Lords Chamber

Monday 28th April 2025

(began 7 months ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:39
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:41
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
Data shows that self-harm is most common amongst 15 to 24-year-olds, and particularly young women. And as we have already heard, there are so many challenges accessing their mental health support that young people need that often they cannot get it before their mental health problems get worse, so could the Minister say, and she has already referred to the rollout of the young futures heart, when will there be such a harm in every local area to ensure young people can access the support they need at the earliest signs of emerging mental health

**** Possible New Speaker ****

problems? Well the Noble Lady is quite right to refer to the fact that it right to refer to the fact that it is an acceptable to many children and young people not receiving the mental healthcare that they need and our determination to change that, as our determination to change that, as the Noble Lady says, is about the Noble Lady says, is about rolling out young future hopes and communities. We are at an early stage for developing the plans and I stage for developing the plans and I very much look forward to continuing to work across the Government to deliver this and also to update your Lordships house.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

There are overwhelming numbers of so-called sex extortion cases, targeting teenagers who have targeting teenagers who have tragically gone undertake their own lives. Is the noble Baroness the Minister whether the Government is working with schools to tackle the stigma that children sadly feel and stigma that children sadly feel and given that confidence to report this abuse?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

abuse? The Noble Lady lady makes a very strong observation. Currently under strong observation. Currently under review is the relationship sex and health education statutory guidance and we are working closely with the Department of education in that review. And I just reemphasised review. And I just reemphasised again about the funding of the multicentre study of self-harm, I do believe their workers vital to believe their workers vital to getting to the core of the issues that the Noble Lady raises.

 My Lords, the Minister will, I do agree, that self-harm needs to be taken very seriously indeed. And access to child adolescent mental health services has actually gotten worse. I am told, and I hope it is wrong, that some parts of the country, the access is delayed for more than one year. Could the Minister sure the House that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

has been addressed? I can indeed assure the Noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I can indeed assure the Noble Lord and your Lordships house that it is being addressed and I it is being addressed and I recognise the situation that the recognise the situation that the Noble law refers to an I could add to that. Early intervention on to that. Early intervention on mental health is absolutely vital if we do want to stop young people from reaching crisis support and following on from my previous answer there is no doubt that schools and
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:52
14:53
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
effectiveness are hugely important. The current short enquiry, whose invitations to submit evidence has just closed, will need a radical new approach and not every organisation will get funding support even though they have in the past. How does the government plan to manage quality government plan to manage quality applications for funding and any transition for unsuccessful applicants and even more importantly, the support services that they are able to access, even

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now? I'm grateful to the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the noble Baroness. Again, the government is developing a violence against women and girls strategy currently. You hoping to produce that during the summer at the very latest. We have increased the funding overall by increased the funding overall by some 36% to 100 million. We are looking at how that resources looking at how that resources allocated. No decisions were made this year because of the issues around the Spending Review to ensure around the Spending Review to ensure we can do exactly what the noble Baroness wants, which is ensure organisations have stability, know what expenditure is coming downstream and are not left in the lurch in relation to a loss of lurch in relation to a loss of services.

We are in a period of services. We are in a period of flock. The government's intention is extremely clear, to halve the level of violence against women and girls over a 10 year period and the over a 10 year period and the funding has been put in did begin that process this year.
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:23
None Portrait Urgent Question Repeat: London Sudan Conference
-

15:23
15:24
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
been internally displaced, millions more have been forced to flee as refugees, tens of thousands have been killed, as a result of the awful violence in the region which seems often designed to cause innocent people as much suffering as possible. Could the Minister please give us an update on how the conference went and could she assure us that the UK will continue to work with international community to ensure that the abhorrent atrocities that are currently being committed by both sides in Sudan are documented, for the perpetrators of the awful crimes to be held account in the future.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank the noble Lord for his agreement with us about the nature of the conflict in Sudan and nature of the conflict in Sudan and as he quite rightly said, the horrific impact this is having on horrific impact this is having on civilians not least of all women and very young children who have been very young children who have been subject to the most violent sexual attacks. I can assure him that we attacks. I can assure him that we will continue to do everything we can to bring about peaceful can to bring about peaceful resolution to this conflict, difficult though that undoubtedly is.

Conference that we held in London during recess involved Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, South Sudan, chat, can you, Ethiopia, Uganda, as well as Norway, Canada, USA, Switzerland the UA and the
15:25
15:26
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
the... Against hunger. I welcome the focus the government is giving but Minister will be aware of the Minister will be aware of the critical need to scale up this critical need to scale up this humanitarian response, before the rainy season starts in June when humanitarian access will become even more difficult. In that context, could you expand another conference could you expand another conference will include specific outcomes on haematoma access, what the next steps are pulling the conference, and how the government will ensure that the additional and welcome humanitarian funding announced will get to the agencies on the ground as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

swiftly as possible? I thank the noble Lord for raising the important issue of access for humanitarian support and access for humanitarian support and for aid. The conference, it wasn't designed as a pleasuring conference to raise money but was designed to instigate raising money to support instigate raising money to support him and Terry were, in Sudan and for those who have been displaced, there those who have been displaced, there are many people, as he will know who are living in neighbouring countries in very difficult conditions themselves and the safety of aid workers, the access for aid, the protection of civilians, those are protection of civilians, those are the three things that were agreed at the conference.

And we commit to continuing to work to improve the situation on the ground, difficult though that is.
15:28
15:28
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
Last week I attended a meeting of the Parliamentary group on women, Peace and Security Forum member on the subject of sexual and gender- based violence in Sudan. Panellists expressed their foster racial and the absence of Sudanese civil society actors at the conference. Given that CD is half of expressed to supporting civil society in such engagement how will the government incorporate their voices in future

**** Possible New Speaker ****

diplomatic initiatives? That's a very good point. This is not our only effort. The conference, it was a one-day event and it was focused on representatives from government but I myself met leading women's civil society activists from Sudan very recently. He is right Sudan very recently. He is right that their voices, they are often that their voices, they are often the very best organisations with which to engage, because it is such a difficult context when it comes to getting support into Sudan.

And we know that it is almost always women who bear the brunt in these situations and it's vital that we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

continue to be reminded of that. My Lords, there was much mention

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, there was much mention at the conference, with the at the conference, with the statement that came out of it, about a rejection of external interference but there were people there who are externally interfering. The United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and it seems Arab Emirates, Egypt, and it seems to me that although the focus is on humanitarian access, is actually humanitarian access, is actually right, is the problem of gold as well. And that the conflict is being fuelled by the economic element of ownership and extraction of gold.

Does the government have any plans to approach the economic benefits to the warring parties, as a way of stopping the conflict itself?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think as many in this chamber

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think as many in this chamber who have followed not just the events in Sudan but conflicts throughout recent history, will throughout recent history, will appreciate, often it is the good
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
warring parties should be using that influence to bring the conflict to a peaceful conclusion. I very happy to peaceful conclusion. I very happy to look into reports that I was not aware of that he just raised of very aware of that he just raised of very recent offence and I happy to look into that and get back to him about it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it. My Lords, is the Minister concerned that there was no contact group set out for the conflict after the conference? And she also can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tell the House about what she has made of the withdrawal of USAID support. Clearly the withdrawal of the USA

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clearly the withdrawal of the USA support is having an impact in very many races around the world. We are many races around the world. We are doing what we can. At one of the outcomes from the conference, outcomes from the conference, although it was not the young of the conference, was that £100 million was raised, so that is positive, but was raised, so that is positive, but he is absolutely right to raise the impact of the withdrawal of the impact of the withdrawal of the USAID as well.

I think it is a mistake to look at the test or failure of the conference such as the one that we lead which is about was there an agreed statement? Was there a contact? Clearly, ideally, yes, you would have those things, but let's be realistic and if that did become the test than I would venture to say that fewer leaders would take the steps that our Foreign Secretary did because this is protracted, long-standing, is protracted, long-standing, fiendishly difficult to resolve, but our Foreign Secretary because deeply about it and wants to use his about it and wants to use his convening power to make progress.

That is what he has done and that is what he will continue to do.
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:35
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
Government action continuing the work that we started in Government in full support and solidarity with the of the Ukraine. This morning we received an announcement from Putin of another temporary ceasefire on time will tell whether this is just another cynical Russian delay tactic. We will be interested in the Governments views on this development. Also, cut the Noble Lady update the House on the regress of the so-called coalition of the willing, it seems to have gone quiet recently. Is this an issue that is still progressing? And what role

**** Possible New Speaker ****

does she see it playing in any eventual peace settlement? I would just like to begin by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would just like to begin by thanking that noble Lords for again stating his support of the stating his support of the Government on the issue of Ukraine. Government on the issue of Ukraine. We thank him for that. Putin, what do we think about his claims for the do we think about his claims for the ceasefire? There was an option open to negotiate leadership which would lead to a ceasefire immediately. lead to a ceasefire immediately. They do not have to miss any particular day or in a few days time.

They could do that now. They have a ceasefire that they said they were going to have an Easter, we can find new evidence of that. I would say that we are sceptical about this. On the coalition it is the right approach, in something that continues. We do not comment or do continues. We do not comment or do commentary on every piece of negotiation or diplomacy that there is, we completely understand why that is, but it is the case that this Government and full credit to this Government and full credit to the opposition, they remain steadfast in our support of Ukraine.
15:37
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:42
15:43
15:43
15:43
15:44
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-

**** New Speaker ****

It is understandable that the Minister cannot say too much about the coalition willingly but one thing is very clear, we do need feet on the ground in due course for police in Ukraine. Could the noble Minister said that we might start giving some thought to how we can raise the additional resources that will be needed there and can we give some thought to how we approach it? Maybe we should be talking about a peace accord and peace groups, rather than altars and that might find it more able to attract people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would remind noble Lords of the announcement that was made some announcement that was made some weeks ago now about increasing defence spending at the expense of defence spending at the expense of my own budget in overseas my own budget in overseas development, so we are putting the additional resources into defence, and I think it is right that we do and I think it is right that we do that at this time, because we do need to stand ready to do what we need to do in order to support Ukraine and clearly that is not just about people, that is about technology, cyber security, securing undersea cables, it is about the whole modern defence offer that looks very different to what it may looks very different to what it may have looked in the past, but he is have looked in the past, but he is right to remind us that this is a long-standing commitment and we have just recently agreed 100 year partnership with Ukraine.
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:47
15:47
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
to remind the House again of the protocol around declaring interests, as I mentioned last week, noble Lord should declare relevant interests stage of proceedings on the bill. That means at committee stage relevant interest should be declared during the first group in which the noble Lord speak. If noble Lord declared an interest during the last two days of committee, that is sufficient but if this is your first contribution and any relevant interest should be declared in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

brief way. My Lords, I rise to speak to this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to this group of amendments and thank my noble friends Lord Young of Cookham and the noble and learned Lord Lord and the noble and learned Lord Lord Etherton as well as noble Baroness Baroness Thornhill for the Baroness Thornhill for the amendments. My Lords, before I get into the substance of this debate, I into the substance of this debate, I would like to issue a plea. I hope the noble Baroness the Minister knows that I have the utmost respect for her, but so far in committee, we have been disappointed with the responses we have been receiving to our debates and our amendments.

I can see in good conscience that when I sat in her street on her side of the chamber, I treated every amendment put before me with respect, often taking issues back to the Department to consider and where possible making changes. That is because I understood that it will the role of the House of Lords to scrutinise, revise and improve adulation. Unfortunately, it doesn't feel like this is to happening. Questions go unanswered, and suggestions are dismissed without sufficient consideration.

This House has always been more about reason and substance, then blind physical ideology, and I would hope that the ideology, and I would hope that the noble Baroness Lister could approach the debates going forward, I know full well you cannot always have the answers at your fingertips and I am very happy to have a written answers on points of details. But I do ask the noble Baroness the Ministers, please treat our House and our suggestions seriously in the nature that they are intended.

This group addresses a critical issue, that will determine the success or failure of this bill. The capacity of our courts to deliver it. Let me say from the outset, we fully support the ambition to strengthen, security and fairness in the private rented sector. That commitment was made clear in the previous Renters (Reform) Bill. Within that bill the previous Conservative government set out that section 21 would not be abolished and teen meaningful reform had been undertaken -- until.

An sufficient progress achieved. Such caution was not merely prudent, it was essential. Considering challenges facing our court system. This bill abandons the careful sequencing we set out under the previous Renters (Reform) Bill. Under our approach section 21 would not have acknowledged until meaning improvements have been made to His Majesty court and tribunal service. We also committed to a six month implementation period for new tenancies to ensure the system could cope. These safeguards were not incidental, they were essential.

But in this bill, though safeguards are gone. There is no clear commitment to our grade court capacity before abolishing section 21 and no phased rollout to protect the system from being overwhelmed. As a result we face a real risk that our courts will be asked to carry out far more demanding role without the necessary resources, reforms or readiness. The ambition of the renters Wrightsville is commendable -- the renters rights bill. This legislation will play significant demands on our already stretched courts and tribunals system.

If we press ahead without ensuring that the system is properly resourced, modernised and fully functional, we risk undermining the very objectives that the bill sets out to achieve. Tenants and landlords alike need a process they can trust, one that is timely, fair and accessible. Without that, this reform will falter at the first hurdle. Let's be clear, about the scale of what we are asking the court to do under this legislation. With the removal of section 21 we are fundamentally reshaping the legal framework for possession.

Possession cases that might rigorously have been resolved swiftly, all but controversially. Will now be challenged through a book contested ground -- will now be channelled. This is a step that demands an equal and opposite increase in our ability to administer justice efficiently. And yet the system is not ready. The civil Justice Council, the Law Society and countless court users have been sounding the alarm for years. Backlogs are rising, courtrooms like unused follicle staff and overburden judges are stretched too thin.

In some parts of the country, landlords wait months, not weeks, for a simple hearing. Tenants in turn are left in limbo and often under the threat of eviction without resolution records. We must remember that delay is not neutral. It is not a benign inconvenience. It is a deeply disrupt the force in people's lives. For a landlord it might mean months without rental income, with mortgage arrears amounting. And for tenant it means living in a state of uncertainty.

That silence, those weeks and months of not knowing, is not just stressful, it's debilitating, leaves tenants feeling powerless and unable to plan their future. It's for that reason I urge the noble Baroness the Minister to consider carefully the amendments in my name, and Amendment 69, requiring the Lord Chancellor to conduct an assessment of the possession process. This assessment would examine how county courts handle the applications from landlords for possession of properties under both assured and regulated tenancies, and how those orders are subsequently in full.

This is a foundational step. If we are to move away from section 21 we must be absolutely confident that the remaining routes for possession are functioning effectively, fairly and in a timely manner. This is not just a tick box exercise, this is about ensuring we have a legitimate understanding of where our court stand, what their capacity is and whether they are in any fit state to take on the increased volume and complexity of cases that this bill will inevitably bring. The amendments ensures transparency, accountability, and evidence-based implementation.

Without such an assessment we risk walking blindly into a situation where the courts become the bottleneck. When either landlords, tenants, and get timely access to justice. Amendment 283 provides an essential safeguard. It would ensure section 21 cannot be abolished until the assessment outlined in Amendment 69 has been published and crucially that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the courts have the capacity to manage the increased demand. This is not an attempt to delay reform indefinitely, it is a commonsense measure to ensure -- reform is deliverable.

But the infrastructure in place before the policy takes effect. Without this step, we risk upsetting both tenants and landlords drift in the system that simply cannot cope. I look forward to hearing from other noble Lords in this very significant group. The noble and learned Lord Lord Etherton's amendments in particular underscore the necessity of certifying the court system has the capacity to manage the anticipated increase increases. None of the provisions of this act other than the certification itself should come into force until the Secretary come into force until the Secretary of State certifies that the average time in respect of resident property is as timely as it was in the year ending 23rd March, 2020.

This benchmark is not arbitrary. It reflects a period when the system is functioning at a level that we can reasonably expect to return to. Furthermore, amendment 280 also in his name reinforces this by requiring the Secretary of State to certify that the courts are not only timely but also efficient and adequately resourced to handle the increased caseload. These amendments are not about delaying progress. They are about ensuring that progress is achievable and that reforms were implemented or not undermined -overburdened call system.

As we have discussed, the abolition of section 21 will undoubtedly lead to a more contested possession seedings. Without the necessary court capacity we risk exacerbating the issue we seek to address. Delays, uncertainty and a lack of access to justice for both tenants and landlords. The amendments before us today provide a prudent and responsible approach to ensuring that our court system is ready to meet these challenges. And in conclusion, I urge the government to give serious consideration is to these amendments.

They represent a balanced approach, that aligns the ambition of the rent is Wrightsville with a practical reality is of our court systems. Have noble Lords present that are experts in that system and I look forward to listening to their contributions. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to move. Amendment proposed, after close, insert the new clause as printed in
15:59
Lord Young of Cookham Portrait Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

insert the new clause as printed in the marshalled list. Amendment 205 has much in common

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 205 has much in common with the other amendments in this group. Which are probing members to see if the capacity of the courts is see if the capacity of the courts is up to dealing with the cases that are likely to become before them not least the likely increase in possession cases in the act is implemented. To deal with any backlog that has accrued between now and when it comes into effect. Amendment 283 in the name of my noble friend Baroness Scott is the most demanding of the amendments which basically defers the abolition of section 21 until an assessment of court capacity has been completed and the Secretary of State is satisfied about capacity.

The moment 69 points in a more conciliatory mood, but amendment does not delay the ablation of section 21 but requires the Lord Rosser to monitor progress and ensure the capacity is there, and it sets no time limit on that assessment. My amendment to a five finds a middleweight. Requiring the assessment to be carried out in six months of the passage of the bill. One Amendment to 64 and the name of Baroness Thornhill is more generous, allowing two years. Neither would hold up the implementation of section 21.

All these amendments come from the same starting point and of course it's not just section 21 that is going to add to the caseload of the tribunal, there are other rights which will come onto later date which may increase demand. We have already heard from practitioners that there are cases where eviction proceedings have timed out due to delays in the courts. Requiring proceedings to be reissued which takes more court time and results in higher administrative costs. The courts themselves are facing serious repair issues which The National Audit Office have said this amounts to Linzer pounds, while have said this is something like 100 unplanned courtroom closures every week.

Additionally, some courts have had to close due to the presence, causing extensive disruption. Of course, to meet demand, the bill has got to be accompanied by additional court investment. These are not just my views, the housing minister told the Bill committee in Commons and I quote the court system is on its knees. The Government data shows that the average time to process and enforce the section 8 case which is the ground-based route position is over seven months.

Likewise, the levelling up housing committees last year warned of the Courts and Tribunal Service being overwhelmed as a result of similar changes proposed by the last Government. From a landlords point of view, as my Noble Friend has said wary responsible landlord was left with no income with possible consequences for his mortgage was unable to recover the property and also unable to recover the property with serious antisocial behaviour and that some months were neighbours might have to endure the disruption.

There are several months where tenants are genuinely in need of housing and will not have access to the market because the homes they might move into our unavailable and tied up with legal delays. It is only right and fair that responsible landlords have the confidence that the system will not leave them in limbo when they have legitimate cries for possession and that point is particularly underlined, if, as the Minister has constantly told us, she wants fresh investment in the private rented sector, any delay of the court system would be bad for investment, so it is also the talents who face barriers to justice and the Law Society found that 44% of the population in England and Wales do not have a housing legal aid provider in the local authority area.

Many will struggle to get legal representation if the need to challenge an addiction or seek to address through the courts. And they have rightly concluded and I quote that the bill will not be effective without further investment in the justice system. And as for provide greater funding and more clarity to enforcement provisions of the justice is acceptable to renters and landlords alike. It is the greater clarity that these amendments seek

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to provide. Offender the Noble Lord of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Offender the Noble Lord of Cookham has spoken again so much sense that it leaves me with little left to add and I should warn him left to add and I should warn him that I was described in last days debate as irritatingly persuasive, so I hope that I will not damage his so I hope that I will not damage his case by supporting him. There is a real issue here, and it does need real issue here, and it does need some serious probing.

I am not suggesting that we retain section suggesting that we retain section 21, but noble Lords have raised at second reading and today I am sure others will go on to raise again the issue of the courts simply not being ready to take on the burden coming to him, and there is no credible timescale to transform the tribunal system. And my main reason for speaking is that I just wanted to put into the record and advise the House that I attended a meeting along with the Noble Lady minister and some other noble Lords who were present today that those responsible
16:05
16:05
Earl of Kinnoull Portrait The Earl of Kinnoull (Crossbench)
-
-
system, very doubtful about this still evolving IT system, and the view from the people I spoke to was that it would take at least five years to bed it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 279 and 280. We stand in the name of my and 280. We stand in the name of my Noble Friend noble and learned Lord eft in. I had signed those amendments as well but not with the legal hat on, but more of the heart legal hat on, but more of the heart of someone who has been there for developing a lodgement of complex IT developing a lodgement of complex IT systems over the years and contributed to almost every mistake contributed to almost every mistake it is possible to make in doing that.

Lord Etherton unfortunately cannot be here today, so I am going to make some observations which to make some observations which follow on nicely from the Noble Lord Cromwell has just said. I should refer the House to my register of interests. I am in my own capacity to a small extent noble Leonard Lord of Scotland and so trusty of a number of trusts, again in Scotland, which are renting properties out. The problem was actually set out by the Noble Lord and the second reading and IM afraid that he is not here but I was going to use his words very briefly.

He said, and this is on 4 February, we are no that there will be many more contested possession proceedings by landlords following the enactment of the bill and the abolition of the six and 21 eviction notice and it would not be right to abolish therefore the evictions with adequate speed and resources to dealing with the increase in contested proceedings. And he went on a bit later, the Government need to demonstrate that measures that have been or will be put in place which will help to secure the court came to landlords by position of residential properties in a timely and efficient way.

On 11 March the meeting which the Noble Lord Cromwell has referred to took place and there were half a dozen crossbench people there and this came up, it was a 30 page presentation. An there were officials there for the Ministry of Justice and in particular the hitch uncle to's and for MHC LG and the Noble Lady the Minister was there as well. It was an extremely interesting presentation. And I would say there were two things that came out I feel I should speak to the committee about today.

The first was about the size of the problem and there is a side, the size of it system that is involved. This is an IT system that exists today and the novel Lord Etherton is very familiar with it systems that support the with it systems that support the court services as he was the man responsible them for half a dozen years and very much the driver. That IT system has things for case management, for hearings management, these are separate subsystems for work allocation, for user registration, and there are others as well.

You can see just how complex this IT system is each of those things that I just mentioned, there were changes that are required, major changes, that would need development and to be dealt with in a proper way. After considering the size of the problem, this is pretty big. We then went on to discuss their approach to the design and build of the new system. This was in a slide which was extremely clear, and there appears to report that the prototype stage had arrived.

The prototype stage sounds very helpful, but in fact this becomes the four of the fifth stages which is prepared to build and the six which is old and test. The prototype is literally that, it is something that is in a pretty early stage in the development of it system, and all of that comes of cost before user acceptance training and people involved in the court system for being able to use this complex system in an efficient manner. The question that was put to people advising us on this was how long did they think that it would take to get to the end of the bill test stage and the answer on 11 March was two years.

I would have to say that the people that were briefing us, universally, give a briefing us, universally, give a , so I have no reason to doubt their two-year estimate going to it bill and in speaking to colleagues after, I think that they also did feel that the people that were presenting it are after all the people actually doing the programming were of a very high quality. With no IT system and the presentation explains that there are 110,000 cases per yer, and this is without any uplift in the number of cases one would expect mentioned earlier on in this debate and the Noble Lord Atherton in his second reading contribution, 110,000 cases per year.

And let us say that we only had one year-and-a-half of it because of that, after that it would be 165,000 cases clogging up the system that is already under strain. Producing delay. And because it is going into the County Court system, affecting access to justice for the rest of the County Court system as well, one assumes. And the amendments that the Noble Lord prepared, and I was very much in consultation with what they were doing, were aimed at trying to prevent undesirable outcomes.

In closing, perhaps I could ask the Noble Lady the Minister with she can update us on the progress of it system that was presented to us on system that was presented to us on 11 March. And whether she would agree to meet further to discuss this issue after committee. this issue after committee.
16:12
Lord Empey Portrait Lord Empey (Ulster Unionist Party)
-
-
My Lords, previous contributions to the committee, I made the point that our objective should be to increase supply and simultaneously reduce demand. I think that we are now facing a situation where we are doing everything in our power to decrease supply. The amendments by the noble Lords young of Coogan and Baroness one of Thornhill and Baroness Scott were all basically meritorious in their own way, but they are all trying to solve a problem that we foresee.

It does not have to be thought about as something that may happen as a remote possibility. It is almost a certainty, therefore it has to be addressed. Now, there are other things that I think the Government is doing that are decreasing supply. The prospect of a landlord entering into the relationship with a tenant is even further off put by these measures. In the uncertainty that they could be left with no income for very long periods of time and tenants could find themselves stranded as well.

If they cannot go to a court and have the thing settled. But I also raised with the noble Baroness the Minister the EHC are implications. And I think that there is yet another matter that is arising, there are those reports that the Government is effectively talking out of both sides of its mouth at once. In here it is telling us we have to get rid of section 21. But we do not want agree tenant tenancies, and on the other hand it appears that Government is going to landlords offering them up to five year tenancies if they how's asylum seekers.

No, you can't have it both ways, my Lords. And, in fact, what we are doing, the Minister told me the man that you could not discriminate between one tenant and another. But in fact that is precisely what we are doing. We are introducing a new class of tenant. Tenant who is in the superior position to the ordinary tenants that we would have at the moment. I that we would have at the moment. I do think there is a great deal of do think there is a great deal of uncertainty about this and common sense dictates that this matter of the court has to be addressed.

And the very fact that we are having to the very fact that we are having to burden the courts with our legislation tells us that perhaps there is something wrong with it fundamentally in the first place.
16:15
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Portrait Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of amendments to 79 and 280 in the name of the learning and Noble Lord Everton who is unfortunately unable to be in his place today. To which I hope at least I have added my name. I think I got it to the public bill of his after the Marshall list had gone to print. This amendment, together with the others in this group, addresses and issue which I think is absolutely central to the bill.

Being the capacity of the courts. And I declare at the outset my interest as somebody benefiting from rental income from residential properties set out in the register. The position is that the previous Conservative Government committed to making improvements in his majesties Courts and Tribunal Service before abolishing section 21 for existing tenancies, as well as a six month implementation period before abolishing section 21 for new That is not just regrettable in itself because we all know that HM CTS needs improvements and there's no time to delay but the decision to abandon equipment may be detrimental as well indeed may hold before the waterline this legislation and the proposed reforms outlined in this legislation.

Not only this, the government has also abandoned requirements for the Lord Chancellor to assess the courts possession processes before abolishing section 21 for existing tenancies and those measures were crucial in ensuring the courts were ready for these changes before they were implemented. The effect of all of this is previous because in this debate have made clear is that the plain fact of the matter is that the courts will not be resourced as they need to be in order to meet the very practical impact of this legislation.

And I therefore reiterate the concerns set out by my noble friend Baroness Scott of Bybrook who explained that our court system is simply not prepared. The courts backlog which we all know about will only be exacerbated by huge increases in the numbers of referrals and complaints which are expected to result from the removal of section 21. We also shouldn't underestimate the pressure on the ombudsman service which is going to increase from these changes and from the new rules.

On section 21, the court simply have to be ready and given time to be ready and we need to ready to deal with the expected increase in workloads. And while I welcome the government's renewed commitment to digitisation, and I should say in previous incarnations I have seen a bit of that and I support it, but I also know how slowly it's going and how much work there is still to do. That must be made an urgent priority. We have had to this afternoon of the County Court.

The FastTrack, the FastTrack in the County Court I would suggest is in danger of being sued under the trading standards legislation because the one thing it is not is a FastTrack. It is a pretty slow track. And I'm not making a jibe at Great British Rail. These amendments onto B -- thought to be uncontroversial, the course or to be in a proper state to deal with the expected increase in workload. Otherwise, what we are doing is putting the legislative card before, if I may say, with all due respect, the judicial horse.

We shouldn't legislate to give people lights which they can't vindicate. We also shouldn't legislate to give people lights which other people need to go to court in response to those rights and they can't vindicate their position either. And that is a very real concern. These amendments therefore, to 79 and 280, in addition to the others, seek to ensure only this, that before this legislation comes into effect, the legislation comes into effect, the courts are in at least a good as position as they were before the first COVID lockdown.

That's not first COVID lockdown. That's not actually a very high bar. But it's the least which we should expect and in fact the least which we should demand.
16:19
Lord Northbrook Portrait Lord Northbrook (Conservative)
-
-
Firstly declare my interest as landlord of rental properties in Hampshire. I support all the amendments in this group. I fear the government may not support 283, even though it was in our original bill presented when we were in government. I would like to focus on Baroness Thornhill's amendment requiring the government to conduct a formal review of the bills impact on the court system within two years of enactment. The review supported by the National Residential Landlords Association would assess case fully aims, the course ability to manage demand, deficiency and time limit proceedings and the initiative burdens on the course.

It would require the Secretary of State to consult legal practitioners, court officials and other relevant experts to ensure decisions are based on reliable evidence. Crucially this amendment does not delay the abolition of section 21, is that insures the government monitors the impact of these changes and if necessary take action to address the extra pressures on the justice system. With the abolition of section 21, no explanation repossessions, landlords will become reliant on the courts when seeking to gain possession of a property using the legitimate grounds under the section 8 process.

However, as many other nibbles have said, this shift raises serious concerns about the capacity of the justice system to handle the increased caseload. The Law Society notes, the bill in its current form may lead to an increase in contested hearings in the short-term. As landlords used note. Position is have to show good vision for election. The housing minister has said the government is working to ensure the courts are ready for the system placing section 21. As other nibbles have said has given no indication on what this actually means in practice -- as the noble Lords acid.

The court system was already struggling, as the noble Lord Lord Young of Cookham has said, the housing minister told the committee in the Commons that the court system is on its knees. Government data shows the average time to process and enforce the section 8 possession case, the ground space route to possession, is over seven months. That is seven months of responsible landlord being unable to cover their property, in cases of serious injuries or antisocial behaviour. Seven months were neighbours we have to endure disruption and seven months when tenants who are genuine in need of housing will not have access to the market because homes that should be available are instead tied up in legal delays.

It's only right and fair that responsible landlords have confidence that the system will not leave them in limbo when they have to gibber to -- when they have legitimate grounds. As the noble Lord Lord Young of Cookham has already said, almost the majority of the population in England and Wales do not have a legal aid provider in the local authority area. Given all of this it could -- wished Adkins has concluded the bill will not be changed without further investment in the justice system.

He said BA ligament to provide greater funding and more clarity to the enforcement provisions so that justice is accessible to renters and landlords alike. No mention is made of the impact assessment, for the extra cost would be. Of improving the course or tribunal system or implementing the new IT system that are the noble Lords have met with the Minister to hear about. Does that mean, can I ask the noble Lord the Minister, does that mean nothing extra is going to be spent improving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the courts and tribunals systems? I rise briefly just to ensure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise briefly just to ensure that there is awareness within this context of amendments of the current context of amendments of the current state of play according to a briefing for, from Generation Rent, briefing for, from Generation Rent, and I thank for the information. and I thank for the information. Which is that only a tiny minority Which is that only a tiny minority of tenancies ever get near a court, and so while the courts are indeed very overcrowded and have a lot of cases coming for them, it's just quite important to understand where in the hierarchy tenancies currently are.

And in addition to that, the vast majority of tenants right now, the minute they receive a notice,
16:24
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
whatever the notice is, tend to see the writing on the wall and tend to the writing on the wall and tend to leave because there is such a strong power imbalance. And therefore it never makes it to court. Waldo had never makes it to court. Waldo had nice that what we are hearing about is the situation when something does reach court, the likelihood of anything actually reaching court as anything actually reaching court as we discussed, as we will discuss in we discussed, as we will discuss in further amendments, is often very remote, from both sides of the argument.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sorry to disagree, but I think from practical experience that sadly is not his very the case, what sadly is not his very the case, what she is saying -- not necessarily the case.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

case. I rise to give a little more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to give a little more detail on my amendment, 264. It's a fairly straightforward amendment, I like to be straightforward. And like to be straightforward. And based on the facts given by noble Lords in this debate, there Lords in this debate, there evidently is a very real and genuine concern about the capacity of the courts to deliver. All contributions have been well evidenced and I'll be quite frank, are worrying. From our perspective, and as evidenced by the contribution just then of my noble friend Baroness Grender, we support this legislation.

We want this legislation to work. And in order to work, we know the cohorts have to be efficient. If not, it will have the ability to undermine the core purpose of the bill as was Fay passionately said by Baroness Scott. We know of and understand the issues regarding the courts. And these have been very well articulated by every contribution across the House. So I won't repeat them. But there are many legitimate questions that have been posed and to which we do need answers.

Amendment 264, we believe it is absolutely vital the court capacity is reviewed. And that it is enshrined in the bill to make sure it happens formally and is able to
16:27
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
be scrutinised within two years. We feel that two years is properly enough certainly to sort out the IT, enough certainly to sort out the IT, from the noble Earl, and to feel whether we are actually moving on to whether we are actually moving on to an even keel after an initial transition period, and I'm sure as transition period, and I'm sure as we go through the rest of the days, we will be looking at the transition period. It's an amendment that looks period.

It's an amendment that looks at all the key components for the at all the key components for the effective working of the courts. My amendment asks to look at access to justice. We must ensure that the system is accessible, affordable and understandable for all, regardless of a tenants background and the circumstances. It is legitimate to ask the government for its commitments to resourcing the commitments to resourcing the courts, and to have hard evidence about case volume. How many cases, how long it is taking, the latter being very important for both landlords and tenants as has also been mentioned the current evidence is of the months and sticking by Rich's unfair to landlords, their concerns in this instance are valid.

And under the new grounds, if eviction is legitimate, it needs to happen quickly. The main things by months and months could put some landlords in financial jeopardy and tenants in real limbo and uncertainty. I'm sure any Secretary of State would put answers to these questions, within a reasonable timeframe to ensure that all is intended or in time to make some remediation as the assessment will actually be based on real data. I'm absolutely certain the government are concerned about this, and that they are doing everything they can to make sure the courts are ready and I look forward to the Minister's replied.

However, we do not support in anyway amendment to hundred 93 to delay the abolition of section 21 in the name of Baroness Scott. The sooner this long promise abolition of section 21 happens, the better. Indeed, amendments to 79, 283 and to lesser extent 69, I believe will certainly result in delays in the act coming into force, and this critical reason we cannot support them. This does not mean that we don't take the issue seriously. I'm not wearing rose coloured spectacles.

But I do expect full answers on the readiness of our courts to deal with these radical changes. This criticism and concerns regarding the courts has been known now for some considerable time, so work must have been done, so we would expect government to now have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

some hard answers. Advised to support the comments of the noble Baroness Baroness of the noble Baroness Baroness Thornhill and all the noble Lords he spoke about concerns and about the spoke about concerns and about the court capacity to deal with the huge increase in loads that will come increase in loads that will come their way. This isn't just a serious policy issue, it's actually an policy issue, it's actually an important issue because article 6 does actually guarantee rights of does actually guarantee rights of access within a reasonable time, and if those rights are the latecomer that will impact on landlords rights under article 1 of that protocol is about rights to property.

There is nothing, I'm afraid, in the memorandum which I have in front of me which addresses the article 6 and article 1 in relation to delays to justice in the courts. So this is really important issue, that has got to be addressed, and I can't see how can really be denied, the sensible amendment of 264 which overlaps with an hundred and six which will be considering later in group 4. For some reason they have been put in The number of cases is going to The number of cases is going to increase as a result of this bill.

They may not been a problem in the past they will be in the future when this bill comes into force. I strongly commend Baroness strongly commend Baroness Thornhill's amendment 264 and support all the other comments that have been made by noble Lords and Baronesses on delays and access to justice. justice.
16:31
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Can I thank Lady Scott, Lord Young of Cookham, Lady Thornhill for the amendments and Lord Cromwell, MP Wilson Northbrook and Baroness Grender and Lord Kinnock will for their comments during the debate and for placing Lord Etherton's amendment before us. Can I firstly say I do understand the concerns members have on this issue, which is why we engaged very early on with noble Lords in advance of the bill coming before this House and we have very much listen to noble Lords views and experience in this area.

We may have further discussions to have and I appreciate that. Just to Baroness Scott, can I say I started working with noble Lords on this bill some months ago to understand the concerns that noble Lords have, Amendments have been put forward as probing amendments have attempted to answer in detail, for matters requiring factual answers such as data which I didn't have at my figure tips I have responded either in writing or offered further meetings to noble Lords, but I would say that it was too late in the day that the party opposite recognised the dreadful housing crisis they had led us into and -- it was too late for them to finish legislation to deal with this and what we are faced with today is amendments seeking to remove core principles of the bill that is trying to deal with them, and if those come before us I will have no option but to disagree with amendments that are trying to take out the core principles of the bill, some of which are core principles that were in the bill of the party opposite when that sat before this House.

This government will take up the challenge of dealing with the issues with a degree of balance between landlords and renters and I believe will do a better job of it. These amendments before the House today or require the government to make an assessment of the justice system as a result of these reforms and in some cases delay commencement of the reforms until certain conditions are filled. Starting with amendment 69 in the name of Baroness Scott, this would require the Lord Chancellor to prepare an assessment of the operation of the process by which the County Court is able to make possession orders for rented properties.

And how such orders are enforced. This assessment will be published at such a time and in such a manner as the Lord Chancellor sees fit. Baroness Scott has also laid fit. Baroness Scott has also laid amendment to a three that, if made, would delay commencement of these important reforms until the Lord Chancellor had carried out and published the proposed assessment and was satisfied that the court service had sufficient capacity. The government view is that the implementation of that tenancy reform should not, as Baroness Thornhill said, be held back by an assessment of current working, especially one which is so broad and undefined.

We have no intention of delaying these urgent reforms we wait for an unnecessary assessment of the existing position process. This proposed assessment would provide no new insight or benefit to interested parties are compelling the courts and tribunals to undertake this assessment would detract from their vital work to make sure the courts are ready for our reforms. Quarterly data on the operation of the court possession process for rented properties has already and will continue to be published by the Ministry of Justice.

This is regularly reported and scrutinised. Published statistics include both the volumes and timeliness of possession orders and the enforcement of those orders. Court rules specify that possession claims requiring a hearing should be listed between four and eight weeks of the claim being issued. Landlord possession claims are taking an average of eight weeks, not seven months as quoted by Lord Northbrook, to progress from issue of the claim to possession order in the most recent quarter from October to December 2024.

Instead of publishing this unnecessary assessment we will carry out our tenancy reforms as quickly as possible and I want to reassure the committee we are fully focused on making sure the justice system is prepared for changes to court case load and procedures which will be required for our reforms. We are working with the Ministry of Justice and HM Courts and Tribunal services to that effect. This includes investing an additional court and tribunal capacity to handle any extra hearings generated I hope that answers Lord Wolfson's points.

I would therefore ask that those amendments are withdrawn. those amendments are withdrawn. Turning to amendment 205 in the name of Lord Young of Cookham, this amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay a statement before Parliament setting out how the government will ensure the county courts are prepared for the impact of the Renter's Rights Bill in possession cases. A statement would need to be made within six months of the bill being passed to assess the effect of the bill on the volume of cases, the efficiency and timeliness of judicial proceedings and the resource requirements in the court in future.

As I said I fully recognise noble Lords concerned that this bill will pose an additional burden on the justice system and I understand my honourable friend at the other end of the buildings concern about the court system. As I denoted I want to reassure the committee we are fully focused on making sure the justice system is prepared for changes to core caseloads and procedures which will be required for our reforms and working with the MoJ and HMCTS to that effect, we are working to pick up Lord Young's point about resources, we are working together to agree how these reforms are implemented, which will include ensuring that the County Court will have capacity and resources it needs to adjust any changes in possession caseloads.

That will of course involve the assessment that Lord Northbrook referred to and commitments to address the resources that will be needed. Work is also progressing on updating rules and procedures in readiness for the implementation of new legislation. In the longer term we expect our reforms to reduce the volume of core progression that might possession claims is only those cases where there is a clear, well evidenced ground for possession will be able to proceed. This will help offset any increase pressure on the courts resulting from our reforms in due course.

His Majesty's Courts and Tribunal service are building an end-to-end digital service for resolving all possession claims in County Court in England and to make processes more efficient and easier to understand for landlords and tenants and much-needed reform. Funding has been agreed and provided to enable the design and build of these new service which is well underway and builds on an existing digitisation of the justice system. Lord Cromwell said it had left him with the impression this was five years away, that's not what the court service said and that's not my understanding of where we are with it.

As I have explained this is not a new system being built from scratch it's a further module of an existing system and The Earl of Kinnoull pointed on the outline with the size of the problem that our colleagues from HMCTS set out, but that was the whole system that they are developing. The approach to design and build being a prototype stage but I understand what he is saying but of course the digitisation process isn't a whole picture for what we are doing working with our colleagues in the court service.

This service will offer an online route for making responding to possession claims, filing documents and receiving updates and outcomes, offering improved user experience for guided journeys and some noble Lords as we have heard first hand about that progress being made and The Earl of Kinnoull said the question was put how long will this take and colleagues replied that I understand it, two years from March. I thank him for those comments but that isn't the totality of the work we are doing as I said with the court service.

While the digitisation progress on that is really important to driving this forward for the future we will be working with our friends in the court service and supporting them in the interim. I would therefore ask him to withdraw his amendment. Amendment 264 I would like to reiterate my thanks to Baroness Thornhill for a moment to 64 requiring the Secretary of State to publish a review of the impact on the judicial system arising from the Renter's Rights Bill within two years of the legislation being passed.

The review would need to consider the effect of the bill on the volume of cases, the efficiency and timeliness of judicial proceedings and the resource and administrative burdens on the courts. As I orally outlined I want to reassure the committee we are fully focused on making sure that the justice system is prepared for changes to core caseloads and procedures. Taking that issue very seriously and we will monitor the effects of these reforms on the justice system by closely engaging with the sector and analysing the comprehensive data which has already collected so it is not that we do not think it's necessary to analyse the data, more that we think committing to a formal review in the face of the bill is unnecessary.

The point is that the noble Baroness made about justice delayed being justice denied are quite rights, that's why we don't want to delay all of this until before we abolished the section 21 addictions which of course so much problems that might cause so much problems. We want to do that as quickly as possible I wanted to be assured that we do believe that analysis of the impact of the bill on the system is really critical and important and we will be doing that and using

**** Possible New Speaker ****

information already available. Does that mean therefore I take

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does that mean therefore I take from her words that such monitoring and review will always be an ongoing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rolling process from day one? That's completely correct. We do need to make sure that we are taking account of the impact on the system account of the impact on the system from the start, we do believe over time it will reduce the volume of cases going to the court service and cases going to the court service and as Baroness Grender pointed out there are not many cases that end up in the court system but there are some that do go down that route and we will be monitoring them from the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

outset. If, we are still hearing, just gone online and it still being gone online and it still being quoted that it is seven months delay quoted that it is seven months delay as Lord Northbrook said, but if it becomes clear during this process becomes clear during this process leaving up to the implementation build that actually the courts can't cope with this and that will have a cope with this and that will have a severe impact on people's lives, both landlords and tenants, will His both landlords and tenants, will His Majesty's Government be brave enough to slowdown the implementation of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As I have already I hope made

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As I have already I hope made clear, we don't want to slowdown implementation of this bill, we think the reforms we are bringing forward are really important and very much overdue and we don't expect that it will have the impact expect that it will have the impact that the noble Lady has just outlined. But we will continue to monitor it and we will support our monitor it and we will support our friends in the court service with whatever help they need to make sure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the impact is mitigated. Turning finally to a moment to 79

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Turning finally to a moment to 79 and 280 in the name of Lord Etherton -- Lord Etherton, I would like to thank the noble Lord for his thank the noble Lord for his continued engagement on the bill particularly on the judicial impacts and it's been incredibly valuable to me to have that input, amendment to a to would require the Secretary of a to would require the Secretary of State to certify that landlord State to certify that landlord Are processed by the courts in no greater time on average than they work the year before the first COVID-19 lockdown.

In addition a COVID-19 lockdown. In addition a moment to 79 would delay the commencement of important reforms until this proposed assessment have been carried out. As I have outlined I do recognise that landlords need a smooth and efficient process in the County Court for the minority of cases where court action for possession becomes necessary, but we will not tie down the implementation of these urgent reforms to an arbitrary target of court timeliness, the sector is already waited too long. As noted the Ministry of Justice orally published quarterly statistics on the operation of the County Court possession process and court rules specify that possession cases requiring a hearing should be listed between four to eight weeks from the issue of the claim, if Baroness Scott is saying that figures still disputed I'm happy to get back to her.

Setting a target for the possession process is a gateway to the opposition of other bill provisions would not be meaningful, key stage of the process is the application for a warrant to possession and this is dependent on the actions of the landlord and therefore is outside the control of the court service. Where a tenant stays in the property beyond the date set out in the possession order, the landlord can choose whether to apply for a warrant immediately to enforce a possession order granted by the court and whether to apply to transfer the case to the High Court.

We will continue to work closely with the Ministry of Justice on influencing these reforms. This includes ensuring that the County Court has the resources it needs to adjust to any changes in caseloads and the relevant rules and processes are relevant rules and processes are As the noble Lord Earl of Kinnoull requested a meeting, I'm happy to keep on meeting on this and other interim steps we are likely to take. Just to respond to the noble Lord's comments about proposals.

I think the noble Baroness may have had an These kinds of arrangements with the private rented sector have been in place for many years now and it has been the government's statutory duty to accommodate destitute asylum seeker since 2005. The Home Office are developing a long-term strategy for asylum accommodation which will reduce competition for affordable housing, help deliver new supply and give communities we serve more control. I am not in a position today to comment on the arrangements of another government department and what that might or may not have in place, but I am happy to write to noble Lord and set out the position of the Home Office and how progress is being made on this.

How these arrangements interact with the Renters' Rights Bill will depend on the commercial agreement between the Home Office and Circo and whether Home Office and Circo and whether there will be an assured tenancy. I don't have details of progress The Home Office is making on this, but I am happy to write to noble Lords on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this point. Therefore I would ask that this amendment is withdrawn. Just before the noble Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just before the noble Baroness sits down, could she certainly write sits down, could she certainly write to us about the Home Office in place a copy in the library, but will she not also agree in, she made last

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The impact The impact assessment The impact assessment says The impact assessment says there

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The impact assessment says there is no extra expenditure on this and I'm not sure how to square the circle on this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

circle on this. The digitisation process was already under way and already costed. We are looking at other costed. We are looking at other impacts and I will come back to noble Lords about what they may be, if his view is that it's not clearly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

set out in the impact statement. Can I just come back on the five years which she did mention. That arose from conversations with people who have a lifetime of professional involvement in legal processes, so I would not brush it aside to early. And certainly I have been on the sharp end of a number of these IT projects which get built. Normally projects which get built. Normally It's going to take. Anyone who has built anything will know that and I will not touch on R&R.

She has told us the number of times the government is fully focused, a phrase that has been used number of times, I don't wish to be discourteous, but it seems the government is being fully optimistic, almost to the point of naivete. These are probing amendments. There is a general agreement, including from the government that there is a problem here that needs to be solved. There is no dispute about it in a problem and I urge that before we get to report stage we need some crisp, report stage we need some crisp, specific and clear and credible statements about what exactly is going to be done to resource this properly because our current court system is not a model of swiftness and efficiency and it is hard to see how this will be magically

**** Possible New Speaker ****

transformed. Could the Minister reply to both?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could the Minister reply to both? I do retain a certain fondness for I do retain a certain fondness for my former department and I know that budget for the Ministry of Justice is extremely tight. I've not seen any scope in that budget for the expected increase in the workload. When I hear the Minister saying she will work closely with the MoJ, when I was in MoJ Minister it meant people would work closely with me by telling me that I needed to spend money from my budget and what they wanted.

Can I take it therefore that when she says she will work closely with the MoJ, what she actually means is if the MoJ needs money to do what this bill requires, it will come from her budget?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First of all, in response to Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First of all, in response to Lord Cromwell, I have been involved in a number of IT projects myself over the years and I understand his scepticism. However, having sat and listened to the excellent listened to the excellent hesitation, and can I agree with the hesitation, and can I agree with the comments that the noble Earl can all made about the team who came to present to us who were outstanding present to us who were outstanding in the straightforward presented to ask, both with the challenges they ask, both with the challenges they were facing and the success they had in taking the project forward so far.

I do feel we are making good progress on that project. The benefit of bringing bills before this House, as the noble Baroness said, we do get the outside experience that people bring to the House, but we will see in due time whether it is going to move forward as quickly as we hope it will. I do not think it is overly optimistic. We had a presentation from the team who are actually doing the work. In terms of funding, I understand the comments, but I think the way that our government has set about working across departments to deliver objectives has been incredibly productive so far.

We are working very well across government, led by the team in the Cabinet Office. I hope it means we will not have this shunting around of costs. We will sit down and look at what we need to prioritise. It does depend on the spending review and it would be a lot easier if we had not been left with a £22 billion black hole.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful for the offer of the meeting. I have in front of me the meeting. I have in front of me here the latest possession statistics which I printed off beforehand. I thought I would merely inform the House what they are saying and that is that claims to saying and that is that claims to order our eight weeks, but claims to order our eight weeks, but claims to repossessions is 25 weeks. So everyone was saying something in -- was saying something correct, but they were looking at different parts of the statistics.

Claims are something the landlord will be thinking about. So claims to repossessions, the median of 25 repossessions, the median of 25 weeks is of long time. Item 7, regional possession claims, there are big fences between the regions. There are some regions where claims are quite slow.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Earl for clarification. I was talking about clarification. I was talking about clarification. I was talking about the median time of eight weeks. I the median time of eight weeks. I would say, as I have already mentioned, in the longer term we expect the reforms we are expect the reforms we are introducing to reduce the volume of introducing to reduce the volume of Is why the monitoring I set out is important so we can see where it is taking us.

What we are expecting is only those cases where there is only those cases where there is clear grounds for possession will proceed and that should over time reduce the volumes overall. reduce the volumes overall.
16:55
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
I am very grateful to the insightful contributions made during this debate. The amendments we have discussed today, particularly those proposed by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and the noble and learned Lord Lord Everton, and I thank Lord Wilson for speaking to those amendments with such in-depth knowledge. It was much appreciated. The whole debate underscores shared concerns across the House. The capacity of our courts to effectively implement the Renters' effectively implement the Renters' Rights Bill.

I have made clear the ambition to reform the private rent is commendable, yet without robust and I have to say adequately resourced court systems, these reforms risk being undermined. The proposed amendments to entry and 69 in my name create a foundational aim to ensure that the necessary infrastructure is in place before significant changes are enacted, thereby safeguarding the interests of both the tenants and the landlords. In the noble Lady, in the noble Minister's remarks and she has continued to say, the government is working with the Ministry of Justice and impact test to identify the additional burdens on the system arising from the new policies in this bill and to ensure the system is fully prepared for any increases in workload.

While this commitment is welcomed, we need to know how long will this justice impact test take to complete. Will it be ready before the Renters' Rights Bill progresses through Parliament, and given significant implications for the court system, it's imperative that this assessment is thorough and timely and that the bill is only impacted once we know the court system is ready for these changes. My Lords, the capacity of our courts is not a peripheral concern. It is central to the success of this legislation and as we have discussed, delays in the court process are not merely procedural.

They have a real-world consequence for tenants and landlords alike and I urge the noble Baroness to minister to Expedia the impact test and to ensure its findings are fully considered before any further steps are taken. I reiterate the importance of aligning the ambition of the Renters' Rights Bill with a practical reality regarding our court system. The amendments before us provide a prudent approach to achieving this balance and I look forward to the Minister's response and to continuing our discussions on how best to proceed to deliver.

I give leave to withdraw my amendments at this point.
16:58
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
Is it your Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Still after clause 6, Amendment 70, Baroness coffee.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

RIs to move and speak to amendment 70 in my name. I have put it forward fundamentally to help it forward fundamentally to help children. Landlords have been able children. Landlords have been able to change family lets two homes of to change family lets two homes of multiple occupation. Losing family multiple occupation. Losing family homes is a real issue, particularly when one considers that median when one considers that median salaries are lower than in towns and cities.

I was inspired to put forward this amendment after a discussion with a landlord in Suffolk. We were discussing reforms considered by this House that would likely reduce the availability of rental properties for families in rural areas. This landlord told me of one change he will put into law if he had the opportunity and that is making sure that any changes in tenancy arrangements only happen during the school summer holidays for those properties which have families. My amendment would seek to ensure that any such eviction could only happen during a school holiday.

I understand it is the government's intention to reduce evictions, but the landlord may need to require such actions. That said, disruption of a child's education through absolutely no fault of their own can have a real impact on their lives in both the short and long-term. The situation is probably more acute for children living in rural areas. children living in rural areas. Those evicted often need to move to more urban areas which will require a change of school.

My amendment will limit this potential destruction to the child's life to only be during school holidays, giving parents and the child time to find a new school or to make alternative transport arrangements if necessary. I appreciate we are still at committee stage, so I am floating this idea of what we can do floating this idea of what we can do to help children and their families to help children and their families in a time that is challenging. With that I beg to move.
17:01
17:02
17:04
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
of a struggling family. The of a struggling family. The government must tread carefully to ensure that their actions do not drive up costs in the sector, costs which fall most heavily and disproportionately on low income families and the most vulnerable members of our society. Sustainable housing market depends on both tenant security and landlord confidence, this is a very tough balance to strike. But the onus I balance to strike. But the onus I believe is on all of us to strike it.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank Baroness Coffey for her amendment which would allow the court to grant an order for possession of the property for house possession of the property for house school aged children only during school aged children only during school holidays and I thank Ernest Thornhill and Baroness Scott for their comments. I understand the their comments. I understand the probing nature of the amendment and the compassion that sits behind it, yet if I might gently point out that we at latest count we got 160,000 we at latest count we got 160,000 children in temporary and emergency accommodation, that situation which was driven by the lack of attention to the housing situation that her government paid.

I therefore I do understand that we want to do as much as we can to support families and children, but I do think it takes quite a lot of front to come before this House with this kind of proposal when we have that terrible situation, 160,000 children in temporary and emergency accommodation, I heard this morning of a three-year-old who has been homeless for his entire life, astonishing. I do appreciate the sentiment, however I want to talk about the practicality of delivering this it would likely mean that where possession had been sought the courts would need to check whether the property contains school-age children and whether it was school holiday time and not for scheduling hearing, not only with this great additional work for the courts and we've just spent quite some time debating the pressure they are already under, but it could cause delays for the landlords in obtaining possession orders which is an issue the opposition party have taken great interest in, for example a landlords case could be next in line to be listed to be heard but because it's the beginning of the school summer holidays the hearing would have to be delayed for six weeks.

Furthermore though provision is made within the amendment for regulations to be made annually to define the school periods, this would be an owners task. We all know that school holidays vary across local authority areas and sectors and indeed can vary within an individual area. My grandchildren go to different schools, they live in the same address they go to different schools and have different sets of holidays. This would likely cause confusion and added complexity for landlords who wish to seek possession of their properties, while it absolutely right that tenants enjoy greater security in their homes we have said that landlords must enjoy robust grounds for a possession where there is good reason to make reason for them seek to take the property back it would be reasonable to add additional barriers, complexities or delays into the possession process.

Our reforms do give renters much greater security and stability so they can stay in their homes for longer, lives and communities and avoid the risk of homelessness, that's why we are introducing the many protections for tenants like banning section 21 evictions, increasing notice periods and introducing a 12 month protection. At the beginning of the tenancy during which landlords cannot evict them. That's got to be balanced with the needs of landlords who must enjoy those robust grounds that we have only spoken about.

I do think judges already have some discretion when deciding the date on which a tenant should give up possession even if an outright possession order is made pursuant to a section 21 notice or on a mandatory ground, the dates for possession can be postponed for up to six weeks if a tenant can show this with cause -- would cause exceptional hardship as well as being impractical there is also a principled argument against this amendment, being evicted almost away to be a significant people for tenants I accept that, particularly for those with children.

I do understand the intent behind it, however it would necessarily as Baroness Thornhill pointed out always be easier for parents to deal with the possession order or an eviction during the school holidays. During term times parents may have significant if you caring responsibilities for example, particularly if their children are younger so parents may find the school holidays are a time of increased responsibility and stress. Families being evicted during school holidays may also mean having to take up the school holiday instead take up the school holiday instead of doing activities with the children within necessities of moving.

I think it would be a difficult, it may make it more difficult, it may make it more difficult for families, not easier. It's for those reasons both practical -- practical and principled I would ask for this amendment to be withdrawn.
17:09
17:10
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
My apologies I did neglect to say that I'm very happy to meet with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble Lady. Try again. Is it your logic

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Try again. Is it your logic pleasure that the amendment is withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn for the amendment 71 withdrawn for the amendment 71 already debated Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb not moved. In clause 7 amendment 72 Baroness Scott of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bybrook. I rise to open this group and speak to the amendments, before I do speak to the amendments, before I do that I would just like to comment on the previous comment from the Minister, let's be clear on the side of the House we want to see a successful, thriving private rental market which gives everyone the opportunity to have a stable and secure home. However, as we have seen in Scotland, changes to rental reform can have a serious impact on the available rental homes and increase pricing.

It is are concerned that some of the reforms proposed here may harm tenants may harm the market. It's perfectly reasonable for us to have different views on what the potential reforms may or may not do but let's be absolutely clear on the side of the House, we want successful tenanted private rentals. The House should be under no doubt of that. With that I moved to rise and open this group and speak to amendment 72, 73 and 74 and 81 in the name of my noble friend Baroness Scott.

The group of amendments address the matter of notice periods. I will begin by addressing amendment 72, 33 and 74, all of which are probing amendments and seeks question the purpose of increasing thefor rent increases and why the retention of one month is not kept. The government has failed to sufficiently explain clearly why this bill looks to change the minimum period. For notice of rent increases from a month from a should periodic turn tenancies particularly in context that landlords will now only be able to increase rent once per year something that we support.

In which case a rent increase could reasonably be anticipated by the tenant and it should also reflect the current market conditions and economic factors such as interest rates and particularly with the increased powers to challenge by a tribunal by increasing the notice period it means that those data points or out of date. Surely the government would wish to prevent increases that reflect current market conditions and economic conditions and to reduce the likelihood of tribunal's. This change will undoubtedly have significant plications landlords and for the rental market more broadly.

On a personal level many landlords rely on the funds they intend to retrieve from an increase in rent payments to meet loan repayments and other financial obligations. It's important that all noble Lords consider this change in the wider context of this bill and the other factors which landlords would have to tackle. Changes to notice periods for rent increases is just one obstacle that landlords mention a few others such as the annual rent increase. Tenants will be able to challenge rent increases through first-tier Tribunal's which subject landlords to greater risk of court backlogs will stop thirdly these changes may result in increased administrative burdens for landlords brought about by the subsection 13 notices rent increases and the two month notice period.

The ultimate issue with the rental market is one of supply. There simply is not enough supply of homes to meet the demand. We must look to not only incentivise landlords to say in the market but encourage new interest. It's vital the government avoid introducing unnecessary measures which create a hostile market. I expressed my concern that proposed changes to notice periods will be an unintended and cumulative with many other measures significant consequences for landlords across the country with the Minister confirm whether government has consulted with landlords on the impact of these measures? And will they publish the findings from this consultation and if not, they intend to do so? Similarly will she confirm whether the government has intends to conduct impact assessment on the changes to the notice period for rent increases? I turn to address and 81, also in the name of Baroness Scott.

This amendment seeks to question the government reasons for having one months notice periods for rent increases in low-cost tenancy sector, despite the fact that those who are not in these tenancies are entitled to two. Just for clarity we are not querying that it shouldn't be one month we are saying why is the difference? We are seeking to understand the logic hind it. I look to the Minister explain exactly why someone in a low-cost tenancy would get less notice of a rent increase compared to someone renting in the compared to someone renting in the open market such as those on assured periodic tenancies.

Shouldn't those that are the poorest in our society require greater notice, particularly given the importance of financial planning? I look forward to the contributions of all noble Lords on this group of amendments and to the Minister for providing clarification Minister for providing clarification

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the concerns I have raised. I assume the noble Lord would like to move the moment?
17:16
Lord Marlesford Portrait Lord Marlesford (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Member proposed, leave out

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Member proposed, leave out I find these amendments very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I find these amendments very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I find these amendments very curious. The whole principle of the curious. The whole principle of the privately to sector is the capitalisation. It has costs and revenue. The revenue comes from rent. Obviously rents have to be carefully determined. As to whether it is one month or two months. That seems to be of little account. Basically what tenants need to know is that rents are likely to increase by some measure, which is generally agreed.

In the private rented sector this is normally the retail price index as opposed to the CPI. If there is no return on the investment, the investment will not continue to exist. Nobody can afford to let properties if there is no return on the property. The question of course is what should the return be? There are two very important factors to think of. First of all, the gross return, the gross rent is a percentage of the market value of the property.

It is a question of what percentage it should be. I have done a table which shows different levels of rent for different values of property. Is not the only factor because one has to remember that the rent charged is gross before the cost of maintenance and maintenance is hugely important. The solution to having a good private rented sector is proper maintenance, and indeed improvement from modernisation maintenance. It may be that you put in a more economic burner, one of these things that keeps the House.

They very lock. The later ones are much more efficient, but that is an expenditure. So you have to get the balance there. Probably, I would suggest that very often about one third of the rent on average will go in the maintenance, keeping up-to- date and the administration of properties. So if we said, for example, a 3% return on the capital was a reasonable level for the rent to be set at, you could say that would, of course, end up potentially at a net 2%, which is probably about what equities yield at the moment.

So you have to see that. Then comes a very important point which we will no doubt be discussing later and that is the affordability of rents for tenants. The government's guidance has always been, or has for a long time been that rents should not be more than 30% of household income. So therefore that is a calculation that should be made. If somebody is renting a property, they should bear in mind that that is the government's advice as to the amount they can afford to pay, other things being equal.

Equally the landlord letting the property will also have to take into account whether or not the perspective tenant can afford their property. So therefore again, it is absolutely essential that if you set the rent, you know the household income to see if meets the affordability states. These are complicated matters, but they are crucial to the private rented sector. My worry about this bill is half the time the government does half the time the government does not seem.

It is a business enterprise, like many other business enterprises. It's not particularly virtuous or not virtuous. But the government fiddling with it should be then try to make it work in a be then try to make it work in a practical manner and those who have made investments getting a return. There is no real difference between a House you rent a product you buy in a shop. It is part of how the system operates, how civilisation operates.

I think the government is muddled in its thinking. I would have liked to have got rid of the Gauff Bill, which was ill considered and ill-conceived, lacking in understanding of the real world. understanding of the real world. Thank you, my Lord. -- Gauff bill.
17:22
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Before commenting specifically on the amendments I want to have a little bit of a rant with regards to landlord finances. Actual evidence do we have? Overall the narrative is that lentils are in a terrible financial position. It is certainly not worn out by my anecdotal evidence and could be conceived as actually scaremongering to some extent because my understanding is that being a landlord is and will remain affordable. The very idea that landlords must be able to pass the entirety of any increased business cost or risk onto the tenant through a rent increase to remain sustainable is frankly ridiculous.

There is no other business model that operates in this way and also does not add up when we look at the sum of the data that we do have. The English private landlord survey said that the median landlords income including rental properties is around £52,000. Again, according to the Shelter survey, rental income is largely additional for landlords. 50% of landlords say they do not rely on rental income to cover living expenses. I note that in any investment I have made is a cleverly worded phrase at the bottom, investments can go down as well as up, except if you are a landlord it would seem.

You are left with a capital asset that largely in this country increases in value. So that is my kind of rent, and if the noble Baroness Willis was in her place, she would be proud of me for that. To the notice period, I rise today to address the amendments in the group put forward by Baroness Scott regarding notice.S for rent increases. When this bill was introduced in the Commons it proposed A1 month period. The government's intention to extend the 22 months better balances the interests of landlords and tenants.

This evolution demonstrates a willingness to listen and to respond to tenants security and I thank the Minister and the team. The amendments before us today, particularly Amendment 69 63 looking to revert to one month and also the amendment questioning low-cost and standard tenancies, certainly amendment 81 is a fair question, which I would also like an answer to as I have not been able to find a reason for that differentiation. But a team up notice.

For rent increases represents a reasonable middle ground which acknowledges both the landlord's legitimate need whilst giving tenants adequate time to prepare financially. For many working families a rent increase requires careful budgeting and what we do know, and I do not have the figures to hand, is that a
17:26
17:26
17:26
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
new rent rise. One month is simply inefficient to actually work a decision to relocate and to make decision to relocate and to make those adjustments. So I commend the government for finding this balanced approach. This middleground solution approach. This middleground solution may not be perfect from any single perspective, but it does demonstrate what good legislation can achieve what good legislation can achieve when all forces are genuinely hedging the Parliamentary process. With these factors in mind I look forward to the Minister's response.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I Frank the noble -- I thank the noble Lady and the noble Lord. There noble Lady and the noble Lord. There was a comment about the balance was a comment about the balance between landlord and 10. We are aiming to get that in this bill. He aiming to get that in this bill. He is right to point to the ratio of rent income. That is why tenants need longer to consider the impact need longer to consider the impact on the family budget.

Increasingly the proportion of income that is the proportion of income that is taken up by rent is going up and up, particularly in certain parts of the country, making it very difficult for tenants to manage increases at short notice without adequate notice to plan their family budget. The noble Lord Jamison talked about the consultation with landlords and the impact, on the impact of rent increases. I did undertake, because of the question under the previous day's debates, to have a consultation.

I will provide that in writing, it's been prepared at the moment and I will get back to noble Lords with a summary of that. I thank Baroness Thornhill for her comments. She is quite right to refer to issues of rental income and capital assets. As I have said many times, we have to make this fair for everybody. What we want to do is make sure that everybody gets what they want. Landlords want a tenant who will look after the property and pay their rent.

Tenants want a landlord who will make sure the property is in good condition. That is what we are all after. Amendment 72 would reduce the amount of notice of a rent increase a landlord will have to give the tenant. For example, whether rent is paid monthly, it will reduce the notice period from two months to one month. I do appreciate that these are probing amendments. Together with probing amendments. Together with amendment 72. Excuse me, I'll get some water.

Together with amendment 72, amendment 74 will remove the requirement for landlords to serve a rent increase notice two months before the rent increase comes into effect. We do not agree with this position. The Renters' Rights Bill will deliver our manifesto commitment to empower private rental commitment to empower private rental tenants to challenge increases. It was, as Baroness Thornhill pointed out, the result of debates in the other place and lobbying from a number of groups who have been speaking to us.

It will ensure that tenancy may struggle to pay a rent increase will have time to consider their options, seek advice and where necessary challenge the rent increase at the tribunal. Receiving a rent increase can be distressing for many tenants. We want to give tenants time to reassess their budgets and consider their options. It is unfortunate Lady Scott and Lord Jamieson do not agree that tenants should have this protection. Amendment 73 six to decrease the notice period for a landlord to serve a rent increase from two months to one month.

Similar to amendment 72, we do not agree with this. Two months will give tenants time for tenants to budget for the increase. It's regrettable the opposition have tabled this amendment because they did support this position. The original White Paper in 2022 promise to increase the minimum notice landlords must provide of any change in rent to two months. It's disappointing they now have change their minds on this and now we shall tenants have less time to consider their options when receiving a rent increase.

Turning to amendment 81, it six to increase the amount of notice landlords of relative low cost tenancy needs to provide a rent increase from one month to two months. Lord's would be exempt from this. It means landlords of relevant low-cost tenancies will be permitted to increase the rent be permitted to increase the rent prior using the section 13 process in the first 52 weeks of the tenancy. They must be at least one months notice. The new amount may take effect offer this notice.

If it is not challenged by the tenant in the tribunal. These landlords will still be able to use review clauses to increase the rent. The majority of tenancies are let at social rent levels. It's a low-cost rent which is substantially discounted in is substantially discounted in
17:32
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
Due to differences in how rents are set in the sectors, we are exempting set in the sectors, we are exempting assured tenancies let at low rent by these landlords from key changes, the bill makes to rent setting practices and we do believe that practices and we do believe that most of those tenancies will still be subject to review clauses. Therefore we don't believe it's necessary to increase the notice period for low-cost tenancies, for period for low-cost tenancies, for the reasons I have outlined I would ask Baroness Scott to withdraw her amendments.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. I rise to conclude our discussion on this group of amendments I thank the Lord for his comments and the Lord for his comments and The renters' rights is a complex The renters' rights is a complex and far-reaching piece of legislation in this group has sought to address issue notice periods for rent increases and I still do raise in my mind why low rent tenants should be treated differently to those in the private rented sector. I do appreciate the Baroness Cass said that she would write to us and the various consultations which does address some of the issues I have raised.

In particular the point for us was understanding of why the need to go to two months. I do also raise the clear understanding of how the whole sector functions and the practical consequences of operating in it which is some of the issues that Lord Marlesford raised. Savile is a leading authority in the sector Investment Investment in Investment in the Investment in the private Investment in the private rented sector, they raised concerns about increased administrative overhead, reduced flexibility and potential delays to rent adjustments.

Similarly the National residential landlords Association has been vocal about the unintended consequences of these measures warning that more regulation without proportional support risks undermining the viability of the sector and to address the point that Baroness Thornton raised this isn't an issue of whether a landlord may or may not be able to afford the impact of this, it may be that they choose that their investment is better placed elsewhere and therefore they sell the property or do else with it therefore it is no longer available to the private rental sector.

That is the issue we face before us, will These are not fringe voices that talk about this they represent the whole of the industry, the landlords who provide the homes that tenants living. I asked the Minister again what consultation has been undertaken and I appreciate she will come back to us on this. Will it publish those findings? If that consultation has not yet taken place will the Minister confirm when it will happen and whether it will will happen and whether it will inform the final shape of the bill.

Furthermore has the government conducted a formal impact assessment on the changes to rent notice periods? If so when will it be made available to the House and if not, how can we legislate in good consciousness that back in good conscience without seeing the outcome of these? I returned to the broader context which we must not Lucite. The fundamental issue facing the rental housing market is one of supply from there are simply not enough homes to meet demand. If we make it more difficult for landlords, particularly smaller ones who make up a thing of can share at the sector, we risk worsening the very crisis we are trying to address, a situation we have already seen demonstrated in Scotland.

We support measures that improve fairness, and predict ability for tenants. If this outcome of this bill is a smaller, more risk averse rental market with fewer homes available at high rents then we will have failed in our aims. In closing I reiterate the importance of these probing amendments, not about resisting a form, they are about getting it right. We have made responsible questions and the House deserves answers, I look forward to hearing the Minister not only to clarify the government thinking but to offer assurance that these concerns are taken seriously and evidence will guide policy and that fairness will be applied consistently across the sector.

The success of the legislation depends not just on good intentions but on practical deliverability, balanced implementation and trust from those implementation and trust from those that must operate within it. With that I withdraw the amendments.
17:36
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
Is at your Lordships pleasure the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn, moment 73 and 74 not moved? Not moved. A moment 75 Baroness Scott not moved? It's a lead amendment to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a group. Right. In my response to all amendments in this group I will be guided by a in this group I will be guided by a principle of stability and fairness, fairness for both tenants and fairness for both tenants and landlords, this is not a debate about unchecked again nor should it be result in the erosion -- erosion of property rights, it's about of property rights, it's about balance, responsibility and securing a system that works for everyone. I will start by talking to amendment 75 in my name, this amendment probes the government reasons for preventing the tenant and landlord form from agreeing a rent value that is higher than the rent set by the tribunal.

Consider this. The tribunal makes a determination but then the landlord embarks upon a renovation which includes new appliances and upgrade throughout the property. Under this legislation even if a tenant voluntarily wishes to pay a higher rent to reflect improvements made to the property they would be prohibited from doing so. Two consenting adults, tenant and landlord, may well agree that the enhanced value of the home warrants a modest increase in rent. A mutual agreement will exists and yet this bill would override that agreement.

Why should the government intervene to prevent it. This is one example but it is in truth superfluous to the broader point I wish to make. If a mutual will exists, if two adults come to an agreement regardless of whether we personally deem their reasons rational or not, why should any government say no? Why should this bill override that choice? We must be careful not to legislate away agency in the pursuit of protection and I hope the Minister will reflect on that.

I now wish to turn to amendment 78 in my name, this moment seeks to stop the Secretary of State from expanding the definition of low-cost tenancy by regulation. This definition is important, this is not a technicality it is fundamental, determines not only how a property is treated under the law, but also how the relationship between the tenant and the landlord are structured and I understood this is a significant power. I asked the noble Baroness the Minister, does she agree that this is a significant power? Anyone familiar with detail in the indications of this bill would surely recognise that the power of a minister to alter the foundations of an existing contract is unacceptable.

Therefore can the Minister commit to removing this regulatory power head of Committee stage and if not, can the Minister please set out in writing why she believes her government should be afforded this power? Finally I wish to turn your Lordships attention to amendment 86 tabled in my name, this amendment probes the government's reasons for allowing a six-month period in which an application may be made to the tribunal under the newly constructed section 14 A1. Six months could lead to a significant increase in claims being directed towards an already overburdened tribunal service.

Has the government properly considered multiple timescales and modelled the impact it would have on the tribunal system? If this vital work has been overlooked could the Minister commit to reviewing the impact of the chosen timescale and return to the despatch box at a later time with an impact on the total claims? This is not an unreasonable request and I hope the Minister will agree. Many of the amendments in this group are intended to probe the government thinking and to understand how they have arrived at the text of the bill as it currently stands.

Unsurprisingly given the importance of these matters, this group contains numerous amendments and I hope the Minister will listen carefully to the reviews -- views expressed across the House and will not be too ready to dismiss them all in her reply. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause 7 page

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause 7 page 9 line 23, leave out from 14 to end of line 25.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of line 25. I am speaking to amendments 80, 80 a and 82 and 83 my name, each of 80 a and 82 and 83 my name, each of these amendments relates to the potential unintended consequences of clause 7 registered providers of social housing and I'm grateful to Lord Best for his support. Before turning to my amendments I want to
17:42
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Portrait Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Labour)
-
-
express my strong support for the government ambition to give greater rights and protections to people rights and protections to people renting their homes. Since the previous Conservative government first promised to end no fault first promised to end no fault elections in 2019 almost one million renters have received a section 21 eviction which is a leading cause of eviction which is a leading cause of homelessness. It is right that the government has acted decisively to end this unacceptable situation for end this unacceptable situation for good.

Most of this bill is focused on reforming the private rented on reforming the private rented sector, some reforms will affect housing associations because majority of homes they provide use assured tenancies. This includes housing for people on low incomes, people needing high levels of support, people in crisis and people in need of short-term and emergency accommodation. I understand that can progress has been made to amend the bill to negate any unintended consequences for social landlords and this has been strongly welcomed by the National Housing Federation and others who support this legislation.

They have been welcome changes to ground 1B and grant six as well as the introduction of ground six that a which will allow social landlords to gain access to properties both to meet housing need and to deliver essential redevelopment and improvement works. However housing association would still very much like to see further clarity on proposed changes to the process for rent increases in this bill. Housing associations on an -- are not for profit social landlords they invest and come back into the developing the maintenance of the homes they provide and support residents and communities.

To maintain fairness for tenants, to ensure measures of efficiency and alignment with benefits and utility rates increases and to provide business certainty for repairs maintenance and services housing associations increase all tenants rent on the same day, usually in April. The bill helpfully acknowledges this and attempts to provide a mechanism by which social landlords can still administer annual rent increases in the form of contractual clauses instead of section 13 a notices. Retaining registered providers ability to use clauses in tenancy agreements to increase rents as positive as it provides a practical method for increasing rents on the same day for tenants.

The loss of this rent harmonisation mechanism would have been sick and disruption and indeed unnecessary given how heavily regulated the sector is when compared with the private rented sector. However the ability to use contractual clauses instead of section 13 a notices could be clearer than estate in the bill at the moment. The Explanatory Notes clarify that contractual clause increases can be used the bill says for the purpose of securing an increase in rent under a tenancy the landlord may serve on the tenant a notice.

It goes on. This reflects the wording applied to PRS tenancies where the word may is used in the mandatory sense. That is, it's the only way the landlord can increase rent, through the process of section 13 of the bill. In contrast, where it applies to relevant registered provider tenancies may is used in a permissive sense. A landlord can use a section 13 a notice but they also have the option to increase by a clause in the tenancy agreement. The bill provides for this measure of increase by agreement between the Landlord and Tenant Act however it doesn't make it clear whether each increase must be agreed whether a mechanism for increasing the tenancy agreement covers all increases.

I know that the National Housing Federation has argued the provisions granting social landlords the ability to use a clause in the tenancy agreement to increase rents could be made clearer. It really is essential that changes to the implementation date of new rents are made clearer to avoid difficulties for landlords that will affect their ability to provide services to tenants as well as avoid unfairness for tenants. Without the clarification there is some concern that is currently drafted proposed changes may still impact on social landlords ability to increase rents This could disrupt the supply of social housing and the ability of social landlords to deliver maintenance and services to tenants.

Table amendments makes more technical changes to the language used in clauses 1302 and 1303. I will not put them to a vote, but I'm asking for clarification around these clauses to avoid future difficulty for social landlords when it comes to rent setting.
17:47
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich Portrait Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (Crossbench)
-
-
I shall speak to amendment 87 in my name. I amendment proposes that the government adopt a screening procedure for rent Teze. It draws on and is fronted by current Scottish practice. The approach works well there and could make substantial contribution towards addressing the growing pressure on court capacity as we have discussed today. My amendment doesn't reduce the right of tenants to appeal against a rent increase. I'm not sure it even reduces the incentive to appeal on the off chance, but it certainly reduces the likelihood that the courts will be overwhelmed by appeals and in particular by appeals that do not succeed and which therefore swung the courts to the detriment of important and Merriweather cases.

Under the government's current proposals tenants will enjoy a number of new and important rights. Rents cannot be increased as often as before, the notice period has increased and most importantly, or tenants who want to challenge what they see as an excessive rent increase has access to a tribunal. The tribunal can rule that a lower rent should be charged amongst other things. These changes will be of great assistance to tenants who have landlords who are proposing increases out of line with the market.

Appealing against an increase tenants become something of a no-brainer. Why on earth wouldn't one? What would you lose? At worst you get a delay to the date that the increase takes place. The procedure in Scotland provides us with useful ways of how change can be implemented. Some Scottish developments are not very encouraging. It seems there is a decline in rental properties and properties for rent, but one area where the Scottish regime is sensible means there are positives.

It takes rent services Scotland just five days to respond. Very few cases go onto tribunal hearings. The National Residential Landlords Association obtained information under the Freedom of Information which showed that in the four months from April-July 2024 there were 928 applications made to rent services Scotland to appeal a proposed increase. While they do not seem to be any summary statistics available which show exactly how numbers have evolved and changed over time, the Scottish tribunal is certainly not dealing with anything approaching that number.

Only about 30 decisions were published relating to rent increases in the period from August 2024. The full Scottish tribunal's report shows that whilst private sector rental cases with a large majority of cases, they were to do with it actions and repairs are not rent appeals. Obviously the Scottish rent appeals. Obviously the Scottish situation is different to ours, but it's also obvious that this system is effective in giving tenants and landlords good feedback rather than months in limbo.

It's also obvious given the volume of appeals that without this system the Scottish tribunal would indeed be spending a lot of time and resources on a very large number of cases which were effectively a waste of its time. It would very easy for us to introduce a similar first-aid process in England. There is a large amount of expertise on rents outside of the tribunals and courts. The Valuation Office Agency already gives advice that is needed to support taxation and benefits. Rent officers set rents for tech to tenancies.

All the basic infrastructure we need is in place. My amendment therefore proposes that all appeals against rent increases should go in the first instance to the Valuation Office Agency and progress to the first year tribunal if there was a clear case to answer. Obviously if the government chose to embrace the the government chose to embrace the general idea, the details will be in its hands as is. This is a probing amendment. In order to see how important such a screening process would be in protecting our court system from their collapse it is worth doing a little bit of back of the envelope arithmetic.

If appeal rates from private sector tenants were the same level as we currently see in Scotland, and they all proceeded to the tribunal, we would end up in England with over 40,000 cases per year. That compares with 909 rent increase cases heard in the year 2023-24. So we will be looking at an increase of more than 40 fold, or if you prefer, 4,000%. As we have heard, it can already take months for the First-tier Tribunal to rule, so how can it possibly respond to so how can it possibly respond to this sort of increase? Under the bill's provisions, truthfully the longer the delays, the greater the incentive to appeal.

I am afraid that 44 might just be the start. It's no wonder that even very strong supporters of the Beale, such as the local government associations, are expressing concerns about the potential impact of the new appeal rights of the First-tier Tribunal to make decisions in a timely fashion. It matters not just because of the direct impact on the changes in rents, it matters because our judicial system also needs to deal with other property issues, including antisocial behaviour. It is worth emphasising antisocial behaviour is not just an issue for landlord.

It's also for surrounding residents. If you look next to a property that is being used for intensive drug dealing it's not much consolation being told it only occurs in a tiny amount of properties. We already have long delays in the court system. They seem to be growing, not reducing and as a chamber we must take the potential impact on the courts into account when scrutinising this bill for the sake of tenants just as much as landlords. I would therefore urge the government to consider following and learning from the Scottish example and introducing a first stage for rent appeals outside the court system.

I would like to ask the noble Lady minister if she would be willing to meet with me to discuss this suggestion. discuss this suggestion.
17:55
Lord Hacking Portrait Lord Hacking (Labour)
-
-
I rise because a number of my amendment appear in this grouping. That is to say amendment 88, 91, 94, That is to say amendment 88, 91, 94, 97, 100 and 101. My Lords, two make a general observation before I speak to the individual amendments, I do not have a great deal of enthusiasm about several of these amendments, but they have been put to me and I thought it was necessary to have them added in this committee. I turned to the first of these amendments and that is amendment 88.

This enables landlords to claim costs against the tenant when the landlord has succeeded after the tribunal confirms the rent increase. This follows the normal rule in front of all tribunals and courts in our land of costs following the event. Event being who won the dispute and the cost therefore has to be picked up by the loser. Having said that, I do have a reservation about this particular amendment because it could be a deterrent against tenants challenging an increase in rent and I think that is undesirable.

My Lords, I move now to amendment 91 and indeed I come that with amendments 94, 97 and 100. In all of these amendments they have sought the increase of rent should be calculated from the expiry of the landlord's notice for the increase rather than the date of the tribunal's decision. The reason why this amendment has been tabled is because there is quite a noticeable delay in the decision of tribunals, which means the landlord does not get his increase in rent for several months afterwards.

I go now to amendment 100 and 101. Amend 100 is covering the same ground about the covering the same ground about the increase in rent from the date of the rent increase notice rather than the date of the tribunal decision. 101, amendment 101 moves to a different subject and that is the rents payable on the decision of the tribunal should be paid in equal monthly instalments within six months of the tribunal's determination. That I think speaks for itself as I have described it.

Now I am moving on to the other amendments. I am just looking at my list of amendments and all of the ones I have got to speak to and I have got there. I have completed my comments on all of these amendments. I say again that I don't move them with great enthusiasm. I did move on Thursday with great enthusiasm, supporting amendment 60 from Lord Carter of Haslemere and my own amendments of 161 and 165 and 166.

Unfortunately, my enthusiasm for these amendments have not so far permeated to my noble friend on the front bench, but I am just hoping front bench, but I am just hoping they will do later.
17:58
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
I rise with huge enthusiasm for my amendments. I am speaking to amendment 90 in this group, but it relates to amendment 89 in the following group, so I will just speak the once. I have been told to call these probing amendments, so I would like to push them to a vote. I would like the noble Lady minister really to accept them because I think they are very good. They are similar to probing amendments put by my colleague Carla Denyer in the other place, where tenants benefit from energy efficient improvements were the government has given the landlord money to make those improvements.

I would like the Minister to think about who profits from the government subsidy. Is the government only increased the -- only interested in increasing the profits of landlords or should the profits of landlords or should the tenant profit as well? Triple glazed windows do not make any difference to them if savings are cancelled out by higher rents. Take this case study provided by Generation Rent. Energy efficient work was done for a family who received benefits. The landlord then asked for a 500 pan rent increase after the family had been through all the disruption of getting their home upgraded.

You can imagine the dust, dirt, the noise, the general disruption of having workers around all the time. This increase would have left her family facing a £900 shortfall between their Local Housing Allowance and their rent, making it absolutely unaffordable for them to stay in their home. She tried to negotiate the rent with the landlord but has now been issued with the section 21 eviction notice. Meyer and her husband believe the property is in an improved condition thanks to the grant funding they secured.

The landlord now wants to find more affluent tenants who will pay a higher rent. I can foresee a lot of stories like this in local newspapers. I think it could be extremely damaging to local politicians because there will be a lot of people blaming net zero for tenants been. Of their homes, or blaming the government because they Tenants like Meyer Cannon should benefit from the warm homes plan. More than half of private renters should not be living in leaky homes don't even reach A-level C energy performance certificate.

I think the covenant is being generous with landlords by allowing them until 2030 to get the work done. I don't think it's appropriate for landlords to take all the profit from a government grant and that the tenant shouldn't benefit as well, I think this is in danger of discrediting a really good idea. I know the Minister will say that tenants can challenge rent hikes through the first-tier Tribunal, but the tribunal uses market rents to determine decisions and a warm home is clearly more desirable than a leaky one.

My amendment means that improvements to a property facilitated by means tested energy- efficient grant schemes can be disregarded by tribunal when determining a new rent for property. By ensuring this taxpayer subsidy can't be used as grounds for can't be used as grounds for increasing rent levels. I realise this bill started off extremely skeletal and the government has packed in a lot of amendments trying flesh it out and make it workable, I would argue this is a very good amendment to slot in with those government amendments.
18:03
Lord Carrington Portrait Lord Carrington (Crossbench)
-
-
In the private rented sector with residential led -- lodgings in Buckingham and Lincolnshire. I have tabled amendments 96, 98, 99, 103, 104 to clause 8 of this bill in which the government seeks to create a new right for renters to challenge their annual rent increases. I am most grateful for the support of Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Howard of Rising in this group. I believe there is a strong consensus across your Lordships house that stands alongside the government in wishing to prevent unreasonable rent increases from being used as a means of eviction through the back door.

However I also believe there is a strong consensus that the government's drafting of clause 8 will not work. Indeed I am deeply concerned that providing a universal right for all renters to challenge all rent increases in all circumstances and without qualification will undermine the supply of rental homes and overwhelm supply of rental homes and overwhelm our courts. This bill seeks to provide renters with mechanism to ensure redress where there landlords behaves inappropriately irresponsibly, or exploitative leave.

Yet I fear that the current drafting will undermine the intention of practice. At second reading we heard examples of spore behaviour by a small minority of landlords but the response delivered by the government will impact the whole private rental market including the great majority of responsible landlords. The effect of clause 8 will be to create a rights for all 4.5 million of England's private rental households to challenge their rent increases annually. Fire the section 13 process at no cost and that zero risk.

Every single renter will have a right to take their landlord to the first-tier Tribunal. If they perceive their rent increase to be disproportionate or unreasonably above market rates. The government believes that tenants should only apply to the tribunal if they believe a rent increase as above market rents. But I'm afraid that will not be the result of this legislation. The legal text of the bill sets out that a rent increase could not come into force until after the tribunal rules and explicitly prohibits the court from determining real market rent to be higher than the landlord's proposal even if that is a judges evidence assessment.

The result of this drafting is to create an artificial incentive for all renters, all 4.5 million of them, to submit a challenge to their rent rise however legitimate because this would prevent the increase Coming into force until the tribunal decides. There is no risk to the tenant in this and it provides a guaranteed delay in when the increase comes into force. Once this is widely understood, renters will exercise understood, renters will exercise their right as a matter of course.

This incentive risks overwhelming our first-tier Tribunal, burdening an already struggling court with hundreds of thousands of cases and this has already been referred to by Baroness Wolf who has come up with a sensible solution. The government wants renters in genuine need to redress, to have access to the courts, but the key for justice will be too long for this to prove possible. Moreover, the risk of this backlog in cases is causing very serious concern amongst professional and responsible landlords in the sector, the prospect of extended delays to increasing rent would make it more difficult for investment institutions and build to rent developers to invest in new high quality rental homes, undermining the rental housing supply that we want to see.

The reality of this backlog would be upward pressure on rents, the opposite of what the government wants to achieve. The government itself has acknowledged its desire to ensure responsible landlords can increase their rents in line with market annually. The government has rightly ruled out rent controls, however the system proposed under this bill will in practice undermine landlords abilities to secure market rents annually. The Guardian newspaper recently revealed that a Kings Council has assessed the bill to determine the likelihood of a legal challenge in the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently city AM the newspaper published an article outlining this legal opinion which determined that the government stands a greater than 50% chance of losing in the ECHR on this particular aspect of the bill.

Something I implore the government to look into further as a matter of urgency. My amendments will mitigate this very serious legal risk with the current proposals on rent challenges. It is also very well for the noble Baroness the Minister to repeat as she has done in the past that the Renter's Rights Bill is compatible with the ECHR, but that judgement was made before our amendments were tabled and discussions ensued. As a matter of grave responsibility the government should consult again with its lawyers now that these issues have been raised.

The amendments to clause 8 in my name offer a commonsense solution that should be reassuring to all parties. In my amendments I propose that if a renters challenge is unsuccessful, rent should take effect from the date of the section 13 notice rather than the tribunal's determination date. I further propose that the court should be able to follow the evidence empowering the tribunal to raise rents to what seems to be market rents. Even if this is potentially higher than what the landlord originally proposed.

Taken together I believe these amendments would deliver a fair result, technical changes that keep the right to challenge whilst reducing the artificial jeopardy free incentive to take landlords to court. These reasonable amendments will also give institutional investors and build to rent landlords the confidence to invest in the high quality new rental homes our country needs. To address concerns raised by a number of noble Lords at second reading about unsuccessful challenges leaving renters with a large bill, my amendment is drafted to mandate landlords to spread any backdating over a 12 month period.

The number of amendments proposed to clause 8 speak to the widespread concern in this House about the risks of the government's current drafting. Whether colleagues support my amendments or those of my colleagues I believe the government's position is unsustainable. A credible plan is needed to address the artificial incentive for every renter to challenge their rents, otherwise I fear serious investment in new rental homes and the functioning of our court systems. our court systems.
18:11
Lord Cromwell Portrait Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-
-
I have some sympathy with moment 99 concerning the rents rise challenges under section 13 of the bill, it is essential that tenants can properly challenge excessive rent increases, but once again a fair balance is what we seek and I would slightly take Aaron Escott to task with her reference to consenting adults. The reason for this bill exactly arises because of the power differential between landlords and tenants and some adults are more consenting than others if I may use that sort of phrase, not sure that works but you know what I mean.

I do support the proposal in a moment 99 in the name of Lord Carrington that rental increase, only of course if agreed with the tribunal, should take effect from the date in section 12, section 13 notice forgive me, rather than the date of the tribunal decision. I also agree that where this creates a rent backlog you need a payment plan to set it off over time. I would notice however that there is still a risk to the landlord in the circumstances.

Because if a tenant uses the tribunal as a speculative delaying tactic and then if the rent increase is finally approved by the tribunal but the tenant does a flip with the rent arrears unpaid, this will leave the landlord the unenviable prospect of trying to recover the money due to them from the departed tenant. In short, the bill enables perhaps even invites speculative challenges to any rent he increase requests. I do however think Lord Carrington slightly over exit by saying everyone in the Thai country will do that, perhaps he is doing that to illustrate his point.

Either way my grandfather used to say don't complain if people fall for a temptation that you have created. I think for the tenant it would make rational self-interested economic sense to automatically challenge any rent increase, and this abuse of the tribunal process would add to existing overload of cases and therefore discourage supply, I therefore do support the amendment of the provisions in this regard. There has also been a suggestion, I think it's a moment 98, that -- amendment 98, the tribunal might set above what was requested by the landlord.

I do not support that for two reasons. First if a landlord proposes a rent increase it must be assumed that they consider this to The danger of having the rent set higher than the landlord had requested is often mentioned by tenant groups I've spoken to is a significant cause for tenants feeling intimidated and preventing challenges to rent increases. This bill does a lot to rebalance the power in the landlord tenant relationship but this needs to be re-examined on this issue. By making a revised rent payable from the If necessary with a payment plan for arrears, while at the same time not allowing rent to be increased beyond the landlord's requested level would achieve a better balance of rights between landlord and tenant and would prevent abuse of the tribunal system.

I do therefore hope that the Minister will pay heed to this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

proposal and I look forward to hearing what she has to say. Interest as an owner of rental

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Interest as an owner of rental property. I speak to amendments 99
18:15
Lord Howard of Rising Portrait Lord Howard of Rising (Conservative)
-
-
property. I speak to amendments 99 and 103 in this group, both these amendments go towards preventing the situation which has become almost mandatory for a tenant to take any increase to a tribunal. As pointed out by Lord Carrington and also Lord Cromwell, I will spare your lordships from repeating those arguments, but it would be silly for a tenant not to take any proposed increased to a tribunal. Under present proposals there is no risk The very worst that can happen to the tenant is if an increase if agreed is postponed until such time it has been dealt with by the tribunal.

Amendment 99 proposes that any increase agreed by a tribunal can be implemented from the date the increase was due to take effect. This will remove some of the incentive to automatically apply for reviews. There are, as has already been mentioned according to government statistics for .9 million private rented homes in England. Some of these will be having an annual rent review. Some longer. But if one takes a conservative average of say a three year rent review for each dwelling, that would mean over 1.6 million possible applications to 1.6 million possible applications to the rent tribunal per annum, and I think every three years is an exaggeration.

It is much more likely to be more frequent. Let us assume that that we take the three years and that that we take the three years and that 1/3 of the people who have received increases of rent do not apply to the tribunal. So that leaves, and it's my conservative
18:17
Lord Young of Cookham Portrait Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
-
calculation, one million applicants to the tribunal. How is His Majesty is government planning to deal with is government planning to deal with this? Could the noble Baroness the Minister tell the House the number Minister tell the House the number of challenges taken to the tribunal in the last period for which this in the last period for which this information is available and what is the present delay or wait time for application to the tribunal is being

**** Possible New Speaker ****

heard? I have added my name to amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have added my name to amendment 99 in the name of Lord Carrington. 99 in the name of Lord Carrington. It ensures that if there this a successful challenge to the rent successful challenge to the rent increase, the rent is due and payable from the date proposed by payable from the date proposed by the landlord. Alternative means of the landlord. Alternative means of filtering appeals have been suggested. Much of the argument the noble Baroness used are equally applicable to amendment 99.

Turning to amendment 99, what'll say proposes is exactly the opposite of what happens at the moment. It has been the case since 1988 under the 1988 Housing Act. At the moment if the landlord serves a section 13 on the tenant giving one months notice, the tenant can appeal. But if the tribunal decides the can be increased, the rent is payable from the date given on the section 13 notice. That is the position at the moment and the position the government intends to overturn.

If you look at the CAB website on this information it gives advice to a tenant. It's probably worth saving money towards your rent increase if it is due to start before the tribunal makes a decision. That way you will not have to find a large sum of money if your rent is increase. They go on to make the point that it can take up to 10 weeks for the tribunal to make a decision. I agree with what has been said. I don't see how this proposal as it stands can possibly survive.

From the tenant's point of view they have nothing to lose by appealing against any increase. The rent cannot be put up on the increase is not effective until it has been endorsed by the courts. No satisfactory reasons have been given for this and so I looked in Hansard to see what happened in the other to see what happened in the other place. The Minister Matthew Pennycook said on October 29 last year, column 144, "Tenants should not have to go into debt simply for enforcing their rights." But the relevant right is for a tenant to appeal against an unfair rent increase.

There should be no additional right to the tenant if that appeal is subsequently lost, but that is what is proposed. My honourable friend Jerome Mayhew intervened in the Minister's speech and this is what he said, column 146. (Would be unfair on the tenant to have a significant increase in rent and the backlog after the determination of the tribunal. But that right means it's been been unjustifiably denied." the Minister then in effect conceded the case.

"The honourable gentlemen is right. If the tribunal determines that the rent increase is reasonable, a landlord may have missed out on a short period of the rent increase, not the whole rent, the rent not the whole rent, the rent increase." But not may have missed out, will have missed out, and not as we have heard for a short period, but intentionally for a very long period. The Minister then sought to defend the position. "I will be very clear about this. We took the view that it was better that tenants were not by facing the prospect of not by facing the prospect of Which as I said current advice from the CAB is that tenant should make provisions for the increase in rent.

The argument the Minister uses is at odds with the position at the moment. The Minister's case was further weakened by a subsequent intervention. Again my colleague Jerome Mayhew Mars, I understand that the government's intention is that tenant shouldn't go to a tribunal unless they are clear that the asked for rent is too high, but what prevents them from going into the system as discussed? The Minister said in reply, what I would say to the honourable gentlemen, I will expand on my argument in due course, is I think he underestimates how difficult it is to take the case to the tribunal.

In a spare moment over the weekend I put into Google how do I appeal against my rent increase? Up came the answer, you use form rent one on the gov.uk website. I downloaded the form. You can appeal for free and you can appeal online. All credit to Lord Maude of Horsham and others for simplifying and digitising government forms. You filling your name, address and contact details. The name and address of your landlord or the agent, the amount of rent you are paying and when the tenancy began and the details of the property.

You then add a copy of the section 13 notice from the landlord increasing the rent and a copy of the tenancy agreement and you sent it off online to the nearest tribunal regional office. I estimate it would take about 10 minutes. The tribunal will then ask you what type of hearing you want. Most tribunals for rent increases are based on the evidence you send. They are that there is no need for the applicant to do anything more than I have described.

However, as was said in the other place, I think the honourable gentlemen underestimates taking a case to a tribunal. It will not be as simple as the tenant deciding on a whim one day that they can do that and it is a no lose situation, but I recognise the incentives on both sides. It's not incentives on both sides. It's not onerous in its not no lose. What is onerous is the pressure on the tribunals. I urge the noble Lady the tribunals.

I urge the noble Lady the Minister to reflect on this and in her reply a willingness to think again.
18:25
Lord Marlesford Portrait Lord Marlesford (Conservative)
-
-
The next group of amendments, Lord Marsden.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Points earlier, expanding on the point about affordable rent. Is the government's policy still that government's policy still that affordable rent means that it should affordable rent means that it should not be any more than 30% of total household income? Because, of household income? Because, of course, that immediately implies that for one tenant a property is that for one tenant a property is affordable, but for another tenant with more assets, it is not affordable. But the second point, I support my noble friend's entry into the argument is on this business of fixing of rents by the tribunal.

How long does that continue? Could that be spectacularly? Does it apply mainly for the length of time that particular tenant is there, all will it be continued if they were to be a change of tenant and the tenant is told it's the rent that the tribunal set. If we are going to have tribunal set rents, we must be told exactly how they will operate. Finally, I would like to say that unless the government can answer fully and competently, the points made by the noble Lord Lord Carrington, this will will certainly fail in its objective.

-- This bill will certainly fail in its

**** Possible New Speaker ****

objective. In the next grouping of amendments there are some excellent amendments there are some excellent amendments in my name and in the name of others that seek to resolve name of others that seek to resolve some of the issues raised by the noble Lord Lord Carrington and many other peers on this particular other peers on this particular issue. However, in this group I have a rather more pedantic set of amendments to support. I am amendments to support. I am supporting amendments 80, 82 and 83 supporting amendments 80, 82 and 83 in support of the noble Baroness Lady Warwick of Undercliffe.

This bill is concerned with the private and not social housing where tenants rights are stronger, but housing associations, now known as registered providers are drawn into the bill. They use assured tenancies which means some ingredients in the bill do not work for them, in
18:28
18:29
18:30
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley Portrait Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Labour)
-
-
Arise to support -- I rise to support the amendment. Put simply it six to ensure that public funds cannot be used to justify a rent hike. I am sure noble Lord here will agree that government grants for public good. They are funded by the taxpayer with a clear purpose and with this regard this amendment refers to grants for making homes warmer, safer and more efficient. Many tenants as we know live in fuel poverty. It cannot be right that the landlord receives public money to upgrade a property, receive money largely because the tenant within the property as we have just heard from the noble Lord, is on a low income and then is allowed to raise the rent because of the same improvements.

It's not fair and it betrays the spirit of public support and with this amendment the government can stop that situation occurring, as well as provide and give protection for tenants they can enjoy the benefit of the improvement, which as I said, potentially would have been secure because of their personal circumstances in the first place. I would like to ask the noble Baroness the Minister to consider amendment 90 carefully and come back to noble Lords before report stage. I'd also like to ask if the current scheme such as the Great British Insulation Scheme has conditions that explicitly prohibit rent increases By government money.

If not, will this be amended in this condition is added to all future schemes. I appreciate she may not have the answers to hand, but if she will write to me and all noble Lord we detail and intention as with detail and intention as with detail and intention as with
18:32
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
There are a lot of issues in this group, in group 4. But I will add something at the start by saying the bottom-line here, again and again, is the imbalance of supply and demand. And the imbalance of power between tenant and landlord. Demand significantly outstrips supply. And the landlord tenant balance is like a seesaw with one fairly heavy person on the other and a nice sylphlike person on the other end and I believe this just want to be.

A little bit. The reverse of us who feel in this kind of market landlords do and can charge what they want and rent have been going up significantly, driving more people out of the private sector rental and I think this is a point that we have kind of join the dots on so far. And into the arms of their local authorities under the homelessness and temporary accommodation route. We only need to look at the rising figures to know this is happening.

And it is happening at scale. As we have debated regularly in your Lordships house over several years now. In fact, I was not surprised to read this morning different page of the Guardian, from one of their surveys. The private rental sector landlords are fleecing the taxpayers as a direct result of the temporary accommodation crisis. They found that local authorities in England are paying 60% more for rooms in B&B and hostels than they would if they were renting similar accommodation in the private rented sector.

There are far more details in the front- page article. But it is irrefutable but some private landlords and hotels are cashing in on hidden homelessness process. The lack of supply creates a really vicious cycle that is costing the country and enormous amount of money. Thus, we support all the measures that the Government is taking within this bill to try and curb unreasonable rent increases. And prevent the economic eviction. And we will discuss this more in the next group.

We are also concerned about market rents being the deciding factor for the tribunal, given a market rent that is significantly under supplied, especially in areas of the country with high expensive housing prices. If market rents are used, then they should be based on existing equivalent rental properties in the area, and not just new-builds, which are usually more expensive and can be overpriced, and I look forward to us debating the amendments in the next group, which are trying to bring some resolution to this.

Can I dispatch positively and succinctly all Baroness Warwick's amendment? Her commitment to the social sector and her work with registered providers is well- known. And it is no surprise that she was supported by the Noble Lord who the same accolades could apply to. Such providers are in a dilemma with regard to rents. And our at the mercy of the Government as to when and how much they can increase rent, as the Noble Lady outlined very well. We are concerned that there is increasing evidence that a significant number are actually cutting back on their future development plans to build social and affordable homes at a time when we all want the opposite.

On the first tier tribunal, there seems to be a real fear around the House that renters will all rush to challenge their annual rent rise, as is being said by many. But I am pragmatic about this. I think it is probably wise to expect an increase, which is why we wholeheartedly support Baroness Bull's amendment 87 which I was a little late inputting my name to the nominations at close, so to speak, but I would have. If there can be a simple mechanism to out those claims that have absolutely no chance of success, as has happened in Scotland, then it must be worth considering.

We can clearly see from going through recent tribunal hearings that cases are actually often contradictory, and inconsistent. And they seem to rely on different sources to make a judgement, which means it is often based on an incomplete picture. Which is why I have submitted amendment 106, supported by Lord Carter and Howard, for which I thank them for their support. We are simply seeking assurances that the tribunal is fit for purpose and ready to go and that adequate consultations have been carried out.

What is worrying is a recent survey by generation rent about, and I do thank them for their work all year round, and in particular with this bill. They found that less than one third of renters actually heard of the tribunal, with less than 10% knowing a lot about it. There is clearly a lot more work to do before we even get a trickle, let alone is Toonami, or everyone claiming they're making an appeal against the rent, thus we could not support any amendments that involve tenants paying landlords cost, or allowing the tribunal to allow higher rents, as these are new barriers to renters exercising their rights.

But I do have a degree of sympathy with Lord Carrington's amendment 99, very ably supported by Lord Cromwell. Insofar as the rent should be backdated to when it would have been legally allowed to be raised, otherwise it really is an incentive to appeal, what have we got to lose? And in all honesty, to me, just does not seem fair. And it feels wrong, as has been so vulnerable local lords, that the landlord should add value to their capital asset and then to use that money immediately to hide the rent.

A financial win win for the rent. A financial win win for the landlord. Amendment 70 in the name of Baroness Jones. of Baroness Jones.
18:39
Lord Carter of Haslemere Portrait Lord Carter of Haslemere (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise to support amendment 106 tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Thornhill. Clause 8 from the bill as well in section 14 of the 88 act to allow any challenge to rent rise in the first tribunal will be free of charge, no tribunal ruling would able to increase those by the landlord and by challenging the rent rises we have heard they will automatically delete any rent rise for several months and however modest and justified it may be, this would obviously create an incentive for tenants to challenge single rent rises, regardless of the risk of them doing so, because as we have heard if their appeal is unsuccessful there only liable then to pay the increase in rent for the date which is incredibly unfair, for the reasons the Noble Lord and the Noble Lord Carrington and Cromwell have given.

What have tenants got to lose, therefore? My focus here is to express strong support so we ensure that the tribunal has adequate resources to cope with the likely increase in a number of rent rise challenges. OK, not 100%, but there will be a significant increase and less changes made to the bill to remove the incentive to do because you have got nothing to lose. Given that the tenant will hold all the aces in the pack, the tribunal floodgates are likely to be opened, and without more tribunal sources this will greatly increase delays and create even more incentives to challenge the rent rises.

The Government needs to get this right or the system will grant to a halt. They will leave the sector in droves. As I said at second reading, droves. As I said at second reading, there needs to be balance in the very welcome improvements that the bill as a whole makes and the relationship between landlord and tenant has to be too extreme to tenant has to be too extreme to maximise the effect of the bill. So, as this amendment proposes there needs to be a proper consultation of that could be against that, including the senior advisory before these provisions.

So we ensure the tribunal system is adequately resourced and for the increased demand. I am looking forward to demand. I am looking forward to seeing the Noble Lady the Minister under. In the next proof of the bill. bill.
18:42
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Baroness Lady Scott, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, lady Dunhill, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lords hacking and Lord Carrington for their amendments on rent increases and all of the Lord Haskel can including Lord Cromwell, Lord Howard, Lord Young, Lord Marks bed, and my Noble Friend Baroness Kennedy and Lord Carter. If I could just briefly turned to Lord Glasgow's comments first of all because he spoke about the challenge because he spoke about the challenge around rent levels.

And he said yes that a permanent change to the rent? I would say that when a tenant challenges the rent it would be that challenge that is decided upon by the tribunal, and so each time the section 13 notice is issued, presumably the tenant will be able to go back again and challenge that rent. I think it is unlikely they will do it, because if a landlord get taken through the tribunal for an increase in rent they are unlikely to go back and do that again, but the point that the Noble Lord made about the lack of affordability in housing, to some extent really set the heart of all of this bill, but I would point out that it is only part of the government's response to the lack of affordability in terms of the housing market.

Not the totality of it. And I would just point quickly to the increase in supply that we are trying to drive forward with and that reforms we have made to planning and so on, which are, hopefully, going to increase the supply of housing. The billion pounds we have put to invest in social and affordable housing, which I genuinely think will help to change things, and also the 633 million that we have but into relieving homelessness, which I hope will help.

Baroness Thornhill referred to the cost of temporary and emergency accommodation and there is no doubt that not only is temporary and emergency accommodation devastating for families, it is just awful for them, and we heard so many terrible stories about that, but it is also seriously exacerbating a dire financial situation that councils find themselves in, not helped by some of the profiteering and not all landlords do that, of course. There is no doubt some profiteering going on as has been reported in the press today.

We have quite a significant amount of amendments in this group, so in the interest of time, I will attempt to address each of these amendments thematically. Turning first amendment 75, tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Scott. This amendment would allow landlords and tenants to agree a higher rent than the tribunal's determination. After implementation of the bill, we have been clear that the only way in which parties will be able to agree a higher rent is via the section 13 process. I am natural by the noble Baroness Scott feels that a tenant would object to and go to challenge the rent increase that they had agreed to, so if the tenant and the landlord have come to an agreement about a rent increase, there would about a rent increase, there would be no need for them, presumably, to challenge that tribunal.

If the rent is challenged, then the tribunal can determine if. This amendment would leave a gaping loophole for an scruple as landlords to force tenants to accept higher rent, even after they have challenged it at the tribunal. Clearly no tenant would agree to this, unless they were under pressure. It is for that reason that I would ask the noble Baroness Lady Scott to withdraw that amendment. Similarly, amendment one or three tabled by the Noble Lord Carrington would omit the tribunal to determine the renting is higher than that posed by the landlord where market rates allow.

Tenants should feel safe to challenge unfair rent rises at the First-tier Tribunal, and we therefore believe that limiting the tribunal to deter the rent to either the same or lower than the landlord proposes strikes the right balance for both landlords This empowers tenants to challenge rents that are designed to force them out of the home. I asked the noble Lord Carrington to withdraw noble Lord Carrington to withdraw the amendment. I'm on 78, 80, 82 and 83 deal with the process for rent increases in low-cost tenancies, flow clarity I will set out how clauses will work for these tenancies.

In doing so, I would like to thank the National Housing Federation and all the registered providers who have engaged with us and are still doing so. Providers of low-cost tenancies will be permitted to increase the rent by either a rent review clause will fire the mechanism in new section 13, A, this replicates the current section 13 process. There is nothing in the bill which prevents the provider of low-cost tenancy, including a new rent review provision to an existing tenancy agreement, or varying it if the tenant agrees.

One relevant low-cost tenancies are converted to the periodic tenancies on the bill's commencement, the existing rent review clause will apply unless both parties agree to vary it. Where there is a rent review clause in the tenancy agreement this would take precedence over the section 13, A process. Whether tenancy agreement doesn't contain a rent review provision the landlord should use the section 13, A, process. Turning to the specifics of each amendment, amendment 78 tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Scott 60 remove the ability of the Secretary of State to expand the definition of relevant low-cost tenancy.

If the government of the social housing sector changed the way the rent is determined and regulated in future, the power will allow the Secretary of State to make technical amendments to the definition in response. Or other changing circumstances. The power is set in the context of a relevant local tenancy reflecting the fact the Secretary of State does not intend to use it to affect market rate tenancies. I should point out, as well, the previous government also included an almost identical power in their bill, delegated and regulatory reform committee have also reviewed the relevant power in both this and the previous bill and have made no recommendations in relation to that.

It's for this reason I will ask the noble Baroness reason I will ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment. Turning to the next amendments tabled by Lady Warwick, and I thank her for her work, her amendment would mean for relevant low-cost tenancies tenants may receive limited or no notice of a rent increase and their landlords could increase rents more than once a year. I know most registered providers act in good faith and that social obligated by the regular top social housing via the rent standard but we can't agree to remove protections that are already in place for these tenants as this would do.

Turning to amendment 82, 6 to allow landlords of relevant low-cost tenancies when using section 13, A, to increase the rent on the same day each year. This amendment would apply to rent increases where the tenant has a ready challenge the previous years rent increase at the First-tier Tribunal. As I've set out previous amendments, our reforms will mean landlords can only increase the rent once per year which this amendment would interfere with. Expect most landlords of relevant low-cost tenancies will seek to continue to use rent review clauses as I said under a previous group amendments.

As such in most cases, rents for such tenancies will be raised annually in accordance with an agreed contractual term and tenants will not therefore be able to challenge increases. Noble Lords, I understand amendment 83 has the same effect as amendment 82, but for tenancies that increase the rent every 52, amendment 86 to provide additional clarification for the process for rent increases for relevant low-cost tenancies. So I hope that answers my noble friend's questions but if it would help to meet her for the discussions I'm happy to do so and for the reasons I've outlined I would ask my noble friend to withdraw all four amendments.

Clause 8 of the Renters' Rights Bill set out the circumstances in which a tenant can submit an application for the tribunal, to challenge the rent amount in the first six months of a tenancy stop this has a similar effect on existing mechanisms provided for by section 22 of the Housing Act 1980, which allows tenants to challenge the rent and the first six months of new assured short hold tenancy. Amendment 86 tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Scott would decrease the amount of time tenant has two challenge under the new system from six months to 2 months.

In practice, we expect clause 8 will be really used. In most circumstances, tenants rate will reflect the market rate, given the tenancy will be very new and tenants will have just agreed to it. In some circumstances the tenant may be pressured into paying over the odds, for example if they are struggling to find a property. This acts as a safety valve to prevent the tenant continuing to pay bonus rents. I would request that the noble Baroness Lady Scott withdraw this amendment. Amendment 87 from the noble Baroness Lady Wolf of Dulwich 6 to provide that the Valuation Office Agency will initially review when challenge applications before the tribunal.

It allows the VLA to terminate any challenges they deemed to be spurious. I listened carefully to the noble lady's introduction of her amendment and her example from Scotland, I wouldn't say I'd have a meeting with the Scottish housing minister while there may be some elements of the legislation in Scotland, but are working, some of them are not so it's a mixed bag in terms of how that's working. As I've already outlined, tenants who receive a rent increase they feel is not representative of the market value will be able to challenge the increase at the First-tier Tribunal and the tribunal does have experts who are experienced in understanding the different factors which result in the market rate, and determining whether the rent is reflective of this.

We would think the tribunal are best placed to do this in the new system, however, I appreciate the noble Lady has moved a probing amendment on the issue of a method of triaging claims against rent increases, I will be happy to meet with her to discuss this further because I think we do need to consider whether there may be a way forward on that as such. At the moment I would ask the noble Baroness lady will to withdraw her amendment. -- Lady will.

Amendment 28 would require tenant to play landlords cost when the tribunal looks ideal degree tenant should be liable for the landlord cost, taking your landlord to a tribunal is not something we expect tenants to do likely and they should not be burdened with the extra cost of landlord 's expenses. Tribunal's have been designed to be a low-cost informal and accessible means of resolving a range of disputes, they are trained to deal with users who appear without legal representation so landlords may only incur limited costs from any challenge.

As such I would ask my noble friend Lord Hacking to withdraw this amendment. Turning to amendment 19, tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which would amend unsupported by the noble Baroness Lady Kennedy -- and supported by. This would amend the Housing Act 1980 so when determining rents tribunal's must disregard any improvements funded by government grants. I understand very much the sentiment behind it and we recognise it's important that energy efficiency grant schemes are used to benefit tenants and that is why we have set a clear expectation that landlords should declare that they do not intend to raise rents as a direct result of the upgrades being made.

In response to the Baroness Lady Kennedy who spoke about other schemes, and I think it's important we do this, I will look at the other schemes that are involved and see what conditions are put on those and I will respond to them on that subject. We will carefully monitor the impact of grants in the private rented sector and I would say importantly we have reserved the right to make in-flight changes to the scheme, so we will look at them carefully in that regard.

While I appreciate very much the intention behind amendment 19,...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If I may, I rather like this idea. It's a great idea. In your idea. It's a great idea. In your consideration when you include whether the grant covers only part of the cost and how that can be treated.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

treated. Noble Lord makes a very relevant point. Of course, we will look at point. Of course, we will look at both things. While I appreciate the intention, have concerns about whether it would be a appropriate to proportion a portion of it to energy improvement. I hope the alternative X-Factor allow tenants to challenge egregious rents, provide some reassurance and therefore respectfully ask the noble Baroness Lady Jones to withdraw the amendment. Turning to a set of amendments which all deal with the backdating of rent increases, that's 91, 94, 96, 97 and 98, 99, hundred and one and hundred and four.

I do not agree tenants should be forced to pay backdated rent, to ensure tenants are not unexpectedly thrown into debt that could cause further difficulty, this bill provides the new rent will apply from the date the tribunal directs, not earlier, at the date of determination. We are clear that tenants should only submit to an application to the tribunal where they believe rent increases above market rates and that all parties should communicate about the level of rent increases which would be sustainable, in terms of the likelihood of I think one noble Lord quoted 1.6 million tenants taking landlords to court, I find that unlikely, to say the least, but avoid undertaken to noble Lords that will be monitoring this very carefully, if that's all to happen we would certainly note.

That was happening. Until that Which is predesigned to force them out of their home. Turning to each moment in turn, my noble friend Lord Hacking has spoken to his amendments 91, 94 and 97. Amendment 91 aims to backdate a rent increase to the date specified on the section 13 notice. 9460 backdate a rent increase where the tenant has challenged the relevant notice at tribunal. Amendment seven is a consequential amendment linked to amendment 94 which aims to ensure that where a tenant manages a rent increase notice at tribunal any rent increase determined by the tribunal would be backdated to the date on the section 13 notice.

I have set out why the government doesn't agree that tenants should be forced to pay backdated rent and therefore I would ask my noble friend to withdraw these three amendments and in response to the noble Lord young's comments, he set out the process as it is now, if it is really straightforward and simple as the process the noble Lord set out, and I'm not arguing, I'm sure he has been as diligent as he always is in looking at the facts, surely we would already having tenants appealing their rent increases and that is not the case.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

At the moment, it is backdated. The change in the build is that it The change in the build is that it will be backdated. It is that that provides the incentive which is not there at the moment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

there at the moment. Understand what he's saying but I do think putting a backdated rent do think putting a backdated rent increase burden on people who are increase burden on people who are challenging their rent because they can't afford it in the first place, is just going to exacerbate the problem, not make it, not make the proper ability to challenge the rent increase available and accessible to them which is part of the aim of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill. Amendment 94... If you take the case to the court

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If you take the case to the court and you win your appeal, then to appeal court grants you your rights appeal court grants you your rights from the date they arose. Your from the date they arose. Your rights are always backdated to the dates the right arose. So this is a dramatic departure from normal court

**** Possible New Speaker ****

procedure. I accept it's a dramatic departure but it's done for a very departure but it's done for a very good purpose and that is why we have put that provision in the bill, to prevent tenants being penalised as it were for challenging their rent at tribunal by having a backdated

**** Possible New Speaker ****

increase. Briefly, are you saying therefore

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Briefly, are you saying therefore that tribunal sets a rent at a level which it considers to be right besetting a penal level of rent besetting a penal level of rent because you are saying they are being realised if it is backdated, being realised if it is backdated, to the date it should have occurred. The application is that the tribunal is setting a penal rent. I can't is setting a penal rent. I can't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is setting a penal rent. I can't I was saying that the penalty for the person charging the rent would be the debt that had accrued to the backdating. That is the point I was trying to make. Amendment 97 is a consequential amendment linked to amendment 94 James to ensure that worry tenant challenges a rent increase at the tribunal any rent increase determined by the tribunal will be backdated to the date under section 13 notice. I have already set out by the Government does not agree tenants should be forced to pay backdated rent, and I therefore ask when Noble Friend to withdraw these three amendments.

Turning to amendments 96 and 98 in the name of the Noble Lord Carrington, which should be considered in the light of his amendment one or three, amendment 96 would allow rent increases to be backdated to the date of the notice. It does, however, limit this to cases where the tribunal has determined the rent increase proposed by the landlord is the same as or lower than the market rate. Amendment 98 would, similarly, change when the rent increase has applied after the tribunal determines rent.

It would mean that the tribunal finds a landlords proposed rent is lower than the market rate, the rent increase will take effect from the date the landlord originally intended, or landlord has proposed a rent above the market rate, however, it would apply from the date on or after the date of the tribunal hearing. I do understand his concerns about the potential for the courts to be overwhelmed. We have heard extensive conversations on this issue, and the points around ECHR, I believe, I could answer in response to the noble and learned Lord Pannick last week but IM happy to take that back to the departments again and have a look at that.

I have also responded previously to the noble Lords points about the impact on the bill on the rent investment. There Government does not agree but we would ask the Noble Lord to withdraw these three amendments. ICI amount of time, with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the noble Lords like me to carry on? Amendment 99 also tabled by the Noble Lord 60 backdated rent Noble Lord 60 backdated rent increase and it provides the tenants may pay their backdated rent in one payment or 12 weekly instalments and amendment one of four is a amendment one of four is a consequential and mid 99 that is to define the difference and amendment one-on-one tabled by another friend one-on-one tabled by another friend similarly proposes that tenants pay a backdated increase after six a backdated increase after six months of the date of the tribunal's determination and iron sympathetic to the underlining premise of these amendment which is that tenants might face financial problems in paint or rent increase by the tribunal and these seek to smooth it out I would argue it is better to renew for the cause of the problem which current policy achieves by backdating in the first place.

I would therefore ask the noble Lords to withdraw these amendments. This six to remove the tribunal's ability to delay a rent increase for up to two months after the date of determination in the case of undue hardship. And this is a necessary protection for renters. This will give them time to adjust and consider their options while ensuring the landlord can achieve the rent. I would therefore ask my Noble Friend to withdraw his amendment. Finally, you will be pleased to hear, amendment 106 tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Thornhill would require the Secretary of State to carry out a consultation on the resources available to the First-tier Tribunal chamber stop my department has worked closely with his majesties Courts and Tribunal Service and the Ministry of Justice throughout the formulation of the renters rights Bill.

This collaboration is carefully considered implementation and resourcing issues. Our shared aim is that the tribunals are well
19:05
19:05
19:05
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
chamber itself to increase capacity. As well as reviewing resource and working practices, while the noble Baronesses amendment understandably reflects the need to ensure the tribunal's are equipped to implement these reforms, the proposed consultation will not provide any consultation will not provide any new information the armed the work that is already under way. I would therefore respectfully ask the noble therefore respectfully ask the noble Baroness Lady Thornhill to withdraw this amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, as expected, this has been a very technical and dense been a very technical and dense impact of amendments, with numerous contributions from noble Lords who clearly possess deep knowledge of clearly possess deep knowledge of this bill. There insights, I found, this bill. There insights, I found, I trust the Government will reflect I trust the Government will reflect on these insights today. Festival, I think the Baroness Fall rightly seeking clarification on the mechanism available to social providers to increase rent, amendment 80, 88, 82 and 83 are thoughtful probing amendments.

We thank the noble Baroness for bringing these to the attention of everyone in the House today. This is an important issue for social providers and tenants living in social housing. Rules and an understandable mechanism builds trust and transparency. Furthermore, a standardised approach underpinned by clear and consistent rules ensures confidence in the process that Government rate and tenancy management. Government have a duty to communicate these mechanisms. Not only to this House, but those forced to respond to this incoming legislation.

In fact, I would argue that the latter is much more important. As we repeatedly noted throughout the Committee stage, this legislation is technical and detailed, and so the baroness, the noble Baroness the Minister has an obligation to clarify. And I trust the noble Baroness the Minister will welcome any further amendments brought forward with the purpose of testing and probing the government's rationale and decision-making process. I will now turn to amendment 87, tabled by Baroness Wolf of Dulwich. Any amendment brought to the attention of this House which seeks to alleviate the pressures on the tribunal process must be considered by the Government.

This is an important area of consideration and the noble Baroness should commended for putting forward ideas to help filter out appeals which simply do not have any prospect of success. Prolonged uncertainty is not good for the landlord, nor the tenant. Delays in resolving disputes will keep parties up at night, and add to the pressures of everyday life. Additionally, backlogs will reduce confidence in the system and many will lose faith with that service, as a legitimate protector of their interests.

This is not an exhaustive description of all the issues that arise from an overburdened system, but it does highlight the serious risks we face if these concerns are not addressed. The noble Baroness Thornhill rightly highlighted the critical issue of resourcing within the tribunal system. This is a thoughtful amendment that clearly commands support, ensuring that the tribunal system is adequately resourced is absolutely vital. The Secretary of State must take responsibility for ensuring that their own policies do not undermine the very system intending to deliver justice and security for tenants and landlords alike.

And my Noble Friend Lord Howard of Rising spoken his usual vigour and clarity on this issue, among many others. But the Noble Lord and my Noble Friend has warned many issues at the Committee stage really shown his understanding that only by striking and I say it again, the right balance with this legislation can we hope to achieve an efficient and effective rental market for the future. Next I wish to return to amendment 88, tabled by the Noble Lord parking.

Again, this amendment seeks to reduce backlog by adding a drawback or a consequence of taking a case to tribunal if unsuccessful Ulster and I recognise the determination of the Noble Lord to take the pressure off, again, of this tribunal system. Amendment 90, tabled by the noble Baroness Jones of Moscow, raises an interesting probing issue in relation to Government grant. And I was interested to hear from the Noble Lady the Minister, that she is going to look into this further and I do welcome that and will be interested in what she comes forward within the future.

Turning now to amendments 91, 94, 97 and 100 tabled by the Noble Lord hacking, this house is right to consider amendments which tighten up and clarify the timing of when a rent increase or notice becomes effective. The House is also right to explore options which ensure a predictable timeline for this process and I thank the Noble Lord for bringing these amendments to the House. Lastly, I wish to briefly put the contribution made by the Noble Lord Carrington. Amendment 104 highlights the importance of clear conscious definitions within law.

This provides certainty and consistency in application and every bill should have well-defined terms. Our courts rely on it. Our public bodies rely on it, and those who are expected to follow the law deserve it and I hope that the noble Baroness the Minister agrees with this principle. Next, amendment 99 tabled by the Noble Lord Carrington is a useful probe into rent tribunals to remind the House his amendment would ensure that if Iran challenge was unsuccessful, the reviewed rent would apply from the date that the rent was due to take effect, rather than the date at the end of the legal process.

We must consider the incentives and the signals the legislation sense to tenants as it stands. But, additionally we must seek to protect landlords from financial losses caused by legal delays. These delays are firmly out of their own control and I did listen to what the Minister said on this issue, but I think that we will be bringing this back again for further discussion in the future. Across the House, we must consider proposals which ensure tenants are not hit with sudden unaffordable lump sums, but also ensure that landlords are properly compensated for lawful rent increase.

This amendment brings this consideration front and centre, and I would like to thank Lord Carrington for bringing this amendment today. Briefly, amendment 96, 98, and one of three, tabled by the Noble Lord Carrington, are interesting and quite thoughtful proposals, were it possible to do it so fairly, rent should, indeed, be determined at the open market rate, ensuring that rents reflect genuine market conditions helps to maintain a balance and fairness, both for tenants and for landlords in the market.

This was a packed and detailed group with numerous proposals from across the House. It was not only, I found it a fascinating debate, but once again it highlighted your Lordships understanding of key issues facing the sector, and I do hope that the noble Baroness the Minister is listening carefully to the knowledge and the expertise that is across this chamber. And therefore can help the Government make this a successful bill when it comes to the end of the process.

But we have got to ensure that we can enhance the availability of the houses, alleviate the burden of unaffordable rent. And really deliver security for tenants. Right across this House we all agree that renters need a better deal, but this group, I fear, is yet another part of the story, that as it stands this is just not the answer at the moment, but this time I wish to withdraw my amendments.
19:14
Lord Hacking Portrait Lord Hacking (Labour)
-
-
Is it your Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is, by Lee, withdrawn. Amendment 76.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We are moving to a new subject in the taking of this bill through the committee and this amendment is directed to the process of assessment, but I will go on on the basis that I have been asked to move basis that I have been asked to move this amendment and this amendment is directed to the assessment of directed to the assessment of increases of rent under the open market rent. And what I am seeking to do with this amendment is to limit these increases in rent and the rent retail price index and the consumer price index, but that merely provides, I suggest, airbrake on the assessment of rent, and I indeed hope Baroness Thornhill will like it because she is nodding, so that is very nice, because she was concerned about moving into the open market rent and the impact that would have, the unfair impact it would have, the unfair impact it This brings back memories of long ago one I was a young barrister 60 years ago, I fear I have to acknowledge, when I was doing masses of French cases and in those days there was a separate body that assess the rent -- mass cases.

It was called the rent tribunal. The trouble was, that body was assessing rents for protected tenancy, quite out of contact with the market rent and that had the disastrous effect of giving the landlord quite insufficient monies to look after the rented property. And if I may just recall something also from long ago, next door to us, when we moved into, when my wife and I moved into the square in which we still live, there were a vast number, about three quarters of the square, who were housed by protective -- protected tenants.

Next door to us there were two sisters, they were both in their 80s and the landlord had provided nothing in the term of water and heat, central heating, no hot water system. The only thing they had was an old geezer by the kitchensink of World War II or World War I, and that enabled them to wash the plates and saucepans with some heat. And so the ladies had a big problem. A washing problem. They solved it in this way.

They bought a bath and they also bought a washing machine. And they put the washing machine through its cycles without putting in any detergents, and when the washing machine was exiting hot water, that went into the bath and that enabled them to have a bath. But man and advance the Minister doesn't have to address any of that -- my noble friend the Minister doesn't have to address any of that because this government has quite rightly said that the test should be the open market test.

I only hope my noble friend will be pleased with noble friend will be pleased with this extra protection that I'm seeking in this amendment. seeking in this amendment.
19:18
Baroness Janke Portrait Baroness Janke (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Amendment post, call seven, page 9, line 25, insert the words as printed in the marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As colleagues have orally said, the Liberal Democrats have long campaigned to abolish no-fault campaigned to abolish no-fault evictions and we support the measures in this bill particular provisions by which tenants can challenge rent increases. We support challenge rent increases. We support amendments in this group that seek to establish a fairer basis for rent increases and will prevent excessive and unpredictable increases. The severe impact of which may cause eviction and homelessness. We also eviction and homelessness. We also support amendments in this group will reduce the need for tribunal's to face challenges from tenants.

So we feel there is a fundamental problem with the concept of market rents, which are currently calculated by virtue of looking at a range of advertisements will stop this does not provide an accurate assessment of the actual rents people are paying. 1/3 of private renters are already paying half or more of their income on rents, well above the commonly accepted or affordability threshold of 30%. Measures to stabilise rents within tenancies are essential to ensure the Renters' Rights Bill delivers a secure, stable system it promises as well as empowering tenants to challenge unfair rent increases that result in unwanted moves.

For many renters, a rent increase is as good as an affectionate notice. Without an established index that outlines what a increase looks like the First-tier Tribunal will remain effective in supporting renters. Rent increases must not be the new no-fault eviction. Over 300 to renters moved last year because of a rent increase can afford, more than 900 renters a day. Market rents is not officially high indicator for lodging what an appropriate rent should be. The database proposed in the bill once established will be able to capture what rents are actually being paid.

This could then establish benchmarking for an appropriate rent rather than having the traditional understanding of market rents. Amendment 77 in my name reflects Liberal Democrat policy which would limit any in tenancy increase in rent to percentage of the back of England base rate. This is different from inflation, another indicator is often used. Landlords face increasing costs from time to time but be in Greece they face and want to pass on to tenants are generally more likely to be related to the cost of interest on their borrowing, therefore that is the appropriate measure for landlords to look to and that should be considered appropriate for a rental increase.

It also will offer much more than the volatile changes in the market rents that are related to inflation will stop we would relate rent increases to a much more realistic increases to a much more realistic modest and accurate reflection of what landlords expenses art. And use the Bank of England base rate as an appropriate limit on the amount of appropriate limit on the amount of rent increase and any in tenancy rate increase. That is the rationale behind this amendment.
19:22
Lord Best Portrait Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise to move amendment 79 and the related amendments 84 and 85 in the related amendments 84 and 85 in my name grand and Thornhill. I believe these amendments will overcome an inherent defect in the bill, both for renters and for landlords making this a rare opportunity for amendments with appeal across the piece. The amendments seek to protect tenants from unpredictable, unaffordable in tenancy rent increases but they also have distinct benefits for landlords. Together, the amendments would establish a basis for in tenancy rent increases for a fixed period.

As with the early amendments in this group from Lord Hacking, and Baroness Jenkin, the amendments which restrict rent increases to an index of inflation, in this case, either the Consumer Price Index or an earnings index. But in these amendments, the indexation is limited to 4 years. Countering the concern that rents will be controlled. After four years, a market rent, if necessary decided by the First-tier Tribunal would be allowed. These amendments address the central issue of renters security which lies at the heart of the bill.

Tenants need to know their rented property is their home and they cannot be forced to move out by a massive rent increase, as the housing minister in the other place, Matthew Pennycook, said of the Bill's report stage in the Commons, once section 21 evictions are done away with, unscrupulous landlords will no doubt attempt to affect tenants who assert their rights by means of extortionate rent rises. The renters of coalition and shoulder have campaigned assiduously for in tenancy rent increases, not to become a means of eviction by price.

The Bill's remedy is to place a requirement on tenants to take their case to the First-tier Tribunal to set a market rent that cannot be exceeded. I'm going to argue that this whole First-tier Tribunal arrangement is a highly unsatisfactory mechanism for settling on appropriate rent levels. For a start, the outcome of tribunal hearings is unpredictable and sometimes arbitrary. Deciding on a market rent is not an art, it is an art, not a science. Sometimes the tribunal has accepted a case made on the basis of the asking rents advertised on right move and zuppa but sometimes the tribunal has it specifically dismissed the use of these asking rents, since there's no knowing what relationship actual rents have two the initial asking rents.

Moreover it's common practice for in tenancy rent increases to be lower levels than the open market rents for new tenants because landlords sensibly wish to keep the existing tenant. There are the drawbacks to the Bill's use of the tribunal route to determining a reasonable rent increase. First, this mechanism depends upon the rent are actually taking their in tenancy rent increase to the tribunal. This could be a daunting requirement for the renter, as Generation Rent has pointed out a few tenants have any knowledge of the FTT.

Even where renters are fully cognizant of their legal rights, many will be reluctant to go down this road, doing so is likely to mean falling out with the landlord. Negatively affecting that relationship. Taking the case to the tribunal will often involve hassle and expense, critically if they are to present their case in person. That may require travel to a considerable distance, time off work, the process itself may be intimidating. The whole business is fraught with uncertainty and anxiety.

And second, assuming the process is followed, the market rent determined by the tribunal may still mean the rent, the renter facing an alarming increase, a recent report shows market rents for new lights are 27% higher, £270 per month, and three years ago, an increase well above earnings growth. And many commentators are suggesting shortages may push rents, market rents much higher in the years to come. Lord Marlesford mentions the guideline of unaffordable rent being 30% of take-home pay.

But this is only a guideline, not a requirement of any kind landlords. A lot of tenants paying 40% of increase of income on rent as the Affordable Housing Commission, which I had the pleasure of sharing, has shown, and at that level of income, to rent ratio, there is always the danger of arrears, let alone hard ship to the renter. From the landlord perspective, I do suggest that the proposed regime based on appeals to the First-tier Tribunal is highly unsatisfactory.

Those representing landlords have argued that large numbers of tenants could be tempted, as we have heard today, to take post rent increases to the FTT in the knowledge that they, the renters, have nothing to lose. They cannot be asked to pay more than the level that land law proposes, they might be successful in arguing the rent be successful in arguing the rent should be less and any case, the process would save them money by delaying any increase until after the tribunal hearing, as we have heard, which could be months ahead.

Number of your Lordships have made the case that the number of cases referred to the tribunal could clog up the system and delay any decision being taken at an ongoing cost to the landlord. Another way of looking at this, among the many that have been suggested, is that even if 99% of tenants accept that landlords post rent increase, that would leave 50,000 cases still going to appeal. This know where the FTT could deal with these numbers. This overwhelming of the system does seem more likely if rumours are true that specialist firms are planning to offer a no win, no fee service, paid for by the, by sharing the rental savings to handle cases at tribunal hearings on behalf of renters.

For both landlord and, the dependency on securing a decision from the First- tier Tribunal theoretically every year for every tenancy is fraught with danger, and potentially undermines the whole bill -- both landlord and. Government is rightly worried that introducing any form of rent control would have a significant impact as history and international comparisons suggest. These amendments, 79, 84 and 85, do not undermine the overriding market principle, instead they introduce a mechanism that removes the hazards of appeals to the First-tier Tribunal and provides the certainty of indexation for in tenancy rent increases, after four years, of occupation, that rent can be reset at the market level, determined by appeal to the FTT if necessary stops since most renters move within a five year period, the amendment would ensure rents are political throughout the great majority of tenses.

The amendment adopts the same rent stabilisation proposition, the same indexing of increases, devised by the Renters (Reform) Bill coalition, but the amendment limits coalition, but the amendment limits this indexing to a four-year period. Perhaps I could address the issue that there may be exceptional circumstances were indexing rent rather than going for a market rent could cause hardship or financial difficulty for the landlord. The landlord might be spending substantial sums on upgrading the property and needs compensation from higher rents or where the landlord has borrowed heavily, probably with a buy to let mortgage and needs to increase rents by a bigger margin to satisfy the lenders requirements driven in part by the Prudential Regulation Authority.

To cover these relatively rare cases, an additional amendment could place the obligation on the landlord to go to the tribunal, rather than the tenant, to seek a setting of a market rent instead of applying the usual Those representing landlords may fear that this measure would reduce the returns they could obtain on open market, button open index of four years without all of the hazards of tribunal hearings should appeal to many. Particularly, perhaps, to institutional investors who want some certainty for their investment.

And no landlord will welcome time being spent on detailed casework and tribunal hearings. Those representing renters interest may worry that rent could marked up significantly after the fourth year of tenancy, but I think many landlords would wish to keep a good tenant for 1/5 year and beyond, rather than drive them out with above inflation increases, the use of indexation would set a norm, a reasonable expectation for all landlords that could stabilise levels in general, and avoid excessive rent hikes.

These are amendments that seek to satisfy the interests of renters and of landlords, and indeed of the investors standing behind the landlords. They try to avoid the cumbersome conflict and potential delay involved.
19:32
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
The Noble Lord could bring these remarks to an end. He has spoken for well over 10 minutes now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To produce arrangement that all parties can accept as relying to the tribunal and I picked it move the amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. I have signed amendment 77, I thought it was a really sensible thought it was a really sensible amendment. My amendment to 75 goes a little bit further and if I was enthusiastic about amendment 90 I am absolutely delirious about amendment 275. Back in 2001 I was a Green Party member of the London assembly and our group persuaded the mayor, Ken Livingstone, to set up a living wage commission. And this looked at what it really cost to live in London, rather than what the minimum wage paid and didn't looked getting a place to sign up to a mineral which, not just the inadequate minimum wage but it was a real success for Tory and Labour mayors to keep going.

It is commonsense and cracked, instead of relying on market forces, and many people had easier lives as a result, so what I am suggesting now is a living rent commissioned to do a similar job with local mayors given the power and discretion to bring in rent controls that match the conditions in their area. The reason we need this is simply because privatisation of rental market since the 1980s the decline of Social Housing Act the writer by it has been a disaster for poorer people and, of course, young people.

We have a two tier economy where the rich get richer and the rest of us barely managed to tread water, and because the rich can only buy so many yachts and overpriced handbags, they spend their money on buying assets. That often means properties. When Black rocked by thousands of properties for rent in the UK and in further firm Blackstone spent £1.4 billion doing much the same, then what chances do they have owning an average income of getting onto the property ladder? We have a younger generation that are working hard and being sucked dry every movement in the rental system that benefits the rich and big corporations.

The Resolution Foundation found that private renters are spending, on average, as we have heard, third of their income on housing costs, and this is getting worse, not. And it is not just a London problem. Rightmove reports that asking renters outside of London have raised 60% since 2020 .Strip in inflation and wage growth. Rent control is an established part of private renting in 16 European countries, so why not here? If the Government wants to save money they are bringing rent controls between 2021 and 2025 the Government is set to spend £70 billion of taxpayers money on housing benefit, with an additional £1.74 billion annual spend on temporary accommodation.

Why not save money on Housing Benefit and use that to build more Social Housing Act? And reduce the millions of pounds spent every month on temporary accommodation? I have heard a lot from this Government about affordable housing. Have not heard quite so much about Social Housing Act. And I do think that is something we need to bring back into use. Creating a living wage and London made sense because people in low-income jobs spent nearly all they have just getting by, and by giving them more money benefiting local economy because they go out and spend it.

I contrast, the more money that goes as they outbid everyone to outbid more assets. The Government can break that cycle by establishing a living rent when one in five private tenants are spending half of their wages in rent, that is because our economy is not working for everyone. The Government are doing their best in this legislation, but if you want real legislation, but if you want real change, then we need big ideas on the living rent. the living rent.
19:37
Lord Young of Cookham Portrait Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
-
I do not share Baroness Jones delirium for the reintroduction of rent controls, not least because I was housing minister in the 73 to 89 Parliament which dismantled the rent controls which had strangulate it the private market. I wanted to add a pre-footnote to the excellent speech made by Lord Best when he moved in mid 79, 84 and 85. The reason I am doing so is the many reasons he gave, it was the last one that attracted me.

And I assume this is appointing all of the problems that arose in the last debate, the government's proposals for dealing with rent increases, as they proposed with no incentive not to appeal. And we all listen to the noble Ladies defence of what is proposed, but I may have misread the mood of the House and I am not sure that she carried the House with her in that. The Noble Lord best set out reasons for avoiding overloading tribunals with appeals by inserting a formula for rent increases for four years, other amendments proposed different formulas.

In The Other Place, the Minister explained that he wanted to avoid rent controls, and I fully understand that institutional investment will be determined by the reintroduction of rent control, which, effectively, as I said a moment ago, nearly entered the private rented sector, but the proposals in Lord Best's amendment to restrict increases to RPI to four years strikes a balance between rent falling out of line with market rent and the regime that with market rent and the regime that is proposed in the bill with all the risks that were referred to in the last debate.

And over four years it is unlikely that there will be a serious deviation between RPI and run. I did a little bit of research on this. The average annual rent inflation in the UK from 1989 to 2023 was 3.71%. No, I recognise that figure may have been depressed by rents in the public sector. The long run average in RPI is 3.6%, so not a lot of difference between those two figures. But I end with one final point which again Lord Best touched on.

But the Noble Lady and I are one in wanting long-term institutional investment in rent and accommodation. In our last two exchanges at Oral Questions she has confirmed that we are at one on this. What the institutions want is for the rent to go up each year, either in line with RPI, as proposed in the amendment, or with market rents as in the bill. What they do not want is for reasonable increases to be regularly challenged by tenants who could simply defer any increase by appealing.

And my question to the Noble Lady would be what consultations has she had with the pension funds and insurance companies with the long-term institutional investors about whether they prefer the proposal proposed by Lord Best, or whether they want to live with all of the risks that are in the bill. She may not have the answer at the moment, but I hope that between now and then she will consult with the one want to invest in the housing to see which of these alternative measures

**** Possible New Speaker ****

there are in favour of. I delighted to be supporting the Noble Lord best and I wholeheartedly Noble Lord best and I wholeheartedly agree with his perceptive analysis of the bill. On the benches we enthusiastically support the enthusiastically support the fundamental principles of the renters rights Bill and the government's commitment to redress government's commitment to redress the landlords and tenants and I come the elegant bridge he has built the elegant bridge he has built between landlords and tenants on the issue of rent and I share the Noble issue of rent and I share the Noble Lord disappointment that there was a kind of emptying of the chamber, because I see this section as a very, very critical part of the discussion about what can help in particular with tribunals.

So I look forward to welcoming back the people that are very interesting shortly. However, as the Noble Lord and my honourable friend Baroness Janke and Lord Hacking have said clearly and articulated, there is a challenge that the bill in its current form does not accurately address and it is the profound escalating crisis of rent affordability. While the bill introduces welcome measures on security and it risks falling short of its aims, unless the issue of rent is resolved. Rent inflation continues to far outstrip those which growth and inflation and pushes millions of renters into precarious situations, as described by my Noble Friend Baroness Thornhill, because the highest cause of homelessness is eviction from the PRS.

And according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, more than one third of private rented sector in poverty after housing costs and according to generation rent one half of all private to have no savings at all, so we are talking
19:42
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
about people who can ill afford any shift, however small a percentage. The bill, commendably, aims to The bill, commendably, aims to abolish section 21 and this is a abolish section 21 and this is a crucial step towards security. But as the renters reform coalition I thank them for their briefings and others have rightly highlighted without adequate protection against excessive rent increases, landlords excessive rent increases, landlords can still first tenants out through eviction by price. This is effectively creating the second 21 effectively creating the second 21 flow back door.

These amendments in this section are reasonable and measured in their aim to resolve this issue. I am afraid we do not go as far as the rent control on this. Geez to Baroness Jones. It would be a shame if it is perceived as a shift in that direction and that becomes the focus of the debate because I genuinely believe that the amendments within this group, we are moving towards some kind of solution, whether it is the Bank of England base, whether it is by CPI.

But by attaching some kind of mechanism that helps to ensure that rents go up proportionately but rents go up proportionately but fairly for everyone. And we can, by all means, discuss the Scotland experience yet again stop but I feel it is not necessarily relevant to what is trying to be achieved here. The primary mechanism within the bill for tenants to challenge what they perceive as unreasonable rent increases is through the application to the First-tier Tribunal, while the intention behind this is sound, the approach places the onus squarely on the tenant.

And whilst I recognise that the highly competent Lord Young is able to fill in a form and be extremely certain in writing the waves of any opposition, for countless renters, in my head I have got a friend who was a renter who is holding down three low income, very low income jobs. Does not have a smart phone. Is trying to maintain rent to keep her two children in primary school. And the very concept of that individual feeling that they can assert themselves, that thanks to the changes in whatever is on the website, is for the birds.

I think that navigating the tribunal process is, for many, a really daunting prospect and often people here who have described it in the last group of amendments, it is for the people who are out there who are renting, who are literally in the lowest income and the lowest ebb often in their lives. They may lack the necessary means, the confidence, the awareness of their rights, or the resilience to engage with what is, potentially, and feels to them, a very complex and time-consuming legal mechanism.

However speedy it was for Lord Young. And so if a tenant successfully navigates the tribunal, the decision is tied to assessing market rent, as has been noted. This concept can be problematic, often based on asking prices for new rentals which may be an artificially high indicator. The resulting market rent even if they remain Jaime come unaffordable for many tenants. England's rents, it is important to remember, as a share of disposable income, are some of the highest in Europe.

With significant proportions in work private renters struggling to pay. We need clearer practical measures, simply relying on tenants to take on the burden of challenging rent via potentially intimidating tribunal process which may still result in unaffordable rent lacks measures to sufficiently address what is an affordability ... As presently described by Baroness Janke, would be a mechanism and would provide certainty alongside the four-year period, described by the noble Lord best. This is a vital, vital opportunity to improve the lives of renters.

I think this is the most significant thing that we can do as an amending body to improve this bill and with that in mind I would ask the noble Lady the Minister to meet with those who have put forward some of these mechanism between now and the report stage, and to see whether there is any possibility of adding in something like this would in turn would relieve the pressure that was described in the previous group on any kind of appeal tribunal process which for many tenants is a very intimidating prospect, so with that in mind, I strongly support the amendments as tabled by my noble friend and Robertson.
19:47
Earl of Lytton Portrait The Earl of Lytton (Crossbench)
-
-
Is this is the first time I've spoken at this stage in the bill, or to declare an interest that I am a landlord of private rent residential property. But as I think, will both the renters concerned would agree that I'm not somebody who goes out to extract any from them, in fact quite the opposite. More particularly, I do stand here with some 50 years professional experience in property, not least of the private rented sector.

Now, the noble Baroness is almost the person who is actually the cause of me getting to my feet, so I will give further credit. She referred to rent affordability as security and whilst I get that particular line of argument, the two things do differ somewhat. Because indeed all this group amendments related to some way to control the rents, something the government has always said it wouldn't do. And I listened very carefully to my noble colleague Lord Best, and would say to him that a deferral or reduction in the number of seats on a like-for-like basis is nonetheless a form of rent control.

And I don't think I can make any concession on that point. The noble Lord jewelled -- Lord Young of Cookham said that the noble Lord Lord Best 's amendment was less bad than what might be in the bill. I'm not sure that that particular line of argument particularly commends the broader principal to me otherwise. In general. But a recurring theme of this is this business of affordability of rent to renters. But that actually is not the purpose of the private rented sector.

That is the purpose of the social rented sector. And if we are somehow transferring something which occurs and is a feature of the social rented sector to the private rented sector, then there is a very much bigger debate that needs to take place, apart from this bill on precisely what that means. And I don't believe that that debate has actually been entered into, Lord Low believe there is any substantial investigation or research into what that might mean in practice.

I think that if in fact that is a change that we are faced with, I predict the same outcomes occurred after 1965, the noble Lord young of Cookham referred to the rent control of the 1960s and his role in undoing that, and I mentioned that at second reading, but the combined effects of security of tenure and rent control in the 1960s, caused fall from 30% of housing being in the private rented sector in 1961, to about 10% some 30 years later.

And indeed even after that freeing up process, it will still under 10% in the year 2000. That's how durable that process is. It's very difficult to get the confidence back in once it has been severely damaged. Also bear in mind the progressive changes in the tax treatment for private rented sector's, and what that has meant. That may be different when you start looking at the corporate level because of course they are dealing with it at the corporate level and they can offset all sorts of things against a larger pool of property, for the 80% of private rented sector's that have five or fewer residential units.

That doesn't look like the same thing at all. Ultimately, the test will be whether we generate competition in the market through an increase in supply. But everything I have heard this afternoon, and particularly from those who are proposed the amazement in this group, is about guarding against precisely that outcome that would be a failure of the intentions that sit behind this bill. So I think we have to be very careful about this. I don't particularly take a moral stance of any sort on this.

I stand here before your Lordships as a technician, not a politician. I come with an economic view on this. But I do say that if we are making some sort of transfer of liabilities from one sector that has a considerable amount of government and financial and in many cases with registered provider charitable support, and then we are transferring it to the private rented sector that doesn't have that support, then I predict a very significant failure in the outcomes of this bill.

And that I think would be a tragedy because in fact this bill contains an awful lot of stuff that is very good indeed and I would like to see it successful will stop I would like to see a successful private rented sector. I would like to see renters treated with humanity and civility, and they are not exploited endlessly in the way that has happened. If we end up with a situation where we have reduced supply and those who are going to anyway pay no regard to civility or common decency with regard to their renters, are still somehow the operating in some subculture or other, really we will not have succeeded in dealing with this matter at all.

I would encourage the noble Baroness the Minister to whom I wrote recently, although she has not had a moment to reply and I don't cast any assertions of that at all because she is busy with this bill but I do think there is a need to look closely at what the probable outcomes are in all of this, because we don't, we will walk blindly into something we really would rather have not happened at all.
19:55
Lord Marlesford Portrait Lord Marlesford (Conservative)
-
-
I speak on this bill from the rural -- perspective which is different from the urban perspective. The rural perspective is much more concerned with communities, with rural communities, and the fixing of rents this is very much take into account by most rural landlords. Affordability, one method, the 30%, a return on capital, some return on capital if needed to be able to afford to keep the show on the road. But taking account of individual circumstances is crucial, for example when there's talk about time rents to inflation, first of all I think it's very sensible that all pieces should make it clear that when rents are assessed annually, it should be on the basis of taking account of inflation -- tying rates to inflation.

When inflation is very high I think it would be quite wrong to impose a full level of inflation on a tenant. We have had double- digit inflation in the last three years. And of course none of us will ever forget 1975 /6 when we had inflation of 25% per year. So inflation is a dangerous animal. But I think you guard but use it as a guide over a period. And also you take account of individuals and the contribution those individuals are making to the community in which they live, after all, a rural area, rural community, is about people in a much greater way than probably can be in an urban community.

I don't know if the Minister has what about this but I would hope that she would have particular reference to what might work better in the Ruble community than in an urban community. -- In a rural community. I agree very much with Lord Sharpe and he was one of the liberators from a system that had almost destroyed private rented sector. And the other person who are viewed respect for -- who I have huge respect for its Lord Best, whom I have known for a very long time and whose judgement and knowledge combined provide an experience, a very useful guide, but I do recommend the Minister to take some people like that and have a quiet private discussion with them, on the practicalities because this bill is getting knotted up on getting knotted up on practicalities.

It's easy to have clause A, clause B and subclause that, but exactly house going to work and that depends on human beings and governments have a role, and I believe the role of the government is to prevent people government is to prevent people being treated in the community. But

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it's people who matter. This is my first contribution at committee stage and so I declare my interest as a owner of a property in receipt of rent, residential receipt of rent, residential property, and a practising chartered property, and a practising chartered surveyor for some 35 years. I would surveyor for some 35 years. I would just like to stop and consider why rents are so high. It's simple, they are so high, it's a plan demand, we haven't got enough. The reason we haven't got enough.

The reason we haven't got enough -- to supply and demand. There has not been sufficient building since the evolution of the AST regime which we heard about and which began to encourage and wrest us back into the market. Institutions used to own, British situations, life companies and insurance companies used to own millions of pounds worth of private rented accommodation in the UK. And the post-war rent restrictions made it uneconomic and they dumped it as we have heard from the noble Lord Lord Young.

It took many years for that to come back and the investors
20:00
Lord Thurlow Portrait Lord Thurlow (Crossbench)
-
-
return slowly with the AST and now we are interfering with it all again. I'm not objecting to that again. I'm not objecting to that interference. I think it needs updating. But the important thing to updating. But the important thing to remember, or point out to this house, is that there is a fast amount of institutional money lying amount of institutional money lying in the wings waiting to invest in in the wings waiting to invest in private rent property. It's there. It's identified, some of it has been It's identified, some of it has been spent, and it is going to create tens of thousands of units of private rented accommodation.

We are talking not about tens of millions but billions of pounds, and a lot of it is foreign investment. That is the holy Grail, institutional investment is the holy Grail of generating high-volume addition to Too much control will frighten them away, as exactly as it did after the post-war controls were introduced. And this is therefore a very, very sensitive and important issue. How rent reviews are going to be conducted and controlled. And that word, controlled, is very bad news.

It just has to be we have to design something that will protect the needy, but encouraged the investors. We have to increase the supply, which is at the root of high rentals, and then over time equilibrium will hopefully arise in between supply and demand and rent will flatten out and become a more reasonable percentage of income. I simply wanted to remind the House of something that we already know, these huge institutional investors are not bad people.

They are not bad organisations. They are investing a small proportion of their portfolio around the world into the UK property market and a smaller portion still into PRS. Do not let us frighten them away by controls that are so strict, so tight, that they simply do not feel they will get a return on their efforts and their cash.
20:03
20:03
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
debate. Mental costs are a serious problem and we know the high costs of housing, coupled with the problems raised serious challenges problems raised serious challenges the hard-working families across the UK. The Ministry for housing UK. The Ministry for housing communities and local Governments own housing survey, 2023, and own housing survey, 2023, and approximately 1.2 million private rented has also reported it difficult to pay their rent. That difficult to pay their rent. That represented 29% of rented households. When the survey was households.

When the survey was conducted, when nearly 1/3 of tenants found it difficult to pay their rent, there is clearly a problem. When we were in Government, we took decisive action on pressures faced by hard-working families across the country and we zeroed in on the most important issue of all for households and inflation. By the time the Government took office, inflation was back below target, however following the Chancellor's budget last year inflation is concerned only now above target. It is above that background of cost pressures that these are minutes have been moved to the bill.

Why would he not agree that rent controls are the solution to the problem was back we do, however, share the concerns many noble Lords raised at the cost of rent. As the noble Lords furlough and the Noble Lord Eton have raised in the debate, supply is a fundamental part of the issue. We believe that adequate supply of rented accommodation is the way to address the cost of renting, but as we have warned earlier in the debates, this bill risks driving landlords out of the sector and not attracting some of those institutional investors that can make a real difference if the contents were increased.

Decreasing the supply of rented accommodation at a time when demand is high and rising would only lead to higher rent. We also know that where rent controls have been tried they have failed and even the noble Baroness the Minister has previously raised in this Committee stage the impact of rent controls in Scotland, though to be clear we believe rent controls are just part of the problem in Scotland. The SNP's failed experiment of unbalanced renters reforms and rent controls in Scotland is a case with dwelling on.

There we have seen a stifled supply and higher rent. That said, the Government must address the serious concerns raised by noble Lords across the House and listen to those who are struggling with the cost of who are struggling with the cost of rent. Last month we warned that despite longer sitting by the court of justice, the sad reality is that the backlog of cases will still go up. Is it right that we ask questions about the additional burdens that clause it will place in our already overloaded call centre system? Can the noble Baroness the Minister confirm what additional resources will be provided by the appropriate tribunal so they have the means to cope with the increased number of cases brought before them under clause 8.

Looking at amendment 76 and 77, 06 to introduce a cap on the raises and rent that can be brought forward by landlords and we will listen carefully to the noble Baroness the Minister's response to those puzzles. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, has put her opposition to rent controls on the record, because they are, and I quote, fruit strict housing supply that does not help anyone. We agree with the Government that restricting housing supply does not help anyone and Ministers should listen carefully to the concerns we have been raising throughout the debates on this problem.

Looking at amendment 275 in the name of the noble Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, we deliver an entirely separate body to set rules for rent increases, leaving a side-effect of the noble Ladies amendment fails to provide parliamentary oversight, or there are no objectives for the set of rules set by the independent body. With the lack of clarity on the government's proposed body, we do not feel is in effect an additional is an approach. The sector is already subject to heavy vegetation and places additional burdens on the sector.

As Lord Young said, we do not wish to strangle the market. For that reason, I am afraid we cannot support this even more owners measure which the Noble Lady is proposing. Amendment 74, 75 and 79 in the name of the Noble Lord best are perhaps the most pragmatic of the abutments in this group. And I understand why he has tabled it. We will listen carefully to the government's response to his amendments. And continue to work on this part of the bill before we proceed to the report stage.

It seems clear to us that now was not the time, sorry, excuse me, now was not the time to impose additional burdens on our tribunals at a time
20:08
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
when by Governments own admission backlog are already rising. Ministers need to take a long, hard Ministers need to take a long, hard look at this bill if we are to deliver a bill that strikes the right balance on the rights of right balance on the rights of tenants and landlords without going tenants and landlords without going the backlog and without discouraging investment in the sector. There are serious questions for Ministers to answer in all of these areas and we look forward to hearing the noble Baroness the Ministers reply to this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

group. I am very grateful to all noble lords. I agree this is a very important group and I absolutely see other noble lords leaving the chamber, because I do think this is a very important discussion we have had this afternoon. I would like to thank the noble Baronesses and the noble Lords for their amendments. And to all noble Lords who have spoken. I have replied to his letter. It is in the post, so I have signed it off, so you should receive it shortly.

As I have stated previously, and I will restate it again, that the deputy premised as another lodge a sense it has been very clear about this, our Government does not support rent controls. We have considered rent regulation within the broader context of the private rented sector and we do not believe that limiting rented this way leads to positive outcomes. Evidence suggests that so-called first and second generation rent controls may disadvantage tenants as well as landlords, it can have a long-term negative impact on housing supply and discourage investment in the sector, leading to declining property standards.

Subtler forms of rent control, second or third generation rent controls have differential impacts on different groups, typically benefiting to better off tenants rather than those looking for a home or needing to move. Academic studies from countries like Sweden and Germany and from places like San Francisco and Ontario show that rent controls can limit supply, discourage investment, and lead to declining property standards. The noble Earl referred to earlier terms and rent controls and their impact on supply. We simply think that the answer to this is supply, generally.

And supply of affordable supply in particular rather than putting controls on rents and the Noble Lord is right to say that my interactions with the financial sector indicate there is institutional finance available for a rental property and the Noble Lord Carrington has spoken about build to rent, very powerfully, that the finance is there for that and that does have the potential to drive the supply that will stabilise the rent over that will stabilise the rent over time, so that is why we do not want to introduce rent control, but I will start, first of all, with my Noble Friend Lord Hacking's amendments, and I would say that perhaps it could ask the two tenants he referred to to come up with a solution to the Arctic temperature in your Lordships chamber this afternoon for.

The weather forecast and the heatwave have been grossly exaggerated in this part of London. Turning to amendment 76, my Lords, the bill is presented to the community today that extent reduce, sorry, remove the ability of landlords to please rent review clauses in tenancy agreements. The effect of the amendment tabled, no, I was right, originally. Sorry, let McGurk this read. The bill seeks to remit the ability of adults to place rent review clauses in tenancy agreements. The effect of the table by minimal friend would be to introduce it to the build measure, allowing landlords to make use of such a clause.

To be specific, amendment 76 would amend clause 7 to allow for rent review clauses linking rent increases to inflation, to be included in tenancy agreements, so long as a turning useful between 3% and 8%. Rent increases made under rent review clause and cannot be challenged at the tribunal. As such, the approach put forward by my Noble Friend risks a significant reduction for tenants who may not understand the effect of the rent review clause and could have limited power to negotiate these, even if clearly articulated.

It is likely that the use of such will come standard, in effect taking us back to the status quo where the detection of the tribunal is only available to a small number of tenancies. Furthermore, the use of standardised rent review clauses became commonplace and there is a risk that this will, in effect, assisted effect of rent control. I repeat our position under rent control, however I do think it is worthwhile for the committee if they will allow me to elaborate further on why any attempt to use a single metric for calculating rent increases risks unintended consequences.

The danger of such an approach is that arbitrary increases prescribed in tenancy agreements could, in fact, artificially inflate the rent for some occasions. For example, in Leeds, rent increase by 2% since 2020 and 2025 January. Whereas, in Oxford, rent increased by 12% in the same period. CPI for the first period was 3%. The impact of the measures contained within this amendment would therefore likely have led to rent increases above the market rate to the detriment of tenants there, and the controlling of rent in Oxford with all of the associated wider issues which we have already discussed.

Therefore, I am sure my Noble Friend can understand why the Government cannot accept an amendment that removes the right of tenants to appeal rent increases above market rate, risks and tenants being trapped in above rent rate rises and risk the implementation of the fact or rent controls. Turning to amendment 79, 84, and 85, I would like to join in what does have said to commend the Noble Lord best about the clarity of his explanation, and for all of the work he has done as Chair of affordable housing commission.

This is vital work, and I sincerely understand motivation behind his amendments. That these would limit annual rent increases during the first four years of tenancy to a percentage calculator by reference to CPI or Media Act national earnings over a three-year period. And the Noble Lord articulated this more clearly than I could. If either of those things happened a challenge would not be possible. The first of the Noble Lord bests amendments, 17 M, introduces measures into clause 7 of the bill which, as I have just set up, would separate the bill from the market rate.

As such, this amendment would introduce a form of rent control and I have already explained our position in the Government towards rent control. The regulation of rent in the form proposed by the Noble Lord could have long-term negative impacts on housing supply, discourage investment and lead to declining property standards. In fact, the introduction of an in tenancy rent control would create the risk of tenants in this country experiencing what has been seen in Ontario and Canada were a similar former regulation is limiting the amount by which rent could increase each year for existing tenancies.

For example, rental price growth in 2023 was capped at 2.5% based on the Ontario consumer price index. Analysis suggests that the result of this measure has been higher rent for new tenants with the impact felt by more mobile groups such as younger people who are often new arrivals to the rental market. There is also evidence from Ontario that landlords have sought to evict tenants so that controlled rates can be reset at the market level. The rest, therefore, of causing unintended harm to tenants as well as landlords to lodge for the Government to accept, even one as well-intentioned, and I know it is, ...

This represents a strengthening of rent regulation in the broader context of the entire system And quality standards. Noble Lords, the second of Lord Best amendments, 84, appears to restrict the ability of a tenant to challenge the rent increase to the first four years of the tenancy, such an approach would result in differing rules applying to tenants depending on how long they have been in a property. It would disadvantage tenants with long-term tenancies who would have either to accept a read increase or leave.

This is not a desirable outcome and not one the government can support. I will turn to the noble Lords third amendment 85, this would prevent a tenant from challenging an increase during the first four years where that rent increase. Neither lesser of the increase in CPI or media national earnings. I appreciate the motivation for tabling this amendment is rooted in concern about the capacity of the tribunal system to manage rent appeals, consent I know that others in this committee share and which we have had much debate about both today and in previous committee days.

Can I reiterate my comments made earlier about those concerns that tenants will challenge the rent to get time when they don't have to pay. Of course tenants will continue to pay their rent, it's the increase challenging, so it's only the increase they won't be paying, while they are challenging their rent. There rent increase under section 13. On this point, I would also like to reassure noble Lords that my department continues to work constructively with the Minister of Justice to agree how the reforms will be implemented.

We all agreed the first Tier Tribunal should have the resources needs as the work arises. In addition work is progressing in the property chamber has avoided outlined, part of the government's wider work to make sure the justice system is prepared for changes to caseload and I would ask therefore that noble Lord best withdraw his amendment. Amendment 77 coupled with amendment 89 would ensure that where tenant challenges a rent increase the tribunal cannot determine an open market rent but will be limited to determining a rent increase no greater than the Bank of England base rate.

The meat if the section 13 notice were given today the maximum rate increase the 4.5%. I haven't particularly in the last hour -- I haven't checked that in the last hour. Part of the rational would be to create a link between rent increase and mortgage rates. Such a link wouldn't be relevant, the 41% of landlords who according to the latest English private landlord survey have no borrowing of any kind on their properties, even in the case of the cohort of landlords who do have borrowing, the salience of the link would depend on the terms of each landlords mortgage agreement.

More fundamentally, I must return to the view that any attempt to use a simple Metricon rent increases would risk unattended. It means and divides landlords to increase rents annually to the level of the cap when they would not otherwise have considered to doing so. I would like to refer to the comments about the dangers of using interest rates inflation metrics. When I bought my first house interest rates went up from 7% to 21% in 18 months. Can I remind Jameson the disastrous last budget increase inflation to 11% and she was only Prime Minister for a few weeks so we have to be careful about using those types of metrics.

According to the latest English private landlord survey published in December 24, 44% of landlords who have renewed or extended tenancy did not increase the rent when they did so. The risk inherent in this is that these vandals may begin to see an annual cap as a target, it's not negligible and if realised would have a negative impact on the many tenants. I therefore ask the noble Baroness Lady Jenkin and Lady Jones to withdraw the amendment. The noble Baroness Lady Jones has spoken to the delirious amendment to 75 which would require the government to establish an independent body to set rules which would apply to the calculation of proposed rents that a landlord or agent can seek within a written advert.

The rules would apply to the calculation of proposed rents as part of the section 13 rent increase process. I thank noble Baroness Lady Jones for her amendment to recognise the development of the proposal put forward by her colleague in the other place. I can assure the noble Baroness I hear the consensual raises about the level of rents in this country. I'm not going to take up the time any more by going to the action the government is already taking. In this bill will strengthening the role of the tribunal and ending the practice of frontal building and demand for rent in advance.

Nor will I repeat the argument against rent control. I must challenge her on the administrative burden her amendment would introduce, whether she would introduce, whether she envisages the proposed... Or less directly sets the rules by which landlords calculate the rents, disposal, undoubtably represents a significant expense to be borne either by the taxpayer or by the sector. It's also not clear what positive difference this proposal would make to renters. Most landlords seek to set trends in accordance with market conditions already based on consideration of many factors, including property size, condition and location.

Set out in this amendment. And if the intention underlying this amendment is to hold rents below the market rent the evidence available suggests this would reduce apply, discourage investment and lead to declining property standards. This would be to the detriment of landlords and's. The noble Baroness pointed out 70 billion we currently spend on benefits for housing. I have already set out the broad action the government is taking to increase supply. My noble friend, the Defence Secretary, ran an outstanding campaign called benefits to bricks which I fully support and the government is continuing our work to make sure we go down that route as quickly as possible.

On that basis I would ask the noble Lady Baroness Jones to withdraw her amendment. My Lords, I'm about to withdraw
20:23
Lord Hacking Portrait Lord Hacking (Labour)
-
-
my amendment but I would just like to reply to my noble friend the to reply to my noble friend the Minister and thank her very much indeed for her very detailed reply. indeed for her very detailed reply. I did not know about the experience in autumn and I would like to consider that further. Can I say quite plainly I was not seeking to set up a rent control. What I was seeking to set up was guidance on seeking to set up was guidance on rent increases guidance associated at the RPI or another financial index.

The reason for that was expressed so well Lord Best, noble Lord Lord Best, when he detailed the problems for the renter and having to go through the process of making an appeal to the first tribunal and all the difficulties of that. If that can be relieved, I believe we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are doing a service for renters. Is it your lordships' pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn. that this amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is finally withdrawn. Amendment 77 not move. Amendment 78, Amendment 77 not move. Amendment 78, not moved. Amendment 79, not moved. not moved. Amendment 79, not moved. Amendment 80, not me. Amendment 80, A, not moved. Amendment 81, not moved, amendment 82, not moved. Amendment 83, not moved. The questions that clause 7 stand part of the bill.

As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 84, Lord Best not moved. Amendment 85, not Best not moved. Amendment 85, not move. Amendment 86, not moved. Amendment 87, not moved. Amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry. That's quite correct. Not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moved. Thank you. My Lords, on amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. My Lords, on amendment 89 there is an error in the marshalled list. Which is leave out from beginning to end of line 8. It from beginning to end of line 8. It should instead read out to the end should instead read out to the end of line 7. Not move. Not moved, thank you. Amendment 19, not moved. Amendment 91, not move. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think this might be convenient moment for the committee to adjourn so we can break for dinner. I so we can break for dinner. I suggest at committee stage beginning at 9:05 PM.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

at 9:05 PM. Question is that the committee be adjourned until nine 5 PM. -- Until adjourned until nine 5 PM. -- Until 9:05 PM. Content. The content habit.
21:04
None Portrait House Adjourned During Pleasure
-

21:04
21:04
None Portrait House Adjourned During Pleasure
-

21:06
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
We

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We redeem this committee We redeem this committee with We redeem this committee with the group beginning amendment 92 in the main of Baroness Scott of Bybrook. --

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rise to speak to this group of amendments, moments 92, 93, 95, 102 amendments, moments 92, 93, 95, 102 and 105 in my name. Relating to rent controls and limits, I apologise if I am repeating quite a bit that I am repeating quite a bit that other noble Lords have been debating earlier on in these groups, but I do think there are an important issue and I would like to give my own explanation of my amendments in this group.

Amendment 92 and my name addresses an issue that is of critical concern, both to landlords and the overall functioning of the rental market. The current provision that limits the tribunal's ability to increase rent allowing only four reductions. Let's pause for a moment and consider what such a provision creates, in practice what incentive necessary. Why? Because they know the worst outcome that will come for them is rental either be frozen or reduced. I have tried over the course of our debates on the bill to understand the government position on many of its provisions but on this provision I find myself asking who exactly came up with this, who thought it was fair or reasonable to restrict the tribunal's ability to increase rents while leaving the only option, only the option for reductions under this existing framework the tribunal will never increase the rent regardless of the circumstances.

Not only is this creating a totally imbalanced system within the rental market but more puzzlingly how will the tribunal scope? How can we expect the tribunal is to fairly adjudicate cases when the scope of their decision-making is so narrowly constrained? And on the issue of tribunal capacity I once again ask the Minister to assure the House that tribunal's will have the that tribunal's will have the necessary resources and capacity to manage the inevitable increase in the number of cases under this new system.

If the Minister does not have the figures available today on this, can she commit to writing to me with details of these in full? It is essential that we understand how the government intends to support the tribunal's, giving, given the increased workload and the very real risks of backlogs that this bill may introduce and I do not believe it is sufficient to simply introduce this provision without a clear plan for ensuring that tribunal's can operate efficiently and without significant delays.

I must ask, is this what we really want? Are we truly creating a fair system if landlords are unable to maintain rents that reflect the realities of the market? At what point do we risk undermining the rental market altogether? If landlords begin to feel that any rent increase no matter how justified will result in a tribunal imposed reduction or freeze, will they not simply choose to exit the market? What does this do to the rental supply? To put it plainly this provision will lead to fewer rental properties, fewer long-term stable tenancies and ultimately higher prices for rents for tenants.

We cannot ignore the wider consequences of this approach. Amendment 92 six to correct this imbalance by giving tribunal's discretion to make a neutral decision based on the facts before them, it would allow the tribunal to increase rents if justified just as it can reduce rents when necessary. In doing so we would be creating a balanced system, one that reflects the realities of the housing market and treats both landlords and tenants fairly. Amendment 93 addresses another fundamental issue.

The ability of tribunal's to back dates rent reductions. How can it be fair to require landlords to repay rent when they agreed to in good faith at the start of the tenancy? If a rent increase has been agreed to how can we justify forcing landlords to pay back significant sums retrospectively? The provision sums retrospectively? The provision does not just to stabilise the relationship between the landlord and the tenants, it undermines the entire principal of contractual fairness, if landlords face the risk of backdating payments why would they agree to any rent increases at all and what happens to trust between landlords and tenants when rents can be altered retrospectively? The solution is simple, amendment 93 ensures that rent reductions cannot be backdated, promoting stability and fairness.

Furthermore amendment 95 ties directly into this, it addresses the delay of rent increases by tribunal's. How can we justify automatic delays to rent increases and those increases are fair, reasonable and in line with market conditions? This provision creates an incentive for tenants to appeal rent increases simply to delay them. Of course they would do this wouldn't they? If tenants know they can delay rent increases for months or even longer regardless of whether the increase is justified why wouldn't they do that? The reality is this, the current system encourages tenants to use a tribunal process is a delay tactic, even when there is no real case against the rent increase.

What does this do to landlords? Landlords who rely on these rent increases to cover rising costs, maintain their properties and meet their financial obligation, what happens to them when the tribunal can at any time delay a rent increase without justifiable reason. Therefore I ask the Minister how does the government expects landlords to respond to this? Can she explain why we are encouraging tenants to Dele rent increases when these increases are reasonable and necessary? Does the Minister not see that this provision this incentivises landlords from entering or remaining in the rental market at all? If we allow this to continue the only winners will be tenants who exploit the system for top landlords will be left with few options and few incentives to maintain or improve their properties, at what point do we risk irreparable damage to the rental market? Amendment 95 seeks to correct this by ensuring that rent increases are only delayed where there is a clear evidence of undue hardship for the tenants.

This will prevent tenants from simply delaying rent increases for convenience and provide landlords with the certainty they need to operate within a fair system. Why is the Renter's Rights Bill so intent on restricting rent increases when in many cases increases are entirely justified by market conditions? The provision that rents can only be decreased creates an artificial -- limit that disregards the reality of the rental market. Moreover by limiting rent to reductions we are effectively disincentive rising landlords from maintaining or improving their properties.

Is the Minister aware of the potential long-term consequences of this? Amendment 1026 to address this by replacing the requirement for rents to be decreased with a possibility for rents to be adjusted according to the circumstances? This would create a more flexible and fair approach, one that allows the tribunal to consider the economic reality of the rental market without imposing artificial restrictions. Moving now to amendment 105 we address the need for a review of the rent determination process, how can we be sure that the system will work as intended without conducting a as intended without conducting a Are we prepared for potential strain that could be placed on the tribunal system.

I hope the noble Baroness can assure us that tribunals will be equipped to handle the increasing rent reviews without disrupting the wider housing market. Amendment 105 would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of tribunals capacity to handle increased applications and assess the potential impact on market rents. It's only through such a review that we can be assured that the system is functioning fairly and effectively. These amendments are aimed at correcting the imbalances and the practical issues within the bill.

They seek to create a fairer and more flexible system, one that ensures both landlords and tenants are treated equally. I look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness the Minister on what I consider to be an incredibly important issue, and from the debates we have already this evening, I think so does the House. I beg to move.
21:17
21:19
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
there is no risk and a possible I thought we would have a few more than that. I will start by saying I wish I could be half as certain wish I could be half as certain about what is going to happen in the future as some noble lords feel. They must have a crystal ball hidden They must have a crystal ball hidden somewhere because what I feel about this bill is that it's almost like an act of faith. It is quite obvious an act of faith.

It is quite obvious we believe it is going to do good things and Armageddon will not happen. I have to say I feel the noble Baroness got argued her case very well and sincerely and like how she believes that, and at the moment neither side really knows what is going to happen. To use the cliche, only time will tell. The problem with so many amendments being regrouped is that we are into groundhog day, so this will be very brief. As previously stated we do not support amendments that disincentivise tenants challenging rent rises and feel that most of these amendments will into that category.

This bill is about a power balance between the tenant and landlord and is a genuine attempt to redress that balance. I feel a lot of the amendments and statements from some noble lords want to maintain the status quo for us on these benches is an imbalance. So again, we are just going to disagree about that. The noble Lady referred to the realities of the housing market. Our interpretation of that is that landlords could actually charge whatever they want, whatever the market will sustain and we do not believe that is the right thing because in doing so I genuinely believe we are creating an underclass of people that will never be able to fit into the private rent.

That is another argument perhaps for another day. As for Amendment 105, I feel that the noble Lady the Minister has perhaps already answered that, but I am quite happy to hear it again, given that I do agree with the noble Lady, that I do agree with the noble Lady, review is important and necessary.
21:21
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I thank Lady Scott for her amendments and Lord Howarth and Baroness Thornhill for their comments. As I have already set out earlier today the bill will empower private sector rented talents to challenge an reasonable rent amounts. It is the central aim of the government's reform agenda and does reflect our manifesto commitment. The tribunal will not be able to increase rent beyond what the landlord initially proposed. This will prevent and scrupulous landlords, unless basic, there are some.

We want to prevent them from using rent increases as a backdoor route to eviction. A tenant should only submit an application to a tribunal when they believe that the rent increases above market rates. In the first instance we encourage landlords and tenants to communicate early about what is sustainable both parties. We need to think about triaging arrangements if there is no agreement between them. We do anticipate our reforms will lead to some increases in cases, but as already stated working with the judiciary to ensure the tribunal has capacity to deal with cases.

The chamber is working to increase capacity looking at the demand. I am not sure if it will be one million as the noble Lord Lord Howarth said, but we anticipate there will be some Works drives down demand. It's part of our wider work to make sure the justice system is prepared for the changes in caseloads and procedures required for our reforms. As of now tenants will be able to challenge the rents payable in the first six months of Tennessee if it is above market rate.

The tribunal can only determine the market rate to be lower than the same as the tenancy rent itself. The tribunal will not be able to increase the rent above the amount originally proposed by the landlord. We see this as a rebalancing mechanism that Lady rebalancing mechanism that Lady We believe limiting the tribunal to determine a rent to be either the same as the landlord themselves propose or an amount lower than this is fair to both parties. If landlords have agreed a rent they consider to be acceptable to them at the beginning of the tenancy, they should have no fear of a challenge Turning to amendment 93, this bill enables a tenant through the first six months of the tenancy to challenge the rent payable.

It's an important provision that. A minority of unscrupulous landlords from exploiting tenants desperate to find a new home. It also strengthens the a new home. It also strengthens the banner rental bidding. When the challenges in the bill states the start date of the new rent determined by the tribunal must not be earlier than the date of the tenant's application. This reflects section 22 of the housing at eight where a similar provision already where a similar provision already exists.

-- The housing act 1988. The new rent can only take effect from the date of the tribunal's determination. I understand that the purpose of this is to ensure the landlord would not have to repay the difference invent to the tenant. The government encourages landlords and tenants to communicate early about what rents are sustainable for both parties. It's hope there will be a more equitable discussion about levels of rent before anything comes to the tribunal. Let us be clear, the aim of this is to prevent as many cases as possible from ending up in court action.

The amendment up in court action. The amendment from the noble Baroness will limit tenants from getting justice. It increases the risk that landlords will exploit desperate tenants by extracting above market rents. I'm concerned about this as it's one of the key principles of the bill, to stop this happening.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Perhaps the noble Lady the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Perhaps the noble Lady the Minister can help me. If you can ever put the rent above market ever put the rent above market rates, how does it ever change because you can never put it up, you because you can never put it up, you can only put it down. It will only drop. It seems to me to be a bit of a conundrum.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a conundrum. You can put the rent up to market

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You can put the rent up to market rates. That is what... Sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is the point. If you put it up to market rates, it will never go above it. Market rates will never

**** Possible New Speaker ****

above it. Market rates will never increase, they will stay static. In 10 years time the market rate will be the same. Market rates are driven by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Market rates are driven by demand, not what happens in the courts, so I don't think that is the courts, so I don't think that is the case. If I can carry on talking case. If I can carry on talking about amendment 95. For too long tenants have been afraid to challenge an unreasonable rent challenge an unreasonable rent increase for fear that the rent can be raised what the landlord has asked for. The Renters' Rights Bill will reform how the tribunal works to ensure that tenants will feel comfortable in challenging practice.

The tribunal will not be able to increase rent beyond what the landlord proposes. It strikes the right balance between empowering tenants, challenging unreasonable rent increases and ensuring landlords can increase to the market rent. Amendment 95 will allow the rent increase to be backdated to the date of the notice. This amendment will punish the most vulnerable tenancy may already be struggling financially. In order to ensure tenants aren't thrusting to date, the new rent amount will take effect no earlier than the date of the tribunal determination.

This will give tenants the time to prepare for any changes to their rent and seek independent advice on how best to manage their finances. Can I repeat for the sake of clarity, the tenant will continue to pay the rent they were paying before. Is the increase in the rent that is being challenged through this process. Amendment 102, let me reiterate that applying to the tribunal should be a last resort for a tenant. Good landlords and tenants will discuss what rent is sustainable for both parties, but if they cannot come to an agreement, the tenant has a right to challenge rent increase at tribunal.

I note that the opposition once supported our position on this matter. Their original White Paper said the tribunal would no longer have the power to increase the rent above the amount the landlord asked for. It is regrettable that they now disagree with themselves and want to make it easier for tenants to be evicted by the back door. Amendment 105...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can you just explain them if the tribunals are taking quite a long tribunals are taking quite a long time and the decision is made and time and the decision is made and any increase happens from the date that the decision is made in the tribunal, then the landlord can only go to a tribunal every 12 months. Does that 12 months start from the date on the tribunal when the decision is made, or can it go back six, seven, eight months prior to that.

So it could be nearly 2 years that. So it could be nearly 2 years

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rather than the one year. Sorry. I understand the question the noble Lady is asking. My understanding is the year starts from the date the tribunal decision from the date the tribunal decision is made, but I will check that and write to her. write to her.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

write to her. Said that means could nearly be two years? If you could confirm,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that will be useful. Consultation will take place whether or not there is distortion of the rental market by the tribunal determination on the rent. The department is already collaborating extensively with His Majesty is Courts and Tribunals Service's as well as the Ministry of Justice to ensure the property chamber of the First-tier Tribunal is prepared for the Renters' Rights Bill. The ability of the tribunal to make judgements regarding any unfair rent increases has existed since the 1988 Housing act.

The government has full confidence in the tribunal's ability to carry out this function in a fair way, including the reforms laid out in the Bill. The government will continue to monitor the impact of this to ensure the tribunal can work effectively. I set out our position on that earlier this afternoon. Given this is ongoing work, a commitment to do so should not be needed on the face of the bill. There will be no new perspective beyond that already considered in our ongoing collaboration and required the tribunal itself to partake in such a review would conflict with their ongoing work, including the preparations they currently have under way to make sure they are ready for these much In response to point about form of rent control, I just don't think rent control, I just don't think We have time after time stated our position on rent controls.

Let me be as clear as possible, nothing in our form stops or limits a landlord from
21:32
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
charging the market rate. Changes to the tribunal would ensure that the tribunal would ensure that tenants feel empowered to challenge rent increases that could be used as a back door section 21 eviction. They will not prevent the landlord making a reasonable return on their investment. The opposition claim they are concerned about the bill causing landlords to leave the causing landlords to leave the causing landlords to leave the market. I would urge them not to help those who are spreading misunderstandings about the bills impact on the market, good landlords will not benefit from scaremongering about sensible and balanced measures about sensible and balanced measures in this bill.

For the reasons I have outlined both in this debate and earlier today I ask Baroness Scott to withdraw her amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On that previous, the last point

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On that previous, the last point the noble Lady the Minister made on scaremongering I don't think we are, I would suggest she might like to I would suggest she might like to look at the latest weekend Bloomberg reports on the rental sector in reports on the rental sector in London, which is quite scary a London, which is quite scary a number of landlords that are going out of the rental market and they are going out said very clearly are going out said very clearly because of further regulation on the sector.

I would suggest I don't know if you would like me to send it to you, I will but it is an interesting report. I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this group and enclosing I want to just return to what is our central concern. That runs through this whole group of amendments and that is the balance between Landlord and Tenant Act. Between fairness and work ability and between principal and practical and between principal and practical consequences. At the heart of this is the fundamental question as to whether we believe in a truly impartial rent tribunal system.

As the bill stands it allows only downward rent adjustments. Amendment 92 corrects that, it gives the tribunal the discretion to assess the facts and adjust rents up or down depending on the evidence. That is the essence we would suggest of a fair system. One that reflects market realities, not just one side of them. This imbalance is deepened further by the proposal to allow rent reductions to be backdated. Amendment 93 addresses this, landlords who have acted in good faith charging an agreed rent should not be faced with demands to return funds months after the fact.

That is not stability, that is uncertainty and it undermines trust in the system. That uncertainty only grows with the automatic delay of rent increases, amendment 95 brings so much needed clarity to this, it ensures that rent increases are not simply pushed back as a matter of course but only when there is clear evidence of undue hardship. Without this we risk creating a system where delay becomes a default tactic and landlords bear the cost. These problems are compounded by the bill's insistence that proposed rents can only be reduced, amendment 102 introduces necessary flexibility.

If we are asking tribunal is to assess fairness we must let them convert that I consider the full picture, not force them into decisions that ignore inflation, market trends or rising costs. Of course this all brings us to the question of implementation. The tribunal system is already under enormous strain, amendment 105 makes a straightforward sensible request that the Secretary of State reviews capacity of the system to manage what this bill will ask of it. Without that we are setting it up to fail.

I urge the government to consider the cumulative effect of these provisions, on paper they may appear technical, in practice they will drive landlords from the market, reduce housing supply and increase pressures on rent. This is not what this bill should achieve. But at this stage tonight I wish to But at this stage tonight I wish to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw my amendments. Is at your Lordships pleasure that the amendment is withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment 93 Baroness Scott not moved. The memo 94 Lord Hacking not moved. The memo 94 Lord Hacking not moved. -- Amendment 94. Not moved. Amendment 95 Baroness Scott not moved stop 96 Lord Carrington not moved. Amendment 97 Lord Hacking not moved. Amendment 98 Lord Carrington moved. Amendment 98 Lord Carrington not moved, amendment 99 Lord Carrington not moved.

Amendment 101 and 100 not moved on block Lord and 100 not moved on block Lord Hacking? Not moved. There is an error in the marshalled List, amendment 102 and 103 are in the incorrect order I must therefore call amendment 103 before I can call 102. Amendment 103 Lord Carrington. Not moved amendment 102 Baroness Baroness Scott? Not moved, thank you. Amendment 104 Lord Carrington not moved. Amendment 105 Baroness Scott not moved. The question is that clause 8 stand part of this bill.

As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it. Amendment 106 Baroness Thornhill not moved. Amendment 107 Lord Young of Cookham not moved. In clause 9 amendment 108 Baroness Scott of by brick. -- Baroness Scott of Bybrook.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to this group of amendments in the name of my noble friend the Baroness Scott. Relating friend the Baroness Scott. Relating to payments of rent in advance. to payments of rent in advance. Provide a number of significant benefits to tenants. These go beyond avoiding late fees and demonstration avoiding late fees and demonstration of financial security, tenants may wish to pay rent in advance for financial planning or even to avoid the worry of monthly payments.

Amendments 108, 109, 110, 112, 113 and 114 recognise and affirm the legitimate choice for tenants to pay rent in advance. I emphasise that this is rooted firmly in mutual this is rooted firmly in mutual agreement. If a tenant does not wish to pay in advance they are under no obligation to do so. But if they choose to take the step, if they believe it is in their personal interest and best interest, why should we stand in their way? If a tenant makes a judgement on the basis of their financial circumstances, that this is their best interest why should it be for the Minister to say no? Government knows best.

If a tenant believes their ability to pay may be inhibited by financial burden coming down the track they could legitimately plan the payment now. But regardless of the reason or even the need, if there is mutual agreement simply what is the problem? I now wish to sound the impact on this on to groups who will be particularly impacted by this change. Overseas students and those with poor credit records. Sorry ratings. Tenants with a poor credit rating history will inevitably appear risky and this may be through no fault of their own they may just not have a rating history.

Often this risk is too insurmountable to ignore. By paying upfront tenants can demonstrate responsibility and ultimately improve their chances of securing a rental agreement and the security of a home. In many cases this proactive step, choosing to pay in advance is the only practical means by which tenants can build trust, enhance there could ability and demonstrate financial reliability. Can the Minister please set out the impact of this change on those with a less than optimal credit history? Next I wish to address the issue of overseas students with no local credit history.

The House will know that the UK credit rating agencies don't hold information about your financial affairs outside of the country or any foreign credit reports. Therefore overseas students often require a UK-based guarantor to cover the potential property damage or unpaid bills. Where this is not possible, payment in advance can be a solution and often payments are raised -- made for the entire turmoil even the entire academic year. Can the Minister set out expected impact of this change on overseas students and the number we anticipate losing due to difficulties in securing student accommodation? Alternatively does the Minister believe that landlords will still have a sufficient incentive to house overseas students despite their limited credit history? Can the Minister also outline what steps the covenant is taking to strengthen the enforcement around credit arrears if overseas students are unable to pay? Current mechanisms is an issue that is far less prevalent when payment is made upfront.

I would also like to highlight the plight of some of the most vulnerable where councils have a duty of homelessness prevention. Often councils work with landlords and tenants offering advance rental payments, larger deposits and guarantees which would be hampered by this proposal. I councils to be banned from paying rent in advance to support some of the most vulnerable in our society? As has been raised earlier, the issue of, sorry that Home Office plans to offer five year tenancies to house asylum seekers.

Can I ask the Baroness the Minister will this involve rent being paid more than one month in advance? I invite the Minister to explain and appreciate she has offered to write to noble members regarding this and I look forward to hearing from that any additional information she is able to provide. Finally I wish to draw the House as attention to amendment 117 standing in the name of Baroness Scott. This amendment requires ministers to ensure that changes being made to the tenant these acts 2019 are clearly communicated to tenants, letting agents et cetera.

These changes involve fines of up to £5000 for new event -- offences and it's essential that landlords and letting agencies are aware of their new Responsibilities. We regard this as a technical but important amendment and I hope the Minister will see it as a practical and necessary change that can be accepted. This group will consider whether mutually agreed or tenants requested payment of rent in advance should be permitted to continue. On these benches we are clear it should.

Mutual agreement to foster a more stable housing situation, one that recognises the unique benefits rent in advance may offer certain groups of tenants in securing a home, I hope that Minister will take

**** Possible New Speaker ****

note. Amendment proposed, clause 9 Page 14 line 4:05 insert more than six 14 line 4:05 insert more than six months. -- Line 4.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

months. -- Line 4. -- Line 5 4:05.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

-- Line 5 4:05. I support the noble Lord in his submission just now my amendment 115 submission just now my amendment 115 and 116 deals with the same problem and 116 deals with the same problem but in a different perspective. My amendment deals with a provision in the bill that says payment of rent before tenancy assigned is prohibited. My amendment the purpose of my amendment is to remove that provision altogether. I make that submission to your Lordships because this provision in the bill is entirely impracticable and I must therefore ask my noble friend the Minister is there evidence of landlord abuse in collecting tenants and running off to another land with the money in their pockets? What is the evidence in other words that there has been abuse of landlords collecting rents and then not signing up on the agreement and I think the best thing to do if she will agree is to ask my noble friend the Minister to Johnny in the the Minister to Johnny in the kitchen with my wife.

I have already disclosed that myself and my wife rent and next door there are five one-bedroom flats. In my kitchen there are two prospective tenants and they are there because we are discussing with them if they want to take the premises, one of the one- bedroom flats and whether we regard them as being suitable. Suitable as in they will be good tenants, they will not break up the place and be regular with their responsibilities. We are also looking for the compatibility of these tenants because we provide rather unusually for our tenants a garden at the rear of the House which they share.

We like to have tenants who are compatible with each other. So we had a discussion and in that discussion we discussed what deposit they are looking for, as per statute a deposit based on five weeks rent. a deposit based on five weeks rent. Our normal policy is to say that we expect them to pay rent to the end of the month. But if it is the end of the month we asked them to pay rent for the next month.

We discuss and agree and then we depart. The tenants then go back to the agents and discuss the financial provisions. Of course we are seeking agreement with them on the financial provisions and they are getting the money ready to put it into the hands of the agent. That being of course, one of the items being the rent. The rent for the rest of the month or the rent for the following month, if that is what is agreed. In that scenario they are asking to moving in the next seven days.

Then I settled down to write the tenancy agreement and send the draft to the tenants to find out if they find it acceptable or if they want to change any of the terms. This is an onward process. Who provides first the draft rental agreement and so on. I'm probably behind hand. The probability the tenant has produced two the agent the monthly rent and the deposit and I'm probably behind in getting the rental agreement agreed and sent to them.

So it is a kind of simultaneous exercise and it makes complete practical nonsense to say the tenant should not pay the money for the rent in advance. So I do press my noble friend the do press my noble friend the Minister to tell us whether there is evidence of serious landlord abuse with landlords rushing off to Timbuktu with the money and rubbing the tenants of monies that should not be robbed from them. We then moved to amendment 116.

This is seeking to prevent the landlord, the provision in the bill is the landlord has under a duty to handover the tenancy of the premises being rented out before the first months rent has been paid. That, I have to say, is a completely onerous provision and all thought out. Why shouldn't the landlord collect the rent for the first month, the rent that is agreed, prior to the tenant moving in? Why shouldn't the landlord had the right to prevent the tenant from moving in when he has not paid the first months rent? If he has not paid the first months rent, he goes into the premises and then the landlord cannot bring any proceedings against the tenant until the tenant is in three months arrears of rent.

Then he has to face up to taking court proceedings, possession proceedings and payment for the unpaid rent. So the landlord for the unpaid rent. So the landlord is stranded in a position he should never have been placed in. The question my noble friend the Minister has to answer is what the hell is the purpose of this? Why should the landlord not be able to say, "You are not coming into the property until you pay the first month's rent."

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to my amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to my amendment 111. I declare my interest as being 111. I declare my interest as being a landlord in the private sector. 16 years. As I mentioned in committee, years. As I mentioned in committee, the bill before your Lordships House the bill before your Lordships House has much to commend it. Renter has much to commend it. Renter should not be exploited by the minority of rogue landlords. But the fact remains that over 80% of tenants have a satisfactory experience in the PRS and despite the negative impact assessment, it is the most popular form of rental tenancy, more popular than council housing or other forms of social housing.

I was law came about because of the shocking state of because of the shocking state of social housing. -- A words -- Auwal's law. More rental homes are needed in the PRS. Some estimates say another 50,000 a year on top of an extra 90,000 social homes are required as outlined previously by the noble Lord Lord BESS. Ministers should ask themselves this there anything in this bill that will increase the supply of affordable rental homes or is the best we can hope for is treading water.

The PRS has doubled in size since the early 90s, early noughties, but it stopped growing in 2016 when tax changes shifted the business model. Landlord spying is offset by landlords buying. Now half the PRS is owned by 20% of landlords with the largest portfolio. This trend is accelerating. Many of these large culprits tend not to House families. They impose the highest rent increases and because they are purpose built flats it excludes local communities.

Many are known to subsidise or help out tenants in difficult times, and likely from a large corporate. Forget for a moment whether there will be mass exodus from the PRS because of this bill as the effects bed down. By 2050 according to the ONS there will be 78 million people in this country, some 8 million more than now. Are we ready for that? If we think we have a housing crisis now, in 25 years it could become a major catastrophe.

Anything which makes the current housing crisis worse should be avoided at all cost. Moment provides To 12 months of rent in advance of mutually agreed with the landlord. It provides security for the tenant and the landlord. As has been said before, thousands of people will be deprived of the opportunity to rent a home if advance payments are banned. As Lord Jamieson mentioned a few moments ago include students, particularly foreign students, on whom our educational institutions rely who have no credit or banking history in this country. It also includes self-employed people and downsize as who may have cash, but no proof of income.

It includes vulnerable people with poor credit histories and County Court judgements against them. These groups offer rented advance to prove they can afford to stay in their homes. If the option of renting advances denied thousands of people will be excluded from the rental market is landlords will feel unable to take the risk of taking tenants. There will not be unlimited guarantees under rolling tenancies. Most tenants are never asked for advance payments. Landlords frankly prefer longer term stable tenants who can prove they have enough to pay the monthly rent.

Students, for example, are not always the first choice for landlords, advance payment or not. Advance payments were not mentioned in Labour's manifesto, so it is within the conventions of this House to ask the government to think again. We should allow rental payments in advance because the end of the day this measure will help more tenants than hinder. -- At the end of the day.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise in support of Amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise in support of Amendment 111 that the noble Lord for leading on the amendment. I also agree with the speech from Lord Jamieson and a lot that was in it. I believe that lot that was in it. I believe that the removal of the right to payment of advance rent will cause more tenants with problems accessing housing will find it even more housing will find it even more difficult to get access of choice as tenants. 7% of tenants currently pay advanced rent, according to several letting agencies and credit reference agencies.

I thank the noble Baroness for meeting me on this matter. We have not heard what percentage of landlords are asking or demanding advance rent. This will target these rogue landlords who are looking for secure income from tenants in this high demand rental market. During our meeting the noble Baroness suggested tenant to need to pay -- suggested tenants who need to pay in advance should seek out a guarantor. It's advisable they don't pay in advance if a guarantor can be found.

Having previously been a guarantor for student accommodation for both of my children, guarantors are not only asked for rent, but asked to pay for other liabilities. Guarantors also need to prove their income and their assets. For foreign tenants it would be very difficult to find a guarantor with UK income or assets. That is one of the reasons advance rent is needed. Students that do not have a guarantor, so they need to pay in advance, the suggestion was universities could provide guarantee services.

It would add further burdens to many universities that are under pressure. Finally, they could approach the local authority to act as a guarantor. I will not challenge the noble Baroness that minister on her knowledge of local authorities as her service to Stevenage and Hertfordshire councils is unparallel. Surely the increase request would be a further burden and demand unlimited resources. and demand unlimited resources. Therefore if you allow advance rent, you will not add further burdens to both local authorities or universities.

There are products and companies providing guarantee services. They are costly to tenants services. They are costly to tenants and seek a significant significant percentage of tenants who have a poor credit rating. It's not a logical move. For those who cannot provide an income source for some reason, or are unemployed, but to have the funds to pay rent, but do not want to access a guarantor will be disadvantaged indeed tenant selection process. The removal of the payment of advanced rent has great merits as it addresses a growing demand for asking for large sums in advance and stop certain tenants accessing properties.

The bill as it stands. -- As it stands, more tenants will not be able to access certain properties. There should be flexibility on how rent is paid. I asked the government to consider this amendment with further

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My cough has risen to my throat at the moment. Most of the amendments in this group are amendments in this group are basically disagreeing with the government's ban on being able to ask for rent in advance and they are all basically saying the same thing. Whilst being very supportive of the government's aims there are government's aims there are legitimate questions to be answered in this area. Is it that by in this area. Is it that by preventing tenants from paying rent upfront the government will potentially reduce the housing options available to financially options available to financially vulnerable people? So say the letting and landlords Association.

Or is it a way to crack down on discrimination against low income renters by unscrupulous landlords? So say the government and the lobby groups for renters. Amendments 108 and 111 which would allow up to six months rent in advance or even 12 months are troubling. Rogue landlords can pressure vulnerable tenants to mutually agree to these excessive payments, circumventing the very protections the bill seeks to establish. Furthermore amendment 112's provision for tenants to specifically request such arrangements in writing could so easily be manipulated.

Landlords might simply make such requests a condition of securing the property, forcing tenants to choose between signing or losing their housing opportunities. However what we do know is that people on fixed incomes like pensioners, those with lower incomes, the self-employed, the overseas students, those with a bad credit history, both who fail referencing checks and those with no family member to act as a guarantor, all of these people will all have challenges passing referencing and affordability checks they are the risky renters.

The government amendments are clearly designed to protect these financially vulnerable people from exploitation, but the big question is how will agents and landlords manage tenancy risk in the future? Because tenancy risk is a reality. With over 20 tenants chasing each vacancy landlords will legitimately and legally be able to pick the person who represents the lowest risk. The Bottom Line for their mistaken -- economic reality, and even I would say obviously you have all had my views over the days, who can blame them? There are many thousands and these various groups so through us and these benches how does the government think they will get housing in the future? How will landlords mitigate the risk of tenants who fail references and have no renting history in the UK or have CCJs against their name? Millions of people fall into these categories and my deepest worry is that the rent in advance system will go underground and people will be asked to stuff cash into brown envelopes or rental payments will be edited to make it seem like all is well.

Desperate renters will do desperate things to put a roof over their head is. I hope I am wrong and not being unduly harsh on landlords and tenants. It seems to me that such people are only left with the option of a professional rent guarantor service, what else is there? I would be quite sceptical of local authorities stepping in to that role. Although they do do much already to make tenancies survive and to help tenants. What is the government doing to ensure that those services can operate legally and responsibly and to help this group of people? Are they part of the solution? I look forward to the noble Ladies answers, but finally to reiterate the point, in a market that is significantly under supplied and whether market rules of supply and demand resulting continually rising rents impacting most on precisely this large group of risky renters, it has already resulted in a whole cohort of renters who were forced into homelessness and into overpriced assemblers temporary accommodation.

These are the very people who would in the past have been in social housing of which there is as we know you shortage. The free market under the rules of they are now have led us to this place, a broken system, and there is no one denying that. Continuing as we have thus far can only lead to more of the same. There is a brave attempt to recognise the current imbalance between tenant and landlord but if we do what we always do we will get what we always get.

That is not acceptable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank Baroness Scott and Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank Baroness Scott and Lord Jamieson and Lord Truscott and Lord Hacking for their amendments in Hacking for their amendments in relation to rent in advance and Lord de Clifford and Baroness Thornhill for commenting on these amendments. Turning first amendment tabled by Baroness Scott table -- taken together amendment one oh -- taken together amendment one oh -- taken , would allow landlords or agents to charge rent in advance where this has been mutually agreed with the tenants with the tenancy agreement will stop this government is clear that the practice of landlords or agents charging rent in advance is unfair, any of us will have heard the stories, many of them, of requests for large amount of rent in advance that have pushed families into financial hardship some of the sector completely.

In other cases unscrupulous landlords use rent in advance to pit prospective tenants against each other and create these jet dreadful bidding wards in order to help people secure property. That's why the Renter's Rights Bill will prohibit a landlord or letting agent from requiring or accepting any payment of rent before tenancy has been entered into. In addition the landlord will only be able to require up to one month's rent in advance in the window between the tenancy being entered into and that tenancy beginning.

But I want to be crystal clear on this point, once a tenancy has begun, tenants will remain free to pay their rent prior to the agreed due date should they wish to do so, although landlords will not be able to require this and any attempt to require it will be challengeable by the tenant. Turning to 108 specifically this would allow landlords to include terms in a tenancy agreement that require rent in advance to be paid up to six months before it is due, it's just a view of the government that this amendment would fail to protect tenants from exploitative rent in advance practices.

Landlords being able to require up to six months rent in advance when this is agreed in a tenancy agreement could in a market where properties are hotly contested push tenants into an agreement that stretches their finances to breaking point to secure tenancy. Turning to amendment 109 this would limit renting in advance to four months when agreed in the tenancy agreement, this has the same effect with the potential for tenants in hot -- what are you contested markets to feel compelled to agree to terms which require significant financial outlay.

Even the limit of two months as Baroness the limit of two months as Baroness 110 does in our view not go far enough to protect tenants. In a scenario where landlord can request two months rent in advance this is still a significant financial expectation of a tenant given that the tenant will also likely be required to pay a five-week tenancy deposit they could face being asked to stump up more than three months rent to access the property. Amendment 112...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Our concern is some of those who are vulnerable... Would be able to are vulnerable... Would be able to even up the playing field providing even up the playing field providing rent in advance, I don't understand rent in advance, I don't understand what the Minister is saying but that competition in a competitive market where there is a shortage of supply risks excluding some of the most vulnerable. I'm keen to hear how the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister will address that. I'm coming onto the impact on vulnerable tenants but it makes tenants far more vulnerable where they are being pushed to take on financial commitments well beyond their means just to get an access to a tenancy in the first place. Again, in effect amendment 112 would enable some unscrupulous tenants to pit tenants against each other in a de facto bidding war. In the circumstances tenants under pressure to secure property could face being required to offer in writing even greater sums of rent in advance.

Any one of these amendments could allow landlords at the pre-letting stage to insist upon a time in the tenancy agreement which permits rent in advance. This would leave tenants with a potentially impossible choice of stretching their finances to the limit or facing homelessness. I would also like to address the concerns of some in the committee that those tenancy rely on rent in advance could find themselves left out of the market. We are clear that landlords are free to undertake referencing and affordability checks necessary to give both the Landlord and Tenant Act confident that a tenancy is sustainable.

Lord Jamieson and Lord de Clifford both mentioned foreign students as did Lady Thornhill full stop where those, if they are not satisfied by the outcome of the pre-tenancy checks there remain a number of options available including requiring a tenant to require a guarantor or the use of professional guarantor products. If the tenant is unable to provide a UK-based guarantor that may be the case for international students I accept that, alternative options could be available like professional guarantor services. We are committed to robust monitoring and evaluating the impact of our reforms we retain powers to amend these measures should the evidence arise this is having a significant impact on a particular group and Baroness Thornhill also mentioned self- employed people and people who are unlimited income pension so we maintain the powers to amend should we need to do so.

Just on the point that Lord de Clifford made on local authorities, some local authorities are very proactive and the reason they take on this role is to prevent homelessness because they recognise To families and individuals of not having to go into temporary and emergency accommodation and also can reduce the cost to local authority if they haven't got to find that family temporary emergency accommodation, so they will take on The The power The power gives The power gives the The power gives the Secretary The power gives the Secretary of State the flexibility to adapt the constraints in advance to respond to changing private rental sector, changes in the balance of supply and demand within the private rented sector driven for example by our commitment to building 1.5 million homes over this Parliament may change the extent to which affordability is a barrier for prospective tenants entering the sector, in this scenario the government may consider it appropriate to make changes to the constraints on rent in advance, equally changes in the market could also be driven by current -- currently unanticipated future legislative changes such as the introduction of new types of tenancies, in this scenario the power would allow the Secretary of State to maintain the application of these measures to the intended cohorts of landlords and tenants.

The introduction of the power therefore provides the government or any future government with the ability to make sure rent in advance measures continue to apply as intended in the face of any changes within the private rented sector. However I can reassure the committee that regulations made under the power would be subject to the affirmative procedure and that will make sure there is appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of any changes. Amendment 117 also in the name of Baroness Scott would introduce the legal requirement for the Secretary of State to communicate to tenants, letting agents and landlords the changes made by the Renter's Rights Bill to the tenancies act 1919 which prohibit certain payments of rent in advance, I know the committee will share my view that the successful implementation of the Renter's Rights Bill is firmly rooted in how widely its provisions will be known and understood, therefore I want to reassure the committee that the government is committed to raising awareness of the full range of renters' rights reforms across the private rented sector.

This amendment would require to make stakeholders aware of one aspect about rent in advance policy which is given effect by members to the is given effect by members to the On inviting coaching or accepting rent in advance before the tenancy agreement is signed by both the landlord and the tenant. However it doesn't apply to government to communicate the details of the rest of the rent in advance policy. Laws nine adds important protections to the Housing Act including when landlords can require tenants to pay the first months rent and the requirements in this amendment doesn't oblige the government to set this information in the context of the wider reforms.

As I have all ready said the government is committed to raising awareness of the whole package of renters' rights reforms with stakeholders from across the sector. We will ensure that landlords letting agents and tenants understand how the rent in advance policy will affect them and that's a crucial part of that program. Officials are already working with stakeholder groups to design and test the campaign. The campaign will start after the bill achieves Royal Assent, it will be sequenced to give landlords and letting agents sufficient time to make changes to their business while ensuring tenants understand what the reforms mean for them and we will also building evaluation points.

I hope this gives the committee confidence that governments proposed approach to awareness raising is the right one, legislating to mandate communication on a single aspect of these reforms as the amendment tabled by the baroness would do represents an unnecessary step. For these reasons I would ask her to withdraw her amendments turning to 111 tabled by Lord Rustin, this would allow landlords or agents to charge up to 12 months rent in advance when this has been agreed in a tenancy agreement.

I bought a set out my response to amendments 108 108109 and 110 whites the government's view that the practice of landlords or agents charging rent in advance is unfair, amendment 111 would allow for even larger amounts of rent in advance to be requested Turning to the amendments tabled by Lord Hacking, and I thank him to -- for his kind information for tea in his kitchen, landlords and agents will be required to accept any amount of rent at any point before the tenancy has been agreed by all parties.

The problem is not that the landlord will run away with the money, but I'm concerned if we were to allow such payments prior to the tenancy, there will be consequences. Tenants facing stiff competition for properties will find themselves under pressure to pay more than one months rent in advance to secure a tenancy. The right balance is for landlords to require a holding deposit and tenancy deposit before they are greedy tenancy. Then they can pay the first months rent after the contract signing and then between when the keys are given.

Appreciate my no friends concerns that the tenant could having entered into a tenancy not pay rent. The vast majority of tenants enter into a tenancy with good faith and because they need somewhere to live. Where a tenant deliberately seeks to occupy property without intending to pay rent will be limited. If the tenant agrees to pay the first months rent in advance of the tenancy starting and doesn't do so, they could face court action being taken against them by their landlord which would lead to the tenant being evicted and receiving a County Court judgement to repay the arrears.

If in. Judgement would affect the tenant's ability to rent in the future. I would like to reiterate that landlords are free to undertake affordability and referencing checks to reassure themselves. For these reasons I asked that the noble Lord withdraws his amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before my noble friend sits down, she has replied to my amendments 115 she has replied to my amendments 115 and 116, but I would be very and 116, but I would be very grateful if she could agree to talk further on that, particularly on amendment 116. It's an extraordinary situation, however landlord is not permitted to prevent a tenant moving permitted to prevent a tenant moving into the property, even though the into the property, even though the tenant hasn't done the basic thing of paying the rent in advance.

That is not an excessive amount of rent. In my cases I explained to my noble friend, it is the rent for the rest of the month, a modest payment. Why on earth can the landlord not say you cannot come into the property until you have paid your rent. You always pay in advance.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I reiterate the comments I made to my noble friend. Having undertaken a tenancy, gone through undertaken a tenancy, gone through the process of vetting, baby deposit and the holding deposit, I think it and the holding deposit, I think it will be very rare cases where the tenant then proceeds not to pay the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

first months rent. I just wanted to follow up on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just wanted to follow up on the question I raised on the home offices plan to offer five year offices plan to offer five year tenancies and whether the Minister can confirm whether there will will not be more than one month's rent in advance.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ID respond earlier -- ID to respond earlier to the point made respond earlier to the point made about the Home Office position. If I clarify the position with regards to the Home Office's proposals and come the Home Office's proposals and come back to noble Lords on that. It is back to noble Lords on that. It is the work of another department. I don't want to comment on it without knowing the facts from the Home Office, so I will come back to him Office, so I will come back to him on that point.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Rise to close this group of amendments. It's been an excellent debate and I thank or noble Lord who have contributed to this debate. Lord Hacking has demonstrated the case for his amendments. I certainly would like to thank him also for the support he has given to our amendments. I certainly support the intentional of his amendments. We also share Lord Trask at's concerns -- share Lord Trask at concerns. Also the issues of getting guarantors, particularly if you are an overseas student.

I would also like to thank Baroness Thornton and others who raise the issues. Baroness Thornton racing the comment that there are 20 people seeking every tenancy and you cannot blame the landlord for seeking the most stable tenant for their property and therefore the risk is the most vulnerable lose out. We believe that this will have a negative impact on tenants who might otherwise struggle to find tenancy. Amendments 108, 109 and 110 give three options for how much rent can be paid in advance.

Amendment 114 would allow rent in advance at the discretion of the tenant. The noble Baroness the Minister has raised the prospect of guarantors. For those people who are not able to provide a personal guarantor, using guarantor services. I think many people who have used these services no they are expensive and more expensive and onerous than paying rent in advance. Therefore it seems only logical one should offer that option. The noble Lady the Minister has rejected all three options and has not proposed an alternative.

It is disappointing to see such a lack of engagement with these amendments when they are likely to have a negative impact on international students and those with poor credit scores. It reduces their ability to find rental accommodation. As highlighted earlier ability for the council to provide accommodation for the most vulnerable in their communities. We did raise the issue of the five year tenancies that the Home Office is doing. I'm glad the Minister is going to come back to us and I look forward to being assured there is no differential treatment between landlords and tenants, depending on which part of the government is which part of the government is dealing with it.

This clause removes the tenant's ability to prove their financial responsibility. If the landlord and agreed to pay rent in advance, why is the government standing in the way. I urge the noble Lord the Minister to reconsider this as genuine concerns have been raised. Whilst we want to see a better deal for tenants, removing the autonomy to pay in advance is not the best way to go about this and I do hope that the noble Baroness the Minister will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consider this before the next stages of the bill. I do not want to delay

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do not want to delay proceedings, and the noble Lord might not agree with me, but I did explain that payment in advance can explain that payment in advance can have a serious effect on other tenants in the rental market were tenants in the rental market were not able to make those very large payments in advance. He may not agree with me, but I did respond to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agree with me, but I did respond to that point in discretion. Does the noble Lord the Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wish to withdraw the amendment. Amendment by leave withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendments 109 and 110, moved en Amendments 109 and 110, moved en bloc. Amendment 111, not moved. bloc. Amendment 111, not moved. Amendments 112-114 not moved en bloc. The question is that clause 9 bloc. The question is that clause 9 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". Amendments 115 and 116, not moved en bloc. Not moved. Amendment 117, Baroness Scott, not moved.

The question is that clause 10 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. The question is that clause 11 stand part of the that clause 11 stand part of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

resumed. The question is the House be resumed. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contrary, "Not content". The I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
14:00
14:01
22:32
14:01
22:32
14:01
22:33
14:01
14:02
14:02
14:03
14:03
14:04
14:05
14:05
14:06
14:06
14:06
14:07
14:07
14:08
14:08
14:09
14:09
14:10
14:10
14:11
None Portrait Oral questions: Guarantees given to or received from any bidder for Thames Water
-

14:11
14:12
14:12
14:13
14:14
14:14
14:15
14:15
14:16
14:16
14:17
14:18
14:18
14:18
14:18
14:19
22:52
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page