16:12 - Division on Amendment 87 - Ayes: 237 / Noes: 223 - Amendment 87 agreed.
17:16 - Division on Amendment 98 - Ayes: 215 / Noes: 240 - Amendment 98 disagreed.
18:08 - Division on Amendment 106 - Ayes: 282 / Noes: 158 - Amendment 106 agreed.
18:37 - Division on Amendment 110 - Ayes: 98 / Noes: 148 - Amendment 110 disagreed.
18:59 - Division on Amendment 111 - Ayes: 214 / Noes: 153 - Amendment 111 agreed.
19:43 - Division on Amendment 118 - Ayes: 106 / Noes: 148 - Amendment 118 disagreed.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“(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.
“(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.
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.
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.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“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.
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.
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.