Homelessness: Young Adults
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate makes a key point about supporting young people leaving prison. We have provided an uplift of £192.9 million to the homelessness prevention grant, which brings the total funding up to £633 million, the largest investment in that grant since it began. We are also setting out our plans in relation to all types of homelessness and housing in a housing strategy that will come forward later in the year. The ministerial working group on homelessness is paying particular attention to homelessness among young people, because we know the long-term damage it can do.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, in light of the rising rates of youth homelessness, can the Minister let me know how much of the £1 billion grant that has gone to local authorities has been specifically directed to homelessness among young people—or has none of it been directed? If not, why not?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We trust our colleagues in local government to direct money to where it is most needed. We will be looking, under the ministerial working group that is looking at homelessness, to see whether we need to take any further specific action on youth homelessness, but our colleagues in local government are very good at making sure they tackle the areas of most need in their local areas.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts(4 days, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“Assessment of operation of possession process(1) The Lord Chancellor must prepare an assessment of the operation of the process by which—(a) on applications made by landlords the county court is able to make orders for the possession of dwellings in England that are let under assured and regulated tenancies, and(b) such orders are enforced.(2) The Lord Chancellor must publish the assessment at such time, and in such manner, as the Lord Chancellor thinks appropriate.(3) In this section—“assured tenancy” means an assured tenancy within the meaning of the 1988 Act;“dwelling” means a building or part of a building which is occupied or intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling;“regulated tenancy” means a regulated tenancy within the meaning of the Rent Act 1977.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Lord Chancellor to assess the operation of the possession process to ensure that the courts service has the capacity to deal with the increased demand expected because of this Bill.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to this group of amendments and to thank my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for their amendments.
Before I get into the substance of the debate, I would like to issue a plea. I hope the Minister knows that I have the utmost respect for her. However, so far in Committee, we have been disappointed with the responses we have received to our debates and amendments. I can say in good conscience that, when I sat in her seat on her side of the Chamber, I treated every amendment put before me with respect; I often took issues back to the department to consider and, where possible, made changes. That is because I understood that it was the role of the House of Lords to scrutinise, revise and improve legislation. Unfortunately, it does not feel like this is still happening. Questions go unanswered and suggestions are dismissed without sufficient consideration.
This House has always been more about reason and substance than blind political ideology. I hope that the Minister can approach our debates going forward in that vein. I know full well that Ministers cannot always have the answers at their fingertips, and I am very happy to have written answers on points of details. However, I do ask that the Minister treats 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 the Bill: the capacity of our courts to deliver it. Let me say from the outset that 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, the previous Conservative Government set out that Section 21 would not be abolished until meaningful court reform had been undertaken and sufficient progress achieved. Such caution was not merely prudent but essential, considering the challenges facing our courts system.
This Bill abandons the careful sequencing we set out under the previous Renters (Reform) Bill. Under our approach, Section 21 would not have been abolished until meaningful improvements had been made to His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service. We also committed to a six-month implementation period for new tenancies to ensure that the system could cope. These safeguards were not incidental; they were essential.
However, in this Bill, those safeguards are gone. There is no clear commitment to upgrade 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 a far more demanding role without the necessary resources, reforms or readiness.
The ambition of the Renters’ Rights Bill is commendable, but ambition alone is not enough. We must also confront the operational realities. This legislation will place 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 us be clear about the scale of what we are asking the courts to do under this legislation. With the removal of Section 21, we are fundamentally reshaping the legal framework for possession. Possession cases that might previously have been resolved swiftly, albeit controversially, will now be channelled through more complex, contested grounds. This is a just and necessary step, but it is one that demands an equal and opposite increase in our ability to administer justice efficiently.
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, court rooms lie unused for lack of staff and overburdened judges are stretched too thin. In some parts of the country, landlords wait months, not weeks, for a simple hearing. In turn, tenants are left in limbo and often under the threat of eviction without resolution or recourse.
We must remember that delay is not neutral. It is not a benign inconvenience. It is a deeply disruptive force in people’s lives. For a landlord, it might mean months without rental income, with mortgage arrears mounting. For a tenant, it means living in a state of uncertainty. That silence—those weeks and months of not knowing—is not just stressful but debilitating. It leaves tenants feeling powerless and unable to plan their future and move forward.
It is for that reason that I urge the Minister to consider carefully Amendment 69 in my name, which requires the Lord Chancellor to conduct an assessment of the possession process. This assessment would examine how county courts handle applications from landlords for possession of properties under both assured and regulated tenancies, and how those orders are subsequently enforced.
This is a foundational step. If we are to move away from Section 21, we must be absolutely confident that the remaining legal routes for possession are functioning effectively, fairly and in a timely manner. This is not just a tick-box exercise; it is about ensuring we have a legitimate understanding of where our courts stand, their capacity 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 amendment ensures transparency, accountability and evidence-based implementation. Without such an assessment, we risk walking blindly into a situation where the courts become the bottleneck, where neither landlords nor tenants can get timely access to justice. Likewise, Amendment 283 provides an essential safeguard. It would ensure that 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 that reform is deliverable. It puts the infrastructure in place before the policy takes effect. Without this step, we risk setting both tenants and landlords adrift in a system that simply cannot cope.
I look forward to hearing from other noble Lords on this very significant group. The amendments from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, in particular, underscore the necessity of certifying that the court system has the capacity to manage the anticipated increase in possession cases. Amendment 279 in his name stipulates:
“None of the provisions of this Act, other than this subsection, come into force until the Secretary of State certifies that the average time for the court’s disposal of landlords possession actions in respect of residential property is as timely as in the year ending 23 March 2020”.
This benchmark is not arbitrary. It reflects a period when the system was 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 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 the reforms we implement are not undermined by an overburdened and underresourced court system. As we have discussed, the abolition of Section 21 will undoubtedly lead to more contested possession proceedings. Without the necessary court capacity, we risk exacerbating the very issue that 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.
In conclusion, I urge the Government to give serious consideration to these amendments. They represent a balanced approach that aligns the ambition of the Renters’ Rights Bill with the practical realities of our courts system. We have noble Lords present who are experts in that system and I look forward to listening to their contributions. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 205 in my name has much in common with the other amendments in this group, which are probing amendments to see whether the capacity of the courts is up to dealing with the cases that are likely to come before them—not least the likely increase in possession cases when the Act is implemented, and of course 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 Lady Scott, is the most demanding of the amendments. It 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. Amendment 69 finds her in a more conciliatory mood. That amendment does not delay the abolition of Section 21 but requires the Lord Chancellor to monitor progress and ensure that the capacity is there, and it sets no time limit on that assessment. My Amendment 205 finds a middle way, requiring the assessment to be carried out within six months of the passage of the Bill, while Amendment 264, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, is more generous, allowing two years. Neither would hold up the abolition of Section 21.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
That is completely correct. We need to make sure we are taking account of the impact on the system from the start. We believe that over time it will reduce the volume of cases going to the court service. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, pointed out, not many cases end up in the courts system, but there are some that go down that route. We will be monitoring them from the outset.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
On that point, I have just gone online and it is still being quoted that there is a seven-month delay, as my noble friend Lord Northbrook said. If it becomes clear during the process leading to the implementation of the Bill that the courts cannot cope and it will have a severe impact on people’s lives—the lives of both landlords and tenants—will His Majesty’s Government be brave enough to slow down the implementation of this Bill?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As I hope I have already made clear, we do not want to slow down implementation. We think the reforms we are bringing forward are really important and very much overdue. We do not expect that it will have the impact the noble Baroness has just outlined, but we will continue to monitor it and we will support our friends in the courts service with whatever help they need to make sure the impact is mitigated.
I turn finally to Amendments 279 and 280, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. I thank the noble Lord for his continued engagement on the Bill, particularly on the judicial impacts. It has been incredibly valuable to me to have that input. Amendment 280 would require the Secretary of State to certify that landlord possession actions in respect of residential property are processed by the courts in no greater time, on average, than they were in the year before the first Covid-19 lockdown. In addition, Amendment 279 would delay the commencement of important reforms until this proposed assessment had been carried out.
As I have previously outlined, I 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 the implementation of these urgent reforms to an arbitrary target of court timeliness. The sector has already waited too long.
As noted, the Ministry of Justice already publishes 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 and eight weeks from the issue of the claim. If the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, says that that figure is still disputed, I am happy to get back to her on that.
Setting a target for the possession process as a gateway for the operation of other Bill provisions would not be meaningful. A key stage of the process is the application for a warrant of possession. This is dependent on the actions of the landlord and is therefore outside the control of the courts service. Where a tenant stays in a property beyond the date set out in the possession order, a 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 implementing these reforms. This includes ensuring that the county court has the resources it needs to adjust to any changes in case loads, and that the relevant rules and procedures are updated. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, requested a meeting. I am very happy to continue meeting on the progress of digitisation and the other interim steps that we are likely to take.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl for clarifying that point. Indeed, I was talking about the claims to order median timeliness being eight weeks. It is difficult to take measures from different places—there are lies, damned lies and statistics, as we all know—but, as I mentioned, in the longer term we expect the reforms we are introducing to reduce the volume of possession claims. That is why the monitoring that I set out in response to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, is really important, so that we can see where this is taking us. We expect that only those cases where there is a clear, well-evidenced ground for possession will be able to proceed, and that should, over time, reduce the volumes overall.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the insightful contributions made during this debate and the amendments we have discussed, particularly those proposed by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. I thank my noble friend Lord Wolfson for speaking to them with such in-depth knowledge, which was much appreciated. The whole debate underscores shared concerns across the Committee about the capacity of our courts to effectively implement the Bill.
As I made clear throughout the previous days in Committee, the ambition to reform the private rented sector is commendable, yet without a robust and adequately resourced court system, these reforms risk being totally undermined. Amendments 283 and 69 in my name would create a foundational aim to ensure that the necessary infrastructure is in place before significant changes are enacted, thereby safeguarding the interests of both tenants and landlords.
The Minister remarked on the first day of Committee and has continued to say that the Government are working with the Ministry of Justice to complete a justice impact test. This assessment is intended to identify the additional burdens on the system arising from the new policies in the Bill and to ensure that the system is fully prepared for any increases in workload. This commitment is welcomed, but we need to know how long this justice impact test will take to complete. Will it be ready before the Bill progresses through Parliament? Given the significant implications for the court system, it is imperative that this assessment is thorough and timely and that the Bill is impacted only once we know the court system is ready for these changes.
The capacity of our courts is not a peripheral concern; it is central to the success of this legislation. As we have discussed, delays in the court process are not merely procedural; they have a real-world consequence for tenants and landlords alike. I urge the Minister to expediate 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 Bill with the practical realities of our court system. The amendments before us provide a prudent approach to achieving this balance. I look forward to the Minister’s response and to continuing our discussions on how best to deliver. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment at this point.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I do not doubt the genuine compassion and sincerity of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, but I feel there is a real incongruity about the current position of His Majesty’s Official Opposition to favour landlords and make evictions quicker and easier. The message to tenants via this amendment is, “Your unwanted evictions will take place only in the school holidays, so on 21 December rather than earlier in December”. I genuinely feel that it would be unworkable and that circumstances differ. I could actually argue the opposite: I would rather my children were safe in school while I negotiated trying to find where we were to live. I just do not think we can say that one size fits all on this.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for bringing Amendment 70 before the Committee today. It is a thoughtful and considered probing amendment that rightly recognises the significant impact that housing stability can have on a child’s education. During the pandemic, our children and grandchildren suffered greatly. Schools were closed, youth clubs shut down and extracurricular activities ground to a halt. The disruption left many young people adrift at a crucial stage of their development, and only now are we beginning to understand the effects. It is therefore incumbent on us all to support and uplift the next generation. However, the Government must ensure that the burden does not fall disproportionately on individual landlords. It is not, and should not be, their moral obligation to serve as the final safety net for vulnerable families. That responsibility lies with us—with the state, with local authorities and with society.
Owning a property does not automatically confer great wealth. It does not equip an individual to shoulder the complex needs of a struggling family. The Government must tread carefully to ensure that their actions do not drive up costs in this sector, which fall most heavily and disproportionately on low-income families and the most vulnerable members of our society. A sustainable housing market depends on both tenant security and landlords’ confidence. This is a very tough balance to strike, but I believe that the onus is on us all to strike it.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her amendment, which would allow the court to grant an order for possession of a property that houses school-aged children only during school holidays, and I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Scott, for their comments. I understand the probing nature of the amendment and the compassion that sits behind it. However, I gently point out that at the latest count, we have 160,000 children in temporary and emergency accommodation, a situation driven by the lack of attention to the housing situation paid by her Government. Therefore, while we want to do as much as we can to support families and children, I think it takes quite a lot of front to come before this Committee with this kind of proposal when we have that terrible situation of 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.
Anyway, I appreciate the sentiment; however, I am going to talk about the practicality of delivering it. It would likely mean that, where possession has been sought, the courts would need to check whether the property contains school-age children and whether it is the school holidays or not, before scheduling a hearing. Not only would this create additional work for the courts—we have just spent quite some time debating the pressure the courts are already under—it could cause delays for landlords in obtaining possession orders. That is an issue the Opposition have taken great interest in. For example, a landlord’s case could be next in line to be heard, but, because it is the beginning of the school summer holidays, the hearing would be delayed for six weeks.
Furthermore, although provision is made within the amendment for regulations to be made annually to define the school periods, it would be an onerous task. School holidays vary across local authority areas and sectors; they can even vary within an individual area. My grandchildren live at the same address but go to different schools and have different holidays. This would likely cause confusion and added complexity for landlords who wish to seek possession of their properties.
While it is absolutely right that tenants enjoy a greater level of security in their homes, we have said that landlords must enjoy robust grounds for possession where there is good reason for them to seek to take their property back. It would not be reasonable to add additional barriers, complexities or delays to the possession process.
Our reforms give renters much greater security and stability, so they can stay in their homes for longer, build lives and communities and avoid the risk of homelessness. That is why we are introducing the many protections for tenants, such as banning Section 21 evictions, increasing notice periods and introducing a 12-month protected period at the beginning of a tenancy during which landlords cannot evict them to move into or sell the property. However, that must be balanced with the needs of landlords, who must enjoy those robust grounds we have already spoken about. 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 date for possession can be postponed for up to six weeks if a tenant can show that this would cause exceptional hardship.
As well as it being impractical, there is also a principled argument against this amendment. Being evicted will almost always be a significant upheaval for tenants—I accept that—particularly for those with children, so I understand the intent behind it. However, it would not necessarily—as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, pointed out—always be easier for parents to deal with a possession order or eviction during the school holidays. During termtime, parents may have significantly fewer caring responsibilities, particularly if their children are younger. Therefore, many parents find the school holidays a time of increased responsibility and stress. Families being evicted during school holidays may also mean having to take up that school holiday with the necessities of moving, rather than doing activities with the children. So it may make it more difficult for families, not easier. It is for these reasons, both practical and principled, that I ask for this amendment to be withdrawn.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment questions the Government's reasons for preventing the tenant and landlord from agreeing a rent value that is higher than the rent set by the Tribunal under Section 14.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, in my response to all amendments in this group, I will be guided by a principle of stability and fairness—fairness for both tenants and landlords. This is not a debate about unchecked gain, and nor should it result in the erosion of property rights. It is about balance, responsibility and securing a system that works for everyone.
Amendment 75 in my name probes the Government’s reasons for preventing the tenant and landlord agreeing a rent value that is higher than the rent set by the tribunal. Just consider this scenario: the tribunal makes a determination, but then the landlord embarks on a renovation, which includes new appliances and upgrades 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 exist and yet the Bill would override that agreement. Why should the Government intervene to prevent it? That 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—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.
Amendment 78 in my name seeks to prevent the Secretary of State expanding the definition of low-cost tenancy by regulation. This definition is important: it is not a technicality but fundamental. It determines not only how a property is treated under the law but how the relationship between the tenant and the landlord is structured. I understand that this is a significant power. Does the Minister agree? Anyone familiar with detail in the implications of this Bill will 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 ahead of Report? If not, can she please set out in writing why she believes the Government should be afforded this power?
Finally, Amendment 86, in my name, 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. Have the Government properly considered multiple timescales and modelled the impact each would have on the tribunal system? If this vital work has been overlooked, will the Minister commit to reviewing the impact of the chosen timescale on the total claims and return to the Dispatch Box with this at a later time? This is not an unreasonable request, and I hope the Minister agrees.
Many of the amendments in this group are intended to probe the Government’s thinking and understand how they have arrived at the current text of the Bill. Unsurprisingly, given the importance of these matters, this group contains numerous amendments; I hope the Minister listens carefully to the views expressed across the Committee and is not too ready to dismiss them all in her reply. I beg to move.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 80, 80A, 82 and 83 in my name. Each relates to the potential unintended consequences of Clause 7 for registered providers of social housing. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his support.
Before turning to my amendments, I express my strong support for the Government’s ambition to give greater rights and protections to people renting their home. Since the previous Conservative Government first promised to end no-fault evictions in 2019, almost a million renters have received a Section 21 eviction, which is a leading cause of homelessness. It is right that the Government have acted decisively to end this unacceptable situation for good.
While most of the Bill is focused on reforming the private rented sector, some reforms will affect housing associations because the majority of homes that 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 significant progress has been made to amend the Bill to negate any unintended consequences for social landlords. This has been strongly welcomed by the National Housing Federation and others that support this legislation. There have been welcome changes to ground 1B and ground 6, as well as the introduction of ground 6ZA, 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 associations would still very much like to see further clarity in the Bill on proposed changes to the process for rent increases.
Housing associations are not-for-profit social landlords: they invest any income back into the development and maintenance of the homes they provide and into supporting residents and communities. To maintain fairness for tenants, to ensure administrative 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 13A notices.
Retaining registered providers’ ability to use clauses in tenancy agreements to increase rents is positive, as it provides them with a practical method for increasing rents on the same day for all tenants. The loss of this rent-harmonisation mechanism would have been a significant disruption—and, indeed, unnecessary, given how heavily regulated this sector is compared with the private rented sector.
However, the ability to use contractual clauses instead of Section 13A notices could be clearer than is stated in the Bill currently. The Explanatory Notes clarify that contractual clause increases can be used, but the Bill says:
“For the purpose of securing an increase in the rent under a tenancy … the landlord may serve on the tenant a notice”.
It goes on. This reflects the wording applying to PRS tenancies, where the word “may” is used in a mandatory sense, as the only way that the landlord can increase the rent is through the process in Section 13 of the 1988 Act. In contrast, where it applies to relevant registered provider tenancies, “may” is used in a permissive sense: the landlord can use a Section 13A notice, but they also have the option to increase by a clause in the tenancy agreement.
The Bill provides for this method of increase by agreement between the landlord and the tenant. However, it does not make it clear whether each increase must be agreed or whether a mechanism for increase in the tenancy agreement covers all increases.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am not saying that; I am saying that the penalty for the person challenging their rent would be in the debt that accrued from the backdating. That is the point I was trying to make.
Amendment 97 is a consequential amendment linked to Amendment 94 which aims to ensure that, where a tenant challenges a rent increase notice at the tribunal, any rent increase determined by the tribunal would be backdated to the date on a Section 13 notice. I have already set out why the Government do not agree tenants should be forced to pay backdated rent.
Amendments 96 and 98, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, should be considered in the light of his Amendment 103. Amendment 96 would allow a rent increase to be backdated to the date of the notice. It would, however, limit this to cases where the tribunal has determined that 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 increases apply after the tribunal determines a rent. It would mean that, if the tribunal finds that a landlord’s proposed rent is lower than the market rate, the rent increase would take effect from the date the landlord originally intended. However, where a landlord has proposed a rent above the open market rate, it would apply from a date on or after the date of the tribunal hearing. I understand the noble Lord’s concerns about the potential for the courts to be overwhelmed. We have had extensive discussions on this capacity issue.
I believe I answered his points around the ECHR in response to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, last week, but I am happy to take that back to the department’s lawyers again. I have also responded previously to the noble Lord’s points about the impact on build-to-rent investment. The Government do not agree that tenants should be forced to pay backdated rent.
I have more amendments to get through, but I see that I am out of time. If noble Lords are happy for me to carry on, I will.
Amendment 99, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, seeks to backdate a rent increase to the date of the notice. It provides that tenants may either pay the backdated rent in one payment or in 12 equal instalments. Amendment 104 is consequential to Amendment 99 and seeks to define the terms “the uplifted rent” and “the rent difference”. Amendment 101, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking, similarly proposes that tenants pay a backdated rent increase in equal instalments for a period of up to six months after the date of the tribunal’s determination. I am sympathetic to the underlying premise of these amendments, which is that tenants might face financial problems in paying a rent increase approved by the tribunal. Although these amendments seek to smooth out the impact of an increase, it is much better to remove the cause of the problem, which our current policy achieves by ruling out backdating in the first place. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press these amendments.
Amendment 100, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking, seeks to remove the tribunal’s ability to delay a rent increase for up to two months after the date of determination in cases of undue hardship. The Government strongly believe that being able to defer rent increases for a short period is a necessary protection for renters. This will give them time to adjust and consider their options, while ensuring that the landlord can achieve market rent. I therefore ask my noble friend not to press his amendment.
Finally—noble Lords will be pleased to hear that—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 (Property Chamber). My department has worked closely with His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service and the Ministry of Justice throughout the formulation of this Bill. This collaboration has carefully considered implementation and resourcing issues. Our shared aim is that the tribunals are well equipped to implement our reforms effectively, as I have repeated a number of times during our debates. Work is progressing in the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) to increase capacity, as well as to review resource and working practices. The noble Baroness’s amendment understandably reflects the need to ensure the tribunals are equipped to implement these reforms, but the proposed consultation would not provide any new information beyond the work that is already under way. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Baroness not to press this amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, as expected, this has been a technical and densely packed group of amendments, with numerous contributions from noble Lords who clearly possess deep knowledge of this Bill. I have found their insights invaluable, and I trust the Government will reflect seriously on the points raised today.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, for rightly seeking clarification on the mechanism available to social housing providers to increase rents. Amendments 80, 80A, 82 and 83 are thoughtful probing amendments and we thank the noble Baroness for bringing these to the attention of everyone in the Committee today. This is an important issue for both social housing providers and for tenants living in social housing. Clear rules and understandable mechanisms build trust and transparency. Furthermore, a standardised approach, underpinned by clear and consistent rules, ensures confidence in the process that governs rent and tenancy management. The Government have a duty to communicate these mechanisms, not only to this House but to those forced to respond to this incoming legislation. In fact, I would argue that the latter is much more important. As we have repeatedly noted throughout Committee, this legislation is technical and detailed, and so the Minister has an obligation to clarify. I trust she will welcome any further amendments brought forward with the purpose of testing and probing the Government’s rationale and decision-making process.
I now turn to Amendment 87, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich. Any amendment brought to the attention of this Committee which seeks to alleviate the pressures on the tribunal process must be considered by the Government. This is an important area, and the noble Baroness should be 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 or the tenant. Delays in resolving disputes will keep both 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 arising from an overburdened system, but it highlights the serious risks we face if these concerns are not addressed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, rightly highlighted the critical issue of resourcing within the tribunal system. This is a thoughtful amendment which clearly commands support. Ensuring that the tribunal system is adequately resourced is vital. The Secretary of State must take responsibility for ensuring that their own policies do not undermine or overwhelm the very system intended to deliver justice and security for tenants and landlords alike. My noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, among many others, spoke with his usual vigour and clarity on this issue. On many issues in Committee he has shown his understanding that it is only by striking the right balance in this legislation—I will say it again—that we can we hope to achieve an efficient and effective rental market for the future.
Amendment 88, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, seeks to reduce the backlog by adding a drawback or consequence of taking a case to tribunal if unsuccessful. I recognise the determination of the noble Lord to take the pressure off the tribunal system.
Amendment 90, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, raises an interesting probing issue in relation to government grants. I was interested to hear that the Minister is going to look into this further. I welcome that and will be interested in what she comes forward with.
I turn to Amendments 91, 94, 97 and 100, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. The Committee is right to consider amendments that tighten up and clarify the timing of when a rent increase or notice becomes effective. The Committee is also right to explore options that ensure a predictable timeline for this process, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for tabling these amendments.
Lastly, I briefly allude to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. Amendment 104 highlights the importance of clear, conscious definitions within law. Definitions provide certainty and consistency in application, and every Bill should have well-defined terms. Our courts rely on this, our public bodies rely on it and those who are expected to follow the law deserve it. I hope that the Minister agrees with this principle.
Next, Amendment 99, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is a useful probe into rent tribunals. To remind the Committee, this amendment would ensure that, if a rent challenge were unsuccessful, the reviewed rent would apply from the date that the increase was due to take effect, rather than the end of the legal process. We must consider the incentives and signals that the legislation sends to tenants, but additionally we must seek to protect landlords from financial losses caused by legal delays firmly out of their own control. I listened to what the Minister said on this, but we will be bringing this back for further discussion in the future. Across the Committee, we must consider proposals that ensure that tenants are not hit with sudden, unaffordable lump sums, but also ensure that landlords are properly compensated for a lawful rent increase. This amendment would bring this consideration front and centre, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for speaking to it today.
Briefly, Amendments 96, 98 and 103, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, are interesting and quite thoughtful proposals. Where it is possible to do so fairly, rent should indeed be determined at the open market rate. Ensuring that rents reflect genuine market conditions helps to maintain balance and fairness in the market, for both tenants and landlords.
This was a packed and detailed group, with numerous proposals from across the Committee. Not only did I find it a fascinating debate, but once again it highlighted noble Lords’ understanding of the key issues facing the sector. I hope the Minister is listening carefully to the knowledge and expertise across this Chamber and can therefore help the Government make this a successful Bill at the end of the process. We have to ensure that we can enhance the availability of houses, alleviate the burden of unaffordable rents and really deliver security for tenants. Right across the Committee, we agree that renters need a better deal, but I fear that this group is yet another part of the story and, as it stands, the Bill is not quite the answer. However, at this time, I wish to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the requirement that agreed tenancy rents can only be decreased by the Tribunal, therefore removing the potential incentive for tenants to appeal all rent increases when they would only go down or stay the same.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 92, 93, 95, 102 and 105 in my name, which relate to rent controls and caps. I apologise if I repeat quite a bit that other noble Lords have been debating, but I think this is an important issue and I would like to give my own explanation of my amendments in this group.
Amendment 92 in my name addresses an issue of critical concern both to landlords and to the overall functioning of the rental market. The current provision limits the ability of tribunals to increase rent, allowing only for reductions. Let us pause for a moment to consider what such a provision creates. In practice, what incentive does it give to tenants? In essence, this provision incentivises a clear motivation for tenants to appeal all rent increases, as we heard earlier, regardless of whether the increases are reasonable, aligned with market value or necessary. Why? Because they know that the worst outcome for them will be that their rent is either frozen or reduced.
I have tried over the course of our debates on this Bill to understand the Government’s position on many of its provisions. On this provision, I find myself asking who exactly came up with this. Who thought it was fair or reasonable to restrict the ability of tribunals to increase rents while leaving only the option for reductions?
Under this existing framework, tribunals can never increase rents, regardless of the circumstances. Not only does this create a totally imbalanced system within the rental market: more pressingly, how will the tribunals cope? How can we expect the tribunals to fairly adjudicate cases when the scope of their decision-making is so narrowly constrained?
On the issue of tribunal capacity, I once again ask the Minister to assure the House that tribunals 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 on this available today, can she commit to writing to me with the details in full? It is essential that we understand how the Government intend to support the tribunals, given the increasing workload and the very real risk of backlogs that this Bill may introduce. I do not believe that it is sufficient simply to introduce this provision without a clear plan for ensuring that tribunals 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—and what will 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 rents for tenants. We cannot ignore the wider consequences of this approach. Amendment 92 seeks to correct this imbalance by giving tribunals the 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 could reduce rents when necessary. In doing this, we would be creating a balanced system that reflects the realities of the housing market and treats both landlords and tenants fairly.
Amendment 93 addresses another fundamental issue: the ability of tribunals to backdate rent reductions. How can it be fair to require landlords to repay rent that 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 does not just destabilise the relationship between the landlord and the tenant; it undermines the entire principle 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 would ensure that rent reductions cannot be backdated, promoting stability and fairness.
Amendment 95 ties directly into this. It addresses the delay of rent increases by tribunals. How can we justify automatic delays to rent increases when 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 tenants would do this—if they know that they can delay rent increases for months or even longer, regardless of whether the increase is justified, why would they not do that?
The reality is that the current system encourages tenants to use the tribunal process as a delaying tactic, even when there is no real case against the rent increase. What does this do to landlords, who rely on these rent increases to cover rising costs, maintain their properties and meet their financial obligations? What happens to them when the tribunal can, at any time, delay a rent increase without a justifiable reason?
I therefore ask the Minister how the Government expect landlords to respond to this. Can she explain why we are encouraging tenants to delay rent increases when the increases are reasonable and necessary? Does she not see that this provision disincentivises 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. Landlords will be left with fewer options and fewer 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 imbalance by ensuring that rent increases are delayed only where there is clear evidence of undue hardship for the tenant. This would prevent tenants delaying rent increases simply for convenience and would provide landlords with the certainty they need to operate within a fair system.
Why is the Renters’ 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 cap that disregards the economic reality of the rental market.
Moreover, by limiting rents to reductions, we are effectively disincentivising landlords from maintaining or improving their properties. Is the Minister aware of the potential long-term consequences of this? Amendment 102 seeks 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.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Market rates are usually driven by demand, not by what happens in the courts, so I do not think that will be the case.
On Amendment 95, for too long tenants have been afraid to challenge an unreasonable rent increase for the fear that the rent can be raised beyond what the landlord has asked for. The Bill will reform how the tribunal works to ensure that tenants feel confident in challenging poor practice and can enforce their rights. The tribunal will not be able to increase rent beyond what the landlord initially proposed. That strikes the right balance between empowering tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases and ensuring that landlords can increase to the market rent.
Amendment 95 would require the tribunal to backdate a rent increase to the date of the rent increase notice, except where this is likely to cause undue hardship to the tenant. This amendment would punish the most vulnerable tenants who may already be struggling financially. Therefore, to ensure tenants are not unexpectedly thrust into debt, it is right that the new rent amount would 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. For the sake of clarity, I repeat that the tenant will continue to pay the rent that they were paying before—it is the increase in the rent that is being challenged through this process.
Turning to Amendment 102, I 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, a tenant has the right to challenge a rent increase at tribunal. As I have said, for too long tenants have been afraid to do that. I note, too, that the Opposition once supported our position on this matter. Their original White Paper said the tribunal will 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 backdoor.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Can the Minister explain this? If a tribunal is taking quite a long time, then the decision is made and any increase happens from the date of that tribunal’s decision, and the landlord can go to a tribunal only every 12 months, does that 12 months start from the date of the tribunal’s decision, or can it go back six, seven or eight months prior, so that it could be nearly two years rather than one year?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I understand the noble Baroness’s question. My understanding is that the year starts from the date the tribunal decisions are made, but I will check that and write to her.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
So you could lose six or eight months—it could be nearly two years. If the Minister could confirm that, it would be useful.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will clarify that in the letter.
Amendment 105 would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the impact of Clause 8 on the First-tier Tribunal, and to consult the Competition and Markets Authority on whether further measures are needed to prevent distortion of the rental market by the tribunal’s determinations on rent. As I have made clear on similar amendments, the department is already collaborating extensively with His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service, as well as the Ministry of Justice, to ensure that the property chamber of the First-tier Tribunal is prepared for the implementation of the Bill, including any changes to its role in determining rent.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, on the Minister’s last point on scaremongering, I do not think we are. I suggest that she might like to look at the latest weekend Bloomberg report on the rental sector in London. The number of landlords going out of the rental market is quite scary. It is said very clearly that they are going out because of further regulation of the sector. I will send the report to her if she would like; it is interesting.
I thank noble Lords who contributed on this group. In closing, I will return to our central concern, which runs through the whole group of amendments: the balance between landlord and tenant, between fairness and workability, and between principle and practical consequences. At the heart of this is the fundamental question about whether we believe in a truly impartial rent tribunal system. As the Bill stands, it allows only downward rent adjustments. Amendment 92 would correct that. It would give a tribunal the discretion to assess the facts and adjust rents up or down, depending on the evidence. That is the essence, we suggest, of a fair system 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 but uncertainty, and it undermines trust in the system.
That uncertainty only grows with the automatic delay of rent increases. Amendment 95 brings much-needed clarity to this. It ensures that rent increases are pushed back not simply 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 the 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 tribunals to assess fairness, we must let them consider the full picture, not force them into decisions that ignore inflation, market trends or rising costs.
This 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 the 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 rents. This is not what this Bill should achieve, but at this stage tonight I wish to withdraw my amendment.
Housing: New Homes Target
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, but does the Minister agree with the OBR’s experts that the Government are set to miss their 1.5 million homes target?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness. The OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook forecast net additions to the UK housing stock to be 1.3 million, but we have to take alongside that the work that we have done since then on skills, the new homes accelerator and government funding for social and affordable housing. The trajectory of all that is very much in the right direction. We know there is more work to do; we are determined to do it; and we are very happy to stick with our ambitious target.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group represent yet another instance where the rights of renters intersect with those of landlords. This group of amendments is indicative of the broader Bill and, rather than increasing the availability of homes, we believe it risks reducing the supply of rental properties. This could drive up costs for renters at a time when the cost of renting has already risen significantly. It is, of course, important to make sure that the legal framework which governs this relationship protects those who are renting, but we cannot forget the landlords. They should also have their rights upheld. Landlords should have their rights over their properties respected and retain the ability to recover possession of their homes when they need to.
I start by speaking to Amendments 24 and 30, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe. They assume that the landlord is in some way liable to pay compensation for exercising rights, which surely are theirs by virtue of the fact that they actually own the property. Determining when in specific cases compensation is required is surely the responsibility of a court. To assume that compensation is always required tips the balance against the landlords and would likely discourage many responsible, principled landlords from entering the market and meeting the high demand for rented properties that we see across the country.
In the same vein, Amendments 26 and 27, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would place an administrative burden on landlords, which would have a dampening effect on the housing market. Houses are important personal assets. Piling on layers of regulation will further suffocate the market and limit the agency of landlords to use the assets that they own.
Conversely, we believe that Amendments 60 and 61, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, strike an appropriate balance, recognising that landlords need to be protected from bad actors, who could have a devastating financial effect on them. Landlords should not be punished for supplying rental properties to the market. Maintaining the existing possession grounds for rent arrears would mean that they can operate in the market with confidence that they will not be left out of pocket.
Amendments 63 and 64, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord de Clifford, further speak to the fact that landlords should retain the right to make use of their own property as they see fit. It is neither the role nor the place of government to dictate to home owners how their personal property should be used.
Amendment 71, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, seeks to conflate the rights of the landlords with their responsibilities. The landlord, by owning the property, has the right to make decisions about how that property is used. The tenant, in renting from that landlord, is expected to respect the rights of the landlord as the property owner. This relationship does not in any way suggest that the landlord should be liable to forgo income while still providing the service. This measure would clearly disadvantage landlords in their legal relationship with their tenant and would depress the market, which is already undersaturated.
Finally, I welcome that Amendments 142, 165 and 166, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Hacking, strike the appropriate balance between the rights of the renters and the rights of the landlord. We need to remember that we are talking about a market, which requires flexibility and adaptability so that it works for consumers and providers. Allowing landlords to make these decisions without being hamstrung by long-term obligations means that they can act in the mutual interest. A flourishing market benefits renters as much as landlords. This balance is imperative to achieve a flourishing market. I urge the Government further to consider, between now and Report, this crucial balance between landlords and tenants, most importantly to protect the tenants in this sector.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lady Warwick and Lord Hacking, the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill, Lady Grender, Lady Jones, Lady Bowles, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Scott, the noble Lords, Lord Carter, Lord Carrington, Lord de Clifford, Lord Cromwell, Lord Northbrook and Lord Pannick, and the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for their amendments and comments during this debate. It was great to hear from the noble Earl about the long-term tenancies that he has, of 21 to 45 years. I made the point at Second Reading and on Tuesday about the symbiotic relationship that can and should exist between landlords and tenants. Our aim is to foster that relationship and the balance that makes it work properly as we go through the process of this Bill.
Amendment 24 and Amendment 30 seek to make possession under ground 6B contingent on compensation being first paid by the landlord to the tenant. Amendment 24 specifically prevents a court making an order for possession unless compensation has been paid; Amendment 30 sets out that landlords must pay compensation at a level set by the Secretary of State in regulation before they can take possession. Ground 6B allows a landlord to evict tenants where they are subject to enforcement action and eviction is the only way that they can comply. It is intended to prevent landlords ending up in the legal limbo of having broken the law but having no route to comply with it.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook, seeks to apply the same definition of family member which is used in Clause 21 of the Act in Schedule 1 to ensure the internal consistency of this Act.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will move my Amendment 32 and speak to Amendments 33 and 34 in this group. All three of these amendments are underpinned by the same principle, that of consistency. When anybody involved in a tenancy speaks about “family members”, there should be clarity on what that means, but the Bill is not consistent in its definition of a family. This inconsistency will make it much harder to achieve clarity for those who will have to work with this legislation in the real world. I will briefly outline the two definitions of the family that are currently in the text of the Bill.
In Clause 21, which relates to renter guarantors, the Government have defined family members in a broader way, including nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles, partners, children and cousins within the definition. In Schedule 1, which we are debating today, the definition is much narrower, limiting the definition of family members in that part of the Bill to parents, grandparents, siblings, children and grandchildren. We have tabled these amendments to highlight this inconsistency, which will create an imbalance between the definitions of the family of a tenant and that of a landlord. While inconsistency applies to nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles, partners, children and cousins, I will use the example of cousins to illustrate my point.
Surely whether a person is a landlord or a tenant, all families should be treated equally before the law. It cannot be right that a tenant’s cousin who is a rent guarantor is defined as a family member, but a landlord’s cousin is not defined as a family member for the purposes of ground 1. Can the Minister please explain why she believes it is acceptable for a cousin of a tenant who is their rent guarantor to be treated as a family member, but the cousin of a landlord is not treated as a family member for the purposes of ground 1, under this legislation? Does she agree that this is an inconsistent way of defining family members?
We are also interested in the perverse outcome that would result in a circumstance where a cousin of a person acts as a rent guarantor but also has another cousin who is a landlord. Under Clause 21, they would be the tenant’s family member; under Schedule 1, they would not be the landlord’s family member. In the real world, they are family members in both cases. It is unacceptable that an individual in this position would be treated in one way in respect of their relationship with their cousin who is a tenant and in a different way in respect of their relationship with their cousin who is a landlord.
Additionally, I am not certain whether cousins of tenants and cousins of landlords are different classes of people. If we are to treat cousins as a class of people for the purposes of the Bill, it seems that the Bill will affect private interests of cousins of landlords in a different way to the interests of cousins of tenants. We feel that this is unacceptable, and it should be resolved.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments. Amendments 32, 33 and 34 seek to expand the definition of a family member for the purposes of possession ground 1. This mandatory possession ground is available if the landlord or their close family member wishes to move into the property. These amendments widen the ground to allow a landlord to claim possession from an existing tenant to move in relatives of their spouse, partner or co-habitee, along with nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles or cousins.
In choosing which of the landlord’s family members can move in under ground 1, we have reflected the diversity of modern families while drawing a line short of where some might wish. But we are of the view that to expand the ground any further would diminish tenant protections too far. It would open tenants up to evictions from a wide range of people—potentially very significant numbers indeed where families are large—while providing more opportunity for ill-intentioned landlords to abuse the system.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked why “family member” is used in Clause 21 while close family member is used in the moving-in ground. The moving-in ground is designed for very specific circumstances where a landlord’s family member is in need of accommodation, so it is right that this definition is narrower, as tenants risk losing their home. New Section 16N of the Housing Act 1988, “Guarantor not liable for rent payable after the tenant’s death”, as inserted by Clause 21, is specifically targeted to stop those grieving being held liable after a tenancy should have been ended, and it is right that this is a broader protection. The use of guarantors is wide ranging and, as such, a wider definition is needed to encompass all relevant persons. However, that is not the case when a tenant is facing eviction from a property.
For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister. These amendments may appear complicated in their drafting, but they have one simple objective which is to deliver a consistent definition of the family across the Bill. While I am very disappointed that the Government do not feel able to accept the amendment today, I hope that the Minister is willing to discuss a way to resolve this inconsistency in future meetings as we make progress on the Bill.
The law should be as simple as possible and, crucially, consistent, so that those who have to deal with the legislation in the real world can do so without unnecessary confusion. It is clear that two different definitions of the family will create confusion. A consistent definition would prevent that confusion. While I reserve the right to bring this back on Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
But, as the noble Lord was not here from the start of the debate, I am afraid he cannot speak.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for bringing a debate on possession grounds. This is an important issue, as it ensures that a landlord—who is often also the employer—can regain possession of a property when it is needed to house a new employee.
I will address Amendments 48, 49, 51 and 52, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. These amendments raise an important and complex issue concerning agricultural tenancies, particularly in the light of the proposed reforms to tenancy law, including the abolition of fixed terms and the removal of Section 21 no-fault evictions.
At present, agricultural landlords can avoid creating an agricultural assured occupancy—an AAO—by serving notice before the tenancy begins, thereby establishing it as an assured shorthold tenancy, or AST. This provides access to Section 21, which allows landlords to regain possession without the need to demonstrate fault. It is a mechanism widely relied on in the agricultural sector, where housing is often tied to employment or operational needs. With the removal of Section 21, this option will no longer be available. As a result, there will be a significant shift in the way in which agricultural landlords recover their properties. We must ensure that alternative grounds for possession are workable and fair, and can lead to the recovery of a property.
I do not suggest that there are easy answers here. However, I believe that this area requires careful scrutiny and targeted solutions. I believe the noble Lord’s amendments offer a useful starting point for this discussion and he has rightly brought this to the attention of the House. I urge the Government to consider these issues closely and to engage further with agricultural landlords to ensure that they have the means to house new farmers under their employment.
Finally, I will talk to the remaining amendments in this group: Amendments 50, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 63. We must recognise the value of maintaining the availability of essential employment-linked housing and consider how best to safeguard it in practice. This of course must have thoughtful consideration, as the implications of any decision made affect not only the landlord and the employer but the broader rental market. I hope the Government will give serious consideration to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, as part of a broader and much-needed discussion on how landlords can fairly regain possession of a property when a tenancy is tied to employment that has come to an end. I have milked many cows in my life, and even at Easter I was lambing ewes, so I know a lot about this.
Many roles with occupational housing are time-sensitive and hands-on. A new employee may require immediate access to the same accommodation as the previous employee in order to perform their duties. Herdsmen and herdswomen are often up at 3.30 in the morning to begin milking and shepherds may be lambing right through the night into the dawn, and for their own welfare as a family they need to be on site to fulfil that role. Animal welfare on farms also requires staff to immediately be available at all times, whether it is for calving, lambing, farrowing or just for sick animals, so accommodation on site is absolutely critical. The same applies to those managing diversification of agricultural properties and businesses, managing holiday accommodation or providing security for storage facilities on the farm, for example.
Failure to ensure timely access to such housing can have significant operational impacts. It can delay essential work and place considerable strain on the profit-making enterprises already operating within tight margins. This debate is therefore not only about the protection of property rights; it is fundamental to supporting those agricultural businesses, the people employed in them and the welfare of the stock on those farms, which rely so heavily on occupational housing as a practical necessity.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for these amendments relating to agricultural tenancies, and thank him, the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their obvious farming expertise as they have taken us through the rationale for the amendments. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for her comments about the long relationships that are often prevalent in rural tenancies. It is important to make the point that one of the aims of the Bill is to facilitate those longer tenancy relationships.
I will make a few general comments, particularly that we appreciate that the agricultural sector has distinct requirements, and it is often vital for workers to live on-site to carry out their duties, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, very ably described to us. That is why we have included ground 5A. However, this must be balanced with the needs of the wider rural community. This ground balances both. It allows agricultural workers to be housed while protecting other tenants who may work in critical local jobs.
Widening the ground—for example, to include contractors—could, we believe, open the ground to abuse and decrease rural security of tenure. For example, a landlord could contract someone to do a nominal amount of agricultural work for their business and, on that basis, use the expanded ground to evict a tenant in respect of whom no other grounds were available.
The noble Earl, Lord Leicester, talked about the self-employed and contractors. We recognise that it is sometimes necessary for landlords to move tenants on where accommodation is intended for a particular purpose, and understand that employee accommodation plays a critical role for many employers, so we are strengthening the possession ground by making it mandatory. It would not be right to broaden the ground too much, and thereby reduce the security of tenure for more tenancies, as this would be contradictory to the purpose of the Bill.
There are other arrangements that a landlord can use to help their contractors with accommodation when they are working away from their home, such as paying expenses for the contractor to make their own arrangements, using licences to occupy, or paying for them to be hosted in an Airbnb. As people working away from their home are often working on short-term projects—for example, in the construction industry—tenancy agreements are unlikely to be the right solution in these circumstances.
Taken together, Amendments 48 to 53 would expand the types of agricultural worker that other rural tenants can be evicted in order to house. Amendment 48 replaces the word “person” in the ground with the term “agricultural worker”. As I have discussed, we do not support the overall intent of these amendments, which would reduce security of tenure for all rural tenants with a landlord engaged in agriculture.
Amendment 49 removes the requirement for the incoming tenant to be employed by the landlord, replacing it with a broader definition of “working for a business operated” by the landlord. Amendment 50 specifically mentions service occupants, who are defined later. Amendment 51 changes the wording of the ground from “employee” to the broader “agricultural worker”. Amendment 52 adds a definition of “agricultural worker” for the purposes of the ground which is far broader than an employee. Amendment 53 defines “service occupier” for the purpose of the ground.
The current drafting of ground 5A allows for tenants to be evicted only in order to house employees. Together, these amendments expand this group to include service occupants, contractors and self-employed persons. This definition is far too broad and would endanger security of tenure for existing rural tenants. It would give a landlord running an agricultural business a much freer hand to evict anyone living in their property by, for example, creating a contract with another person to do a nominal amount of work for them. It is just not the right balance. Rural tenants do not deserve less security than others, and the amendments proposed would open up tenants renting from a landlord involved in agriculture to being evicted in a much wider range of circumstances. For this reason, I ask for Amendment 48 to be withdrawn.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Can the Minister explain how this scenario will work? It happens quite a lot, particularly on dairy farms, in my experience. Let us say that an employee milking as a herdsman, living in the one herdsman’s property on the farm, leaves at quite short notice. The day after that employee goes, the cows still have to be milked. The only way to get somebody in quickly to milk them is on contract—that is an easy way of doing it. How will you get that person living close enough to be able to look after the welfare of that herd of cows and milk them twice or three times a day when you do not have any property because you cannot get rid of the employee who has left?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Presumably there would be a time lag anyway because of the notice period that is required. Whatever arrangements are made in those circumstances would need to be used in the circumstances that the noble Baroness describes.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to understand in what circumstances the Government feels it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State not to publish the form or ensure the form is the up-to-date version.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief. Amendment 68 seeks to make a modest but sensible change to Clause 6 by replacing “may” with “must”. The intention here is clear: to ensure that the Secretary of State is under a duty—not merely a discretion—to publish the prescribed form for a notice of possession and to ensure that it is kept up to date. We simply do not understand why the Government believe that discretion is necessary in this case. If a form is to be relied on by landlords and tenants alike, and ultimately by the courts, it must be accessible and current. Anything less introduces the risk of confusion, inconsistency or even procedural unfairness.
Can the Government kindly explain the rationale behind retaining this discretion? In what circumstances does the Secretary of State envisage not publishing the form or not ensuring that the version in use is the most recent? This is a matter of basic clarity and procedural transparency, and I hope the Minister can provide some reassurance on this point.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I find myself in a strange position: having argued earlier on discretionary powers to change “must” to “may”, I now find myself in support of changing a “may” to a “must”. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that making this open, available and transparent would be a good thing. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I hope that I can explain this very quickly and simply. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendment regarding the form of notice for proceedings. Clause 6 allows the Secretary of State to publish the prescribed form to be used when landlords serve notice of intention to begin possession proceedings. The form will continue to be published on GOV.UK. Amendment 68 by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would not affect whether the Government are required to prescribe that form. This requirement is already laid out in Section 8(3) of the Housing Act 1988 and is not repealed by any measure in the Renters’ Rights Bill.
Clause 6 provides that regulations may allow the Secretary of State to publish and update the required form without the need for any updates to be made by way of statutory instrument, as is currently the case. It is crucial that the information that landlords are required to provide reflects current law. This clause will allow regulations to be made so that we can update the forms at speed and respond to changing circumstances. As the notice of possession proceedings remains a prescribed form under Section 8(3) of the Housing Act 1988, the requirement for the Government to prescribe the form persists; however, Clause 6 provides a simpler mechanism in which the form can be updated—it is the mechanism that changes.
I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. I am afraid that I am still confused, and what I would like to do is to read her explanation in Hansard and reserve the right to bring this back if we do not think that it is clear. It did not quite make sense to me, but I am sure that it might if I read it in the next couple of days. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Can I just add that I was disappointed that we did not have any phraseology in ancient Greek? We will have to put up with that for today, I suppose. I echo my noble friend Lord Carter’s point: I think it would be really helpful, whatever one thinks of the rights and wrongs of retrospective legislation, that a proper list is set out as to which rights are going to be affected. I think everybody outside this Chamber is going to need that, in practice, in the rental sector. It would be very helpful if something could be published that literally specifies which bits are going to be affected retrospectively and how.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough for bringing Amendments 16 to 18 to the Committee today. The question of the retroactivity of the Bill is not just a question of how it will be applied, it is a question as to whether it is fair at all. It is easy for Governments armed with executive powers to apply the law retrospectively, but it should be the duty of every Minister to ask: is this the right way? Is it the fair way?
I invite noble Lords to imagine that they signed a tenancy agreement under a clear set of rules in January 2025; they followed all the rules; then, in June 2025, Parliament passes a law saying that their tenancy is now invalid. Well, many will have to imagine no longer, because once the Bill gets Royal Assent, tenants and landlords may find that their agreements are no longer valid.
The predecessor of the Bill adopted a model of prospective lawmaking by setting out a two-pronged approach to implementation. It would have assured that substantial changes were introduced at a suitable pace, one that brought the sector along with it, giving it time to understand the new requirements and adapt accordingly. In their haste to publish the Bill, the Government appear willing to abandon the principle of prospective lawmaking, placing an immediate and heavy burden on landlords. The Committee will be well aware that 45% of landlords own just a single property. These are not professional landlords with teams behind them. They lack the infrastructure to absorb complex regulatory change. They are not poring over the details of legislation, nor do they have time to follow days of Committee proceedings. How do the Government expect these individuals to implement such sweeping reforms all at once and without a serious and structured implementation period?
At this Dispatch Box on Tuesday, I quoted some statistics from Paragon. In the same survey, it noted that 39% of landlords had not even heard of the Bill. Will the Minister please explain how the Government will communicate these changes? The department must begin explaining in clear and simple terms what is coming down the track. Landlords need to know that change is coming. Regardless of the Bill’s specific contents or intentions, its retroactive nature will pose challenges. It will not only bring an abrupt end to agreements freely entered into by two consenting adults, it will unleash a wave of challenges upon landlords through its immediate implementation.
I turn to the litany of amendments put down by the Government. We welcome the right to sublet and want to ensure people do not lose that right, but we want it to be implemented with clarity. On these Benches, we would prefer those specific tenancy types which underlie the right to sublet—such as fixed-term assured tenancies or assured shorthold tenancies—to remain. We set out our clear case yesterday and we will continue to stand up for a sector that delivers choice and variety and provides the homes we need. Will the Minister explain the Government’s adjustments to the context of Clause 3? It is clear that they intend to restructure the legislation, so on these Benches we wish to ensure that the effects of superior leases are appropriately addressed within the updated framework. Can the Minister set out how the Government will ensure that tenants in sublet arrangements are not left in legal limbo?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing these amendments before the House and for clearly setting out the minor and technical corrections to the legislation. Ensuring legal consistency is crucial, and aligning the wording with the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 will help maintain uniformity across legislation.
As we will discover in coming days, the agricultural aspects of the Bill are both detailed and complex, containing numerous references to specialised terminology. Any technical amendments that help harmonise such language are most welcome on these Benches.
I trust the Minister will continue to approach these proceedings with a collaborative and constructive mindset. These amendments demonstrate that the legislation, as drafted, is not beyond improvement, and we welcome the Government’s recognition of that fact. It is our hope that suggestions from your Lordships’ House are given due consideration and are not dismissed too readily from the Dispatch Box.
We trust that the Minister will also view forthcoming amendments in the spirit intended: to test and to probe the Government’s rationale in pursuing particular policy choices, particularly when it comes to the inclusion or the omission of specific clauses and definitions in the Bill. We are grateful for the opportunity to raise these important issues and we welcome continued constructive dialogue on how we can best improve the technical framework of the legislation.
On that note, I wish to ask further questions of the Government on government Amendment 183. From our understanding, this amends the Charities Act, as the Minister said, to ensure that the disposition of leases which are assured tenancies will be subject to that Act. However, as she said, the requirement to obtain a written report from an independent property adviser could be costly. The costs of these reports vary, and they can impose a significant burden on whoever is footing the bill for them. So I would be grateful if the Minister could just clarify in writing that no charities will be required to obtain this particular report and, if there are some that will continue to need it, can she set out the conditions on which those reports from an independent adviser will be required?
If trustees do not comply with the law, they may be personally liable if this report is required and they do not do it; therefore, it is really important that we get absolute clarity on who, if anybody, will be required to do that. I reiterate the importance of keeping the core text of the Bill simple and, where possible, as focused as we can.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Just to respond briefly to the noble Baroness, I understand that the change to the Charities Act 2011 means that charities would not be required to obtain the designated adviser report prior to granting. They would be required to obtain advice and consider whether the terms of the lease are the best that can be reasonably obtained by the charity; that would be the requirement for trustees. But I will respond in writing to the noble Baroness just to confirm that that is the case.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would retain social landlords’ ability to apply for a demotion order in response to the anti-social behaviour of a tenant.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 14, 66 and 67 standing in my name.
Anti-social behaviour is a scourge on our communities but is particularly devastating from a housing perspective. Quite often, anti-social behaviour replaces productive community spirit with fear and tension, leading to residents feeling trapped and helpless. Anti-social behaviour strips away the very essence of what makes a house a home.
The consequences of anti-social behaviour are often forgotten. The costs of repairing damage, the need to enhance and increase security measures, and the day-to-day administration involved in responding to complaints from neighbours all place a significant and often unsustainable financial strain on housing associations, local authorities and landlords across the country.
As drafted, the Bill reduces the powers available to local authorities and social housing landlords in cases where tenants are responsible for anti-social behaviour. Amendment 14, tabled in my name, seeks to preserve the ability of landlords to demote tenancies in response to such behaviour. Loud noise, vandalism and intimidation leave residents helpless, and local authorities must have the power to uphold community stability without the detriment of demotion. How can the Government ensure that there are consequences for this ruinous behaviour?
Amendment 66, tabled in my name, probes the Government’s objectives in creating a duty on the court to consider any co-operation on the part of the tenant against whom an order is sought. On these Benches we wish to understand the real-world impact of this change. I ask the Minister: what constitutes co-operation? Is it replying to an email or answering a call, or does it require a tenant to display a serious and notable change in their behaviour? Is this simply a requirement for engagement or would there be a requirement to take practical steps to prevent anti-social behaviour in the future?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments relating to anti-social behaviour, and I agree with her powerful statement on ASB. As a councillor, I saw at first hand, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Eaton, did, the utter misery that is caused to individuals and communities through the irresponsible actions of others and I properly understand why it is important that we have provisions to tackle it.
Amendment 14 seeks to reintroduce social landlords’ ability to apply for a demotion order in response to the anti-social behaviour of a tenant. This amendment seeks to enable landlords to demote social tenants to a less secure form of tenancy because of anti-social behaviour. However, the amendment as drafted would not work; the Renters’ Rights Bill will move tenants to a simpler tenancy structure where assured shorthold tenancies and the ability to evict shorthold tenants via Section 21 are abolished. There will therefore no longer be a tenancy with lower security to demote tenants to. To work, it would require a reversal of measures in the Bill to remove demoted tenancies and assured shorthold tenancies; that is the issue with the amendment as drafted.
I reassure the noble Baroness that tackling anti-social behaviour is a top priority for our Government and a key part of our safer streets mission. The Bill will shorten the notice period for the existing mandatory eviction ground, with landlords being able to make a claim to the court immediately in cases of anti-social behaviour. In addition, the Bill amends the matters that judges must consider when deciding whether to award possession under the discretionary ground. This will ensure that judges give particular regard to whether tenants have engaged with efforts to resolve their behaviour and the impact on other tenants within HMOs.
As well as the positive changes that the Bill makes towards tackling anti-social behaviour within the rental sector, we will crack down on those making neighbourhoods feel unsafe and unwelcoming by introducing the new respect order, which local authorities will be able to apply for and which will carry tough sanctions and penalties for persistent adult offenders. Together, those changes will ensure that the needs of victims are at the heart of our response to anti-social behaviour—that is what is important. Too often victims have felt that the power is all on the side of those who are committing the anti-social behaviour and not on the side of victims—that cannot carry on.
In response to the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, about local authority housing tenants, the Bill introduces reforms to the assured tenancies framework, which applies to both the private rented sector and private registered providers of social housing. Local authority tenants are provided secure tenancies under a different tenancy regime. The vast majority of local authority tenants are secure lifetime tenants, and therefore they already enjoy a high security of tenure. Local authority landlords also have existing powers to tackle ASB, including eviction grounds similar to those in the Bill.
The point is taken from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, about the further information about evidence and where the bar is going to be set; I will take that back to the team and come back to her. For these reasons, we feel this amendment is not needed and kindly ask that the noble Baroness withdraws it.
I turn to Amendment 66, which seeks to remove the requirement imposed upon judges, which has been introduced by the Bill, to give a particular consideration to whether a tenant, against whom a possession order is sought under ground 14 for anti-social behaviour, has engaged with attempts by the landlord to resolve the behaviour. We believe this change represents the wrong approach, for two reasons.
First, the Government believe that landlords should attempt to resolve problematic behaviour issues with tenants before attempting to evict them. By directing courts to particularly consider whether a tenant is engaged with these efforts, landlords will be incentivised to make them. Secondly, it is right that the court should give particular consideration to whether a tenant has engaged with attempts to resolve the behaviour so that courts may be more likely to evict a tenant who has, for example, been obstructive throughout the process. Where a tenant has shown willingness to engage constructively with the landlord, it is right that the court considers this factor, and it is for those reasons that we introduced the requirement.
I turn to Amendment 67, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, which seeks to expand the factors that a court is specifically directed to consider when deciding whether to make an order for possession against a tenant in a house in multiple occupancy for anti-social behaviour under ground 14. Currently, courts will be directed to give particular consideration to the past impact of the tenant’s behaviour on their fellow HMO tenants. This is in recognition of the increased impact that anti-social behaviour can have when victims have to share facilities and live in close proximity with the perpetrator, as the noble Baroness mentioned. Judges will also consider all factors relevant to the case and will already be directed generally to have consideration of the future and ongoing impact of that behaviour. As such, we do not think this amendment is strictly necessary to achieve the intended effect, although we are very grateful to the noble Baroness for flagging up that point.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, first of all, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Eaton and Lady Thornhill, and the Minister. All are from local government and understand anti-social behaviour over many years and the effect it can have. We on these Benches recognise that what is often described as anti- social behaviour may indeed be a symptom of much deeper, complex personal struggles. Those underlying issues, of course, deserve serious compassionate attention. So it is important that the Government are looking at the issues surrounding anti-social behaviour. I am particularly interested—I do not need an answer tonight —in bolstering the capabilities of support services within local government, to ensure that intervention can give people a real chance to turn things around before they get to the stage of being evicted.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“Purpose(1) The purpose of this Act is to improve the ability of renters in the rented sector to obtain secure, fairly priced and decent quality housing.(2) The Secretary of State must, in taking any actions under the provisions of this Act, have regard to this purpose.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of the Act, namely, improving the ability of renters to obtain secure, fairly priced and decent quality housing.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 1 and to speak to Amendment 261 in my name. I am delighted to be opening the first day of Committee on the Renters’ Rights Bill and declare my interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The clause I am proposing would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of the Bill when exercising powers under this legislation. In debating this amendment, we seek to test and clarify what the Government are attempting to solve and to understand more fully whether the measures that will be implemented by this legislation will achieve the Government’s intended results.
The “purpose” clause narrows how the Minister can use the discretionary powers afforded by the Bill. The clear benchmark set out in this clause would ensure that the Government must have regard to improving the ability of renters to obtain secure, fairly priced and decent quality housing. We believe the Government must be clear on the Bill’s purpose, and this amendment gives Ministers the opportunity to provide that necessary clarity.
Renters and landlords alike are following the Government’s planned changes very carefully, so it is crucial that Ministers are clear from the beginning of Committee on what they intend to achieve with this Bill. Clarity from Ministers will enable us to scrutinise the Bill much more effectively as we test each part of it against the Government’s intentions as we progress with Committee stage.
This group of amendments also gives us an opportunity to debate the Bill’s impact on the rental sector. Noble Lords across the House agree that we must protect tenants and ensure that they enjoy security, stability and decent housing conditions at a fair price. In order to achieve this, we need a functional market with sufficient supply of good quality homes to meet the growing demand for secure housing.
Ensuring the availability of homes will underpin the obtainability of accommodation and ensure that rents are affordable. Any legislation in this area must tread a difficult but essential line between these interests. Only by striking the right balance with this legislation can we hope to achieve an efficient and effective rental market that delivers the safe, secure, decent and affordable homes renters need. From these Benches we regret to say that the Bill does not achieve that balance. It has become increasingly clear that it will not serve to enhance the availability of homes but risks the supply of rental properties in the market, driving up costs for renters at a time when we have already seen significant increases in the cost of renting.
The surge in rents beyond inflation has been driven by limited housing supply, and rising mortgage costs, maintenance expenses and property taxes. We on these Benches sincerely hope that the effects of this Bill do not add to that list, further exacerbating the challenges faced by renters. Rather than making houses more affordable, this legislation risks increasing burdens on landlords, discouraging them from remaining in the rental market and ultimately reducing supply at a time of rapidly growing demand. In economic terms, this can only mean one thing: higher housing costs for renters.
A survey by Paragon, based on responses from over 500 landlords it works with, paints a clear picture of the real-world consequences of this Bill. A striking 65% of landlords said that they were more likely to reduce the size of their portfolios. An overwhelming 79% said that they were likely to increase rents. Why? Not out of preference, but as a direct response to the pressures introduced by the Renters’ Rights Bill. This is not speculation; it is data-driven and must give us pause for thought.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for contributing to this group. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that we will debate my Amendment 8 later. I particularly thank the Minister for her reply. While the Government’s ambition to improve outcomes for renters is a worthy goal, and one that I was proud to champion during my time in government, we feel that this Bill fails to account for the serious consequences the measure will have on those who provide the much-needed homes. The fact is that renters need a market that encourages landlords to enter it, not leave it.
These concerns, as I have said before, are not mine alone; they have been echoed right across the industry. From Savills to Propertymark to UniHomes, all have highlighted significant issues. We on these Benches will emphasise in the days ahead the need for balance—one that ensures that tenants are properly protected, while keeping the sector attractive enough for landlords to continue providing homes to rent, as my noble friend Lady Eaton clearly communicated. The recent survey by Paragon highlights just how far this Bill falls short of that balance. It found that only 4% of landlords support the proposed changes. Perhaps more strikingly, 73% of landlords believe the legislation will do more harm to renters than good.
It has become increasingly clear that, in the Government’s ambition to strengthen tenant security, they have been blind to the implications for those who provide the rental homes this country so desperately needs. The Government should think hard about this balance and consider what these reforms will do to the market on which millions rely. This Bill piles unprecedented pressures on landlords, fuelling concern, uncertainty and a fear of financial burdens. Simultaneously, these changes are likely to make it even harder for tenants to find accommodation. The selection process will become more stringent, and the grounds for possession are weakened. The availability of homes will decrease and, in turn, rent will take a larger share of tenants’ income. The Government would do well to remember that the rental sector exists only because individuals are willing to invest in property and make those homes available to others. The strength of the rental market rests on keeping these people in the market.
Landlords are not just participants; they are the backbone of the rental market. Their voices must be heard as part of this conversation, as they will provide the homes our tenants need into the future. If this Bill is to protect tenants, we must ensure that we have the landlords to supply them. By piling on excessive regulation, we are in danger of pushing good landlords out and empowering rogue landlords who simply ignore all our rules. We recognise that reform of our rental market is necessary to protect tenants from abuse at the hands of these rogue landlords. This was made clear in the previous Renters (Reform) Bill, but it was always important to us that we balance the rights of tenants to live safely and peacefully in the homes they are renting with the rights of landlords, particularly their property rights. If that Bill did not quite balance the seesaw, this Bill tips it right over. This is not the same Bill that the last Conservative Government introduced, and the Government are rushing it through without any care for the repercussions that will reverberate throughout the sector.
I urge the Minister to listen carefully to the concerns raised throughout Committee to ensure that we can enhance the availability of homes, alleviate the burden of unaffordable rent and deliver security for our tenants. Members across the House agree that renters need a better deal, but we do not believe that the Bill is the answer to this. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Truscott. I must declare my interest: I am a Suffolk farmer and have been for 50 years and I have seen quite a lot of changes during that time. Historically, there have been ups and downs, so in recent years I have turned increasingly to the private rented sector as a means of diversifying from agriculture when agriculture has been in such difficulties.
I can remember the days when there were rent officers and the whole system was gummed up. Now, assured shorthold tenancies are—lamentably—being abandoned in the Bill. Under that system, there was a resurgence of interest. I, for example, have converted redundant farm buildings into houses. I have fitted houses into spaces where there were no houses, but they fitted well into the particularly attractive and beautiful village which I am fortunate and privileged to live in. All these things are a very important part of the overall scene.
I warn the Government that there is a danger of them proscribing or prescribing practices in the private rented sector that are the practices that make it work. It is a very flexible sector. It is a vulnerable and fragile sector and, when we debate these issues in Committee, we are going to find cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that provisions in the Bill should be modified to avoid the danger of reducing the supply of privately rented accommodation.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, for leading this group and all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. My amendment aims to probe the Government on the proposed abolition of all fixed-term tenancies and to strike a fair balance between the rights of tenants and the legitimate interests of landlords.
While the Government’s desire to strengthen tenants’ security is, of course, a commendable objective, we must take a moment to reflect on the variety of tenancy arrangements that currently support different groups within the sector. In light of that diversity, it is reasonable to ask why the Government has chosen to pursue a one-size-fits-all approach through the proposed abolition of all fixed-term tenancies.
I have listened to contributions from the Committee and there is obvious and widespread concern about this element of the Bill. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Truscott and Lord Shipley, for their thoughtful amendments. Taken together, they seek to challenge the blanket removal of fixed-term tenancies and reintroduce much-needed flexibility into the current very rigid clause. In our opinion, the proposal to allow fixed terms of up to 12 months presents a pragmatic middle ground, maintaining a degree of security for tenants while giving landlords the certainty needed to plan for their future use.
Amendment 6 focuses specifically on protecting very short-term lets of up to three months. These arrangements are critical to people on, for example, probationary employment contracts, to vulnerable individuals in temporary relocation and to professionals on short-term placements. We should not be undermining access to housing for those who rely on flexible short-term arrangements. In removing fixed terms entirely, we risk cutting off access to the rental market for these groups—precisely the kind of unintended consequences this House should seek to avoid. I have also tabled this amendment to give Ministers the opportunity to indicate whether they would be willing to take a more limited step of retaining the current arrangements for very short tenancies.
Industry stakeholders have all echoed these concerns. Propertymark has warned that the removal of fixed-term tenancies could have a destabilising effect on tenants with lower incomes or poor credit histories, many of whom rely on guarantors, who in turn require the certainty of a fixed term. Without that structure, such tenants might find themselves excluded from the market altogether.
What does the future look like for these tenants? These are students without parental support, young adults leaving care, or individuals with health conditions whose employment is irregular. These individuals rely on guarantors to secure housing, but those guarantors require a legal assurance of a fixed term. Without that, the door to a rental home quietly shuts behind them. Imagine a single mother working two part-time jobs, trying to secure a home close to her children’s school. With no guarantor willing to sign an open-ended agreement, she is told again and again, “Sorry—no fixed term, no tenancies”. These are not hypotheticals. These are people who will be locked out of the system, possibly entirely.
Propertymark notes that fixed terms provide security for tenants and a guaranteed rental income for landlords. These arrangements are often actively sought by tenants, including nurses on temporary hospital placements, families wishing to remain in a school catchment area, and individuals from overseas needing time-limited accommodation. The Government will argue that tenants will still have flexibility because they can terminate their rental agreements at will. However, this misses the point. Flexibility is not the same as stability. Tenants need the assurance that their home will not be taken away at short notice, especially when they are in transitional stages of their life.
For landlords, the certainty of a fixed term allows them to plan and manage their properties effectively. Without it, many will choose to exit the sector, once again reducing the overall availability of rental homes. The supposed flexibility of a non-fixed-term tenancy could ultimately leave both tenants and landlords with far less stability than they need.
The abolition of fixed-term tenancies could provoke many landlords to reconsider their position in the market altogether. For home owners who currently rent out their properties on a fixed-term basis, this change in policy, which removes the ability to offer a defined tenancy period, will reduce landlord confidence. As a result, some home owners may choose to leave their properties vacant rather than face the uncertainty of an open-ended arrangement.
Why are the Government not listening to landlords, the very individuals who are primary maintainers of the private rented sector? Landlords are not just participants; they are the backbone of the housing market. Their voices must be heard in this conversation. There is a growing sense that these concerns are being overlooked, and one must ask whether this stems from a principled policy position or from a deeper ideological reluctance to recognise the legitimate role that landlords play. Without the ability to plan for future use or to rely on a defined tenancy period, landlords may well choose to exit the market. If this happens, we risk not only reducing the supply of homes but destabilising the rental sector as a whole, undermining the very intention of the Bill.
Taken together, these warnings from industry stakeholders should give the Government pause for thought. They remind us that while reform is necessary, it must be proportionate and carefully balanced to deliver a market that ultimately benefits renters. The Bill gives us the opportunity to modernise our rental system but, in doing so, we must take care not to discard what works. In removing fixed terms altogether, the Bill risks sweeping away short-term lets that serve a very specific and vital purpose.
These are not theoretical cases; they are everyday realities for many people navigating work, family or education. If we are to build a fairer rental system, we must ensure that it remains flexible and accessible to all, including those whose housing needs are necessarily short-term. That is what Amendment 6 in my name seeks to protect. I hope the Minister listens to voices across the House and calls from industry experts to recognise the diversity of the rental market and to support my amendment, which offers the necessary flexibility and common sense.
(1A) For the purposes of this section, a tenant who meets the student test when a tenancy is entered into has the same meaning as in Ground 4A.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow student tenancies to remain as fixed tenancies to provide the certainty that both student tenants and student landlords require.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 44, 45 and 46 in my name.
Although it may have been some years ago, and not all Members of your Lordships’ House chose to go to university, many noble Lords will no doubt recall their own experiences as university students. For those whose memories may have begun to fade, it is likely that a son, daughter or even grandchild is at university today or has recently been at university. I raise this point because those of us who fall into this group will recognise that students have distinct and unique housing needs that set them apart from all other groups. Most students rely on a combination of maintenance loans, part-time jobs and, increasingly, the support of the bank of mum and dad—or even granny—to meet their costs during their studies. Proximity to campus is essential both for academic engagement and to reduce the burden on transport costs. Students typically require leases of nine to 12 months, aligned to the academic calendar. I stress flexibility as an increasing number of tertiary education providers are now offering 18-month courses, moving away from the traditional three-year model. For many students, this marks their first experience of independent living. They are often unfamiliar with housing laws and lack the knowledge that only life experience can bring.
Although the exact legal framework for the exemption requires further clarification, the Government, by virtue of attempting to exclude purpose-built student accommodation from the ban on fixed-term tenancies, have accepted the unique position of students, and we welcome that. However, we feel there is more work to be done.
The Explanatory Notes assume that purpose-built accommodation tenancies are not assured. StudentRent puts this drafting down to a confusion with university halls, which use non-exclusive licences. In reality, most PBSA providers issue exclusive assured shorthold tenancies, meaning that, unless the Bill is amended or exemptions are extended, the agreements will become invalid once the new law takes effect. Could the Minister please use Committee to clarify this? If we cannot reach a reasonable position in Committee, we will have to return to the issue on Report.
In their drafting of the Bill, the Government have missed the opportunity to exempt all types of accommodation. As noble Lords will know, it is common that, after the first year, students often move out of purpose-built student accommodation and into HMOs or other types of property in the private rented sector. Amendment 7 in my name would ensure that student tenants could keep their desirable fixed-term tenancies, no matter what type of accommodation they find themselves in. We must not allow a two-tier system to emerge, where only those who can afford the most expensive purpose-built accommodation are granted the stability of fixed-term tenancies; that would be a perverse outcome from this legislation. It is vital that we resolve this as soon as possible.
Fixed-term contracts provide students with clear start and end dates that not only make financial planning more straightforward but ease the burden of day-to-day administration tasks that can be particularly challenging for those experiencing independent living for the first time, all while managing the demands of their academic studies. Perhaps most importantly, fixed-term agreements provide rent certainty for the entire duration of the contract. That certainty is not only reassuring for students but essential for their families, who rely on clear and predictable costs in order to budget effectively and support their children through higher education. Furthermore, knowing precisely when a tenancy will end helps students avoid disruptive mid-semester moves, which can have a detrimental impact on their studies and exam preparation.
While stability is vital, so too is flexibility. It is on this point that I wish to speak to Amendments 44 and 45. The current provisions acknowledge in part the need for student landlords to regain possession by the end of the academic year, under ground 4A. However, this fails to take into account those students whose studies do not follow a traditional academic calendar. It is important to stress that, under the current model, it is exceptionally rare for student landlords to need to resort to eviction proceedings. In practice, the challenge is far more likely to arise when students wish to leave their tenancies early. The proposals as they stand do not fully address the consequences of such scenarios.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lords, Lord Willetts, Lord Evans, Lord Young—albeit that his amendment was very ably proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts—and the noble Lord, Lord Best, for their amendments, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Wolf and Lady Warwick, and the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Fuller, for their comments during this debate. All these amendments seek to revise or introduce provisions in the Bill related to students, and I say well done to King’s College for having its team approach to this Bill in the Chamber today.
We do not expect that removing fixed terms will have a destabilising effect on the student rental market. New possession ground 4A will give landlords confidence that they will be able to regain their property to move in other students in line with the academic year. If tenants leave a tenancy early, the landlords will be able to find new tenants to take their place. The end of a fixed term does not automatically give the landlord possession. Landlords still have to follow the correct possession procedure. If fixed terms remained in the future, landlords would still need to follow the correct possession procedure.
Amendment 7 would allow fixed-term assured tenancies if the tenant was a student at the beginning of the tenancy. It would not be either right or fair for students to have less flexibility than other tenants just because of their educational status. Students who drop out of university could be required to pay rent for the rest of the fixed term, which could potentially reach thousands of pounds. All renters, including students, should have access to the benefits provided by the Bill.
The opportunity referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, is, as he rightly said, the meeting between housing and higher education. As someone who undertook a degree as a mature student with three children and a full-time job, I say that we simply must not assume that all students are the same. This is the opposite of elitism. It is ensuring that all student circumstances are taken into account and that those who need the greater stability that assured tenancies offer can have that option.
We have introduced a new possession ground to allow the cyclical nature of the student market to continue and provide landlords with confidence. This strikes the right balance and, in our opinion, is the much better approach. Referring to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about tenancies in halls, the Government intend that any new purpose-built student accommodation tenancies created after transition will be exempted from the assured tenancy system following transition, as long as the landlord is signed up to a government-approved code of conduct. I hope that answers her question. For these, reasons I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Amendment 40 seeks to expand ground 4A, which allows student tenants living in HMOs to be evicted in line with the academic year. It would allow students living in self-contained accommodation—one-bedroom and two-bedroom properties for example—to be evicted each year, and it seeks to address the concerns of some noble Lords that the existing scope of ground 4A does not cover all student properties. We have thought very carefully about the design of ground 4A. Limiting it to HMOs captures the bulk of typical students—that is, groups living in a house share. Meanwhile, students who need more security of tenure, such as single parents living with their children, postgraduate couples living together who have put down roots in an area, or families containing students, will be protected.
The core principle of the Bill is that tenants should have more security in their homes, and we think it is right that these groups should not be exposed to potential eviction using ground 4A. Self-contained one-bedroom and two-bedroom homes are also easier to let to non-students than student HMOs are, so, if a landlord cannot gain possession in line with the academic year and the tenants leave in the middle of the next one, the landlord is highly likely to be able to let the property out to non-student tenants. The noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, referred to student accommodation in London, and I imagine that there are other places where costs are prohibitive, such as Cambridge and Oxford. However, the Government’s action to increase supply is critical here. It is only by increasing supply that we will be able to stabilise rents. I do not think that the action proposed in the amendment would have that effect.
Amendments 41 and 45, taken together, seek to remove the requirement for a landlord intending to rely on ground 4A to give prior written notice to the tenants. This would mean that landlords renting to students in HMOs who satisfy the student test would be able to rely on ground 4A without giving tenants written prior notice, before the tenancy was entered into, of their wish to be able to recover possession using ground 4A. We cannot accept these amendments. The core aim of the Bill is to enhance the security of tenants in the private rented sector, including students. The prior notice requirement in ground 4A is key to this. If tenants are liable to be evicted through no fault of their own simply because of their student status, they must be informed of this reduced security before entering into a tenancy. Amendment 45 is purely consequential on Amendment 41, removing a later reference to the paragraph that Amendment 41 removes, and I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, not to press these amendments.
Amendment 42 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, seeks to allow the use of ground 4A in student tenancies agreed up to nine months in advance, rather than the six months in advance limitation that is currently in the Bill. Noble Lords will be aware that we introduced this measure in response to engagement with stakeholders and Members in the other place—I hope that answers the noble Lord’s question about consultation. They were concerned that students are often rushed into important decisions around accommodation before they have formed friendships or had time to properly judge a property’s condition or location.
This measure was intended to act as a strong disincentive to landlords who seek to sign students up to contracts early in the academic year. Increasing the time limit to nine months will push early sign-ups to too early in the academic year—before Christmas for a tenancy beginning in July. This entirely undermines the point of the deterrent. Six months strikes the right balance, allowing those who want to to agree a tenancy well in advance before exam season, but not too early before students have formed firm friendship groups, for instance.
Amendment 43, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, goes even further and would extend the time limit to 12 months. For the reasons I have highlighted previously, we are of the view that six months is the right balance. Very few students sign contracts more than a year in advance, and this amendment would essentially destroy the entire premise of the provision, which is designed to prevent students being pressured into contracts too early in the academic year. For these reasons, I ask the noble Lord not to move these amendments.
Amendment 44 seeks to remove the restriction on the use of ground 4A to the summer of the traditional academic year. This would mean that students on a traditional term date, who are the majority, could be evicted in the middle of the academic year through no fault of their own. We recognise that the intent of the amendment is to ensure properties are available for students starting their courses on non-traditional dates, such as in January. However, we are content that supply will be available for these groups as previous groups on the same cycle would leave at the end of their courses, so there will be students leaving in January and students starting could take those properties. It would be wrong to expose all students to eviction in the middle of their academic year simply because, for example, a landlord found a group with different term dates who were willing to pay more. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness not to move this amendment.
Amendment 46 would allow landlords to evict approved English apprentices, as defined in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, using the student possession ground 4A, provided all conditions for relying on that ground were met. Ground 4A was designed to capture the most typical students, such as those living in groups and away from home, on an annual letting cycle. Apprentices tend not to live that way, as they earn an income and are much more likely to live in a home they expect to stay in. I am therefore of the view that apprentices should enjoy the same security of tenure as other tenants and not fall under the scope of possession ground 4A. For that reason, I ask that this amendment not be moved.
Amendment 189 seeks to remove the private rented student tenancies from the assured tenancy system. I know there has been a lot of concern and debate over this at Second Reading and today. It would achieve this by allowing the Secretary of State to create or approve a code of conduct for student landlords and then allow landlords signed up to the code to offer tenancies that are completely removed from the assured tenancy system. This is the wrong approach: it would be wrong for students renting off-street housing, often indistinguishable from the property next door, to have an entirely different set of rights from their neighbours.
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Young, is seeking to create consistency between private student landlords and landlords of purpose-built student accommodation, which we will exempt from the assured system through regulations. However, these are very different types of accommodation. Purpose-built student accommodation can often be rented only to students due to the nature of the property, and to be exempted in the future a private PBSA landlord will need to be signed up to the government-approved code of management practice. This code is managed by Unipol, an established organisation.
Other private rented accommodation let to students is significantly more diverse and often indistinguishable from other houses in the area. It would be wrong to remove the protections of the assured system. Other students renting privately should not be locked into fixed-term contracts or open to eviction without good reason. In addition, there currently exists no government-approved code that is relevant to such accommodation. Developing this would take a great deal of time and is likely to delay implementation of the Bill. We recognise that the student market has a cyclical business model and have therefore introduced ground 4A, allowing landlords to evict full-time students from HMOs in order to house incoming groups in line with the academic year. Ground 4A addresses the issues that the various amendments tabled by the noble Lord are, in effect, seeking to address. As such, I ask him not to move this amendment.
Amendment 266 seeks to exempt private purpose-built student accommodation from discretionary licensing where the landlord has signed up to a code of practice for managing such accommodation. Although codes of practice offer students assurance that a good standard of management is being met by their landlords, they are not tailored to addressing local issues in the way that licence conditions under licensing schemes are. Membership of the codes is voluntary, and members have an incentive to comply to ensure they can continue to present an attractive offer to students. While a failure to adhere to code standards can result in a landlord being removed from a code, licensing allows for stronger action to be taken where necessary. For example, local authorities can issue a financial penalty where there has been a serious breach of licence conditions.
We recognise that licensing can place a greater burden on landlords with large portfolios, such as those operating private purpose-built student accommodation. That is why local authorities already have discretion to streamline licence application processes and fees for such landlords. We trust local authorities to take a proportionate approach and work together with code operators and providers of these types of accommodation to make sure that licensing schemes remain focused on tackling the issues they were designed to address. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Best, not to move his amendment.
I turn to government Amendments 47, 188 and 202. Currently, university-managed accommodation is exempt from the assured tenancy system, while private purpose-built student accommodation usually is not. Government Amendments 47, 188 and 202 would allow private PBSA to be subject to the same exemption, recognising that the two share many similarities. Students do not move into their accommodation expecting long-term residence, and it is right to ensure that this accommodation is available to new cohorts of students each year.
We intend that the exemption will apply only to private PBSA that is a member of the government-approved code of practice, which sets vigorous standards for the management of property and the relationship between managers and student tenants. If their membership of the code ends for any reason, so does their exemption. There will be no delay in requiring them to provide assured tenancies to new tenants. Although there is an existing power in the Housing Act 1988 to exempt PBSA landlords, it would have required government to frequently update secondary legislation with a list of landlords, causing a duplication of work between code administrators and officials and a lag in the link between code membership and exemption status.
We are also proposing an amendment to an existing power in the Housing Act 2004 that clarifies that educational establishments exempt from HMO licensing can be specified by reference to code membership and that the power can be exercised in the same way for private purpose-built student accommodation in future. The amendment also allows the scope of an exemption to be narrowed to certain groups of building, or building manager, within the membership if required.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in what I consider an extremely important debate and contributed thoughtfully and constructively with their insights.
First, I would like to recognise the contribution by my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow, who tabled Amendments 42 and 43. On these Benches, we believe the limitation may, as my noble friend said, inadvertently push the hunt for student accommodation into the January exam season and disrupt a vital time for many students up and down this country.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would allow small landlords, who are less likely to have capacity to fund legal proceedings, to continue to be able to issue Section 21 notices.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 8, standing in my name. At its core, the private rented sector exists only because individuals are willing to invest in property and rent it out to others. The rental market depends on landlords, many of them small-scale, independent operators who choose to let their homes to others. These are not large corporate entities with huge legal teams and financial buffers; they are ordinary people with one or two properties, often let out to supplement their pension or as a long-term investment for their families.
Let us be clear: the most recent English private landlord survey shows that 45% of landlords own a single rental property and a further 38% own between two and four. That means that over four-fifths of landlords operate on a very small scale, far from the image of large institutional landlords. These landlords form the backbone of the rental sector. Yet, under the proposals in the Bill, particularly the removal of Section 21 without sufficient alternative safeguards—this is to answer the question by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley—we risk driving them out of this market altogether.
That is why I rise to speak to Amendment 8, standing in my name. This amendment proposes a targeted and reasonable exception that landlords who let fewer than five properties—those very small-scale landlords we have spoken of—should retain the ability to use Section 21. This is not about denying renters their rights or undermining the central aims of the Bill; rather, it is about recognising the limitations that smaller landlords face. Unlike larger letting organisations, smaller landlords do not have the resources or the legal support to navigate complex procession proceedings. For them, the loss of Section 21 without workable and efficient alternatives could be and will be the final straw. These individuals are not villains of the piece; in many cases, if not most, they are providing much-needed homes in areas of acute shortage. They do not have the resources to engage in lengthy legal proceedings every time they need to regain possession of their property, whether due to personal financial need or a change in family circumstances or to exit the sector entirely. If the Bill removes Section 21 without offering small landlords a workable alternative, the risk is clear: many will simply choose to leave the market. They are already, altogether.
We know this is already happening: the National Residential Landlords Association found last year that one in four landlords were planning to sell at least one property, many citing rising regulation and uncertainty about future reforms. As these landlords exit, we are left with fewer homes to rent, and the tenants feel the consequences most sharply.
The experience in Scotland offers a sobering lesson. There similar reforms were introduced with the intention of improving tenant security. Yet, as we have seen, they had the opposite effect: a sharp increase in landlords exiting the market and the highest rent increases in the United Kingdom as demand rapidly outpaced supply. Research from the Nationwide Foundation has found that 70% of landlords and letting agents lack confidence in the future of the market. The evidence from Scotland demonstrates that the type of over-regulation proposed here will drive landlords out of the market, reducing housing supply and ultimately leaving renters worse off.
Amendment 8 offers a simple, balanced solution. It allows the Bill to move forward with its tenant protections intact, while acknowledging the distinct position of small landlords and giving them the breathing room that they need to continue letting their homes. If we are serious about building a rental system that is fair, functional and fit for the future, we must ensure that it works for tenants and landlords alike. Amendment 8 does not undermine the principles of the Bill; it strengthens it. It recognises the diversity within the landlord community and offers a sensible, proportionate safeguard for those who make up its majority by allowing small landlords to continue using Section 21 when and where no viable alternative yet exists. We protect not only their role in the market but the long-term interests of renters themselves. I urge the Government to take this amendment seriously and consider whether the future of the private rented sector truly lies in squeezing out the very people who keep it afloat.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in this very important debate in Committee and to support my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook on this amendment. The amendment is about fairness between tenants and landlords, and practicality. It is about the alternative that the Government are offering smaller landlords who are in the situation where they feel it prudent to give notice and seek possession of their own property under Section 21 and Section 8 of the Housing Act 1988. In particular, it is about the bureaucratic and onerous burden and court costs that will fall upon smaller landlords.
Let us look at the figures. Almost half of landlords—45%—own only one property. For the avoidance of doubt and for full transparency, I declare myself to be a landlord; I own one property, which was my matrimonial home, as listed in the Register of Lords’ Interests. Some 83% of landlords are small landlords, and so would be covered by this amendment, in that they own fewer than five properties.
We understand the proper commitment by the Government, as outlined in the manifesto, to abolish Section 21 no-fault evictions, for laudable reasons. We are all committed to the same thing—that good-quality private sector housing should be available in a fair way, to as many people as possible— and we accept that the Government have a mandate to make tenancy reforms. Notwithstanding that, unfortunately, as the previous Administration found, much of the efficacy of that policy will fall upon the reliability or otherwise of the court system and its ability to expedite possession claims in a timely and efficient way.
His Majesty’s Government’s own figures, as at quarter 4 of 2024, show that seven months is the average time taken to process and enforce a Section 8 possession case—especially around the thorny issue of rent arrears and anti-social behaviour. The LGA and the Law Society have raised this issue. The Law Society in particular notes the potential
“increase in contested hearings in the short term, as landlords that would previously have used”
Section 21, because it was less costly and less onerous, will now
“have to show good reason for eviction”.
On page 65 of the impact assessment, the Government, rather elliptically, reference “non-legislative changes” to improve the court system, but they do not give any detail. That is an important issue, as we are being asked to support the Government’s proposals. How do the Government intend to manage the increased demand? The Housing Minister in the other place used the word “ready”, saying that the Government would not take any precipitous action until the court system was ready. What does “ready” mean? This is a problem the previous Government faced and, as the Minister knows, they resiled from going ahead too fast with this policy because the court system was not fit for purpose. What specific measures will be used to deal with the existing backlog in Section 8 claims arising from landlords seeking to take possession? Let us make no mistake, the failings of the court system have the potential to undermine what would be laudable reforms and could have the perverse effect of encouraging landlords, especially smaller landlords, to exit the private rented sector.
Tenants themselves do not have much faith in the court system. Figures provided in 2023 by Citizens Advice show that only
“23% of tenants feel confident applying to court. 99% of tenants whose landlord has taken an unreasonably long time to complete repairs did not bring a claim for disrepair to court … 54% … said they did not … because of the complexity of the process … 45% … said they were put off by the length of time involved”.
It is also the case that the abolition of Section 21, particularly in respect of smaller landlords, will have an impact on the hitherto good relationship between many tenants and landlords, turning it into a much more litigious and disputatious situation. Many of those landlords will not be prepared to give tenants the benefit of the doubt if they fall on difficult financial times or have less benign economic circumstances. Those are the real-world consequences of this policy and one of the issues that this amendment seeks to address and ameliorate.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, first, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that this is not a wrecking amendment. It is trying to find a solution which does not potentially destroy the private rental market. If it is destroyed in any way, only one group of people will be affected, and that is the tenants.
I am grateful to noble Lords who—
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My apologies, but does the noble Baroness not want to hear first from the Minister on the amendment?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Well, the noble Baroness knows what I am going to say, so that is that.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for moving Amendment 8, and the noble Lords, Lord Jackson, Lord Empey and Lord Murray, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for their comments. This amendment would allow fixed-term initial tenancies where the landlord lets fewer than five properties. As I am sure the noble Baroness would expect, the Government cannot accept this amendment. It would be neither fair nor justified for some tenants to have fewer rights, simply because the landlord happens to have a smaller property portfolio at the point at which the tenancy is entered into. All tenants must enjoy the benefits of the new system and the flexibility that periodic tenancies provide.
I have already commented on the likely impact on the market under Amendment 1. As I mentioned earlier, the noble Baroness referred to changes to the law in Scotland, which was very different in the important matter of rent controls. I met with the Scottish Housing Minister during the recent British-Irish Council and discussed this with him in order to learn lessons from what happened in Scotland.
The English Private Landlord Survey shows that 83% of landlords have four properties or fewer. Accepting this amendment would mean fixed terms remaining available for half of all tenancies. This would clearly fly in the face of what this Bill is trying to achieve. It would definitely break the manifesto commitment that we have already clearly set out and which we stand by.
It is also important to clarify that retaining fixed terms would not preserve the Section 21 eviction process, although this is a common misconception. Nor would it automatically retain the accelerated court procedure used for Section 21 claims, which allows cases to proceed without a hearing. If this amendment were accepted, landlords would still be required to seek possession using one of the grounds in Section 8 of the Housing Act 1988, for which the accelerated court procedure is not available. The removal of Section 21 evictions is the cornerstone of this legislation, and the Government will not accept its reintroduction to reduce court costs or for any other purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, was a Minister in the last Government. I remind him that his Government also had the policy of removing Section 21 evictions. The noble Lord must have had a memory lapse in the Chamber this afternoon.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, referred to the cost of court possession hearings for smaller landlords. We are confident that the Bill does not levy unfair new costs on landlords. However, it is reasonable to expect landlords to ensure that their business model covers the possible cost of possession cases proceeding through court. The current accelerated court procedure is not a guarantee of avoiding court proceedings or the associated costs.
I will comment briefly on the points made by the noble Lord—
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sure the noble Lord has a figure in mind. I will write to him; as he would expect, I do not have that figure at my fingertips.
The availability of court hearings is vital for tenants’ access to justice, especially in the new system whereby landlords must always evidence that grounds are met. We are working closely with our colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and HM Courts & Tribunals Service to make the possession process more efficient and easier to understand. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, made a very good point. It can be difficult for both landlord and tenant to understand the process. They may be deterred from accessing the legal redress to which they are entitled because of difficulties in understanding how it works.
We are also committed to digitising the process. I can reassure the noble Lord that we are working closely with the MoJ to make sure that the justice system is fully prepared to implement the Renters’ Rights Bill once enacted. I am not going to guarantee end-to-end digitisation of the whole court system—that is way beyond my remit in this Chamber—but we are working on it in relation to renters’ rights. This includes a commitment to digitising the county court possession process to create a modern, efficient service for court users. I was reassured to find that this is being built on to an existing system, rather than being created from scratch. Work is proceeding at pace on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Will all these changes to the court system, and digitisation, be totally in place before this part of the Bill is enacted?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I was just about to respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, which may answer that question. As usual, we are working with the Ministry of Justice to complete a justice impact test. This will identify the additional burdens on the justice system arising from new policies in the Renters’ Rights Bill, and it will ensure that the system is fully prepared for any increase in workload. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will respond to that in two ways. First, the work that has been done on the court system is both for landlords and tenants. We want it to work for both sides, so that when a landlord needs to seek possession they can do that quickly. I think any landlord’s business model should account for the possibility of a slight break in rental payment, but obviously we want to resolve these issues as quickly as possible, and to do the same for the tenants. There needs to be quick access to recourse if they need it, and we will do that.
Secondly, in respect to the point about local authorities, I have covered extensively the Government’s assessment of whether this will have an impact on supply issues. I reiterate that the Bill’s impact assessment has received a green rating from the Regulatory Policy Committee. We do not believe there will be a sustained or significant impact on supply, but we will monitor that very carefully once the Bill is passed.
I hope I have answered all noble Lords’ points on this but, for the reasons I have set out, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Again, I apologise to the Minister. First, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that it is not a wrecking amendment but one trying to find a workable solution that does not potentially destroy the private renters’ market as the only people who will suffer from that will be tenants in the future.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and to my noble friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Murray of Blidworth for their thoughtful and constructive insights into how we deal with this issue. Across the Committee there is clearly a shared ambition to improve the private rented sector for tenants, and I believe today’s discussion has shown that doing so must include supporting the landlords who make the sector possible.
As I set out earlier, Amendment 8 is a carefully considered proposal aimed at safeguarding the position of small landlords—those who let fewer than five properties and who make up the overwhelming majority of the sector. These are not large-scale investors or corporations. They are individuals, often couples, pensioners or families, who rent out a single property or two as a way of securing long-term stability for themselves. This amendment is not about undermining tenant protections. It is about recognising that those protections will be meaningful only if the rental homes remain available in the first place.
The removal of Section 21 without adequate alternatives risks pushing small landlords out of the market. As we have heard, this is not hypothetical, it is already happening. Once again, I will talk about Scotland, because I do not believe—and nor do the people in the industry who I have spoken to—that this was just about rent control. In Scotland, it has been made clear what can happen when reforms are introduced without properly accounting for market balance. There has been a sharp reduction in landlord numbers, escalating rents and a shrinking supply of rental homes. This is not the future we want in England for our tenants and is exactly what this amendment seeks to prevent.
Recent findings from the Paragon Bank, based on a survey of over 500 landlords, reinforce this concern for us. An alarming 65% of respondents indicated that they are now more likely to scale back their property holdings as a direct result of current and proposed reforms. This is a clear indication of the potential real-world consequences of the Bill if the needs of small landlords are not adequately considered. Amendment 8 offers a modest but vital safeguard. It enables the Government’s reforms to proceed while providing breathing space for the small-scale landlords who play such a crucial role in meeting the housing needs of this country.
To conclude, I urge the Minister to listen carefully to the issues raised in this group and to give serious consideration to Amendment 8, not as a dilution of the Bill’s aims but as a necessary and constructive contribution to its long-term success. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly from these Benches, in part to spare my noble friend’s voice—I assure noble Lords that no wine has been taken this evening.
I will stress something that is beginning to cause confusion on these Benches: the suggestion that an assured shorthold tenancy is in some way secure. It has been well documented over many years that huge insecurity is attached to an assured shorthold tenancy. Everything that we have learned about the huge turnover has for so many tenants been attached to the fact that ASTs are sometimes down to six months. A periodic tenancy—which has no end—is surely more secure than these fragile assured shorthold tenancies, which are often for only six months and cause huge insecurity for so many tenants. For that reason, these Benches are extremely concerned about the current direction of travel.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. Indeed, it follows on very neatly from our earlier debate on fixed-term tenancies. My noble friends Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Moynihan made compelling arguments for why we should permit fixed-term tenancies for both professional athletes and police officers. The benefits were set out with conviction and clarity, and I hope the Government Benches have listened. Of course, I would prefer that fixed-term tenancies continued to be available for everyone.
I will not rehearse the arguments made earlier, but does not the growing list of amendments seeking exemptions highlight the real value that fixed-term tenancies offer, supporting people from all walks of life, from athletes to police officers and everyone in between? Nurses, doctors, students, military personnel and even performers can all benefit from a fixed-term tenancy. The Government should consider these benefits. In removing fixed terms altogether, the Bill risks taking away short-term lets that serve as a real benefit for many thousands of people.
I turn to the Minister’s Amendment 59, which expands ground 5C to account for police officers. These Benches understand the importance of an employer’s need to regain possession of rented property if the tenancy is linked to a tenant’s employment. I thank the Minister for setting out details of the amendment.
Finally, I wish to note Amendment 62, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I thank him for the chat we had about it, because I had no idea that this happened within the Church of England. Enabling a debate on possession for the purposes of housing a person leaving tied accommodation is most welcome. This is an important issue, as it ensures that a landlord, who is often also the employer, can regain possession of a property when it is needed to house a new employee, but also—as in the case of the Church of England—allows the Church to regain a property that is required for the retiring employee. We must recognise the value of maintaining the availability of essential employment-linked housing, and consider how best to safeguard it in practice. Additionally, we must not discourage landlords from helping tenants by giving them extra time to move out, providing references or offering alternative housing, especially in sectors such as education or farming—or, indeed, in the Church.
This debate has encapsulated the depth and breadth of the Bill, and the numerous areas that it covers. A modern, dynamic workforce needs the freedom to move, adapt and pursue opportunities wherever they arise. We must have a laser focus on occupational needs when considering any changes to the rental market.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, before I respond to these amendments, I congratulate Leeds United on their promotion to the Premier League. They are not my team, but what an achievement. We were all shouting when they got through the other day, so well done to Leeds. I have several close friends who are Leeds supporters, and they will be listening to that with interest.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Moynihan, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for their amendments, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Scott, for their comments. These amendments are on fixed terms and occupational possession grounds. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, is quite right to highlight the insecurity of assured shorthold tenancies. They are not secure tenancies, and I do not accept that it is better for tenants to have a fixed-term tenancy than a periodic tenancy, which is theirs until they decide to end it and give the necessary two months’ notice.
I will start with Amendment 10 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and Amendment 11 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. These would retain fixed terms where the property is let to any ranking serving police officer and to professional athletes. As with Amendment 7, the Government believe tenants should not have reduced flexibility and greater financial obligation because of their personal circumstances. I am not convinced there is any case for police officers, who put themselves on the front line in the service of others, to benefit any less from the new tenancy regime. I do not think the case for that has been made.
We have heard concerns about ensuring provision of housing for the police, and that is why government Amendment 59 amends possession ground 5C to ensure it is available to police forces and others who provide accommodation for their officers. This will allow landlords to take possession where a tenancy was granted to an officer in relation to their service in the office of constable, and the tenancy is no longer required for the purpose for which it was granted. I do not consider it necessary to retain fixed terms in addition to this.
Needless to say, we all want to see the UK’s excellent professional athletes succeed in their endeavours. The whole Committee is aware of the sporting achievements of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and his advocacy and service on behalf of British sport. However, it would seem a shame to lock athletes into fixed terms, which might prevent them moving around the country in pursuit of sporting greatness. We would not want to do that. However, if an athlete is in accommodation provided by their employer, then ground 5C would apply and the tenancy could be ended, as necessary.
Amendment 62, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, seeks to create two new grounds for possession. The first, new ground 8A, would enable a landlord to seek possession from an existing tenant in order to re-let that dwelling to a former employee—of the landlord, we assume—who was housed in accommodation tied to their role. It would also apply to other types of workers, such as officeholders. I appreciate the aim of the right reverend Prelate’s amendment and, following engagement with bishops, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, we are sympathetic and understand that the Church wishes to house retired clergy. However, after very careful consideration, I genuinely believe this should not be at the expense of existing tenants. We have already created expanded or strengthened possession grounds to cover situations—such as housing employees or evicting tenants to use the dwelling as supported accommodation—where we believe that the needs of those involved can be deemed to overrule the general principle that renters deserve security of tenure and should be able to put down roots in their long-term homes.
We are not of the view that housing a former employee of the landlord meets the bar to overrule the general principle that private renters should have secure homes. In order to house the former employee, another tenant would need to be evicted, through no fault of their own, placing them in the position of needing to find a new home. This simply moves the problem around. As such, we are content that the current grounds strike the right balance.
The second proposed ground, 8B, seeks to enable possession of a tenanted property so it can be relet to a surviving spouse, civil partner or dependant of a person described in the previous proposed ground who died before being required to vacate the accommodation linked to their role. Although I appreciate the reasons behind wanting to help people in these circumstances, again, this proposed new ground would mean an existing tenant could be evicted through no fault of their own, simply moving the problem around and creating more insecurity for more tenants. For the reasons I have set out, I ask that noble Lords not press their amendments.
Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill
Baroness Scott of Bybrook ExcerptsTuesday 1st April 2025
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Act 2024-26 View all Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Act 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 90-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reasons - (1 Apr 2025)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will also speak to Motions B to F. Motions A to D and Motion F ask noble Lords not to insist on their Amendments 1B, 2B, 7B, 8B and 15B to 15E. The other place disagreed to these amendments on the basis that they interfere with the public revenue and affect the levy and application of local revenues. The other place did not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason is sufficient.
Amendments 1B, 2B, 7B and 8B seek to allow the Treasury to exclude healthcare and anchor stores from the higher multiplier through regulations. As set out in this House previously, these amendments are unnecessary as the powers they seek to create already exist in the Bill.
The measures set out in Clauses 1 to 4 deliver on the Government’s commitment as set out at the Autumn Budget. Furthermore, they represent the first step of this Government’s work to transform the business rates system. It is essential that the Government are able to progress this work by taking this first step.
Further reforms will come, as the Government have made clear, and further information on this will be set out in the coming months. We want to start our journey with the Bill. Therefore, I respectfully ask noble Lords not to insist on their amendments.
Amendments 15B to 15E would move the decision to remove charitable rate relief from private schools from one being made by Parliament in the Bill to one that would be made by the Secretary of State through regulations, subject to the affirmative procedure. I have already stated the Government’s view that this is a matter for Parliament to decide, which is why we have invited Parliament to do so through the Bill. For these reasons I ask that noble Lords do not insist on these amendments.
Motion E asks the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, not to insist on his Amendment 13B. The other place disagreed to this amendment on the basis that the Government have already agreed to publish information about the new multipliers and further provision is not necessary. The first part of Amendment 13B is concerned with a review that would consider the impacts of Clauses 1 to 4 on properties with a rateable value close to £500,000. I understand that this is seeking to further understand the way that the multipliers in business rates operate and whether the thresholds within the system serve as a disincentive to invest. As previously set out in this House, the Government have already committed to looking at this question through the broader transforming business rates work, and therefore to stipulate this in legislation is not necessary.
The second part of Amendment 13B seeks a review of the merits of a new use class within business rates and an associated multiplier for online fulfilment warehouses. As I have set out previously, this question has arisen over recent years and is something in which the Government have an interest. First, I should be clear to the House that the Government’s intention at this time is to have only one higher multiplier and for that to be applied to all properties with a rateable value at or above £500,000. However, I understand that the noble Lord’s amendment is more concerned with the ability to target online-focused warehouses. I assure the noble Lord and the House that the Bill already provides the Government with the ability to introduce additional higher multipliers in future if required.
The noble Lord’s amendment explored how these online warehouses can be identified in business rates. We have looked at this again, and I remain sure that the best place to tackle this is through the digitalising business rates project. This project links together HMRC and VOA data from which we expect to be able to identify online businesses operating distribution warehouses separately from businesses that operate on the high street. I hope I can give the noble Lord some further reassurance on what we have found. The project will create opportunities to better target business rates policy in future by having access to more comprehensive data. Using this data, the Government could target particular types of businesses within the warehousing sector. I believe this is what the noble Lord is seeking to achieve. Such an approach will do that systematically, using the latest data and technology, and give us the best prospect of a solution that can be fully integrated into the business rates system.
We are confident that this approach is preferable to one that looks to categorise how individual warehouses are being used on the ground, especially given that one warehouse used by one type of business may in practice be used in much the same way as another used by another type of business. Attempting to categorise warehouses by how they are used as opposed to who they are used by, without more accurate data on the businesses using them, risks capturing warehouses used by businesses that we are seeking to protect, creating a far higher burden on high street retailers. I am aware that the noble Lord feels that this is valuable, and I recognise that. I hope he can understand why the Government cannot accept the amendment. However, we are prepared to keep engaging with him on this matter, be that directly with him or with the three professional bodies he mentions in his amendment. On this basis, I respectfully ask the noble Lord not to insist on his amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The Bill not only fails to deliver on the Government’s manifesto but is far from the reform of the business rates system that was promised and will be a damaging blow to our high streets. We have debated the numerous issues present in the Bill a number of times, and I remain exceptionally concerned about the higher multiplier that will undoubtedly hit anchor stores in town centres; the impact of the blunt £500,000 threshold on businesses with values close to that margin, which will affect their decisions about investment; and the Government’s decision to place a tax on education. We have urged them time and again to rethink, but they remain unmoved by our arguments and, more importantly, by the views of people and businesses across the country. I hope that anchor stores will not leave the high street and that this will not result in the destruction of our town centres, but the Government are making it more difficult for those businesses with this blunt tool, which will hit larger stores with higher business taxes.
The Government have rejected even our amendments that would have allowed the Secretary of State to exempt certain businesses if this proved to be damaging, but they are so confident in this increase to business rates that they do not need that power to reverse these decisions. Only time will tell whether that confidence was misguided.
Holocaust Memorial Bill
Baroness Scott of Bybrook ExcerptsThursday 27th March 2025
(1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Holocaust Memorial Bill 2022-23 View all Holocaust Memorial Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 4-IV Fourth marshalled list for Grand Committee - (25 Mar 2025)
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 21. I have a few straightforward questions for the Minister on the so-called planning process. First, I say to my noble friend Lord Pickles, in the most comradely and indeed cuddly way, that I think he misunderstood what my noble friend Lord Robathan was saying. I do not take my noble friend Lord Robathan’s comments to mean that the Labour and Tory groups met in some secret cabal or caucus to sabotage the planning application. I took them to mean that, when they met in the council properly to determine it, all the Tories and Labour people voted against it, perfectly legitimately—not in some secret caucus.
The questions I have for the Minister are straightforward. First, will he confirm that the designated Minister to decide on the three options that he mentioned last week will be from his own department? Will it be Matthew Pennycook MP, Jim McMahon OBE MP, Rushanara Ali MP, Alex Norris MP or the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage? Secondly, will he state how their independence will be judged?
I must tell the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that in my opinion there is not the slightest snowflake’s chance in Hades that the Government will again send this to Westminster City Council for a planning application. They will go for the other two internal options. In that regard, will the Minister set out exactly how the round-table proposal will work? Who will be invited, how many round tables will there be and what written evidence will they accept?
Finally, there is a suggestion for written representations as another option. Will he or the designated Minister accept and give full consideration to all written representations received, just like the planning application to Westminster City Council? If the designated Minister rejects them, will his or her justification be set out in full?
For the benefit of any present who may wish to give the Minister any advisory notes from the Box, I repeat: who will be the designated Minister? How will the department determine his or her independence? How will the round tables work? Will written representations permit all the representations that Westminster City Council receives? How will they be assessed? Will the designated Minister set out in full the reasons for rejecting written arguments, if the decision to go ahead is taken?
There you go, my Lords: two and a half minutes, which is a record for me in this Committee.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group, as with many of the amendments that have been tabled to the Bill, relate to the planning process and the impact that the new memorial and learning centre will have on security and other buildings in the area.
Amendment 21, from my noble friend Lady Fookes, asks for a new planning application because of new information on security and environmental impacts. We have discussed these issues in an earlier group and I do not intend to revisit those arguments in my remarks here.
The amendment also seeks to place an expanded notification duty on the applicant. I do not support the amendment, but I am sure that the Minister will take this opportunity to reassure my noble friend Lady Fookes and her cosignatories that appropriate notifications will, as always, be sent in the appropriate manner to the appropriate persons.
Amendment 34, in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, seeks to require another impact assessment before this project. I know that my noble friend’s concerns are deeply felt, but I do not feel that we need to do a further impact assessment. We need to make progress on the delivery of this landmark memorial, which was promised to this country so very long ago.
Amendment 38 seeks to give Parliament the final decision on planning. Parliament will have a say once the Bill is passed. We are not certain that bringing the proposition to Parliament once again is at all appropriate.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, the point I was arguing was about the LCC Act 1900, which completely antedates the planning system and imposes some statutory covenants. My amendment is focused on the statutory covenants, which have nothing to do with the planning system at all. If it is presented as something to do with the planning system, that is fundamentally to misunderstand the reality of the position we are in.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, but what we are discussing here should only be the covenant and we are discussing things that appertain to the planning application.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, but they are different, and they have different relevance and values associated with them, because in essence they operate in different areas of law and/or administration.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I have nothing further to say, my Lords.
Amendment 42, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, touches on an important issue. Obviously, we would not want any proposals to damage or undermine the Palace of Westminster, Westminster Abbey or St Margaret’s. These are sites of immense value to the British people, and the abbey is of global architectural importance. That said, again, we do not feel that this amendment is necessary, and these questions should be addressed, as always, through the planning process.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Howard and Lord Inglewood, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Fookes, for bringing these amendments. This group of amendments seeks to put in place a series of new requirements that must be met before progress could be made with construction of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre.
It may be helpful if I briefly remind the Grand Committee that a very extensive process has already been followed in the journey from the 2015 report of the Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission. The commission consulted extensively before submitting its report, entitled Britain’s Promise to Remember, in January 2015. The recommendations in that report were accepted by all major political parties. An independent, cross-party foundation then led an extensive search for the right site. The foundation included experienced and eminent property developers. A firm of professional property consultants was commissioned to provide assistance. Around 50 sites were identified and considered.
The outcome is of course well known: Victoria Tower Gardens was identified as the most suitable site. The foundation was unanimous in recommending the site, which gives the memorial the prominence it deserves and which uniquely allows the story of the Holocaust to be told alongside the Houses of Parliament. The design of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre was chosen by a broad-based panel after an international competition with more than 90 entrants.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I will make a few comments on Amendments 24 and 41, which deal with the interrelationship between the Holocaust memorial and the restoration and renewal programme for the Palace of Westminster. I am the deputy chair of the R&R Programme Board, and I chair its sub-board, although I stress that I am speaking today strictly in my own capacity and not on behalf of the boards. As my noble friend Lady Deech said, I gave evidence to the Bill Select Committee at an earlier stage. I thought it would be helpful to the Grand Committee to set out briefly the ways that these two substantial projects may interact.
As noble Lords are probably aware, three R&R options are currently being worked out and we hope that the two Houses will make a decision later this year. One thing that all three have in common is that they expect to use a substantial portion of the gardens—nearly 50% by area—during the works as a marshalling area, for storage, for welfare provision, for loading and unloading and so on, as well as for the tunnelling activities that the noble Baroness referred to. To correct her, all three options include tunnelling under the building, not just two. This would all take place in the end of the gardens nearest the Palace and include the part of the gardens currently occupied by the temporary education centre.
The timing of when the use of the gardens would start to be required varies depending on which option we choose, but it is likely that it will be somewhere around 2030 to 2033. Some access may be needed before that to build a jetty in the river and, as the noble Baroness mentioned, the Victoria Tower works, which may or may not be part of R&R, depending on decisions taken, are due to start fairly imminently. Whichever option we take, the R&R works will be long term, so we are probably talking about a minimum usage of a substantial portion of the gardens for about a decade and potentially, perhaps probably, very much longer. The longer options last up to about 50 years.
As I understand it, the Holocaust memorial should be completed and open by the time the major works for R&R would get fully under way, so the overlap of the actual construction works on the two projects will be limited. But that does not mean there will be no interaction between the two projects. There are three principal areas of concern.
First, there is a concern that using a significant part of the gardens for the Holocaust memorial may make it more difficult to obtain the necessary consents for the use of a large part of what remains of the gardens for the purpose of the R&R project. Secondly, there is the impact that having nearly half of the gardens blocked off and being, effectively, part of a major building site for many years will have on the Holocaust memorial. That must surely impact on the dignity of the site and the ability for quiet reflection within it. Thirdly, there is the impact on the gardens. Having the two projects under way will inevitably mean that, for quite a long time, very little of the gardens will be available for use as a park. We will first have the upheaval from the building of the memorial and then, once that is completed, the other half of the gardens will become a building site. Quiet enjoyment of the gardens as a park will be near impossible for many years, possibly decades.
Whether these amendments are the right way forward is up for debate, but the Government really need to take this issue much more seriously than they seem to have done so far. When the Minister kindly arranged a virtual meeting before Second Reading, I asked about the interaction with R&R and was told by the officials present, effectively, that all was in hand and had been taken into account. I am afraid I felt that rather complacent at the time and still do. It is certainly not my understanding from my role as deputy chair of the programme board that this is under complete control. This is a very serious issue and needs much greater consideration by the Government.
Amendment 24 could usefully be strengthened: it requires the authorities of both Houses only to certify that they have satisfied themselves that the activities covered by the Bill will not impede the R&R of the Palace of Westminster. I think the amendment could usefully look at the three impacts I have described—in other words, it could also helpfully consider the impact of R&R on the Holocaust memorial itself, as well as the combined impacts of the two projects on the ability to enjoy the use of the gardens as a park.
I struggle slightly with Amendment 41, as it would mean that the Act will not come into force until R&R is completed, which could be decades—indeed, up to 50 years—away. It is, effectively, a wrecking amendment, so perhaps that goes a bit too far. But I support the sentiments and, again, I cannot urge the Minister strongly enough to take these issues much more seriously than they have been taken so far before any final decision is taken.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, both amendments in this group seek to delay plans to deliver the memorial and learning centre unless it can be shown that the works will not negatively impact the process of the restoration and renewal. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, for his clear explanation of the timescales and the importance of continued discussion between the two projects. When I was Minister in the department, that was happening regularly, as were discussions on security and other issues, and it is important that those things continue. With respect, however, what we have here is one long-planned and undelivered project and another long-planned and undelivered project, and I feel it is now time just to get on with the important delivery of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. It is not going to be as long a project as the restoration project, and we should get on with it and deliver what is important.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 24 and 41 proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, deal with the important matter of co-ordination between the programmes to construct a Holocaust memorial and learning centre and the programme of restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. It is of course essential that care should be taken when planning these projects.
The House of Lords Select Committee gave a good deal of attention to this matter and addressed it in its report. It recommended that we should give detailed consideration to how the construction and operation of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre and the restoration and renewal programme will interact with each other, and accommodate the use of Victoria Tower Gardens by nearby residents and their children. We made clear in our response to the Select Committee that we agree on the importance of the interaction between the two programmes and that the interests of users of the gardens need to be considered. We will continue to work with the restoration and renewal programme to make sure that we understand those interactions and potential impacts.
It is worth noting—as the Select Committee made clear in its report—that the evidence presented to the committee was that the main restoration and renewal works would not begin before 2029 at the earliest. I also remind noble Lords that the Holocaust memorial and learning centre is to be constructed at the southern end of Victoria Tower Gardens—in other words, the opposite end of the gardens to the area which may be required during the restoration and renewal programme.
With all that in mind, we do not believe that there is good reason to expect any major practical conflict between the two programmes, and there is no reason that the construction and operation of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre should be contingent on certification by the authorities of both Houses of Parliament. It would be even less sensible to delay the entire project until the restoration and renewal programme is complete. The commencement of the construction of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre is a matter for the statutory planning framework that Parliament has put in place to determine planning matters.
It is very important that I say this. I want to engage with the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, in particular, and I want to make sure that, after the great, eloquent contribution from the noble Lord, we pay due respect and have regard to the points he makes. I am happy to arrange a meeting to discuss it in detail and to show how seriously we want to see interaction between the programmes. The two programme teams already meet regularly to share information and co-ordinate plans to reduce potential impacts. Rest assured, they will continue to do so.
I respectfully ask the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, to withdraw Amendment 24 and not to press Amendment 41.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords on all sides for their many powerful and often moving speeches throughout the whole of this Committee.
Amendments 32 and 38A seek to require the Holocaust memorial and learning centre to focus solely on the Nazi genocide of Jews and antisemitism, and to be in conformity with Britain’s Promise to Remember: The Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission Report. My understanding is that this is the Government’s intention, and I hope the Minister can confirm this.
This is the final group that we will debate in Committee. I conclude, as I began, with a clear statement of our support for the Government’s plans to deliver the Holocaust memorial and learning centre as soon as possible. As the Committee knows, I have worked on this as a Minister and will continue to work with the noble Lord opposite to support the delivery of this important project.
As I have said before, a Conservative Prime Minister made this solemn commitment to the survivors of the Holocaust, and we will stand by that commitment, made 11 years ago. This is not a promise to be broken. Eighty years on from so many liberations of concentration camps, we must get on and deliver the Holocaust memorial and learning centre right here in Westminster, at the heart of our democracy. We must do this so that the survivors who are still with us can see it open to the public. It is our duty to renew our commitment never to forget the horrors of the Holocaust. We support the Government in making good on that promise.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this final group take us to topics at the heart of the Government’s reasons for seeking to establish a new national memorial and learning centre.
Amendment 32 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would restrict the learning centre to providing solely
“education about the Nazi genocide of the Jews and antisemitism”.
The proposed new clause is well intentioned but overly restrictive and may have unintended consequences. First, it is unnecessary. The Bill—the clue is in its name—clearly refers to a memorial commemorating the victims of the Holocaust and a centre for learning related to the memorial. This Bill is about a memorial to the Holocaust, not to all genocides or crimes against humanity. The learning centre will focus on the unique crime of the Holocaust and aim to set the historical facts in the context of antisemitism. No Holocaust memorial and learning centre could exist without a clear understanding of the roots of antisemitism.
The clause may also have unintended consequences. It may discourage the learning centre from exploring the context and complexity of the Holocaust, missing an opportunity to create an educational offer that would benefit visitors. From the start, we have been clear that, to understand the devastation of the Holocaust on European Jewry, it is crucial to also understand the vibrancy and breadth of Jewish life before the Holocaust.
The centre is also intended to address subsequent genocides within the context of the Holocaust, showing how the Holocaust led to the development of international law. It is doubtful whether either of these topics could be included in the learning centre under this proposed new clause. The content for the learning centre is being developed by a leading international curator, Yehudit Shendar—formerly of Yad Vashem—with the support of an academic advisory group. They will ensure that the content is robust and credible and reflects the current state of historical investigation into, and interpretation of, the Holocaust.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I said at the beginning that I thought this was about the most important amendment we had; I am glad that I have, I think, been proved right. We have had a highly provocative, important debate on what the learning centre should be about. It has been stressed time and again that it should be about the Holocaust and antisemitism—nothing else.
I am grateful to all those of my noble friends who participated; to two highly distinguished Cross-Benchers, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew; and the non-affiliated Peer who signed my amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame. He is a highly distinguished King’s Counsel who has led on many important cases in this country. I will forgive him for taking a brief from the ghastly Leigh Day firm; that was a cab rank thing, I suppose. He is also a professor of international law at King’s College. He rightly made the point that there will be controversy on what other groups are to be included; that point was picked up by my noble friend Lord Goodman, who supported my amendment and also made the point about there being a lot of controversy around what the other genocides are.
I think I would be right to say that probably every noble Lord in this place knows that what happened in Armenia 110 years ago, with 1 million Armenians slaughtered, was genocide. Some other countries in the world have said that, but no British Government have ever called it genocide because we are terrified that, if we call it genocide, Turkey and President Erdoğan—a big NATO member—will get terribly upset. Therefore, we do not call it genocide for wider geopolitical and military reasons; we have the same problem in trying to select various other genocides to attach here.
My noble friend Lady Fleet made a powerful speech on the antisemitism that she and her husband and family currently face. She rightly pointed out that the evil chant of “from the river to the sea” means the extermination of the Jews; she also made the point that the memorial and the learning centre must be about the Holocaust and antisemitism only.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, kept asking what the learning centre is about and what it is supposed to teach. If it is supposed to teach 2,000 years of Jewish history, you need something better than a few posters and videos in this little bunker; you need the giant campus that the Holocaust Commission proposed. Other Jewish organisations could have rooms there and you could have conferences. You would actually teach the 2,000-year history of Jewish life and the Holocaust in full detail.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, just made an intervention to say that his family fought the Germans. My uncles did as well, in the 51st Highland Division; they were captured at Saint-Valery and spent five years of the war in, I think, Stalag IV-D.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, asked: who are the beneficiaries? He rightly pointed out it would be those wandering Jews from 1,300 BC and the exodus in Egypt to the present day; that is 3,300 years of Jews looking for a safe home somewhere in the world. He also made the point that this must be about the Shoah and nothing else.
The shadow Minister, my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, said that the point was to get the learning centre built so that the survivors of the Holocaust could see in their lifetime that we were commemorating the Holocaust. If I may say so, that is not the important point. The point is not, as was wrongly said in this Committee by a colleague, that this is for the benefit of the Jews. The whole point of the memorial and the learning centre is that it is for the tens of millions of people who deny that the Holocaust ever existed. The survivors of the Holocaust do not need to be told how bad it was—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am sorry but they have told me very strongly—and have done so over a number of years, as they have told the Minister now—that they would like to see it.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I accept that. Of course they would like to see it—I totally understand that; I am not dismissing their desire—but what is more important: placating and dealing with their desire, or addressing the millions of people who are calling for a new holocaust and denying that the last Holocaust ever existed? That concern must take priority over building something that is grossly inadequate to please the existing survivors. The Minister talked again about it communicating the value of Jewish life over 2,000 years. I simply make the point, again, that you cannot do that with this little bunker; you need a proper learning centre, which the original Holocaust Commission called for.
I cannot see how on earth you can put an exhibition in this bunker that has any relevance to what happened later in Darfur or to Pol Pot. There is nothing to learn about these genocides from what happened to the Jews.
The noble Lord pointed out that every Prime Minister has supported this. Those of us who have been in Parliament for many years have always formed the view that when both political parties agree on something, the public are being stuffed somewhere. When you have half a dozen Prime Ministers agreeing on something, you can again be sure to bet that the public are being misled. If one could, I would love to put down a Parliamentary Question asking how many times these former Prime Ministers have actually walked through Victoria gardens.
Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill)
Baroness Scott of Bybrook ExcerptsWednesday 26th March 2025
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Act 2024-26 View all Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Act 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 86-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reasons - (26 Mar 2025)
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, as the Minister said, the higher rate or multiplier being introduced in this Bill is to apply to all properties with a rateable value of more than £500,000. This is a worthy attempt by the Government to have a fairer approach to business rates.
However, 290 hospitals are captured by this new banding. It means a considerable increase in their business rates—potentially, a 20% increase—for which government funding has not made provision, so hospitals will have less funding to drive down waiting lists, which is an aim that has all our support. I give just one example: University College Hospital here in London has a rateable value of nearly £12 million. With the new higher multiplier, its business rates will increase by over £1.2 million.
Amendment 1B, in lieu of Amendment 1, would provide the Government with the option, by regulations, to exclude hospitals from this higher banding. At this late stage, I urge the Minister to agree. None of us wants to see waiting lists not going down as fast as they could because of the Government’s reluctance to exclude hospitals—not from business rates, just from the higher multiplier.
I will speak very briefly to the other Motions. Motion B1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, is very important to the viability and vitality of our town and city centres. We on these Benches are minded to support the noble Baroness on this issue if she wishes to take it to a vote.
Motion N1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, would provide the Government with a way forward to address cliff-edge issues when there are hard divides between different multiplier levels. This is of concern to businesses and, again, we will support the noble Lord if he intends to divide the House on this issue. I beg to move Motion A1.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, first, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. This group of amendments addresses the ongoing issues with Clauses 1 to 4 that have been debated throughout the progress of the Bill. These clauses present two major problems. They do not reflect the Government’s previously stated ambition to reform the business rates system in order to protect the high street and ensure that online businesses pay their fair share. The higher multiplier will damage businesses on the high street and drive them out of town centres.
The Bill is an attempt by the Government to deliver on their manifesto commitment to reform the business rates system, but they have instead used a blunt instrument as a cut-off. That means that a number of businesses will be paying this higher multiplier, which they should not be doing. The Government will be hitting stores up and down the high street. Despite promises that reform will follow, the Bill leaves a number of important high street businesses paying higher rates, with no certainty at all as to when the situation will improve.
“(1A) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1)(a) may specify that occupied anchor stores are not subject to the higher multiplier (and may define “anchor stores” for this purpose).””
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, in support of businesses on high streets up and down this country, I intend to test the opinion of the House.
“(1A) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1)(a) may specify that unoccupied anchor stores are not subject to the higher multiplier (and may define “anchor stores” for this purpose).””