Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Marlesford Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their amendments relating to pet insurance and deposits. The noble Lords, Lord Black, Lord Trees, Lord de Clifford and Lord Truscott, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, have all contributed to the debate.

Turning first to the amendments tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, I thank the noble Earl very much for his constructive engagement with me and my officials in the department in recent months. The benefit of the noble Earl’s expertise in this area has been very valuable and very much appreciated, so I am grateful to him.

Amendment 127 seeks to remove the requirement for tenants to obtain pet damage insurance. While I completely understand the concerns behind the amendment, respectfully, I disagree with its approach. One of the key barriers to renting with pets is landlords’ concerns over potential property damage, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, outlined. Requiring tenants to have pet damage insurance provides landlords with the reassurance they need and helps foster a more positive attitude towards pet ownership in rental properties—that is the balance between rights and responsibilities that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned. Removing this requirement risks undermining the balance of ensuring that tenants have a fair opportunity to rent with pets, while also protecting landlords from unnecessary financial risk.

It is also important to note that we are seeing some signs that insurance products designed specifically for pet-related damage are emerging in response to the Bill—not just from Anguilla, as I think the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said. As the noble Lord, Lord Black, said, these products will develop, meaning that tenants should have viable options available. This requirement is therefore both reasonable and practical, ensuring responsible pet ownership without placing an undue burden on either tenants or landlords. I emphasise in response to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull—

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

I will just raise one very simple point, which I thought the Minister was going to deal with. I declare my interests as a Suffolk farmer with houses to let. I am unclear, not being a lawyer: in terms of the liability of a tenant whose premises, or the premises which they occupy, are damaged during a tenancy, is there a distinction between the liability for something that they have done and for something that a pet has done? If there is not a distinction, then presumably the landlord does not have to worry too much about how the damage was done. All that is at stake is what the damage is and what it is going to cost to remedy it.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. The distinction in this case is just trying to encourage landlords who have previously been fairly resistant to tenants keeping pets that they are able to give that concession to pet owners.

In response to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, I emphasise that we continue to engage with the insurance industry, and we remain open to further information about the market and views on how it might develop. I apologise that the noble Lord, Lord Trees, has not yet had a written response to his query about assistance dogs. I will follow that up and get a response for him.

In terms of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, I want to clarify a point I made in my previous speech. Landlords cannot withdraw their consent to keep a pet in case of anti-social behaviour. However, there are other steps they can take. Landlords can seek to evict anti-social tenants for a broad range of anti-social behaviours under ground 14, which could include behaviour related to noisy, disruptive or aggressive pets.

Landlords can also contact their local council’s anti-social behaviour team and the police if behaviour persists, which can culminate in anti-social behaviour injunctions being granted by the courts. In that instance, that could then ban the tenant in question from keeping a pet. The incident that the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, described was really frightening, and I understand why he would have concerns about that. I hope the action I have described helps to respond to his points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

We will be amending the Tenant Fees Act so that landlords will be able to require the tenant to obtain insurance to cover the risk of property damage caused by a pet. Landlords will be able to require tenants to have that insurance.

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

The Minister has again referred to my point that we need to change the Tenant Fees Act. Is she saying there is in law a difference in liability for damage done to a rental property by the tenant or their pet? We know that, if they get struck by lightning, it is not their fault, but do they not have a liability for any damage done as a result of their tenancy anyway? In which case, why does any of this matter?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I have already answered the noble Lord’s question: the idea of this specific pet insurance is to encourage landlords to accept tenants with pets. That is what the clause is there to do: to try to incentivise and encourage landlords to accept pets as part of the tenancy.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Marlesford Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, I find these amendments very curious. The whole principle of the private rented sector is that it is a capitalist operation; it is an operation which has costs and revenue. The revenue comes from rent. Obviously, rents must be very carefully determined. As to whether it is one month or two, that seems to me of little account. Basically, what tenants need to know is that rents are likely to increase by some measure which is generally agreed. In the private rented sector, this is normally the retail prices index—the RPI, as opposed to the CPI. If there is not a return on the investment, the investment will not continue to exist. Nobody can afford to let properties if there is no return on the property. The question, of course, is: what should the return be?

There are two very important factors to think of. The first is the gross return, the gross rent, as a percentage of the market value of the property, and the question of what percentage it should be. I have produced a table which shows the different levels of rent for different values of property, but, of course, that is not the only factor, because one has to remember that the rent charged is gross before the cost of maintenance, and maintenance is hugely important. The solution to having a good private rented sector is proper maintenance and, indeed, improvement through modernisation maintenance. It may be that you put in a more economic burner to heat the house—they vary a lot, and later ones are much more efficient, but that is an expenditure. You have to get a balance there.

I suggest that very often, about a third of the rent, on average, will go on the maintenance—keeping up to date—and administration of properties. If we said, for example, that a 3% return on capital was a reasonable level for the rent to be set at, that might end up at a net 2%, which is probably about what equities yield at the moment. We must see that.

Then comes a very important point, which we shall no doubt be discussing later: the affordability of rents for tenants. The Government’s guidance has for a long time been that rents should not be more than 30% of household income. Therefore, that calculation should be made. If somebody is renting a property, they should bear in mind that that is the Government’s advice as to the amount that they can afford to pay, other things being equal. Equally, the landlord letting the property will also have to take into account whether or not the prospective tenant can afford their property. Again, it is essential that if you set a rent, you know the household income, to see whether it reaches the affordability stakes.

These are important and complicated matters, but they are crucial to the private rented sector. My worry about the Bill is that half the time the Government do not seem to understand the private rented sector. It is a business enterprise like many other business enterprises. It is not particularly virtuous or unvirtuous, but I wish I could feel that the Government, in fiddling around with it all, were trying to make it work in a practical manner for investors and those receiving the benefit of the investment; that is, the product. There is no real difference between a house that you rent and a product that you buy in a shop. It is part of how the system operates, how civilisation operates. The Government are very muddled in their thinking on this. I would have liked to have got rid of the Gove Bill, which also was ill considered and ill conceived, lacking in understanding of the real world.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, we have several groups of amendments that talk about rent, money and finances, so before commenting specifically on this amendment, I want to have a little rant regarding landlord finances. The narrative is that the majority of landlords are in a terrible financial position. What evidence do we actually have for that? It is certainly not borne out by my anecdotal evidence and could be conceived as scaremongering, because my understanding is that being a landlord is, and will remain, profitable.

The idea that, to remain sustainable, landlords must be able to pass the entirety of any increased business cost and risk on to the tenant through a rent increase is, frankly, ridiculous. There is no other business model that operates in this way, and it does not add up when we look at the sum of the data that we have. The English Private Landlord Survey said that the median income of landlords, including rental properties, is around £52,000. According to the Shelter/YouGov survey of private landlords, rental income is largely additional for landlords: 50% of landlords say that they do not rely on rental income to cover living expenses.

I note that in any investments that I have made, there is a very cleverly worded phrase at the bottom: “Investments can go down as well as up”—except if you are a landlord, it would seem; even more so as you are left with a capital asset that, in this country, largely increases in value. That is my rant. If the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, were in her place, she would probably be quite proud of me for it.

I turn to the amendments in this group tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, regarding notice periods for rent increases. When the Bill was introduced in the Commons it proposed a standard one-month period. The Government’s decision to extend this to two months represents a welcome improvement that better balances the interests of landlords and tenants. This evolution demonstrates a willingness to listen and to respond to concerns about tenant security, for which I sincerely thank the Minister and her team.

Amendment 73 seeks to revert the notice period to just one month and Amendment 81 questions the differential treatment between standard and low-cost tenancies. These amendments, particularly Amendment 81, raise fair questions, which I too would like an answer to, as I have not been able to find a reason for that differentiation. A two-month notice period for rent increases represents a reasonable middle ground that acknowledges landlords’ legitimate need to adjust rents while giving tenants adequate time to prepare financially.

For many working families, a rent increase actually requires careful budgeting. I have not got the figures to hand but we know that a significant number—into the many thousands—of moves and evictions last year were due to the inability of the tenant to pay the new rent rise. One month is simply inefficient to work a decision to relocate and make those adjustments.

I commend the Government for finding a balanced approach. This middle ground solution may not be perfect from any single perspective, but it demonstrates what good legislation can achieve when all voices are genuinely heard during the parliamentary process. With these factors in mind, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 99 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, which, as my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising explained, would ensure that, if there was an unsuccessful challenge to a rent tribunal on a rent increase, the increased rent would become payable on the date proposed by the landlord.

Before turning to that amendment, I will say that I have some sympathy with Amendment 87 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, which proposes an alternative means of filtering appeals before they reach the tribunal by enabling the tenants first to check with the VOA whether their challenge has any prospect of success. However, many of the arguments that the noble Baroness used are equally applicable to Amendment 99.

Turning to Amendment 99, what Clause 8 proposes is exactly the opposite of what happens at the moment, and what indeed has been the case since the Housing Act 1988. At the moment, if a landlord serves a Section 13 increase on the tenant, giving a month’s notice, the tenant can appeal. But, if the tribunal decides the rent should be increased, the increase is payable from the date given on the Section 13 notice. That is the position at the moment, which the Government propose to overturn. The CAB website gives advice to a tenant on this subject, saying that

“it’s probably best to save money towards your rent increase if it’s due to start before the tribunal makes a decision. That way, you won’t have to find a large sum of money if your rent is increased”.

It goes on to make the point that it can take up to 10 weeks for the tribunal to make a decision.

I agree with what has been said. I do not see how this proposal, as it stands, can possibly survive. As many noble Lords have pointed out, from the tenant’s point of view they have nothing to lose by appealing against any increase. The rent cannot be put up, and the increase is not effective until it has been endorsed by the courts.

No satisfactory reasons have been given for this, so I looked in Hansard to see what happened in the other place. The Minister, Matthew Pennycook, said on 29 October last year:

“Tenants should not be thrust into debt simply for enforcing their rights”.


But the relevant right of the tenant is to appeal against an unfair rent increase. There should be no additional right to the tenant if that appeal is subsequently lost, but that is what is proposed.

My honourable friend Jerome Mayhew intervened in the Minister’s speech. He said:

“The Minister says that it would be unfair on the tenant to have a significant increase in rent and a backlog after the determination of the tribunal, but that is rent that ought properly to have belonged to the landlord and has been unjustifiably denied them for the period of the process. Why is it fair for the landlord to be denied a just rent as a result of the delay in the process, yet it is for some reason not fair for the tenant?”


The Minister then in effect conceded the case:

“The hon. Gentleman is right that if the tribunal determines that the rent increase is reasonable, a landlord may have missed out on a short period of the rent increase—not the whole rent, but the rent increase”.


It is not “may have missed out” but will have missed out and, as we have heard, not for “a short period” but potentially for a very long period.

The Minister then sought to defend the position:

“I will be very clear about this: we took the view that it was better that tenants were not, by facing the prospect of significant arrears, disincentivised from taking any cases to tribunal to challenge what could be, on a number of occasions, completely unreasonable within-tenancy rent increases”.


But what the Minister described as “significant arrears” were sums which actually a tribunal will have deemed to be fair, and which current advice from the CAB is that tenants should make provision for. The argument the Minister uses is at odds, as I have said, with the position at the moment.

The Minister’s case was further weakened by a subsequent intervention. Again, my colleague Jerome Mayhew asked:

“I understand that the Government’s intention is that tenants should not go to the tribunal unless they are clear that the asked-for rent is too high, but what prevents them from gaming the system, as we discussed?”


In reply, the Minister said:

“What I would say to the hon. Gentleman—I will expand upon my argument in due course—is that I think he underestimates how difficult it is to take a case to the tribunal”.


In a spare moment over the weekend, I put into Google, “How do I appeal against my rent increase?”. Up came the answer: use form Rents 1 on the GOV.UK website. I downloaded the form. You can appeal, free and online. All credit to the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham, and others for simplifying and digitising government forms. You fill in your name, address and contact details, the name and address of the landlord or agent, the amount of rent you are paying, when the tenancy began and the details of the property. You add a copy of the Section 13 notice from the landlord increasing the rent and a copy of the tenancy agreement, and send it off online to the nearest tribunal regional office. I estimate that it would take about 10 minutes. The tribunal will then ask you what type of hearing you want. Most tribunals for rent increases are based on the evidence you send—they are paper hearings—so there is no need for an appellant to do anything more than I have described.

I hope the Minister will not repeat what her colleague said in another place:

“However, I think the hon. Gentleman underestimates the onerous nature of taking a case to tribunal. It will not be as simple as the tenant deciding on a whim one day that they can do that, and that it is a no-lose situation, but I recognise the incentives at play on both sides”.—[Official Report, Commons, Renters’ Rights Bill Committee, 29/10/24; cols. 145-46.]


It is not onerous, and it is no lose. What is onerous is the pressure on the tribunals. I urge the Minister to reflect on the many amendments to this clause and, in her reply, indicate a willingness to think again.

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

The points earlier expanded on the point about affordable rent. Is the Government’s policy still that affordable rent means that it should be no more than 30% of total household income? That immediately implies—it is a glimpse of the obvious—that for one tenant a property is affordable and for another tenant with fewer assets it is not affordable.

Secondly, where I support my noble friend’s entry into the argument is on this business of the fixing of rent by the tribunal. How long does that continue? Could that be spelled out clearly? Does it apply merely for the length of time that particular tenant is there? Would it be continued if there were to be a change of tenant and the next tenant said that was the rent the tribunal had set? If we are to have tribunal-set rents, we must be told exactly how they operate.

Finally, unless the Government can answer fully and confidently the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, this Bill will certainly fail in its objective.

[Lord Best (CB)]

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

The Bill is, of course, concerned with the private rented sector and not social housing, where tenants’ rights are already far stronger. But housing associations, often now known as registered providers, are drawn in to some of the Bill’s measures because these bodies use assured tenancies. This means that some ingredients in the Bill do not work for them, in particular the requirement for rent increases just once a year, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, has explained.

The common practice in the social housing sector is to raise the rents for all tenants on one specific date, usually in the first week of April. Many housing associations provide several thousand tenancies, and it is far more efficient to have one rent increase day for everyone annually.

The Government have accepted the need for different treatment for housing associations, and Clause 7 contains measures to handle the problem. But the National Housing Federation, which brings specialist knowledge to bear on the formulation of these amendments after discussion with lawyers, feels the position would be more clearly dealt with by the wording in Amendments 80, 82 and 83.

This is indeed a rather dull set of amendments, but they would make for clarity, administrative simplicity, cost savings and fairness, and I am pleased to support these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, as this is the first time I have spoken at this stage of the Bill, I ought to declare an interest. I am a landlord of private rented residential property, but I think that all—both—the renters concerned would agree that I am not somebody who sets out to extract the last penny from them; in fact, quite the opposite. More particularly, I stand here with some 50 years’ professional experience of property, not least of the private rented sector.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, is the cause of me getting to my feet—I give her that credit. She referred to rent affordability as security. Although I get that particular line of argument, the two things differ somewhat. All the amendments in this group relate in some way to control of rent, something the Government have always said they would not do. I listened very carefully to my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Best, but say to him that a deferral or reduction in the receipts on a like-for-like basis is, none the less, a form of rent control. I do not think I can make any concession on that point. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, said that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best, was less bad than what might be in the Bill. I am not sure that that particular line of argument commends the broader principle to me in general.

A recurring theme is this business of the affordability of rent to renters, but that actually is not the purpose of the private rented sector; that is the purpose of the social rented sector. If we are somehow transferring something which occurs in and is a feature of the social rented sector to the private rented sector, then a much bigger debate needs to take place—apart from this Bill—on precisely what that means. I do not believe that that debate has been entered into, nor do I believe that there is any substantial investigation or research into what that might mean in practice.

If we are in fact faced with that change, I predict the same outcome as occurred after 1965. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, referred to the rent control of the 1960s and his role in undoing that. I mentioned at Second Reading that the combined effects of security of tenure and rent control in the 1960s caused a fall from 30% of housing being in the private rented sector in 1961 to about 10% some 30 years later. Even after that freeing-up process which the noble Lord referred to, it was still under 10% in the year 2000. That is how durable the process is. It is very difficult to get confidence back once it has been severely damaged.

We must also bear in mind the progressive changes in the tax treatment of private rented sector landlords and what that has meant. It may be different when it is being dealt with at corporate level, when all sorts of things can be offset against a larger pool of property. For the 80% of private rented sector landlords who have five or fewer residential units, that does not look like the same thing at all. Ultimately, the test will be whether we generate competition in the market through an increase in supply. However, everything I have heard this afternoon, particularly from those who tabled the amendments in this group, has been about guarding against precisely that outcome that would be a failure of the intentions that sit behind this Bill. So we have to be very careful.

I do not take a moral stance of any sort on this. I stand before your Lordships as a technician, not a politician. I come with an economic view. However, if we are making a transfer of liabilities from one sector that has a considerable amount of government, financial and in many cases registered provider charitable support, to the private rented sector, which does not have that support, I predict a very significant failure in the outcomes of this Bill.

That would be a tragedy, because this Bill contains an awful lot of stuff that is very good indeed, I would like to see a successful private rented sector. I would like to see renters treated with humanity and civility and not exploited endlessly in the way that they have been. However, if we end up with reduced supply, and with those who show no civility or common decency towards their renters somehow still there, operating in some subculture or other, we will not have succeeded in dealing with this matter at all.

I wrote to the Minister recently. She has not had a moment to reply. I cast no aspersions at all, because she is extremely busy with this Bill. However, there is a need to look closely at the probable outcomes. If we do not, we will walk blindly into something that we would rather had not happened.

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

I speak on this Bill from the rural perspective, which is very different from the urban perspective. The rural perspective is much more concerned with communities. In the fixing of rents, this is very much taken into account by most rural landlords. Affordability is one method: the 30%. Some return on capital is needed to keep the show on the road. However, taking account of individual circumstances is crucial.

Where there is talk about tying rents to inflation, it is very sensible that all leases make clear that, when rents are assessed annually—which seems to me a reasonable level—that should be on the basis of taking account of inflation. When the inflation is very high, it would be quite wrong to impose a full level of inflation on a tenant. We have had double-digit inflation in the last three years and those of us who were alive then will never forget 1975-76, when we had inflation of 25% per year, for goodness’ sake. Inflation is a dangerous animal. You should use it as a guide, but over a period. Also, you take account of individuals and their contribution to the community in which they live. After all, a rural community is about people in a much greater way than an urban community can be. I do not know whether the Minister has thought about this, but I would hope that she would make reference to what might work better in a rural community than in an urban community.

I very much agreed with my noble friend Lord Young, one of the liberators from a system which had almost destroyed the private rented sector. The other person who I have huge respect for is the noble Lord, Lord Best, who I have known for a very long time and whose judgment, knowledge and experience provide a very useful guide. I recommend that the Minister should have quiet, private discussions with people like that on the practicalities, because this Bill is getting knotted up in practicalities. It is easy to write it all down in clauses and subsections, but how it works will depend on human beings. Governments have a role. As a Burkean Conservative, I believe that the role of a Government is to hold the ring, to prevent people from being ill-treated in the community. It is people who matter.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, this is my first contribution in Committee, so I declare my interests as the owner of a residential property in receipt of rent and as a practising chartered surveyor for some 35 years. I would like to stop for a moment and consider why rents are so high. Well, it is simple. It is supply and demand; we have not got enough, because there has not been sufficient building since the evolution of the AST regime that we heard about, which began to encourage investors back into the market.

British institutions—life companies, pension funds, insurance companies—used to own millions of pounds-worth of private rented accommodation in the UK. The post-war rent restrictions made it uneconomical and they dumped it, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Young. It took many years for that to come back. The investors returned slowly with the AST and now we are interfering with it all again.

I am not objecting to that interference; I think ASTs needs updating. But the important thing to remember, or point out to the Committee, is that there is a vast amount of institutional money lying in the wings waiting to invest in private rented property. It is there, it is identified, some of it has been spent, and it is going to create tens of thousands of units of private rented accommodation. We are talking not about tens of millions but billions of pounds, and a lot of it is foreign investment. Institutional investment is the holy grail of generating high-volume addition to the inventory.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Marlesford Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Lords Chamber

I urge the Government to reconsider this approach and to reaffirm the long-standing commitment to prospective lawmaking by providing clear commencement dates and reasonable transition periods for all new obligations, to protect both tenants and landlords from the risk of abrupt and unfair change. The approach will give landlords, tenants and letting agents time to adjust their practices. I urge the Government to stop, think and assess the damage that they could cause. With that, I beg to move.

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend raises a very important point. The Bill has merit. It also endangers the overall objective of increasing the supply of housing for the people of this country. It is very important that the transitional costs of introducing the Bill, if it becomes an Act, are minimised. The point that my noble friend perhaps did not emphasise sufficiently is that if there is a retrospective element to the Act, particularly if it is a rather obscure and unclear retrospective element, that will result in more confusion and, most importantly, more need for judicial decision. We should bear in mind throughout Committee that the judicial system in this country is under huge stress, the Chancellor is being asked for more money for really crucial cases, and it must be an objective of the Government, as we consider the Bill, to make sure that, in whatever form the Bill eventually comes out, it will require a minimum of judicial intervention.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I support what the noble Lords have said there. The principle against retrospection is long-lasting and fundamental to our constitution and our legal system, and it is enshrined, as has been said, in the European Convention on Human Rights.

There is an ECHR memorandum on the Bill in which the assessment is made that it strikes a proportionate balance between rights of property on one hand and the rights of tenants on the other. I would like to know from the Minister whether that proportionality assessment has properly taken into account the significance and the implications of the retrospection that has been drawn attention to here. What actually are the implications of that retrospection? What does it affect? If those words are kept in the Bill, what rights do they actually affect which are imposed in a new way by the Bill?

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Marlesford Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Marlesford Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest, as in the register, as a Suffolk farmer with rented residential properties. I have been running our rural business for over 50 years. I have also been particularly concerned to protect and, where possible, enhance the beauty of rural England. I served three terms as a countryside commissioner for England and Wales, five years as chair of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and 20 years as president of the Suffolk Preservation Society. I therefore look at this Bill mainly through rural eyes.

I am afraid that I see this Bill as fundamentally flawed. Allow me to explain. Last year, I welcomed the new Government and wished them well, in the national interest. Since then, they have got into choppy waters, mainly by pursuing policies that were internally contradictory to their main objectives, particularly economic growth. We are seeing this again with this Bill. The drafting suggests a dislike, or at least a distrust, of the private rented sector. Yet this sector accounts for some 18% of the whole rented sector.

To increase the number of houses is one of the Government’s objectives. We all recognise that there are some very bad, even evil, landlords. I fully support all parts of the Bill dealing with this, including the abolition of Section 21. However, the central point in the Bill is the abolition of the assured shorthold tenancy. Of course, Mr Gove’s Renters (Reform) Bill also did this. This policy and the deporting of migrants to Rwanda were two of the most stupid things that the last Government did.

From the 1960s right the way through to the 1980s, rural housing was subject to severe constraints on both tenancies and rents. Rents set by the rent officer were extremely low, often providing zero return on capital and cash flow that was not enough even to keep the houses properly maintained. As mechanisation of farming continued, more and more houses became available to farmers. The big leap forward came in 1988 with the introduction of the assured shorthold tenancy. John MacGregor was the Secretary of State for Agriculture and Nick Ridley was at Environment—two fine Tory Ministers. The AST gave security of tenure through mutual agreement to both tenant and landlord for an initial period of six, 12 or 24 months, with annual rent reviews and the option of renewal on a rolling two-monthly basis. The AST has worked very well for 36 years. It seems batty to abolish it now; surely this is a case of “If it works, don’t fix it”.

The Conservatives changed the lease term to six months, in Committee in the Commons. This Government are jealous of that and have brought it back to just two months, virtually a non-term. As the courts in England are overwhelmed, it is extremely difficult to see how this can be policed. I very much took the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, about how the judicial review of these very high penalties of up to £40,000 can be done. It is not really for local authorities to impose such things. Sums of that size are a judicial matter. The proposed tribunals to adjudicate on rents will be as restrictive to, and much more costly than, the rent officer. Traditionally, the private rented sector has used the RPI rather than the CPI for annual rent reviews. Meanwhile the Unite union is agitating for the CPI, as others have mentioned today, and wage increase rents if they are lower.

Finally, I urge the Government to recognise that the private rented sector in housing is part of the capitalist system. Landlords are a form of entrepreneur. While their profession must certainly be monitored and called to account, with appropriate penalties for abuse, it must be allowed to attract investment. The rents at the moment are barely adequate to provide a return on capital, low as it may be. There are few properties which produce a taxable rent of 3%. Most of them are 2% or less.

I recognise that there are those, some of them in the Government, who dislike private landlords. However, I suspect that even the Chancellor would recognise that there are no economic resources available to replace the system. The Government have housing targets to reach. These are imperilled by the present Bill. Let us hope that the experience and expertise of your Lordships’ House will allow it to be improved.

Renters (Reform) Bill

Lord Marlesford Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 15th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests in the register as a Suffolk farmer with rented residential properties.

I will focus primarily on the rural implications of the Bill. I start from the premise that it is the role of the state to protect tenants—as it is to protect consumers, investors, savers, employees and everyone else—from abuse or exploitation. Of course, there are bad landlords, and they should be firmly and severely dealt with, but I am with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Frost, in that I do not accept that to allow tenants and landlords to enter into mutually agreed contracts is wrong.

During the 1960s and right into the late 1980s, rural housing was subject to severe constraints on both tenancies and rents. Rents set by rent officers were extremely low, often providing zero return on capital, and cash flow was so fragile that there was no surplus to finance the proper maintenance—let alone improvement and modernisation—of rural dwellings. Farmers were advised to sell all the housing they did not need for their own employees. The supply of affordable housing accommodation withered and its condition deteriorated.

As mechanisation advanced, farmers found themselves with a surplus of housing. The big leap forward came with the introduction of the assured shorthold tenancy in 1988. John MacGregor was then the Secretary of State for Agriculture and Nick Ridley was the Secretary of State for the Environment. The AST gave security by mutual agreement to both tenants and landlords for initial fixed terms of six, 12 or 24 months, with annual rent reviews and the ability to continue leases on a rolling two-monthly basis. The AST has worked very well for 36 years. It has greatly reduced the proportion of inadequate rural housing, yet Clause 1 of the Bill abolishes AST. This is inexplicable. Section 21 of course needs reform—no legislation that could be described as no-fault eviction can survive—but that does not justify throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Significantly, the Government seem to have recognised the folly by modifying the Bill in the Commons to allow a fixed term of six months. If that is legitimate, why not 12 months, with the continuation of a two-monthly basis? There are market forces the Government do not seem to understand. The long and troubled journey of the Bill through the other place has already become a deterrent to the supply of affordable housing. Supplying housing for rent is now a key diversification for farmers, at a time when agriculture in Britain and elsewhere is in crisis due to falling yields and prices; it is a very relevant factor.

Affordable housing needs a clear definition. Traditional government guidance that rents should be no higher than 30% of gross tenant income is a valid test. Wise landlords would apply clear financial tests in selecting tenants. Landlords cannot be expected to subsidise tenants whose job insecurity—of whom there are many—makes them vulnerable to being unable to fulfil their rental obligations. The Work Foundation at Lancaster University claims that in 2023 1.4 million people were in severely insecure work and were living in privately rented accommodation. This is why it is better to subsidise tenants rather than houses. That is the role of housing benefit. To subsidise rents would mean that changes in tenants’ circumstances would result in tenants getting either more or less than they needed. This has profound implications for public finances.

Rents are a return on capital. Housing supply in the private rented sector depends on adequate rents. It is unlikely that a gross rental return of much less than 3%, from which the costs of maintenance and administration have to be deducted before arriving at any taxable profit, will produce much more housing for letting.

The Bill proposes an ombudsman to adjudicate between tenants and landlords. This may be a sound idea, provided that it is not a signal for the return of the rent officer. There is no justification for also retaining the First-tier Tribunal system in addition to the ombudsman. Membership of the ombudsman scheme will be mandatory for private landlords; I hope the Minister will offer some guide on the expected cost to landlords. The ombudsman will collect a great deal of information about both landlords and tenants. Surprisingly, the privacy implications have not been spelled out, and this aspect does not seem to have been raised in another place. We will have to deal with this in Committee. It would be quite wrong to publicise details of all individual leases. There can be no obligation on landlords to make such information public. Provided market rents are not exceeded, landlords should be entitled, at their discretion, to offer lower rents to particular people for good reason.

My overall concern is that the Bill has not been properly prepared or fully debated before it came to your Lordships’ House. It is crucial that this important and potentially useful legislation should not be enacted with details of crucial aspects of its administration left to secondary legislation at a later date—we simply cannot legislate like that. That would mean regression from increasing private sector supply of good housing and fair rents to the bad old days of bureaucratic domination. An overall consequence could be the taxpayer having to finance an increasing supply of housing for rent, with little hope of the resources to do so. Frankly, the problem I see with the Bill is that it is a superficial political solution to a tough economic and migration challenge.

Neighbourhood Services: Government Support

Lord Marlesford Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Adonis]

The point is the same, my Lords. If we are to tackle this housing crisis, what is needed is a bold new programme led by district councils and lower-tier authorities—because they are housing authorities—of building new council housing. They should work in partnership with housing associations to improve dramatically the stock of social housing and affordable housing, which is a significant part of the social crisis that the country faces.

One of the biggest changes in public policy over the past 40 years has been that the provision of social and affordable housing, which was regarded as a core function of the state until the 1980s, has totally ceased to be. We need to be self-critical in this: I do not think that the Government of which I was a part did nearly enough. We thought that market-based solutions would meet needs for lower-cost housing; they manifestly have not.

I spent, for my sins, a large part of last night reading the third volume of Charles Moore’s biography of Margaret Thatcher, which I recommend to your Lordships—indeed, some of those whom I see here in the House today feature in it. It is an important contribution to political history. One of the most remarkable things about it is that council housing, which used to be one of the biggest political issues in the 1960s and 1970s, does not feature at all in that volume—it covers the years from 1987 to the end of Lady Thatcher’s career—except in one passing reference to council house sales, which was the only council house policy that Margaret Thatcher had in her 11 and a half years in Downing Street.

The facts are now the facts: the average home in England this year costs eight times more to buy than the average salary; the average share of income that young families spend on housing has trebled over the past 50 years; because of the shortage of social and affordable housing, the number of people living in the private rented sector has doubled in the past 20 years, and private renters spend on average 41%—nearly half—of their household income on rent. Surprise, surprise, a majority, 57%, of private renters are now struggling to pay housing costs, and one in three low-earning renters has to borrow money to pay their rent. Some 800,000 people who are renting cannot afford to save even £10 a month; 27% of private renters receive housing benefit or the housing element of universal credit, which is approximately 1.3 million households nationwide. Meanwhile, the Government spend £21 billion a year on housing benefit because of the very high level of rents, which they have jacked up by removing subsidy and not building more social homes. Last year, only 6,463 new social homes were built nationwide. There are about 1.5 million fewer social homes today than there were in 1980.

I do not want to do death by statistics, but I think that your Lordships get the picture. What has essentially happened in the last generation is that we totally stopped building new social homes publicly. Housing associations filled the gap to a very modest extent, but not nearly sufficiently. We have had significant population growth in that time, alongside the cessation of social home building; a substantial proportion of the country cannot get near the affordable housing ladder, let alone buy housing; and we have a private rented sector in which Rachmanite, disgraceful, slum-type conditions are increasingly common, with local authorities having neither the power nor the resources to deal with them.

What should be the policy? It is very clear to me, because to all big questions there is usually a simple and correct answer—there is often a simple and wrong answer, too. The simple and correct answer to this crisis is for local authorities to start building social housing again. They should do this in partnership with housing associations, but they should be the prime movers because they are the public authorities—and they should build social housing at the level at which they did in the 1960s and 1970s, to deal with the chronic housing crisis.

At the moment there is precious little movement towards this. It is true that councils are building houses again in a very modest way, compared to the period from the mid-1980s until a few years ago when they were building none at all. But it is very modest; it is scratching the surface, and we now need a revolution in policy. To give some idea, the London Borough of Lambeth, for which I was looking at the statistics recently, is building fewer than 100 new social homes a year; it needs to build 1,000-plus to deal with this issue. So we need about a tenfold increase in the rate of new building at the moment. To put that in context, in just that one London borough, Lambeth—I am sorry to keep referring to London and the south-east, which may offend the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, but there are big problems there, too—the council house waiting list is 28,000. That is in a London borough that is able to build fewer than 100 new homes a year. We need to move these two figures much, much closer to each other.

The noble Viscount, who always does his best to reply to our debates, will I hope be able to give us some facts, and I would like to put a few questions to him. The situation that we are in now, which I have seen very often in public policy, is that everyone admits there is a problem—I do not think that anyone who follows me in this debate will say that there is not a big problem—but the difficulty that we face is that the policies do not remotely match the scale of the problem that most people have identified. At the moment, the noble Viscount and his party are in government, so this is a charge which faces them as to what they are doing about it. They have accepted that there needs to be new social housebuilding, but they are doing precious little about it.

I have three specific questions about policy. First, if there is to be significant new housebuilding led by local authorities, it can come from only one of two sources: either grant funding from central government and/or the capacity of local authorities themselves to borrow in advance of the receipts that they will get from then renting out the social housing. Of course, it was a combination of the two that produced the scale of council and social housebuilding in the 1960s and 1970s. The Government have introduced two policies in this respect. They have restored some grant funding to local authorities in respect of housing, but the amount is pitifully small and typically provides only for less than one-third of the cost of new social units. So what is the Government’s policy going forward? Are they going to significantly increase grant funding in respect of new social housing provided by local authorities and, if so—since I am told that unless that grant funding is in excess of 50%, it is very difficult to get building at volume—will the Government be prepared to look at increasing the grant funding to 50% of the cost of providing new social housing?

In respect of borrowing, the situation is more urgent. What we are seeing at the moment is a serious regression in policy on the part of the Government. One of the most welcome things that Theresa May did in her time as Prime Minister was announce an end to the borrowing cap in respect of local authorities building new housing. This was a deeply felt restraint on local authorities that had applied for the best part of a generation. Even though they could borrow cheaply from the Public Works Loan Board—which was the way that local authorities borrowed—and were able to service debt from rents to build new social housing, they were banned from undertaking the borrowing. Theresa May lifted that borrowing cap, which was extremely welcome, but earlier this month the Government announced unilaterally, with no consultation—smuggled out in a Statement on one of those many days when there were many other Brexit-related announcements so that almost no one noticed—that the borrowing rate from the Public Works Loan Board was going to be increase overnight from 1.81% to 2.82%.

We should let that sink for a moment: an increase of nearly 50% overnight in the borrowing rate levied on local authorities in the only place that they can borrow— except at the going market rates, which of course would make all of this totally unaffordable. The word on the street, which I put to the noble Viscount so that he can deal with it when he replies, is that the reason this was done is that the Treasury, which never wanted the borrowing cap lifted in the first place, is now trying to sabotage the whole principle of public borrowing by local authorities by massively increasing the interest rate, hoping that no one will notice.

I was, until the Brexit crisis came along, chairing the National Infrastructure Commission, so I know only too well how the Treasury works in these matters. That interpretation of what is happening seems to me to be extremely plausible. Can the noble Viscount tell the House why the borrowing rate from the Public Works Loan Board for local authorities wanting to borrow to build new housing has been increased from 1.81% to 2.82%? Is this a fixed policy? Finally, because I am always trying to be constructive—and I know the noble Viscount is, too—will he consider reviewing that policy? Will he meet me and other noble Lords who are concerned about this issue to discuss public borrowing by local authorities to build new social housing and how it can be done on an affordable basis?

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

Is the noble Lord satisfied that there is space in Lambeth to provide housing for 28,000 more people? It is all very well to say that we have to provide housing for people who need it, but if you are talking about a particular area they want to live in, there has to be the space for the housing.

[Lord Adonis]

Yes, I am satisfied, and I would be very glad to do a walking tour of the London Borough of Lambeth to explain to the noble Lord how it can be done, starting with the huge issue of the redevelopment of Waterloo station. It desperately needs redeveloping; Waterloo is the biggest terminus in Europe and if it were redeveloped it could provide huge opportunities for new social housing. If the noble Lord is up for it, we will do it and we will work out how we can provide that housing—and I would like the Minister to come along, too, because then something might actually happen.