assessment as possible. The noble Baroness Lady Scott referred to SMP reforms that she will know that the legislation in Scotland also included rent controls.

-- SNP. We are not proposing that in this Bill. While the debate on these two amendments has been interesting, for the reasons I have set out, I hope the noble Baroness Lady Scott will agree to withdraw her amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to thank noble Lords for contributing to this group. And for contributing to this group. And I can assure Lord Shipley will will debate my amendment eight later. I debate my amendment eight later. I would particularly like to thank the noble Baroness the Minister for her noble Baroness the Minister for her reply. While the Government's reply. While the Government's ambition is to improve outcomes for renters is a worthy goal, one I was proud to champion during my time in government, we feel this Bill fails government, we feel this Bill fails to account for the serious consequences its measure will have on those who provide the much-needed homes.

The fact is that renters need a market that encourages landlords to enter it, not leave it. These concerns, as I have said before, are not mine alone. Echoed right across the industry, from Savills, the property marked Uni homes, all of them have highlighted issues. From these benches, in the days ahead we will emphasise the need for balance, a balance that ensures tenants are properly protected while also keeping the sector attractive enough for landlords to continue providing homes to rent, as my noble friend very clearly communicated, my noble friend, Baroness Eaton.

The recent survey with Paragon highlights just how far this Bill full short of that balance and found that only four % of landlords support the proposed changes. Perhaps more strikingly, 73 % of landlords believe that legislation will in fact do more harm to renters than good. It is becoming increasingly clear in the Government's ambition to strengthen tenants security that they have been blind to the implications on those who provide the rental homes. That this country so desperately needs. The government should think hard about this balance and consider what these reforms will do to the market on which millions rely.

This Bill piles unprecedented pressures on landlords, fuelling concern, uncertainty and a fear of financial burdens. Simultaneously these changes are likely to make it even harder for tenants to find accommodation. The selection process will become more stringent and the grounds for... We can. The available homes will decrease and in turn, rent will take a larger share of a tenants income. The Government would do well to remember that rental sector exists only because individuals are willing to invest in property and make those homes available to others.

The strength of the rental market rests on keeping these people in the market. Landlords are not just participants, they are the backbone of the rental market. Their voices must be heard as part of this conversation. As they will provide the homes our tenants need into the future. If this Bill is to protect tenants, we must ensure we have the landlords to supply them. By piling on excessive regulation, we are in danger of pushing good landlords out and empowering rogue landlords, who just simply ignore all our rules.

We recognise that reform to our rental market is necessary to protect tenants from abuse at the hands of these rogue landlords. This was made clear in the previous Renters (Reform) Bill. But it was always important to us that we balance the rights of tenants to live safely and peacefully in the homes they are renting with the rights of landlords, particularly with respect to their property rights. If the Renters (Reform) Bill did not quite balance the seesaw, the Renters' Rights Bill tips it right over.

This is not the same bill that the last Conservative government introduced and the Government are rushing it through without any care for the repercussions that will reverberate throughout the sector. To conclude, I urge the noble Baroness the Minister listen carefully to the concerns raised the committee stage, to ensure we can enhance the availability of homes, alleviate the burden of an affordable rent and deliver security for our tenants right across this House we will all agree that renters need a better deal that we do not believe the Bill is the answer to this.

Sorry... I withdraw my amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is... Is it your Lordships pleasure that this Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? The
15:54
15:56
None Portrait Amendment:2 Lord Truscott (Non-affiliated)
-

improve bills which come from the other place. To broadly paraphrase the late noble Lords and MP Frances PIM, a large majority do not always PIM, a large majority do not always get things right. Your Lordships role is rightly to use your collective expertise to point out collective expertise to point out where a bill has gone wrong and where a bill has gone wrong and where it can be bettered. My amendment argues for fixed term tenancies of up to 12 months. They could then revert to rolling periodic tenancies or another 12 periodic tenancies or another 12 month tenancy could be agreed.

This would give tenants more security than the current bill, not less. This is because in the current bill, tenants will have no security after the first 12 months. They can be evicted for a whole host of reasons, including the landlord reoccupied or selling the property. But if a landlord and tenant were free to agree annual 12 months tenancies, the landlord would not be able to regain possession over this period, so the tenant could have security for many years, renewable annually. This suits both tenants and landlords.

A majority of tenants actually want longer fixed term tenancies, Tamil security, to allow their children to attend local schools, to be near to work and to build links within the community. So what's the Government so adamant that fixed term tenancy should be banned and short told tenancies, which normally have a six month break clause, be abolished? Let me be clear, I opposed the ending of fixed-term and the abolition of AST's under the last government and remain consistent in opposing them under this law.

I have been at a loss to discover who came up with the idea of moving exclusively to periodic tenancies with two months notice. As the noble Lord in his play said at second reading, it is a batty idea. Incidentally, taken together, we have almost 100 years experience in the PRS, so no of what we speak. Another peer with many years professional experience in the PRS asked the Minister in a briefing meeting why the government was moving to periodic tenancies with no fixed terms and two months notice on a tenants part.

They found it inextricable. I thank the noble Lady the Minister for her engagement on this Bill, I am aware of her extensive experience of leadership of local government. But the Ministers lines to take both here and in the other place do not hold water. First, there is often quoted example of domestic abuse. This is a very serious issue. However, to say that two months notice is required if someone is facing domestic abuse is simply not the case. It is the victim who flees, often with no notice at all, and the abuser who stays put, as domestic violence charities will confirm.

And the abuser hardly make themselves homeless by giving two months notice. So the type of tenancy in these circumstances is irrelevant. Second, the Minister... Fixed tenancy must go so tenants are not trapped in unsuitable or hazardous conditions or if their circumstances change. But this is one of the main points of this Bill. The database should show the history of the property and the landlord, whether it is safe and well-run. The Decent Homes Standard's and a wabs law will be imposed and regulated.

If any landlord's reckless enough to provide substandard accommodation, they could face fines and rent repayment or disrupted two years, enough to bankrupt most landlords. A properly regular to, such behaviour would be extremely rash and very few would risk it. And the current shot tenancies, as I mentioned, there is usually six month break clauses that allow for most changes of circumstances. There is thus no logical reason to abandon fixed term tenancies. From a tenants point of view, ill make their tenancies less secure and more expensive.

And from the landlord's point of view, it will increase costs and uncertainty. will increase costs and uncertainty. -- It will make. We have had how a lot of the landlord's costs and time are into new tenancies, landlords will have to factor this into rental prices and the fact that the tenants could give notice at any time. What would this mean in practice? It means if a tenant moves in, they can give notice on day one and move out into months. Why should they, you may ask? Well at the moment, short lets can be full-time is more expensive than long legs.

Anyone moving to a city centre or coastal resort for example, will be to move to a form of an Airbnb is a fraction of the present cost. Rentals for local residents will become even more expensive and rarer than they are already. The line between short lets and long let's will be blurred and effectively disappeared. Many landlords will gravitate to landlords will gravitate to ultrashort let's as they are more profitable and virtually and regulated. According to Foxtons, there are 150 pieces of legislation carrying longnecked homes already.

For Airbnb, virtually none. Second, those landlords who stay in dwindling long their business, and it is a business, may find tenants move out over the winter and properties that are harder to let... To cover the risk of higher turnover, rents will have to go up. In answering my fixed terms, even with a break clause, are anathema to the government, as Minister does not rollout the same stock answers on domestic violence and legs ability in the case of unsatisfying accommodation, that is a...

Answer. I recall the NP puppet in spitting image unfairly lampooning the noble Lord Lamont, if you repeat things often enough, people will believe it. Not in this House, I hope. I beg to move.
16:01
Lord Shipley Portrait Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Member proposed, clause 1, page 1, line 11, after second tenancy insert of longer than 12 months. -- insert of longer than 12 months. -- Might have amendments foreign five in this group and the intention is probing to enable the Minister to explain, clearly, the government's rationale for abolishing fixed term tenancies and I happened upon the six months. Five related to two months, Baroness Scott has prepared three months for this group.

And I noticed the words of the Noble Lord warning of unintended consequences and it is almost inevitably think that with a bill of this kind there will be unintended consequences for whatever you do and in this situation I think we do have to avoid it happening unnecessarily. And I can envisage that there may be situations where there may be short tenancies wanted by both the tenant and the landlord and like I say in question six, the noble Baroness Lady Scott has proposed three.

The reason is that with the cost reduced paperwork the sieges will become much easier but I can understand that the context of periodic tenancies which is what the Government is doing it is quite difficult to fit in a very short term system like that, even though it may be that in the interest of the tenant we think the noble landlord has that kind of tenant, so I hope that minister will explain I hope that minister will explain clearly why that should not be permitted under this bill.

What can I add one further factor to this, and we should be debating this on a future date, that the issue of paying rent up front, there are those who really have difficulty in securing credit rating necessary to persuade the landlord to give them a tenancy. And in some cases it is very much in the interest of the tenant to be able to pay more than one month upfront. I can understand how the Government has finally decided not to have two months as a limit in that payment because of the deposit and has brought it to one month.

Just as the Noble Lord advised us that we have been very careful about unintended consequences. I just think we need to think carefully about which of a tenant to pay for a short-term rental upfront at the start of the tenancy and whether there is any means the Minister can see that the Government, in this bill, could more flexible in situations of that kind.
16:05
16:07
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
I thank the Noble Lord trusted for a leading this and the Noble Lord that have contributed to the debate. The amendment in a name aims to probe the Government on the proposed fixed term tenancies and to strike a fair balance between the rights of tenants and that legitimate interests of landlords. Whilst the government's desire to strengthen tenant security is of course a commendable objective, we must take a moment to reflect on the variety of tenancy agreements that currently support different groups within the sector.

In light of that, it is reasonable to ask why has the Government chosen to pursue one size fits all approach through the proposed fixed term tenancies, having listened to contribution from the House, there is widespread concern with the element of the bill and I thank the noble Lords trust and Shipley for their thoughtful amendments. Taken together they seek to challenge the blanket removal of fixed term tenancies and to produce the much needed flexibility into the current very rigid clause.

The proposal to allow fixed terms of up to 12 months per presents a pragmatic middleground in our opinion, maintaining a degree of security for tenants while giving landlords the certainty needed to plan for their future use. Amendment six in my name focuses specifically on protecting very short-term lets, those of up to three months. These arrangements are critical to people, on for example proportionally based contracts, the vulnerable individuals in temporary relocation, and for professionals on short placements and we should not be undermining access to housing for those that rely on flexible short- term arrangements.

In removing fixed term entirely we risk cutting of access to the rental market for these groups. Precisely the kind of unintended consequences this House should seek to avoid. I have also included this amendment to give Ministers the opportunity to indicate whether they would be indicate whether they would be willing to take a more limited step of maintaining the current arrangements for very short tenancies. Industry stakeholders have all echoed these concerns. Property markers warned that the removal of fixed term tenancies could have a destabilising effect on tenants with lower incomes or poor credit history.

Many of whom rely on guarantors who, in turn, require the certainty of a fixed term. Without that structure, such tenants might find themselves excluded from the market altogether. What does the future look like for these tenants? These are students without parents, young adults leaving care, or individuals with health conditions whose employment is irregular. These individuals rely on guarantors to secure housing, but those guarantors require a insurance of fixed term and without that the door to a rental home shots behind them.

Or imagine a single mother working two part-time jobs to secure a home close to her children's school, with no guarantor willing to assign an open ended agreement, she is told again and again sorry, no fixed term, no tenancies. These are not hypotheticals. These are people who will be locked out of the system, possibly entirely. Terms they note provide security for tenants and a guaranteed rental for landlords. These arrangements are often actively sought by tenants, including nurses on temporary hospital placements, families wishing to remain in the school catchment area and individuals from overseas needing time-limited accommodation.

The Government will argue that tenants will still have flexibility because they can terminate their rental agreements at will. However, this misses the point. Flexibility is not the same as stability. Tenants need the assurance that their home will not be taken away at short notice. Especially when they are in traditional stages of their life. For landlords the certainty of a fixed term allows them to plan and manage their properties effectively and without it many would choose to exit the sector, reducing the overall availability once again of rental homes, that supposedly flexibility of a non-fixed term tenancy could, ultimately, leave both tenants and landlords with far less stability than they need.

The abolition of fixed term tenancies could amount many landlords to reconsider their position in the market altogether. For homeowners who currently rent the properties on a fixed term basis, this change in policy which removes the ability to offer a defined tenancy. Will reduce landlord confidence. As a result, some of an open-ended arrangement. Why is the Government not listening to landlords? The very individuals who are primary maintainers of the private rental sector, landlords are not just participants, they are the backbone of the housing market.

There voices must be heard in this conversation. There is a growing sense that these concerns are being overlooked and one must ask without this stems from a principled policy position or from a deeper ideological resistance to recognise the legitimate role that landlords play. Without the ability to plan for the future use or to define the tenancy., Landlords may well choose to exit the market. If this happens, we risk not only reducing the supply for homes but also destabilising the rental sector as a whole, undermining the very aim that this bill was intended to achieve.

Taken together, these warnings from industry state others should give the Government was for thought. They remind us that while reform is necessary, it must be proportionate and carefully balanced to deliver a market that ultimately benefits renters. This bill has the opportunity to modernise our rental system, but in doing so we must take care not to discard what works. In removing fixed terms altogether, the built risks sweeping away short-term lets and very specific and very vital purpose.

These are not theoretical cases, they are everyday realities that many people navigate work, family, or education. If we are to build a fair rental system we must ensure that it remains flexible and accessible to all, including those whose housing needs are necessarily short-term. That is what amendment six in my name six to protect and I hope that the noble Baroness the Minister listens to the voices across the House and to industry experts to recognise the diversity of the market and to support my amendment that offers the necessary flexibility and commonsense.
16:15
Lord Carrington Portrait Lord Carrington (Crossbench)
-
-
May I rise to amendment 173? I declare my interest in the private sector with cottage lettings in Bucks and let Lincolnshire, I thank the Noble Lord trusted for this and I very keen to support it. The reasoning behind my support is twofold and comes from the desire shared by most, that this bill is an opportunity to make sizeable reforms to the PRS. Not only in tenant security, but in improving the housing and its management. This is predicated firstly by the need to encourage private long-term institutional investors into the PRS, and secondly the need to differentiate between the private rented sector and short-term lets The bill's proposal that tenants should be able to give notice after two months of occupation, rather than the previous four, has limits.

With the two months notice period, this means a tenant might only be in residence performance, rather than six months, which is the key to bank finance and institutional investment. -- Resident for four months. It is also the balance of fairness between landlord and tenant. The cost of establishing a tenancy, renovation, redecoration needs a longer timeframe for payback then that what the current suggestion would provide. This is also an important financial point that lenders to the PRS are concerned that mortgage payments would be missed if the revenue stream ends in under six months.

And will therefore be wary of lending to the sector. The downside to this longer term is the risk of tenants being trapped. To deal with this issue, tenancy agreement should include exceptions for mis-selling, poor or unsafe living conditions, breach of PRS ombudsman regulations, death, domestic abuse et cetera during the first four months. It is very important to use this opportunity to increase the supply of housing to the PRS and at the same time to increase the standard of the product to conform with the Decent Homes Standard and to raise the standard of management.

The key to this is encouraging institutional investment and build to rent investors. BTR, build to rent, is distinct from the order PRS because BTR homes are new builds which have been constructed specifically for the rented sector, reflecting the
16:21
16:31
None Portrait
-

16:31
16:32
16:36
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees.
-

16:45
16:47
None Portrait
-

16:47
16:49
16:51
16:53
16:55
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Labour)
-

16:56
None Portrait Amendment:7 Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-

Most Most rely Most rely on Most rely on the Most rely on the support Most rely on the support of Most rely on the support of the Most rely on the support of the bank of mum and dad or Granny to meet their cost for their studies. Proximity to campus is essential for academic engagement, but also to reduce the burden of standby costs. Students typically require leases of 9 to 12 months, aligned to the academic calendar. I stress flexibility as an increasing number of tertiary education providers are now offering 18 month courses moving away from the traditional three year model.

For many students, this marks their first experience of independent living. They are often unfamiliar with housing laws and lack the knowledge that only life experience can bring. Although the exact legal framework for the exemption requires further clarification, the government has by virtue of attempting to exclude purpose built student accommodation from the ban on fixed term tenancies, accepted the unique position of students. And we welcome this. But we feel there is more work to be done. The Explanatory Notes assume that the purpose built accommodation tenancies aren't assured.

Student rents put this drafting down to a confusion with University Halls which use nonexclusive licences. In reality, most PBS a providers issue exclusive short hold tenancies, meaning unless the bill is amended or an exemption is extended, their agreements will become invalid once the new law takes effect. Could Minister please use Committee stage to clarify this if we cannot reach a reasonable position during Committee stage, we will have to return to this at report stage. In the drafting of this bill, the government has missed the opportunity to exempt all types of accommodation.

As noble lords will know, it is common that after the first year, students often move out of purpose built student accommodation and into HMOs or other type of properties in private rented sector. Amendment seven table in my name will ensure that student tenants can keep their desirable fixed term tenancies, no matter what type of accommodation they find themselves in. We must not allow a two-tier system to emerge were only those who can afford the most expensive purpose built accommodation are granted the stability of fixed term tenancies.

That would be a perverse outcome from this legislation and it is vital that we resolve this as soon as possible. Fixed term contracts provide students with a clear start and end date, which not only make financial planning more straightforward, but also ease the burden of day-to-day administration tasks, tasks which can be particularly challenging for those experiencing independent living for the very first time, all while managing the demands of their academic studies. But perhaps most important, fixed term agreements provide rent certainty for the entire duration of the contract.

This certainty is not only reassuring for students, but essential for their families who rely on clear and predictive -- predictive bill cost in order to budget effectively and support their children through higher education -- predictable. Furthermore, knowing precisely when a tenancy will and help students avoid disruptive midsemester moves which can have a detrimental impact on their studies and exam preparation. While stability is vital, so too is flexibility. It is on this point that I wish to speak to amendments 44 and 45.

The current provisions acknowledge in part the need for student landlords to regain possession by the end of the academic year under clause 4A. However, this fails to take into account those students who studies It is important to stress under the current model it is exceptionally rare for student landlords to need to resort to an eviction proceedings. In practice, the challenge is a far more likely to arise when students wish to leave their tenancies early. The proposals as they stand do not fully address the consequences of such scenarios.

Consider this, my Lords, under a joint and several liability tenancy, the early departure of one student results in the termination of the tenancy for all. Unless the remaining tenants can successfully renegotiate their terms this leaves them exposed to uncertainty and potential financial strain, through no fault of their own. Alternatively, where individual rule agreements are in place, the remaining tenants may be shielded from immediate financial impact. But they are given no say over who might occupy the now vacant room.

This can severely disrupt the dynamics and cohesion of a household, undermining the very stability we should be seeking to protect, especially a student preparing for exams, which so often determine their future careers. Has the noble Baroness, the Minister, fully considered these drawbacks? And might this not be the moment to explore the creation of a new fit for purpose short-term student tenancy. One balances the need for certainty, flexibility, and the importance of maintaining the supportive unstable environments that students are often relying upon.

Has the government considered the calls from the student sector to create a new fit for purpose short hold student tenancy? And if so, what access -- Does -- To what extent does this balance the tenancy to which the students rely upon. My Lords, while there is a provision for student landlords to regain possession from students at the end of the academic year, using ground for A, amendment 41, standing in my name, seeks to propose, to probe why this right is conditional on a written statement, being issued before the tenancy begins.

Could the Minister clarify the purpose of this requirement? Surely the right to recover a property should not depend on whether the letter was written, but rather on the nature of the tenancy itself. Finally, I wish to speak to amendment 46 standing in my name. This amendment probed the government's definition of student. And why they have chosen to exclude apprenticeships for instance. Similarly to university students, my Lords, a fixed term tenancy could be set to match the duration of an apprenticeship and provide stability for the full length of their training.

What's more, should it be considered only fair that landlords have access to the same means of possession for apprentices, as they do for university students? This amendment, my Lords, seeks to probe why those on an alternative education plan will be excluded from the definition that could bring them significant benefits through exemptions for specific restrictions. My Lords, at the heart of these amendments is the future and interests of our children and our grandchildren. Like all of us wanted, students are stepping into adulthood, navigating new freedoms, new responsibilities, and new challenges.

They need for secure, affordable, unpredictable housing is the foundation for success. Below, let's give them stability to study and the stability to maximise their potential. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment pose, clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end insert as printed in the Marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Marshalled list. My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 40 in my name. This is the amendment 40 in my name. This is the moment when students in higher education enter the housing and rental market debate. I am never
17:05
Lord Willetts Portrait Lord Willetts (Conservative)
-
-
rental market debate. I am never totally sure whether the department responsible for housing welcomes this disruption from the higher education sector. But I hope it is, I hope the Minister will accept it in the spirit it is meant. I should declare an interest as a visiting professor of the King's College, London, and a member of the Council of the University of Southampton. Of course, I understand the arguments the Minister makes about the need for tenants, to have security, and they would have long-term, put down roots in the long-term, but so many of the arguments she makes for this legislation clearly do not apply to students who are seeking reliable accommodation for an academic year.

For them, the model she is proposing is clearly not in their interest. And if I may say so, to the Minister, the link between housing policies and higher education are very important. The previous Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair, set a target of 50% of people going to university. There are different views about the targets, I don't personally believe in targets, but nevertheless, that 50% target was achieved and it was only achieved because of use of the private rented sector.

It is impossible to have imagined that target would have been secured, without the way in which the private rented sector has developed for student accommodation. And this is not just a historic achievement, if the government has opportunity as one of their core objectives, it is surely important that students who could benefit from higher education have the opportunity, and that includes being able to access accommodation that meets their needs. Now, the government has clearly accepted there is a need for some special arrangements for student lets.

What exactly the form they take is absolutely open for discussion. My noble friend, Baroness Scott me very powerful points in support of their proposed amendments which try to secure that. The government has already tried, already made, some concessions to recognise the student market. There is one exemption already. From the legislation for purpose-built student accommodation. I have to say, that tends to be high cost, that is going to involve students having a very early commitment.

It is going to be possible almost at the beginning of the previous academic year for the student to enter into a special academic year contract in this high cost purpose-built accommodation. So, to put it crudely, the government is looking after the elite. The government is looking after the students that plan a year ahead and can afford the high rents and going to the by and large very high quality purpose-built accommodation. With indeed often business investors behind them. There is now a second category discipline added and is ground for A, essentially for HMOs with three bedrooms or more in the private rented sector.

They are going to be exempt as well from the burden of the legislation. With a different start date for making a commitment about January before the academic year starts. That's the next group. I feel it is a bit like that famous three classes sketch. We have got a second group now going to be looked after, but that leaves 1/3 group for which the government is not providing any exemption. These are students in smaller accommodation and maybe one or two bedroom properties, for whom none of these special exemptions are going to special exemptions are going to apply.

It seems very odd, therefore, that on the government's model, trying to tackle this problem, you could have three students coming to university, who are friends and know each other, who are in three totally different rental regimes, because of the structure of the exemptions, which the government is trying to offer. Well, what I am attempting to do in the amendment in my name, and I welcome the support of the noble Lords, what I'm trying to do was also say that the smaller rented accommodation, room one or two bedrooms, should also be exempt from the general provisions of the bill and instead, should be recognised as academic accommodation with special needs.

What do we know about the students in one or two bedroom properties? And evidence is limited. There seems to be quite a few of them. There are different estimates as to how many of the students in the rented sector in smaller accommodation, one estimate is 24%, one estimate is one third, several hundred thousands of students in this sector currently. If landlords pull out from it, because there is no way they can be confident to be able to offer a Tennessee academic year, and it entered the mainstream market, several hundred thousand students cannot be renting -- Currently renting in the sector will lose out.

One may be that students go for particularly low rents, I don't know. An alternative account for students is that this smaller accommodation is basically for students that wish to live more quietly, less social. One suggestion is that tends to be final year students who move out from the bigger, more crowded accommodation, so they can properly study and revise for their final year. So the government education policy appears to be it is OK to have a special arrangement, if you are going to be in a large social environment.

But if you want to move into a studious environment, then we are seeking to -- Ceasing to recognise you are a student and your quiet accommodation is going to go. I very much hope the Minister will recognise, or is this government has already made concessions, but we need a wholehearted attempt to preserve an academic year student rental market. My attempt to extend the exemption as grounds for eight, of one or two bedroom accommodations attending to do that, felt very interesting from my noble friend, Baroness Scott, it is an ingenious attempt to do that.

And I would like to finally, if I may briefly, to refer to another amendment that attempts to do that, which is amendment 189, in the name of my noble friend, Lord Young of Cookham, who is in the chamber, but appears currently unable to participate in this consideration of his excellent amendment. And that is another attempt to resolve this. By an ingenious proposal that there should be a special code of conduct for private sector residential landlords, letting to students.

And if landlords sign up to that code of conduct, they would then be exempt. To be honest with the Minister, I don't particularly have strong views about exactly what is the mechanism that is used, but I hope that at the end of this consideration of these amendments, she will accept there needs to be a wholehearted recognition that the student academic market is different. And instead of slicing it into these particular sectors, some parts of it to be recognised and others not to be, there needs to be a complete solution for students renting for academic terms.

Because otherwise, the government's own commitment to opportunity will be in jeopardy.
17:13
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich Portrait Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I have added my name to amendment 40 and the name of the noble Lord, and declare an interest as an academic employee of King's College London. I do such, I am acutely aware of the accommodation and living costs that students face, if they study away from home. London is particularly expensive, as I am The level of loans at a total absence in England of maintenance grants, means that many UK students conclude a London degree are simply out of reach.

At Hurricane's we offer fisher graduates a place in holes and we have an affordable accommodation scheme that helps a subset of students to obtain accommodation at below market rates, and the universities are similar. However, over time, we have seen our student body change. One the one hand, we have far more international students, many of whom are able to afford the rent charged in high end purpose-built student accommodation or pay market rents in private sectors. On the other hand, this is far less well-known, we have seen a strong growth in the proportion of our UK students whose families live in or close to London, and who live at home.

And a corresponding decline in the number of UK students who are in student accommodation. In London. Now, if your family lives in the London area, you can live at home and be a commuter student, still have access to a huge range of institutions and degrees. But that is not true for people in a very large part of the country. He did not lead to believe that young graduates should all go away and do their studies, but be aware that for many people, it is absolutely central to social their futures.

If it is only wealthy students that can move geographically, then our best faculties in our specialist degrees will not be able to recruit the best students. Now, I have belaboured these points because what they mean is private accommodation that is affordable for students and inverted is incredibly important -- In ready supply is incredibly important for the future of this country and young people. It is absolutely central to enabling their movement, and to their future prospects. There is no way that universities can provide cheap accommodation for all of the majority of their students throughout their degrees.

As the noble Lord has already pointed out, the growth and availability of privately rented student accommodation in university towns and cities has been central to the growth of higher education in this country. Partly to the fires of international students of course. But above all, to the huge increase in home students in the past In most of the country market rates are far lower than London. People can still afford to go away and study in most of these places.

It is also the case that many of the students, most Teutons, particularly most home students who are in private rented accommodation are not in purpose built blocks. -- Most students. These are already highly regulated. Rents for students in these blocks are far more expensive than they are in housing operated by small private landlords. The average is about 190 operated by small private landlords. The average is about 194 week for the former, 130 for the latter. Without private landlords renting out small houses and small flats for students to share, the actions -- options for young people would be severely limited.

I was privileged to serve as a member for the order... In England. We were concerned about maintenance support and loans. We heard widespread about the what... And recommended the Office for Students should examine it more closely. But we are not going to improve quality or availability by driving large numbers of private landlords out of the student market. The current provisions of the bill as such and the general demand for accommodation on the other hand as such that if I were a student landlord not covered by the for a exemption, my immediate reaction would be simple, that I'm not going to be able to rent to students anymore.

Amendment 40 seeks to allow all student landlords are not just those operating mass occupancy accommodation or three-bedroom houses to repossess rented property in advance of the new academic year and therefore to follow a general pattern of student accommodation. All the other conditions under this amendment would remain, ensuring the tenants concerned are full-time students. However, I think that more generally, the point I would want to make to the Minister is that we must recognise that more needs to be done in this area.

Whether it is simply the amendment proposed by the noble Lord to which I've added my name or the more general change that is set out in the other amendments in this group. A vibrant private rented sector for students is absolutely necessary if we are going to protect and increase educational opportunity in this country. It's not sufficient, but genuinely necessary. I hope the Minister will recognise this and that student accommodation in general needs to be treated as a distinctive case which it is.
17:19
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Portrait Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Labour)
-
-
I want to very briefly to support amendment 40 to support amendment 42 which I've added my name. I'm concerned to ensure that we don't inadvertently damage further the student accommodation market. There is already a very severe shortage in student housing. The proposal to end fixed term tenancy agreements could have such an impact. I received very have such an impact. I received very detailed briefings from unit pole, Universities UK and other organisations intimately involved in student housing.

Purpose built student accommodation will be exempt from this position, but student accommodation provided by the private rented sector isn't offered that exemption. I know that the government objective which I fully support is to deliver security and stability to tenants. As it stands, I don't think the bill may deliver that for all students. As Lord Willetts pointed out, on average private sector accommodation is cheaper than purpose built accommodation, so it's an important source of housing for the domestic and economically disadvantaged students.

I hope the Minister will recognise that possibility and not jeopardise the provision, as many think it might. It perhaps would be worth considering the exemption granted to purpose built student granted to purpose built student accommodation to the student private rented sector in total, but I think other suggestions have been made and I hope the Minister will consider all of them in the interest of all of them in the interest of ensuring the stability of student accommodation. accommodation.
17:21
Lord Shipley Portrait Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Along with Lord Willetts and Baroness Wolf and Baroness Warwick, I have signed this amendment as well. I spoke on this issue at second reading. Lord Willetts reminded us that there are three total different mental regimes for students. Purpose built accommodation, the large blocks, they are the HMOs, which are larger properties in the private rented set her. And then the smaller private rented sector accommodation. Lord Willetts was right to say that the achievement of so many young people going to university was dependent upon the availability of accommodation in the private rented sector.

I know from my time in Newcastle upon Tyne how fundamentally important the PRS was to the growth of the universities in the city. I think the government also accepts that a special arrangement is needed for an academic year contract. That has to include those in one or two bedroom properties which also need to be exempted as part of clause 4A, which at the moment restricts it to homes of multiple occupation. The government has gotten amendment 202 in this group and I am keen to hear what the Minister says about that and to what extent the Minister feels that it will help us to solve the problem.

There is a danger that unscrupulous landlords will define properties as for students when they are not, to bypass the impact of this bill when it becomes an act. I have thought a lot about that and I think the government can mitigate the possibility of that happening. I think it might be done through the register. There may be ways of delivering a solution through that means and it occurred to me that it may be possible to use nonliability for paying council tax as the basis for system for identifying those who for system for identifying those who would qualify for clause 4A.

It would require local authority cooperation and proactive management of the private rented sector. But I do think it can be done. And I think it needs to be done because students are very important to the lifeblood of many cities and towns across the country and having a vibrant private rented sector for them to use matters. If the government decides that the smaller private rented sector properties don't need additional help, then the likelihood is, given the fact that a student would be able to give two months notice under the revised terms of this bill, it is possible landlords will decide to leave the private rented sector letting the students, or to reduce their exposure to the student letting market.

It is a complex area and I recall the Minister saying when she summed up at second reading, that it wasn't a difficult... There are issues that need to be considered, I just hope when the Minister replies and we understand better what the intention is with amendment 202, that actually we may end up being able to produce something much better when it gets

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to report stage. I rise to move amendment 266 and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move amendment 266 and my name and in the name of Lord
17:25
Lord Best Portrait Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
-
my name and in the name of Lord Shipley. This is my first intervention in Committee stage, so I declare my interest, my wife owns privately rented robbery, a vice president of the Local Government Association and of the charter Trading Standards Institute. I'm currently cheering and inquiry into intergenerational housing and I'm currently on the business and the community's black wool housing Advisory Board -- Blackpool. My moment 266 in this group concerned student housing, but on a slightly different tack.

While there are strong grounds against fixed term tendencies, I think separate arrangements are justified for student accommodation as indeed the government acknowledges. My amendment is a modest tweak to the change already made by government to exclude student housing, except in smaller accommodation from the prohibition on fixed term tendencies. -- Tendencies. It would address a different issue, it would exempt certain purpose built student accommodation from the private rented sector licensee schemes of local authorities -- licencing.

Which would allow them to inspect and enforce standards for private rented property. This exemption for PBS a accommodation is justified because these schemes are already subject to high levels of scrutiny and compliance through government approved codes of management. I'm grateful to the British property Federation for bringing this to my attention. As the noble Lord, Lord Willetts and so many others have eloquently explained, purpose built student accommodation is an important part of the rental market. It provides 724,000 beds throughout the UK split between university owned and privately owned.

There are nearly 200,000 more beds, mostly privately provided, in the pipeline. Without this sector, students would have to rely on and would put more pressure on the wider private rented sector where satisfaction levels, I have to say, are rather lower. Lack of suitable accommodation is a major problem for students and universities. Removing barriers to tackling the under supply of student housing is also important in easing the strains of the rest of the private rented sector. Local authority licencing can definitely help raise standards for the PRS, but it is -- its value does not extend to that part of the PBS letter a sector which is already heavily regulated -- PBS a.

There is a code of practise under which members are inspected on a regularly rolling programme which covers the conditioning management and regulatory requirements. Because of the level of scrutiny required by these codes, a 2019 government commissioned independent review found that licencing was not a required for purpose built student accommodation. It said, this accommodation is a normal condition of operation mandated by the attached university is required to implement a strict government recognised code of management practise, such a code holds the combination to much higher standards of higher management and condition then any licence conditions could reasonably achieve.

Properties are rigorously inspected on a regular basis, typically three times per basis, typically three times per year. This review concluded, given that these properties are already highly regulated and relevant properties managed by universities to an almost identical code of practise are exempt from licencing, the licencing of such properties is manifestly redundant and extremely expensive for the operators. In relation to the expense for operators, local authorities can operate a lice sink scheme charge -- licencing scheme charge on average of 700 pounds per licence, but they can charge up to 1,200 pounds.

Since these fees are often charged per unit, not per scheme, not per building, a scheme of several hundred units, for example studio flats, can incur costs of in excess of hundreds of thousands of pounds, while some local authorities already offer exemptions or discounts for those PBS a providers. These codes of practise, this is not standard practise. Many local authorities do not offer any reduction in licencing charges. This is not really fair. PBS a was never a target for the licencing scheme and the cost and time incurred by the licencing process does not add any benefit for students.

Exemption from licencing would remove an unnecessary expense for the providers, saving some of them hundreds of thousands of pounds and improving the viability of PBS a schemes. I suggest this amendment to exempt purpose built student accommodation from licencing schemes of local authorities would encourage more provision for students and ease pressures on the wider PRS with no negative impact on the quality of accommodation or its management. I hope the amendment is acceptable to the noble Baroness, the Minister and
17:31
17:33
17:33
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
those needs, of the many hundreds of thousands of students. Not all of whom are fresh out the sixth form college, to align the certainty of college, to align the certainty of their living arrangements with the reality of their daily lives, particularly amongst their friends, or with their friends. The or with their friends. The consequence of the bill, if enacted, would mean students pay more, because the supply of rental properties will reduce, by discriminating against private landlords. It will reduce the choice landlords.

It will reduce the choice of landlord because it lays down a statute that some type of landlord counterparty, that students can contract with if they wish to have the certainty of an annual let, and therefore reduces the competitive pressure among landlords to keep prices down, so students will pay more. By restricting theSTUDENT:To a certain class of building committee creates monopoly powers for that expensive specialist provider. That my dear friend has mentioned. So commissions will pay more. And it will create an overheated market in September, every year, because the landlord can only guarantee to have availability in house, if the previous people have given notice, previous people have given notice, , guess what? Students will pay more.

It is just costs, it is the consequence of the bill, meaning students will be more inconvenienced. It means the second and third year students, the sort of people that do not necessarily want to pay more, coming back from a trip abroad or whatever, toast -- So to sort out the House they could earlier. Friendship keeps getting house with their friends. I don't believe in this debate this far we have considered the importance of cohorts of friends who are not related and do not have those family ties, that you get in most tenancies.

So, you are at the mercy of the person who just wants to cut and run. Because if there is a joint tenancy among six friends for example, in a larger house, and one of them wants to go, what does that do? That break the tenancy? Out of that work? I don't believe, it strips the whole group, and I do believe in the case of students, discipline of a group of friends coming together has some value to coming together has some value to the market.

Of course, by focusing everything in September, it makes the chaos of clearing even more chaotic than it already is, and it refers to the established students from good backgrounds, with parents with sharp elbows, as a means to execute draft contracts more quickly. And it also makes it, those families, easier to provide a guarantor. I remember, when my daughter was at Newcastle, she had taken it with a group of friends, going to live in Jesmond, and there are six of them in the House. And the landlord sent round this contract, the contract made me jointly and separately liable for the entire rent for all of the people, none of whom I had met.

Fortunately, I was last on the list, and I noticed that Viscount Boyd, a former mayor of this House, was performing and it gave me certain comfort knowing we were going to vicariously rely on each other. Whilst this asked -- While this bill introduces this for current students, it disregards people in second and third year who are not in houses yet, and who might want to be. Because not everybody wants to live in holes. Particularly for students -- Liver halls, particular students, PhD, and I have been there, you tire of the freshers running up and down the halls, the corridors come in the night.

As they come back late from the pub. If you want to have that quiet enjoyment of the property, then you shouldn't be forced into a student block with charges and expensive rents. But if this bill is enacted, it will introduce new discrimination that haven't been mentioned so far. Thinking about foreign students, let's not forget that foreign students underpin the university sector. At the moment, they are keeping our universities afloat with their extra fees. Because foreign students, who for whatever reason, cultural reasons I will dwell in a moment, who do not have a credit history, who will be prevented from paying upfront, they will become owned rental, -- They will become non-rentable, it will be very difficult to get a place.

Because these are the people whether universities need to balance the books, the difficulty of getting guarantors, the right to rent cheques in and of themselves or sometimes a barrier of discrimination against foreign students. But I'm particularly thinking of women students from Arab countries, and I have two tenants in our own business, whose mothers have come from these parts of the world, to live with their daughters, for cultural reasons. And they want the certainty of the annual tenancy agreement, to give them, in their own way, certainty.

To the consorted -- So they can have the certainty of leaving their daughters, they do tend to be daughters, while they are having... So they can come back. It is an irony, later in this group, in this bill, amendment 190, has huge things about pets, and here we are not allowing this cremation against not allowing this cremation against From other parts of the world. All of this in aggregate means that landlords have specialised in renting to students and many of whom had pastoral care to the portfolio and they will fall away, my wife has acted as mother so to speak to many of our students, helping them with council tax bills, on behalf of utilities, especially for students whom English is not their first language.

Trying to make their way in a foreign country. My Lords, all of this will go, because you cannot have the certainty of the contract between landlord and tenant, so why should it be for the state to determine a narrow monoculture of what constitutes acceptable student accommodation? What happened to the ability of consenting adults to sort out their own decisions? Government amendment to has Theo certainty -- 202 has the certainty of having a building occupied by students, which excludes dwelling houses that are occupied by students, and then requiring the halls specifically built for students, and centres, to be licensed, even though they have seen the standards.

But how does this bureaucratic interfering help the people to assist? And it took my daughter, when I explained to her last week and what I was going to say, about 10 seconds to realise that quite a complicated secondary market is now going to develop between potential students and between landlords, because informal, unregulated contracts and options and fees to secure tenancies, in the most desirable households, with the most landlords, in the way that harms the sort of people the government are trying to help, the ones first in their family to go to university.

By preventing more than one month being paid at a time, you are going to end up with more complicated escrow arrangements. With fees. More expensive delays, and more connivance is between cohorts of outgoing tenants, incoming tenants, on risk of course, lining up the next year, based on good friendships this year. We are formalising, in statute, nepotism, between years. To the exclusion of those who are trying to make their way. My Lords, the student market is complex, and it should reflect the world as it is.

And for many students, that is not the monoculture of halls of residence, they prefer to be in the town, close they prefer to be in the town, close So destroying this market does not help anybody. It is full of the law of unintended consequence, a law that makes it harder and worse for the brightest and best people that want to get on, difficult for anyone in higher education to know where they stand and they will all pay more and make it easier for animals to exploit a hot market every September.

It is another example of Labour preparing the big business, the operators of these large student schemes over the nobility of the small family business. But there is one silver lining though, teaching students at a formative moment in their lives the adverse effects of the dead hand of the nanny state, telling them what they can and cannot do. It is more likely to promote the cause of capitalism, that it is socialism.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak on my amendments 42, 43, in my name. These
17:41
Lord Evans of Rainow Portrait Lord Evans of Rainow (Conservative)
-
-
amendments probe why the government believes six months is a suitable cut off for 4A, the new grounds for possession being available for landlords. Unlike my noble friend, I declare I didn't go to university, I am not familiar with freshers running down corridors, however I have three children, two of whom have gone to university. The first people in my family to go to university. And what they tell me That their experience of halls was straightforward and good quality in their eyes.

I have a child currently studying her A-levels, so I'm hoping she will go to university and I look forward to a similar straightforward situation in terms of the accommodation. Students like to get their accommodation sorted at the beginning of the year, away from the exam period, if tenancies cannot be agreed early on, this will lead to uncertainty on living arrangements and add stresses that students face. Most tenancies begin in July, and therefore, the hunt for student accommodation will begin drawing exam periods.

Canon noble Lady, the minister, can she tell the House has the government consulted with students and to what extent has the government even considered the impact on students? It is very important that at exam time, they are focused on their exams. Landlords like the certainty that their accommodation will be filled, has the government consulted with landlords and to what extent? Does my noble friend has just said, the larger organisations that have run this one thing, but the many family run businesses, have to be consulted also? More broadly, the production of fixed terms introducing a two month notice period, and restricting rents payments in advance, could disrupt the traditional student housing cycle, making it harder for students to serve and secure accommodation early and reliably.

We seek to argue the student model does not fall comfortably within this bill, and that the student model is one that resisted for some time, for many years, successfully in my experience. This change aims to discourage landlords for signing up to tenancies months in advance, which is currently common practice, and I would be able if the noble Lady, the Minister could reassure me

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness Lady Scott, noble Lord, Baroness Lady Scott, noble Lord, Lord Willetts, noble Lord, Lord Evans, noble Lord, Lord Young, albeit his amendment was very ably moved by, or proposed, by Lord Willetts. The noble Lord, Lord Best, Willetts. The noble Lord, Lord Best, fore amendments, the noble Baroness
17:45
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
fore amendments, the noble Baroness Lord Shipley Waller, for their comments during this debate. All of these seek to revise or introduce provisions in the Renters' Rights Bill, related to students, and can I say, well done to King's College for having their team approach to this bill in the chamber today. We do not expect a moving fixed terms will have a destabilising effect on the student rental market. New position ground for A will give the most confidence, to regain the property and removing other students in mind of the academic year.

If tenants do leave a tenancy early, then the landlord will be able to find new tenants to take their place. The end of a fixed term does not automatically give the landlord position. Landlords still have to follow the correct position procedure. With this remaining in the future, landlords will still be to follow the correct position procedure. If I start with amendment seven, which would allow fixed term issuer tenancies, if the tenant was a student at the beginning of the tenancy. It would be either right or fair for students to have less flexibility than other tenants, just because of their educational status.

Students who drop out of university could be required to pay rent for the rest of the fixed term, which could potentially reach thousands of pounds. All renters, including students, should have access to the benefits provided by the bill. The opportunity referred to by the noble Lord Willetts is, as he rightly said, the meeting between housing and higher education. As someone who undertook a degree as a mature student with three children and a full-time job, we simply must not assume all students are the same.

This is the opposite of elitism, it is ensuring all student circumstances are taken into And that those that need the greatest flexibility that assured tendencies offer are able to have that option. We've introduced a new grounds to allow the cyclical market to continue. This strikes the right balance and in our opinion is the much better approach. Just referring to the noble Baroness Scott's question about tendencies, the government does intend that any new purpose built tenancy created after the exemption will be exempted following transition, so long as the landowners signed up to a government approved Code of Conduct.

I hope that answers her question. For these reasons I would ask the noble Lady to which all the amendment. to which all the amendment. Amendment 46 Touk expand ground for a which allows students to be evicted in line with the academic year. It would allow students living in self-contained accommodation, one and two-bedroom properties for example, to be evicted each year and seeks to address the concerns from some noble lords that the existing scope of ground for a does not cover all student properties.

We have thought very carefully about the design, limiting it to HMOs captures the bulk of typical students. That is groups living in a house share. Meanwhile, students who need more security of tenure, such as single parents living with children, postgraduate couples living together with put down roots in an area or families containing students, will be protected. The core principle of the bill is that tenants should have more security in their homes and we think it is right that these groups should not be exposed to eviction.

Self-contained one and two-bedroom homes are also easy to let two nonstudents and student HMOs are. If a landlord cannot gain possession in line with an academic year and the tenants leave in the middle of the next one, the landlord is highly likely to be able to let the property out to nonstudent tenants. Baroness Wolf referred to student accommodation in London and I imagine there are other places where costs are prohibitive like Cambridge and Oxford. However, the government's action to increase supply is critical here.

It's only by increasing supply that we would be able to stabilise rents. I don't think the action proposed in the amendment would have that effect. Self... Turning now to amendments 41 and 45, which taken together seek to remove the requirement for a landlord intending to rely on ground for letter eight to give prior notice to the tenants. This would mean landlord's rented to students and HMOs who satisfy the student test would be able to rely on ground for A without giving tenants written prior notice before the tenancy was entered into of their wish to be able to recover possession will using ground for it.

We cannot accept these amendments. The court aim of the bill... Including students. The prior notice requirement in ground for is key to this. If tenants are liable to be evicted through no fault of their own, simply because of their student status, they must be informed of this reduced security before entering into a tenancy. Amendment 45 is purely consequential and amendment 41, removing a later reference to the paragraph the 41 removes, therefore I would ask the noble Baroness withdrawals these amendments.

Amendment 42 tabled by Lord Evans seeks to allow the use of ground for A in tendencies agreed up to months in advance rather than the six months in advance that is currently in the bill. Noble lords will be aware, we introduced this measure in response to engagement with stakeholders and members in the other place. I hope that answers his question about consultation. They were concerned students are often rushed into important decisions around accommodation before they have formed friendships or had time to properly judge a property's condition or location.

This measure was intended to act as a strong incentive -- disincentive to landlords who seek to sign students up to contracts early in the academic year. Increasing the time limit to nine months would push early sign-ups to two early in the academic year, before Christmas for a tenancy beginning in July. This undermines the point of the deterrent. Six months strikes the right balance, allowing those who want to to agree a tenancy well in advance before exam season, but not to early before students have formed firm friendship groups for instance.

Amendment 43 also tabled by Lord Evans goes even further, extending the time limit to 12 months. For the reasons I've highlighted previously, we are of the view that six months is the right balance. Very few students sign contracts more than a year in advance and this amendment would destroy the entire premise of the provision, which is designed to prevent students being pressured into contracts to early in the academic year. For these reasons I beg the noble Lord to withdraw these amendments.

I turn now to amendment 44. This seeks to remove the restriction on the use of ground for A to the summer of the traditional academic year. This would mean students on a traditional term date who are the majority, could be of -- evicted in the middle of the academic year through no fault of their own. We recognise the intent is to ensure properties are available for students starting their courses on nontraditional days such as January. However, we are content supply will be available for these groups as previous groups on the same cycle would leave at the end of their courses.

So there will be students leaving in January and those students starting could take those properties. It would be wrong to expose all students to eviction in the middle of their academic year simply because, for example, landlord found a group with different term dates who were willing to pay more. For these reasons, I would ask the noble Baroness withdrawals as amendment. Amendment 46 would allow landlords to evict approved English apprentices as defined in the apprenticeship skills children learning act 2009 using the student possession ground for a provided all conditions for relying on that ground are met will stop it was designed to capture the most typical students, such as those living in groups and away from home on an annual letting cycle.

Apprentices tend not to live that way as they are in an income and are much more likely to live in a home they expect to stay in. I am therefore of the view that apprentices should enjoy the same security of tenure as other tenants and not fall under the scope of possession ground for A. For that reason I would ask this amendment to be withdrawn. Amendment 189 seeks to remove the private rented student tendencies from the assured tenancy system. I know there is been a lot of concern and debate over this, both at second reading and today.

It would achieve this by allowing the Secretary of State to create or approve a Code of Conduct for student landlords and then allow landlords signed up to the code to offer tendencies that completely remove from the assured tenancy system. My view of this is just the wrong approach. It would be wrong for students renting offstreet housing, often indistinguishable from the property next door, do have an entirely different set of rights to their neighbours. I understand the noble Lord is seeking to create consistency, between private student landlords and landlords of purpose built student accommodation, which we will exempt from the assured system the regulations.

However, these are very different types of accommodation. Purpose built student accommodation can often only be rented to students due to the nature of the property. To be exempted in the future, a private PBS a landlord will be need to signed up to the government approved code of management practise. This is managed by an established organisation. Other private rented accommodation let the students is significantly more diverse. As I have mentioned, often indistinguishable from other houses in the area. It would be wrong to remove the protections of the assured system.

Other students renting privately should not be locked into fixed term contracts or open to eviction without good reason. In addition, no government approved code currently exists that is relevant to such an accommodation. Developing this would take a great deal of time and is likely to delay implementation of the bill. We do recognise that the student market has a cyclical business model. We have therefore introduced ground for A, allowing landlords to evict full-time students from HMOs in order to house and coming group in line with the academic year.

Ground number 4K addresses the issues that the various amendments are seeking to address. I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 266 seeks to exempt private purpose built student accommodation from discretionary licencing. Where the landlord has signed up to code of practise for managing such accommodation. More codes of practise offer students assurance that the good standard of management is being met by their landlords, they are not tailored to addressing local issues in the way that licence condition under licencing schemes are.

Membership of the codes is voluntary and members have an incentive to comply to ensure they can continue to present an attractive offer to students. While a failure to adhere to code standards can result in a landlord being removed from a code, licencing allows for stronger action to be taken were necessary. For example, local authorities can issue a financial penalty where there has been a serious breach of licence conditions. We recognise that licencing can place a greater burden on landlords with large portfolios, such as those operating private, purpose built student accommodation.

That is why local authorities already have discretion to streamline licence application processes and fees for such landlords. We trust local authorities to take a proportionate approach and work together with code operators and providers of these types of accommodation to make sure that licencing schemes remain focused on tackling issues they were designed to address. I would therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. I now turn to the government amendment's 47, 188 and 202. Currently, University measured accommodation is exempt from the assured tenancy system.

While private purpose built student accommodation, PBS I, usually is not. Government amendments 47, 188 and 202 will allow private PBS A to B subject to the same exemption, recognising that the two share many similarities. Students do not move into their accommodation expecting long-term residents, it is right to ensure this accommodation is available to new cohorts of students each year. We intend the exemption will only apply to private PBS that is a member of the government approved code of practise which sets vigorous standards for the management of property and the relationship between managers and student tenants.

If there membership of the code ends for any reason, so does their exemption. There will be no delay in requiring them to provide assured tendencies to new tenants. While there is an existing power in the housing act 1988 to exempt PBS a landlords, it would've required government to frequently update secondary legislation with a list of landlords causing a duplication of work between code administrators and officials and a lag in the link between code membership and exemption status. We are also proposing an amendment to an existing power in the Housing Act
17:59
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
2004 that clarifies the educational establishments exempt from HMO licencing can be specified by licencing can be specified by reference to code membership and that the power can be exercised in the same way for private purpose the same way for private purpose built student accommodation in future. The amendment also allows the scope of an exemption to be narrowed to certain groups of building or building manager within building or building manager within the membership if required. I beg to move government amendments 47, 188

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and 202. I'm very grateful to all noble lords who have spoken and what I consider an important debate. consider an important debate. Contributed thoughtfully but constructively with their insights. constructively with their insights. Firstly, I would like to recognise the contribution of my noble friend Lord Evans who brought amendments 42 and 43 on these benches we believe the limitation may, as my noble friend said, inadvertently push the friend said, inadvertently push the hunt for student accommodation into the January exam season and disruptive vital time for many students up and down this country.

Amendment 40 tabled by my noble friend is right in seeking the removal of the restrictions that limit ground for a two properties with three or more bedrooms. As I alluded in my opening remarks, student accommodation is varied in type and size and the legislation should accurately reflect and acknowledge this diversity. We will work closely with my noble friend on this issue and we agree the government must look into it very closely. The contribution from my closely. The contribution from my noble -- the noble Lord Lord Best and his amendment rightly highlights the government's...

It is vital we improve the availability of most needed student accommodation schemes without compromising the quality of that accommodation. I am particularly interested in how the exemption of the purpose built student accommodation from licencing could remove unnecessary costs for providers. As we have heard from the noble Lord, this could amount to hundred of thousands of pounds, thereby improving scheme viability and enabling the delivery of more and enabling the delivery of more At a time when demand is soaring, we must make sure supply can keep pace.

I would particularly like to thank the noble Baroness, the minister, for her reply and the government amendments and recognise, in recognition of their previous shortfalls in the bill. My Lords, if this debate proved anything, it is how technical details this legislation is. And we should acknowledge the amendment aimed at updating and clarifying how certain types of student accommodation are treated under housing law. My Lords, amendment 202 does finally recognise that not all student housing fits neatly into the HMO box.

However, the amendment generates yet more questions. This amendment passes more powers to the Secretary of State. How will the government define which educational institutions or managing agents qualify for the exemption and how will the noble Baroness, the minister, issue -- Issuer at necessary administration is reduced? Must make sure this clause is communicated to the market. My noble friend, Lord Fuller, was therefore right to challenge amendment to an two, and highlight the issues concerning the definition of the building occupied by students.

This amendment requires a clear explanation from the government benches, and we hope the noble Baroness, the minister, listens to these concerns before report stage. I would also like to thank my noble friend, Lord Fuller, for his support of amendment seven. We agree with him that the annual Rivermead students -- Rhythm of students makes situation unique. This bill disrupts the ability of the market to satisfy the many students already operating in an overheated market. Amendment 189 gives the government more flexibility to decide those types of student rentals, types of student rentals not treated as tenancies.

Bylaws, because of this change, the government can limit or extend the exemption. How will government exemption. How will government
18:04
18:04
None Portrait Amendment:8 Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-

amendments tabled. My Lords, the legislation is technical and detailed, and we should acknowledge amendments aimed at ensuring this vibrant sector offers students what they desperately need. But at this point, I beg to withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment eight, Baroness Scott. Not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moved? It is because I have got group

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is because I have got group numbers rather than... My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment eight rise to speak to amendment eight standing in my name. At its core, the private rented sector exists the private rented sector exists only because individuals are willing to invest in property, and to rent it out to others. The rental market depends on landlords, many of them small-scale, independent operators, who choose to let their homes to others. These are not large corporate entities with huge legal teams and financial buffers.

They are ordinary people with one or two properties. Often it let out to supplement their pension always a long-term investment for their families. Let me be clear, the recent English private landlords survey showed that 45% of landlords own a single rental property, and a further 38% earned between two and four. That means that over 4/5 of landlords operate on a very small scale. Far from the image of large institutional landlords. These landlords form the backbone of the rental sector.

Yet under the proposals in this bill, particularly have to say the removal of section 21, without sufficient alternative safeguards, and this is to answer Lord Shipley's question, we risk driving them out of this market altogether, my Lords. That is why I rise to speak to amendment eight standing in my name. This amendment proposes a targeted and reasonable exemption that landlords who let fewer than five properties, though small-scale landlords we have spoken of, should retain the ability to use section 21.

This is not about denying renters their rights, undermining the central aims of the bill, rather it is about recognising the limitations that smaller landlords face. Unlike larger letting organisations, smaller landlords do not have the resources or the legal support to navigate complex possession proceedings. For them, the loss of section 21, without workable and efficient alternatives, could be, and will be, the final straw. My Lords, these individuals are not villains of the piece. They are, in many cases, if not most cases, providing much needed homes in areas of acute shortage.

But they do not have the resources to engage in lengthy legal proceedings, every time the need to regain possession of their property. Whether due to personal financial need, changing family circumstances or to exit the sector entirely. If this bill removes section 21 without offering smaller landlords a workable alternative, the risk is clear, many will simply choose to leave the market, they are already altogether. We know this is already happening, the national residential landlords Association found last year that one in four landlords were planning to sell at least one property, many citing rising regulation and uncertainty about future as forms -- Reforms.

As these landlords exit, we are left with fewer homes to rent and is the tenants that feel the consequences most sharply. The experience in A sobering lesson. There were similar reforms introduced with the intention of approving tenants security, and yet, as we have seen, they have had the opposite effect. A sharp increase in landlords exiting the market, and the highest rent increases in the United Kingdom, as demand rapidly outpaced supply. Research from the National foundation have found that 70% of landlords, litigators, lack confidence in the future of the market.

The evidence from Scotland demonstrates the type of overregulation proposed here will drive landlords out of the market, reducing housing supply, and ultimately, leaving renters worse A simple balance solution, it allows the bill to move forward with its tenant protection is intact, while acknowledging the distinct position of smaller landlords, in giving them the breathing room that they need to continue letting their homes. Mallows, if we are serious about building a rental system that is fair, functional, and fit for the future, we must ensure it works for tenants and landlords alike.

Amendment eight does not undermine the principles of this bill, it strengthens it. It recognises the diversity within the landlord community, and offers a sensible proportionate to safeguard for those who make up its majority, by allowing smaller landlords to continue using section 21, where there are no viable alternative yet But the long-term interest of renters themselves, I urge the government to take this amendment seriously, and to consider whether the future of the private rented sector truly lies in a squeezing out

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the very people who keep it afloat. Amendment proposed, close one, page 1, line 13, at end, insert 'unless the landlord acts as a landlord for fewer than five

**** Possible New Speaker ****

landlord for fewer than five properties.' I beg your pardon. My Lords, it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg your pardon. My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak and is a very important debate in committee in
18:10
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
support of my noble friend, Lady Scott of Bybrook, on this amendment. And it is about fairness and practicality, as between tenants and landlords. And it's about the alternative that the government is offering smaller and those who are in the situation where they feel it prudent to give notice and seek possession in their own property. Under section 21, as between that and section 8 of the Housing Act 1988. Particularly, the bureaucratic and only a burden and court costs that will fall upon smaller landlords.

Let's look at the figures, my Lords. 45% of landlords, almost half, only own one property, and for the avoidance of doubt and full transparency, I declare myself to be a landlord, I own one property, which was my matrimonial home, as listed in the register of members financial interests. 83% of landlords are smaller landlords, in that they would be covered by this amendment, that they own fewer than five properties. The important issue here, and notwithstanding, the very proper commitment of the government outlined in the manifesto, to abolish section 21, no fortifications, a very laudable reasons.

We understand and we are all committed to the same thing, which is that good quality private sector housing should be available in a fair way to as many people as possible. We accept the government has a mandate to make tenancy reforms, but unfortunately, as the previous administration found, much of the efficacy of that policy will fall on the reliability or otherwise of the court system, and the ability of the court system to expedite possession claims, in a timely and efficient way.

His Majesty's government's own figures show that seven months is the average time taken to process and enforce a section 8 position case, and that is quarter four, 24. Especially around the very thorny issue of rent arrears and antisocial. The LGA and the Law Society have raised this issue. The Law Society in particular, knows the potential increase in potential hearings in the short-term, as landlords previously using section 21, because it was less costly and less onerous, will now have to show good reason for eviction.

In the impact assessment, at page 65, the government, rather elliptically, references " Non-legislative manners, non-legislative ways and changes, in order to improve the court system." But it doesn't give any detail. That is a really important issue as we are being asked to support the government's proposals. I would ask the noble Lady, the Minister, how the government intends to manage the increased demand and what does Reddy mean? The housing minister in the other place used the term 'ready'. They wouldn't take any perceptive action, until the court system was ready.

This is the problem the government face, as the noble Lady, the Minister knows, it resigned from going ahead too fast with this policy, because the court system was not fit for purpose. What measures are there to deal with the existing backlog in section 8 claims, arising from landlords seeking to take possession? Because let's make no mistake, the failings of the court system have the potential to undermine what would be some laudable reforms, and have the perverse effect of encouraging landlords, especially smaller landlords, to exit the private landlords, to exit the private rented sector.

Tenants themselves do not have any faith or much faith in the court system, figures provided in 2023, by the Citizens Advice bureau, showed that only 23% of tenants feel confident applying to the court, 99% of those whose landlord has taken an unreasonably long time to complete repairs, did not bring a claim for disrepair to court. And 54% said it was because of the complexity of the process, and 45% of the time involved. My Lords, it is also the case that the abolition of 21, particularly in respect to smaller landlords, will have an impact on the relationship, the hitherto good relationship, between many tenants and landlords, into a much more litigious and disputatious situation.

Many of those landlords will not be prepared to give tenants the benefit of the doubt, if they are falling on difficult financial times. If they have less benign economic circumstances. These are the real world consequences of this policy, as this is one of the issues this amendment seeks to address. Short- term evictions are bound to increase and that will increase, of course, rents. As landlords may choose to sell with vacant possession, because they will make more money as a capital asset if they sell with vacant possession, rather than with vacant possession, rather than with Without social housing, a combination of increased prudence by landlords and more landlords selling up will exacerbate the shortage of properties in the private rented sector.

This is an issue that the Department of levelling up housing and you to Select Committee expressed its concern about in its report in 2023. We will potentially of a situation with smaller landlords were bad tenant are tied up in litigation and new tenants are not able to access quality rented homes that they need. 44% of residents in England and Wales do not have in their local authority area a legal aid provider to assist them in any litigation in any case. This is a practical and helpful amendment, not least because it just aggregates large institutional landlords from smaller landlords who have different issues and it alleviates the pressure potentially on the court system.

If I return to the impacts assessment again, if one looks at table 8 on page 66, many of the costs are rising from this big policy decision around section 21. Our non-monetized. Table 8 on page 66, additional time cost for landlords, reduce landlord and come from more arrears, rent increases as her result of landlord's ability to pass on costs. One has to question whether the impact assessment really looks in a comprehensive way at the likely financial ramifications for smaller landlords of these changes.

As I finish, may I put the noble Lady, the Minister on the spot. If they choose to reject this amendment at report stage or further, if she committed to a suggestion of end to end digitisation with her colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and the court system? If so, when and how? Will more court staff be recruited, will numbers increase as they have in Scotland? In most cases of serious antisocial behaviour be prioritised? Will the justice impact test be continued in the same way the previous government was committed to it? Will it be monetized and will be delivered in a timely way and be properly evaluated? I would ask the Minister to at least consider this amendment because it is a way the government can honour its overall generic manifesto commitment, but also not clog up the system and produce perverse results which will be fewer properties and higher rents, which none of us in this House would want to see.
18:19
Lord Empey Portrait Lord Empey (Ulster Unionist Party)
-
-
I would like to declare an interest on the register in regard to this matter. The government can't take this legislation just in take this legislation just in isolation. Because as a country, we are taking policy actions that diminish supply and increase demand. Our population is increasing and that is a deliberate decision. The net effect of that is that with local authorities not building properties in the manner and at the rate that they used to build, we are creating circumstances where we have a perfect storm of increased demand and reduced supply.

The supply is reducing, I believe this bill will have the perverse effect of reducing have the perverse effect of reducing it even further. What I wanted to ask a Minister is with her colleagues we have to take a holistic view of this. It is not simply dealing with tendencies in isolation. You have to take the big picture and as we have heard from Baroness Scott in her proposal, the vast majority of people are small business people and most people have these properties as part of what they deem to be their pensions.

Equally, we all want to see fairness and we know that the concept, the word landlord is almost a dirty word. We have had things historically that tainted the whole sector and there has been a steady drip of measures through the years that have mitigated against provision of rented sector such as interest no longer being offset against tax for people who are doing by to let and so on. Regulation increase, some necessary for health and safety, but the burden is going up.

In places like London there is a massive demand and it is impossible to meet. Unlike countries like Germany and others where the rented sector is in a totally different place, it is the norm in many cases that people rent properties and don't hold them, but we are in a different place, we concentrate on private ownership of our rented properties. I just wonder if the noble Baroness... Reference was made to the assessment, have an assessment been made of the impact on supply of properties? Because of local authorities aren't able to step in because as the number of properties will continue to diminish, that puts extra pressure on local authorities and the LGA has been very explicit about that.

It is increasing homelessness, we have the pressures they are, we have pressures from immigration, we have impression from asylum seekers and yet we are taking measures whether it is the sort of legislation here or other measures, that actually mitigate against people taking on a private property to rent. Unless somebody can make a profit out of renting, why would they bother? Then you have all the hassle of going to the courts, not getting paid, etc. Etc.

At the other side of the coin we do seek properties in a very poor state, we cease landlords who don't maintain them properly, we have seen examples of that. Nobody wants to see that, so the government clearly have a mandate to make change. But I have to say to the Minister, far from convinced that the fairness that we all want to see in which the government has a right to insist upon is necessarily achieved by the measures in this bill. I think while the proposer from Baroness Scott may or may not be to the government's liking, at least one can see where they are coming from and why they are doing it.

I think if they are not prepared to adopt that, then let not prepared to adopt that, then let them come forward with a coherent mechanism that a landlord can use where they happen to have a tenant that isn't abiding by the rules. It doesn't have to be amendment eight, it could be something else. But let's hear it, let's get it on the table and discuss it so the consensus we all wish to see improvements can be achieved. There is no point of having a bill the reverse effect would be having a supply.

Nobody will gain from that. I would ask the Minister if you would kindly address that in her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

summing up. I also support the amendment
18:25
Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I also support the amendment bought -- brought by my noble friend. I should say that my wife friend. I should say that my wife owns A1 bedroom property which she is in the process of selling in part because of the potential effects of this bill for the reasons so eloquently outlined by the previous three speakers. As a young barrister I used to practise landlord and tenant. Used to go around the country defending and prosecuting cases where repossession or otherwise or resisting possession claims for properties.

I know how long and painful it is to try to repossess the property and circumstances where a tenant has not paid rent. I also know the pain that can inflict on a small landlord who is using the rent to pay the mortgage and pay the maintenance on that property. As the noble Lord in his speech a moment ago made so abundantly clear, not all landlords are of the rectum and ilk with thousands of property under their built -- belt.

In so many cases this is a case of happiness and contentment. The landlord looks after the property and maintains it for the tenant who has the flexibility of being able to leave that property when they wish. And does not have the burden of maintaining it. It's an important flexibility within the Labour market. The abolition of section 21 will have a very damaging effect on our housing market and I say that because the court system is simply not ready to have a situation where the only grounds upon which you can take back a property in a circumstance where tenancy has failed for nonpayment of rent or some other breach of the tenancy.

Those sorts of proceedings take a very long time to work their way through the court system and I recall as a young practitioner there still being cases under the 1977 rent act where the rent had stayed the same as it was in the 1970s and the tenant was effectively a removable and it was a nightmare for the owner, it was a rigidity in the housing system which was ended by the use of section 21 notices. To describe those notices as being no- fault evictions is only very much half of the story as the noble Lady pointed out,, the purpose of those notices is to enable an agreement of property to come to an end because you may want to live in the House yourself or you may have a need to sell the property because you need to have the money for some other purpose.

It serves a vital role within the housing market and its abolition is something that we will all come to regret. I therefore strongly urge the government to consider carefully an exemption for consider carefully an exemption for strong landlords! Small landlord's. This is something that is worth very careful consideration. We have heard not enough about the readiness for abolition.
18:29
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Can I apologise for all my coughing that laid me low for most of the recess. I'm very conscious, especially when you were speaking, I was really struggling. My apologies for that. Would it be impolite? Yes it would be impolite to call this a wrecking amendments. But it certainly feels like one from our benches. As has already been mentioned previously in an earlier group, if this amendment were actually accepted, it affects around 85% of rented homes and in effect it would completely got the legislation of one of its key objectives.

We on these benches cannot agree with that. We entirely support the abolition of section 21. That said, having listened to very reasoned and reasonable responses, and the noble Lady Baroness Scott clearly believes, as do many others, that the provisions in this bill will intend more landlords and tenants going to the courts. And the readiness of the courts for this legislation under the previous government was one of the reasons why it rode back on that. I think it is reasonable to ask you for the government's assessment of court readiness and the impact assessment that has been given.

Because feelings in the court will definitely undermine the main principles of this bill. We are principles of this bill. We are My understanding is to use the words lengthy lengthy legal procedures are a small percentage of the number of tenancies overall, but undoubtedly, and let no one think we think otherwise we absolutely understand and accept that these are challenging, painful, and
18:31
18:31
18:31
18:32
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

First of all, can I assure the noble Baroness Thornhill that this is not a recognised movement. It is an amendment that is trying to find an amendment that is trying to find a solution that does not potentially destroy the rental market. And if it is destroyed in anywhere there is only one person, one group of people that will be affected, and that is the tenants. I am grateful to Noble Lords. My apologies. You probably know what I am going to say now, so that is good.

My no Noble Lord, can I think the noble Baroness Lady Scott for amendment eight. And the Noble Lord Jackson, the Noble Lord Marie and the noble Baroness Thornhill for their comments. This amendment would allow fixed terms initial tenancies whether or not that is fewer than five properties. As I am sure that Noble Lady would expect the Government cannot accept this amendment. It would neither be found or justified for some tenants to have fewer rights simply because the landlord happens to have a smaller property portfolio at the point in which the tenancy is entered into.

All tenants must enjoy the benefits of the new system and the flexibility that. It tenancies provide. I have already commented on the impact of the market and the amendment one. But as I mentioned earlier the noble Baroness referred to changes of the law in Scotland. They were very different in the important matter of rent controls and I did not meet with the Scottish housing minister during the recent council meeting to discuss this with him and to have a go at finding some lessons learned from what happened in Scotland.

An this survey shows that 83% of adults have four properties or fewer. Accepting this amendment would mean fixed terms remaining available for half of all tenancies. This will clearly fly in the face of what this will try to achieve and break the bill of what we are trying to do and also it is clear that retaining victims would preserve the 20 preserve the 22 one eviction notice, although this is a common misconception, nor would it automatically retain the accelerated court procedure used for section 21 claims which allows cases to proceed without hearing.

If this amendment was accepted, landlords would still be required to seek protection using one of the protection grounds of one of the act of 1998 which the exhibited court procedure is not available. The removal of section 21 evictions is the cornerstone of this legislation and the Government will not accept its reintroduction to reduce court costs, nor indeed for any other purpose and can either amend the Noble Lord Marie who I believe was the Minister in the last Government that his Government also had the policy of removing section 21 evictions.

He seems to have a memory lapse in the chamber this afternoon. In response to points about the cost of court hearings I think the Noble Lord Jackson did refer to costs for smaller landlords. We are confident the bill does not levy unfair new costs on landlords, however it is reasonable to expect landlords to ensure their business model covers the possible cost of possession cases proceeding through court. The current accelerated court procedure is not a guarantee of avoiding court proceedings or the associated costs either.

And just to comment briefly on the points made by the Noble Lord Jackson. I apologise.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Forgive me, could I ask Noble Lady the Minister if she could give us a rough estimate of a figure for the legal costs to repossess on the the legal costs to repossess on the grounds on the movement of rent from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

grounds on the movement of rent from beginning to end to the proceedings. I am sure the Noble Lord has a figure in mind. I will write to him figure in mind. I will write to him on that. I do not have it at my fingertips, as he would expect. In relation to the issue about court relation to the issue about court proceedings, the availability of court hearings available for tenant court hearings available for tenant access to court hearings in the new system where landlords must evidence the Newgrounds met and we are working closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and of course the tribunal system to make this service more efficient and easier to understand and I think the Noble Lord Jackson made a very good point about the fact that both landlords and tenants this process can be difficult to understand and may deter them from accessing the legal redress they are entitled to because of difficulties in understanding how it works.

We are also committed to digitising the process first I can reassure the Noble Lord that we are working very closely with the M MO MOJ to make sure the justice system is fully prepared for this limitation of the bill. I will not go into the digitisation of the whole system because that is way beyond my remit in the chamber, but we're working on that for the renters rights bill and that includes a commitment to digitising the county composition process, creating a modern efficient service record users.

And can I just say that I was very reassured to find that this is a system that has been built onto an existing system, not something that has been created from scratch. Work is proceeding at pace to move forward on that. And on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Noble Lord point and the Baroness Thornhill's point. Could I ask the noble Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could I ask the noble Baroness the Minister whether all those the Minister whether all those changes to the court system and the digitisation, will that all be in place, totally, before this part of the bill is enacted?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the bill is enacted? If I make my was just coming onto response of the Noble Lord point which may answer that question. As usual, we are working with the usual, we are working with the Ministry of Justice to look at the justice impact test. This will identify the additional burdens on the justice system arising from new policies in the renters rights bill and it will ensure the justice system is fully prepared for any increase in workload, so I hope that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will reassure the Noble Lady. Sorry for interrupting the Minister again. She made a valid Minister again. She made a valid point that different tenants with point that different tenants with different landlord should not be treated differently, but if you have a landlord that owns 30 or 40 a landlord that owns 30 or 40 properties and one or two of them are caught in a dispute and there is no rental coming in, that is kind of manageable, but either 100% of your income goes, or if you have two, 50% of it goes.

Accepting that she has a valid point about the treatment of tenants, surely given the majority of owners are single or small owners, there is a very specific issue and, again, if the Minister could tell that house if she has had any communications with local authorities because they are the people who would have to pick up the pieces if there is a diminishing in supply. I just wondered if she had given consideration to that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I respond to that in two ways? Firstly, to say that the work that has been done on the court that has been done on the court system is both for landlords and system is both for landlords and tenants. He wanted to work for both sides of this. Making sure that when a landlord needs to seek possession they can do that quickly. I think any landlords business model should account for the possibility that account for the possibility that there may be a slight break in rental payment, but obviously we want to resolve these issues as quickly as possible.

And the same for the tenants. There needs to be accessed quickly to recourse if they need to take it. And we will do that. In respect to the point about local authorities, I covered extensively under item 1 above the government's assessment of whether this will have an impact on the supply issues. And I will reiterate that the bills impact assessment has received a rating from the regulatory policy committee. We do not believe there will be a sustained or significant impact on the supply, but we will monitor that the supply, but we will monitor that very carefully once the bill is very carefully once the bill is passed into legislation.

I hope I have answered all the points that noble Lords have made on this, but for the reasons I have set out, I for the reasons I have set out, I hope that noble Baroness Willis withdraw her amendment.
18:41
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
Again, my apologies to the noble Baroness the Minister first of all, I will reiterate I assure the noble Baroness Thornhill that it is not a wrecking amendments but it is an amendment that is trying to find a workable solution that does not potentially destroy the private renters market and the only people that will suffer from that will be tenants into the future will stop I am very grateful to my Noble Friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Murray of Blidworth for their very thoughtful and constructive insights into how we deal with this issue.

Across the House, there is clearly a shared ambition to improve the private rented sector for tenants and I believe that today's discussions show that doing so must include supporting the landlords who make the sector possible. As I set out earlier, amendment eight is a carefully considered proposal into safeguarding the small landlords, those who led fewer than five properties, and those who make up the overwhelming majority of the sector. These are not large-scale investors or corporations, their individuals, often couples, pensioners, or families, who rent out a single property or two as a way of securing long-term stability for themselves.

This amendment is not about undermining talent protections. It is about recognising that those protections will only be meaningful if the rental homes remain available in the first place. The removal of section 21 without adequate alternatives risks pushing small and lots out of the market. And, as we have heard, this is not hypothetical. It is already happening. Once again I will talk about Scotland because I do not believe, nor do the people in the industry that I have spoken to believe that this was just about control.

In Scotland, it is made clear what can happen when reforms are introduced without properly accounting for market balance. A sharp reduction in landlord numbers escalating rents and a shrinking supply of rental homes. This was not the future we wanted in England for our tenants and it is exactly what this amendment seeks to prevent. Recent findings from the bank based on a survey of over 500 landlords reinforced this concern for us. And alarming 65% of respondents indicated that they are now more likely to scale up their property holdings as a direct result of current and proposed reforms.

This is a clear indication of the attentional real-world consequences of the bill, if the needs of small landlords are not adequately considered. Amendment eight offers a modest and vital safeguard. It enables Governments reforms to recede while providing breathing space for the small-scale landlords
18:45
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
who play such a crucial role in meeting the housing needs of this meeting the housing needs of this country. To conclude, I urge the noble Baroness to minister to listen carefully to the issues raised in this group and to give serious this group and to give serious consideration to amendment eight, not as a dining of the bill but as a necessary and constructive contribution to its long-term contribution to its long-term success. At this point, taking away the amendment.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your mod chips pressure that this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is combining, withdrawn. Amendment nine, Baroness Scott.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Scott. I rise to move both Amendment nine in the name of Baroness Scott and amendment 13 tabled in both my name and Baroness Scott. These are amendments grounded in a very simple amendments grounded in a very simple but important principle, when landlords and tenants reach mutual agreement, they should be trusted to make arrangements that reflect their make arrangements that reflect their This debate is not about fixed terms tend but observing the ability of landlords and tenants to enter into a legitimate mutually agreed contract with agreements that reflect flexibility and choice.

If both parties are in agreement there should be a legal mechanism to support such tenancies stop amendment nine and 13 introduce a degree of flexibility into the framework of the bill without undermining its core objectives to enhance tenant security and stability in the rental market. Without these amendments, to build risks reducing the security of tenants. Amendment nine would allow fixed and tendency to continue but only when the landlord and tenant have freely and mutually agreed to such an arrangement.

And I support these aims, we must also ensure we do not inadvertently remove tools and options that serve tenants well particularly when those arrangements are entered into voluntarily and in are entered into voluntarily and in good faith. In this principle, the landlord would agreed to suspend and agreed to not rent in the fixture striking a care and fair balance and granting better security while allowing the landlord to plan ahead with confidence. The amendment allows the ability to vary terms on agreement and is a modest but important provision ensuring necessary flexibility isn't lost under what would otherwise be a rigid inflexible structure.

We cannot predict the future, and we need to allow scope to enable a talent and landlord to mutually agreed changes to the agreement to reflect this. For instance where they both wish to see modification to the property, legislative changes, or enable a temporary subletting where a tenant will be away for a period of time. Beyond the immediate relationship between landlord and tenant, this speaks to something bigger, a modern dynamic workforce depending on the geographic mobility, working age adults must be able to move for the opportunity whether it is a job, academic course or to support a family.

Scrapping the option of a mutually agreed fixed term tenancy risks restricting that movement and in turn limits potential. We believe flexibility drives productivity and the economy cannot flourish if people are locked out of areas of opportunity simply because the housing arrangement no longer accommodate short-term needs. This is not just about following a job but making it possible to succeed wherever life takes you. When we support mobility through flexible fair rental agreements we open the door to a future where success is not defined by the postcode of your birth, but by your ambition, determination and the ability to seize opportunity.

These amendments do not seek to weaken tenant protections. Quite the opposite. They create opportunity for tenants to request greater security and encourage landlords to provide it willingly and transparently. In a rental market as diverse and complex as ours, this voluntary flexibility is not just welcome but essential. If this bill is to be a true Renters' Rights Bill it must include the right to choose through mutual agreement the housing arrangements best work for each individual and their family. That is what this seeks to enable and I hope the Minister will give careful 's and Minister will give careful 's and serious consideration.
18:50
Lord Carrington Portrait Lord Carrington (Crossbench)
-
-
Insert the words as printed on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Marshall list. I declare my interest with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I declare my interest with lettings in Birmingham and Lincolnshire. I support the Lincolnshire. I support the amendment of barrenness Scott and I amendment of barrenness Scott and I congratulate Baroness Scott on her conversion following the previous Renters' Rights Bill. Renters Reform Renters' Rights Bill. Renters Reform Bill. I hope that we will achieve Bill. I hope that we will achieve the same as the current minister. I won't repeat the points but make the following additional points by way of background I approach it from a rural background where the average length of a tenancy is around seven years.

There is little churn in view of the long-term nature of the accommodation in rural areas will stop as a result, a short hold and fixed term tenancy are popular and this is somewhat different to the urban PRS to which this bill is largely directed. I cannot understand why the government would object to the continuation of the freedom to contract for a fixed if both parties agree particularly as it provides flexibility and certainty to both. The landlord gets guaranteed rent and the tenant can negotiate additional conditions like no rent reviews for a certain period, improvements and security for term.

In Germany, there are two types of tenancy, indefinite and fixed. Fixed to tenancy has move in and move out clauses and neither and move out clauses and neither party is obliged to renew. -- Fixed term. In Germany, indefinite or fixed can be up to two years. The German system shows the assured and fixed tenancies can work well fixed tenancies can work well together. The ability to contract for a fixed has the effect of reducing rental pressure in the overall market as longer term tenancy acts as a natural break on rising rental costs with fewer opportunities to increase rent.

Another major advantage of fixed term tenancy it it gives confidence to buy to let lenders and institutional investors because mortgage payments are more secure and so is the financial return for the investor. That is the type of landlord we should be encouraging. It includes professional management It includes professional management and a better product. If they are to and a better product. If they are to grow and bad landlords to be minimised, I urge the government to look again at this matter.

look again at this matter.
18:53
18:54
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
I will speak in support of amendment tabled in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook and to which I've added my name. I have some general observations. The amendment is again helpful because it encourages a mutually agreed arrangement where appropriate, which is appropriate, between the landlord and tenant in order to avoid disruption, delay or litigation where it might otherwise arise to the mutual benefit of both parties. Lord Truscott it right and one of the key issues is the wider philosophical issue.

The abolition of fixed terms provide greater security for tenants and retains flexibility and that is the argument, but a surprising one because there are a number of key issues that undermine that. The abolition of a contract and particular type is an obvious infringement on the freedom of parties to agree such terms as they wish and principle should only be implemented in the most cogent and urgent grounds and no such grounds exist across the whole private rented sector. There are some situations where tenants and landlords benefit from fixed term tenancy.

Examples include student lets all those related to fixed job postings or projects moving to particular areas to be within a school catchment area. It does not help in these situations to be prohibited from obtaining the security of a fixed term let. Landlords inflexible in their approach to the term of the tenancy and only prepared to offer a fixed term do so at their own cost because they will find a smaller pool of tenants and landlords that are flexible in their approach.

A market-driven discouragement to fix term tenancy exists and will continue to do so. The stated aim of enabling tenants to leave poor quality properties in this legislation is poorly thought through. The first point to make is that it will usually be apparent to the tenant before moving in if a property is poor quality and if they move in full knowledge of that, the fairness of allowing them to move out in term is not obvious. It may be said against that tenants often don't have a choice.

Sadly that will don't have a choice. Sadly that will be true, but if it is, leaving mid- term is unlikely to be an option for the same reason. It is better to find ways to coerce landlords making living conditions better. However, it can be legislated for implying into a lease of warranty in the Defective Premises Act 1972. If they can show the warranty has been breached, they may terminate immediately and leave future liability. Parties can and often do agree break clauses in fixed term tenancy.

Is no reason why they should not continue to do this with changes in circumstances like a job not working out can be anticipated. This is fair Richard the landlord because it alerts the landlord to a pop possible change in the pop possible change in the landscape. In practice, if circumstances change unexpectedly, like a tenant losing their job or ceasing being able to work or passing away unexpectedly, few landlords will be unlikely to insist on a tenant out seeing their term.

It is not within their interest to have a tenant that cannot pay rent. Most would negotiate an early exit in those circumstances and install a tenant that can. A residue of cases where they suffered a change of circumstance and would like to leave, but a landlord is unwilling to allow them to do so can be met by legislation stopping short of an outright ban or fixed tenancy where hitherto there has been mutual agreement between parties. There was a point to be made about the concept of seeking to protect the rights of tenancies in residential tenancies and how they can be retracted without the wider context of the pool of properties available.

The abolition of fixed term tenancy means many landlords in the PRS will prefer to not let at all or let on a periodic tenancy. Preparing involves a considerable amount of time and effort and they can simply go on a whim and that time and effort will go unrewarded and few people undertake it. And it will drive down the sector and tenant choice to the
19:01
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
detriment of tenants and tenant protections are only worth obtaining if the sector remains attractive to landlords and tenants as the noble Lord said earlier. The proposed abolition of fixed term tenancy fails to achieve that balance with an agreement previously and this amendment seeks to encourage collaborative working between tenant collaborative working between tenant and landlord, flexibility and the efficient working of the private rented sector to the benefit of rented sector to the benefit of tenants and landlords and Arbid asked the noble lady the Minister to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give it a fair hearing. -- I would I think the noble Baroness Lady

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the noble Baroness Lady Scott for the amendment moved by ledge MS and the Noble Lord Carrington, noble Lord trusted and Carrington, noble Lord trusted and the noble Jackson for their thoughtful interventions in this debate. Amendment nine would retain fixed terms in the future assured tenancy system, landlords and tenants would be able to agree to include a fixed term in tenancy agreements under which the landlord agreements under which the landlord could not use the Crown's fossil income occupation or redevelopment or increase the rent during the fixed period.

Amendment 13 would remove the restriction on varying or adding new tenancy terms covering fixed terms or rental periods I have already sent out today by the Government will not accept amendments that were introduced fixed terms and I had to disappoint the Noble Lord Carrington on that front but not from me today. I would just make the additional point that allowing the option of fixed terms only creates the illusion of choice for tenants. In an oversubscribed market, 10 often feel they must sign what is required of them by tenants.

Now, the Noble Lord trusted referred to a sink in reaction to group tenants and the purpose of this bill. I prefer to refer to democracy that we set out in tension to raters rights and received a strong electoral mandate before that which we are now putting into place, so it is not groupthink, it is a democratic mandate that we have two deliver what we have set out in this bill. I would also add that fixed Equal requirements on both parties.

In reality, landlords retain the ability to end the tenancy when the tenant is at fault, but tenants cannot leave the tenancy for any reason, even if the property is not safe to live in. These amendments would create legal ambiguity about what the new contractual terms can cover. Noble Lord Carrington raised the issue about rural tenancy and I know that we will return to that in know that we will return to that in future groups, and also to the issue future groups, and also to the issue related to investors upon which I have already commented, so I will not repeat my comments around that.

For the reasons I have set out here and in previous debates, I hope that and in previous debates, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw this amendment.
19:03
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I am grateful for the thoughtful contributions made by my Noble Friends, Lord Jackson. The Noble Lord Carrington and the Noble Lord Truscott and the response from the noble Baroness that minister. What has emerged from this discussion is a shared rocket Sean that flexibility and tenant protection need not opposing forces. This is not just a view held within this chamber, but across the housing sector there is a broad concern eliminating the ability for landlords and tenants to enter fixed term agreements with mutual consent which risks overlooking the real world complexities of today's rental market.

Property markers all the fixed term tenancies when agreed freely often offer tenants a sense of security and help landlords to of security and help landlords to with certainty. They know that these amendments are particularly valued by renters with lower incomes, offering both predictability and peace of mind. But what we must not overlook is the predictability that is just as important for landlords. When there is a clear start and end date, both parties benefit from a secure timeline for tenants that means a guaranteed stability.

For landlords it means reliable income and the ability to plan financially without the fear of an abrupt vacancy. By contrast, rolling tenancies without the option mutually agreed fixed term introduces a level of uncertainty and tenants may leave with just two months notice, potentially leaving landlords with no income and very limited time. This kind of unpredictability is not just inconvenient but it undermines the landlords confidence, may discourage future investment in the sector as the Noble Lord Carrington mentioned, the difficulty of getting fighter left mortgages.

This concern is not hypothetical. In a recent survey of more than 900 landlords, nearly 2/3 said that they plan to leave the sector, reduce their portfolio, or shift to show or holiday lets, citing this bill as a central bill. And that is a key concern on the side of the House, the availability of rental property and we remain concerned on this and have not received assurances from the Noble Lord the Minister on that. Many feel their voices have not been heard during this process and their legitimate concerns have been too easily dismissed.

Of course, we must listen to those who raise the valid concerns about historical misuse of certain tenancy models, but these amendments are not about reinstating the past. They are about creating a future where arrangements are respected and supported. This is not about rebalancing the system in favour of landlords. It is about recognising that trust and stability can emerge where both parties are empowered to agree to terms that reflect their own needs. We cannot afford to ignore the very real concern that excessive rigidity will push landlords out of the market and also make it more difficult for tenants, leaving behind a smaller, less responsive and more expensive private rented sector.

A student, a contract worker, or a family navigating a temporary relocation would affect the term that suits both parties, should we really prevent that flexibility? This is precisely what the amendments in my name, amendments nine and 13 seek to preserve. The amendment to fix the agreement to vary the terms of the tenancy where both parties consent. Reflects the real needs of the modern mobile and diverse rental landscape, ensures where there is mutual understanding that all does mutual understanding that all does not become an unnecessary barrier.

I say again this is not about exceptions to the Bill's purpose, but contributions to it. The right to housing includes the right to enter into fair agreements, mutual transparent and freely chosen. It is also why I have included a probing amendment on why the Government is seeking to end certain types of assured tenancy. I hope the noble Baroness the Minister will give these proposals the careful consideration they deserve. There will still be time for a conversion as this bill precedes and I thank all noble Lords for the richness of this debate and with that I withdraw the amendment.
19:08
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
Is it your logic special that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Also enclose one Amendment 10, Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Davies. I rise to speak to my Amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to my Amendment 10. And referred noble Lords to my entry in the register. There are situations when tenants and situations when tenants and landlords would benefit from a fixed term tenancy, as the amendments with numerous exemptions set out. Examples include families seeking stability in a school catchment area or workers on long-term contracts. And all parties agreed there should be a legal provision for such tenancies, providing clarity and peace of mind. This is not about fixed term tenancies for their own sake.

This is about maintaining illegitimate contract that reflect the flexibility. Enabling the mobility of working age adults across the length and breadth of the nation is essential for economic growth. A modern dynamic workforce needs the freedom to move, to adapt, to pursue opportunities wherever they may arise. Scrapping mutually agreed fixed term tenancies will hinder that mobility. And this has been acknowledged right across your Lordships house. So, in this amendment, I seek to demonstrate that police officers often need to move right across the country, and like many other occupations, they would benefit from a fixed term tenancy.

Relocation can provide officers the chance to expand their skills and I was speaking earlier with my Noble Friend who pointed out that junior doctors, nurses, for example, are retained for specialist training. So, in respect of police officers, I would say that sometimes officers are moved to work on high- profile cases, if they possess particular modifications, for example. Specialist skills are needed right across the country and needed right across the country and need to remain fluid.

Officers move to new rules to expand their own personal experience and we need this mobility and this should apply to police officers and those of all ranks. Diane particularly thinking of provincial officers. Who come to London, for example, to work on the regions here such as counterterrorism. I would ask that the Noble Lady the Minister gives due consideration for this amendment which is vital if we are to maintain a flexible experience and again a police service and on that basis I beg to move.

beg to move.
19:11
Lord Moynihan Portrait Lord Moynihan (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed clause 1 page 1 line 13 at the end insert unless the tenant holds a rank under section 13 police act 1936 when the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tenancy is entered into. My Lords, I rise to move amendment seven standing in my name amendment seven standing in my name which would allow fixed term tenancies for professional sports athletes to continue the Noble Lord the Minister has commented take a the Minister has commented take a statement and knows well that we all proposed legislation through the lens of somebody passionate about sport and promoting the best interests of sport and recreation. I interests of sport and recreation. I declare my interest as a former Minister of sport in another place.

Chairman of the British Olympic Chairman of the British Olympic Association during the run up to London 2012 and during 2012. And possibly, most important, as the lead supporter still celebrating the success yesterday of our promotion back into the Premier League. The relevance of the leak is very relevant because many professional sportsmen and women to whom my Amendment refers include our footballers, our professional footballers. They include professional rugby union players, many of whom are contracts that effectively run from July through to the following June, so the housing is critically important in that context.

And professional athletes and their coaches and people on the contracts that I mentioned in my Amendment are concerned about the ending of fixed term tenancies due to the potential for disruption and uncertainty in their professional and personal lives. Disruption and uncertainty to all of us who are keen on sport are the enemies of reforms. And one thing that we really do need to do and to concentrate on in promoting our professional sportsmen and their interests is to ensure that is not the case in their domestic arrangements and their housing.

Fixed term tenancies can provide a degree of stability and give the mobility often required by their careers and ending these fixed terms, particularly with shorter notice periods, will be challenging for athletes and professional coaches who need to adjust quickly to new locations and potentially face difficulties in findings of double housing, impacting their well-being and impacting their performance. This applies not just to the footballers or the rugby union players but all professional sportsmen, all professional coaches, and their entourage.

And the theory of marginal games comes to mind and is very relevant in this context, or you have got small yet very significant improvements which can lead to substantial results. And one of the key points in that is to have a stable arrangement for your housing that last throughout that contract for a fixed term tenancy, namely in this case one year. So, in summary, my concerns are one, about mobility and career, professional sportsmen are often characterised by frequent moves and fixed term tenancies provide a framework for a predictable schedule, allowing athletes and coaches to establish roots and plan their lives in a stable environment.

Secondly, there is the uncertainty and disruption. The prospect of ending fixed term tenancies, especially with potentially short-term notice periods will create uncertainty. And disruption for those professional sportsmen. This can be particularly challenging for the athletes and the coaches who need to adjust quickly to new locations, potentially facing difficulties finding suitable housing. Thirdly, financial implications, while a fixed term tenancy may provide a degree of stability, the cost of moving and finding new accommodations can be significant. And the uncertainty of ending fixed term tenancies can also impact financial planning.

And, finally, the impact on performance that we mentioned were the stress and disruption associated with moving can affect an athlete or a coaches performance, so finding suitable housing, especially in new areas, can prior time and effort and potentially impacting training and No one benefits from periodic contracts, but professional sport, such a move can and will be disruptive and I argue we must protect the unique needs of protect the unique needs of professional sportsmen and women and these are the reasons I've tabled these are the reasons I've tabled this amendment which I hope will have the support of the Committee and government.

and government.
19:16
Lord Bishop of Manchester Portrait The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)
-
-
I rise to speak to amendment 62 in my name and the name of the Earl of Leicester in this group. It is about occupational housing and I declare an interest. I own a small apartment in the West Midlands which has been let out for quite some time. This makes me that landlord that wants to destroy the bill. That is the last thing I have in mind. These people live in tyred accommodation and I live in a tired palace rather than a tired cottage, but it will only be what I inhabit as I exercise my current office.

That is the scenario for most in religion. It is about the performance of their duty and to live where they are actually working. That is a category accepted by HMRC in terms of taxation, legislation, as a special form of tenure. A large proportion of those who live in tied accommodation do not have the capacity in their working life to save up and provide for themselves and retirement when for themselves and retirement when they have to move out.

I will not benefit from this amendment because I will be able to accommodate myself by other means, the Church of England pension board does each year let out about 50 properties to retiring clergy or sometimes to the spouse or surviving civil partner of a member of the clergy who died in office at a rent of 60% of market value and these properties are made available for clergy to look at any time up to about five years before they retire.

We know that when people retire, they need time to think about where they will live and what community they want to settle and put their roots in because they can reserve a property for a period of time and let it out in the meantime. That will not be possible in the present form. It seeks to make a small change that will allow extra ground for granting procession to accommodate someone moving out of tied accommodation and the person providing the accommodation in retirement is someone closely connected with who they were working for.

It could have been a former employer, officeholders rather than employees, and it will be an appropriate provision. It makes little difference to the availability of rented housing overall. This will not make it impossible for other people to find property to rent because we've heard several times this afternoon there are people who would like to rent for a short period of time and it will be known they will be subject to that clawback when the person who earmarked them retire is.

If the amendment isn't possible, what will happen is it will lie empty for several years until the member of the clergy or farm worker retires into them and it takes properties away from the rental market. But it does make a huge difference to identify where they live and they know that property will be available know that property will be available
19:20
19:21
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. It follows on neatly from our debate on fixed tenancies. Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Moynihan made compelling arguments for why we should permit fixed tenancies for athletes and police officers. The benefits were set out with conviction and clarity and I hope government benches listened. I would prefer that fixed term tenancies continue to be available for everyone. I won't rehearse the argument made earlier today, but does the growing list of amendment seeking exemption highlight the value of fixed term tenancy? Supporting people from all walks of life from athletes to police officers and everyone in between.

Nurses, doctors, students, military personnel and even performers can all benefit from a fixed 10 tenancy. The government should consider these benefits. -- Fixed term tenancy. It risks taking away fixed term lets that serve as a real benefit to many thousands of people. I would like to turn to the Minister amendment 59 tabled by the baroness expands the ground of 5C accounting for police officers. We understand the importance of employers and the need to regain the possession of rented property if the tenancy was linked to employment, and I thank the Minister for setting out the details of the amendment today.

Finally, I wish to note amendment 62 tabled by the Bishop of Manchester and I thank him for the chat we had about this because I had no idea this happened in the Church of England. Enabling a debate for the possession of a House and leaving tied accommodation is welcome and is an important issue as it ensures a landlord who is often the employer can regain possession of a property when needed to House a new employee, but also as is the case of the church of England to allow the church to regain a property required for the retiring property required for the retiring employee as well.

Maintaining the availability of essential employment linked housing is something we must recognise the value of and consider how best to safeguard it in practice. Additionally, we must not discourage landlords from helping tenants such as giving extra time to move out, providing references or
19:25
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
offering alternative housing as we have heard in educational farming or have heard in educational farming or the church. This debate encapsulated the length and depth of the braille the length and depth of the braille -- bill and the areas it covers. A modern dynamic workforce needs to freedom to move, adapt and pursue opportunities wherever they arise and they must have a laser focus on occupational needs when considering any changes to the rental market.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before I respond, could I congratulate Leeds on their promotion to the Premier League. What an achievement and we are all What an achievement and we are all shouting when they got through the other day. Well done to Leeds. I have several close friends who are Leeds supporters who will be Leeds supporters who will be listening to that with interest. I listening to that with interest. I thank those for their amendments and and to Baroness Grender and Baroness Scott for their comments.

These comments on fixed terms and I would start by saying that Baroness Grender is right in highlighting the security of short hold tenancy. They are not secure and I don't accept it is better for tenants to have a fixed tenancy and a periodic tenancy which is theirs entail they do not decide accept that that is the case. To start with amendment 10 and 11 in the name of Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Moynihan, these retain fixed terms where the property is let to a ranking serving police officer and professional athlete.

Similar to amendment seven, the government believes they should not have reduced flexibility and greater financial obligation because of personal circumstances. I'm not convinced there is a case for police officers who put themselves in the frontline of the service of others to benefit any less from the new tenancy regime. I do not think it is made for that. We have heard about provisions of housing and that is why new government amendment 59 to ensure it is available to police forces and others who provide accommodation for officers, allowing for landlords to take ownership in relation to service in the office of constable and the tenancy no longer required for the purpose for which it was granted.

I do not consider it necessary to retain fixed to in addition to this. Needless to say, we want to see the excellent professional athletes of the UK succeed in their endeavours and the whole House is aware of Lord Moynihan and his own sporting achievements and his advocacy and service on behalf of British sport. service on behalf of British sport. It would be a shame with that to lock athletes into fixed terms that would prevent them from moving around the country in pursuit of sporting greatness and we wouldn't want to do that.

If an athlete is in accommodation provided by an employer, 5C would apply and the tenancy could be ended as necessary. Amendment 62 in the name of the Lord Bishop of Manchester seeks to create new grounds for possession and eight letter ana is a landlord to seek possession from an existing tenant to relet it to a former employee of the landlord housed in accommodation tied to their role and it would also apply to other types of workers such as officeholders.

I appreciate the aim of the amendment and following engagement with bishops including the Bishop of Chelmsford, we are sympathetic and understand the church wishes to House retired clergy, however, and after careful consideration, I genuinely believe this should not be at the expense of existing tenants. We created possession grounds to cover situations such as housing employees or evicting tenants in these accommodations and the need for those involved deemed to overall the general principle that renters deserve security of tenure and should be able to put down roots in long-term homes.

A former employee of the landlord marks the bar to overall the general principle that private renters should have secure homes. In order to House the employee, the tenant would need to be evicted through no fault of their own placing them in a position of needing to find a new home and moving the problem around. The current ground does strike a balance and the second proposed ground seeks to look at a tenanted property so it can be relet to a surviving spouse, civil partner or dependent of a person described in the previous who died before they were required to vacate it linked to their role.

I understand they try to help people in these circumstances and this would mean an existing tenant would be evicted through no fault of their own and moving the problem around and creating insecurity for tenants. For these reasons I would ask noble Lords withdraw amendments. I now turn to government amendment 59 which is a technical amendment to ensure possession ground 5C is available to police forces and bodies that arrange accommodation for police officers. For a purpose related to service in the office of constable, this enables the landlord to take possession of the property when the purposeful Ritchie was granted has been fulfilled all the tenancy is no longer required for that purpose.

The amendment is needed because police officers are legally described as serving in the office of constable rather than employee. Without this, it would not be available in providing accommodation to officers in connection with the service and the office of constable. This prevents
19:31
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
police forces from offering tenancy to officers on secondment or assisting with relocation to a new force because otherwise they cannot force because otherwise they cannot be sure they would regain possession if they left the force or the if they left the force or the secondment ended. This is to ensure the ground works as the government the ground works as the government intended it to and I thank amongst others the association of the police and crime commissioners as they and crime commissioners as they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and crime commissioners as they My Lords, I would start by saying I am very good full to the Noble Lord Moynahan for his support and the Bishop of Manchester for his remarks from the clergy. To say that I am disappointed and a little surprised actually that the Noble Lady the Minister does not agree the police officers fall into a particular category, as I say, it is very disappointing, but for the time being anyway I shall consider what the Noble Lady the Minister has said

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and I will therefore beg leave to withdraw my Amendment. Is a geologic special that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment 11, Lord Moynihan. And 12, Amendment 11, Lord Moynihan. And 12, not moved. Amendment 13, Baroness not moved. Amendment 13, Baroness Scott, not moved. The question is that clause once than part of the bill. As many of that opinion, say

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill. As many of that opinion, say content. Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. I beg to move that the House be
19:33
19:33
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, the issue we are debating here today is incredibly serious and we should always remember that at the centre of this debate are hundreds, if not thousands, of victims and children at risk of becoming victims of the horrific crime of child sexual abuse. And it is vital to ensure that discussions we have on this issue should focus on justice for victims of sexual abuse, urgent action to prevent further abuse, and the steps we can take as a country to safeguard members of our community and communicate in no uncertain terms that we will never tolerate these crimes.

The statement delivered in The Other Place before the Easter recess by the safeguarding Minister has raised several questions one point of concern held by many across both houses is the decision to reject calls for the national statutory enquiry into rape guns in favour of five local ones. The detail on these enquiries is vague. It is deeply concerning that months after they were announced we still know almost nothing about them, with only one having been announced. The government's decision to undertake numerous localised enquiries means that there is a risk that the local authorities which provided over the crimes are not held to account, as they should be.

In their own statement, the Government said that they would, and I quote, adopt a flexible approach to support both local enquiries and more bespoke work. Local councils at Bradford are refusing to participate in local enquiries. I want to ask the Noble Lord the Minister how the Government will ensure that all local authorities, including those in Bradford participate fully in these enquiries. We welcome that the Government has decided to continue our policy of the mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse.

Children who are abused need to know that if they come forward they will be heard. Adults and the teacher trust such as teachers and healthcare workers have the capacity to act on behalf of victims to make sure that their abuse can be stopped and those responsible brought to justice. However, it is important to recognise that we need to support those adults that hold these new responsibilities. By nature, the situations that they would be helping to resolve would be highly emotional, stressful, and indeed interests, I therefore want to ask the Noble Lord the Minister how the Government would make sure that these adults are supported in their work of supporting child sexual abuse and how like the children there supporting would be sure that their reports can be taken seriously and their well-being supported.

The National audit group is child sexual expectation and abuse led by the Noble Lady Baroness Casey was announced on 16 January. The Government gave assurances that this report would be concluded within three months. The people across this country have had their faith in the system shaken by stories of this abuse. It has now been more than three months since the report was announced and I must therefore ask the Noble Lord the Minister is a matter of urgency, when will the report be published and can he please name the date by which this final report will be released in writing and that they acted in good faith by publishing the report as soon as possible because it is now overdue.

Finally I want to touch on the point of that fact as in some instances of abuse. It was disappointing that the Government did not engage properly with this issue in the debate that followed in the statement from the House of Commons. It is clear from the patterns of abuse we have observed often connected with coordinated abuse undertaken by gangs that ethnic and religious factors play a key role in characterising the nature of these crimes and who the victims are.

I therefore want to close by asking the Noble Lord the Minister if he accepts that in many cases these crimes will be racially and religiously motivated and help without that enquiry we can understand what part those factors played. Understanding why these crimes were committed, which groups are front abuse and various factors which motivated abusers to which motivated abusers to perpetrate these abhorrent offences perpetrate these abhorrent offences are fundamental to making sure that our next steps to prevent further abuse are as effective as possible.
19:38
Lord Stoneham of Droxford Portrait Lord Stoneham of Droxford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, May I said at Aron as Brinton should be doing this statement and unfortunately she has been unwell. And cannot be with us. From these benches, can I begin by paying tribute to the victims and survivors of child sexual exploitation. Individuals who can offer far to long, were not only not but actively failed by the very institutions made to protect them. Many were treated as offenders rather than victims, police by social services and others and their courage in continuing to demand justice, even after being silenced for years is nothing short of remarkable.

We welcome the government's statement in updating the House on their actions to tackle child sexual abuse and exploitation. It is right that we now see mental after years of delay. Grooming gangs taskforces making arrests in the national by the noble Baroness Lady Casey is under way. These are important steps. But this update also highlights how much time has been lost. It has now been over two years since the final report of the independent enquiry into child sexual abuse was published.

Drawing on over 2 million pages of amendments, the testament of 7,000 victims, and yet the previous Government failed to implement a single recommendation that was a catastrophic failure and it is a failure for which survivors have paid the price. We welcome the progress now been made on the independent enquiries proposals, particularly the inclusion of a new child protection authority and the commitment to mandatory reporting stuff we also support the proposed criminal offence from obstructing someone from making a report, but how will that be implemented? Who will be held to account? And, crucially, will the reporting duty be sent to all relevant institutions and settings, private schools, voluntary groups, where abuse so often leads? On mandatory reporting while the Government now posits legislation through the crime and policing Bill, questions remain.

The duty must be clear, enforceable, and properly resourced. Professionals and volunteers need legal protection when they report and we must see firm consequences for those deliberately obstructing such reports, support for survivors also remains a concern and we welcome the commitment to double funding from national support services in this financial year, but this must be part of a longer term plan, survivors live through this drama for life and the deserved continuity of care, access to therapeutic support under clear properly funded path to justice.

Therefore from these benches we were disappointed by the delay in progressing the national address scheme recommended by the independent enquiry. The scale of this proposal is, indeed, significant, but so too is the suffering it seems to address. I asked the Minister why must survivors wait, yet again, until the Spending Review later this year, surely they have waited long enough, and while we welcome the steps to remove the civil claims we must be diligent that that shift in burden of proof does not get lost in procedural detail.

Victims must not have to endure fresh ordeals simply to secure the justice when they were denied as children. I ask the Minister will all of the independent 20 recommendations be implemented in full and will the newly proposed child protection authority served not just as symbolic but an authority and power to enforce them and hold them to account. Survivors have done their part and they have spoken their trust, often at great personal cost. Now it is time for us to show that we are finally listening and that their suffering was not in vain.

We must ensure that
19:43
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
this review and energy needs not only to new lords and frameworks but to a culture that puts children's to a culture that puts children's safety for the institutional safety for the institutional representation. Careful I am grateful to the noble Lords for their comments on that statement and their comments on that statement and I would like to start by wishing Baroness Brinton well and I look forward to seeing her back in the forward to seeing her back in the case shortly. The Noble Lord Davies case shortly.

The Noble Lord Davies is right. This is a very serious issue, there are some 500,000 victims of child sexual abuse eat yer and that is an enormous amount of victims carrying out further time and the duty of Government is to ensure that we protect those victims and put them in place preventative measures where possible and we hold people who committed those crimes to account and I hope that the government's response to date has shown that is the direction of travel that we are trying to undertake and if I may, I can agree that this is a positive series of actions after a period of delay which I do not hold the Minister, the shadow minister, accountable for, but which I think needs to be reflected upon and we have tried to take action in a strong way since July 4 of last year and that has been indicated by both the response to the recommendations, we have accepted the bulk of those recommendations, and have put in place the bill issues for mandatory reporting and other measures which the Lords mentioned and we have put in place in response to the grooming gangs issue which you were planning to do before Christmas but which was speeded on by offence and which, again, I think has been a positive response and I say to the Noble Lord Davies that one of the response areas we have put in place is the fund of £5 million for local authorities, wherever they may be, to bid against that, and we have established a framework for those bids to ensure that they can, if they wish, undertake enquiries or support into areas of activity in their local area.

He will no that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in January indicated that Bradford would be a priority for that expenditure but all local authorities are able to shortly against that and that I hope again that will help to put in place in preventative measures in areas where local authorities themselves feel that they have failed in their duty to date and whether their need for support or local enquiries accordingly. We have put in place that mandatory reporting measures that were taken.

We have put in place the issues that Lord Stone has mentioned in relation to I think support for victims. There are now for example there are few to support to give support for lifelong impacts on child sexual abuse and we have committed to improving child therapeutic support as a whole and we have also undertaken particular support which I hope the Noble Lord Davies will welcome to ensure that the child sexual abuse review panel can now look at closed cases, even if they happened after 2013.

RNS Casey reports which is mentioned as a three-month report it will be reporting shortly. I cannot give him a date, as yet, but I hope that he will understand that we have sent this report from Baroness Casey, this is a point mentioned that what we want to do is have that early quick review of existing evidence of gangs and that will be brought forward in due course, in very short order, and I look forward to debating and seeing the outcome of that which would be difficult for all involved, but which I think is an important contribution to date.

We have also got, which again touches on both Frontbench points, the independent review of progress in policing response to grooming gangs by his majesties Inspectorate We also put in place the victim fund. It is right and proper to focus on the grooming gangs and the reasons why they happened, but I do not wish to focus on ethnicity but individuals who commit crimes are brought to account and held to account whatever their ethnicity. I hope we share common ground on this.

We shouldn't use the issue of political correctness and challenging the issue of concern raised about grooming gangs. I would like to particularly focus on the tracking down whatever race or gender or sexuality or religion because offenders are offenders. The issue has been raised and needs addressing and that is what we are trying to do with the measures brought forward, but it is important that we don't just say it happens in one community because it doesn't and we need to hold to account all we need to hold to account all The criminal offences we put in the police and crime bill is important and we will discuss it in June or July but we will do so before the summer.

That also gives power for the Home Office responsibility on the report and I would say to noble Lords if we look at the nine months since July fourth which is all I can account for is we put on the agenda responsibilities that established the fund and gives powers to police uncovered areas of abuse and give victims the right to challenge for the reopening of cases and put in place support for local authorities to undertake their own inquiry and we certainly have a national inquiry as the noble Lord mentioned.

The judgement of the government is that we know what the problem is. We have had several years of the report and recommendations and local challenges in certain areas we need to examine. The way forward is to look at how we implement action on the recommendation rather than set an inquiry up that would last still further and probably come to the same conclusion we can make now having had the inquiry before. That is a judgement. It is one I sense the noble Lord disagrees with and that is the judgement of government but I hope it is helpful and I will look in detail in Hansard if there are any issues.
19:50
19:51
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
of the gaps in DBS checks that still exist and as far as I understand it there was a DBS check and whether or there was a DBS check and whether or not Lord Stoneham said there would not Lord Stoneham said there would be a broad enough jurisdiction of charities and faith institutions that may be struggling with safeguarding investigations that safeguarding investigations that would have the authority to intervene in the charities as well as the Church of England and the smaller charities that have oversight functions and faith oversight functions and faith institutions with particular vulnerabilities to do those investigations swiftly and if you envisage the child protection authority would have that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

jurisdiction. I'm grateful for the work they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful for the work they noble Baroness did while in noble Baroness did while in government on this issue. The child protection authority will be established to prioritise vulnerable children by making the child protection system clearer, more protection system clearer, more unified and ensuring ongoing improvement and we will try to do improvement and we will try to do the points the noble Baroness mentioned, and by the end of the mentioned, and by the end of the year which I know seems like a long time, but by the end of the year we will consult on how we establish the child protection authority and what the function of responsibility will be in more detail, but what we have done is respond to the recommendation to establish the authority and it will be done, but
19:53
19:54
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
going on for decades and I think if the Minister could take on board that some of us who are really concerned about places not checked concerned about places not checked regularly for this sort of behaviour is going on knowing that there will is going on knowing that there will be a protection and that is why we didn't understand the culture. Regardless of the faith of ethnicity.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ethnicity. I understand and I hope the Baroness Willis stay with me on this. There is a case for a national inquiry. The view taken is that the recommendation over seven years put to the previous government and now being implemented over the next 12 months by this government, those recommendations are the basis of what would come out of any national inquiry. There are issues and what we try to do is ensure that there is an independent review of policing response in the areas the noble lady mentioned, and if there are issues about how those charges or culture or investigations took place, they can be looked at and it will take place.

There is a pot of money for local authority to determine local response and they can apply for that. We are putting in place a framework shortly. What we are trying to do is ensure that they put up the heart of the contribution to the House tonight because the victims must be served well. What we want to try to do is try not to drag out over a long period of time things we can do now. The Baroness Casey Review will report shortly with immediate responses to what happened in certain local authority areas which will be painful reading undoubtedly and create further debate.

There will be the inspectorate report on the current positions we talked about and in the legislation before the House currently in the House of Commons, on those recommendations will be put forward shortly and in place by the year and preventing future victims. I understand that is why we try to put energy through colleagues and ministers in the House of commons to deliver these outcomes and we are always open to further lessons. It is not the end of the process.

It is ongoing. We must prevent victims to ongoing. We must prevent victims to systematically prevent abuse and hold people who have abused to account.
19:57
19:59
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
immediate solutions like mandatory reporting and the £5 million fund, it sounds like you're talking about a different issue. They are gangs, a different issue. They are gangs, not arbitrary individuals. Just as not arbitrary individuals. Just as they are exactly like child abuse within the church didn't shy away from recognising the specific child from recognising the specific child abuse scandals, I didn't think they abuse scandals, I didn't think they were an abuser. We should not shy away from the particular ethnicity away from the particular ethnicity and religion of these gangs now because it does not mean we are saying all people of that religion or ethnicity are paedophile rapists.

Of course not. But let's not be Of course not. But let's not be frightened to tell the truth.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Since the election, a new child sexual abuse performance framework sexual abuse performance framework is being developed and they put in place legislation on online place legislation on online offending, abuse and grooming on artificial intelligence and put in place new performance powers for place new performance powers for Border Force to detect digitally held child sex abuse is at the held child sex abuse is at the border. We are increasing the investment in law-enforcement capability to police undercover capability to police undercover online network in tackling exploitation programs and that is where we need to develop policy level, put into legislation and now take those matters through close houses of Parliament.

Slowdown it might seem, it is actually from my experience of 14 years of the Minister now and over two sets of government, it is quite a speedy process. By the end of the year, we should have legislation in place to deal with a range of issues being recommended to us and which are important areas that will help prevent and support victims. She mentions mandatory reporting. It is there and was ignored. In the legislation before the House of Commons and seem to be before this House, there will be sanctions against those who failed to undertake mandatory reporting, professional sanctions on those individuals.

That is not the case currently and that is why we strengthen the regime of mandatory reporting because we want to beef it up and hold people to account if they fail to report incidences of And she is right, we should not ignore areas where they are undertaken from particular ethnic minorities. The point I simply made his we should tackle sexual abuse of children wherever it comes from, and if there are particular lessons to be learned about the issue, that is what the cases reportable bring to us very shortly.

That is what the police are looking at now through historical reassessment of the cases and that is what we have asked Hitchin Constabulary to examine as well. Again, I simply say to her there are things that she thinks may not be happening, but I hope she can trust us that there are positive actions being taken by the Government on these issues and there will be further reports backend legislation through this House during the course of the next few

**** Possible New Speaker ****

months. I am grateful for the opportunity to have the short session this evening. I also give evidence in evening. I also give evidence in person, I was an expert witness on person, I was an expert witness on Anglican communities because that was one of the guises in which they was one of the guises in which they had justified his abuse. I want to pick up on the mandatory reporting is that has been referred to
20:02
20:03
20:03
20:04
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
whether it is abuse or colluding whether it is abuse or colluding with a cover up or failing to take a with a cover up or failing to take a disclosure seriously, so I appreciate the Minister's comments and we do have a national redress scheme that there will be some effort to recoup the costs from the effort to recoup the costs from the bodies who were actually responsible for the abuse or covering up the abuse in the first instance, rather abuse in the first instance, rather than simply being a taxpayer that ends up picking it up.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

ends up picking it up. I am grateful to The right honourable gentleman and his approach to the issue. I hope I can reassure him in the sense that I have already had representations from churches and have actually received a delegation from across the religious group at the Home Office to discuss the very issue that he has mentioned about the relationship between the priest, the vicar, and the individual. And I want to explore that. I have given a commitment to, again, discuss that further with those who make contact with me from the churches and we have had submissions on that and, again, we cannot give him definitive final positions today but I hope that we can debate this during the course of the passage of the bill in this House.

I recognise again that the issue of the redress scheme is extremely important. I recognise the victims and survivors will probably be incredibly disappointed that the Government is only available to commit to a redress scheme at this stage. For those who know the internal workings of Government, there is a Spending Review in the current climate stop we have to work through that spending review. I through that spending review. I cannot think of commitment today on that but I hope he knows that it is certainly a recommendation to certainly a recommendation to Government and we will examine and respond in due course.

respond in due course.
20:06
20:07
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
ignored by those adults pushing this agenda who are literally breaking agenda who are literally breaking the law. So, does the Noble Friend the law. So, does the Noble Friend the Minister and his colleague, the Secretary of State for Education, Secretary of State for Education, support these presentations being given in schools? Which I hope they do not. And does he agree with me that those responsible and who have that those responsible and who have notably broken there and knowingly breaking the rush should be immediately removed from their posts and reported to the police?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to the Baroness Fall trying this to our attention. I hope she will understand the Home hope she will understand the Home Office minister, I will not have Office minister, I will not have seen, given sight of the issues she seen, given sight of the issues she has mentioned, but I am grateful to draw her comments today to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the Minister in this House for education, so the are aware of for education, so the are aware of that and I am sure they will follow that and I am sure they will follow with the noble Baroness to the illicit details privately asset of the chamber of the details she has raised so they can examine the detail.

If they are not satisfied to the noble Baroness today but having not seen the material, it sounds horrendous but having not seen the material I cannot hop into detail if it is referred to those again.
20:08
20:13
None Portrait Legislation: Renters' Rights Bill - committee stage (day 1) continued
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

House House tipping House tipping again House tipping again in House tipping again in committee

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House tipping again in committee on the renters rights Bill, Baroness
20:13
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Taylor of Stevenage. I beg to move that the House do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into a committee upon the bill. The question is that the House do now resolve itself into the House do now resolve itself into a committee upon the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not "Content", Of the contrary, "Not 14, Baroness Scott of Bybrook.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 14, 66 and 67 standing in amendment 14, 66 and 67 standing in my name. Antisocial behaviour is a scourge on our communities, but particularly devastating from a particularly devastating from a housing perspective. Quite often antisocial behaviour replaces antisocial behaviour replaces productive community spirit with fear and tension, leading to fear and tension, leading to residents feeling trapped and helpless. Antisocial behaviour strips away the very essence of what makes a house a home.

It is often forgotten the consequences of antisocial behaviour. The costs of repairing damage, the need to enhance and increase security measures, and the day-to-day administration involved in responding to complaints from neighbours. And the all places significant and often unsustainable financial strain on housing associations, local authorities, and associations, local authorities, and landlords across the country. As currently drafted, the bill reduces the powers available to local authorities and Social Housing Act landlords in cases where tenants are responsible for antisocial behaviour.

Amendment 14 tabled in my name seeks to preserve the ability of landlords to demote tenancies in response to such behaviour. Loud noise, vandalism, and intimidation leaves residents helpless and local authorities must have the power to uphold community stability without the detriment and demotion, how can the Government ensure that there are consequences for this ruinous behaviour? Turning to amendment 66, tabled in my name, and probing the government's objectives in creating a duty on the court to consider an equal between the tenant against whom an order is sought, on these benches, we wish to understand the real-world impact of this change.

I asked the noble Baroness the Minister what constitutes the Answering a call or displaying a serious and notable change in behaviour. Is this a requirement for engagement or a requirement for practical steps to prevent antisocial in the future? Finally, I would like to speak to amendment 67. It probes the government reasoning for applying consideration of the past impact of behaviour in cases involving shared HMO accommodation, but not the continuing impact or future effects of repeated behaviour.

We believe this amendment offers a straightforward improvement to the drafting of the bill. The same consideration of impact against other persons under the 19 ATH act should apply equally to those sharing HMO accommodation or facility. We struggle to understand why the government chose to apply only subsection to a -- 2A in this instance and does the Minister agree that the ongoing impact of behaviour really matters? It may be an honest drafting oversight, but we believe the government should apply the whole subsection here.

As I noted today legislation is technical and detailed and where we believe we can hope to amend for accuracy, I hope to put amendments forward for debate. Antisocial is a scourge on our communities and landlords should have access to tougher powers to tackle this. Those with experience in local government will be well aware that when a tenant engages in antisocial it is the landlord that faces enforcement action from the council and that the landlord must be equipped with the necessary power to respond effectively and I asked the Minister has the government thought this through? The impact of antisocial behaviour, past present and future, and community trust and increase cost.

The home secretary in the other place spoke strongly about tackling antisocial. This should align with the government rhetoric and address the effects head-on. Antisocial behaviourism ruinous to people's lives when a person returns home at the end of the day they should feel safe. When you remove the deterrent of demotion, we risk sending a dangerous message, a disruptive harmful behaviour carrying no real consequence. In doing so, we feel suffering impact and those that might otherwise be guided back to a more responsible path.

path.
20:19
Baroness Eaton Portrait Baroness Eaton (Conservative)
-
-
Clause 2, line 2, leave after paragraph a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I stand to speak in support of amendment 14 tabled by Baroness amendment 14 tabled by Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Lord Jamieson. To leave out paragraph letter a, To leave out paragraph letter a, line 30, on clause 2 to allow the rights of housing associations to issue demotion orders. Local issue demotion orders. Local authorities have the duty to ensure fairness for social tenants and the fairness for social tenants and the steps taken in this bill to restrict local authorities in housing associations in their use of demotion orders is wrong and unnecessary.

The reality is that a small minority of tenants cause misery to other tenants who antisocial. A report from Nottingham Trent University in 2018 suggested that 30% of social housing tenants are more likely to come across antisocial, crime and drug dealing. Likewise, social housing rested and survey report from 2022 found 26% of the social rent has been impacted by antisocial. Local authority and housing associations are already severely restricted in the action they can take over small minorities of tenants who cause misery from other tenants who are law-abiding and play by the rules.

Housing associations will see a debilitating effect on antisocial and they do not collect data on those orders issued to social housing tenants and they must see how much of an issue this is at present. I hope the government will accept amendment 14 given that it is an instrument used by housing it is an instrument used by housing associations as the treatment of last resort. last resort.
20:21
20:24
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
housing Federation listed it as a key concern. That of itself perhaps key concern. That of itself perhaps tells me how much of an issue it is, tells me how much of an issue it is, but I would want to support and I know how difficult this is and it is most likely to be the one that comes most likely to be the one that comes up most in certain areas. up most in certain areas.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank Lady Scott for the amendments relating to antisocial baby and I agree with the statement baby and I agree with the statement that she made that as a counsellor I saw first-hand the misery caused to saw first-hand the misery caused to individuals and communities through individuals and communities through the irresponsible actions of others and I don't understand the and I don't understand the provisions to tackle it. Amendment 14, introducing the landlord ability to include the demotion following antisocial of a tenant and it seeks to enable landlord to demote tenants to a secure form of tenancy because of antisocial.

The Renters' Rights Bill will move tenant to a simple tenancy structure where assured short hold tenancy evicts short hold tenants as they demote tenants and it would require a reversal of measures in the bill to demote tenancy and ensured short hold tenancy and that is the issue as drafted. I would like to reassure the noble Baroness that tackling antisocial is a top priority for the government in the Safer Streets Fund the mission. With landlords making claims to the court immediately in cases of antisocial.

In addition the bill also amends that judges must consider if they award possession under discretionary ground. This ensures judges give particular regard to where tenants engage with efforts to resolve behaviour and efforts to resolve behaviour and impact on those within the HMO. I would also add the positive changes the bill makes towards tackling antisocial within the rental sector, we will crackdown on those making neighbourhoods feel unsafe and unwelcoming by introducing the new respect order as they will be able to apply and with persistent adult offenders and those changes ensure the needs of victims are at the heart of the response and that is what is important.

Too often victims feel the power is on the side of those committing the antisocial and not on the side of victims and it not on the side of victims and it cannot carry on. The bill introduces reforms to the assured tenancy framework which applies to the private rented sector and private private rented sector and private registered provider of social housing regime and the vast majority are secure lifetime tenants and they have already enjoyed the highest security of tenure.

Local authority landlords have existing powers including eviction grants similar to Renters' Rights Bill. For these reasons, and the point is taken from Baroness Thornhill about the further information of evidence in the way the bar is to be set and the activity, and we will come back to you on that one. We feel the amendment is not needed and we kindly ask that the amendment be withdrawn. Turning to amendment 66 that looks at the requirement imposed on judges to give a particular consideration to a tenant against whom a possession order is sought underground 14 for antisocial whether they engaged with attempts by the landlord to resolve the behaviour.

This change represents the wrong approach. Firstly, the government believes landlords should attempt to resolve Matic behaviour issues with tenants before attempting to evict them. By directing courts to consider if a tenant engaged when these efforts and landlord will be incentivised to make them. It is right that the court give particular consideration to whether a tenant engaged with the terms to resolve behaviour so the courts may be more likely to evict a tenant who has for example been disruptive throughout the process.

Where they have shown willingness to engage constructively it is right the court consider this factor and it is for those reasons we introduced the requirement. Turning to amendment 67, also tabled by Baroness Scott, the amendment seeks to expand the factors that the court is specifically directed to consider when deciding if they make an order for possession against a tenant in a House of multiple occupancy for antisocial. Currently it will be directed in particular consideration for the past impact of tenant behaviour on the fellow HMO tenant in recognition of the increased impact antisocial can have when victims share facilities and live in close proximity with the perpetrator as the noble lady mentioned.

Judges will consider all factors relevant and will be directed generally to have consideration for the future have consideration for the future ongoing impact of that behaviour. As such we do not think that this is necessary to change the intended effect. We are grateful for this to effect. We are grateful for this to be flagged and we would like the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment. amendment.
20:30
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to thank the noble Baroness eating, Baroness Thornhill and all of those from local government as they understand antisocial over many years and the effect it can have. On these benches, we recognise that what is often described as antisocial may be a symptom of deeper complex personal struggles and it deserves serious compassion and attention. And it is important the government is looking at the issue surrounding antisocial and I am interested in and I do not need an answer tonight, but the bolstering of the capability of support services within local government to ensure intervention can give people a real chance to turn things around before it gets to turn things around before it gets to While we understand the course we always have to never lose site of the effect, the burdens of an individuals personal difficulties, however real and profound they are, should not fall upon their neighbours, nor upon the wider community.

To have to put up with what you deal with. Why should those living beside them be expected to simply endure the consequences, their daily lives can be diminished or even ruined were waiting for long-term interventions to take effect, sympathy must not be mistaken for consent and I think communities have the right, I know communities have the right to safety and peace and stability in their homes as well. A balanced system must protect both and the individual in need of help and the community in need of protection.

Maybe what I'm saying is it is a wider issue than just this bill, but compassion and accountability must go hand-in-hand, if you overlook either of them you are doing a disservice to the community that we are all trying to serve and look after. I still think, I still believe there are possibly needs to be looked at that there are the local authority has more tools in the toolbox to deal with this important issue. Antisocial behaviour as we have said can be absolutely ruinous to communities and individuals simply wanting to get on with their lives and be stopped in their tracks, I've seen it myself.

In certain communities. Social housing providers should have access to tougher powers, as should private renters, rented landlords Of demotion in our opinion or eviction will send a clear and dangerous signal that such behaviour will be tolerated, no matter what harm it causes our communities. But with saying that tonight I would like to withdraw my amendment.
20:33
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Is at your lodge is pleasure that this amendment is withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. -- Your Lordships pleasure. Amendment 15.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is my first speech to date so I would like to take the opportunity to thank the noble Lady opportunity to thank the noble Lady and her team brought the discussion and her team brought the discussion so far, speaking of which, I am rising to support the fundamental principles underlining, underpinning this legislation, particularly the this legislation, particularly the long overdue abolition of sex in 21 no fault of actions, change that as we have heard cannot come soon enough for countless renters across the country.

However, as we work to create a much fairer and more secure private renters centre -- sector we are also hugely aware on these benches of the pressing need to increase the supply of high quality rental homes. For that reason we have tabled amendment 15 which aims to be very specific in targeting, adding a temporary exemption to AST to short old tenancies, particularly for provision allowing for a short short old tenancies for a period of six months for premises as current tenants of the first tenants since the construction of the premises.

This is a carefully considered proposal designed to support the laudable aims of this bill by incentivising the creation of much- needed you run. -- Stock. My honourable friend in the House of Commons and noble Lords in these benches have tabled, have consistently championed the cause of increasing housing supply, particularly through new innovative models such as Bill to rent accommodation. It's highlighting the urgent need to restore hope to millions aspiring to a decent home after decades of decline in social housing provision and indeed, ours was the only manifesto with a direct target of 150,000 new social homes to rent, vital underpinning building block to change the lack of balance in 10 years to match, and accommodate, the desperate need that has become at A-level of crisis today.

My colleague Gideon Amos tabled an amendment in the House of Commons that would have specifically incentivised more build to rent accommodation by offering a degree of initial security for developers. While that original amendment post was for and longer initial term of about two years, the underlying principle remains the same. New developments, particularly in the bill to rent sector, require a certain degree of certainty. We've heard directly from the British Property Federation which is the representative body for the bill to rent -- build to rent sector they've increased the certainty of rental income for institutional investors developing these new homes and they have engaged with us and our colleagues in the Commons on a similar amendment and explicitly stated their support for the general thrust of this.

It supports the new supply of rental housing, and they said that six months would be adequate time. In order to incentivise investment in new construction and build to rent. I would like to thank the British Property Federation for the engagement and advice specifically on this issue. This proposed six- month short short hold, having in the previous group explained why I think AST's are not very secure, is a one-off exemption that would genuinely offer a limited period uncertainty for developers in order to encourage them to build.

That is what we are aiming for here, it's a very narrowly defined exemption, it applies only to properties being let for the very first time after the construction, it doesn't affect existing tenancies or undermine the core principles of abolishing no fault of actions, for the vast majority of renters which we strongly support, indeed by encouraging the creation of new rental homes we believe that this is a small, modest, but a useful way of ultimately expanding the options available to renters and contributing to a better balance in the market.

It is so modest unlike other amendments we have heard today, that build to rent is currently estimated to be around 0.1% of the overall housing stock. So we believe it would have minimal impact on the much broader move towards periodic tenancies, and obviously therefore it is probably appropriate at this point that I say we would have course not support clause to stand apart amendment also in this group because we agree with the broad principles. This approach does recognise the practical realities of bringing new developments to market.

In conclusion, while we rightly focus on enhancing security and rights for existing renters we must not Lucite of the fundamental need to find ways to increase supply of decent homes, this is what we are attempting to do with this amendment. We believe this will act as a catalyst for increased investment in new rental properties are ultimately benefiting renters by providing more choice and contributing to a more sustainable and responsive housing market. I
20:40
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
urge minister and noble Lords to give this proposal very careful consideration and we would be more than happy to do further work if than happy to do further work if this is not exactly to order, but we this is not exactly to order, but we do believe there is some opportunity here to try and at least encourage a bit more supply in the market sector, even if we don't entirely sector, even if we don't entirely agree with all the suggestions that the whole market will suddenly disappear in the wake of this bill.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

With that I beg to move. Amendment proposed, leave out clause 2 and insert the following new clause is printed on the marshalled List. marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

marshalled List. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing the amendment to allow short-term tenancies to continue for six months tenancies to continue for six months after a premises constructed. The noble Baronesses highlighted the fundamental importance of increasing fundamental importance of increasing the supply of rented properties and her case is compelling and in the her case is compelling and in the this amendment would allow support for newly constructed properties through providing greater certainty for investors in the property.

Additionally it is often true that new properties have periods of vacancy while long-term let's are secured. We must consider evaluate and listen to all solutions that will ensure liveable accommodation is not left empty and that helps develop a stable and thriving community. I am thankful that Baroness brought this discussion to the attention of the House. However I wish to probe more widely as to why the government is seeking to abolish assured short hold lent tenancies therefore I wish to speak to my probing and amendment stand part clause 2.

The short-term rental market supports job mobility, special industries which require relocation or even temporary positions. Enabling the mobility of working age adults to reach the depth and breadth of the United Kingdom is vital for economic growth. The modern workforce requires flexibility, the ability to move, adapt and police opportunities wherever they may arise. By discouraging the ebon flow of economic activity we discourage the labour market flexibility required for an expanding economy. Jobs must follow their demand, not be restrained by the state removing the option of a short-term tenancy.

The economic argument is compelling, so is the practical one. Individuals undertaking a home renovation or experiencing valour -- family breakdown short-term tenancies not only provide a practical solution, they also allow for important reprieve to allow people to escape the chaos of building works or rebuild new life without taste. -- Haste. Has the government considered the benefits of shorthaul tenancies on the tenant? Has the Minister considered both economic and practical benefits of their existence? With this bill the government are overseeing a huge change to the rental market.

Can the Minister please set out the impact on long-term housing pressures as a result of this ban? Markets with soaring demand and low capacity is not the case that short-term tenancies can alleviate some of the tenancies can alleviate some of the pressures tenants face? The government has been consistent in highlighting the perceived drawbacks of short-term tenancies. Of course with any housing arrangement there will inevitably be aspects that are less than desirable. Depending on one's individual circumstances, but in identifying these challenges it is only right that the government also acknowledges and weighs the very real and tangible benefits that short-term tenancies offer too many short-term tenancies offer too many others.

Then as has been mentioned previously by other noble Lords, expand the availability of housing which might otherwise remain empty. A decision to impose outright ban is in effect the most extreme course of action, the so-called nuclear option. From these benches we cannot
20:44
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
help but wonder whether sufficient consideration was given to consideration was given to alternative or balanced solutions that might have addressed the concerns identified while still preserving the flexibility and choice that short-term tenancies choice that short-term tenancies provide for so many. I hope the Minister will carefully reflect on Minister will carefully reflect on these benefits and acknowledge the convenience of shorthaul tenancies as well as the key role they play in as well as the key role they play in enabling economic mobility and the use of homes which might otherwise remain empty.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank Lady Grender and Lady Scott for their amendments and the noble for their amendments and the noble Lords are moving the amendment -- for moving the moment the Baroness for moving the moment the Baroness Regime in section 21 mean millions Regime in section 21 mean millions of tenants live with the knowledge they could be uprooted that the home with little notice. Some of these end up living in substandard properties for fear of retaliatory action and eviction should they complain.

This is embedded to chronic insecurity into the private rented sector. It affects both tenancy want a stable home and the many good landlords who operate professionally but are undercut by rogue landlords. It's a drain on aspiration and prevents tenants from having the chance to achieve their potential. Removing the section 21 is critical to giving renters greater security and stability. They will be able to stay in their homes for longer and avoid the risk of homelessness. There will also have the confidence to challenge poor practice and unjust rent increases.

Clause 2 therefore removes the assured short hold tenancy regime and in doing so, abolishes section 21 as well. In future all tenancies will be assured, landlords will only be able to take back possession where they use one of the statutory grounds and tenants will be able to challenge an eviction in court if they feel the ground is not being used legitimately. This will encourage landlords to respond to tenants concerns and seek to resolve This simpler single system will ensure both parties understand their rights and responsibilities and feel confident in exercising them.

Many arguments I've made will be deeply familiar to noble lords on the benches opposite with the opposition having made them here many times. We heard a bit about conversions earlier on and it is regrettable we seem to have a reversal in here and in opposition of the abolition of section 21. I needn't remind the opposition benches that this was a policy first proposed in 2019 which endured for conservative Prime Minister's. This government will stand firm, section 21 has loomed over tenant for far too long and we will be the ones to finally abolish it.

In terms of amendment 15 which seeks to retain assured short hold tendencies -- tenancies, they will be allowed for the first six months of the tenancy. I'm afraid the government will not support any amendment which seeks to retain those for any purpose. In future, tenants should not be evicted from their homes unless landlords can establish a reason for that eviction by way of a statutory possession ground. They must be provided with a reason for eviction and they must have the opportunity to challenge that reason in court.

Of course I agree with the Baron asked that we need to drive forward with the increase in housing supply -- Baron asked. Especially as I mentioned often in your Lordships House, the need for the biggest increase in social and affordable housing for a generation. We are straining every sin you to make that happen, including the 1.5 million homes we have set as our target. I do not accept it is fair to penalise some tenants because they are living in a new build.

The supply of homes is a priority for this government but not at the cost of rent or security. The growth of Vilde to rent is important for the private rental sector. I agree with what the noble Baroness said about that, it boosts supply and increases choices for renters in cities and towns across England the noble Lord raised this issue as well. We are working with the build to rent sector to increase supply are more appropriate and I would suggest Farrar route outlined in this amendment.

While we understand the laudable aim of the amendment I would ask them to withdraw the amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could I test out the question... What we are trying to achieve with What we are trying to achieve with this amendment is a fixed time that is guaranteed to a developer and we is guaranteed to a developer and we have been given some sense from authoritative bodies in this sector authoritative bodies in this sector that some kind of guarantee of that time period, that does not necessarily mean section 21 needs to remain. Or is that her firm belief remain.

Or is that her firm belief that you cannot in some way have a fixed period of time that is given to a developer in order to encourage construction but without the element

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of section 21 there? I think we don't want to see the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think we don't want to see the section 21 in place for this. We are talking to the build to rent sector about the issues they believe they about the issues they believe they are facing. I genuinely believe that if somebody is going to be evicted from a property, there must be a from a property, there must be a reason why they are evicted. We have
20:50
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
reason why they are evicted. We have provided the grounds in the bill why people can be evicted. When I come back to the House on this I will update noble lords on the work we're doing with the build to rent sector to increase supply and I think there are fairer ways of doing that than continuing to impose section 21 evictions on people just because they happen to have moved into a new build property.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the Minister and the noble Lord for participating in the noble Lord for participating in the short book quality debate. We will short book quality debate. We will go back to our drawing board on this because we think it is a way of delivering instruction. We believe we can get to a point where this is we can get to a point where this is done without section 21 being part of this. That was the intention of of this.

That was the intention of this amendment. If the amendment has an achieve that then we will go back and take a look at it again. But we do believe there must be some ways of providing some kind of incentive to increase supply and very modest ones, nothing about wrecking the bill or taking 85% of landlords out of the equation. This is a modest approach and therefore we will try to take another look at this because we believe this can proceed without section 21 being imposed.

The noble Baroness the Minister clearly doesn't and therefore we will go back to the drawing board. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. Is your lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? It is by amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. The question is that clause to stand part of the bill. As many as are of that bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it. I beg to move that the House be resumed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

resumed. The question is that the House be resumed. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The I beg to move that this House do now adjourn.
20:58
20:58
20:58
20:58
20:58
20:58
20:58
21:00
21:01
21:02
21:02
21:03
21:04
21:04
21:05
21:05
21:06
21:07
21:07
21:07
None Portrait Oral questions: Manifesto commitments to introduce the Hillsborough Law
-

21:08
21:08
21:09
21:10
21:10
21:11
21:11
21:12
21:13
21:13
21:13
21:14
21:15
21:15
21:15
21:16
21:16
21:17
21:18
21:20
None Portrait Legislation: Renters' Rights Bill - committee stage (day 1)
-

21:20
21:21
None Portrait Government Whip Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-

This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page