Renters’ Rights Bill

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Lords Chamber

Report (3rd Day)

Relevant document: 14th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee. Scottish and Welsh legislative consent granted.

15:21

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

My Lords, before we start the debate on the first group, I want to repeat earlier reminders on declaring interests for, I hope, the final time. As we set out previously, noble Lords should declare relevant interests at each stage of proceedings on a Bill. That means that in their first contribution on Report, noble Lords must declare any relevant financial interests in a specific but brief way. Declarations do not need to be repeated in subsequent speeches, so if a declaration has been made on Report, it does not need to be made again.

While I have the attention of the House, I remind noble Lords that when pressing or withdrawing an amendment, speeches should be short. As set out in paragraph 8.79B of the Companion:

“Members … pressing or withdrawing an amendment should … be brief and need not respond to all the points made during the debate, nor revisit points made when moving the amendment”.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My Lords, due to an error, Amendment 86, which has already been debated, does not appear on the Marshalled List and has not been disposed of. I therefore begin by calling Amendment 86.

Amendment 86 not moved.

Clause 41: Financial penalties for breach of anti-discrimination provisions

Amendment 87

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

87: Clause 41, page 58, line 4, leave out “on the balance of probabilities” and insert “beyond reasonable doubt”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, in conjunction with another amendment in the name of Lord Keen of Elie to clause 58, imposes a uniform standard of proof – beyond reasonable doubt – where the local housing authority imposes a financial penalty.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by referring to my interests as recorded in the register. I add that I am the proprietor of properties in London that are the subject of tenancy agreements and are managed by an agent.

In this group we have Amendments 87 and 88 in similar terms. Amendment 87 deals with an issue in Clause 41. It concerns the right of a local authority association to impose financial penalties and the burden of proof on that authority in respect of those penalties. I seek your Lordships’ leave to put this into context. Clause 41, on page 58 of the Bill, provides that:

“A local housing authority may impose a financial penalty under this subsection on a person if satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the person has breached a requirement imposed by … regulations made under section 40”.


Clause 58, on page 90, refers to a local housing authority being able to

“impose a financial penalty under this subsection on a person if satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the person has breached the prohibition imposed by section 57”.

But in Clause 67, which can be found on page 109, we have the provision that:

“A local housing authority may impose a financial penalty on a person if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person has … breached regulations”.


It is again a regulatory offence, but with a significantly different burden of proof placed on the same local housing authority.

Clause 92, on page 126, provides that:

“A local housing authority may impose a financial penalty on a person if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person has … breached a requirement imposed by section 83(1), (2) or (3)”.


That, in turn, refers to certain regulatory requirements that may be imposed on landlords.

So where do we find ourselves? We find ourselves in a situation in which a local authority is to be empowered to impose financial sanctions on landlords for breaches of regulations and yet, depending on which regulation is referred to, the burden of proof shifts between “balance of probabilities” and “beyond reasonable doubt”. The first point I make is that there is clearly a need for some kind of uniform standard in this legislation. What on earth will a local authority do when faced with the prospect that there may be multiple breaches of regulations, but different standards of proof applied in respect of whether they can find a breach? It produces a nonsense result.

Indeed, in circumstances where a local housing authority is entitled to impose very serious financial penalties running into thousands of pounds for breaches of regulations, I suggest that it is only appropriate that the relevant standard of proof should be that in any criminal proceedings—namely, “beyond reasonable doubt”. Otherwise, there is not only the risk of confusion, because of the different standards applied between different regulations in the legislation, but the very real risk of wrongful penalties being imposed in circumstances where a local housing authority thinks, “There may have been a breach of regulations—it’s in the balance, but we think there probably is—so we’ll fine them £7,000”. On the next alleged breach of regulation, they would say, “It’s in the balance, so we can’t possibly impose any kind of financial penalty”. It really is a nonsense.

It also, I respectfully suggest, raises a question of fairness and proportionality. Is it truly fair that we should have one set of regulations that can be met by way of a breach “on balance” and another that requires a proper standard of proof—namely, “beyond reasonable doubt”? It will also place pressure on local housing associations and their resources. Are they really equipped to distinguish between those two standards of proof for different sets of regulations?

Amendment 87 would amend the reference in Clause 41 to a housing association proceeding on the “balance of probabilities” and substitute the requirement for the standard to be “beyond reasonable doubt”. In Amendment 88 I seek to make the same amendment in order that Clauses 41 and 58, about the powers of a housing association and breaches of regulation, are simply brought into line with the provisions of Clauses 67 and 92 of the same Bill. I beg to move.

15:30

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 104 in my name in this group and, in doing so, I declare my interest as a trustee of the Nationwide Foundation. First, I thank my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage for the excellent meeting we had, together with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and renter groups Safer Renting, ACORN and the Renters’ Reform Coalition. I also thank my noble friend for the subsequent letter she sent, responding to the points raised at the meeting and for the additional conversations that I understand have taken place between Safer Renting and her officials.

Amendment 104 seeks to change the standard of proof required for rent repayment orders, based on offences under the Protection from Eviction Act. Currently, tenants must prove their case to a criminal standard, beyond reasonable doubt, even though these are civil proceedings in a civil tribunal. This change would make rent repayment orders a realistic option for renters who are victims of illegal eviction and harassment—serious offences that cause immense harm. As we know, most illegal evictions and harassment occur behind closed doors, without witnesses, and I appreciate that my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage recognises that these offences are harder to prove than other rent repayment order offences. The available evidence rarely meets the criminal standard, but may clearly satisfy the civil standard of balance of probabilities.

Civil claims for illegal eviction and harassment already use the civil standard and can carry far higher penalties. The definition of the civil wrongs of illegal eviction and harassment in the Housing Act 1988 uses the same definition as in the Protection from Eviction Act. For all intents and purposes, there is no distinction between the conduct targeted by both laws. Aligning the standard in rent repayment cases would bring consistency, fairness and a real access to redress.

The problem is clear. Research shows that at least 16,000 illegal evictions occurred in 2021-22, yet there were only 31 successful rent repayment orders made for those offences. This shows that the current system deters valid claims and does not provide a realistic route to redress for renters. It is vital that tenants can enforce their rights against criminal landlords. Yes, it is a small minority of landlords, but they are criminal landlords whose impact on renters’ lives, health and well-being is immense. As we heard in Committee, because the rent repayment mechanism is ineffective, these criminals gamble on breaking the law, knowing how hard it is for tenants to prove their case. Amendment 104 would make justice more attainable for renters and allow them to take a leading role in holding landlords to account.

I note from my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage’s letter on this issue—copied to me and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell—that the Government are minded not to change their view on the standard of proof at this point. Of course, this is disappointing. However, I very much appreciate my noble friend’s acknowledgement that rent repayment orders are not currently working as well as they should for illegal eviction and harassment offences. As well as my noble friend’s commitment to monitor the impact of changes to rent repayment orders, this is very welcome. Collecting the right data will be required to assess whether rent repayment orders are working as intended in cases of illegal eviction and harassment after this Bill becomes law.

Moreover, I very much welcome my noble friend’s commitment to continue to work with noble Lords and stakeholders to assess whether rent repayment orders are working for illegal eviction and harassment offences, with a view for potential changes down the line. I ask my noble friend: can we now start gathering the evidence needed to assess the scale and impact of the problem? In addition to the report as set out by the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Best—I very much support Amendment 113—will my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage consider publishing PRS enforcement data, provided by local authorities, to include a record of the number of reports of suspected illegal eviction or harassment received by the authority, so we can get a better understanding of the scale of the problem? Will she consider mandating local authorities to provide the department with PRS enforcement data, instead of data reporting being voluntary, so again we can get a more complete dataset? Will she work with the Ministry of Justice to collect and publish regular data on rent repayment orders to facilitate monitoring of the system in respect of the volume and success of applications alleging illegal eviction and harassment?

Finally, as well as the issues renters face accessing redress through rent repayment orders, since 2012 there has been an 80% reduction in legal aid applications for bringing cases of illegal eviction and harassment in the civil courts. Therefore, if at all possible, could my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage assist me, Safer Renting and other noble Lords in getting a meeting with a Minister or an official at the MoJ to discuss the availability of legal aid for civil cases involving illegal eviction and harassment?

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. I have also enjoyed my encounters with the Minister, with her, to discuss these issues. I rise to speak to Amendment 110 in my name. I am very grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Best, who have added their names. Between them, they bring unsurpassed knowledge of both policing and housing matters, which are both very relevant to this amendment. I am also grateful to the organisations Safer Renting and ACORN for their assistance in highlighting the need for this amendment, and of course to the Bill Office for its clear and effective drafting.

This amendment is distinct from others in this group, as it does not deal with standards of proof. Rather, as I outlined at Second Reading and in Committee, it addresses the difficulties faced by those at the bottom end of the rental market and most at risk from abusive landlords. It is these people, the economically and socially vulnerable, who are the most likely to face illegal and sometimes forcible evictions. They are often also the least equipped to resist such behaviours.

A core problem that emerged in discussions with tenant organisations at the sharp end is insufficient clarity of understanding about what the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 requires of the police. There is a widespread and incorrect belief among police officers that illegal evictions are civil matters. This has resulted in a tiny number of prosecutions for illegal evictions. Indeed, statistics show that the police have not acted in 91% of cases.

I do not want to stretch the House’s patience with detailed case studies, but three quick examples will give colour to the types of incidents we are concerned about. A tenant returned to their flat to find that the landlord had changed the locks. When the police were contacted, they threatened to arrest the tenant for obstruction of the landlord and assisted in the removal of the tenant’s belongings. In other cases, landlords used tactics such as intimidation and turning off the water supply, as well as threatening and actually using force. When tenants called the police, they were told that it was a civil matter and to call back when an actual crime was being committed. In other cases, tenants went to the police station, but were turned away repeatedly on the basis that such evictions are a civil matter.

In Committee, I put down an amendment to clear up this misunderstanding of the law and improve co-ordination between the police and local authorities. It did not gain government support, which I find very disappointing, not least given the Bill’s avowed focus on those most in need of help. The Government’s response did address the co-ordination point, citing extra work for the authorities and police, and the instance of Liverpool, where the Minister has personal experience of such co-ordination working well.

Tenant bodies involved in the issues reflected in my amendment met with the Minister, and afterwards I received a copy of a letter from the Minister to them. I am, of course, very grateful for the Minister’s considerable engagement, but that letter does not address the role of the police in preventing or stopping illegal evictions before or as they happen. Where it does refer to the substance of today’s amendment, it says that the abolition of Section 21 will

“strengthen the tenants’ ability to argue that they were unlawfully forced out of their homes”.

With the greatest respect, that is very wide of the issue. It is a point for legal argument that may come up if the evicted tenant ever manages, or indeed dares, or can afford, to bring a legal claim against the landlord who put them out on the street. I remind noble Lords that we are dealing here with landlords who care little for the niceties of the law—people whom the Minister’s letter refers to as a

“small minority of unscrupulous landlords”.

But we have repeatedly been told that the purpose of the Bill is exactly to tackle these unscrupulous landlords.

This amendment has dropped reference to local authorities and focuses fully on the core legal issue. It requires a report to establish the level of understanding among tenants, landlords and the police of the criminal nature of illegal evictions and clarification of the correct legal situation, and the incorporation of that legal position and how it should be dealt with in the training of the police.

This is a modest amendment, but it is critical for those facing or experiencing illegal evictions or who feel powerless in the face of the violent actions of their landlords and find that the police seem to be against them when they should be protecting them. Not least, it is critical for police officers themselves, who are trying to follow and apply the law and do the right thing.

In Committee, I asked the Government to bring forward their own amendment to address this issue. They have chosen not to do so, instead writing to say that they are

“working towards updating the department’s guidance”.

That is simply not sufficient when we have one of the few opportunities in the Bill to address a real and terrible day-to-day experience of vulnerable renters. On this modest amendment, I believe we should stand firm. Its requirements are clear, deliverable and highly impactful on those most in need of our help through the Bill. I will, of course, listen to what the Minister says in response, but I anticipate seeking the view of the House on this amendment.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 87, 88 and 103, which I have signed. I add my thanks to the Minister, who has engaged with me on these amendments, among others in the Bill. She has always been courteous and has had good points of view.

These amendments were originally drafted by the late noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. To double-shot Lord Etherton’s efforts in this area, I signed them in Committee. The amendments have been taken over and very ably introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie.

Lord Etherton viewed this selection of amendments as being his effort to try to manage a quasi-judicial process. He was looking at it, of course, with a very practised eye, having been the Master of the Rolls. He was fully knowledgeable on the various large civil penalties that are in the Housing and Planning Act 2016, for which the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government issued a 20-page memorandum to help local authorities through this particular maze of quasi-judicial process.

The problem, as Lord Etherton saw it, was that this was not a level playing field for local authorities. The best local authorities would have plenty of highly trained resources to look into a quasi-judicial matter with great fairness, and promptly—promptness being important for both sides of any argument. However, the local authorities whose resources were most stretched or at the bottom end of the quality scale would produce problems. Lord Etherton felt that it was important to set the law in this area so that it would be not for the best or the average local authority but at a reasonably modest rate, so that every local authority could execute, with fairness, whatever quasi-judicial issues they were dealing with. Therefore, with Amendments 87 and 88, he was keen that the standard of proof should move from the balance of probabilities to beyond reasonable doubt. He felt that was more in keeping with how the Housing and Planning Act 2016 had turned out.

Moving on to Amendment 103, Lord Etherton noted that there were some large penalties in that Act, the highest penalty being £30,000. The £40,000 penalties we see in this Bill are, I suppose, simply £30,000 grossed up for inflation. He was not worried necessarily about £40,000 as an amount—it was consistent with the £30,000, as he saw it—but he was worried that, under the Housing and Planning Act 2016, the £30,000 penalties were available only where the mental element was intention and not for offences where the mental element was recklessness.

Of course, there is a great difficulty in the law for deciding what the difference is between negligence, recklessness and intention. It is very much something on which, in the judicial process, a great deal of training is given to try to allow courts and judges to be utterly consistent up and down the land so that one has clarity for negligence, recklessness and intention. Lord Etherton’s feeling was that recklessness is very difficult. The 20-page memo for the Housing and Planning Act 2016 will be considerably longer if one is going to try to educate local authorities on what “recklessness” truly means. So he was very keen to remove recklessness from Clause 93. I would be very grateful if I could hear where the Minister feels Lord Etherton was wrong in his analysis on that point.

15:45

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, to which I added my name. Sadly, he is right: the police do not have sufficient knowledge about the law changes, which are now quite old. I suspect the reason is that the complaints tend to be infrequent, but of course it can be a Catch-22 because, if people do not think that their complaints will be listened to, they do not tend to make them. But, in the process, that means that the police have probably not kept pace with the law as it has changed, and with the needs of complainants.

Traditionally, the police did get involved, even in civil disputes, usually to prevent a breach of the peace, because people were worried there would be violence. Sometimes, a tenant might have access to a firearm, so there would be pre-work to make sure that that was removed from the scene so things could not get more serious.

This seems a reasonable step. I could not necessarily give the amendment that level of support in Committee because I thought there was a danger that it was directing the police to do certain things. All this tries to do is establish the level of the problem and what can be done about it so that the police perform their duty. The risk is that, at the moment, they are not.

Obviously, the amendment may or may not be accepted, but there are some fairly straightforward ways in which it could be helped. The Chief Inspector of Constabulary goes around and inspects every force every year and, if it were put on the list of things to look at, that would certainly make the police think about it. Tenants having a single point of contact within a force would mean that at least one person—or two or three people, or a department—could provide this knowledge and expertise for the officers on the street. That would be helpful. Carrying on as we are is not fair on the tenants, and it is not proper if Parliament has decided that this is a criminal act and the police have a role to play. So I support this amendment; it is a reasonable step. If the Government do not accept it, they might want to make it clear how they will address the gap.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I will briefly support Amendment 110 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Hogan-Howe. I am grateful to Safer Renting, ACORN and the Renters’ Reform Coalition for bringing this matter to our attention. My noble friends have noted that this is a milder and more focused version of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, debated in Committee, calling only for a review of the legislation that covers the duties of the police in respect of illegal evictions.

Although the amendment places a very modest obligation on the Government—namely, simply to publish a report on the position—this would be a good first step toward addressing a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs. It is clear that the laws against illegal and sometimes violent evictions are not being enforced. I see from the statistics that there were over 16,000 illegal evictions in 2022-23, and the police did not act in over 90% of cases. The underlying problem is surely not because of any malice on the part of the police officers but because of ignorance of what should be done and of the priority this should receive. The report that this amendment would elicit would clarify matters and make the recommendations that are needed to end wrongful and criminal practices by the very worst landlords. I am delighted to support the amendment.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, Amendments 87, 88 and 104, as we have heard, seek to raise the burden of proof to that of the criminal standard, “beyond reasonable doubt”, from the civil standard, “on the balance of probabilities”, consistently across the Bill. All the amendments in the next group, on financial penalties, seek to lower the amount of money an enforcing council can fine a landlord. This group and the next are, to me, heads and tails of the same coin. Seen together, both sets of amendments seek to considerably help landlords by raising the standard of proof for an offence and lowering the fine if they are in breach of it. We believe that it is a naked attempt to tilt the balance massively in favour of landlords in a dispute, when the power balance is already heavily in their favour, and to deter tenants from complaining and taking action.

We do not agree with anything that undermines two of the core principles of the Bill. The first is to act as a deterrent to bad landlords. We on these Benches keep saying, as does the Minister, that good landlords have nothing to fear from the Bill, and certainly not from this aspect, but the fines have to be tough enough and the burden of proof appropriate to a civil offence. The second is to increase penalties to bring them in line with similar penalties that can be issued already by enforcement authorities against landlords who breach legislation.

I want to look specifically at the amendments. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, with their forensic legal eyes, are looking at them in a particular way. I look at the unintended consequences for tenants. Amendment 87, on raising the burden of proof, relates to families claiming benefits. Refusing to rent to someone due to their claiming benefits is unlawful. However, with high demand, this form of discrimination is really hard to prove. It is often based on verbal rather than written evidence. This amendment would therefore make it significantly more difficult for recipients of benefits to hold their landlord to account for this discriminatory practice.

Similarly, Amendment 88 relates to bidding wars. It is absolutely right that the Bill will ban bidding wars. Too often, renters are pitted against each other for a home, driving up the cost of renting in the process. It is already very hard to prove, without making it even harder by raising the burden of proof. Raising that standard of proof would make it significantly more difficult for a local authority to enforce the ban on bidding wars, especially due to the nature of the evidence in such cases.

Amendment 103 relates to the database that the Bill will set up. Noble Lords will know from Committee that I am a database believer. However, without the right data and information, such a database risks losing its utility for all tenants, prospective tenants and local authorities. This amendment would provide landlords with a lovely loophole that they could potentially exploit. It would be very difficult to prove that the landlord had knowledge of the breach they committed, and the amendment would therefore allow landlords to contravene the new regulations without fear of enforcement. I acknowledge the complexity of this amendment and look forward to the Minister’s response. To us, all these amendments seek to undermine the protections for tenants, thus we are very much against them.

Let us now be positive, by turning to Amendment 104, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. She has explained the situation very clearly and we support her fully. This is a really positive move. Amendment 104 would reduce the burden of proof for a rent repayment order where an illegal eviction has taken place on the balance of probabilities—hence the connection to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. This is important, as “beyond reasonable doubt” is the criminal standard. It is just too hard at the moment for tenants to successfully get justice. Cases involving illegal evictions and harassment are typically really hard to prove to this standard; in far too many cases, where evidence is based on the word of the applicant, it is practically impossible.

A rent repayment order is not a criminal prosecution. Cases are settled in the First-tier Tribunal; there is no jury and it does not follow criminal procedural rules. There is no criminal sentence or criminal record for the respondent. There is no legal aid available for rent repayment order claims and thus applicants are often self-represented, with little help and no legal expertise. This is again why the higher criminal burden of proof is so inappropriate for this kind of action. It is virtually a non-action, as evidenced by the low numbers of rent repayment orders that are brought.

We need to consider the very serious possibility that, with the abolition of Section 21, there will be more illegal evictions. It is therefore important that a bigger deterrent is in place. This needs to be changed to “on the balance of probabilities”. It is really important not to confuse criminal and civil offences and their parallel burdens of proof.

This takes us neatly to Amendment 110, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Best—a formidable trio. I can tell the Minister that it will take a lot of political will to withstand their arguments. Amendment 110 clearly gets our support, should the noble Lords wish to test the opinion of the House.

We know from all the arguments in Committee that less than 1% of illegal evictions are successfully prosecuted and that a major part of the problem is exactly as has been enunciated: the police view these things as a civil matter or, even worse, assist the landlord, even though it is a criminal matter under the Protection from Eviction Act, or they refuse to get involved at all. I cannot think of anything worse than being illegally evicted from what I believe to be my home, with my goods and my family. There has to be a greater awareness and more training, which is the aim of the amendment. As this view seems to be shared by many important bodies, it has real credibility.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley for their amendments. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for his comments. We all miss the late Lord Etherton very much and I am very grateful to him for all the work he did on this. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and all the tenant groups that have taken time to speak to me about the amendments in this group.

Amendments 87 and 88 would require local authorities to meet the criminal rather than civil standard of proof when imposing civil penalties for rental discrimination and rental bidding breaches. The standard of proof we have chosen for these breaches is lower than that which applies to the imposition of financial penalties for breaches of other measures brought in by the Bill. This is because, unlike those other breaches, rental discrimination and rental bidding breaches cannot lead to a criminal offence if the conduct persists. Breaches of the rental bidding and rental discrimination requirements cannot result in the landlord being prosecuted or given a civil penalty of up to £40,000, and are subject only to the lower £7,000 maximum penalty. This means the jeopardy for landlords in relation to those breaches is significantly lower than for others in the Bill.

I point out—I hope the noble Lord finds this reassuring—that local authorities already impose civil penalties based on the civil standard of proof in other legislation; for example, in their enforcement of agent redress requirements. My view since Committee has therefore not changed. I consider it appropriate that local authorities need to prove these breaches to the civil standard, “on the balance of probabilities”, rather than the criminal standard, “beyond reasonable doubt”.

On Amendment 103, the PRS database depends on landlords providing accurate information to raise standards, protect tenants and support local authority enforcement. Retaining the reference to recklessness in the current wording of Clause 93 is essential to achieve this, by preventing dishonest landlords submitting false or misleading information. I reiterate the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that good landlords have nothing to fear from this legislation.

Recklessness is not a simple mistake; it involves taking an unjustified risk, and this wording is consistent with other, similar offences, including offences under the Housing Act 2004, under which local authorities already make prosecutions.

16:00

If we required proof of knowledge in every case, it would have a number of repercussions. It would make enforcement far more difficult; it would allow unscrupulous landlords to evade accountability; it would compromise the integrity of the PRS database, thereby undermining our goal in the Bill of raising standards and ensuring tenant safety; and it would be a disproportionate response given the safeguards and resourcing I set out in Committee.

By way of reminder, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, helpfully asked how a landlord who was alleged by a local authority to have committed an offence could appeal. I explained that there are safeguards. If a civil penalty is issued, the landlord has a right to make representations to the local authority, as well as a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal, which would then determine on the evidence whether the applicant had acted recklessly. In cases of prosecution, it will be for the magistrates’ court to decide whether the accused has been reckless.

The noble Lord also asked whether local authorities would have the resources required to enforce and administer this. I can again confirm that the Government have committed to funding new burdens arising from our assessment of the financial impact of the Bill, and that the income from civil penalties will also be available to local authorities to use for their enforcement activity.

It is appropriate for a serious offence to be committed through “recklessness” without requiring proof of knowledge, and we have accounted for this in our plans to resource local authority enforcement accordingly and allow a right of appeal for landlords.

Amendment 104 would reduce the standard of proof that needs to be met for rent repayment orders from criminal to civil when applied to the illegal eviction and harassment offences. The Government are quite clear that illegal eviction and harassment are unacceptable, and perpetrators need to be robustly punished. That is why we are giving local authorities the power to impose civil penalties of up to £40,000 for illegal eviction and harassment offences.

I thank my noble friend Lady Kennedy for her helpful engagement on this and the very useful discussion we had. As she knows, I am very sympathetic to the intentions of her amendment. Currently, illegal eviction and harassment too often go unpunished, as we have heard from my noble friend and other noble Lords, and there are too few rent repayment orders for these offences. However, I have several concerns. Rent repayment orders are effective because they provide a significant financial deterrent to landlords committing certain offences, and an incentive for tenants to take action when their landlord breaks the law. Lowering the standard of proof could distort the clear link between the severity of the offence and the scale of the penalty. This could lead to inconsistency and unpredictability in awards and decisions, undermining the regime’s credibility as a tool for both punishment and deterrence.

I recognise that illegal eviction and harassment offences are difficult for tenants to prove. The Government will be publishing new tenant-facing rent repayment order guidance, which will include information about how to gather the right type of evidence for these offences. The Government consider rent repayment orders to be a critical part of the private rented sector enforcement system and we are very keen that they work as well as possible for illegal eviction and harassment.

My noble friend Lady Kennedy raised important questions about the availability of data on illegal eviction and harassment, rent repayment orders and the availability of legal aid for these offences. We have introduced a new duty in Clause 1(10) of the Bill to require local authorities to provide the Government with information about the exercise of their functions under landlord legislation. This includes the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. This duty will be used to mandate the provision of data by local housing authorities from 2026-27.

We are currently undertaking voluntary data collection to help refine the data we will require. We expect data returns to include information on complaints received from tenants and enforcement action taken in relation to illegal eviction and harassment. We are also committed to working with Safer Renting and others to monitor the effectiveness of rent repayment orders in punishing and deterring illegal eviction and harassment in the new system, and we will consider whether further changes are needed. The details of all rent repayment order cases are already publicly available online. We will work with the Ministry of Justice and HM Courts & Tribunals Service to explore how we can make this data more accessible and useful.

Free, non-means-tested legal advice is available through the Housing Loss Prevention Advice Service for people at risk of repossession proceedings, loss of their home or illegal eviction. I will of course be very happy to pass on to the Ministry of Justice my noble friend Lady Kennedy’s request for a meeting. We will continue to work with my noble friend and relevant stakeholders to monitor rent repayment orders’ effectiveness in the new system and consider whether further changes are needed.

Finally, on Amendment 110 from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, I thank him for his continued engagement throughout the course of the Bill on this issue and others, both in the Chamber and beyond. I am sympathetic to the intention of Amendment 110, but I believe its aims can be achieved without further legislative intervention and in a more timely and efficient way which will better suit the needs of tenants.

The Government agree that those responsible for illegally evicting tenants from their homes should be met with robust enforcement action. That is why we have given local authorities the power to issue financial penalties for the first time for this offence of up to £40,000 as an alternative to prosecution.

The Government are already actively working with colleagues in the Home Office and the police to explore how we might increase awareness and enforcement of illegal eviction offences. We hope that this collaboration will improve awareness of police powers relating to the small minority of landlords who would seek to illegally evict a tenant. We are also working with local authority stakeholders to understand how they can work with the police to enforce against illegal eviction. This will be used to identify examples of best practice for joint working in order to help inform the Government’s approach.

The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, made a very good point about His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary. Back in a distant life, I was chief of staff to a chief constable, and I remember the inspection process very well. I will pass his suggestion on to Home Office colleagues.

Beyond this, the Government are updating the illegal eviction and harassment guidance, as noble Lords have referred to. We want to make it clear that illegal eviction is a criminal, not a civil, offence, and tenants who have been illegally evicted may call the police, who have the powers to prevent illegal eviction. This guidance is being developed in collaboration with a wide range of stakeholders from across the sector. The examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and by other stakeholders when I met with the renters’ bodies, clearly illustrate how important ongoing work on this will be.

I hope that the commitments I have made today will provide some reassurance, and with this in mind I respectfully ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

I am obliged to noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I make a number of observations. First, I sympathise with the observations made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, about the conduct of those she identifies as criminal landlords. But before someone should be stigmatised and identified as a criminal, they should be guilty of an offence that leads to them being stigmatised as a criminal. That should not be done on a balance of probabilities.

The relevant standard of proof in regard to criminality is “beyond reasonable doubt”. Indeed, where there is uncertainty about whether conduct is civil or criminal—a point brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell—it is important to ensure either that you can make that clear distinction, or that you understand that the relevant standard of proof must be that which is fair to both parties.

I have to disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, when she suggests that, where it is difficult to prove a case, you should reduce the burden of proof. The consequences of that, if developed, are very wide-ranging indeed. We know that there are many areas of criminal prosecution where it is extremely difficult to secure a conviction, but no one would suggest that it is appropriate in these circumstances simply to reduce the burden of proof.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

Given that we are not talking about criminal offences—we are talking about civil offences—and given the power imbalance between a landlord and a tenant, will the noble and learned Lord at least accept that by lowering the burden of proof we would allow the tenant to feel that they might have a voice and could possibly bring something? Otherwise, his amendment is, in effect, saying, “Well, just don’t bother. The burden of proof is too high, so please carry on with your poor behaviour”. This is civil conduct and behaviour.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

I do not accept the proposition advanced by the noble Baroness at all. In circumstances where you are going to stigmatise somebody’s conduct as criminal, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, pointed out, it is appropriate that there should be a relevant standard of proof. You are not taking away anyone’s voice in that context.

I come on briefly to deal with the helpful contributions from the Minister and in particular welcome her observation that inconsistency in legislation undermines a regime’s credibility. That is very much in point here, because I cannot accept as accurate her suggestion that you can distinguish the provisions in Clauses 41 and 58 from later provisions of the Bill on the basis that the latter lead to greater jeopardy and, as she put it, could result in a criminal offence. I merely remind noble Lords of what Clauses 67 and 92 actually say. Clause 67 says:

“A local housing authority may impose a financial penalty on a person if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person has … breached regulations under section 65(1)”—


that is not a criminal offence; it is a breach of civil regulations. Clause 92 says:

“A local housing authority may impose a financial penalty on a person if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person has … breached a requirement imposed by section 83(1), (2) or (3)”.


That is not a criminal offence. Again, what is being underlined here is the very point that the Minister wanted to avoid: the inconsistency in the legislation which is liable to undermine the regime’s credibility. It appears to me that there is a need, if nothing else, for consistency with regard to the obligations imposed by this series of provisions and regulations. I would therefore move to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 87.

16:12

Division 1

Ayes: 237

---

Conservative: 188
Crossbench: 36
Non-affiliated: 6
Democratic Unionist Party: 3
Ulster Unionist Party: 3
Labour: 1

Noes: 223

---

Labour: 143
Liberal Democrat: 61
Crossbench: 9
Non-affiliated: 5
Green Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

16:23

Clause 58: Financial penalties

Amendment 88

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

88: Clause 58, page 90, line 33, leave out “on the balance of probabilities” and insert “beyond reasonable doubt”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, in conjunction with another amendment in the name of Lord Keen of Elie name to clause 41, imposes a uniform standard of proof – beyond reasonable doubt – where the local housing authority imposes a financial penalty.

Amendment 88 agreed.

Clause 59: Penalties for unlawful eviction or harassment of occupier

Amendment 89

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

89: Clause 59, page 92, line 18, leave out “£40,000” and insert “£7,000”
Member’s explanatory statement
This limits the local housing authority’s power to impose a financial penalty to £7,000.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 89 is to Clause 59 and addresses the question of the penalty proposed in that provision, which is £40,000. Under the amendment, that would revert to the same level of penalty for other provisions in the Bill of £7,000, on the basis that £40,000 is simply excessive.

If we are to have enforcement regarding the various provisions in the Bill, consistency and uniformity are to be welcomed. In the context of a regulatory obligation as contained in Clause 59, it is appropriate that the level of penalty should be £7,000. I beg to move.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments on the financial penalties raises the very important point of how local authorities are informed of the landlord’s breaches and hence are in a position to impose financial penalties. Without that, there can be no imposition of financial penalties. This issue was raised in our last debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, relating to police failures.

A major thrust throughout this Bill is to curb—or, rather optimistically, to stop—rogue landlords acting illegally. Therefore, we need to realistically identify the rogue landlords. It may sound trite, but they are rogues who have every intention to exploit the law to their benefit or ignore it altogether. It is no good legislating for financial penalties unless the rogue landlord’s breaches are identified and brought to the notice of local authorities so that financial penalties can be applied.

Under this Bill, commendable new schemes are being set up. First, there is the private rental sector ombudsman scheme. Secondly, there is the private rental sector database scheme. Thirdly, there are the private sector rent payment orders, otherwise known as RPOs. However, each of these schemes relies on the landlord’s breaches being reported. Moreover, if these breaches are reported to the ombudsman, it is doubtful that the ombudsman, in this entirely civil procedure, has any right to report on the landlord’s breaches to the local authorities. The major potential reporter is the wronged tenant, but history shows that wronged tenants are very reluctant, for obvious reasons, to report their landlords. The answer must therefore be to legislate sensibly and to go for measures that will be most effective against rogue landlords but do not penalise ordinary, lawful and honest landlords.

I have to say, politely and respectfully, that this is where this Bill fails. Take the example of the 12-month ban on putting properties back on the market after a failed sale or failed family occupation following evictions on grounds 1 or 1A. The rogue landlord will simply exploit this procedure, fudging dates and taking other steps. This will not provide any effective deterrent to the rogue landlord. Focusing on the wrong that is to be put right—namely, landlords raising the rent after failure of sales or failure of family occupation—my noble friend will remember that I suggested that the much better, more sensible and more directed focus is to ban all rent increases across the market after abortive sales or abortive family occupation.

Since that is a simple, across-the-board provision, rogue landlords would find it much more difficult to act in breach. Noble Lords may remember my example of a landlord having sought and obtained eviction of a tenant in order to put his parents into the property and then one of his parents has a stroke and is unable to enter it. That landlord is then left with the penal result of being unable to put the property on the market for 12 months and to collect much-needed rent. Also, it would mean property unnecessarily being unavailable on the rental market, also for a period of 12 months.

16:30

There is not much time, but it is still possible to take a realistic view throughout the Bill to ensure, first, that the proposed measures against rogue landlords are in place and, secondly, that the honest and good landlord is not treated unfairly. I implore my noble friend the Minister to review this, because, as I argue, the focus of the Bill should be on realistic legislation and not unrealistic legislation.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, fines must be proportionate, yet, as the Bill stands, the threshold for imposing fines on landlords is worryingly low, and the scale of those fines is notably high. This combination is troubling. Setting fines at such significant levels, in some cases representing a substantial portion of a landlord’s rental income, or even exceeding it, risks driving honest, well-meaning landlords out of the market, not because of any wilful negligence but out of fear.

I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie for leading this group from the Back Benches today and bringing two considered amendments to the attention of the House. The group continues the discussions we had in Committee, as we remain unclear on how the scale of the fines has been determined. Frankly, they appear to be arbitrary, with no transparent methodology or rationale behind them, and we would welcome clarification from the Minister on how these amounts were determined and why those particular values were chosen. Without a clear explanation, it is difficult to support their inclusion in the Bill.

Amendments 98 and 99 seek to clarify that fines should be issued only for persistent breaches. Including this in the Bill would provide much-needed reassurance. It would make it clear that significant penalties will not be levied for the first offence. That is especially important when many landlords may not be immediately aware of their new obligations, either those set out in the legislation or those introduced later through regulations. Imagine a landlord renting out a cottage for many years in their village in rural Wales. They are entirely unaware of this Bill and the proceedings of this House. They do not register on any new database, not out of malice but because they simply do not know what is required. Is it right that they should face a steep fine for this? Surely not. That is why “persistently” must be in the Bill—to protect landlords like them and ensure that the legislation is proportionate, fair and enforceable.

Ministers may say that, in practice, individuals such as in the example I have given will not be fined, and that discretion will be used and enforcement will be reasonable, but warm assurances are not enough. We need to ensure that this protection is guaranteed in law, not simply assumed in guidance or left to future interpretation. We need this clarity in the Bill, and without it, the risk remains that well-intentioned landlords—those who may simply be unaware of new requirements—could still find themselves facing disproportionate penalties.

If the Minister cannot accept the premise that we must embed this protection clearly within the legislation, I regret to say that we will be minded to test the opinion of the House.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness was so quick to leap up—

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am sorry.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

No, I was listening to the debate and trying to get my thoughts in order. I will be very brief because, as I said on the previous group, it is clear that we will oppose anything that lowers the fines.

I am a little bit concerned about some of the attitudes towards local government that are coming out, particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, from her own experiences. Local authorities have experience and expertise; they employ lawyers and solicitors, and they make sure they apply fair and proportionate responses to enforcement across a range of things and do it with consistency and uniformity. There is almost an infantilisation of local authorities, as if they want to grab lots of money from lovely, well-meaning landlords with one cottage in a little village. I say to the noble Baroness that I do not see that happening.

I see that approach to enforcement across a range of things. Even if we are changing parking rules, for example, we put a little notice on windscreens, saying, “Next week, you will get fined if you park here”. Local authorities have guidance and standards that they like to adhere to. I guess there is the odd rogue local authority, like there is the odd rogue landlord, but I do not like the way we want to have things absolutely pinned down so that local authorities can have no discretion about what they do.

The Bill is bold and radical and has new things in it that have to succeed—the database, for example, has to succeed. If the fine is not enough to deter landlords, it will be ineffective, and one of the tools that makes this transformative will have been taken away from local authorities. We have to trust local authorities. I doubt that many £40,000 fines will happen, and I guess that is why we are also calling for reviews—such things will be part of looking at that.

We certainly need to give local authorities higher financial penalties. I am quietly confident that they will not take them out on the uninformed landlord. There is also something faintly patronising about the idea of uninformed landlords. There is so much information out there and so many landlord lobbying groups that it would be surprising if they were not aware that there had been some changes. If they are astute enough to be a landlord, and a good landlord, they will be astute enough to notice that this big Renters’ Rights Bill might just have some impact on them. We will not vote for any amendment that reduces the ability of councils to impose higher fines.

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment, but I want to concentrate on a slightly different aspect, which came up in the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. The noble Lord referred to the fact that rogue landlords will ignore whatever we put in the Bill, and that may well be the case, although I hope he is not accurate on that. The noble Baroness mentioned that there are people in Wales who will never have heard of the Bill but are expected to conform to the provisions in it. My question for the Minister covers both aspects. Can she at some point, whether now or later, tell us about the implementation of the Bill, so that everybody understands how it works and avoids going to court and all the other matters?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for their amendments. Amendments 89, 92 and 101 would reduce the maximum civil penalties for offences in relation to illegal evictions—

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I thank the Minister for thanking me, but I have not spoken to this amendment.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I think somebody must have assumed that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, was going to speak. I apologise for that.

For these reforms to be effective, they must be enforced robustly and fairly. Our approach to civil penalties is fundamental to this. Landlords who commit first-time and minor non-compliance will be subject to civil penalties of up to £7,000. However, for serious and repeat non-compliance, landlords will be subject to civil penalties of up to £40,000. The principle that local authorities can impose civil penalties for housing offences is well established. Since they were introduced in 2017, civil penalties have proved an effective enforcement tool. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. I do not think we have any need to question the professionalism of local authorities in dealing with these matters. They are more than well versed in exercising legal duties and have legal professionals to support them.

It is important to emphasise that £40,000 will be the maximum, not the norm. Local authorities will need to have a clear rationale for why they have set a civil penalty at a certain level and apply aggravating and mitigating factors. Penalties of up to £40,000 will be available only in respect of landlords who have committed serious or repeat non-compliance. Initial failure to sign up to the database, for example, will carry a penalty of only up to £7,000. However, local authorities will be able to impose a penalty of up to £40,000 if the landlord continues or repeats this conduct after being given an initial, lower penalty.

When considering whether to issue a civil penalty, local authorities are required to issue a notice of intent—a bit like the notice about parking that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, mentioned—allowing time for landlords to make representations. The local authority will need to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the landlord has committed an offence. If the landlord disagrees with the imposition or amount of the penalty, they will be able to appeal to the First- tier Tribunal. This approach to civil penalties ensures efficiency for local authorities, protection for tenants, and fairness for landlords. As noted in Committee, we will also publish new guidance to help local authorities pursue civil penalties with greater consistency and effectiveness.

Amendments 98 and 99 are in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. She spoke about the scale of fines. We have increased the maximum civil penalties to take account of inflation since the £30,000 and £5,000 maximums were introduced for the similar housing offences that I referred to earlier. We want to ensure that the deterrent value of civil penalties is maintained. As I have stressed before, they are maximum penalty amounts. Local authorities will need to take into account a number of factors, such as the culpability of the landlord and the harm caused to tenants in determining the appropriate level of the civil penalty.

On the point about the single landlord in the depths of the Welsh countryside, and to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, housing is devolved in Wales, so it is a different matter altogether in Wales.

Amendments 98 and 99 would require there to be persistent breaches of certain provisions in Clause 83 or persistent offences committed under Clause 93 before the local authority could fine an individual. I appreciate that the noble Baroness is acting in good faith by laying these amendments, but they would have significant negative consequences for the effectiveness of the database. Under these amendments, individuals could avoid penalties for failing to register or knowingly or recklessly providing false information to the database operator, to name two of the relevant provisions, unless they did so persistently over a protracted period. For the database to be useful to users, it is important that as many landlords as possible register with the service. Indeed, as the noble Baroness commented in Committee:

“It is essential that the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of the data be maintained if it is to be a useful resource for both tenants and for landlords”.—[Official Report, 14/5/25; col. 2219.]


I would add local authorities.

I fear that these amendments could discourage registration and reduce the quality of the data recorded by watering down the threshold at which financial penalties will be imposed. Furthermore, it would be unfair to those good landlords—the vast majority—who comply with the legislative requirements from the outset. It may create an environment where negligent landlords could escape sanction for significant periods of time, and disadvantage the compliant landlords the Bill intends to support.

I recognise that the noble Baroness is trying to protect landlords from being unduly punished. Therefore, I hope she is reassured that the level of fines is the maximum level rather than the standard. Local authorities must also be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a requirement under Clause 83 has been breached or an offence under Clause 93 has been committed before they can impose a fine. Moreover, new guidance will be published in due course to help local authorities with consistency and effectiveness.

16:45

Finally, Amendments 100 and 102 would reduce the maximum civil penalties for landlords who fail to comply with their responsibilities in relation to the new private rented sector database. Our introduction of the national PRS database is fundamental to enhancing the experience of tenants, improving local authority enforcement and helping landlords understand their legal obligations. It is therefore vital that landlords comply with the requirements to have active entries and accurate information on the database.

The maximum penalties—again, I stress that these are maximums—of £7,000 for less serious breaches and £40,000 for more serious offences apply across the provisions in the Bill. Having a lower penalty regime for non-compliance with the database requirements would reduce the deterrent effect and send the wrong message. It would run counter to our aims for a consistent, robust and proportionate enforcement system for the whole private rented sector. That is not fair on tenants and it is not fair on good landlords either. So, for the reasons I have set out, I ask kindly that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, considers withdrawing his amendment.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I am obliged to all who have contributed to this aspect of the debate, and to the Minister for her explanation. On the financial provisions and our pursuant Amendments 89, 92 and 101, I will not insist on those amendments. I comment merely that, in my noble friend’s Amendments 98 and 99, it appears to be conceded that what is being addressed is persistent offences by particular rogue landlords. Therefore, it appears to me that the use of that term in the context of Clause 92 would be appropriate. I withdraw Amendment 89.

Amendment 89 withdrawn.

Amendment 90 not moved.

Clause 65: Landlord redress schemes

Amendment 91

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

91: Clause 65, page 104, line 21, at end insert “, whose property is not managed by an agent who is a member of an independent redress scheme approved by the Secretary of State,”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would only require a residential landlord to be a member of the landlord redress scheme if their tenant does not already have access to one by virtue of the landlord using an agent who is a member of another approved independent redress scheme to avoid duplication.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 91 would require a residential landlord to be a member of the landlord redress scheme only if their tenant does not already have access to redress through a letting agent who is a member of another approved independent scheme. The purpose of this amendment is to avoid duplication, prevent unnecessary regulatory burden, and ensure that the system remains proportionate and clear. Clarity and efficiency in regulation are not just desirable, they are essential for both compliance and effective enforcement.

In Committee, the Minister said:

“We take seriously the noble Baroness’s concerns about duplication. Careful consideration will be given, during the implementation process, as to how the PRS landlord ombudsman service will interact with the agent redress provision”.—[Official Report, 14/5/25; col. 2211.]


We fully agree that tenants should have a clear and accessible route to redress, but that route must be simple, coherent and proportionate. A system that is overly complicated by parallel and potentially overlapping redress obligations could hinder rather than help. For example, if a landlord were a member of two redress schemes, which one should the tenant apply to—or both? How would liability be determined and does this not risk delay and confusion as lawyers from both redress schemes seek to argue it out?

This amendment seeks not to water down tenants’ rights but to ensure that those rights are delivered through a streamlined, efficient system that works in practice for tenants, landlords and agents alike. Clarity here is important. I hope that the Minister agrees. I beg to move.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I will comment on Amendment 91 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. Their amendment would exempt a landlord from joining the new redress/ombudsman scheme if that landlord’s property is managed by an agent who is already a member of one of the existing redress/ombudsman schemes. I declare a past interest as chair for eight years of the Property Ombudsman, which handles complaints about agents. This amendment’s intention of avoiding duplication of membership of redress/ombudsman schemes is entirely right, otherwise the tenant is left puzzling over which ombudsman—their landlord’s or the agent’s—they should address their complaint to.

However, this amendment would not achieve the desired result. I know, from having had some responsibilities for redress in respect of managing/lettings agents, that the response from the agent to a complaint by a renter is often, “I was only doing what the landlord told me to do”. The agent may be justified in this: a renter may have requested an urgent repair and the agent did nothing, but the problem has been the landlord telling the agent that the cost is too high or the work is not needed. The intolerable delay is not the result of the agent’s negligence; it is the landlord who has held things up. These cases cannot be resolved because the landlord is not a member of any redress scheme, and that problem would persist if the landlord was exempted from having to join the new redress/ombudsman scheme.

To avoid duplication of having one redress/ombudsman scheme for landlords and one for property agents, I suggest the solution is for a single redress/ombudsman service for both. This would avoid complaints resolution being stymied and tenants being sent from pillar to post where two different ombudsman services are involved with one issue. I know the Government are still considering how best to introduce the new redress scheme for landlords in this Bill, and I recommend one port of call for tenants with a complaint. The position is already confusing, with the Housing Ombudsman providing a redress service for a few private landlords— as well as for all social landlords—and the Property Ombudsman and the separate Property Redress Scheme both providing redress schemes for property agents. Bringing in the new mandatory redress scheme for complaints about private landlords will add to the confusion for the consumer and the renter. This is a good moment to rationalise and consolidate the arrangements, but not by excluding the landlords who use an agent, which would not solve the problem.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Best. In fact, one of my lines says that there should be only one port of call. If one of the main planks of the Bill is to drive up standards, it is critical that landlords are mandated to be part of the ombudsman scheme. It should be a catch-all. Unfortunately, this amendment would allow landlords to opt out of the government redress scheme and, as has been explained, deny tenants access to redress via the national private sector ombudsman that the Bill intends to set up.

To make this advantageous move, all landlords would need to do is use a letting agent that is signed up to one of these alternative schemes. This would create a significant loophole in the legislation and deny such tenants access to redress for issues that lie solely with the landlord and not the managing agent, such as damp and mould caused by structural issues. Generation Rent’s polling found that one in three tenants has had maintenance issues in their home that they have reported but the landlord has not dealt with. This is quite a widespread problem. If we want to drive up standards, we want to make it easier for tenants to complain and landlords to comply.

In addition, if this amendment were to pass it would create more confusion, as there are currently multiple independent letting agent schemes that compete with each other, arguably creating a race to the bottom on standards. This phenomenon arguably exists to some extent with deposit protection schemes—which, incidentally, are also chosen by landlords or agents, not by renters, so the landlord will choose the one that thinks like they do or favours the way they work.

The system as proposed in the Bill seems to be the correct way forward, as making membership of an ombudsman scheme mandatory for landlords who use managing agents will mitigate a situation where a good agent—and there are good agents—tries to remedy a complaint but is reliant on an overseas landlord who refuses to engage. As well as these advantages, one ombudsman can tackle the root cause of problems, address systemic issues, provide feedback and education to all interested parties, and offer support to vulnerable consumers. Amendment 91 would dilute all these potential good impacts of the new ombudsman, reducing tenants’ ability to hold bad landlord practice and behaviour to account. I cannot think why anybody would want to do that.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for her amendment on the landlord redress scheme, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for their comments.

Our new private rented sector landlord ombudsman will ensure that tenants are able to seek redress against their landlord when they have a legitimate complaint about the landlord’s action, inaction or behaviour. We are clear that landlords who use letting agents cannot delegate responsibility for their own actions or behaviours. Landlords almost always retain some responsibility for their property that cannot be passed on to agents—for example, making structural repairs in buildings. Tenants should be able to access redress if they experience issues such as this, regardless of whether their landlord uses an agent. That is why we think it is essential that both landlords and agents can be held to account for their individual responsibilities.

For landlords who have already voluntarily joined a redress scheme, once a mandatory private landlord ombudsman service is in place it will be tailored to the specific needs of the private rented sector, and those landlords will have to move to it. This will work better for the private rented sector, rather than having it mixed up with social housing. Landlords will be required to sign up to the new landlord database, and we are exploring how to align the sign-up process for this with the landlord ombudsman. That will help make it simple for landlords who are already members of an existing redress system to join the new landlord ombudsman service.

We are committed to ensuring that private residential tenants know where to complain and enjoy consistent standards of service and outcomes. Having private residential landlords as members of the same service will support this aim. We also want to ensure that, where it is not clear which scheme a tenant should complain to, there is no wrong access point for tenants. The schemes will be expected to work together to ensure that, regardless of where a tenant raises a complaint, it is effectively triaged and referred on to the right body with minimal input from the complainant.

I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns about duplication, but we will work closely with the new ombudsman and the property agent redress schemes, support them to work effectively together and ensure that the process works smoothly for both tenants and landlords. For the reasons I have set out, I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw the noble Baroness’s amendment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for speaking on this important topic. I think we all agree that we want a system that works and is clear and easy to understand, although we seem to have some slight disagreements on how that might be best achieved. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his agreement that the current system is confusing. I am also grateful to the Minister for her response and for engaging seriously with the concerns that have been raised.

17:00

While I appreciate the Government’s recognition of the risks of duplication and their commitment to addressing them during implementation, we remain of the view that greater clarity is essential to ensure that the redress scheme works smoothly and fairly for all. The key issue is triage—how the different schemes will work together—and we very much look forward to the Minister bringing forward proposals and guidance that we can all see and can be clear to both landlords and tenants on how they will go through the system. I think we are all in agreement that we want it to work and we have a real concern about duplication. So, although I will not press this amendment, we will continue to hold the Government to account on this issue as the Bill becomes law. With that, I beg to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment 91 withdrawn.

Clause 67: Financial penalties

Amendment 92 not moved.

Amendment 93 not moved.

Clause 76: The database

Amendment 94

Moved by

[Baroness Thornhill]

94: Clause 76, page 115, line 13, at end insert—
“(d) in respect of a landlord entry, details of any banning orders or rent repayment orders that have been made against the landlord.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Private Rented Sector database to include information on any banning orders or rent repayment orders made against a landlord, improving transparency and supporting tenant decision-making.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

Noble Lords will realise by now that I am a bit messianic about the database. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said at the end of Committee about the database, which is that much of it will be given to us in guidance and by statutory instrument. I look forward to the opportunity to contribute to that, but the reason for continuing to press this case is to put on the record just how important this is as a plank of this Bill—and how transformative it could be. So I will speak to my Amendments 94, 95 and 96 and speak against Amendment 97.

The private rented sector database presents a major opportunity to drive up standards through empowering tenants to make informed decisions before entering into a new tenancy, while giving local authorities the information they need to proactively enforce the new regulations. Those are two really important prongs.

The database will only be as useful as the information it stores. My amendments seek to ensure that it is as useful as possible. It is probably my shopping list of things that I would like to see, but I am sure that interested bodies and people other than myself will be putting into that further guidance and further information.

Renters will not be reading it in bed at night, or on holiday; they will look for it when searching for a new home. If it has useful information that helps them make informed choices—such as, past enforcement actions taken against the landlord in question, accessibility features of the home or rent levels for similar properties in the area—they will be able to choose a home that is right for them. For example, a recent Generation Rent survey found that more than three-quarters of renters would support including any prior prosecutions of a landlord on the database, as per my Amendment 94. Having this information will help foster more of the long, stable tenancies that both renters and landlords alike want, while discouraging landlords from attempting to sidestep the Bill or exploit tenants. Furthermore, renters who have used the database will tell their family and friends about it. In my experience, this kind of word-of-mouth marketing is the most effective.

My Amendment 96 would ensure that actual rents are recorded on the database. The Government have put much trust in the First-tier Tribunal, protecting renters from unaffordable rent hikes. At the moment, however, the tribunal uses advertised rents to see whether a rent increase is fair. Often, these are inflated and could become even more so with the end of bidding wars. So, recording actual rents will allow the tribunal and tenants to have a better understanding of the local market.

The issue of local authority finances has been debated many times as the Bill has progressed. We are right to be concerned about their capacity to proactively enforce the Bill. Having key information in one place, such as Section 8 eviction notices, as per my Amendment 95, would be a massive help to enforcement when the Bill comes into action—cutting out much of the proactive fact-finding work that local authorities often lack the capacity to do.

Outside the renting process, the database could also be of use to both national and local policy-making. Recording rents, for example, would help inform national decisions on housebuilding and crack down on landlords’ tax avoidance, which the think tank TaxWatch estimates to be as high as £1.7 billion a year.

We oppose Amendment 97, to limit costs related to the database, given that some areas of the Act inevitably may turn out to need more enforcement than others. It makes sense for the Government to have some wriggle room to set some costs at a later date. The legislation’s success relies heavily on enforcement, and therefore having the ability to raise funds through the database feed written into primary legislation is an important mechanism in case it is needed in future to cover costs, such as an awareness campaign or guidance and training to tenants and landlords.

Finally, I will end on a positive note. Much of this debate often pits landlords against renters, seeing the issue like a see-saw. But findings from Generation Rent’s survey of its supporters in April this year found that the more information about a landlord that renters have, the better their relationship with them. Nearly a quarter of renters who had a direct contact line to their landlord rated them five out of five, compared with fewer than one in 10 of those who did not. With the right information, the database will help foster more of these relationships. I beg to move.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her expansive and constructive thinking on what more the database could do to support a rental market that works fairly and effectively for both landlords and tenants alike. During Committee, we had a thoughtful and wide-ranging discussion about the purpose, function and future potential of this database, and many noble Lords suggested that it could, and perhaps should, do more. I agree: in time, that may well be prudent. But, from my experience as a Minister, I have learned the value of taking one step at a time. Let us focus first on getting this system up and running and getting it right.

I am very much reminded of the Second Reading of the pensions Bill in the other place. When the Minister, Torsten Bell, began to explain its provisions, he was met with laughter from both sides of the House. The joke was all in very good faith and the Minister joined in at the moment, but it speaks to a deeper truth. We cannot allow this database to become the next pensions dashboard—a project weighed down by scope creep and plagued by delay. So, although I welcome the noble Baroness’s ambitious vision and her efforts to think beyond the immediate text of the Bill, we must begin with the basics, especially if additional functionality comes at the cost of higher system complexity and, crucially, higher financial burdens on those who provide rental homes to millions across this country.

That brings me to Amendment 97, which concerns limited relevant costs. This cannot become a system that imposes unlimited and never-ending costs on landlords. They need certainty—clear and reliable reassurance from the Government—that relevant costs will not spiral every time a new Minister has a bright idea.

It is that word again—balance—and I know that noble Lords are probably sick of hearing it by now, but it remains the guiding principle. We must strike the right balance between the cost of this system and the functions that it is expected to perform. Only then can we ensure that the database succeeds, not just in theory but in practice, for those who depend on it. Despite this, I will not seek to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 97.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Scott, for their amendments concerning the database. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for all the thought and work she has put in and the assistance she has given us to aid our thinking around what may or may not be in the database. I appreciate that the intention behind Amendment 94 is to empower tenants with more information and to support their decision-making before they decide to rent a property. As the noble Baroness helpfully outlined in Committee, that forms part of a broader and more ambitious vision for the database. We need to ensure that the database is helpful to both landlords and tenants.

I hope that the noble Baroness is pleased that Clause 84 mandates that we will indeed record banning orders on the database. This clause specifies that we will record relevant banning order offences and related financial penalties on the database. We intend to make this offence information available to the public, using the regulations set out in Clause 87. Furthermore, the Bill includes the regulation-making power at Clause 84(6) for the database to record other housing-related offences committed by landlords. We will specify which offences will be recorded through secondary legislation, but I hope the noble Baroness is encouraged to hear that rent repayment orders are among those we are actively considering for inclusion.

Our approach to recording offences will consider the necessity and proportionality of recording this information, alongside making sure, of course, that it complies with data protection and human rights legislation. We need to give that careful consideration as well. As we discussed in Committee, we intend to retain flexibility regarding the information the database records and makes public, so that it can evolve in response to the changing needs of the sector, including those of tenants and landlords—enough information to be helpful but not so much that only Torsten Bell can understand what is on it.

Amendment 95 seeks to record historical Section 8 notices on the database to enhance tenant awareness and promote responsible landlord practices. I recognise that this would be a positive addition to improve the database and help it be a driver of higher standards and tenant protection, built on comprehensive and reliable foundations, so I thank the noble Baroness for the thoughtful amendment. The Government are currently considering recording possession information on the database and whether that information should be made available to the public. Any decision on what information will be recorded on the database has to take into account both the benefits and the burdens for different users, and we will ensure that the information collected remains necessary and proportionate.

As the noble Baroness will be aware from our previous conversations about what information the database will record, we place significant importance on the flexibility of the database for future circumstances. We therefore believe that the information collected on the database should be set out in secondary legislation, as stated in Clause 78.

Amendment 96 aims to make the commencement of rent and historical rent increase information visible on the database, to improve transparency for prospective tenants and support informed decisions in the private rented market. The Government are still considering whether to collect rent data on the database. However, we recognise the potential value the information could provide to tenants, by allowing a more informed rental experience. We are also aware that other government departments and bodies, such as HMRC and the NAO, may find this data useful. We believe, however, that for the database to remain flexible, the information it collects should be specified through regulations.

Amendment 97 would restrict the calculation of PRS database fees to be set with reference to costs associated with the operation and enforcement of the database only, not by reference to the costs of wider PRS enforcement activity. I appreciate the need to keep the fee at a manageable level and to justify any new costs to landlords. However, I draw the noble Baroness’s attention to what we have heard in previous debates regarding the challenges that local authorities face in resourcing their enforcement actions.

We believe it is appropriate that, as far as possible, costs of enforcement should be met by those individuals who break the rules. However, a well-regulated and well-enforced PRS benefits all good landlords, as well as tenants, and clearly local authorities must be properly resourced to achieve this. This clause provides Ministers with the option of using a proportion of fee income to provide revenue to fund private rented sector enforcement activities beyond those relating to the database.

As I have set out previously, database fees will be determined and fixed at a later point, via secondary legislation. I assure noble Lords that fee calculations will be reasonable and will bear in mind the cost to landlords, among other factors. Given what we have heard about the importance of local authority resourcing, I do not think it would be prudent to limit the calculation and use of database fees in this way.

I thank the noble Baroness for saying that she will not press her amendment, and ask the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, to withdraw her amendment.

17:15

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I am nothing if not a realist, but I am glad to have pursued this to this stage, because the Minister has just given me some very serious reassurances about what will be included in the database. I am particularly pleased to hear about the consideration of rent repayment orders. I urge the Government to think again about rent collection—because rent is the big issue—and perhaps about how the database can help.

However, I am under no illusion that all these proposals, processes and functions will need further discussion, particularly with regard to human rights and legal matters. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that we need to get this right and to begin with the basics. I look forward to the Minister giving us some sort of timeline, perhaps, and working with the secondary legislation. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 94 withdrawn.

Amendments 95 and 96 not moved.

Clause 82: Fees for landlord and dwelling entries

Amendment 97 not moved.

Clause 92: Financial penalties

Amendment 98

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

98: Clause 92, page 126, line 13, at beginning insert “persistently”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would allow a financial penalty to be imposed only for persistent breaches.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I have no confidence in the response I had from the Minister on my Amendment 98 that landlords would be protected in law against unfair fines. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.

17:16

Division 2

Ayes: 215

---

Conservative: 191
Crossbench: 12
Non-affiliated: 6
Democratic Unionist Party: 3
Ulster Unionist Party: 2
Labour: 1

Noes: 240

---

Labour: 148
Liberal Democrat: 58
Crossbench: 26
Non-affiliated: 3
Green Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Bishops: 1

17:28

Amendments 99 to 102 not moved.

Clause 93: Offences

Amendment 103 not moved.

Clause 99: Rent repayment orders for offences under the Housing Act 1988 and sections 68 and 93 of this Act

Amendment 104 not moved.

Clause 101: Decent homes standard

Amendment 105

Moved by

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

105: Clause 101, page 134, line 11, leave out from “(homelessness)” to end of line 13
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would make the Decent homes standard apply to all homeless temporary accommodation provided under the Housing Act 1996.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. My wife and I own one apartment; it is in the West Midlands, and it is let out. Nothing in this amendment or any others in this group would provide me with any advantage that I can foresee.

Amendment 105 seeks to extend the decent homes standard to temporary accommodation. As I said in Committee—and hence I can be extremely brief today—those in temporary accommodation are among the most vulnerable in our society. They are already battling against major disadvantages, and being placed in properties that fail the standard simply adds to their burden.

There are now over 150,000 children living in temporary accommodation, a number that continues to rise remorselessly. Often, these young people may be many miles from their school and are struggling in inadequate space to study for exams whose results will affect the rest of their lives. The very word “temporary” is something of a misnomer. It is not uncommon for such residence to last beyond a year. If any households need the protection of decent housing, it is these.

17:30

However, I accept that, whereas most tenants in the private rented sector are making their own arrangements with their landlord and hence require statutory protection to redress the power imbalance in that relationship, in the case of temporary accommodation there is another player, in the name of the local authority. If local authorities were rigorous in requiring the properties they use for temporary accommodation to meet a high standard, protection would be there. Moreover, there would be some types of property which, while acceptable for very short-term usage—though definitely not for the extended periods many are currently experiencing—would be intrinsically unable to meet the decent homes standard, such as bed-and-breakfast hotels.

Hence, I am not today minded to test the opinion of the House on this amendment, but I am rather looking to the Minister, in responding to the debate, to give some indication of what other mechanisms, apart from placing text on the face of the Bill, His Majesty’s Government might have in mind to ensure that, through the local authorities, the standard of housing used for temporary accommodation is the best we can deliver for some of our most vulnerable households.

Most other amendments in this group, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, relate to our military families. I would hope that these families, who often spend long, anxious periods separated from their loved ones serving in dangerous locations overseas, will receive as generous support as we can provide. Should the noble Baroness choose to test the mind of the House, she will have my support.

Finally, we are well aware of the dangers of damp and mould—the case in Rochdale has become notorious —so I also support Amendment 106A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. I beg to move.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

There are three amendments in my name in this group, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, for putting their names to Amendment 106. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his wisdom and support, as ever, and the Minister for the many meetings she has held on this and other matters. We on these Benches are supportive of the other two amendments in this group and look forward to hearing the government response to both.

Amendment 106 is a crucial and necessary addition to the Bill that speaks to our fundamental duty to those who sacrifice so much for our nation’s security: the application of the decent homes standard to Ministry of Defence accommodation. We on these Benches have pushed votes on amendments sparingly because we support the Government bringing forward this long-awaited and much-needed legislation to reform the private rented sector. But it is imperative that we do not leave any group behind, especially dedicated military personnel and their families.

This Government have already taken welcome first steps: the landmark deal in January to bring 36,000 military homes back into public ownership; the launch of a new defence housing review in February; and the April announcement of a new consumer charter for forces family housing. These are all positive developments but they are not enshrined in law, and this Bill is the opportunity to do just that. They are policy pledges, subject to the whim of goodness knows what future Governments, changes in ministerial priorities or economic pressures. The housing and morale of our Armed Forces should not remain dependent on policy changes alone.

The current state of service accommodation is in many cases unacceptable. There have been persistent reports of damp, mould, rats, inadequate maintenance and poor communication. Satisfaction levels with service family accommodation fell to their lowest reported levels in 2023. The Defence Select Committee has reported that one-third of single living accommodation and two-thirds of service family accommodation is essentially no longer fit for purpose. Reports have shown that service families were badly let down for many years under past housing contracts. This deplorable situation impacts recruitment and retention within our Armed Forces, undermining our national security in a time of global uncertainty.

Applying the decent homes standard through the Renters’ Rights Bill would provide a clear, legally binding benchmark for acceptable housing quality for service family accommodation. It would ensure accountability and establish a right to a decent home for those who serve our nation. They deserve homes fit for heroes, and Amendment 106 would be a vital step towards making that a reality.

This continues the work of Liberal Democrat defence spokesperson Helen Maguire MP in the House of Commons. She is a former captain of the Royal Military Police who served in both Bosnia and Iraq, and she has tirelessly campaigned to ensure that MoD housing is included under the decent homes standard. Her experience, first-hand understanding of military life and dedication to our service personnel is invaluable. The Kerslake Commission report—we miss Lord Kerslake so much—Homes Unfit for Heroes, commissioned by John Healey MP, has laid bare how poor the standards in military housing are.

Amendment 106 would directly build upon and reinforce the work of both Helen Maguire MP and the recommendations of the Kerslake Commission. It moves beyond mere acknowledgement of the problem and the setting of targets, seeking to legally enforce the standards our service families deserve. The Minister has previously argued that this amendment is unnecessary because this approach is not right for service family accommodation, due to unique challenges such as access to secure sites. We have therefore set out in Amendment 109 some of the detail that could be added to the Bill to reflect these obstacles and considerations.

Amendment 119 is consequential on Amendment 109. I will not test the House on either of those, but they do provide some of the detail on how this could be done. However, if the Government do not accept Amendment 106 or some other tangible and strong process, I do intend to test the opinion of the House. Pride in our Armed Forces must mean pride in how we house them. We owe it to them to guarantee in the strongest possible terms that their homes meet a basic, dignified standard. This change would be a powerful and lasting declaration of our commitment to our service personnel and their families, and they deserve nothing less.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 106, to which I have attached my name. For decades now, I have seen at close hand the deficiencies in service families’ accommodation. They range from an inability to get things fixed to serious problems with damp and mould. They are always irritating, and too often disgraceful. For years, I have listened to successive Governments undertake to get to grips with the issue. For decades, I have seen them fail to do so, not because they do not care—of course they care—but because of budgetary constraints, institutional inefficiencies, bureaucracy and other organisational issues.

I served in the military for 43 years and I have been out of it for nearly 15; and yet, the problems persist. So why should I, or anybody who comes after me, put any faith in any Government’s promises that are not backed up by enforceable measures? We have been told that we should not worry too much, because 90% of service families’ accommodation meets or exceeds the decent homes standard already. Well, even if that is so, does the Minister think that one in 10 service families living in substandard accommodation is acceptable? I do not. Perhaps she could clarify that point later.

In the debate in another place, the Government maintained, as we have heard, that this amendment is impracticable because there would be problems with local authorities gaining access to service families’ accommodation behind the wire on military sites. We debated this very issue during the passage of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, when the Government saw no difficulties with civilian officials gaining access to sites behind the wire that are much more sensitive than service families’ accommodation. Frankly, this kind of bureaucratic brush-off is not worthy of such a serious debate on such a serious issue.

I refer the Minister to the recent strategic defence review, the conclusions of which have been accepted by the Government. It says that the

“transformation of UK Defence must ultimately be delivered by its people … Targeted intervention is needed to tackle Defence’s workforce crisis”,

including

“prioritised investment … in accommodation that falls well short of the standards required”.

In the context of the future security of this country, can the Minister explain to the long-suffering families of service personnel why they are not entitled to the same formal protection being accorded to renters in the civilian sector? I think she will find that extraordinarily difficult to do. If we are forced to divide on this issue, I trust that the House will send a message loud and clear to those people that they are entitled to that protection and much more besides.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. I put my name to Amendment 106 because of my experience in representing the Armed Forces in a previous role in the other place. Also, to be candid, I am sure that several of us have had family members in the Armed Forces over the years. It has always struck me that if it is good enough for social housing, and good enough for private rented housing, as is being put in through the Bill, why on earth is it not good enough for the homes of our brave men and women who put their lives on the line every time they don that Armed Forces uniform?

Furthermore, in my experience, undoubtedly the quality of housing—I will not pretend it is homogenous; right across the country, some fantastic new accommodation is being built—is unfortunately a key factor in why people leave the Armed Forces. I will use the example of Rock Barracks, home to 23 Parachute Engineers, just outside Woodbridge. That is the kind of base where people are not there for lifetime basing. The strategy going ahead is that once people are part of a lifetime base, they might be able to buy their own home rather than be necessarily in Armed Forces accommodation. That does not happen with some of these specialist regiments. Actually, the base commander was one of the people who invited me in when I was getting letters from constituents who were really irritated about what was going on in their homes and how it was taking time to be fixed.

Of course, that can be fixed with a better company, but the key point here is that putting this into legislation not only gives reassurance to our soldiers and officers who are thinking about their families—they should not even have to think about what is going on with their families while they are abroad—but gives the families the assurance that they can have a very clear legal expectation about the state of their homes and what should be done if they are not in that state.

Going further, welfare is of course an element in the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, and I think the Government have talked about housing. But the legislation specifically refers to matters where the Secretary of State can specify, and if it is believed that these matters might go against the safety of somebody or against national security, the commissioner can be stopped from investigating. Frankly, we all know how long it takes to get a commissioner to do anything. It is better to have the high standard in the first place. I am very conscious that the Government may try to say, “Things will be better in the future”. I am in a position now to say that enough is enough. We will be very happy if the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, pushes this to a Division; I will certainly be in the voting Lobbies with her this afternoon.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 106A in this group. I also echo fully the support for Amendments 106, 109 and 119, which is consequential, from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. I thank the right reverend Prelate for his support as well.

17:45

Amendment 106A probes the Government to ensure that they recognise the role of both temperature and humidity in ensuring comfort and safety and preventing hazardous levels of damp and mould, which pose significant health risks, whether to children, the elderly or other vulnerable groups. I thank NexGen Carbon Zero for its research and input, and I declare my interest as a private landlord.

This amendment seeks to draw an explicit link between temperature and humidity and damp and mould hazards. Can the Minister confirm that the Government recognise the fundamental importance of keeping homes at a safe temperature and humidity level to avoid those hazards? There are indeed preventive solutions that can help maintain safe temperature and humidity levels to help tackle one of the main root causes of damp and mould problems. As an example, I am told that infra-red heating technology can eradicate severe damp and mould in a week by drying out internal walls and reducing humidity levels, and can even monitor on a room-by-room basis to automatically switch on if levels become dangerous. With many households currently struggling to adequately heat their homes, as a result of either losing their winter fuel payment or the combination of that with rising living costs, temperature and humidity control clearly has a role in preventing the hazards that these problems could otherwise cause. Indeed, I argue that this is more important than ever.

The 2023-24 English Housing Survey showed that private rented homes are nearly twice as likely as those in the social rented sector to experience problems with damp. The proportion of damp homes containing at least one occupant with a health condition has risen from around a third in 2013 to nearly a half in 2023-24.

Although stronger protections are needed to safeguard tenants from the dangerous health effects of damp and mould, we have to be concerned that many private landlords, especially smaller ones, may struggle to afford effective remediation. So the Bill, which is extending Awaab’s law to the private rented sector, perhaps needs to be supplemented by a funding package of remediation to help landlords with the cost of repairs, or at least maybe some VAT exemption on some of those mechanisms. There is of course a risk that landlords would be unfairly penalised, but the overriding concern is to make sure that tenants are not living in unsafe conditions.

That brings me to Amendments 106, 109 and 119. Our military and service personnel surely should be prioritised over other groups when it comes to supplying decent housing and decent homes. Frankly, it seems shameful that military and service personnel housing standards are so significantly rated as unsatisfactory. They put their lives on the line for this country. If the noble Baroness presses her amendment, I will be very happy to support it. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, first, I support Amendment 105, from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I am very glad to support him; he and I have worked together quite a lot on homelessness in York, where some noble Lords assisted us to make sure that those who were homeless could get a house where they would have a bed and a little kitchen, so that they had a bit of independence. The standard that we expect for others ought to be given to the homeless as well.

I also support Amendment 106, movingly spoken to by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. When we had a debate in your Lordships’ House on the duty of having regard to the covenant, I told your Lordships a story; I think some of you were not here, and if you have forgotten, I can remind you—I will be very brief. A gentleman who had survived in Afghanistan in the Parachute Regiment returned to Yorkshire. He had been injured, and therefore could not go back to service. He visited four widows who had already been rehoused out of service accommodation because their husbands had died in the line of duty. Their accommodation, they said, was not any better than it had been in the service, so he said, “We should make the point very clearly by having a parachute jump”. At my age, people were advising me not to do it, but we did it, and we landed. When I got home, there was a retired soldier who had just sold his business. He was the first to give to this fundraising for four houses for widows. He gave £50,000 pounds. Of course, the amount went up, and I am very grateful to all those people who supported us.

If there is a duty in the covenant, it should apply to all our service personnel, and their accommodation ought to be as good as the instruments they use when they go to war. There is a similar story of the Yorkshire Regiment, where widows were put into accommodation that was not suitable. It breaks your heart. We signed a covenant, if your Lordships remember, to all the people who are in the service—Army, Air Force and others—that we have a duty to support them. This amendment is a challenge to all of us: we passed that covenant and we had better show up.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I speak to this group on the decent homes standard, a commitment to ensure that all tenancies, regardless of tenure or circumstance, have access to safe, healthy and secure housing. In particular, I turn to Amendments 106 and 119, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. She, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and my noble friend Lady Coffey highlighted the persistent and ongoing issues that military and service accommodation faces.

We are in no doubt that those who serve our country and whose families bear the burdens of that service deserve decent homes. It is regrettable that, despite the application of the decent homes standard to military housing on a non-statutory basis since 2017, serious concerns persist about the condition and upkeep of military accommodation. These amendments offer Parliament an opportunity to reaffirm that military and service families should not be left behind.

We therefore welcome the commitments made in the strategic defence review on 2 June 2025, in which the Government announced an additional £1.5 billion in funding for our service family accommodation, bringing a total investment of £7 billion. Alongside this, the development of a new defence housing strategy and consumer charter, including timelines for repairs, named housing officers and a strengthened complaints process, is a step in the right direction. But such undertakings must be matched by effective and timely delivery. We would be grateful for greater clarity from the Minister on when the additional investment will begin to make a difference on the ground; what time- frame the Ministry of Defence has set for the implementation of these reforms; and how progress will be assessed, monitored and reported back to Parliament. Commitments of this scale demand not only ambition but accountability. Our Armed Forces and their families deserve more than expressions of appreciation; they deserve action and results. These amendments speak to that imperative, and that is why we are pleased to support them.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Altmann, for their amendments regarding the decent homes standard. I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, for his experience and knowledge, which he showed in his contribution. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson.

Amendment 105 would take away the power of Ministers to set out in regulations the types of temporary homelessness accommodation that the decent homes standard would apply to. I completely understand the sentiment and intent behind these amendments. The Government intend to apply the decent homes standard to as much temporary accommodation as possible. Indeed, the consultation that we launched on the decent homes standard, which was published on 2 July and closes on 10 September, makes this very clear and asks for further information on it.

As I said in Committee, we have to strike the right balance between improving standards and avoiding risk to supply. Given the pressure on local authorities, which we all understand, there is sometimes no choice but to use forms of temporary accommodation, such as commercial hotels. It may not be possible for this to meet all decent homes standard requirements—for example, where there are no kitchen facilities. We want to avoid a situation where applying the decent homes standard could mean that such accommodation can no longer be used, even where there is no alternative, as this could make things worse for people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, not better. Of course, the long-term solution is to provide a much greater quantity of affordable housing. In the meantime, we have to make sure we do not shut off vital resources to local authorities.

I hope that the right reverend Prelate is reassured by the Government’s intention to apply the decent homes standard to as much temporary accommodation as possible and to deliver the affordable housing that we know we need to solve the problem in the longer term, and that he recognises that the most practical way to make this change to the decent homes standards is through a regulation-making power. I therefore ask that he withdraw his amendment.

Amendment 106 would bring Ministry of Defence service family accommodation within the scope of the decent homes standards measures in the Bill, including enforcement of this standard by local authorities. No one, especially me, is going to disagree that those who defend our country deserve to live in decent homes. As I said in Committee, the Government absolutely recognise that action is required to tackle the poor state of forces’ housing. That is why we are already taking decisive steps to remedy the situation that we have inherited— I gently remind the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, that their party was in government just over a year ago, and we inherited this situation from them.

As noble Lords will be aware, the Ministry of Defence has concluded a landmark deal to bring military housing back into public ownership. It is also developing a defence housing strategy, which will be published later this year, that will set out further steps to bring about a renewal of military housing to restore it to the quality housing that we all want to see for our armed services.

As my right honourable friend John Healey, the Secretary of State for Defence—and a great expert on housing, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, acknowledges—said in his Statement to the other place on the strategic defence review,

“we will invest £7 billion of funding during this Parliament for military accommodation, including £1.5 billion of new money for rapid work to deal with the scandal of military family homes”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/6/25; col. 53.]

He has also announced a consumer charter that will introduce new consumer rights for families in military homes. The Defence Secretary is instructing the MoD to immediately plan improvements to enhance service family homes after the years of neglect from which they have suffered. Improvements set out in the charter will be in place by the one-year anniversary of the announcement to buy back military homes, made last December, with the final detail to be shared in the defence housing strategy later this year.

In relation to standards, the MoD already uses the decent homes standard as a benchmark and applies its own decent homes-plus standard as the target standard for service family accommodation. The MoD is reviewing this standard in line with recommendations from the Kerslake review and the House of Commons Defence Committee.

18:00

Regarding the amendment, it is not a workable approach to bring MoD accommodation within the scope of local authority enforcement. As I said in Committee, local authorities would face major challenges in trying to gain that access to inspect the thousands of properties that are behind the wire on secure sites. I heard the comments of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, but I think that this would create a real issue. In addition, the decent homes standard provisions in the Bill apply to England only, while service personnel are located across the UK and overseas.

The amendment would therefore result in a complex and fragmented system and a lack of parity for service personnel as different standards and enforcement processes would apply to MoD accommodation depending on where it was located. The Government are already taking substantial steps to improve the quality of military housing. The defence housing strategy, to be published later this year, will set out in detail our plans for doing that. Given the major enforcement challenges that would result from the noble Baroness’s amendment, the approach that the Government are taking is a better and far more practical way of achieving her very laudable aim, which we support, of providing homes fit for heroes.

Amendments 109 and 119 would require regulations to be made establishing a new military homes standard that would apply to all Ministry of Defence accommodation. Amendment 109 mandates that this military homes standard must be higher than the decent homes standard that will apply to privately rented homes. It is important that service personnel and their families have accommodation of the high quality that they deserve. However, these amendments are not practical. They are unworkable and risk undermining the outcomes that they seek to achieve.

For example, the proposed prohibition on category 2 hazards in Amendment 109 is technically infeasible. Under the housing health and safety rating system, every home will, by definition, contain some category 2 hazards, even if they pose minimal risk. Enshrining such a prohibition in law would create a standard that is impossible to meet in practice, leading to legal uncertainty and administrative burden.

The amendments also fail to account for the specialised nature of single living accommodation, provided by the MoD to single service personnel or those who are not accompanied by their families. These homes generally include some shared facilities and, as a result, are unlikely to meet some parts of the decent homes standard. The MoD has therefore introduced its own defence minimum standard, which sets commensurate standards of decency while taking account of the specialised function of single living accommodation. If the military homes standard were an enhanced version of the decent homes standard, as the amendment proposes, much single living accommodation would not meet it. Applying this standard to this accommodation, as proposed by the amendment, would significantly limit the ability to provide such accommodation, undermining its critical role in the deployment of our Armed Forces.

It is also not clear how this proposed military homes standard would be enforced. Amendment 109 does not specify what authorities should enforce the standard. As defence accommodation is situated in all four nations of the United Kingdom, and overseas, the result would likely be a complex system, with different authorities being responsible for enforcement in different locations. This lack of consistency would make it more difficult and confusing for service personnel to raise complaints about accommodation. As a result, these amendments would not achieve the desired outcome of improving the quality of MoD accommodation. The proposed approach also risks having negative impacts on service personnel, their families and, crucially, the operational effectiveness of our Armed Forces.

I have already set out the strong action that the Government are taking to tackle poor-quality Armed Forces accommodation, which will achieve the intended outcomes of these amendments while avoiding the risks that are created by them. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, not to move her amendments.

On Amendment 106A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, I can confirm that the Government fully recognise the importance of addressing damp and mould in rented homes, and the role that humidity as well as temperature can have in causing such issues. Clause 101 lists matters that the regulations setting out decent homes standard requirements may cover. This amendment would add specific references to humidity and damp and mould to this list. However, the requirements that can be set in regulations are not limited to those which are set out in this list. It is our firm intention that the new decent homes standard includes specific requirements on damp and mould. Indeed, we published our consultation on the content of the standard on 2 July. This consultation proposes that the standard be expanded from four criteria to five, with the new criterion requiring landlords to ensure that their properties are free from damp and mould.

As set out in government guidance and the decent homes standard consultation, we recognise that deficiencies in buildings—such as poor ventilation, mentioned by the noble Baroness—can lead to excess humidity, which can cause dangerous damp and mould. These should be addressed to ensure that homes are safe and decent. Noble Lords will have heard me explaining at Oral Questions the other day that the infuriating term “lifestyle issues” that is used for tenants who are suffering with damp and mould has to end. There is nearly always a buildings-related issue for damp and mould. We need to address those issues.

In light of this, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, sees that the Government take the issues that she has raised very seriously and are taking firm steps to address them. I therefore argue that her amendment is not necessary and ask her not to move it.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I thank my former boss, my noble and right reverend friend Lord Sentamu, for his support. His passion on all matters that concern those in the greatest need in our society is well known in your Lordships’ House. I thank him for demonstrating it once again today.

I thank the Minister for her response to my amendment. I think that we are not very far apart. With those reassurances, I will not press the matter any further. I will leave it for the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, to say whether she too is satisfied with the response to her amendments. The case for our military families remains compelling. If the House divides on Amendment 106, I shall be voting with the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. But, with that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 105 withdrawn.

Amendment 106

Moved by

[Baroness Grender]

106: Clause 101, page 134, line 13, at end insert—
“(iii) that is provided by the Ministry of Defence for use as service family accommodation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would extend the Decent Homes Standard to service family accommodation.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated. There is no doubt on these Benches about the sincerity of the intentions of Minister John Healey. However, we believe that enshrined in law is the right way to proceed. We heard some eloquent arguments from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, about behind the wire inspections and what is feasible. Therefore, I would like to press this matter. We have pressed very few matters from these Benches, because we are behind the Bill a great deal, but on this occasion we wish to test the opinion of the House.

18:08

Division 3

Ayes: 282

---

Conservative: 171
Liberal Democrat: 54
Crossbench: 41
Non-affiliated: 6
Democratic Unionist Party: 4
Green Party: 2
Ulster Unionist Party: 2
Bishops: 1
Labour: 1

Noes: 158

---

Labour: 148
Crossbench: 7
Non-affiliated: 2
Plaid Cymru: 1

18:20

Amendment 106A not moved.

Amendment 107

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

107: After Clause 101, insert the following new Clause—
“Use of licence conditions to improve housing conditionsIn section 90(1) of the Housing Act 2004 (licence conditions), for “the management, use or occupation of the house concerned” substitute “all or any of the following—(a) the management, use and occupation of the house concerned, and (b) the condition and contents of the house concerned.”” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable local authorities operating selective licensing schemes to use licence conditions to improve housing conditions.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 107, I will also speak to Amendment 108. These amendments would remove unnecessary barriers to the use of licensing schemes to improve housing standards. Licensing raises housing standards: it can help to regenerate areas that are blighted by poor housing and other social problems. Licensing provides a means for local authorities to inspect privately rented housing using enforceable conditions, and to identify and resolve problems without the need for tenants to have complained.

Licensing schemes pay for themselves through the fees that are charged and enable local authorities to target regulation where it is most needed: in other words, at tackling the worst landlords and supporting the most vulnerable tenants. My amendments would remove unnecessary barriers to the effectiveness of licensing schemes and increase the maximum duration of schemes from five years to 10 years.

Amendment 107 would permit local authorities operating selective licensing schemes to use licence conditions to improve the physical state of the licensed properties. It would remove a peculiar disconnect in current legislation, highlighted by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, whereby local authorities are permitted to introduce selective licensing schemes to address poor housing but are not permitted to include in the licences themselves conditions requiring the physical state of the licensed properties to be improved. The amendment would give local authorities the same discretion in relation to the licence conditions used in selective licensing schemes as they already have in relation to licence conditions used in additional HMO licensing schemes.

In Committee, the Government implied that the introduction of a decent homes standard and Awaab’s law to the private rented sector will make this amendment unnecessary. However, I do not accept that view. Neither the decent homes standard nor Awaab’s law will remove the need for local authorities to be able to use licence conditions to deal proactively with general disrepair in areas with poor housing conditions.

There are four reasons why the decent homes standard will not remove the need for local authorities to be able to use licence conditions in this way. First, when licence conditions are in place, if a breach of these conditions is proved, local authorities can serve a civil penalty notice on the landlord without first having to issue an improvement notice and/or take other action that involves unnecessary delay. However, they will be able to do this for breaches of the proposed decent homes standard only in more serious cases—possibly only where there is a serious and immediate risk to a person’s health and safety—and only where they can prove that the landlord has failed to take reasonably practicable steps to address the issue. Licence conditions would therefore give landlords a much stronger incentive than the decent homes standard to address general disrepair.

Secondly, the enforcement of licence conditions can be funded by licence fees. The cost of enforcing the decent homes standard will fall on council tax payers. In practice, therefore, the use of licence conditions would lead to local authorities undertaking a much higher level of enforcement.

Thirdly, licence conditions give local authorities a clear justification as well as sufficient funding for entering properties to carry out inspections without the tenant having complained. It seems likely that, outside of licensing schemes, the vast majority of inspections under the decent homes standard will be in response to complaints. Fourthly, licence conditions could deal with items of disrepair that would be difficult to address using the decent homes standard.

With regard to Awaab’s law, it will not remove the need for local authorities to be able to use licence conditions to deal proactively with general disrepair in areas with poor housing conditions. The enforcement of Awaab’s law will depend on the ability and willingness of tenants themselves to seek redress and ultimately to take legal action through the courts. It is often difficult for tenants to use legal remedies themselves; areas with poor housing conditions contain many poor and vulnerable tenants, who are particularly badly placed to do so. Licensing would clearly be a much better way of targeting support at them.

Amendment 108 would permit local authorities to implement longer additional HMO licensing schemes and selective licensing schemes without repeating the time-consuming and expensive designation process. Local authorities introduced these schemes to bring about large-scale improvements, but those are unlikely to be fully achieved within five years. This amendment would allow them to advertise longer-term posts for staff and to include training of new staff in these schemes. It would also provide more time for local partnerships formed through such schemes—for example, to resolve anti-social behaviour—to become embedded and effective.

The Government suggested in Committee that a maximum duration for licensing schemes of five years strikes the right balance between the needs of local authorities and the needs of landlords. But that does not take proper account of the time and money wasted through councils being unnecessarily required to repeat the designation process.

In conclusion, the removal of these unnecessary barriers to the effectiveness of licensing schemes would make a major contribution to the regeneration of some of the most deprived areas of the country. A new general approval to establish selective licensing areas came into effect last December, and local authorities are no longer required to obtain confirmation from the Secretary of State before implementing a selective licensing scheme of any size. That is most welcome, but it needs to be accompanied with the powers identified in my amendments, and I hope the Government will now understand the importance of them. I beg to move.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for bringing these two amendments once again to the attention of the House. However, we on these Benches do not consider them to be necessary. We recognise and wholeheartedly share the noble Lord’s ambition to see housing conditions improved. When I was in government, I was proud to support the decent homes standard and helped to lay the groundwork for what has now become Awaab’s law. The Government’s approach should be focused on delivering tangible improvements to living conditions. This includes tackling poor-quality housing wherever it exists, not slowly within selective licensing areas.

18:30

Amendment 108, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seeks to extend the maximum duration of selective and additional HMO licensing schemes from five to 10 years. We must recognise that licensing regimes, while in many cases beneficial, can place significant additional responsibilities and costs on landlords. These may include fees, compliance with detailed conditions and administrative burdens, all of which can have a knock-on effect for landlords and tenants alike. For this reason, it is essential that local authorities monitor and evaluate any schemes they implement to ensure that they remain proportionate, targeted and effective. A long fixed-term duration for licensing schemes is problematic. Simply, a shorter term ensures that local authorities have the flexibility to assess whether a scheme is delivering meaningful results while preventing landlords being locked into prolonged regulatory frameworks without timely reviews or clear justification. Frequent reassessment helps proportionality and accountability in how such powers are used. Therefore, we will not support these amendments.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his amendments on licensing schemes. On Amendment 107, we share the noble Lord’s desire to improve housing conditions, and we have always been clear that all renters deserve safe, secure and good-quality homes. That is why we are introducing a decent homes standard and Awaab’s law to drive reform and improve conditions across the sector. I acknowledge the work that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, did on Awaab’s law when we were on different sides of the House. As discussed in Committee, we think this is the right approach so that all renters and local authorities are able to challenge and address poor-quality homes, not just those in selective licensing areas.

On Amendment 108, we believe that licensing schemes are crucial in helping local authorities tackle specific issues and improve standards. We also think that local authorities are best placed to make decisions regarding the use of these enforcement tools in their local areas. That is why, at the end of last year, we removed the requirement to obtain Secretary of State approval to introduce larger selective licensing schemes. However, we know that licensing schemes also place additional responsibilities on landlords. Local authorities must therefore keep schemes under review so that they remain proportionate and targeted at delivering the intended outcomes.

As discussed in Committee, a maximum duration of five years for schemes achieves the right balance. It gives local authorities time to assess the effectiveness of schemes while providing landlords with assurance that they will not be subject to increased regulation for extended periods. Where issues in the private rented sector persist after a scheme has ended, a local authority may introduce a new scheme to take further action, provided that the statutory criteria are still met. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for their comments. We clearly have a difference of opinion about the importance of selective licensing and the future operation of the decent homes standard. The Government have accepted the importance of selective licensing schemes because, in December, they removed the requirement for Secretary of State approval, as the Minister just said.

I am reluctant to press Amendments 107 and 108 to a Division because, clearly, the House will vote against them, and I think that would not be helpful in the current situation. Both Front Benches of the two largest parties in this Chamber have indicated their opposition to them, so any Division that I moved would be lost.

It is important for me to withdraw the amendment because two pieces of work are going on in the House of Commons on this matter. One is the consultation on the decent homes standard that the Government are undertaking, which the Minister referred to a moment ago. Also, the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee is taking evidence on housing conditions generally in England. It will be important for the government consultation and the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee to take the evidence from our debate on these amendments to see the concerns that I and professional bodies have been expressing about the importance of selective licensing in driving up housing standards in the private rented sector, as well as in the public sector more generally.

In the hope that there will be sufficient good will around the Chamber to allow this debate to be referred to the bodies now undertaking consultation, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 107.

Amendment 107 withdrawn.

Amendments 108 and 109 not moved.

Amendment 110

Moved by

[Lord Cromwell]

110: After Clause 113, insert the following new Clause—
“Offences under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977: report(1) The Secretary of State must publish a report about the application of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, including—(a) an assessment of the level of understanding among tenants, landlords, and the police about the criminal nature of offences under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977,(b) a plan to increase awareness about the nature of offences under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 among groups in paragraph (a),(c) a clarificatory statement about the nature of offences under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 which tenants, landlords and the police can use as a reference, (d) the reasonable steps which the police should take to prevent such offences being committed, and(e) the training and relevant reference materials which must be made available to all police officers to support the discharge of their duties under this section and the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.(2) The report under subsection (1) must be published within six months of the day on which this Act is passed and must be laid before Parliament.”

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I thank all those who spoke in support of this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, was very candid in his acknowledgement—he is on his way here, I believe—of the issue with the police’s application of the 1997 Act. The noble Lord, Lord Best, underlined the need for clarification and the achievable nature of this amendment. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her kind support for the amendment and what she rather charmingly called the “formidable trio” who were putting it forward.

Finally, I thank the Minister for her comments, which I listened to with care. I have to say that her assurance that, if I may quote, she or her department is “actively working” to “explore” with a number of various bodies what to do is, I am afraid, not good enough. It is clear what needs to be and what should be done within the next six months, which would solve the core issue here: the correct understanding and application of the 1997 Act to do right by vulnerable tenants, target rogue landlords and support the police in the correct performance of their duties. For that reason, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

18:37

Division 4

Ayes: 98

---

Liberal Democrat: 52
Crossbench: 37
Democratic Unionist Party: 4
Non-affiliated: 2
Green Party: 1
Bishops: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 148

---

Labour: 143
Crossbench: 3
Non-affiliated: 2

18:48

Clause 126: Suspected residential tenancy: entry without warrant

Amendment 111

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

111: Clause 126, page 156, line 26, after “subsection (3)” insert “or (3A)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in my name which would add the new subsection (3A) to this clause.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, government Amendments 111, 112 and 113 to Section 239 of the Housing Act 2004 and Clause 126 of the Renters’ Rights Bill amend the requirements for entering premises without a warrant for the purposes of certain enforcement action. Notice to the property owner or landlord will now be provided after the entry has taken place, within a reasonable amount of time, rather than at least 24 hours before. The 24-hours prior notice requirement for tenants and occupiers will remain, so residents will always be aware that a power of entry is going to be exercised, whether that is under Section 239 of the Housing Act 2004 or Clause 126 of the Bill.

I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for raising this issue in Committee. We have given considerable thought to his proposal, as well as to feedback from local authorities. Local authorities have told us that providing notice can result in unscrupulous landlords hiding evidence of breaches, intimidating tenants, and temporarily fixing issues before reverting to non-compliance. We recognise that landlords will want to be aware of any inspection, and indeed the outcome of the inspection. The local authority will therefore need to provide notice after the inspection has taken place and engage with the landlord about any issues raised as a result.

We have heard, throughout the passage of this Bill, about the importance of local housing authorities having the right resources and tools to enforce. Making this change will make a real difference in their ability to address unsafe or hazardous living conditions more promptly and tackle unscrupulous landlords. I beg to move.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments. I declare my interest: I own, with my wife, one apartment in the West Midlands. It will not help me in any way if this amendment is passed, but I still think it is the right thing to do, for exactly the reasons that the Minister has given—ones that I myself pressed in Committee. I am very grateful to her and her colleagues for meeting with me in the meantime, and for taking up the amendment at this stage. I urge noble Lords, if these matters are put to a Division of the House, to support the government amendments.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, we supported the right reverend Prelate in Committee and will support the Government now. In my experience, a local authority takes very seriously whether it decides to enforce an entry and go into a property. Again, we are not talking about the nice little cottage or the cottage belonging to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking; we are talking about properties where bad stuff goes on, where modern slavery can be happening, where people are refugees and people are living in appalling conditions.

There is no way we would support saying, “Cooee, rogue landlord, we’re just letting you know that we’re coming in 24 hours”. There has to be an opportunity at this extreme end of enforcement to be able to make a surprise snap inspection. I am glad that the Government have listened to that. Of course there need to be safeguards, but I think this is another of those instances where the good landlords need not fear. The right reverend Prelate need not worry about his flat in the Midlands, because I cannot imagine that they are going to be dashing in at six in the morning. Because of some of the extreme things that happen in our country, sadly, the power needs to exist and therefore we will support the Government.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments concerns powers of entry, particularly in relation to notices served to landlords and occupiers under Clauses 126 and 135. The amendments in the name of the Minister seek to make targeted changes to when and how notice must be given before entry is exercised by local authorities under their enforcement powers.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, makes the case via the “extreme end” of the spectrum. The extreme end of modern slavery and other criminal activities, I do believe, might just be a police matter. This is dealing, rightly, with things that may need enforcement. The notice would be given to the tenant, but owners have rights such as also being given notice, not retrospective written notice after entry has taken place.

On these Benches we have consistently supported effective enforcement, but it needs to be proportionate, accountable and clearly justified. The balance between enforcement and individual rights is delicate, and changes to that balance demand close scrutiny. Government Amendment 111 may appear a consequential provision linked to wider changes proposed in other amendments in this group, but together they are not technical amendments. These amendments, brought to this House so late in the process, underpin a significant shift in approach, one that removes long-standing procedural protections for landlords and residents without adequate explanation or assurance.

These changes introduce ambiguity into what should be a tightly regulated area of enforcement. They risk undermining trust in local authority investigations and could lead to a greater number of legal challenges, confusion and even misuse. We cannot and will not support provision that weakens accountability without offering clear safeguards in return. Powers of entry are intrusive by their nature. If they are to be exercised without prior warning, there must be rigorous justification, robust checks and balances and explicit limits to prevent overreach. That bar has not been met.

We also have deep reservations about government Amendment 113, which proposes similar changes in relation to Section 239 of the Housing Act 2004. Again, the proposed move from prior notification to retrospective notice raises serious concerns, particularly in the absence of a defined threshold for when such unannounced entry would be deemed necessary or proportionate.

This Bill is an opportunity to rebuild confidence across the housing system, but confidence rests on fairness. These amendments risk tipping the balance too far, undermining transparency and weakening the very safeguards that protect landlords and tenants alike. For those reasons, we will vote against this package of amendments and urge the Government to reconsider their approach in this area.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

Can I just ask the noble Lord a question? I absolutely understand that the extreme end is criminal, but will he concede that local authority officers are very often the ones to uncover the criminal practices in their proportionate response to local concerns that have built up over time? They will go in and then find that there is more there than they originally thought, and then it is time to hand over to the authorities. In my experience, that prevents overreach. You have to be able to build your case and be quite confident before you would ever assert these powers, because they are quite strong.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I refer to my comments. If they are to be exercised without prior warning, there must be rigorous justification, robust checks and balances and explicit limits to prevent overreach. That bar has not been reached, and it is not in the Bill. It needs to be in the Bill.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank those who have contributed to this debate. We believe this is a well-balanced approach that enhances enforcement while respecting the rights of both landlords and tenants. Allowing local authorities—which have been very keen that we support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester’s proposal—to enter premises without giving advanced notice to owners and residential landlords will help them better target unscrupulous landlords, ensuring that properties are compliant with PRS legislation and meet safety standards.

On the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, local authorities are able to use these powers of entry only if they consider them necessary to determine whether enforcement action is needed. Officers will need the correct authorisation and will need to state the purpose of the inspection and ensure lawful use of the power of entry. Compliant landlords will not face any detriment as a result of this change, which is not intended to impact on good landlords. They will benefit from streamlined enforcement, with transparency through timely post-inspection notices.

As I set out in my opening speech, this change will make a real difference to the ability to address unsafe or hazardous living conditions more promptly and will assist our local authorities to promptly tackle unscrupulous landlords.

18:59

Division 5

Ayes: 214

---

Labour: 144
Liberal Democrat: 49
Crossbench: 16
Non-affiliated: 2
Green Party: 1
Bishops: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 153

---

Conservative: 142
Non-affiliated: 5
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Crossbench: 2
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
Labour: 1

19:09

Amendment 112

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

112: Clause 126, page 156, line 35, at end insert—
“(3A) A notice need not be given in accordance with subsection (1)(c)(ii) to a person who is a residential landlord within the meaning of Part 2 (see section 64).(3B) If—(a) premises are entered in exercise of the power conferred by subsection (1), and(b) notice is not given to any person because of subsection (3A),an officer of the local housing authority must give that person notice in writing of the exercise of that power within a reasonable period after its exercise.(3C) The notice must—(a) identify the premises that were entered,(b) state when the premises were entered, and(c) state the purpose for which the premises were entered.”Member's explanatory statement
This removes the requirement to give prior notice of entry under this clause to certain landlords and instead requires notice to be given after entry has taken place.

Amendment 112 agreed.

Clause 135: Investigatory powers under the Housing Act 2004

Amendment 113

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

113: Clause 135, page 162, leave out lines 8 to 10 and insert—
“(5A) In relation to any qualifying residential premises within the meaning given by section 2B, notice need not be given—(a) to any owner;(b) to any occupier who has waived the requirement to give notice.(5B) If—(a) premises are entered in exercise of the power conferred by subsection (3), and(b) notice is not given to any person because of subsection (5A)(a),the authorised person or proper officer must give that person notice of the exercise of that power within a reasonable period after its exercise.(5C) The notice must—(a) identify the premises that were entered,(b) state when the premises were entered, and(c) state the purpose for which the premises were entered.”Member's explanatory statement
This removes the requirement to give prior notice of entry under section 239(5) of the Housing Act 2004 to owners of “qualifying residential premises” (see clause 101(5) of this Bill) and instead requires notice to be given after entry has taken place.

Amendment 113 agreed.

Amendment 114 not moved.

Amendment 115

Moved by

[Baroness Thornhill]

115: After Clause 136, insert the following new Clause—
“Repeal of right to rent(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.(2) Omit Sections 20 (residential tenancy agreement) to 37 (interpretation).(3) Omit Schedule 3 (excluded residential tenancy agreements).”Member's explanatory statement
The new clause would abolish the right to rent provision introduced by the Immigration Act 2014.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, in Amendment 115 I am asking that the Government seriously consider repealing the right-to-rent policy. If any Bill is appropriate to repeal it, it is the Renters’ Rights Bill. I am picking up the baton from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who tabled this amendment on Report. The noble Baroness clearly listened to the words of her colleague, the Minister, and has decided not to pursue her amendment—but I bet her commitment is just as strong, as is mine.

I was surprised at the strength of the Minister’s response in Committee, so firmly closing the door on repeal. This is pernicious legislation that is designed to sound tough on immigration and is therefore for public consumption and political soundbites, rather than effective policy. The right to rent was introduced as a mechanism to make it harder for those without legal status to live and work in the UK—part of the so-called hostile environment. It placed a legal obligation on private landlords to carry out immigration checks before renting out their property, turning them into de facto border officials. Landlords and letting agents are ordinary citizens who are neither trained nor equipped to make complex legal determinations. When even the National Residential Landlords Association is saying loudly and clearly that this is not working, you know it is not a good thing. You have to question its ability do what it says on the tin.

This is not about being soft on immigration; it is about being fair, proportionate and practical, and on all three counts the right to rent fails. The evidence is clear: the right-to-rent scheme fuels racial and xenophobic discrimination. With landlords fearing the consequences of getting it wrong, including fines and even prison, they are more likely to play it safe and reject any tenant who does not hold a UK passport. Both the NRLA and Shelter say that one in four landlords believe they can rent only to British passport-holders.

The Minister in her previous response also asserted that it is possible to carry out the checks proportionately and without unlawful discrimination, but the reality is that it is not happening. Landlords and letting agents often end up resorting to proxies like names, accents and skin colour to rule out prospective tenants they assume will not pass the right to rent. We are seeing the chilling effects of this policy. Vulnerable groups are being pushed further into the shadows and forced into unsafe housing; unable to assert their rights, they are greater risk of exploitation by rogue landlords. Across the House, we have all been saying that we hope this Bill will eventually flush out rogue landlords and make it more difficult for them to exist, but this legislation delivers vulnerable people right into their hands.

The fact is that the Government have turned ordinary landlords into immigration officers—no training or guidance, just threats of fines and prison sentences if they get it wrong. The resulting discrimination is plainly evident. Let us be clear: this is not just a policy failure; it is a moral failure. It is pushing people into the shadows and into dodgy housing, and they are unable to complain or seek help; and all the while—this is the killer—there is no evidence that this policy even works. None at all.

19:15

The Home Office cannot show that this policy has reduced illegal immigration, nor that it improves enforcement, but it has created fear, suspicion, and exclusion in housing, with no clear reason why. It has divided communities and made racism easier to justify for those who want to justify it. I have spent my life working in local government, dealing with housing, real families and real issues, as has the Minister, and I can tell you this. When people have a safe, stable home, they can thrive. They can contribute, and they belong. Right to rent does the exact opposite, and it should be repealed—if not now, when? I beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for taking over this amendment, to which I was pleased to add my name. I assure her that I am as committed as ever to opposing this policy. Given the widespread support for the repeal of this discriminatory legislation, including among landlords’ organisations, I had hoped the Government might consider accepting the amendment in Committee. I made then what I believed was a strong case for repeal. I will not repeat that now, especially as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, has made it so powerfully, but I will make just two points.

First, since Committee, a new research report into race, ethnicity and homelessness has been published which underlines the racism all too often faced in the housing market by racially minoritised tenants, especially refugees and other migrants. I am indebted to the lead researcher, Professor Suzanne Fitzpatrick of Heriot-Watt University, for sharing some of the findings with me. Although the research was not specifically into the right-to-rent scheme, a substantial number of participants have faced private landlords who clearly did not want to let to racially minoritised tenants. Practitioners repeatedly flagged up a reluctance to enforce housing rights among this group, even when they were aware of them. Professor Fitzpatrick suggests that confidence in exercising housing rights might well have been eroded by “hostile environment” policies, including the right-to-rent policy. In its recommendations the report thus argues that ending the right-to-rent policy, which has been shown to drive racial discrimination, would demonstrate the Bill’s commitment to addressing anti-discrimination practices.

Secondly, I was left somewhat bemused in Committee. Speaking for the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, who is not in his place, stated that I had raised a very valid issue regarding the right to rent and the fact that introducing what may seem quite a sensible rule leads to complications and places landlords in an awkward situation when they do not fully understand the legislation in front of them. When I pointed out that many people, including my noble friends Lady Smith of Basildon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, highlighted the potential problems at the time the legislation went through Parliament, I was grateful for his acknowledgement of the problems now and his observation that:

“Where the law is complex we need to make it simple and easy to comply with”.


He then went on to say:

“This is one of our major concerns with this legislation”,—[Official Report, 12/5/25; col. 1987.]


apparently forgetting that it was his party that introduced it.

I would say that it is never too late for a sinner to repent, but I am sat behind the right reverend Prelate. However, we are now saddled with this unfair legislation, which all too easily leads to the kind of discrimination uncovered by the Heriot-Watt research. My party, which was so critical of it at the time, now defends it, despite the evidence of its damaging impact on migrants and members of racially minoritised communities.

It was described by Wendy Williams in her Windrush Lessons Learned Review as one of the “most contentious aspects” of the hostile environment. It saddens me that, despite the evidence to the contrary, my noble friend the Minister, for whom I have the greatest respect, rejected the amendment in Committee on the grounds that, as we have heard:

“The right-to-rent scheme is capable of being operated proportionally by landlords and letting agents in all cases”.—[Official Report, 12/5/25; col. 1989.]


I disagree and therefore believe that it really is not compatible with the aims of the Bill.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I added my name to this amendment. I am grateful for the powerful speeches from the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Lister of Burtersett. They have left me with little to say, except that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has given me a cue with her words about the repentant sinner. I will take us even further back in history to the book of Genesis and the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham argues with God against the destruction of the cities, and God agrees that he will not destroy the cities if only 10 people can be found who are righteous. The principle that established, which passes down into our present law, is that it is better to let the guilty off than for the innocent to be punished.

That is what this particular amendment is about, because the people who are suffering are not the guilty few who may be here illegally and should not be here; they are the many people from minority ethnic backgrounds who just do not get a look-in because landlords play it safe. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to that when she introduced the debate. That is the problem. If we do not get rid of this pernicious bit of legislation, we will continue to see innocent people who, just because they have a different skin colour to my own, suffer because landlords will not let them properties just on the off-chance that there might be something not quite right in their paperwork. So I do not believe that the right-to-rent Act can be reformed, and I support this amendment.

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I hesitate to follow when Sodom and Gomorrah have both been mentioned. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, has made a powerful case for her amendment, and I associate myself with everything she has said and with the passionate defence of this amendment by my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett.

As has been said, the amendment seeks to repeal the right-to-rent provisions introduced by the Immigration Act 2014. I remember being a newbie here in 2014 and sitting on the Benches opposite, hearing those speeches against the clauses and provisions in the Immigration Act that we now seek to repeal. At its core, as we know, this scheme turns landlords and letting agents into immigration officers. It was part of the hostile environment created at that time, and I am sad to say to the Minister on the Front Bench that this is a continuation of that hostile environment. There is no excuse for this provision. It is a policy that has enabled and indeed legitimised discrimination, and I believe that it has no place in a housing system that should be fair and should treat everyone equally and with dignity.

Landlords and letting agents are making judgments based on what they think will fall within protecting themselves. They are immigration officers. It has been shown—I thank Shelter for its briefing—that a prospective white tenant is 36% more likely to get a positive response than a black tenant. Renters with south Asian names get 25% fewer replies than those with white-sounding names—evidence of the consequences of this pernicious piece of legislation.

The courts recognised this reality. In 2019, the High Court found that the policy causes discrimination. That ruling was later overturned on appeal, not because the discrimination was not happening but because it was deemed justifiable. That, I believe, is not acceptable. I could go on, but the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, has pointed out that the Home Office has never produced evidence on which we should legislate that the scheme reduces irregular immigration or improves enforcement.

Discrimination, particularly when sanctioned by the state, is never justifiable. There are many reasons to accept this amendment, but I urge the Front Bench to accept the decent, just and fair case. I see the realities of the discrimination in the housing sector in my own borough, the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. Now is the time to do the decent thing. I urge the Government to listen, reply and do the decent thing and repeal the right-to-rent provisions introduced by the Immigration Act 2014.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will be brief. On these Benches, we find the argument for full repeal unconvincing. The right-to-rent scheme was designed to serve a clear and important public interest, ensuring that access to the private rented sector is not used as a back door to unlawful residence in the United Kingdom. That principle remains relevant. The Bill is not the right vehicle to reopen immigration law. Any reform of the right-to-rent scheme must be considered in the round and as part of a wider conversation about enforcement, fairness and social cohesion in our immigration system. For those reasons, we cannot, and I will not, support this amendment.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for Amendment 115, which would abolish the right-to-rent scheme that applies in England. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Scott, the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for their contributions.

The scheme was introduced to ensure that only those lawfully in the United Kingdom can access the private rented sector and, importantly, to tackle unscrupulous landlords who exploit vulnerable migrants, sometimes in very poor living conditions. Some landlords who rent to those who are here illegally are criminal operators. We all have a shared objective to drive them from the rental market and to deter unscrupulous landlords from entering into exploitative practices.

We have always been absolutely clear that discriminatory treatment on the part of anyone carrying out right-to-rent checks is unlawful. The checks apply equally to everyone seeking private rental accommodation, including British citizens. The scheme has been independently evaluated twice. Although some examples of discriminatory attitudes were found, there was insufficient evidence to claim that there was any systematic, unlawful discrimination as a result of the right-to-rent scheme. There are therefore no current plans to end the scheme.

It is our view that it is wrong to seek to abolish right-to-rent legislation in its entirety by simple notice of amendment. This immigration legislation was designed to address those who are disqualified from living in the UK by virtue of their immigration status, and that remains an important priority for this Government. The Government will continue to support legitimate landlords and letting agents who continue to act properly by carrying out the prescribed checks in legislation and published guidance. We have made big strides to improve the digital capability of the systems involved.

I emphasise that the Home Office has listened to and taken on board concerns expressed about right to rent during the progress of the Renters’ Rights Bill and from wider stakeholder engagement. As a result, officials will actively engage further with tenants and their representative groups to ensure that the right-to-rent scheme works fairly and inclusively for all. Early engagement has helped the Home Office identify individuals who may struggle to prove their identity and, in consequence, face barriers to accessing housing and other services. The Home Office has begun to work with local authorities to understand how individuals can overcome these barriers, with the aim of extending successful approaches across the UK.

As we move forward, we remain committed to working with stakeholders, including community-based initiatives and the third sector, to strengthen the inclusivity and accessibility of the right-to-rent scheme. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her interest in the scheme and would be happy to facilitate a meeting with the appropriate Home Office officials to discuss how to ensure that the scheme can operate inclusively and fairly for all tenants, landlords and letting agents. In the light of these reassurances, I ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, withdraws the amendment.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her answer. It seems to me that the Government want to make the scheme work, whereas on our Benches we are fundamentally opposed, as a matter of principle, to making ordinary citizen landlords immigration officers.

Noble Lords know that we do not fight injustice by staying quiet; we fight it by shining a light, telling the truth—the truth is that this is not working—and demanding better. That is what those of us who have spoken have tried to do, in some small way, by supporting this amendment.

I am disappointed that this Labour Government have not taken an opportunity to repeal this, and I feel so strongly about it that I did want to push it to a vote, but I am not silly and I do not want to waste noble Lords’ time, knowing that it will come to nothing. So I will not push it to a vote, but I will explore every avenue to bring it up again and again in any legislation. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 115 withdrawn.

19:30

Amendment 116

Moved by

[Baroness Thornhill]

116: After Clause 136, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of the impact of this Act on the judicial system(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the impact of this Act on the judicial system.(2) The review must, in particular, assess the impact of the Act on—(a) the volume of cases brought before the courts;(b) the efficiency and timeliness of judicial proceedings;(c) the resource and administrative burden on the courts;(d) individuals’ ability to access justice.(3) In conducting the review, the Secretary of State must consult—(a) legal practitioners and their representative bodies,(b) court administration officials, and(c) any other persons or bodies the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(4) The Secretary of State must lay a report setting out the findings of the review before Parliament no later than two years after the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review and report on the impact of the Act on the judicial system — specifically in relation to case volumes, court efficiency, resource implications, and access to justice — within two years of the Act being passed.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I have been pleasantly surprised by the support for this amendment from a range of bodies, including the Law Society and the National Residential Landlords Association, plus many and various housing legal practices. Thus I can say with confidence that the reassurances we have had thus far about the capacity and capability of the courts to deal with the impact of the Bill when it becomes an Act are clearly challenged by those who actually have to deal with the courts regularly and currently, and I have listened to them. It seems we are still recovering from the backlog of Covid; they are not convinced that it is sorted, and neither are we yet, but we hope that this amendment provides an opportunity for the Minister to do that.

Put very simply, this amendment asks for a review of the impact of the Bill, when passed, on the judicial system, with the findings set out no later than two years after the day on which it is passed. It asks the Government to consider the effects on case volumes, court efficiency, resource demands and access to justice—all key areas to measure the effectiveness of the court process for both landlords and tenants and to ensure confidence in the whole system. Does the Minister have access to the measures on current case loads from which we can measure progress?

This amendment also reflects concerns raised across this House about the capacity of the courts to deal with the additional case loads that the Bill might generate. I seek reassurance that the Government will give a clear commitment today to provide the necessary resources that the courts might need going forward. Of course, that begs the question of how the Government will know this if they do not carry out some sort of fundamental review. If reviews or something similar are promised by the Minister, given the widespread concerns there still are about the courts, can the Minister give a reason why this cannot be included in the Bill?

I know we have all received emails from around the country from landlords giving their own instances of the length of time it takes for an application for a possession order to get to an actual hearing. It has gone from weeks to months and varies depending on where you live in the country, and that is now. I hope the Minister can give us all some assurance of what the current situation is so that we can have a benchmark before the Bill becomes an Act. In Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, stated:

“Backlogs are rising, court rooms lie unused for lack of staff and overburdened judges are stretched too thin”.—[Official Report, 28/4/25; col. 997.]


Can the Minister please give us a progress report?

Amendments 120 and 121 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, seem to be asking for a delay, setting the unrealistic measure of cases being processed as quickly as they were before the first lockdown. To achieve this some might say desirable benchmark would, we believe, inevitably delay the implementation of the very important rental reforms in the Bill, so we cannot support them, but we would like to hear that the Government and the courts are now in tandem and have an agreed commencement date. I beg to move.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, for their amendments. Starting with Amendment 116, we fully recognise the importance of the justice system, both courts and tribunals, needing to be ready for our reforms, and for individuals to access timely justice. We are therefore, as I have commented in previous sittings on the Bill, working closely with the Ministry of Justice to assess the impacts of our reforms on the courts and tribunals, and to lessen these wherever possible. This work has been ongoing for years and in great detail. The digital service for possession claims is well advanced and will make it more efficient and easier to understand for landlords and tenants.

The amendment we have tabled to our rent increase measures shows that we are listening to the concerns of the sector and this House about tribunal workloads. It puts in place a sensible and proportionate safeguard in case it is needed. The Ministry of Justice already publishes quarterly statistics on the operation of the county court possession process, including the volume of cases going through the system and average timelines. This data is widely available and regularly reported on in the press. As set out in the impact assessment for the Bill, and in debate, we are already committed to monitoring and evaluating the private rented sector reform programme.

I have spoken at length about the ambition of this programme, so I will simply reiterate that we will use a wide range of sources to support this monitoring and evaluation work. Existing datasets will be used, and new data will be collected. The department is fully committed to publishing our evaluation findings at the two-year and five-year points after the Bill’s implementation. I can therefore assure the House that we will already be collecting extensive data. In this context, it is not necessary to commit to undertake any further review. I welcome the wish of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, to give our reforms a regular MOT, but I hope she accepts that we have ambitious evaluation plans and do not want to duplicate them unnecessarily. Therefore, I respectfully ask her to withdraw her amendment.

Amendment 121 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 lockdown before most of the Bill could be capable of coming into effect. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, has also tabled Amendment 120, which would confirm that commencement of these important reforms would be delayed until this proposed certification had been carried out. I fully appreciate the need for the justice system to be ready for our reforms, and for landlords and tenants to access justice in a timely way, and that landlords need a smooth and efficient process in the county court for the minority of cases where court action for possession becomes necessary.

I want to be clear that we will not link the implementation of most of the provisions in this Bill to an arbitrary target of court timeliness. The sector has already waited too long for these urgently needed reforms. Court rules already specify that possession cases requiring a hearing should be listed between four and eight weeks from the issue of the claim. The MoJ quarterly landlord possession action statistics for the period January to March 2025 indicate that claim to order median timeliness is 8.3 weeks. I understand that there will be cases outside that, but they often have different circumstances. Setting a target for other parts of the possession process is not sensible, as it is dependent on the actions of the parties to the proceedings.

For example, an important stage of the process is the application for a warrant of possession, and this is dependent on the actions of a landlord and is outside the control of the court service. Where a tenant stays in a property beyond the date in the possession order, a landlord can choose if and when to apply for a warrant to enforce the possession order granted by the court. They can also decide whether to apply to transfer the case to the High Court.

Instead of agreeing to these unnecessary commitments, we are working in partnership with the Ministry of Justice to assess the impact of the reforms on the county court and lessen these wherever possible. This close collaboration has been done in a great deal of detail. It includes the development of a new digital service for possession claims, which is well advanced, that will make the possession process more efficient and easier to understand for landlords and tenants. As set out in the impact assessment for the Bill, and in debate, we are committed to monitoring and evaluating it.

I welcome the wish expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, for a more efficient possession action process, but I hope he accepts that we are making good progress on bringing these processes online and will not press his amendments.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I am pleased that the Minister sounded assured in what she told us, and I accept what she says. However, that view is not shared by everyone. The Minister said that everyone should know, it is in the press, et cetera, but that does not appear to be the case. I think the Minister is confident in the good news and she is in tandem with the courts, and therefore there is a message to get out. Without meaningful court reform, the ambitions of the Renters’ Rights Bill could be seriously undermined, and we all know and understand that. I will cut to the chase: I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 116 withdrawn.

Amendment 117 not moved.

Amendment 118

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

118: After Clause 136, insert the following new Clause—
“Report of the impact of this Act on the housing market(1) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report outlining the impact of the provisions of this Act on the housing market in England, Wales and Scotland.(2) A report made under this section must include the impact of this Act on—(a) the availability of homes in the private rental sector,(b) rents charged under tenancies,(c) house prices, and(d) requests for social housing.(3) A report made under this section must be laid before Parliament.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require a report of the impact of the Act on the housing market, particularly in relation to availability of rented homes, rents charged, house prices and requests for social housing.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment was spoken to earlier on Report. In our view, it is a very important amendment because it asks that there be an annual report on the Bill laid before Parliament. The reason for this is that we are beginning to see problems within this sector; we would want to see published the availability of homes, the rents charged as a result of a lack of available homes, house prices in and around the same sector, and, very importantly, requests for social housing, because as the rented sector starts to cool down, the social housing sector hots up.

We think that the Government should accept this type of annual report so that if anything goes badly wrong in this sector, something can be done about it very quickly. The Government are offering some sort of review with figures that will come out, but that is not what is wanted by this side of the House. We want an annual report—not a review—to be laid before Parliament so that it can be debated properly and, if needed, amendments can be proposed to change things and bring the sector back up to what it is at the moment. I know it is late, but I intend to test the opinion of the House on what we consider a very important amendment.

19:43

Division 6

Ayes: 106

---

Conservative: 73
Liberal Democrat: 21
Crossbench: 9
Non-affiliated: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 148

---

Labour: 138
Crossbench: 8
Green Party: 1
Bishops: 1

19:54

Clause 140: Regulations

Amendment 119 not moved.

Clause 145: Commencement

Amendments 120 and 121 not moved.

Amendment 122

Moved by

[Lord Carrington]

122: Clause 145, page 169, line 5, at end insert—
“(9) Different days may be appointed for different purposes in relation to Chapter 1 of Part 1 so that—(a) one day (not sooner than three months after this Act is passed) is appointed for the purposes of new tenancies, and(b) one day (not sooner than six months after this Act is passed) is appointed for the purposes of existing tenancies.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that at least three months’ notice is given prior to new tenancies becoming section 4A assured tenancies and that at least a further three months’ notice is given before existing tenancies become section 4A assured tenancies.

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 122 and welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. The amendment aims to introduce a transition period of three months for new assured tenancies and six months for existing tenancies before the Bill’s provisions take effect.

Much of the debate surrounding this legislation focuses quite rightly on the need to tackle rogue or criminal landlords, while ensuring that the new responsibilities applied to PRS landlords are fair, equitable and sustainable. However, there is another important consideration which has received considerably less attention but which is equally critical if we are to maintain a vibrant PRS.

The implementation of the Bill’s measures must avoid any disruption in the flow of mortgage finance that underpins most of our country’s privately rented homes. Careful consideration must be given to the implementation of the legislation to ensure a smooth transition to the new tenancy system. A great many landlords have no knowledge of the Bill and what it entails. Landlords, lenders and others in the PRS will need time and support to adjust to the significant changes that the new tenancy system requires.

I would like to explain why this, or a very similar amendment, was not tabled in Committee. Lenders rightly wanted further engagement with government to discuss how the legislation can be implemented successfully, to share insights on the impact on the lenders and to consider how the sector can be supported to ensure the best outcome for tenants. In order to achieve a smooth transition to the tenancy system, following Second Reading in February the mortgage lenders, led by UK Finance, wrote to the Minister at MHCLG in early March requesting a meeting. The Minister’s officials at MHCLG responded in mid-April, offering that meeting. Ongoing discussions then started regarding the concerns of the lenders. I thought it best to wait till the outcome of those discussions was known before muddying the waters with an amendment. Unfortunately, these discussions, which also involved HM Treasury, have not so far satisfied the mortgage lenders. In fact, no follow-up has been received from the Treasury. Current meetings continue to take place with the Bank of England.

As noble Lords have been made aware, the PRS currently houses one in five households, including workers, students and those unable to buy homes or access social housing. Some 60% of landlords rely on buy-to-let mortgages. To maintain the supply of PRS homes needed to meet sustained demand, a continuing flow of buy-to-let mortgage finance is therefore essential. As such, the Government should welcome this amendment to introduce a transition period for the introduction of reforms before the Bill’s provisions take effect, so that the buy-to-let mortgage lenders have sufficient time to implement the necessary system changes.

I believe the Government have committed to implementing the new tenancy system in one stage, avoiding unnecessary cliff edges and working with all parts of the sector to ensure a smooth transition. To achieve this, sufficient time will be needed for the sector to prepare. The changes will include drafting new tenancy agreements, developing training materials to support property professionals, helping agents understand the new procedures, and enabling insurance and mortgage providers to adjust their policies, among other issues.

It would make enormous sense to provide a transition period to support the industry to implement the required changes. These lenders will need at least three to six months, depending on whether the tenancies underpinned by their mortgages are new or existing, to implement the changes required by the legislation. To give some examples, lenders will need to review new mortgage application terms and conditions, mortgage offers and lending policies. Additionally, lenders with forward flow or warehouse agreements for funding may need approval from their funders and forward flow partners.

20:00

However, and most importantly, buy-to-let mortgage lenders cannot begin implementing many of these changes until they have seen the finalised details of the Act. Addressing these issues is vital to ensure the continued supply of PRS homes for people across the country and to avoid the disruption of mortgage finance that could lead to a contraction in that supply.

We have had no information on the timescale for the implementation of the Bill, except the text of Clause 145, which I, as a lay man, find incomprehensible. I urge the Minister to tell us the timescale for implementation or to consider and accept the amendment as a means of a smooth transition. I beg to move.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to support the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. There is nothing political about the stand that he is, and I am now, taking; it is a purely practical amendment. Indeed, in Committee, I tabled a great number of amendments to do with the start date of the provisions in the Bill. They were also not in any way political; they were purely administrative or practical.

As your Lordships know, in the Bill there are absolutely fundamental changes to the law of landlord and tenant. The short-term tenancy has gone, and it is being replaced by a periodic tenancy. There are a number of other features which we have gone through in detail, both in Committee and on Report, which are new and represent some massive change. The consequence of that is that everybody involved in the lettings of property —estate agents and the landlords—needs time to draw up entirely new tenancy agreements.

As it happens, I personally write all my tenancy agreements with each of my tenants, and I have to get down to this task of completely rewriting these tenancy agreements. Of course, I have the advantage of having participated in the Bill at Second Reading, in Committee and now on Report. I do not need the full three months for either new or existing tenancies, but I am sympathetic to others who are going to need more time. I ask my noble friend the Minister—not for any political reasons, but for purely practical reasons—would she consider giving more time, because there is a lot of work to be done? I think I can do it within the requisite time, but others may find it very difficult.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

To the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Hacking, I have to say that we do not want to do anything that would delay the Bill. We want its key statutes to be on the books as soon as possible. Being blunt, the key players who are talking about to buy-to-let mortgages have known that this is coming for a long time. They really should have been on it for months. If they have not, I am not quite sure what planet they have been on.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

Would the noble Baroness kindly help me when I have to write all these tenancy agreements? It takes time.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I am hoping that some of the larger players will have ones that are off the shelf for the noble Lord to use. I am sure the Minister will be able to help out with that. Basically, we do not want to delay things any more. We genuinely believe that the trailing of the key planks of the Bill has been so public and so out there. But I say to the Minister that some definite timescales would be helpful.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we think that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is sensible and measured. The amendment provides for a minimum of three months’ notice before new tenancies are treated as Section 4A assured tenancies and a further three months before existing tenancies are reclassified in the same way. This introduces a clear and reasonable transitional period, giving landlords and tenants time to prepare for the significant legal and practical implications of these changes.

Crucially, it gives banks time too. As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, noted, Amendment 122 is supported by UK Finance, including lenders such as Nationwide and Paragon. Banks need time to adjust. Any change to how a landlord can evict a tenant makes lenders more cautious about the security of their investments. These lenders will want to have seen it in writing before they start to make too many changes.

Additionally, lenders will need to reassess their understanding of rental income flows. Lenders will have to adjust their risk models, and potentially their loan terms, to accommodate the risks under the new regime, not only in relation to individual properties but with regard to the broader market stability. It is vital to understand how the regime affects overall demand in the rental market.

I take this opportunity to raise the specifics of buy-to-let mortgages. Flexibility in increasing rents in these cases is especially important and an area where sufficient time for adjustment will be needed. Lenders must evaluate the continued attractiveness of buy-to-let properties as collateral for loans.

Operational readiness matters too. Quite simply, new systems and processes will need to be adapted to the framework. Earlier today, we discussed systems such as the database and the pensions dashboard. Of course, many private companies are often more agile when responding to challenge and change, but even they need time.

This is a complex Bill, and I have said several times that its implementation will require careful communication and a phased approach. I see this amendment as a practical way of helping the Government ensure that no stakeholder is caught off guard by the shift to the assured tenancy regime.

I would welcome clarity from the Minister on the Government’s plans for commencement—so, I am sure, would landlords and tenants—and all stakeholders will need time.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his amendment and for his engagement generally on the Bill. Subsequent to our meeting earlier this week, I had a detailed response prepared for the noble Lord on Clause 145. Unfortunately, it arrived in my inbox just as I was coming into the Chamber this afternoon. It probably has not reached him yet, but that is on its way to him.

On Amendment 122, the Government are committed to introducing the new tenancy system for the private rented sector in one stage to bring to an end Section 21 no-fault evictions as soon as possible. These evictions cause utter misery for the tenants on the other end of them and a huge amount of cost to local government in picking up the pieces when people get evicted at very short notice. A single implementation date for both new and existing tenancies will enable all tenants to benefit from the reforms as soon as possible and prevent a confusing two-tier system during transition.

We are continuing to work very closely with stakeholders. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, referred to meetings between my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and financial institutions. He has also met with many landlords’ associations and other stakeholders to ensure that the sector is prepared for the reforms in the Bill. I want to be very clear that we are committed to providing sufficient notice to ensure that all parts of the private rented sector have time to prepare. Implementation will not be immediate, as we have secondary legislation to pass. We are making good progress on drafting that and the necessary guidance that goes alongside it. All this will help us to implement in a timely manner.

In addition, the Bill makes specific provision to ensure a smooth transition to the new system and avoid unnecessary cliff edges. For example, the Bill will ensure that notices served by landlords before the commencement date remain valid after that date. Based on our ongoing work to ensure a smooth transition to the new system, we consider that there will be no benefit to requiring arbitrary minimum time periods after Royal Assent before the tenancy reform measures in the Bill can come into force.

With these reassurances that we are committed to a smooth and responsible approach to implementing the Bill, I respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for her engagement with me, although the letter has not arrived yet. I am in a position of enormous power now, in the sense that this is the very last amendment and I am keeping noble Lords from their drinks and everything else. I am very pleased that the Minister has now reassured me that the cliff edge will not happen just like that as far as financial institutions are concerned, and that there will be time for preparation.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for his support and his emphasis on the fact that this was not a political amendment but a practical one. I wish him great success in the work he does with his tenants. Happily, I have someone to help me.

Having thanked everybody for their kind engagement and sometime support, I have pleasure in withdrawing the amendment.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

I am entitled to intervene here. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his words and the Minister for reassuring me that more time will be given, and more time for me to rewrite these tenancy agreements.

Amendment 122 withdrawn.

Schedule 6: Transition Provision

Amendments 123 to 125

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

123: Schedule 6, page 244, line 32, after “13” insert “(1)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in my name which inserts new sub-paragraphs (2) to (6) into paragraph 13 of Schedule 6.

124: Schedule 6, page 245, line 21, leave out “(e)” and insert “(f)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This corrects a cross-reference.

125: Schedule 6, page 245, line 31, at end insert—
“(2) In relation to an existing tenancy which is a qualifying student tenancy, ground 4A in Schedule 2 to the 1988 Act has effect—(a) subject to the modifications in sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph, and(b) additionally as if, in the first paragraph of ground 4A, paragraphs (a) and (e) were omitted.(3) For the purposes of this paragraph, an existing tenancy is a “qualifying student tenancy” if any of the following is a member of a specified housing management code of practice—(a) the landlord;(b) a person appointed to act on the landlord’s behalf in respect of the tenancy;(c) a person appointed to discharge management functions in respect of the building which comprises the dwelling-house or in which the dwelling-house is situated.(4) In sub-paragraph (3)—“housing management code of practice” means a code of practice approved by the Secretary of State under section 233 of the Housing Act 2004 (codes relating to the management of HMOs or excepted accommodation);“management functions” in respect of a building includes functions relating to—(a) the provision of services, or(b) the repair, maintenance, improvement or insurance of the building;“specified” means specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”Member’s explanatory statement
This ensures that ground 4A in Schedule 2 to the 1988 Act (inserted by paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 to this Bill) is available in relation to certain existing tenancies of purpose built student accommodation.

Amendments 123 to 125 agreed.

20:14

Sitting suspended.