(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:41 - Division on Motion A1 - Ayes: 192 / Noes: 239 - Motion A1 disagreed.
17:36 - Division on Motion C1 - Ayes: 204 / Noes: 215 - Motion C1 disagreed.
18:24 - Division on Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H) - Ayes: 169 / Noes: 212 - Motion H1 disagreed.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 11, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 11A.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion A I will, with the leave of the House, speak also to Motions E, F, G, G1 and L, which are grouped together.
It is a great pleasure to bring the Renters’ Rights Bill back to the House of Lords to consider the amendments and reasons from the other place. I start by thanking my colleague in the other place, the Housing Minister, for setting out the Government’s position on the amendments agreed by your Lordships. As he outlined, the Government made a clear manifesto commitment to the people to modernise the insecure and unjust private rented sector. The Renters’ Rights Bill delivers on this promise by empowering private renters with more rights, protection and greater security of tenure. I thank the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for their amendments in this group.
I begin with the amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, Amendment 11B, which would allow landlords to require an additional deposit equivalent to one to three weeks’ rent as a condition of their consent to a tenant’s request to keep a pet. A requirement for a further three weeks’ deposit would cost the average tenant in England over £900. This is unaffordable for most tenants and would greatly exceed the average deposit deduction for pet damage of £300.
While I truly appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, has considered these affordability issues to a degree in his amendment in lieu by stating that the additional deposit may be from one to three weeks at the landlord’s reasonable discretion, I am afraid that we still cannot accept this amendment. In practice, this provision would effectively be the same as allowing landlords to request up to three weeks’ deposit, as the original amendment did. Many landlords will charge the full amount, giving rise to the same affordability challenges as the original amendment.
As outlined at Lords Report, the Government have existing powers under the Tenant Fees Act 2019 which will allow Parliament to require a larger deposit where a landlord has consented to the tenant having a pet. We will continue to keep this position under review following Royal Assent. If there is clear evidence that pet damage is exceeding normal tenancy deposits, we have the Tenant Fees Act power, which would allow us to remedy this.
Amendment 39D, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, would introduce an annual reporting requirement on the quality of military accommodation. I express my grateful thanks to the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Thornhill, for their continued engagement on this issue. I also extend my thanks to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, for his tireless advocacy for service personnel and their families. I am sure that the whole House will agree that our armed service personnel and their families must live in safe and decent homes. The Government acknowledge the vital role that accommodation plays in their lives. We are determined to ensure that our personnel have access to safe, high-quality accommodation that meets their needs and reflects the importance of their service to our nation.
As I have previously outlined, the Government are committed to driving up the standards of military accommodation further. Earlier this year, the Ministry of Defence announced an additional £1.5 billion investment in service family accommodation over the next five years, above that already committed. Later this year, the Government will publish a defence housing strategy, setting out clear renewal standards and further steps to improve the lived experience of our personnel.
I welcome the amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Baroness and can confirm that the Government support this approach in principle. We have therefore tabled Amendments 39B and 39C as amendments in lieu, which will introduce a statutory requirement for annual reporting on the extent to which service family accommodation meets the decent homes standard. This amendment will place on a statutory basis the commitments the Housing Minister made in the other place for greater transparency and accountability on the quality of military accommodation. Alongside the Government’s wider actions that I have already highlighted, this will make a real difference in ensuring that service personnel and their families have homes of the quality they deserve. I have discussed the Government’s amendment in lieu with the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Grender, and with Gideon Amos MP, to whom I am grateful for his strong advocacy on this issue in the other place. They have indicated their support, and I hope that noble Lords will also support this amendment.
Finally, Lords Amendments 26 and 27, which were tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, would require local authorities to meet the criminal, rather than civil, standard of proof when imposing penalties for rental discrimination and rental bidding breaches. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, for his constructive engagement on this issue. We believe that local authorities will enforce these measures against the relevant standard of proof effectively. However, we understand the concerns from noble Lords that if this is not the case, there is a risk of an unsatisfactory decision.
With that in mind, I can confirm that the Government will include in the relevant statutory guidance to local authorities advice that a local authority exercises a quasi-judicial function when imposing a civil penalty, and should therefore be satisfied by credible, reliable and sufficient documentary or other evidence on the balance of probabilities that a person has breached a relevant requirement before imposing a penalty. Moreover, the Bill already gives a person against whom a local authority proposes to impose a penalty a right to make representations before a final decision is made, as well as a right to an appeal by way of rehearing against a penalty. I am pleased to have come to an agreement with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, on this issue. I hope this is sufficient to address the concerns of noble Lords and that they will agree to the Motion not to insist from the other place.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
“16D Pet damage deposit
(1) It is an implied term of every assured tenancy to which section 16A applies that if, at the time of consenting to the tenant keeping a pet, the landlord informs the tenant in writing that the payment of an additional pet damage deposit by the tenant is a condition of the consent, then the tenant must comply with that condition.
(2) The additional pet damage deposit under subsection (1)—
(a) can be used to make good pet damage,
(b) must be of equivalent value to a minimum of one weeks of rent and a maximum of three weeks of rent, depending on the nature of the pet, at the landlord's discretion acting reasonably,
(c) cannot be subject to the limits for deposits in tenancy agreements, and
(d) is subject to the rules governing deposits in tenancy agreements, for purposes of monies handled.””
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for her opening remarks. Your Lordships should please note my interest in the register that I work for and am a shareholder in a veterinary business that cares for many pets. I also have the privilege of being a dog owner for many years.
My updated amendment seeks to provide protection and reassurance to landlords and give tenants much more opportunity to find a rentable property that allows pets. The Government quite rightly included in the Bill the right of tenants to request landlords to allow pets, as currently there is a limited number of properties available.
At the commencement of the Bill, the Government wished to support landlords with a change with regards to the financial risk that pets may cause damage to a property during a tenancy. This proposed solution was an insurance policy which provided a level of cover. The proposal was supported by many housing and pet charities. Due to the risk profile of this type of cover, the insurance market could not provide the appropriate policies. As a result, the Government withdrew the proposal from the Bill. That risk still exists. The tenant’s five-week deposit covers the risk that tenants may cause damage to a property. Housing a pet is an additional risk and therefore asking for an extra amount of deposit is surely not unreasonable.
One of the Government’s objections to the amendment, as already stated by the Minister, was the increase in the deposit, and I acknowledge that this is an issue that exists for some. We have considered this in updating and reducing the number of weeks’ deposit required to a minimum of one week and in an obligation on landlords to be reasonable when asking for the amount of deposit considered and the nature of the pet or number of pets.
The Government said that the five-week deposit will cover the damage of pets. They used figures from the University of Huddersfield survey provided to the Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, which say 76% of landlords have no issue with pets. That leaves 24% of landlords with issues; that is not a small number and the summary does not define what those pet issues are. The report did quote that the average cost of pet-related damage was about £300 per tenancy. I believe the average weekly rent is about £300, as mentioned in the passage of the Bill, so one weeks’ rent would cover the damage.
It may be that if a pet damages a property, a good tenant will repair it. Sadly, not all tenants are the same, just like we have a range of good and bad landlords. If a tenant has a pet that causes some damage and it is not repaired, is it not likely that, if there are other damages, they will not be repaired? That is what the five-week deposit will cover, and an additional pet deposit could cover the pet damage.
There is good evidence that tenants with pets tend to stay longer, and many take care of their properties to a high standard. One conclusion would be that these tenants stay in certain properties for longer due to the lack of supply of alternative rental properties—which, happily, the Bill wishes to address—but we need to support landlords with this change. By supporting this amendment, we will be supporting landlords and making the process of more landlords accepting pets without objection a far greater reality, as they will have the protection of an additional deposit. It will, I hope, also encourage existing landlords to stay in the private rental sector market and potentially encourage new landlords to choose long-term tenancies over short-term holiday and Airbnb lets, so maintaining supply of rental properties.
A table in the University of Huddersfield report asks landlords whether different policies or incentives would encourage them to consider pet owners as tenants in the future. Some 53% asked said that having a tenant with insurance cover for pet damage would help. Sadly, this is not available. Some 51% said that allowing landlords to charge for a deep clean would help; this would be covered by a pet deposit. Some 43% said that allowing landlords to be allowed to hold a pet deposit would help them, and this is what this amendment does.
Pets provide so much to us human beings in companionship and health benefits and provide friendship and support at difficult times. When owning a pet, we have a responsibility to maintain their welfare and health. This is both a time commitment and a financial commitment for the owners. If someone is a potential tenant with a pet, an additional deposit for a property should be thought of as part of that financial commitment.
I hope my revised amendment will find some support with your Lordships today, and that we can find a balance between landlords and tenants to increase the supply of pet-friendly accommodation. I beg to move.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I welcome Amendments 39B and 39C in particular—on my behalf and on behalf of our most able leader on this Bill team, my noble friend Lady Thornhill. We are absolutely delighted that military housing is going to be held to the same legal standard as the private rentals in the Bill. Putting this on a statutory footing fulfils the wishes of this Government and the campaigning work by some of my colleagues, particularly in the Commons: MPs Gideon Amos and Helen Morgan, to name but two. I thank Adam Bull in our Whips’ Office, who has been working very hard on this over the recess.
I thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for her time and patience in discussing this issue and us getting to this very happy mutual agreement. I also thank Minister Pennycook for the time he spared, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who has spent time on this. The noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, have provided wisdom, backing and advice, and I am grateful to them both as well.
At the heart of this issue are those in the military who give the ultimate sacrifice and the families who live with them and stand by them. Let us hope, as a result of this change, that the appalling conditions they have endured so far will change and will be a thing of the past. We are enormously grateful for this change and are looking forward to seeing it introduced.
With regard to the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, we have consistently not supported this. We recognise the eloquence of his arguments in this area, but we continue to argue that this will place undue financial pressure on tenants and could be exploited by rogue landlords to impose excessive deposit charges. We believe that tenants, owner-occupiers and social tenants should be viewed on a much more equal footing. This speaks to some of the speeches that both I and my noble friend Lady Thornhill have made. Therefore, we feel we cannot support it, but we are absolutely delighted with the government amendment, and we look forward to its implementation.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard, Amendment 11B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, seeks to allow landlords to request a pet deposit equivalent to up to three weeks of rent. Like many of the charities involved in the animal welfare sector that have campaigned tirelessly on this issue, I am disappointed that we are having to return to this subject after it was clearly rejected in the other place, having been the subject of intense discussion. Charities including Battersea, Cats Protection and the Dogs Trust strongly support the Government’s position, and so do I. The reason for that is clear. Such an obligation would defeat the very purpose of the pet provisions in this carefully balanced Bill, which are designed to make pet ownership easier for tenants and remove the iniquity that owning a pet is the preserve of the increasingly small number of people who can afford to own their own home. I declare my own interests as the owner of a cat.
Let us be clear: as I said in Committee, for tenants seeking to have a single pet in rented accommodation, there is likely to be only very minimal, if any, damage. The standard security deposit is more than sufficient to cover any damage beyond standard wear and tear, as a survey conducted in 2021 by YouGov on behalf of the Dogs Trust and Cats Protection concluded. In rare circumstances, where damage caused by a pet may exceed the value of the existing security deposit, measures already exist for landlords to seek additional compensation from the tenant. As such, charging an additional pet deposit is unnecessarily and wholly disproportionate.
This costly proposal would put the wonderful aspiration of pet ownership beyond the reach of many. Allowing landlords to require a pet deposit equivalent of up to three weeks’ rent could see tenants forced to find up to an additional £1,500 for a one-bedroom flat in high-rent areas such as London—a figure which is unaffordable for many. It would also introduce an unfair geographical disparity, with those living in cities, where rents are higher, being far worse off compared with those living in rural areas.
Another problem with the addition of a pet deposit is the potential lack of transparency regarding what a landlord decides should constitute pet damage and what constitutes the type of damage that would otherwise be funded by the standard security deposit. Many landlords, I fear, would see this as an extra fund to provide an option to withhold more money simply for standard wear and tear.
The pet provisions in the Bill have been thoroughly and energetically debated, both inside and outside this House. It is clear from all those discussions that the standard security deposit is more than adequate to cover any damage caused by a pet and that this amendment is completely unnecessary. Its only result would be to neuter one of the key planks of this vital legislation, destroying the hopes of so many tenants who dream of having a pet in their home. Today, we should make that dream a reality, so I am afraid that, if the noble Lord presses his Motion, I shall be voting against it.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on two matters: first, the Ministry of Defence accommodation, and then the pet deposit. On the Ministry of Defence housing, we thank the Government for listening and engaging so constructively on this issue. The concerns raised have been recognised, and the Government’s response has been both proportionate and pragmatic. On these Benches, as ever, we strongly support our service personnel and the vital contribution they make to us and our country, and we are happy to support the Government’s Motion.
Turning to pets, I support the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, on an issue that has filled my inbox and, I know, that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson as well. When the Bill was first introduced, the Government rightly sought to balance the cost of pet-related damage through the requirement of pet insurance. However, as we pointed out repeatedly, and as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, emphasised, no such insurance product actually existed. Once the Government accepted that fact, the requirement was removed, but nothing was put in its place.
The noble Lord’s amendment would restore that missing balance. It offers a fair and proportionate settlement, ensuring that renters can keep pets in their homes while landlords have reassurance that any pet-related damage can be covered. If there is no damage, the deposit will be returned. Recent research by Propertymark shows that 85.3% of landlords and agents have incurred damage to their properties by pets. Yet more staggeringly, 57% of landlords and agents report being unable to recoup pet-related damage costs.
Allowing an additional deposit of one to three weeks’ rent is therefore a reasonable and balanced step that protects tenants’ rights while recognising the realities faced by landlords, particularly small landlords. Landlords are not always wealthy investors. Many, as we have said many times on this Bill, are ordinary people for whom a second property represents their pension or their life savings. If a property requires major cleaning or repair, those costs can be prohibitive, and in some cases could drive properties out of the rental market altogether. Therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, chooses to test the opinion of the House once again, we on these Benches will support him.
Finally, I thank the Government for their constructive engagement and the assurances given in writing and from the Dispatch Box on the standard of proof. Those commitments provide much-needed clarity and reassurance on how this will be applied in practice, and we are grateful for the Minister’s response.
Taken together, we believe that these measures improve the Bill, and make it fairer, more workable and more balanced for tenants and landlords alike.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I thank again the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for their positive approaches throughout the course of the Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Black, for his support—I will come on to some of the points that he raised in a moment—and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.
I think the responses to this part of the debate are pragmatic. I am afraid that we cannot accept the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. He mentioned the Government’s change in position on pet insurance. We had an extensive debate, in both your Lordships’ House and the other place. We drew on the expertise of Peers such as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lords, Lord de Clifford and Lord Trees. The Government consulted further with the Association of British Insurers and the British Insurance Brokers’ Association. Following that engagement, we concluded that we were no longer confident that the insurance and underwriting sector would have sufficient or suitable products available for landlords or tenants to purchase.
In view of that, we did not want to leave tenants in a position where they could not comply with conditions set as part of the pet consent granted by their landlord, as that would mean they would not be able to have a pet, which would defeat the object of having pet provisions in the Bill. I am pleased to say that, as the noble Lord, Lord Black, mentioned, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home has indicated its support for the Government’s approach, including the approach of not accepting this amendment. I received just today a letter of very strong support from Dogs Trust and Cats Protection, and another email from Shelter expressing its support and hope that this amendment would not be accepted, because it did not feel that it was in the interest of tenants or their pets. We used the information from the University of Huddersfield as part of our consideration.
It is important to say that, as I noted in my opening speech, we will continue to keep this under review. We have powers to allow for higher deposits for pets, if needed. We are satisfied at the moment that the existing requirement of five weeks’ deposit for typical tenancies is sufficient to cover the risk of any increased damage by pet ownership. I know some landlords are concerned about potential damage that may be caused by pets. Landlords can deduct damage costs from the normal tenancy deposit, as they do now. In rare cases, where the deposit did not cover the cost of the damage, the landlord could take the tenant to the small claims court and bring a money claim to recoup any outstanding amounts, in line with the wider rules in the sector.
We do not want to put tenants in a position where they cannot have a pet because there are no suitable insurance products available or they cannot afford the additional cost of a deposit. We will keep this matter under review, and I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his Motion.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
I thank your Lordships for your thoughts and speeches. I am pleased about, and support, the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, being accepted by the Government.
The Minister has not changed her position on my amendment. I understand the comments regarding the deposit scheme. On the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, I am just as passionate about allowing more people to have pets. With this amendment, I am trying to encourage landlords not to leave the sector due to tenants having pets. I would like more people to have pets, and I realise how important that is, but there is a balance to be struck with trying to reassure landlords, because they do not accept pets at the present time. There are very few properties on the market that allow them.
This amendment is trying to create a balance. I appreciate that some tenants will struggle to find that deposit, but I believe that, by having it in place, more landlords would be willing to accept pets, and there would be less disruption between landlords and tenants when tenants ask to have pets. On that basis, I would like to test the opinion of the House on my Motion.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, before we turn to Motion B, I remind your Lordships that, during a Division in particular, I need a clear sight of the clerk at all times. It is therefore strictly forbidden for any Peer to move between the Table and me so that I cannot see the clerk.
Motion B
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 14 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 14A in lieu—
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will speak also to Motions C, C1, D and D1, which are grouped together.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Young, for their amendments relating to the no-let restriction. Lords Amendment 18, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, is intended to reduce the no-let period to six months where the property has been demonstrably on the market and no suitable offers have been received for that period. The noble Lord and I, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, have discussed this amendment at length and I thank them again for their continued engagement on this issue. The Government understand that there may be situations where landlords genuinely intend to sell their property but cannot do so. However, the reletting and remarketing restriction is one of the strongest safeguards we have in the Bill.
I know that many noble Lords agree with the restriction in principle but disagree with its length. The Government believe that the 12-month period will make it unprofitable for a landlord to abuse this ground. It is vital that these strong protections for tenants remain in place, and I want to be clear about the Government’s position and commitment. This is shared by Members in the other place, and today I was pleased to receive strong support from Shelter, citing research from the Nationwide Foundation that one in five landlord sale evictions does not result in a sale.
Lords Amendment 19, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, would exempt shared owners from the re-letting and re-marketing restriction and other important restrictions. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for taking the time to meet, particularly during recess when he was kind enough to have meetings to discuss this important issue, and for his continued support for shared owners. I also thank him for his amendments in lieu: Amendments 19B, 19C and 19D.
The Government are very sympathetic to shared owners experiencing building safety issues and the particular challenges they face. We have already taken a number of steps outside the Bill to provide greater clarity for shared owners on what flexibilities and support they can expect from providers. These include new commitments in the update to the Government’s remediation acceleration plan, published in July. The noble Lord’s amendments in lieu acknowledge the unique circumstances in which shared owners operate, while not compromising on the core aim of the Bill to improve security of tenure in the sector. The Government are delighted to support his amendments and we encourage the House to agree to them. We will continue to work with the noble Lord as the Bill is implemented. I beg to move.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I will address Amendment 18, Motion C1 in place of Motion C. To recap very briefly on the substance of the amendment, the Bill punishes any landlord who serves notice on a tenant because the landlord is selling the property but the property fails to sell.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, forgive me for interrupting, but we were on Motion B and I was under the impression that the noble Lord wanted to speak on Motion B, but it appears that he has gone to Motion C. Am I correct?
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
Oh, they are in the same group. It is not my afternoon, is it? Pray continue.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
We could set this to music if the noble Baroness wishes. Where did I get to? I will not start again, the House has been too patient, but I will start halfway through.
The Bill punishes any landlord who serves notice on a tenant because the landlord is selling the property but the property then fails to sell. They are not allowed to re-let it for 12 months. The property must stand empty and unrented for that 12 months. The amendment does not quibble with that punitive intention of the Bill. It accepts that, in order to prevent a few bad landlords trying to abuse the system, all property, belonging to all landlords, that fails to sell will stand empty and be impossible to live in for anyone seeking rental accommodation. The amendment simply sets that punitive period at six months and requires the landlord to furnish proof to a court of a genuine and reasonable, including reasonable pricing, attempt to sell the property during that time.
The House of Commons debate on this amendment acknowledged that the landlord being hit with 12 months of no income, along with the costs of their property standing empty for a year, is a problem. However, this was considered to be “relatively minor” and simply an
“inconvenience … to a well-meaning landlord who is struggling to sell”.
It was claimed that it is “far too easy” for
“any rogue landlord looking for an excuse to evict”
to abuse the proposed period of six months, and that
“landlords give excuses that are perhaps not all they seem to be”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/9/25; cols. 651, 646, 652.]
I am sorry to say that no facts were presented, quantified or examined, and no evidence was provided, just these dismissive anti-landlord assertions.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I support Motion C1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. I repeat my interest, in that my wife owns properties in London which she rents out, from which I occasionally benefit. I thank the Minister for meeting the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and me to discuss the matter. Her engagement with us was much appreciated.
I want to emphasise what the Minister in the House of Commons said when the Lords amendment was defeated. He said:
“We recognise that there will be occasions when landlords regain vacant possession of their property using ground 1A but are unable subsequently to sell it despite repeated attempts to do so”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/9/25; col. 637.]
So the Government expressly acknowledge that there will be landlords who are unable to sell, having intended to do so, and who are acting in perfect good faith. The issue is whether it is really appropriate in this Bill to penalise such good faith landlords by preventing them renting out their property for 12 months because of abuse—and there is abuse—by other landlords.
I suggest to the House that this is a plain and obvious case of a disproportionate sanction. It is a sanction against those who have done no wrong and who have acted in perfect good faith. This Government are often eager to emphasise the importance of human rights law. It is important to acknowledge that human rights law does not just protect prisoners and illegal entrants; it also protects law-abiding citizens who own property and who wish to rent it out.
It is a basic principle of the common law, adopted by the Human Rights Act, that any interference with the right to property requires a fair balance between the interests of the property owner and the interests of the community. I suggest to the House that to penalise a landlord who has acted in good faith by preventing them renting out their own property for 12 months when they have done no wrong defies the need for a fair balance. It is manifestly disproportionate. The modest amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, to reduce the period to six months is fair and balanced, and if he divides the House, as he has indicated he will, he will certainly have my support.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
I do not know if the noble Lord is wanting to speak. I am perfectly prepared to give way to him, although I seem to have the Floor of the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, made a very powerful case, which was well supported by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. The noble Lord and others will remember that I supported him on this measure in Committee, and I think also on Report. It covers a wider ground than just the landlord who has been unable to sell. There is another ground, where the landlord has got possession of a property to put members of their family in. I cited the example of a landlord having done that for, let us say, parents coming in, one of whom then has a stroke, meaning that the landlord then needs to do something with the property that involves putting it back on the market. In that situation, the landlord is penalised in exactly the same way as when a landlord fails in a genuine attempt to sell, as the noble Lord has described.
In Committee, and I think also on Report, I proposed a better way of dealing with this problem: a prohibition on any landlord putting property on the market again at a higher price than the price at the time of the change of ownership. I should have succeeded in that argument, but I did not. However, I am certainly supporting the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, as supported by noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I hope that your Lordships have heard the arguments from the noble Lords and will support them on this issue.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Motion D1 in my name, which the Minister referred to sympathetically at the beginning of our debate.
As we have heard, the Bill currently precludes a landlord who gives notice to a tenant because he wants to sell from re-letting that property for 12 months if that sale falls through. The Government want all tenants to be protected against abusive eviction by landlords, and I have no difficulty with that principle. However, in the case of shared owners, there are already safeguards against such abuse that are not there for conventional landlords, and their sales are more likely to fall through, through no fault of their own.
The amendment exempting shared owners from this provision was carried on Report in your Lordships’ House by the largest majority of any amendment to the Bill. While sympathy was expressed by Ministers in the other place for the plight of shared owners, the amendment was overturned there. Last week, the Government tabled their Motion asking your Lordships not to insist on that amendment. On 10 October, the Minister followed that up by writing to all Peers, hoping that they would support her Motion not to insist. Then last week, we had a Damascene conversion, and here I obviously had more good fortune than the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. I am most grateful to the Minister for the time she spent with me on this last week, and indeed earlier, and to Matthew Pennycook and the officials. The amendment in my name is the outcome of those discussions and represents a deal that I can accept.
To briefly summarise the case, shared owners are social housing residents. They own a portion of their property and rent the rest of it from the housing association. They purchased a share of their home because they could not afford to buy on the open market. They are a distinct, legally identifiable group of people, and they are actually precluded from subletting without permission from their registered provider.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, on the compromise he has achieved on this important amendment. I must declare a family interest: my wife owns rented property in Dorset. I shall speak in opposition to the amendment to Motion C in the name of my noble friend Lord Cromwell, well-intentioned though I believe it is.
My noble friend’s amendment would mean that a landlord who had gained possession of a property using the grounds of an intention to sell would be able to relet that property after six months if it had not been sold, rather than having to wait up to a year, as specified in the Bill. In normal circumstances, one would expect a sale to be agreed within around six months, or, if not, the landlord would still want to go for a sale rather than relet the property, so the issue would not arise in most instances where this ground for possession could be used. However, the Government want to prevent an unscrupulous minority of landlords using these grounds for eviction as a way of bypassing the Bill’s fundamental intention of giving renters greater security. The fear is that the landlord will profess to want to sell but has no such intention; they simply want to evict the tenant. They may want to switch to more profitable Airbnb-style lettings, or they may want to replace a tenant who is complaining about the landlord’s neglect of essential repairs and find a more malleable or more desperate tenant.
There is some evidence of such cheating behaviour from Scotland, where similar legislation has not had constraints on how quickly a vacated property can be relet, so the Government want to prevent abuses. The Bill needs to ban reletting for long enough to deter a landlord from misusing these grounds for possession. The question is how long a pause before re-letting is permitted would be long enough. Let us take a case where a renter is complaining about damp and mould. The property needs, say, £15,000 to be spent on rectifying various defects. If the tenant is paying £900 a month, it would be advantageous for the landlord to go without six months’ rent, that is £5,300, to be rid of that tenant and find someone who will tolerate the poor conditions. Having to forego 12 months’ rent before reletting, well over £10,000 in this case, would present a more robust deterrent against using this no-fault eviction route to removing the tenant.
I can see that a compromise of a nine-month ban on reletting would probably be acceptable all round, but in the absence of that halfway house, it is safer and more foolproof to stay with the Bill’s 12-month term and reject this amendment.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, first, I join the noble Lord, Lord Best, in praising the noble Lord, Lord Young, for his tenacity and commitment to shared ownership owners, who really are the raw end of the market and get a raw deal in many ways. He has really shown his mettle in his commitment to this. It is also fair to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, for listening and doing something about it. I hope that her commitment to shared owners continues in other areas that we will look at.
Turning to Motion C1, from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, which it appears we will vote on, it is very difficult to follow the eloquence of the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Cromwell, but I will try. The noble Lord, Lord Best, has already highlighted what we call “revenge evictions”, and we are approaching that issue from the position of working—for many years, in the case of my noble friend Lady Grender—with renter groups and renter charities. From that, we get a real idea of what is happening at the sharp end, which is not quite as narrow as we might like to think it is. There are probably more unscrupulous landlords out there than the number of homes that take over one year to sell.
On revenge evictions, there is the risk that a tenant will be kicked out because they ask for improvements—the noble Lord gave a very good example of that, but there are many others. In certain parts of the country where rents are not as expensive, six months’ rent would make it worth while for the landlord to kick somebody out on that ground if they ask for even some modest accessibility improvements and so on. We are arguing over six, nine or 12 months, and the truth is that only time will tell. What I seek from the Government is some reassurance that this will be looked at, because that could very well be the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, mentioned Scotland. It is interesting that the properties in one in five evictions that were made on this repossession ground then turned up on their database as still being for sale. That gives weight to the fact that people are prepared to do it, because in Scotland they have no period for not re-letting.
In several debates, I mentioned that I chatted to my women friends who are landlords; I referred to them as my “landladies”. I put this to them, and they looked at me as if it were a weird question. They said, “If I were concerned about my property sitting empty, I am actually able to sell my property with the tenants still in the property while the ‘For Sale’ board is up on the door, so I would talk to them and say that the ‘For Sale’ board is going up, but I certainly wouldn’t be serving notice until I was certain that I had a buyer”. That is due to—this is a statistic that has not been bandied about—the length of time it sometimes takes to sell a house. Interestingly, they did not see it as the kind of emotive, big, terrible, unfair problem that noble Lords have made it out to be. By keeping your tenants in the property, you are not only getting the rent but—much more importantly, in our view—you are giving your tenants more time to find a home.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. I will speak briefly to support two important Motions before us, one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, on no re-let provisions, and the other by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham on shared ownership.
On Motion C1, as the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, clearly explained, under the Bill, where a landlord seeks possession to sell a property and that sale then falls through—as it does in about one-third of cases—the landlord is prohibited from re-letting the property for 12 months. In practice, that means perfectly good homes must stand empty for a whole year. The amendment does not undermine the Bill’s purpose; it retains the requirement for a genuine sales process and safeguards against abuse. It introduces the vital element of proportionality. A six-month restriction would still deter bad actors while avoiding unnecessary loss of rental supply at a time when demand and rents are rising sharply. We have a housing crisis, and we must take every opportunity to improve the supply of housing and homes. Leaving homes empty for 12 months does not help those desperately looking for a home to rent.
Turning to shared owners, I would also like to extend my appreciation of the dedicated work of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, and we support the Motion in his name. He has made a compelling and deeply fair case on behalf of shared owners who, through no fault of their own, have found themselves trapped by the complexities of the shared ownership system. I want to thank Ministers for listening to the concerns raised across the House and for working constructively with my noble friend on this issue. We would support my noble friend if he took this to a vote, but from what the Minister has said, my understanding is that the Government are supportive of it. Therefore, we hope that a vote is not necessary.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for all the contributions to our ongoing discussions on these matters.
On the failure-to-sell points, the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Pannick, queried why we are determined not to reduce the no-let period to six months if the landlord can prove that the property is not selling on the open market. Of course it is imperative that we provide the very strong protections against back-door evictions so that renters have more security and stability and can stay in their homes for longer, build lives in their communities and avoid the risk of becoming homeless.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to 12 months being a disproportionate sanction, but we have carefully considered the balance between the rights of the landlord and the security of the tenant, and that is why we have come to the conclusion that the current 12-month restriction on reletting being introduced will prevent abuse of the possession grounds, for example, by potentially opening up the practice of backdoor Section 21-style evictions to unscrupulous landlords. This length of time will make it unprofitable for a landlord to evict a tenant with the intention of reletting the property to another tenant at a higher rent. Any noble Lords who have dealt with housing cases will know of cases where that has undoubtably happened. In the areas where the markets are very hot, it happens even more. The restriction also ensures that landlords cannot pursue the retaliatory evictions so clearly outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Best. We hear of frequent examples of that as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, referred to me talking about people being forced to reduce the price. I do not think it was a matter of forcing people to reduce the price. If the property is on the market for that 12-month period, it discourages landlords from marketing their property at a price which they know will not sell. It will give time for that property price to be reduced over time and means it is less likely to encourage those Section 21 evictions via the backdoor.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, talked about properties being empty for a whole year. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, very ably demonstrated, there is no need for those properties to sit empty. They can be marketed while the tenants are still there if notice has been given. We do not need to have this protection reduced to six months. It is very important. I have had a plea from Shelter, as well as other renters’ organisations, over the last few days that we do not water down this provision in the Bill. It is a very important part of the protection for tenants. We genuinely believe that we have got the balance right between the rights of the landlord and the protections for the tenant.
On the issue around shared owners, as other noble Lords have commented, I have been very impressed with the way that the noble Lord, Lord Young, has championed the cause of shared owners. We all realise the very difficult situation they find themselves in. I would also like to thank the Shared Owners’ Network, which has been very good in its briefings to all of us and in helping us to come to the conclusions we have reached on this. Shared owners find themselves in a very difficult position—I think the noble Lord, Lord Young, describes them as reluctant landlords, and we know that that is where they are.
The noble Lord asked how the requirement for a shared owner to inform the assured tenant of the exemption will work for existing tenancies. The Government will make provision during implementation to ensure that shared-owner landlords with an existing tenancy will have the opportunity to provide this information to their tenant after the Bill comes into force. We want to take time to make sure that we get the right approach and ensure that we find a solution that works for shared owners. We intend to do this by using the delegated powers to make transitional provision provided by Clause 147 of the Bill. I very much look forward to working with the noble Lord, Lord Young, on this point as we prepare for the implementation of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 18, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 18A.
Lord Cromwell
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 18”.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I understand that at this stage I should be very brief, so I simply say to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that I also speak to many landlords and tenants groups. Indeed, I have put amendments down on behalf of tenants groups during this process. I thank all those who have spoken. I particularly admire the ability of the noble Lord, Lord Best, to see into the mind of landlords who fail to sell their property and know what they would do next. I do question his maths, but perhaps we can come to that outside the Chamber. Selling with a sitting tenant is definitely a different matter to selling without a tenant on board. I simply say this: it is clear to me, and I hope to the House, that a rational basis suggests that a 12-month-long inability to rent out your property is disproportionate. Six months is still punitive, but it is effective. I have sought compromise on this in vain. On that basis, I wish to test the opinion of the House and beg to move Motion C1.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 19, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 19A.
Lord Young of Cookham
At end insert, “and do propose Amendments 19B to 19D in lieu—
“(3) Subsection (4) applies where the relevant person relies on Ground 1A and—
(a) before the assured tenancy was entered into, a relevant person had given the tenant under the assured tenancy (“T”) a written statement that the landlord under that tenancy (“L”) is a shared owner of the dwelling-house and that section 16E(2) or (3) might not apply to a subsequent letting, or grant of a licence, of the dwelling-house (because of this subsection and subsection (4)),
(b) when the assured tenancy was entered into, L was a shared owner of the dwelling-house, and
(c) before the date specified in the notice as mentioned in section 8(3)(b), a relevant person had given the landlord under the shared ownership lease of the dwelling-house a written statement that L intends to assign L’s interest under that shared ownership lease.
(4) Section 16E(2) or (3) does not prohibit a relevant person from carrying out a controlled activity if—
(a) before the relevant person carries out that activity—
(i) the dwelling-house has been valued by a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in connection with the assignment of L’s interest under the shared ownership lease, or
(ii) L has advertised, or made an arrangement under which another person has advertised, that the dwelling-house is or may be available for acquisition by way of the assignment of L’s interest under the shared ownership lease, and (b) when the relevant person carries out that activity, L is a shared owner of the dwelling-house.
(5) In subsections (3) and (4)—
“controlled activity” means an activity that would (if subsection (4) did not apply) be prohibited by section 16E(2) or (3); “shared owner”, in relation to a dwelling-house, means a person—
(a) who is the tenant of the dwelling-house under a shared ownership lease, and
(b) whose share in the premises demised by the lease is less than 100%; and for this purpose, the tenant’s share in the premises demised is the tenant’s initial share in those premises, plus any additional share or shares in those premises which the tenant has acquired; “shared ownership lease” means a lease—
(a) granted on payment of a premium calculated by reference to a percentage of the value of the premises demised by the lease or of the cost of providing them, or
(b) under which the tenant (or the tenant’s personal representatives) will or may be entitled to a sum calculated by reference, directly or indirectly, to the value of those premises.”
“(2) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, repeal section 16F(3) to (5) of the 1988 Act.”
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 26, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 26A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 27, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 27A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 39, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 39A, and do propose Amendments 39B and 39C in lieu—
“The standard of MOD accommodation
(1) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish in relation to each year a report
on—
(a) the extent to which service family accommodation in England meets the relevant standards during that year, and
(b) the work to maintain and improve the standard of service family accommodation in England that is undertaken during that year and planned for subsequent years.
(2) The Secretary of State—
(a) may make the required assessment, or
(b) may arrange for an independent person to make the required assessment, in relation to any year.
(3) If the Secretary of State makes the required assessment in relation to a year, the Secretary of State must—
(a) arrange for an independent person to evaluate the assessment, and
(b) include that evaluation in the annual report relating to that year.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay each annual report before Parliament.
(5) The required assessment for a particular year may be made by reference to what is, in the view of the person carrying out the assessment, a representative sample of service family accommodation.
(6) The duty imposed by subsection (1) may be complied with by the preparation and publication of a report which relates to service family accommodation in England and elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
(7) For the purposes of this section, service family accommodation meets the relevant standards if the accommodation would be a decent home when assessed in accordance with the 2006 decent homes standard.
(8) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, amend this section so as to make provision about what it means for service family accommodation to meet the relevant standards (which may include provision that operates by reference to other subordinate legislation).
(9) But that power is not exercisable unless and until, in the Secretary of State’s view, it has ceased to be appropriate for the 2006 decent homes standard to be used for the purposes of the required assessment (having regard, in particular, to whether, or how, that standard continues to be used for other assessments of the standard of living accommodation).
(10) In this section—
“2006 decent homes standard” means the document called “A Decent Home: Definition and guidance for implementation” that was published by the Department for Communities and Local Government on 7 June 2006; “annual report” means a report prepared in accordance with subsection (1); “independent” means appearing to the Secretary of State to be independent of—
(a) the Secretary of State,
(b) other Ministers of the Crown,
(c) government departments, and
(d) persons who provide, manage or maintain service family accommodation;
“required assessment” means an assessment of the extent to which service family accommodation meets the relevant standards during a year;
“service family accommodation” means any building or part of a building which is provided for the use of service families as living accommodation (whether or not it is provided by the Secretary of State); and for this purpose a “service family” is—
(a) a person subject to service law and members of the person’s family,
or
(b) a civilian subject to service discipline and members of the civilian’s family;
and expressions used in this definition have the same meanings as they have in the Armed Forces Act 2006;
“year” means—
(a) 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2027, and
(b) each subsequent period of one year beginning with 1 April.”
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 53, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 53A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move Motion H. With the leave of the House, I will also speak to Motions J, K and K1, which are grouped together.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for their amendments relating to grounds for possession. Amendment 53, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would remove the restriction from ground 4A, which limits it to only students living in HMOs. This would allow students living in self-contained one-bedroom and two-bedroom properties, for example, to be evicted each year.
We have been clear from the outset that this ground has been carefully designed to ensure that the cyclical nature of the typical student market is maintained. We believe that the ground applying to typical groups of undergraduates living together in a shared house is the right position, while a postgraduate couple, for example, who have put down roots in the area and may live in a smaller property, should benefit from the full set of protections that the Bill gives tenants.
Noble Lords have expressed concerns about the impact that this restriction will have on the supply of one-bedroom and two-bedroom properties in the student market. With respect, I do not think that these fears will be borne out. There will continue to be demand for these properties, and many students will continue to move out in line with the academic year, even when not evicted. Renting to students continues to be a buoyant market, and I do not believe that the Bill will dampen this.
As I have stressed at length, one of the core principles of the Bill is that tenants should have more security in their homes. Removing this restriction could lead to students who need more security of tenure being evicted more regularly. I therefore ask that the noble Baroness does not insist on her amendment.
I turn next to Lords Amendment 64, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, which would introduce a new ground for possession for the sole purpose of allowing a landlord to regain their property to house a carer for themselves, their spouse or child. I thank the noble Lord for his thoughtful amendment in lieu. He has carefully considered some of the points I raised when we discussed his previous amendment. It is more specific on the type of care to be given and ensures that the ground can be used only where the dwelling is very nearby to the person requiring care.
The Government of course recognise the vital work that carers do to support people to live independently and with dignity. We will continue to look at what steps we can take to support the care sector, and phase 1 of the independent review into adult social care chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, should report next year. While we are profoundly sympathetic to the needs of those who require care, I am afraid that we cannot support the amendment.
I remind the House that we have already strengthened possession grounds to cover some situations, such as housing employees. In these cases, we believe that the needs of those involved can be deemed to overrule the general principle that renters deserve security of tenure and should be able to put down roots in their long-term homes.
Providing security for tenants in the private rented sector is the Government’s priority, and we have put much thought into the design of the possession grounds to ensure that they balance the needs of landlords and tenants. There must be a compelling case for new grounds, with strong evidence that it is justified for a tenant to lose their home. This proposal does not meet that bar.
We engaged extensively with stakeholders throughout the development of the Bill, and there have been only very limited calls for a ground for landlords who require care. Any added ground increases the complexity of the system, which allows more potential for abuse. The amendment could lead to a long-term member of the community losing their home to house a carer required only for a short period, and there have not been significant calls for it from the sector. I therefore ask that the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment in lieu.
On government Amendment 62A, I would like to extend my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the National Farmers’ Union for their very constructive work with the department to find a solution to the concerns they raised. As the Housing Minister explained in the other place, the Government have reflected on their position and tabled amendments in lieu, which narrowly expand ground 5A to allow agricultural landlords to evict assured tenants in order to house both employees and non-employed workers engaged in agriculture.
We believe that this is a small technical change that supports the Government’s ambition to ensure that the agricultural sector can continue to function effectively without compromising security of tenure. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the National Farmers’ Union have indicated their support for these changes. I hope that noble Lords will also support the amendment. I beg to move.
Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H)
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 53”.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move motion H1 as an amendment to motion H. I speak briefly to two important possession grounds, those concerning students and carers, and I also thank the Minister for her support on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, which this side of the House supported strongly.
First, on students, as your Lordships know, Amendment 53A sought to expand Ground 4A so that it also applied to one and two-bedroom properties let to students. Extending this ground would maintain essential stability in the market, ensuring that students arriving each autumn are not left without somewhere to live. Without it, landlords may be unable to gain possession in time for the new academic year, reducing availability, pushing up rents and increasing uncertainty. This is not simply about convenience—it is about fairness and inclusion. Many of these smaller homes are occupied by students who need quieter or self-contained accommodation. Often these include those who are neurodiverse and find shared living environments particularly challenging. For them, access to such housing is not a preference, it is a necessity. To exclude these properties from Ground 4A risks creating a two-tier system that leaves the most vulnerable in our society behind. I hope the Minister, and indeed our Liberal Democrat colleagues who once spoke so passionately in defence of students, will reflect very carefully on the points I bring forward.
We have a number of case studies that illustrate the implications of this ill-conceived plan, from Cornwall and Portsmouth to Loughborough. In Portsmouth, a letting agent and Propertymark member reported very high numbers of students renting one and two-bedroom flats, accounting for 20% or 30% of their portfolio—not a small number—and those included many international students. In Loughborough, feedback from another Propertymark agent on student tenancies showed a lower number of HMO lets compared with houses and flats. The evidence flatly contradicts the Government’s claims that one and two-bedroom student properties account for only a small fraction of the market. Regional variations exist, but the pattern is clear. These homes are a substantial and vital component of the student housing sector, and by excluding them from Ground 4A, the Government risk creating a two-tier system both geographically and between students themselves, particularly those with specific or additional needs.
I turn to carers and express my strong support for the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. As I said on Report, this amendment is tightly drawn and provides flexibility in exceptional circumstances, where a property close to home could be used to care for a loved one, enabling people to live independently and with dignity, rather than entering into the institutional care system. Propertymark has also highlighted a helpful precedent from Wales where, under the Renting Homes (Wales) Act, carers can have succession rights if the tenant they care for dies. While I understand that provision does not apply to landlords’ carers, it does demonstrate that such flexibility is possible in law and can be delivered responsibly.
If the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, chooses to test the opinion of the House, we on these Benches will support him. I also beg to move Motion H1.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Motion J, specifically Amendment 62. I declare my interest in farming and rented cottages in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire. I want to set out on the record that the NFU and I have every reason to thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for her tremendous work on these amendments, particularly the one I am speaking to. I also thank the Minister, Matthew Pennycook, for his attention to it as well. I very much hope that this sets a precedent, particularly in the realms of the Ministers of Defra and the Treasury, to take farming interests more seriously and learn from what we have learned here today.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Motion H1 and the powerful points that have just been made by noble friend Lady Scott. The Minister spoke as if one-bedroom and two-bedroom student accommodation would be occupied by families and people who needed deep roots in their university environment, but much of it is also occupied by undergraduate students, who are often on low incomes, because this tends to be the lowest cost accommodation. If academic year tenancies in one-bedroom and two-bedroom accommodation become unviable then there is a real risk that this will act as a constraint on students going to university.
The Minister said that these fears would not be borne out, and I understand the sincerity with which she makes that point. However, we cannot be confident. My regret, looking back over the exchanges we have had as the Bill has progressed through this House, is that we have not heard at any point any kind of undertaking to review or assess year on year whether student accommodation is being affected by this measure. We simply cannot be as confident as she appears to be that these dangers will not arise. Therefore, I strongly support Motion H1.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, my amendment would extend the grounds of possession to a family in need of providing a full-time carer for a family member. Regarding comments made in the other place, I confirm that I have no direct interest with regard to any property. My interest came only through contact with rural letting agents who have clients who might need a carer themselves or have a family member who does and wish to use their property to house a carer.
The amendment has been revised since the Commons debate on 8 September. One of the concerns, as already mentioned by the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, is that the amendment is drawn too widely and open to abuse. The new amendment restricts who the carers can be used for, this being the landlord, their spouse, their child or a child they have legal responsibility for. We have also changed it so that, if the landlord wishes to give notice to a tenant, they must provide evidence with the eviction notice that a full-time carer is required to care for one of those individuals. This significantly tightens the range of the clause and therefore reduces the ability of an unscrupulous landlord to use it wrongly.
I acknowledge, from having spoken with housing charities, that landlords hold the power in the tenant/landlord relationship, and that approaching and challenging a landlord is difficult. With these changes, the onus would now be on the landlord to provide evidence rather than the tenant. The tenant could then go to the appropriate authority to challenge the eviction if no evidence is provided. We are not looking to change in any way the four-month notice period that a landlord would have to give if a family member needed the house.
I acknowledge that these grounds will be used on very few occasions, but when they are used it will be by a family at a very challenging time, when full-time care is required for an immediate family member. Landlords will evict only if they believe they need a carer for a significant amount of time, such as for an elderly person or a child with a long-term illness or disability.
A family that is fortunate enough to be in a position with the appropriate accommodation that meets the criteria of this amendment could, and most likely will, be in a location with limited supply of available or alternative properties, such as rural settings, or a city or town with high demand for rental properties, of which there are currently many. I acknowledge that a tenant needing to leave the property will cause upheaval, stress and potential cost to that family or individual, but surely a family has the right to use what possessions it has to maximise the quality of care for a family member and to support the rest of the family at a time of need.
I look forward to your Lordships’ support on this amendment. If I need to, I may test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 64B from the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, to create a new possession ground for carers. I know that every noble Lord here appreciates and values the important work that carers do in our communities. It goes without saying that we should take every step possible, every step we reasonably can, to help them in their work. The noble Lord has been thoughtful and very considered throughout these discussions, and clearly has the best interests of carers at heart, as he has again shown.
I understand that this is a difficult issue and appreciate the arguments that landlords who organise their own care are not burdening the state and that they should be able to utilise their properties to do just that. On the other hand, I note that these debates have previously highlighted—as the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, has again today—the difficulty of housing carers, for example in rural communities.
The scarcity of housing in rural areas also raises the counterpoint of the plight of the tenant. These tenants may be the local teacher or work in the post office—long-term members of the community who do not own their own homes. To evict them to house a carer for a landlord who may possibly be in the area for only a couple of years will upend their lives and leave them potentially struggling to remain in the area. It is worth adding that the only way currently to test whether there is a genuine need for a carer is if the tenant challenges their eviction and the landlord has to go to court to obtain a possession order. Unfortunately, I am afraid, experience shows that many tenants will not do that, as they will simply leave without the landlord ever having to prove a carer was really required.
I appreciate that this is very much a balanced argument but, on balance, I am of the view that allowing tenants to be evicted through no fault of their own in order to house carers for landlords is not the right approach, because of the threat and disruption this would cause to tenants and the scope for wider misuse of this ground. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, we should not underestimate the danger that this could become a loophole for unscrupulous landlords. There are enough of them, as we all know and realise from our experience in the private rented sector, so this could be a real danger.
There are dangers and scope for wider misuse. In my view, therefore, the benefit to a relatively narrow group of landlords should not be allowed to outweigh that disruption, so I hope that the Motion is not moved to a vote.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my register of interests as the joint owner of a small cottage in the village where I live.
I strongly support Amendment 64B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. It has had the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and of caring organisations, which would be helped immediately, not just condemned to wait for the Casey review, which we are all very keen to see. The amendment has been tightened up considerably by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, to avoid any abuse, in response to comments that the Minister herself made in Committee, which is very helpful.
The Government’s negative response is an example of their unwillingness so far to take the demise of carers seriously. Being able to provide accommodation for carers can make a real difference to their availability.
Not every carer wants to be a live-in carer, especially if they have families, yet we need growing numbers of carers. This is because there are ever-growing numbers of the aged and the disabled, as well as a scarcity of care home and hospice spaces. There is an acute shortage of housing and a scarcity of short-term accommodation, partly as a result of this very Bill. At the same time, we have smaller families, more couples having no children and more people seeing their relatives working or moving overseas. The need for hired carers is increasing, therefore, and those carers need short-term accommodation—it can sometimes be for years—as they move, over time, from job to job in different locations. We need to look at this. This change will be a small and totemic positive that would help both the caring sector and families in need. I invite the Minister to think again.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. As previously, I declare my interest as a private landlord. In the context of this amendment, I had a relative to whom it would have applied; that interest no longer applies, as the Bill has caused plans to be advanced and the tenants in the relevant property were given notice under current law, but, of course, that does not take away my general concern around this topic.
This replacement amendment now has a narrower scope, applying only to homes needed to house carers in the immediate family—that is, the landlord, a spouse or children. Thus, it closes a loophole perceived by some of it being used by those with an awful lot of relatives, as was discussed with the Minister.
Some people have live-in carers. Others may need more than one carer or have progressive conditions. Whatever the reason—whether financial or in terms of availability—it may not be possible to have one large house to accommodate all the future carer needs under one roof or to sustain expenditure on such a property before it is required. People have to plan for the future deterioration of the person needing care and of the family members who are part of their support.
Some may have invested in an ideal adjacent property in good faith under current law as it became available. They may be using insurance payouts and—especially in the instance of children—are needing to plan for when parents are no longer around. Such plans have to be scrapped under this Bill, most likely resulting in property sales and earlier evictions. It may be a one-off readjustment, because nobody will make such plans in future, but is it really necessary to hit the vulnerable, such as children damaged at birth? That is among what we are doing.
To suggest that it is easy for affected people to set up and move elsewhere because they have the resources of more than one property is cruel. Avoiding upheaval can be an important factor, for reasons both of the health of the impaired person and of making bespoke adjustments to property—all of the equipment, bars, ramps, bathroom locations and so on. This is really not fair and not caring. I therefore support this amendment; with the narrower scope, I believe that it is a fair suggestion.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. We opposed the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, on Report, and we see no reason to change our minds now. We have reflected carefully upon it. My noble friend Lord Shipley was very vexed by this question and was in conversation with the noble Lord, Lord Willetts. We finally came to the conclusion that the Government have probably got this about right, for the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. We are very pleased that the diligent work of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has finally got the concessions that I think it deserved.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I am sorry, but every single person who would use this would be evicting a set of people, and the Bill is about protecting tenants in their place. Very few people will be in that privileged position. We and the Government have to make decisions about where that balance lies, and the decision has been made that way. I am sorry if it offends some people, but that has to be considered when making a decision of this sort.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all those who contributed to this debate. There have been some emotive discussions—I will come on to those in a moment—and some very thoughtful and considered responses to the amendments, and I am grateful for that.
I will start with the potential expansion of ground 4A. The Government recognise that the new tenancy system will have an impact on the way the student market operates. While we believe the ground covers the majority of the market, there is no one-size-fits-all solution that covers all circumstances. We think it is reasonable that the ground will apply to full-time students in larger house-share situations. Removing this restriction could lead to students who need more security of tenure—such as single parents living with their children or postgraduate couples living together who have put down roots in the area—being evicted more regularly. I took my degree as a mature student. I am very sympathetic to people who have to run other parts of their life alongside their student life. They may be working or have families or caring responsibilities to cope with alongside their student life.
Noble Lords have raised concerns that the Bill could cause severe shortages of student accommodation or force students into expensive purpose-built student accommodation. We do not expect our reforms to have that level of destabilising effect on the rental market. I shall quote from Shelter’s email to me today: “This amendment would deny a group of renters the security and stability offered by the Renters’ Rights Bill, many of whom will be in employment or with caring responsibilities that sit alongside their student life”. That is when stability is key, and we do not believe they should be denied that stability. We will continue to work with good landlords and their representative associations throughout the implementation of the Bill.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for his amendment. As I have outlined, everyone in the House is aware of the remarkable and vital work that carers do to support families and individuals in difficult circumstances. However, given the risk of abuse and the very limited circumstances—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, put this very well—in which it might apply or could be used, we do not believe this new ground is warranted. We have ensured that possession grounds are fair to both parties, giving tenants more security while ensuring that landlords can recover their property when reasonable. For example, if the carer is a family member, as set out in ground 1, a landlord can use that ground to gain possession, enabling them to accommodate the carer.
I was grateful to my noble friend Lady Warwick for illustrating some of the issues that may arise, particularly in rural communities, around who may be evicted as a result of this ground. I want to add to the list of those who could be evicted an existing carer living in a rural setting where there might be very scarce housing, so you may have to evict one carer to put another carer in place. If there is scarce housing in that area, you may end up in that circumstance. Of course, the Government will continue to look at ways that they can support carers. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that once the Casey review is published, we will look at all the issues around carer support once again.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his comments. I know that he was not able to stay in the Chamber for the end of the debate, but we had specific issues raised by stakeholders, including the National Farmers’ Union. We listened very carefully to what they said, and we have ensured that the ground now has appropriate protections in place preventing landlords evicting assured tenants to house short-term workers. I am glad that that met the noble Lord’s request in terms of the amendment that he submitted previously.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I still do not understand why a group of students is not being looked after quite the same as other students. Therefore, I urge the House to support my Motion H1 to send the Bill back to the other place with our concerns for equality in the student housing sector, with housing for students who want, indeed need, small homes. Not every student can either work or live comfortably in an HMO, and not every student can afford specific student accommodation. Therefore, I beg to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 55 to 62 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 62A in lieu of Lords Amendments 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 and 62.
“The landlord seeking possession requires the dwelling-house for the purpose of housing a qualifying agricultural worker.
For the purposes of this ground a person is a “qualifying agricultural worker” in case A or B.
Case A is where—
(a) the person will be employed in agriculture as a seasonal or permanent employee under a contract of employment, and
(b) the employer under that contract is—
(a) the landlord, or
(b) in the case of joint landlords seeking possession, at least one of those landlords.
Case B is where—
(a) the person will be—
(i) employed in agriculture under a contract of employment, but the employer under that contract is not the landlord or, in the case of joint landlords, any of those landlords, or
(ii) working in agriculture under a contract that is not a contract of employment, whether the contract is express or implied and (if express) whether oral or in writing,
(b) the person will be employed or working in agriculture under that contract wholly or mainly for—
(i) the landlord, or
(ii) in the case of joint landlords seeking possession, at least one of the landlords, and
(c) the relevant landlord intends that employment or work to continue for at least six months after the relevant date; and here “relevant landlord” means the landlord, or whichever of the joint landlords, the person will be wholly or mainly working for.
In this ground—
“agriculture” has the same meaning as in the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 (see section 1 of that Act);
“contract of employment” has the meaning given by section 230(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.”
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 64, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 64A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to this Motion. I beg to move.
Motion K1 (as an amendment to Motion K)
“New ground for possession for property which is required for a carer for the landlord or landlord’s family
24A After Ground 8 insert—
“Ground 8A
The landlord seeking possession requires the dwelling-house for the purpose of housing a person who is a carer for—
(a) the landlord,
(b) the landlord’s spouse, or
(c) the landlord’s child or a child for whom the landlord is the primary guardian,
where the dwelling-house is in sufficiently close proximity to the person requiring care to facilitate emergency callout.
The landlord is responsible for producing evidence to demonstrate that a full-time carer is required for the person specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) above. For the purposes of this Schedule, “carer” means an adult providing personal care or nursing care to another person, who may be under the age of 18, under a voluntary or contracted arrangement.
The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) specify the nature of the evidence to be produced by the landlord above, and
(b) amend the definition of carer.”””
Lord de Clifford (CB)
I thank your Lordships for your contributions to the debate on this matter. What I drew from it is how much we all value what carers do for all our people in need of care. I look forward to the review by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to help the caring market, which is coming out next week.
One of the comments has been that tenants would be evicted if this amendment were accepted, but tenants are being evicted all the time, for lots of different reasons. It is an important matter that people should be able to use their possessions to care for their families, as I said in my speech. However, taking account of the votes today, I will not move my Motion K1.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 67, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 67A.