Lords Chamber

Tuesday 1st July 2025

(began 1 week, 6 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:37
None Portrait Oral questions: Standard of hotel accommodation provided to migrants who have entered the UK in small boats from France
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

First First Oral First Oral Questions, First Oral Questions, Lord Etherton. I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order
14:38
14:38
14:39
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:59
None Portrait Oral questions: Control over UK weapons systems without the need to consult other governments or third parties
-

Third Oral Question. Paper.
14:59
14:59
15:00
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
Independent means what it says. Let me just reassure the noble Lord but also to reassure the House that we have complete operational use in terms of the independence. We can use all of our weapons systems in the way that His Majesty's Government chooses to do that. Of course there are arrangements about how you maintain that and what you do but independent means independent so we work to ensure that we maintain all of our capabilities to the standard noble Lord in this the standard noble Lord in this They meant independent of the United They meant independent of the United States, a British deterrent.

A British warhead under British British warhead under British weapons delivery system. Since they had dependent on American missiles and the latest announcement of and the latest announcement of airbase delivery will also have an American warhead. And I understand American warhead. And I understand it correctly some of those warheads will be stored on US bases. How far will be stored on US bases. How far does that mean we can depend on the next American administration? Let alone this one.

To give us permission when needed in what might be a prolonged war rather than an immediate crisis. We need to unpick a little bit of that. It is a very good question that the Noble Lord answers, but let me first just say that no Government will comment on the storage of nuclear-weapons, for obvious reasons. The strategic nuclear deterrent is completely operationally ended. It cannot be used without the agreement of the United Kingdom's Prime Minister. As the F 30 5A, to which I presume this is referencing in respect to the government's announcement with respect to that, that forms part of the nuclear mission of NATO.

For that nuclear mission, for that capability to be used, it will require the agreement through the nuclear planning group of the United Kingdom crime minister in order for that to be used, so in all of the cases with whether the Noble Lord is referring to the strategic deterrent or to the fighter deterrent of the 12 F 35 is, that will require the authorisation of the United Kingdom. authorisation of the United Kingdom.
15:02
15:02
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
Let's deal with this. I apologise to the House if this takes some time, as I spoke to the noble Baroness. First of all, let's deal with the strategic deterrent. That remains, as we have always had it, remains the United Kingdom crime minister, it is operationally independent. As for the 12 F 30 5A that the Government has announced, that forms part of the NATO nuclear mission. They are UK jets, F 30 5A 's, they are dual capable aircraft.

So, they can be used normally, or in a particular crisis or particular sense in which we and NATO felt they should be used to become part of the nuclear mission, and in that sense at that time there would be armed with American nuclear weapons. That of course that means the authorisation for those remains in terms of the use of those missiles remains US controlled because the US in the same way as we control our UK nuclear-weapons, the US nuclear- weapons remains subject to US approval, but the point I was making to the Noble Lord which is something that is really important, of course the authorisation for the use of those weapons within the NATO context has two go through and be agreed, that mission has to be agreed by the NATO planning group.

As part of the NATO planning group, the UK is part of that, so the Prime Minister in that sense would then have to authorise those UK planes being used to deliver that capability. I hope that is clear to the House, and to the noble Baroness. Because it is a really important point for us to make with respect to the nuclear capability that this country has and also the working practice. working practice.
15:04
15:05
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
None Portrait Oral questions: Whether the procurement of twelve F35A jets capable of carrying nuclear weapons will affect the planned procurement of F35B jets
-

Fourth Oral Questions, Lord West. Paper. Paper.
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:15
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:23
15:24
Lord Hacking Portrait Lord Hacking (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

register. In clause 1, amendment one, Lord Hacking.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hacking. I start off my declaration which is to ruin retrospect that my wife is to ruin retrospect that my wife and I own five one-bedroom flats in the next house to us and we have been renting out those flats for the last 30 years. As we approach the 125 amendments tabled for report, before I moved amendment number one, I suggest we take stock where we are after seven days of committee. I start by giving praise to my noble friend the Minister.

She was always, throughout committee, very well briefed. She conducted every amendment with great politeness, naming and thanking every speaker who spoke. She was always available to have meetings and discussions and I know as her days as a councillor in Stevenage, her great concern that the renting legislation on the Landlord and Tenant Act is and should not make families homeless and she feels that very strongly. So thank you, Sharon. My Lords, there has been however a big problem.

Out of the 300 odd amendments taken in committee, the government did not concede a single amendment. I think I'm right on that, if I'm wrong, I'm right on that, if I'm wrong, please somebody correct me. It's true that in the matter of the Minister on 24th June the government through the Minister has accepted three amendments. Very grateful for that. But this is a very small number against the rejection of 300 amendments. By applying normal averages, it can't be right that the government is always right, in committee, and on these amendments, and the rest of us was always wrong.

Moreover, in committee, there was considerable expertise in Landlord and Tenant among members of the House. Lisa Duffin of at least a dozen of us had that direct experience. At least half a dozen of us declared landlords of the good and honest variety. When I joined this House 53 years ago, there was good willingness in the House to listen to the expertise of its members, that is what we are after all here to be. Now it's seems the government are not prepared during the passage of this bill to listen to the expertise of the House, to put it bluntly, the rejection of 300+ amendments is not listening to this House.

I don't blame the Minister. I simply don't know who was responsible for the decisions that resulted in these multiple projections. The consequence is quite serious, as I will seek to show in amendment number one, and an amendment number 41, that there have been occasions when the government has got it plain wrong and plain wrong because it was not listening. Isolating backbencher, I want the government to succeed -- as a Labour backbencher I want the government to succeed but they would be much better if they were able to do better listing.

May the government start listing to us. I now turn to amendment number one. The purpose of this amendment is to allow Landlord and Tenant Act, if they wish, to agree affixed to tenancy. The experience of my wife and I is as follows. I have always been letting, nearly always, twelve-month tenancies to our tenants. I should explain that our tenants are currently, the whole, are couples in their 30s or sometimes in their early 30s, who are planning to own a home of their own.

It therefore suits us to agree a 12 month tenancy and it also suits our tenants to agree a 12 month tenancy. After the first 12 months, we meet and discuss whether our tenants want to stay on for another 12 months and sometimes they want to stay on for three or four years or even more. If any of them want to go early, within the 12 months, we give full cooperation we seek immediately new tenants and the outgoing tenants pay their rent as long as they are present in their flat and not thereafter when the new tenant has arrived.

Indeed I don't think we have ever failed promptly to find new tenants, and this is because the flats we let out our lovely flats with private use of the garden at the back of the House. Under English contract law, it is the right of any two parties or three or four parties, whatever the number of contractors, to agree what they like, provided the contract is a lawful contract. Is the noble Lord all right? It is therefore quite wrong for the state to dampen and say, do that -- for the state to jump in.

And so we don't like fixed term contract. There were several arguments made by noble Lords that the short-term tenancies benefits the letting market. I'm very happy to adopt all of those arguments and I leave it to the noble Lord Lord Jackson was very active on this issue at committee. My principal argument is that under English contract, parties, if they wish, are entitled to create fixed to tenants and the state has no right to Mackay assumed the Noble Lord would like to move his amendment.

Amendment proposed, close one, line 13, insert the words as rented on the Marshall list. the Marshall list.
15:31
Lord Truscott Portrait Lord Truscott (Non-affiliated)
-
-
I rise to speak to Amendment one in the name of the Noble Lord and the noble Baroness and Noble Lord Jamieson. As mentioned previously, I have interest as a landlord of over two decades with private rented sector for some 16 years combined experience in the PRF of 40 years. The amendment before your Lordships housing as tenants and landlords mutually agreed fixed terms as we have heard whilst restricting the landlords ability to regain possession of the property.

It would further mean that the landlord would not be able to increase rent over the period of a fixed term. Very Merry terms would welcome such increased security under the proposed periodic tendencies of this tenants would have no security as the landlord can seek possession on a number of them. The majority of tenants want to have fixed terms and his majesties Government has given no reason why it thinks it knows best. The arguments against mutually agreed fixed tenancies are, frankly, unconvincing.

They result in more, not less security for tenants and less chance of familial disruption. The renters rights Bill rightly cracks down on landlords to improve standards in the PRF and six to ensure a fair and workable sustainable rental market. Noble Lord may recall the amendment 173 at committee which called for tenants to give notice not only than four months after agreeing the tenancy, resulting in a minimum tenancy of two months. And ensuring this would be a disaster as under today's tenancies to months would be a panacea.

And the exclusive two month tenancy would elastic you have a . Whilst I accept the need for flexible IT of tenants, do not see why an initial four months should be regarded as so unacceptable by the Government. Responsible landlords to require the certainty of a minimum period differ in the cost of establishing the tenancy, many of these costs can be passed onto the tenant act in 2019. This Government likely to need referencing, credit checks. The higher turnover of tenancies under periodic tendencies and the financial risks associated with it would otherwise put up rent.

And long-term tenancies could potentially turn into short tenancies, and fact they have to factor into the rent. Another concern of landlords would be if a 10" in the middle of winter when tenants are seeking rental properties, that could be a problem for them and rentals are often seasonal and a longer period again, this would be reflected in the higher rent. Ministers argue it is highly unlikely that tenants would be in and out of rent out properties, in effect earning long let into short let properties.

But that is exactly what will happen in many cases, especially in coastal resorts and city centres already plagued by Airbnb and short length forms. Figures produced by Hampton show that figures marked as short- term later advertiser prices on average 49% higher than the same types of property for long term rent. In the London Borough of Camden, chocolate can be four times higher to the cost of long lists. Deposits for shortly properties are about the same as those for long term rent.

This would make it cheaper for tenants to just rent long-term property for two months and to secure a short let for the same period. To suggest that people will not game the system is being naive. Why would short-term tenants pay up to four times the amount when they could save themselves thousands of pounds taking a property advertised for long-term rental for just two months or even less. On day one of the tenancy they will have the legal right to two months notice.

Two months periodic notice will give the floodgates to legal backdoor short term lets which will be impossible to reduce. This will have other implications which we are already witnessing. Landlords will gravitate increasingly to short let platforms like Airbnb which are more profitable than long let and virtually unregulated. With the associated abolition of upfront payments which will be vulnerable people, self-employed, students, including foreign students, unable to prove their income, why should many landlords continue to take the risk when there is a more profitable alternative? In any event, only 7% of tenants pay anything upfront, so I fail to see why this is an issue.

Banning upfront payments which the House will discuss later was very much a last-minute Government amendment in The Other Place and I suspect badly thought through. All this will result in less long-term rentals being available, less rentals being available, less security, and for long let in older people into as hotspot it is already happening if you ask the people in combo, Devon, and Wales, for example. There is nothing in this bill will increase the supply of rented property in PRS which, by some estimates, needs an extra 50,000 rentals per year.

A six month minimum tenancy with the viability of the PRS would ensure more homes, not less, are provided for those tenants who need and want a longer term home, and it should be where people need homes. Landlords entering the market at the moment tend to chase higher yields in the north, ignoring the south and rapidly becoming unprofitable. A six month minimum fixed tenancy if mutually agreed gives all parties flexibility, as the Noble Lord mentioned, many tenants prefer to have even a 12 month fixed tenancy to give them added security.

It is also an implemented recommendation made by the levelling up housing community in this report from 2023, chaired by the very knowledgeable Labour MP, Clark best. The committee recommended that tenants be unable to give two months notice to leave until they have been in the property for at least four months and noted this would give landlords the legal certainty of at least six months rent at the start of the tenancy. After this, the tenancy agreement is to continue on a periodic basis before your Lordships house.

I fear that unless they amend the bill or up front payment it will make the PRS unstable, uncertain and increasingly expensive and less viable and that would be bad for both tenants and landlords. Sadly, his majesties Government is showing no sign of the significant amendments necessary and the Government listens and takes notice. As we have seen in The Other Place as well, on 28 April Noble Lady the Minister who cannot be accused of not listening told that house they are committed to robustly monitoring and evaluating the impact.

We retain powers to amend these, should the evidence arise that they're having a significant impact on a particular group. We retain the powers to amend, should we need to. I hope this Government bears very much in mind the unintended consequences and incredible flaws in this bill that see the light of day. Just one of 26 peers against his chest to in your chips house and it gives me very little pleasure to say after the event. event.
15:38
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak strongly in favour of amendment by one and declare interest, I properties in Norwich and commercial properties in Great Yarmouth. And we live in a free market economy, and the world in which we live is underpinned by the lot of contract by agreements between consenting counterparties of course, we must have safeguards and regulated guardrails to ensure one party does not hold the other over a barrel, but contracts that mutual needs can be contracted is a fundamental part of the way that we live and is one of the reasons we have so many learner friends in this place.

I want to give some examples of the type of person from my own experience as a landlord who value the ability to customise the standard contract to suit themselves by integrating into a fixed term, but not the majority. But it is a significant proportion that cannot just be wished away. The employees on a fixed term employment contract engaged on a particular project. Students or more commonly in groups that want to secure their ideal house in advance but are only able to do so if the current occupants are sure to vacate in the summer.

As the busy doctor that gets passed around the hospitals and the foreign person who is used to the concept of fixed terms in their home country but just cannot understand what business it is of the state to interfere in these private arrangements. Those tenants value contract certainty, so they can focus on their work and their wealth of the nation. I like this amendment because it gives the additional benefit of not just the fixed tenancy but the fixed rent.

And that seems a fair compromise. Not least because the landlord does not need to price uncertainty into the contract. The uncertainty of the void, as a landlord I value certainty. At the expense of locking out rent prices. Because if I know they will not move forward I will not give them a present everybody wins. I cannot see what is wrong with that. The Government boasts a commitment to transforming the experience of the private rent. They are doing that all right. They're making it harder for a significant minority to make their reasonable needs and there are so many unintended consequences, I think we have got to mention some of them and for a moment I thought I would have to go on my own, but I am delighted to see that there is cross-party consensus on the importance of this amendment.

And I also was thinking about the abuse in holiday hotspots where it is common ground that we want to encourage year-round occupancy for homes in these coastal areas, although not the council tax that appears to be emerging on the side. I fear the unintended consequences of this bill so let's contemplate the tenancy in Cornwall. Taking on the proposed tenancies, yes, I will stay for one whole year, and in the event that they leave just after August bank holiday.

The problem is by giving two months notice, it is a clear abuse, and to counter that, landlords will factor in the risk, so they are going to jack up rent, so the person who genuinely does want to stay for the whole year is disadvantaged and, of course, they may wish to show good faith by paying in advance, but that is going to be discarded as well. I just cannot see how this helps anyone. I want to talk about students in more detail later.

I am concerned that we are going to seriously disrupt the student market, not just for their market, not just for their convenience, but often you see and I have seen it in experience when I was younger, fresher's week of a freshers groups getting rent together, they quickly decide they want to move into a house together, and why not? The purpose of the fixed tenancy is that discipline that binds them all together. There are not related or at least not when they start, there are cases where that does happen, but you get a situation where one person may want to quit halfway through.

And it reverses the obligation on that person, because rather than that person being forced to find another student to take their place, it becomes the obligation of all former friends to undertake that activity. The responsibility is flipped, and I do nothing that is good either. There are so many other things I could say, but this is a good amendment. It does not wreck the bill, it enhances the bill. It works with the grain of the way any significant majority of people wish to conduct their affairs, consenting adults to come to a sensible contract.

And I do agree strongly with what Noble Lord said. There are limits to where the states should interfere and to allow free to citizens into exercise the choices they should be entitled to make. This amendment deserves our full support. Thank you.
15:44
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
We have been met with almost rocket what Noble Lord is missing because I feel living in an alternative universe. You live in the cosy one where I smiled at Lord Hacking when you said about your wife. I can absolutely believe your tenants loved you and enjoyed living with you. But, sadly, that is not reality. That is not the situation, have no right to interfere, the Government has no right to interfere in making a roof over peoples heads the basic issue of having a home part of Government business, then please tell me what it is.

Defence of the realm, yes. But certainly ensuring that people can have a safe, secure, affordable home has got to be the business of Government. A point of this bill is radical. It is scarily radical. And often I am guilty of seeing the rhetoric does not match up to the reality, but the rhetoric around this bill, the changes since whenever, and radically changing the system is correct. The system is meant to be changed because it is broken. Now, I think it is very brave, it is very bold, her majesties official opposition probably think it is very stupid.

And they are entitled to, because that is their job. I think the real issues around this bill the fact that we are in the unknown. We do not know what the impact will be. We have been told Armageddon will happen. We will have to see, which is why, minister, where the official opposition and ourselves on these benches agree is we do believe there should be formal reviews on the face of the bill where the impact of this bill can be scrutinised in Parliament in full.

Because it is Parliament in full. Because it is We support the abolition of no-fault elections and support the abolition of fixed term tenancies and again I'm thinking, hang on, if I have a periodic tenancy and I'm in Cornwall or wherever else, I can stay in that house as long as I want unless I violate one of the grounds of possession. So I'm not going to be a pain in about. I'm going to pay my rent. In such a exception.

And also the government have been fair to animals, they have bolstered up the landlord side if the landlord needs to sell, with a family member in, antisocial behaviour, we will discuss all that later. So actually, why have we lost the idea that actually fixed term tenancy was the one where you are stuck, if you had a crack landlord, things were bad or you complained about repairs, you were stuck. Period ick tenancies allow you to go on until you decide as the tenant or the landlord has the circumstances in the grounds of possession would allow I do want to move my daughter in, I'm giving you the requisite amount of notice.

So I think there's definitely been, I feel we are all understanding it differently, but I'm sure the Minister will clarify. One thing I would say is, one person's expertise, we talk about the expertise of the House, actually could be seen at there is somebody's special pleading. And I think we sometimes have to be aware of that. And the real root of the problem is supply. We have got a massive shortfall of private rented sector accommodation because, and we although the answer, we have not built enough social homes.

And my fear about the bill is that a lot of the amendments that are coming forward are going to disadvantage the people who buy rights to decade ago would have been in social housing. They would have been scooped up by local authority landlord or registered provider and they will be having a safe and secure home, in most circumstances. That is now not the case. So while we have got an undersupply we will always have a power imbalance between tenant and landlord.

And they are not all like Lord Hacking, the noble Lord. They are not. And the noble Lord. They are not. And the renters have formed their own coalition, around the big issues, and they are the ones dealing day in, day out with the failure of the private rented sector. So I will end where I started, it is bold, it is brave. And it may or may not work. But we on these benches actually hope that it does, so we will not be supporting any amendments that are tinkering at the edges, that want to broaden the grounds for possession and little bit or widen this a little bit.

We think in order for the bill to work, it absolutely has to stand firm and has to stick to those things and then let's monitor, let's review, let's scrutinise, and make any changes if that's necessary because I regret to say, in this instance with this bill, only time will tell. Thank you.
15:49
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
Can I declare my interest as vice president of the Local Government Association. As we begin the first day of report I would like to start by thanking the Minister for the meeting she has held with me and my noble friend Lord Jamieson on the bill, we really appreciate those meetings. Since committee stage, concluded, I suspect few days have passed without members of your Lordship's House receiving a steady stream of questions, concerns and comments about this bill. Because despite the government was back amendments, this remains, in our view, a flawed will.

It is a bill that uses the powers of government to tell two consenting adults that it knows best. A bill that fails to acknowledge the realities of the rental market and the consequences it may bring. We are united in the belief that tenants deserve safe, secure and Decent Homes Standard a price. But to deliver that we must ensure a functioning rental market. One with enough good quality homes, as we have heard, to meet growing demand, that means building more homes in the right places and encouraging investment in this sector.

Regrettably, this bill puts that at risk. Rather than increasing supply, it threatens to pushed channels out of the market, reducing the number of available homes and pushing pushing up rents even higher. If we get this wrong, it will be the renters who pray the price. Balance is essential and on these benches we do not believe this bill strikes the right balance. The government should have brought forward a bill that targets rogue landlords, those who break the law, put tenants at risk, and undermine the proper functioning of the rental market.

Instead, we have this bill, a bill that risks driving out good landlords while allowing the road once to continue operating completely unchecked. -- Allowing the rogue ones. I thank the noble Lord Lord Hacking for leading this group and all noble Lords have contributed to the debate. Diversity, choice and a range of tenancy contracts or contribute to housing sector capable of meeting a wide variety of needs, as we have heard. In that context, it is reasonable to ask the government why it is pursuing a one-size-fits-all approach through the proposed abolition of all fixed to tenancies.

Having listened to the contributions from the committee, there is a clear and widespread concern about this element of the bill. The noble Lord Lord Hacking is right to challenge the blanket removal of fixed attempt Did Did from Did from finding Did from finding a Did from finding a home, Did from finding a home, excluded from getting on with their lives. These tenants include students without parental support, young adults receiving care, and individuals with health conditions or irregular employment.

They often rely on guarantors to accessible housing, but those guarantors, understandably, require the legal certainty of a fixed term contract. That that assurance, the door firmly but widely closes. The Governments rebuttal is, by now, well rehearsed. They claim there is no cause for concern because tenants will have the ability to give two months notice, thereby shaping the tenancy to their preferred timeframe. At this argument is weak and raises serious questions. How can they be right to require landlords to fundamentally alter the contracts they offer.

How is it reasonable to expect a landlord to accept a tenant who cannot demonstrate their ability to pay, particularly in the absence of legal structure and certainty of the fixed term agreements provide. Equally, why should tenants be denied the option of a fixed term tenancy if they believe it is the best to serve their interests, removing that choice is not removing that choice is not Many actively seek fixed to arrangements because they offer clarity, stability, and peace of mind.

For tenants in transitional phases of life, that assurance is a vital, fixed term tenancy could provide security that their home cannot be taken away even within the grounds of possession remaining, this is particularly important for those on temporary contracts such as nurses, relocating to hospital placements, families seeking to remain within a particular school catchment area, or individuals from overseas who are required time limited accommodation. To remove fixed term tenancies, is to ignore the lives, lived realities of both tenants and landlords, and to strip the sector of the very flexibility it needs to function effectively.

For landlords, fixed terms provide the certainty required to plan and manage their properties effectively. Removing that certainty could prompt many to accept, and is, exiting the sector. Further reducing the already strange supply of rental housing. Ironically, this is supposed fix ability could leave both tenants and landlords facing greater instability. The abolition of fixed tenancies may lead to some homeowners who currently let their properties on a fixed time basis to withdraw from the market altogether.

Faced with the uncertainty of an open-ended tenancy, some may even choose to leave their properties empty rather than risk the loss of control over future use. Why is the government not listening to landlords smacked the very people who maintain the foundation of the Participants in the market. They are the backbone of the market. And on these benches, we support choice and freedom to decide a contract which works for both the tenant and the landlord. And I hope the rest of the House agrees.

We will support the noble Lord Lord Hacking if he were

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to test the opinion of the House. Can I thank my noble friend Lord
15:57
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Hacking, firstly for his very kind comments and also for this amendment, one with slightly more enthusiasm than the other. But this amendment would retain a formal fixed term during which the landlord could not use a number of the landlord circumstance grounds including selling. My noble friend referred to his role as a landlord and I agree with the noble Baroness on held that I'm sure he's a very good landlord and good and honest landlords really have nothing to fear from this bill.

It's not them we are dealing with here. The issue of fixed terms is one we have debated at some length which I know there's a great strength of feeling about on both sides. Formerly noble Lords understand this is an issue of free will, government should not interfere in a landlord's ability to agree terms between them and both parties should have the choice between a periodic or a fixed term tenancy. In my view, this argument mis-characterises the balance of power between tenant and landlord in negotiation.

Here is where I agree strongly with unable Baroness Thornhill. Landlords have the choice of many tenants, all competing to offer the most favourable terms. While tenants have far less opportunity to choose between properties. Tenants cannot simply walk away if they don't like landlord 's terms. Choice between homelessness and affixed to this no choice at all. It's symbolic of that imbalance to speak to Lord Fuller's points but until this bill the landlord had been able to issue a section 21 eviction notice and move tenants through no full to their own, not only with the distress that causes, to families, but also it places a huge burden on the state as hourly good and local authorities pick up the cost of over 100,000 families in emergency and temporary accommodation.

It is therefore incumbent on the government to ensure tenants do not lose out. We must step in to ensure tenants are not forced into agreeing on favourable terms which act against the interests and remove fundamental rights to move when needed. I do accept fixed terms have some benefit under the current system for tenants, because they offer some respite at the moment from the awful thread of section 21 which hangs like the sword of Damocles over tenants heads. With section 21 gone, this advantage will be extinguished and so there is even less reason that a tenant would agree voluntarily to a fixed.

Even if freely agreed, there is nothing equal about a fixed terms. Under the current system, landlords can rightly seek possession fixed and if a tenant reaches the terms of that rental. Position grants are available if a tenant 's rent payments, damages the property, commits antisocial behaviour or breaches any term of the tenancy. You would imagine in a fair contract tenant, too, could terminate the tenancy if the landlord fails to fulfil their responsible thieves during the term but in almost all cases, tenants do not have this choice.

Landlords can allow properties to fall into disrepair, leave properties and safety living and still tenants must pay rent after month. This is fundamentally unbalanced. It is critical the act to reset those scales. Removing fixed terms will also mean the tenancy system finally reflects the unpredictable of individuals lives and I note Baroness Scott talked about this. I agree with her diagnosis of what is happening but I don't agree with her solution to it. Despite our best intentions, life doesn't conform to year-long periods of certainty, it can as we all know too well, change overnight.

Relationships breakdown, people move jobs, difficult circumstances can mean we must return home. I think it's fundamentally wrong we require tenants to pay rent, Mai Simba to deliver a guaranteed return on investment. Tenants should not have to choose between financial ruin and living where they need to. Other noble Lords including Lord Truscott have raised concerns tenants will now move frequently between properties, increasing costs for landlords. I do not think it is realistic that tenants will move home every two months.

Or anywhere close to it. We all know, any of us who have moved, and I expect that as most of us, are moving home is difficult, expensive and stressful. Tenants want stability and a home for the long-term, not to fit around living out of suitcases or Both can use ring fencing and housing to understand if they're looking for a long-term home. Conversely, some have suggested tenants will no longer be able to live somewhere for a short period of time that is both suitable for landlord and tenant.

The new tenancy system makes this easier, not harder. Tenants will be able to give two months notice at any point, if needed. As I say, the vast majority will want a long-term home. The long-term answer to this, of course, is the plan to build more social homes than our Government is committed to doing that. But we do not expect the bill to destabilise the market, but we will continue to monitor that. In fact, a number of new properties coming onto the market in March this year was 11% ahead of the same period last year, and 18% overall on last year.

Other landlords know the bill is coming, so if it was going to destabilise the market I would have expected that to be going in the other that to be going in the other direction. Fixed terms are blind and along with section 21 they must be consigned to history, that is by the Government is abolishing them in the private rented sector and that is why we will not permit their return in the issue at system and for these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reasons I would kindly ask my Noble Friend to withdraw his amendment. Before I reveal my answer to the
16:03
Lord Hacking Portrait Lord Hacking (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before I reveal my answer to the question just put to me, my Noble Friend that minister, I would just like to make a few observations. The centre of one I have already made and that is that under English contract law, parties are entitled to agree what they want to agree and entitled to agree to a fixed term tenancy. I have illustrated the Noble Lord Fuller illustrated the value to the tenant to have fixed term and it has been so with many tenants over the last 30 years to their benefit.

But I do want to thank all of those that have taken part, Baroness Scott, Baroness Thornhill, the Noble Lord behind me, Lord Truscott and the Noble Lord Fuller. And I was actually, it was dangerous for me to deal with and I was thinking I should divide the House on this issue. But I do not have the support of the Liberals, I do not have Baroness Thornhill's support. I am not quite sure about the prospect that I have from the Noble Lord Cromwell, so he has given me no comfort that I will get support from the crossbenchers.

And, therefore, with great regret, I feel I have to withdraw this amendment. But just as I do so, I believe that this amendment was very carefully drafted and did provide all the protections that were necessary on the agreed tenancy, and therefore it was a good amendment and the good amendment alas is now being lost as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I move to withdraw the amendment. Is ideologically that amendment one be withdrawn? Amendment is, by one be withdrawn? Amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment two, Baroness Scott.
16:05
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Scott. At the heart of the ill is a duty

**** Possible New Speaker ****

At the heart of the ill is a duty to protect young people because it is primarily young people who rely on the private rented sector. Students are no exception. Many are leaving home for the first time, stepping into higher education with courage and ambition. For them, the need for clarity, stability, and fairness in housing is especially pressing. Fixed term tenancies for students as proposed in amendment to our not a loophole. They are a solution that works.

They have brought order and predictability to a cyclical market. The Government recognises this themselves, having already made concessions for purpose-built student accommodation. That exemption only applies to the most expensive end of the market. What if the student cannot afford a glossy new blog with a gym and working space but instead a modest working space but instead a modest flat and converted home. We urge the Government to take a consistent approach and extend this provision across-the-board, because at the end of each academic year, there is a great student migration.

A releasing of homes and re-letting of homes. It is finally balanced cycle, and if we tamper with it blindly, we risk breaking it altogether. And, already, that cycle is under pressure. Student towns and cities are seeing a decline in student appropriate housing. And if we continue down this road we can put higher education out of reach, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds that have shared housing, that is why my amendment five is so vital. The current restriction on rent for a limited it to properties with three or more bedrooms which is both arbitrary and unfair.

Many students, particularly postgraduates, international students and mature students, live in one two bedroomed properties. At Committee stage, the Minister said that limiting HMOs captures the bulk of typical students. And yes, the noble Baroness was right, but the bulk, not all of them. And when housing is scarce, we need all available options. When choices are limited, we must protect every viable home. Let us be clear, this is not about throwing students out of their homes. It is about ensuring that landlords can confidently relet for the next academic year and that students can confidently plan their lives.

Amendment six rightly asks White six months has been chosen as a cut-off point for ground for air. This blanket time-limit could disrupt rental cycles. Discourage landlords from letting to students, This student housing supply even further. The Government worried that students may rush into housing decisions too early. That may be true for some, but many students want to secure accommodation early to avoid the stress during exams. Many student tenancies begin in late summer. And students typically start looking well in advance, limiting the searches up to six months before and August move in means starting in February.

And under current proposals, properties may not be listed until much later in the year, forcing students to house during their final exams. That is necessarily not fair. The Government should let students decide whether they wish to sign the contract. Without fixed terms and without a workable ground for a, students will face prolonged uncertainty. It will be harder to plan, how to budget, and harder to study. And we must also remember that eviction proceedings are exceptionally aware in the market.

The problem is not to think students out, to students facing necessary delays and stress when trying to secure accommodation. The current proposals simply do not And this seeks to include apprentices in the definition of students. Like university students, they will benefit from a fixed term tenancy aligned with training periods, offering much-needed stability, having listened to the government's arguments in committee I hope they have reflected and we can agree it is only fair that apprentices and their landlords have access to the same arrangements as university students.

The Government has already made partial concessions, but now we need the principle of wholehearted approach to reserve functioning, fair, rental markets, and mince two, five, six and seven are constructive and proportionate. They reflect that what is already working, they address what is currently broken, and they will help ensure that going to a university remains a viable choice for young people across the country. I would urge the Minister and the House to support these amendments and we would be reminded to test the opinion of the House for the reasons I have underlined and I beg to move that the ill they moved in my name.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, close one, then 30, at the end insert the words then 30, at the end insert the words on the Marshall list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I declare once more my interest as a landlord that rents properties often to students I will not be jumping at that group on this not be jumping at that group on this
16:11
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
not be jumping at that group on this day, but I do want to challenge the obstinate prevention of fixed tenancies for students and, importantly, groups of students, many of whom will be moving into their first home outside of the home. I want to outline some of the consequences of this bill if enacted. It is going to reduce the supply of rental properties by discriminated against the private landlords and Baroness Thornhill in the earlier group seems to fail to understand the dynamic effect that if landlords leave the market and there is lower supply, the costs will rise and students will pay.

It is going to reduce the choices of the property available to students because this bill only allows student tenancies in halls of residence. Which does not suit everyone. It reduces the choice of landlord, but it favours the accommodation. It is going to create an overheated market, that is for sure. It is going to cost more for students and it is going to cause a massive inconvenience to second year students at university if I agree with my Noble Friend that this should not just be about universities, they can also benefit from these amendments, but it means that the second and third year there going to fly back and they have may be able placement oversee and have to come back early to secure a home when they could have sorted it out well before.

The consequences of this bill it is going to be harder for friendship groups to get the certainty they have with their friends, it is going to prefer established students backgrounds with parents with sharp elbows who understand the ability to transact more quickly and aggravate the difficulty of getting guarantors lined up at pace. And whilst it introduces protections for current students Baroness Thornhill said in the previous room it is balanced with the disadvantaged to students one year behind who also want to secure a place in their final yeah and of course by forcing students in student blocks, some of them are very luxurious, cinema rooms, the whole thing, but it is costing a fortune, and not everyone wants to go to that expense, but for the private amount you can make savings.

I spoke earlier about the importance of the fixed tenancy, it is the discipline that keeps everyone together and protects everybody's interests. And I think it is really important we dwell on this particularly for students because unlike in the wider private rented sector were family relationships or other stronger forms of relationship exist, friendship groups at university can be more transient. I do think that the balance of power, we have spoken a lot about the balance of power between tenant and landlord already.

The balance of power between them, apart from a friendship group in a house that want to cut and run and leave their former friends high and dry is a real perverse situation that runs against natural justice and good order. We should be surprised and not that the bill introduces new discrimination for foreign students in particular and diversity is and our own local university relies on the extra fees paid by foreign students and yet without covenant strength or guarantors, they are almost un-rentable.

For UK universities, for those people who halls of residence do not suit, it makes them unlivable and put us at a It discriminates against a certain type of woman, who I know because in my own experience I rented to Muslim women whose mothers like to accompany them and they lived accompany them and they lived together in the house. That tight family group, they really want to have the certainty, because it's in their culture, of a fixed tenancy, it suits them.

And this is being taken away. I pointed out at committee stage, it took my daughter 10 seconds to work out that we are going to have a side market here, a secondary market developed between potential students who are looking for a house and landlords. An unrelated secondary market and contracts and options and fees to secure tenancies, pre-tenancies if you will, agreements to rent rather than the rent themselves. This complexity is a natural consequence of the bill as we see it insofar as tenants who really want to back the best homes as concerns.

All those contrivances between cohorts and in an outgoing tenants, this is where we are going to end up. And the people who need our help and support the most going to be disadvantaged. Everyone is going to get pay more, it is going to destroy what is a stable market that works well for everybody and it is going to make our country harder to get the brightest and best people who we need to grow our economy in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

supported. I rise to speak in support of the excellent amendments proposed by Baroness Scott. A particular support amendment five which resembles very strongly amendment which had cross- strongly amendment which had cross- party support at an earlier stage of our deliberations on this bill and I our deliberations on this bill and I very much hope it will continue to have cross-party support, from representatives across the House. It does seem that the proposals we have does seem that the proposals we have before us will lead to a two tier system in which advantaged students who can afford the high rents will go into the purpose-built accommodation, at the lower cost, accommodation, at the lower cost, more flexible accommodation, often smaller private lettings will be much reduced and that will be very much reduced and that will be very bad news for access to university.

I bad news for access to university. I don't buy in large believe conspiracy theories. But perhaps on conspiracy theories. But perhaps on this occasion I could just observe I do think the interests of the Department of communities and Department of communities and Housing and local government are very different from the interests of the Department for Education. If the Department for Education. If students are no longer travelling universities so much, if some students are deterred from this accommodation, if other types of tenant move in instead, it is a problem for the Department sponsoring the bill, in fact it might always be help, they might say other people have been able to find private rent accommodation and the adjustment has been borne by a composite group students.

Meanwhile in the Department of education in its commitment to social will be facing the consequences of fear students who cannot afford the high rented environment which is now being promoted, going to university at all stop I am concerned that this department steering this bill is not taking proper account of the legitimate interest of a different perspective in the interest of education and of social mobility. I very much regret that the Minister despite her courtesy in meeting up with myself and others in meetings we have appreciated, has not been able to make any concessions, event moving from three rooms to two-room or one-room.

I hope at least however she will be able to flush out a statement she made a few minutes ago statement she made a few minutes ago in the debate on previous amendments in the debate on previous amendments when she said the government would continue to monitor the market. Will she assure the House that this monitoring of the market will include monitoring student access to include monitoring student access to the private rented sector as part of their participation in higher education?
16:20
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich Portrait Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (Crossbench)
-
-
I would also like to offer strong support amendment five and in that context declare an interest as an employee of Kings College London. I think that the profound change to the rental market in varying ways that this bill will introduce is one that is not very well understood outside this chamber. But some of the people that have become very aware of it in my experience are people who currently let to students. And I myself first became aware of this when told by a number of people, that they don't see themselves letting students in future, thank you very much.

These are people who have small rental properties. And I note that noble Lord Lord Willis was amendment I was happy to support at committee stage is also very aware of this and has highlighted the fact that what we have now is a bifurcated system in which the government has quite rightly acknowledged that student housing is a major issue and has introduced some very clear provisions which cover purpose-built student accommodation and indeed the student holds about a mixed cover anything that does not have at least three bedrooms, which is being let to students.

The problem with this is that a large proportion of that cheaper student housing outside major cities is of this type and it somewhat astonishes me that what we see a situation where there is not likely to be any harmful impact on the provision of student housing, but of a major impact on smaller, cheaper rental properties at the lower end, which are those that are of course the ones taken by students from low-income families and people who are not in the major cities.

And I'm also somewhat puzzled that the government has been so determined not to extend clause 4, A, to at least properties with two bedrooms. I really don't understand it and I therefore strong support this amendment. I would just like to say something very briefly, perhaps it is saying something to the future about Amendment seven. I notice this is a probing amendment and of course apprentices are not students, they are employees, many of them are rather adult employees but I do think that in the future, if and when we revisit this issue making accommodation easily available to who are ineffective students and that will include apprentices, that we really pay this considerable attention because if you look back to hundred years or 300 years to London, especially London, it was full of apprentices who had come from elsewhere in the country who have served their partnerships in London and then went back out and they could do so because part of being an apprentice was that she lived with your master.

We don't have that anymore and the result is again enormously reduced opportunities for people who live in less economically advantaged places. If you are a low-income individual, school lever, you will have far fewer apprenticeship opportunities open to you and we are not doing anything to make accommodation easily available to apprentices who might want to be employed by employers in economically more favoured regions. Student, so it is favoured regions. Student, so it is too late to do anything and wasn't possible but I would like to just flag this issue as something which if we ever do come back and review the consequences of this bill, if we ever do make some changes, I hope that perhaps government might put something about that conundrum on the table at the same time.
16:24
Lord Shipley Portrait Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I should just remind the House the time vice president of the Local Government Association. And at committee stage I was one of those probing the government 's intentions on students and purpose-built student accommodation and houses in student accommodation and houses in HMOs and the application of four, a, to those properties but not to smaller units in the private rented sector, that some students might use to live in. And I listened very carefully to the Minister's replied at committee stage.

I have thought further and indeed I listened carefully to the debate so far and I'm very sorry to have to disappoint the noble Lord Lord Willetts, although I want to agree with him that it will be very important for the government to monitor the impact of the student market on the private rented sector. But let me just explain why I take that view. I have reached the conclusion that there is a good reason to restrict the application of ground for, A, to purpose-built student accommodation, the five large blocks, and houses in multiple occupation.

The danger of not doing so is that some in scrupulous landlords renting smaller units of accommodation, to someone's which do not qualify for the term HMO, they might decide to call tenants students, when they are not students, to get around the provisions of this bill. And I think that would a serious defect in this bill. Indeed as the Minister said, in her reply on this issue at committee stage, the Minister said this, the core principle of the bill is that tenants should have marked security in their homes and we think it is right that these groups should not be exposed to potential eviction using ground four, A.

I have come to the conclusion the Minister is right on that matter and for that reason, round for a should be restricted to student accommodation and houses in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

multiple. It is quite straightforward that we know who students are. Universities issue certificates, though certificates are handed to the local authority, in the case of the local authority, in the case of council tax, so they can get their 100% because of tax allowance. It is 100% because of tax allowance. It is not hard to identify who students are. Does he agree or has he thought whether the existing statutory process, to determine who student is process, to determine who student is would be sufficient to avoid the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

jeopardy that you have suggested? I do not think it would be sufficient. And indeed when I spoke on this issue at committee stage, I suggested that the council tax register, because student households register, because student households don't pay council tax, would be don't pay council tax, would be sufficient I just don't think that is the case and it's not just about university accommodation, it's about students more generally, indeed students more generally, indeed there's an amendment coming up to define university students.

So I think it is a great deal more complicated than the noble Lord full complicated than the noble Lord full has indicated. I have concluded that those students since smaller units of accommodation will be protected anyway under the act as tenants, and I have concluded that the government should on this matter be given the benefit of the doubt but I hope very much indeed that the Minister will be able to meet the point made by the Lord Willetts which is that they have to keep this matter under review.
16:28
Earl of Lytton Portrait The Earl of Lytton (Crossbench)
-
-
This is the first time I addressed the House at this stage of the bill, I will just remind your Lordships that I'm a chartered surveyor and I think that is probably the only interest I need to declare other than being the father of three children now long out of university, but have witnessed the process of them living in hall and in subsequently living in private rented sector, two of them within the city of Bristol. And I got to know one or two of the people who let, as a business model, to students.

And the properties are not necessarily large. Some of them are very small. It depends on what model they are using. Now, I'm worried about what seems to be an acceptance of what the noble Baroness the Minister has said will be a process of review. Review done by government is an incredibly blunt and ponderous instrument. I predict that if there was a review looking at a particular problem that had arisen, it would be a lot of serious damage would have occurred by the time that review had been completed on the matter had been actioned and put into regulation or whatever other form is going to take.

The whole process of the private rented sector is one of the private rented sector is one of very great flexibility, and I fully understand the concerns that have been expressed by those who support renters and I suppose although I don't have any student accommodation, I am in a private rented sector landlord, with my rented sector landlord, with my The variation in terms of what people ask for and what they wish to do and what letters put prepared to do doesn't necessarily start at the beginning of the term, it may stop when both parties are happy that they have got somebody decent they are dealing with, somebody they can talk to, somebody who is not going to fleece them.

The risk is that this flexibility is going to be lost and we particularly talk about the student in here and I would be fearful of that. The only thing that makes me less fearful than that and Lord Willis may well wish to challenge me on the point afterwards, is whether what seems to have been a decline in the number of foreign students that are coming to these shores and possibly the degree of distance learning that is now taking place elsewhere, whether in some way demand has fallen.

But my experience of dealing with the private sector landlords in Bristol was this. The students very often only occupied the property for eight only occupied the property for eight or nine months of the year, from September until perhaps May whenever they were doing a study for the final exams and they would have gone home, got their brains into gear in order to take the exam. In between times there might be a refurbishment because there is sometimes quite a lot of attrition on the condition of the property but also very often these things were let out to people in foreign student summer schools which of course filled all the halls of residence in places like Bristol and others with people who were sponsored by overseas educational bodies in other jurisdictions.

To say that there is this continuum and therefore there must be a guarantee of this continuum for the smaller units, I'm afraid in my experience defies the gravity that is the norm of dealing with this particular section in the market, that is all I wanted to say on the matter at this
16:34
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
wanted to say on the matter at this Can I thank Baroness Scott for amendments on students and all noble Lords up participated in this Lords up participated in this debate. As noble Lords will be aware proposals on student accommodation have been subject to a great deal of consideration and debate both in this chamber and outside of it in the other place Mike and I thank all of those who have written to myself of those who have written to myself and I'm sure to other noble Lords on and I'm sure to other noble Lords on the subject.

Starting with amendment to, this seeks to retain fixed term tenancies for students living in private rented accommodation. I can private rented accommodation. I can private rented accommodation. I can only repeat I said before that fixed terms serve only to lock tenants in. There Brighton to pay rent even if the condition of the property is poor or if their circumstances poor or if their circumstances change and the need to move out as a result. In the current system of fixed term tenancies we often hear of students who have dropped out of university but are still obliged to pay rent for their accommodation.

I could mention some examples of that but probably not appropriate to do so. This is not the right approach, we all we want all tenants including students from whichever demographic group they come from to benefit from the increased security and flexibility that the Renter's Rights Bill provides. Students pay the same rent, often they pay higher rents as other tenants and so should have the same rights as everybody else. We've introduced a new possession grant to allow the cyclical nature of the student market to continue and provide landlords with confidence.

I recognise that the noble Lady is trying to create parity between students in the private rented sector and those in purpose-built student accommodation as there tenancies will be exempted from the issuance system and landlords will be able to offer fixed term tenancies will stop however the reason we have accepted DVSA, purpose-built student accommodation is due to its unique business model. Often DVSA cannot be let to non- students due to its location the services it provides alongside accommodation. You have also only exempted the sector from the protections of the assured tenancy system because we are satisfied that the unipolar codes of management practice provide an alternative route to ensuring that tenancies are at a high standard.

There is no such code for private student landlords and it would be wrong to mirror the exemption. In answer to Lord Willetts who asked about monitoring...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does the Minister except -- accept that purpose-built student accommodation is for the more accommodation is for the more wealthy? Young people who are struggling to go to university will go to the private rented sector not the expensive specific the expensive specific accommodation. Has she done any work on that and does she realise that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on that and does she realise that that is what has happening out there? What I do feel is that students who take up accommodation should have the same rights as anybody else who was taking up accommodation, who was taking up accommodation, that's why we don't want to make an exemption for those students who want to rent in the private rented want to rent in the private rented sector from the benefits of the Renter's Rights Bill. To come on to Lord Willetts point about monitoring, we will monitor this monitoring, we will monitor this element of the bill along with all aspects of the bill and I'm going to give you some more detail about give you some more detail about that.

It does come up under a future set of amendments but I think it's important as you've asked the important as you've asked the question to respond to it. We will be evaluating the process, impact and value for money of the reforms in line with the departments published housing monitoring and evaluation strategy. The evaluation will involve extensive data collection through interviews, surveys, focus groups and a range of stakeholders as well as trusted data sources. We will be talking to tenants, landlords, letting agent, third sector organisations, delivery partners, the court service and government officials and I will say more about the court service later on because that means to some extent much more immediate and dynamic monitoring service.

The primary data will be supplemented by monitoring data from existing surveys in new data produced by the reforms report will be produced for publication at approximately two and five years after implementation in line with commitments made in the Bell's impact assessment to publish findings and therefore they will be available for parliamentary scrutiny. I think it's important to say that that we do want to make sure there is a process by which we can review the provisions in the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful for that very full explanation of the monitoring, in her long list of organisations consulted I don't think she actually consulted I don't think she actually had universities on the list. She assure the House they will be included as well?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

included as well? My apologies, that was probably my speedy reading rather than a omission on part of the information omission on part of the information I have so yes I agree with him that that is part of the monitoring process. Turning to amendment five process. Turning to amendment five which seeks to expand round for a which allows students living in HMOs to be evicted in line with the academic year. We seek to address academic year. We seek to address the concerns that scope of the ground should extend to all properties.

It allows students living in self-contained accommodation one and two bedroom properties for example to be evicted each year for the thought carefully each year for the thought carefully A thank Lord Shipley also giving it thoughts, we want to ensure the cyclical nature of the typical student market is maintained and we student market is maintained and we therefore believe limiting it to HMOs achieves this by capturing the bulk of typical students, that is groups living in a house share. Meanwhile students you need more security of tenure such as single parents living with their children, postgraduate couples living together who have put down roots in the area will be protected.

The core principle of the bill is that tenants should have more security in their homes and we think it's right that these groups should not be exposed to potential eviction using ground for a. Self-contained one and two-bedroom homes also easier to let in on students and student HMOs, so why while I don't agree with the conspiracy theory that Lord Fuller was speaking about, if a landlord cannot gain possession in line with the academic year they are more likely to be out to let the property out to non-student tenants.

That gives another way through the landlords. As you remember on amendment six you may remember the committee evidence in the other place it was evident that Mike highlighted the students are often pressured into signing contracts of the next academic year very early in the term before they've had a chance to store form stable friendships or assessor properties proper condition and location. To discourage this practice we amended the bill to prevent landlords from using ground for a if they had agreed a tenancy more than six months in advance of tenant screening getting the right to possession.

The six to extend this to allow landlords to sign tenancies up to nine months in advance. I'm not convinced this will be the right approach, as I've highlighted in many cases students are expected to commit to properties within just months of arriving university before having the opportunity to form lasting friendship groups or evaluate whether a property meets their needs in terms of condition or location. The purpose of this measure is to access strong disincentives to this access while striking the right balance.

It avoids pushing students into signing tenancies before Christmas when students are still settling in but continues to allow Plex ability. And you prefer to secure accommodation in advance of the summer. And doesn't interfere with typical example. Is. Extending this limit to nine months would undermine that balance and risk reinforcing the practice this measure is intended to discourage. For example tenants in a competitive market may be forced to search for tenancies starting in September during the January exam period. Turning to amendment seven, this six to expand the student ground for possession so it can be used to evict a tenant undertaking an apprenticeship.

Why understand support for apprenticeships and share the noble Baronesses wish to support people who are undertaking apprenticeships I don't believe this would be the right approach. Round for a was created in recognition of the unique cyclical nature of accommodation for those in traditional, higher education. Those in other types of education like apprenticeships are less likely to live in cyclical accommodation and need the security of tenure the Renter's Rights Bill gives to tenants. Those apprenticeship schemes and a wage and tend to hope to stay at the company once the apprenticeship is completed.

They live lifestyles much more akin to the working population than to university students and they will therefore benefit from all of the increased security of tenure that this rent is built would give them. For the reasons set out I would ask Baroness Scott to withdraw her amendments.
16:43
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
I thank the Minister for her responses and I thank all noble Lords with such considerable interests and knowledge of the sector. Have spoken today. Having listened carefully to the debate and given the House has rejected the principle of fixed term tenancies for all I intend to withdraw amendment to. On amendment six concerning the timing of student tenancies and amendment seven on expanding the definition of students I recognise there is sympathy for the concerns I have raised, I don't believe there is enough support in the House to carry them I therefore the House to carry them I therefore will also withdraw those amendments.

However, we have listened over the past number of months to student organisations and to universities across this country. About the issue of supply of student housing and the types of housing that students of many different types want in the sector and want available. I have listened to this issue of monitoring, but what worries me about monitoring is when you eventually find out that it has a detrimental effect on a sector, then a cohort of young people have suffered in that period of time and we don't think that is correct.

The other issue is that you take out certain types of accommodation from the sector and what's going to happen? The rest of the accommodation is going to get more expensive for the students that need it and that concerns us as well. There is an issue of capacity and supply in the market and that remains we believe very pressing. We believe the government's response could have been better, it's pretty unconvincing and therefore we will test the opinion of the House on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment five. Is at your Lordships pleasure that amendment to is withdrawn?
16:45
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment by leave withdrawn. That leads into clause 2 amendment three Baroness Scott of Bybrook.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I declare my interest as a counsellor in central as a counsellor in central Bedfordshire. Antisocial behaviour Bedfordshire. Antisocial behaviour is a scourge on our communities for this particularly devastating from a housing perspective. It undermines community spirit, it leaves tenants community spirit, it leaves tenants feeling trapped and helpless. It strips away the very essence of what strips away the very essence of what makes a house a home. Too often we overlook the consequences, it's not just the cost of repairs, increase security, time consuming administration of complaints placing administration of complaints placing an unsustainable burden on housing associations and local authorities, associations and local authorities, but the misery and social break down but the misery and social break down it can cause in communities.

As currently drafted the bill weakens the powers available to local authorities and social landlords in authorities and social landlords in tackling antisocial behaviour. That is why we have sought to bring back amendment three today. To preserve amendment three today. To preserve the ability of social landlords to demote tenancies in response to such demote tenancies in response to such behaviour. The motion is not about punishment for its own sake, it's a punishment for its own sake, it's a vital tool. A proportionate deterrent that enables landlords to uphold community stability.

Whether it's loud noise, vandalism or intimidation of tenants, engaging in persistent antisocial behaviour must know there are consequences. Without the option to demote, how are landlords expected to maintain safety and harmony in their communities? Those with experience in local government will know that when a tenant causes disruption it's often the landlord he receives the enforcement pressure from the council. If landlords are to be held to account they must also be empowered to act. Amendment three ensures that social landlords retain this power, it is not a radical departure but a practical necessity to deal with the real world situations where one tenants behaviour causes misery to many others.

This is about protecting the quiet minority, the families, the elderly and the vulnerable who rely on the homes being a place of safety. It's about ensuring that social landlords are not left powerless in the face of persistent disruption. I urge the government to reflect on the value of the motion as a tool of last resort. And the message it sends that antisocial behaviour has consequences. And that the community cohesion does matter. In conclusion if we are serious about supporting tenants and local authorities we must ensure they have the tools to act decisively and fairly.

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause to line
16:48
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
to line 30 leave out paragraph 8.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Every single thing that Lord James said of antisocial behaviour, ditto. We all know it blights people's lives we all know how difficult it is to stem that, we difficult it is to stem that, we have arrangements where councils work with the local strategic partnerships to deal with this, partnerships to deal with this, nobody is disputing that. The reason we have come to the conclusion that we have come to the conclusion that we don't think demoted tenancies are neither literally simple, I contacted the National Housing contacted the National Housing Federation which other people who are actually members are social are actually members are social housing providers, they genuinely don't see a need, they are don't see a need, they are comfortable enough with the bill and how it deals with antisocial behaviour, what they are not, what behaviour, what they are not, what they are concerned about is that they are concerned about is that they want to know they have the effective tools to deal with antisocial behaviour and the need to, they are concerned about the to, they are concerned about the capacity of the courts to deal with evictions based on antisocial evictions based on antisocial behaviour, so the actual demoted tenancies, my instinct straight away were to support your amendment but when they said actually we don't see the point of this, but we do want to know that we are going to get the tools to deal with things and many of them the ones I know personally feel they do effectively deal with antisocial behaviour including my antisocial behaviour including my They were concerned about having those tools in the capacity to do a background when they do choose to use it.
16:50
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I thank the noble Lord for this amendment. It seeks to be introduced social landlords ability to apply for demotion order in regards to social behaviour of a tenant. One of the most frustrating things I dealt with in 27 years as councils antisocial behaviour so we all share the absolute priority of tackling the blight of antisocial behaviour there can be on both individuals and communities I cannot accept this amendment. As a way of dealing with it. It fundamentally go against one of the core principles of the Renter's Rights Bill.

To improve the security and tenure for renters. There is also a technical reason which I will come to in a minute. This amendment seemingly unable landlords to denote social tenants to a less secure form of tenancy. As I raised a committee, as drafted the amendment would not work. The Renter's Rights Bill removes tenants to simpler tenancy structure where assured tenants sure tenants by section 20 will be abolished. There will no longer be a tenancy with lower security to which you can demote tenants. For this to work it would require measures in the bill to remove devoted tenancies.

Tackling antisocial behaviour is a top priority and a key part of our mission. As the noble Baroness said, many councils already and housing associations do a great job now in tackling this in partnership with each other. But I accept it could still be an issue. The bill will shorten the routers period and the eviction ground with lentils being able to make a claim to the Court immediately in cases of antisocial behaviour. The bill also amends the matters that judges must consider when deciding whether to award the possession and that discretionary grant.

This will ensure judges give particular regard to whether tenants have engaged with efforts to resolve their behaviour. And the impact on other tenants within HMOs. For all these reasons we feel this amendment is unworkable and unnecessary and we would kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
16:52
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Minister for have reply and also the comments from the noble Baroness Thornhill and the wide recognition that antisocial behaviour and the problems it causes. While I will not move this amendment today I do hope the government has truly heard the problems this does cause. I would also add going into eviction and going to Court in a very Draconian thing -- is a very Draconian thing and this would provide the opportunity of an interim step without having to actually evict someone is a very useful tool.

I also do recognise the comments. With that, we hope the government will reflect, consider how this bill can more robustly support those affected by the system and by social behaviour, with Leader of the House I withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your Lordships pleasure amendment three be withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn. That brings us on to amendment for,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Scott. We are tag teaming here. We

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We are tag teaming here. We returned to the issue of people and identification issues across the identification issues across the bill. Notice the consistency before fairness. During the definition of family is the same when it comes to guarantors and grounds for guarantors and grounds for possession is not about expanding the law, it is about clarity and equity. We wanted to place on record today and state clearly we believe today and state clearly we believe government is making a mistake of resisting this change.

Turning to amendment 21 my Lords, this is a sensible and necessary amendment. The possession for the purpose of The possession for the purpose of housing and care is an issue of growing importance. Many families are already making plans the future. are already making plans the future. Care needs. With social care under increasing pressure, we believe this amendment is timely and proportional. We must allow older or less able people to stay in their own homes if that is what they choose. Having a carer close by or even in the annex next door would enable them to do so.

I hope the noble Baroness, the Minister understands the value of this ground. Finally, amendments 22 and 23, the first in the name of my noble friend, the Earl of Leicester and the second in my own name speak to the need of a clear message around redevelopment. Not for commercial purposes but for private regeneration as well. Really good regeneration in urban areas requires a certain scale when a large site is available something truly transformational can be achieved as we have seen by the King's Cross redevelopment.

But large sites like King's Cross are the exception. They just do not exist. Many forwardthinking investors and developers seek to build up a sign of sufficient scale to a piecemeal acquisition approval over many years and continue to rent the housing and commercial properties in the meantime. My Lords, we believe we should support and encourage those who seem to do these high quality regeneration projects. As the covenant seems the suggesting that tenancy should be terminated on change of ownership and a home left vacant potentially for many years not only reducing the rental housing stock but undermining the viability of such large-scale regeneration projects and blighting the neighbourhood? Would it not be far better to allow property owners to continue to rent their homes until such time as the property is needed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for redevelopment. I beg to move. Amendment proposed, schedule one,
16:56
Lord de Clifford Portrait Lord de Clifford (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

page 107, leave out beginning of line start to end of 26 and insert suspended on the Marshalled list. I rise to speak on amendment 21

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak on amendment 21 in my name. I thank Lord Jamieson for his support. Baroness Bowles and for his support. Baroness Bowles and Berkhamsted and Baroness Neville- Rolfe for their support also. This amendment makes a very small change to the bill. The change can make a significant difference to the lives and individuals that need long-term full-time care due to their age or disability. I am also thanking the noble Minister for Health time in meeting with us -- Baloosh Mr Noble Minister for her time in meeting Minister for her time in meeting with us.

Those who need care do not see that it would create a loophole which is one of the government concerns although it treats tenants and value in trying to ensure tenants have security of tenure and have not moved on unnecessarily from a home they enjoy or are unsettled in. For a loophole to be abuse there must be an opportunity within the wording or the functional clause of this to happen. We have addressed this we believe as the property needs to be within close proximity of the landlord's residence e.g.

An annexe, a flat within the same block, in the same street or a village. So daily and emergency care can be provided to the person who needs care. Due to the proximity, the tenant will be aware further landlord lives. -- Of where the landlord lives. If notice was given on the grounds of the need for a carer, they could investigate, ask neighbours or visit the landlord for confirmation. If there were not confirmation. If there were not satisfied that requirement would not be met.

They could use processes within the bill to challenge the notice. One of the principles of the bill is to provide more security for tenure. This will only change the bill in a very small way. It would only apply to a small number of properties that are very important and valued reason for a family. We support -- we have spoken to a number of Carol Ganesan's -- of care organisations that support our amendments. They pointed out problems that may arise if the carer does not live nearby.

Continuity of care is so important. Carers do have private lives and this separate property would give them the care but opportunity to live their lives and down space. So improving retention and their own mental and physical health. Also it gives private space to the family and -- family in their own homes which can only help with the whole families health needs. In COVID a lot of live in carers suffered from loneliness when living in the same property as the person they are caring for.

Allowing them their own house would be a big advantage. Caring is a professional and skilled job and therefore when carers provide -- care is provided it should be done by the most skilled appropriate person. Surely this could be a skilled carer. Caring for a family member living with them could have a potential... Living with them could be the potential carer. It not be more appropriate if that individual went out to work with the skills they have in an appropriate job rather than doing the job of the carer when a professional carer may be more appropriate or provide better care? It is not one of the coveted -- governance priority objective is to get people into work but surely this must be doing roles in which they are most productive in.

Many people at different ages work hard and full-time care and this can be for many reasons and can come unexpectedly at times due to age, significant health reasons or sometimes sadly an accident. If there is a need for long-term care, surely if you have a property in proximity you should be able to gain possession. If you have a family member coming to care for you, you can gain possession. Is it not reasonable and fair to extend the grounds to allow professional carers to live at the property rather than the reluctant family member providing care services.

In terms of care, surely keeping people in their own home rather than in a care home or another institution would benefit not only them but society in general? This is what this amendment achieves. It does not have pressure to the already stretched social care sector. We acknowledge sometimes this will suffer disruption but to leave the property is the same as if the landlord should sell the property or move a family member in. This is for a specific reason and I believe most tenants would understand why notice has been given.

The amendment is all about family and landlords gaining possession for the use of the property for the family. That is why that is what Grande lists. -- Grand a list. Exceptional services for a family in a time of need. We hope the covenant will consider this amendment and make the small change for the benefit of those in care. If they are reluctant to do so, it may be I need to test the opinion of the House.
17:01
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Portrait Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I added my name to this amendment and I also spoke during the previous bills stages. I need to declare my interest as a private landlord in my own right and also as a trustee. And that I have a relative who purchased the flat above there is for when a carer was needed. It was going to be the case in due course. That planning is now of course in some disarray. We have been wondering whether they have to evict the present tenant now and bring forward the employment of the carer.

Even though the time is not yet necessary. Since the discussion at Committee stage and speaking with the Minister and I thank the Minister for her time, I have spoken to various care organisations who are all supportive of the amendment and they have actually made some recommendations behind the changes in language since the one that was submitted at Committee stage. What this care organisations have taught me like these care organisations have taught me is there is a very wide array in which there are carers used.

Both in the regulated sector and outside that. But on which many people rely for vital tasks, health and personal care. Absent actually in the voluntary sector, there would be a lot more cost that would fall be a lot more cost that would fall It's not so easy to always find family member who can do this. Families are much smaller nowadays, in fact my husband and I were adding up what has happened in our own family, we chase it back and then there is 14 at our age level end up being replaced by many fewer at the grandchild level.

With those kinds of circumstances and also the fact of many more people working, women not wanting to stay at home and family spread much further from where they grow up and whether parents or others needing care within the family might be, then the reliance, this is what care organisations have told me, reliance comes in what they term loved ones but that's a very wide phrase to mean quite often it is friends, people, and neighbours, people they have lived close to and have helped one another during their lives and one another during their lives and then when one of them falls ill or becomes disabled, in many sad cases survivors of cancer but left with life changing circumstances, then they become the carer that helps them and as the condition deteriorates it may be necessary for them to be nearby.

The care organisations I spoke to which support this amendment are the Homecare Association, care England, the national care forum, National Care Association and Carers UK and I thank them for their time and for their recommendations. We are quite aware that the Minister does not want to create loopholes, this was the main feature of the discussion that we had. For that purpose we have made it so that regulations can be made around the definition of the carer.

In many ways I prefer that we didn't have that there so that the Minister could take anything useful away but I am actually hoping it would be done in the light of experience if one did find that in fact the terms were somehow abused. We also need to look considering carers, about the care patterns. carers, about the care patterns. Many people who need serious care of several carers and they have to operate in shift systems, whether that be daily or whether it be weekly or monthly.

Many of these sometimes come for maybe six weeks from overseas and then they go back and somebody else comes in. There is this rolling pattern of carers and it's going to be very difficult if they cannot necessarily be conveniently located. I do ask the Minister to think again, yes it is maybe not a great number of people that are going to be helped by this amendment in the same way as the huge number of renters that are going to be helped, but being a minority has never been grounds for discrimination in a civil society.

Therefore I ask the Minister to think about this and to understand that like her we don't want there to be cheaters using this but we do want people who are in need of the service to be able to avail themselves of properties that often they have bought in order to plan for their care and indeed in order not to be a burden on the state. Should they not be allowed the peace of mind that they are going to be able to fulfil those plans?
17:07
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
-
I also rise to support amendment 21 in the name of Lord de Clifford and Baroness Bowles to which I have added my name full stop I'm particularly grateful the warm words Lord Jamieson and for the front -- supported the various carer organisation to do such important job in our society. The bill allows a landlord to take possession of a property for a family reason. Our small extension would allow a nearby property to be taken back in hand if it were needed to house a carer.

In the meantime it would be available, for example as a dwelling for struggling local couple, or an individual seeking a home. With ever-growing numbers of the aged and disabled, with the move to smaller homes and smaller families and with the scarcity of care homes and hospices the provision for short- term housing of professional carers often changing at short notice as we have heard will become more and more important in coping with our ageing population. This is particularly true in rural areas which are being so battered by other changes the government has felt necessary to make.

I declare an interest in the register as the owner such a cottage bought specifically for a carer and generally let to a local short hold tenancy. Such tenancies have expanded the rental market hugely in this country and are being can sweetly -- completely swept away by this bill. We need to do what we can together in this House to moderate the perverse consequences, notably in this case to make things better for carers. Fortunately neither my husband nor I yet needs a carer.

But we named -- may need one eventually and my concern like Lord Clifford's is a general one. I can guarantee that I'm not alone. I have no idea how the government is going to find the one million more rented homes Savills believe we need by 2031. That is unless the government makes some sensible technical changes to this bill being debated, very constructively here in this House by knowledgeable experts our amendment 21 falls into that category and I hope others will join us in the lobbies and in calling on the government to think again on this issue.
17:10
17:12
Earl of Leicester Portrait The Earl of Leicester (Conservative)
-
-
example it might have a few workmen's terraced houses or in a rural setting may be a farm worker's cottage which might be in the middle of said proposed development, it seeks to allow the landowner or developer to gain possession of said property or properties. When I look out of my flat window here in King's Cross alluded to by Lord Jamieson, developed by Argent who are brilliant place makers they have worked in Manchester creative and marvellous area in Tottenham Hale.

They have produced a really high They have produced a really high quality mix of leisure, retail, accommodation, high-end accommodation, medium accommodation and affordable accommodation. But they take decades to assemble said land. When I look out of my window I see commercial property that has been sold up, bought by developers and converted into flats, many of course of these will have a high proportion of affordable accommodation. This to my mind seems to be the largest amount or the greatest amount of development that is happening in Britain at the moment.

It should go both ways. Because we hear in this country about how we are losing industry, we are only a service economy, we should be doing everything in our utmost to produce jobs, already the unemployment figures are rising. If these examples that I have mentioned achieve planning permission and the tenant is removed, and the reality is the developer or landowner would do this my negotiation and try and find suitable alternative accommodation for said person. But if that person is going to say no I'm not moving, I'm not leaving at all, then the whole opportunity of all, then the whole opportunity of growth ceases.

And of course work the development to go ahead because of the planning permission is achieved, a great number of jobs will be created in the short-term and construction and that might take two to four years but then in the occupation of said commercial buildings. So it is a win-win. The government says it wants growth but it doesn't allow these amendments that Lord Jamieson and I am talking about, then it really is not acting about, then it really is not acting in the best benefit of growth.

I support Lord Clifford's amendment on providing accommodation for a carer, it's a very well thought through amendment and we shall be supporting it and it does seem to be there is a great deal of support around the House for that. Lord Jamieson's amendment is somewhat wider than mine, redevelopment and regeneration but effectively they are the same I have sat in much of this debate today and it is a shame the government is not listening. Good government listens to differing views and takes note.

There are many good amendments being put forward. Government through ideology and a large majority does not lead to good law.
17:16
Lord Carrington Portrait Lord Carrington (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, the Earl of Leicester in his amendment, number 22. I declare my direct interests in the private rented sector with lettings in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire. Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire. With cottages and indirect farming -- in direct farming and agricultural lettings. I said at committee there are a number of bills, reviews and reports in motion which cover the whole issue of farm and other diversification in rural areas. Which the government is keen to encourage in the light of falling profitability and farming that subsidies are withdrawn or concentrated on environmental activities and concerns.

Farmers are therefore looking carefully at their assets to see whether they can be put towards more profitable use. Obviously this can involve forms of cottages and buildings rather than just stand alone farm buildings. The planning and infrastructure bill is relevant in this context together with the Rural England Prosperity Fund which specifically targets facilities and building conversions which help rural businesses to diversify this amendment insists in enabling diversification if the necessary planning permission has been granted or there is a permitted development right.

I am thoroughly aware the noble Lady, the Minister is keen to protect all assured tenants from eviction. For whatever reason. And not to reduce the housing stock. But in granting that planning permission, the authorities will already have given due consideration to the potential version and indeed any loss of residential buildings through change of use. And they will have agreed the merits of the plan development outweigh the retention of the residents. I therefore hope the noble Lady, the Minister will include this ground today as a sensible grounds...

Rather than in the Commons. the Commons.
17:18
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
RIs Maiden speech amendment for and amendment 21. I think it is fairly obvious we will be supporting amendment 21 in the name of the amendment 21 in the name of the With number 24 and then I took legal advice because it was asserted we needed clarity and consistency across the bill so we have more lawyers in this House than any other profession I suspect. And guess what, I had got slightly different answers but the message was quite consistent.

You do not need to have the same definition of family in this case across the whole bill. Because you are dealing with very specific different things. My understanding is and I am absolutely certain the noble Lady, the Minister will correct me if I have got this slightly wrong. The amendment underground one -- under ground one does deal with the diversity of the modern family and it is actually about the repossession ground. So it has been drawn fairly tightly for obvious reasons.

But the definition in clause 20 is clearly broader because it creates the removal of the guarantor liability for rent after a family member in a joint tenancy dies. So it is actually a sympathetic amendment and a sympathetic broadening past in the net -- casting the net a little bit more widely that seems to protect the reef. Where is the definition underground one is necessarily actually wanting to keep it fairly tight so we have resolved our position on that.

We will be supportive of amendment. The last two amendments, 23 and 24 I really want to hear what the noble Lady, the Minister says that because I believe there are grounds to do that already within the bill. So I am genuinely very interested to hear the Minister's response to those later two amendments. later two amendments.
17:20
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, noble Lords, Lord de Clifford, Lord Jamieson, Lord Lester for their amendments and Baroness Bowles, Baroness Neville- Rolfe, Lord Cromwell, Lord Carrington, Baroness Thornhill for all of their contributions. To the debate. Starting with amendment number four, this amendment seeks to expand the definition of a family member for the purpose of moving in ground. Round one. To a much wider range of relations. This mandatory position ground is available if the landlord or their close family member wishes to move into the property.

This amendment would allow landlords to evict their tenants in order to house nieces, nephews, ants, uncles and cousins. It would enable the ground to be used and how is the equivalent relatives and their spouse, civil partner or cohabiting. The family members we have chosen that can move in underground one -- under ground one aim to reflect the diversity of modern families that balance this with the security of tenure of the existing tenant. As Baroness Thornhill as indicated I appreciate this draws the line short of where some might hope to go too far would open up tenants to evictions from a wide range of people, particularly very significant numbers of cousins, nieces and nephews for example.

I know this depends on families. It would certainly be a large number in my family. Where families are large. This would provide more opportunity for ill intentioned landlords to abuse the system. It is right the definition used here is narrower than the definition in clause 20. Which removes guarantor liability for rent after a family member in a joint tenancy dies. This is because this clause is position ground. So it results in people actually losing their homes. Rather than the other clause, closed 20 which is protecting bereaved where the net should be cast more widely.

In terms of amendment 21 this aims to introduce the new ground for possession and this will permit the landlord to seek possession of the property for the purpose of housing a carer for the deaf for them or a member of their family. This is qualified with the requirement properties payments sufficient proximity to the landlord's residence to facility emergency callouts. I thank all the noble Lords are particularly Lord de Clifford and Baroness Bowles for their considered and passionate engagement on this subject regarding this proposed ground.

The committee and when I met with peers to discuss the proposal in the run-up to report. I recognise the difficulties highlighted that may be faced by landlords who wish to evict the tenant in order to house a carer. We are all aware of the importance of carers and the absolutely remarkable work they do in supporting individuals and families. In difficult circumstances. These amendments clearly come from a very good place and our very synthetic like I am very synthetic to noble Lords concerns.

There are some practical considerations however that we can the rationale for this intervention. Adding more possession grounds increases the opportunities for abuse by those in scribblers landlords who sadly do exist in the market. We are committed to giving renters much greater security and stability so they can stay in their homes for longer and that is why we have developed very specific grounds. We also think there are very few landlords who will both be in the position of needing a carer and owning a second property close to their homes to accommodate that carer.

I appreciate the examples both the noble Lady have given. Given the potential risk of abuse and the very narrow group of people who might benefit from this ground, we do not think the additional ground is warranted. However you is that it is not -- our view is that it is not intentional it should have all the disruption it entails to house another did person in the circumstances. The noble Lord de Clifford talked about supporting people into work but this amendment might involve another local worker being evicted house that carer.

Indeed if the evicted tenants were also a carer, it would likely deprive one of the very organisations that is being -- that has been contacting noble Lords, a key member of their staff. We do have to be careful we do not cause those kinds of circumstances. Amendment 22 seeks to create a new ground for possession to enable landlords to convert a residential property to long residential use. I would like to say to the Earl of Leicester I too visited the King's Cross development when I was looking at the development of the central part of Stevenage and it is fantastic the work that has been done there.

As I stated a committee in response to a similar amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington I do not believe this is the right approach. The government has thought carefully about where landlords should be able to take possession of their properties. Particularly where it would lead to a tenant losing their home through no fault their own. Encouraging residential let's to be converted to other uses at a time of such chronic pressure on housing supply would not be right. It is for the same reason this bill abolishes ground three which enables landlords to evict long-term tenants in order to turn a dwelling into a holiday let.

Where landlords wish to convert their property to non-residential use it is right they should do this as tenants move out rather than by evicting a tenant who has done nothing wrong. It is also worth noting as I think noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill referred to the existing redevelopment ground, ground six could potentially be used in some circumstances. This is the right approach, not the approach put in the amendment from the noble Earl of Leicester. Turning to amendment 23, this well-intentioned amendment would create a new mandatory possession ground to allow landlords to evict tenants in order to redevelop the property.

If they receive planning permission in the works and they cannot be carried out. I am very pleased to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson that landlords will already be able to evict in the circumstances, they can do this by using existing broader mandatory redevelopment grounds ground six. This also does not require the landlord to approve planning permission which may not be necessary in the circumstances. This proposed new ground would merely duplicate ground six but with additional constraints. For the reasons I have set out I would ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just before the Minister sits down, can the Minister be absolutely categoric that anybody seeking to redevelop their property would be redevelop their property would be able to terminate a tenancy in order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

able to terminate a tenancy in order to do so? You can use the existing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You can use the existing mandatory redevelopment ground, ground six when you are arguing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

redevelop the property. I just ask her in respect of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just ask her in respect of amendment 21, does she accept denying someone the ability to move in a carer to look after their in a carer to look after their family in the way that is outlined is going to be an enormous temptation for abuse? And secondly temptation for abuse? And secondly that the best form of that is likely that the best form of that is likely to be simply people will hold a property empty for very very many years in case they need it? That is not really going to create much help in the rental sector.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the rental sector. I would just reiterate my comments, evicting one tenant to put comments, evicting one tenant to put another tenant in and you may very well be evicting somebody else's carer to put your carer in, of carer to put your carer in, of course we do not want to see properties sitting empty but that is people's choice. If they have a property. But the idea that you would evict one carer to put another carer in for example is just not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

acceptable. I did mention that, saying one is pushing out one tenant in order to pushing out one tenant in order to put carer in. I think there, she is touching on a very specific case where you are putting a tenant out where you are putting a tenant out who happens to be a carer but in order to put a carer in, that is a order to put a carer in, that is a very timely example. I do think the sheer emotional impact of not being sheer emotional impact of not being able to careful somebody, to put a able to careful somebody, to put a carer in is simply going to invite people to abuse the system, to use ways to get around it or to simply ways to get around it or to simply hold the property empty rather than face and I wonder how members of face and I wonder how members of this House of this House would reactive they were in that situation, to not be able to provide care to a loved one because they care to a loved one because they were unable, despite owning a property, to put a carer into it.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would simply end to the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would simply end to the noble Lord say it does not have to be another carer, it could be any of the key workers that we talk about. So often. You are in need of So often. You are in need of housing. -- Who are in need of housing. They are in need of other options, if they are receiving rent options, if they are receiving rent for that property, they will be a further shortage -- there will be a further shortage but there will be the option to use the rent securable property to use the rent for another carer.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am sorry those of us who deal with economic matters will have to point out there will be tax paid on point out there will be tax paid on the rent so there would not be a the rent so there would not be a great deal left to be able to rent the next home. That is not a sort of economically viable solution. Even economically viable solution. Even if there were another adjacent

**** Possible New Speaker ****

if there were another adjacent I'm sorry I can only come back to my point, it just does not seem equitable to evict one family to equitable to evict one family to I'm sorry I should have repeated I'm sorry I should have repeated that I would ask noble Lords to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw their amendments. I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions in this debate. Turning to my first amendment I recognise that the
17:31
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
amendment I recognise that the Minister has given some serious consideration to the definition of family and is satisfied with the government's position. We are respectfully disagreeing but I will not press the amendment and therefore withdraw it. We've had an excellent debate with regards to amendment 21 and I thank Lord Clifford for introducing this amendment and the many noble Lords who have raised issues on it. They have spoken with clarity and conviction and we believe that allowing a property to be used to house a carer in the time of need is not only reasonable but can be vital to the well-being and living standards of the property owner will stop from these benches we are pleased to support this amendment.

Finally we turn to the issue of redevelopment and regeneration, I thank the Earl of Leicester for his amendment and also Lord Carrington for his contribution. Revitalising areas is key to improving living standards and supporting the long- term well-being and development of communities. Delivering the growth that this government has said is its number one priority. It is also crucial to delivering the homes that both Baroness Thornhill and Baron -- the Minister have said earlier in the debate are so vital.

I will therefore, I appreciate the Minister has made some comments that this may already be covered, we are not satisfied it is covered and if I may say the comments from the Minister were not conclusive when I sought clarification. I will therefore test the opinion of the House on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 23. I beg to move. Is at your Lordships pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your Lordships pleasure that amendment four is withdrawn? As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content". The "Contents" have it. Amendment five, Baroness Scott. On behalf of the young people looking for student accommodation in
17:33
17:33
17:45
None Portrait Amendment:8 Lord Carrington (Crossbench)
-

Eight, nine, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 and I apologise for so many, I actually only tabled one but the Table Office divided it. The amendments cover the possession, the grounds for possession to include self-employed agricultural workers in this amendment. It is clearly understood that the key aim of government is to provide more security for tenants in the private rented sector, hence the abolition of section 21 no fault of actions. I thoroughly support this policy but reforms must be implanted carefully when it comes to the rural economy -- evictions to take into account the particular circumstances of the agricultural sector in order to avoid negative impact such as the necessary housing of farmworkers who are crucial to the nation's food security as well as a thriving rural Accordingly special protection specific to agriculture are required and this is already part of the -- partly recognised in ground five A.

Limited to direct employees. Agriculture is unique in terms of tenant teen housing is often agricultural workers are provided with accommodation to enable them to be close to their place of work. A worker can often be required to work long hours during certain seasons such as landing or harvest or unsocial hours such as early mornings and late evenings in the case of dairy farming. There are also welfare considerable -- animal welfare considerations which require animal workers to be close at hand at all times.

Following the Lord's Committee stage I withdrew the original amendments to address the noble Lady, the Minister's concerns. She said at committee there were other arrangements that a landlord could use to help their contractors with accommodation when they are working away from their homes such as paying expenses, using licences to occupy paying for them to be housed in their B&B. She is absolutely correct as contractors can be somewhat different to employed or self-employed farmworkers. I have therefore removed contractors from this amendment.

Her suggestion the same could be achieved by allowing self- employed workers to occupy a property under licence would not be appropriate for longer term workers which this amendment seeks to address. I would also point out licence agreements are generally unsuitable for long-term occupation. And can in some instances actually come might actually be considered as a tenancy. Especially where the a tenancy. Especially where the occupant of a dwelling has an occupation suited to all or part of the dwelling.

I know the Minister was actually -- was worried these amendments could open up an exemption for a wider group of workers and I hope I have reassured her this specifically covers only genuine full-time agricultural workers. The revised amendments which add only self-employed agricultural workers to this category also deems the nature of the self-employment should be genuine and meaningfully full-time. Hence references made to working a minimum 35 hour week. Furthermore the revised amendment confirm there is no intention to alter security of tenure afforded to assured agricultural occupants.

This is because the bill states ground five a and 5C do not apply to this type worker. We believe the ground for possession should be available where there is a need to house self- employed agricultural workers. For example the self-employed party to a share farmed arrangement on a farm or a self-employed Shepherd for instance. It is increasingly common in the agricultural industry for workers to be self-employed. But given the nature of their work, especially if with livestock, they need to live on site.

Some examples of workers in my -- who might fall into this category are dairymen, sheep shears, milk relief workers, tractor drivers. It Karenni provides a means of getting possession where dwelling is required to how someone who will be employed by them not house someone who will be employed by them as an agricultural worker however it does not cover a situation whether workers self- employed. On the same theme of self-employed work ground five C does not adequately provide for possession where a self-employed worker has been provided with the dwelling.

And work contract has ended. It only applies where the tenant has been employed by the landlord. In summary we would like to see an extension to both 5A, 5C to see an extension to both 5A, 5C to reflect modern farming employment practices and cover situations where the worker is self-employed as well as employed. I very much hope the noble Lady, the Minister will be able to accept this amendment which purely reflects current employment practices in farming. It is nonpolitical and it is not designed to cover nonagricultural workers.

Can I then move on to my two other amendments in this group. Which cover the status of service of key workers. These are amendments 10 and 12. Much of the debate, both in this chamber and beyond is rightly focused on the bill's impact on the private rented sector in urban rather than rural areas. These amendments seek to address two critical concerns, firstly how we ensure rural businesses can continue to function effectively and house employees and secondly how to support the housing needs of key workers both in urban and rural areas.

In many rural communities landlords typically also have been a major employer in the area. And the convention is a house employees of their businesses. -- They house employees of their business. This was typical in agriculture and is reflected in the specific legislation for agricultural working tenancies. As successive governments have encouraged rural diversification, we have seen a growing number of businesses beyond farming employing and housing workers. This has become more frequent as affordability challenges have met with accommodation that is often needed to be offered as part of an employment package to attract and retain staff.

Alongside this, more properties have been let to non-employees on assured shorter tenancies. Which have maintained flexibility. This system has allowed landowners to regain possession at the end of a fixed term, enabling them to house new employees as business needs evolve. Without a clear right to repossession in such cases we risk seeing vital rental properties in rural areas, either being sold or left empty. This is not hypothetical, we have already seen the consequences in Scotland following the ending of their equivalent of section 21.

These amendments aim to ensure Royal, that rural businesses can continue to house the workers they need whilst also supporting the broader functioning of rural and urban communities. At Committee stage the Minister raised to objections to a similar amendment. First the ground 5A already covers this issue and second most protect tenants in critical local jobs. However ground five a while welcome does not go far enough. As the Minister acknowledged the agricultural sector has needs hence the inclusion of grounds five A but 85% of rural businesses are not relating to farming or forestry.

Many of these businesses still require staff to live on or near the site to perform their duties effectively. If the lodgings the high ground five a works to agriculture, it should also work for these other rural enterprises. These amendments would extend repossession rights and cover incoming service occupancy workers, those who are required to live in a property for the better performance of their duties. A good example is a rural business that diversify into hosting say weddings in order to maintain and remain viable and changing agricultural policies and profitability.

It now needs to hire a full-time wedding planner, someone who must be on the site at short notice, working regular hours and take on responsibilities for security. However the business cannot require because there is housing available nearby. One of the rural businesses cottages is currently let to non-employee. If the business were to seek repossession in this property to house this wedding planner, ground five A would not apply. And they would be unable to take possession. Amendments 10 and 12 would allow repossession of this property to protect the viability of the business.

My Lords, I appreciate the ambition of this bill is to protect the security of tenure and more households however if we do not strike the right balance and make it more difficult for businesses to employ house staff they will simply hold properties vacant for potential future employees or self. This will further restrict the availability of private rent housing in rural areas. Turning to the second point which is the protection of tenants in vital local rules, the amendment is needed to address the efficient functioning of the rural economy which includes the housing of those in vital local rules.

The principle has been accepted for housing and this is simply an extension of that. The government is concerned about housing vital key workers in rural areas and so I have strengthened the amendment to include a provision allowing repossession where the property will be used to house incoming key workers. Such workers are broadly defined as NHS workers, carers, teachers, police, security staff et cetera. In many rural areas key workers face long commutes due to a long of -- a lack of suitable housing.

This undermines recruitment, retention and ultimately harms local services. These amendments would allow rural landlords to offer housing to key workers, ensuring the viability of rural areas. While my focus is primarily rural benefits extend to urban landlords such as NHS Trusts, housing providers and also to key workers like firefighters on the call, Cara's -- carers and the like is Park City to work is essential. These amendments would make the private rented sector more responsive to the needs of both rural businesses and urban communities.

They strike a balance between protection and operational necessity. I urge the noble Baroness, the Minister to support
17:57
17:58
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

employee worker or self-employed. My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for bringing what is quite a small for bringing what is quite a small technical issue if there are many amendments related to it, particularly with regard to farmers and tenants of farmers. We and tenants of farmers. We understand technically, particularly amendment eight, nine, 11, 13, 14, 15, six and 17 are related to one very small specific technical issue. very small specific technical issue.

And it is one that if say a dairy farmer, is on a contractor as a freelancer, that needs to be moved in and moved into the site then that repossession should be able to happen. So it is about viable businesses and it is about ensuring someone who was highly relevant is next door to someone when they are working. We understand we thought we understood licence to occupy would cover this. We also kind of worry about the hours relating to this although we do know in one of the amendments it specifies a 35 hour week.

However I would kind of want to know if Lord Carrington knows whether it would be a possible to apply and I'm happy to sit down and make way for him to answer, for someone to work for just one hour and then get through the loophole

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that has been applied by these amendments -- implied by these amendments? The answer to that is no. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The answer to that is no. The whole reason for putting 35 hours a week in there is to make sure there is no loophole. It is drafted as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

such. I thank the noble Lord. With regard to the other amendments, amendments 10 and 12 on these amendments 10 and 12 on these benches we are concerned it does technically widen the scope beyond technically widen the scope beyond where we are comfortable to go. But regarding the amendments eight, nine, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 16, we would hope the noble Lady, the Minister will have heard the Minister will have heard the technical detail that is required for a very specific profession and for a very specific profession and look favourably on taking this away

**** Possible New Speaker ****

look favourably on taking this away The agricultural sector of this country and its workers are without
18:01
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
country and its workers are without doubt the lifeline of this nation and I would therefore like to thank Lord Carrington for his proposed amendments make provision for agricultural landlords and agricultural workers, bringing the welfare of the agricultural sector into overdue consideration. Today the British agriculture industry contributes £14 billion to economy and put food on our plates three times a day. Agricultural landlords like the heart of this, they provide the means for this essential lifeline by providing on-site housing for workers who are required to be at hand to fulfil their duties 24-hour today.

From milking cows daily at 3 o'clock in the morning to delivering lambs throughout the night in the spring. On site and proximity housing ultimately facilitates workers ability to produce the food upon which we all depend. It is therefore crucial that we consider the effects of the Renter's Rights Bill upon these agricultural workers, and in the case of the bill's failure to protect their livelihoods, consider proposed amendments of the bill does not obstruct one of Britain's lifelines. As currently drafted this bill clumsily allows for occupants to remain in a dwelling house even if they no longer work for the landlord.

The requirement for which the occupancy of such housing is usually intended. Similarly as Lord Roborough stated on 12 May, the wording of this bill also does not allow for the possession of a house dwelling as long as the occupant remains in agricultural, in agricultural employment. With no indication as to the specific type of agricultural work that the occupant carries out or whether proximity to certain facilities or animals are necessary. This ultimately risks the deprivation of housing for current full-time workers who may depend on the occupied dwelling house to be able to fulfil their duties, not to mention simultaneously risking the inability for the agricultural sector to function effectively due to an inefficient proximity to work that this lack of provision may cause.

Amendment eight, nine and 11 through 16 therefore ensures that such damage may be averted by allowing agricultural landlord to possess the property for the use of its own full-time agricultural workers, and thus to retain the efficacy that fuels this industry. Amendment 11 is a particularly important, because a modern agricultural industry that we have in this country is changing. One of those changes is that many of the employers are self-employed, particularly in jobs in the dairy industry and in the sheep industry.

Where milkers and shepherds are often self-employed. So we would support Lord Carrington if he was to move his amendment 11 in this group. As previously emphasised to go to that saying that the agricultural sector serves to provide for everyone of us and it is in the same vein that the proposed 10 and 12 also serve. In the Bill's current form the absence of provision for service occupants overlooks the reality that many agricultural workers contract express, that the worker must live in a particular residence where they can better perform their duties.

This is of particular relevance to the contracts of agricultural workers who, out of both beauty and British custom, often housed by their employer. This being the landlord. By allowing possession to be made for service occupants and key workers with Amendment 10 and 12 Lord Carrington rightly seeks to uphold the implements and customs that facilitate effective and key agricultural operations, and the welfare of agricultural employees. However with its more comprehensive inclusivity that service occupants and key workers entails, this amendment also makes provision for workers of other vital sectors in which similar contracts exist, including but not limited to the NHS healthcare, education professionals and emergency service workers.

With Amendment 10 and 12 in place whether one of those key workers needs to raise in the early hours to check lambs that are alarming in the lambing season whether that worker provides immediate care for an elderly person whether that workers putting out a fire there crucial duties can be carried out with due expediency granted only by the proximity and not hindered with the limitations this bill is putting on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it. I rise to support Lord Carrington's amendment eight and Carrington's amendment eight and nine et cetera about treating the self-employed agricultural staff has
18:06
Lord Cameron of Dillington Portrait Lord Cameron of Dillington (Crossbench)
-
-
self-employed agricultural staff has full-time members, full-time staff members for the purposes of this bill. As this is the first time I have spoken in this bill probably the only time I will speak in this bill I should declare my interest as a farmer and someone who has a dairy, because it is about dairies that I want to speak. Cows have to be milked twice a day. It's not only for the point of view of the welfare of the farmer and his bottom line, but also for the pert point of view of the welfare of the cows.

The cows have to be milked twice a day or they really suffer. Cows can actually die from not being milked. So it's really important that they are milked twice a day. Most dairy farmers now employ their dairymen or Derry women, please say there were considerably greater number of women who are dairy farmers these days, than there were in the past, they employ them through an agency because it is the duty of the agency because it is the duty of the agency if the dairymen...

If the dairymen suffers heart attack or gets run over or something terrible, the agency's job is to produce a dairymen literally the next day so the cows can continue to be milked, it really is very important to the welfare of the cows on the farm. So the staff who are self-employed through an agency and treated on the farm as part of the farm team, they must be treated as in theory although they are self-employed technically they must be treated as being employed members of the farm for the purposes of this bill.

They usually occupy a vital house close to the diary. This is not only milking twice a day but a good Derry person has to spend two or three hours a day in addition to the milking watching the cows, seeing that their welfare is OK, think that they are not, they are in full health, sing that the feet don't need treatment, seeing if they are on heat which is really important role. Though I'm only speaking about dairymen here, I'm sure the same applies to herdsman in a beef herd or shepherds looking after a flock.

The point is these people are employed through an agency therefore they are self-employed and it really would not be at alright if you exclude that stop I'm talking about the welfare of the cows apart from anything else, these people were excluded from being treated as ordinary members of staff for the ordinary members of staff for the purpose of this bill.
18:09
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I thank Lord Carrington for these considered amendments which reflect the debate we had around his similar suggestions that Committee stage and two Baroness Grender, Baroness Scott and Lord Cameron for speaking in our discussion. As noble Lords will be aware we have responded to the needs of agricultural community and incorporated ground five a in the bill, we appreciate the agricultural sectors stink requirements and is often vital for workers to live on site to carry out their duties. However this must be balanced with the needs of the wider rural We believe this ground balances both permit allows agriculture employees to be housed while protecting other tenants who may work in critical local jobs widening the ground to include for example self-employed workers could open the ground to abuse and decrease rural security of tenure.

For example a landlord could engage someone on a self-employed basis to do a nominal amount of our cultural work and on that basis use the expanded round vector tenant in respect of whom no other grounds available. Members eight expands ground five a which is currently drafted will allow landlords to evict short tenants in order to house an agricultural employee. This amendment would mean that landlords could evict their tenants to house self-employed workers and other types of workers engaged in agriculture. As we have made clear a key aim of the bill is to increase tenant security and the grounds for possession have been designed narrowly to reflect situations in which we think it is right that the tenant could lose their home often through no fault of their own.

Expanding the types of workers tenants can be evicted in order to house goes against this principle and would reduce the security of tenure in rural areas. Men and nine works with an eight to ensure that tenants can only be evicted in order to house workers who would be the working for the landlord at least 35 hours a week. I understand the intent behind this comet aims to address the concerns I did express at committee that the similar expansion of the ground Lord Carrington proposed then would open up grounds to abuse however I'm still not convinced that any expansion of the ground is the right approach.

Amendment 11 is purely consequential and amendment eight removing a reference to seasonal or permanent employees which amendment eight has moved so it appears I asked the noble Lord not to push these amendment to divisions the reasons I set out above, in short we don't wish to degrade the security of rural tenants in order to house a wider categories of workers, the narrow drafting of the ground proposed by the government is proportionate and by focusing on agricultural employees it achieves a fair balance for all.

Moment 10 seeks to expand the agriculture worker possession ground five a, this would permit a landlord to seek eviction of a tenant house key workers and service occupants as well as culture, agriculture employees which the ground is currently drafted allows. Round five a is designed to allow landlords to house employees working for them in agriculture. This ensures workers who genuinely need to live on site can be accommodated and recognises that employees may only need to live on site for a limited period.

We have balance this with the needs of all tenants for security and stability in their homes. Expanding this ground to other types of workers from different sectors would not be right, it would allow tenants to be evicted through no fault of their own to house a wide range of employees for example a teacher or a healthcare worker who is an employee of the landlord. This wider group of employees we don't believe that landlords directly provide accommodation on a large-scale or that in most cases such individuals need to live on site comment like this might see one key worker being evicted how is another, points made under previous amendment.

Amendment 12 works with Amendment 10 to clarify the definitions for both key workers and service occupants. It also seeks to give power to the Secretary of State to amend the key worker definition by regulations. This would allow future government to potentially expand the definition to include many other types of workers without suitable scrutiny. This could significantly degrade tenant security. I would like to point out that employment ground 5C may be available to landlords who need to provide accommodations to tenants as a consequence of their employment now view if the landlord needs to accommodate someone on site it is right that housing is kept for this purpose and the other tenants do not see their lives disrupted after a short period in the after a short period in the property.

Amendment 13 works together with the other members in this group to expand ground 5C in order to allow landlords to evict a wide range of workers rather than just tenants who are employees. This specific amendment changes the conditions within the grounds that the dwelling was let to a tenant as a result of their employment by expanding it to include work as well as employment. I'm clear my view that expanding the ground for possession is not the correct approach. Ground 5C is narrowly drafted to allow employer landlords to evict tenants when the accommodation is no longer required for their employment.

Expanding this ground further reduce security of tenure for a much wider group. I'm not persuaded that opening the ground will widely is justified for more informal working arrangements. If a tenant is an employee indicates a long-term relationship which could require accommodation, as this is much less likely to be the case for other types of worker. Amendment 14 works together with the others in this group to expand ground 5C as I have described. The specific amendment expands the condition that the tenant has ceased to be employed by the landlord to include circumstances in which they have ceased to work to the landlord and a much broader definition.

The reasons I've explained are not convinced and have not been persuaded that any expansion of the ground is the right approach. I turn now to amendment 15, this also works with other amendments in the group to expand around 5C. In parallel to amendment 14 this expands the condition that the tenancy was granted for an early period of employment, for example to help with relocation to include circumstances where the tenancy was granted for an earlier period of tenants work, much broader definition. Expanding the employment ground to allow landlords to house and evict non-employee workers is not the right approach as I've explained, workers who are not employees also much less likely to require the long-term accommodation a tenancy entails.

Other arrangements such as licence to occupy or service occupation may be more suitable for shorter term contractors or self-employed contractors or self-employed Amendment C works with the grand of amendment 5c as it states that a tenant worker can be evicted. With a current or future employee in the definition we have now include future workers and a self-employed person. Expanding the types of people that can be evicted in order to House detracts from one of the main purposes of the bill, ridding the private rented sector in England of chronic insecurity.

We have thought long and hard about where it is right to allow tenants to be evicted through no fault of their own and created grounds where we think this is reasonable. I'm not of the view that this means the bar. Finally I turned to amendment 17 which works with the other proposed amendments to expand on 5c. This expanse of the definition of employers for the purpose of the ground to include a person who a contract for work was entered into, reflecting the wider changes to the ground and allowing landlords to evict tenant employees and other workers in order to House future employees or other workers.

I am always happy to discuss these important issues further with noble Lords, for the reasons I set out I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I ask, on this issue of self-employed workers in the self-employed workers in the agriculture industry, has MHCLG agriculture industry, has MHCLG discussed this issue with DEFRA because DEFRA would know how the industry has changed over the past industry has changed over the past years and how critical it is to have years and how critical it is to have self-employed workers on these specific jobs in agriculture. It is going to be very difficult for farmers, particularly livestock farmers, particularly livestock farmers, to manage as we have heard from the noble Lord opposite in from the noble Lord opposite in certain circumstances on a farm.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

certain circumstances on a farm. I have not personally discussed the issue with DEFRA, but I'm sure officials in the MHC LG will have officials in the MHC LG will have done so.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

done so. If my noble friend discusses it with DEFRA, she will find they have with DEFRA, she will find they have nothing like the numbers of people with the experience of farming that they had 10 years ago. She would not find the answer to the question

**** Possible New Speaker ****

asked by the noble Lady opposite. I was about to say before the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was about to say before the noble Lord intervened. I am always happy to discuss these important issues further with noble Lords and issues further with noble Lords and refer back to colleagues in DEFRA or refer back to colleagues in DEFRA or other colleagues. I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. Thank you very much indeed. I appreciate your response but I'm appreciate your response but I'm afraid I somewhat am disappointed by it. It does demonstrate a lack of it. It does demonstrate a lack of understanding of the farming industry and a lack of understanding
18:19
18:20
18:20
None Portrait Division: Amendment:11
-

the House when voting is open. The The question The question is The question is amendment The question is amendment eight The question is amendment eight is amendment 8B agreed to -- the question is amendment eight be question is amendment eight be agreed to. The content will go to the right by the thrones the not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, they My Lords, they have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, they have voted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, they have voted contents 253, not contents 150, so My My Lords, My Lords, I My Lords, I understand My Lords, I understand it My Lords, I understand it has My Lords, I understand it has been My Lords, I understand it has been agreed that a number of amendments now are regarded as consequential on amendment eight, so I will put amendment eight, so I will put amendment nine formally, if Lord amendment nine formally, if Lord Carrington moves it.

The question is that amendment 9B agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Amendment 10, not moved. Amendment 10, not moved. Amendment 11, moved formally. The question is that amendment 11 B agreed to. As many as amendment 11 B agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Amendment 12, not moved. Amendment 13 to 17 en bloc, moved formally, Lord Carrington, the question is that amendments 13 to 17 B agreed to en bloc.

As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content" The contents have it. Amendment 18, Baroness Scott.
18:34
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak to group 6 and to amendments 18 and 19 standing in my name. These amendments concern the points at which rent arrears become a valid ground for presenting, an issue of considerable importance to landlords and tenants alike. Let us be clear the most recent English private landlords survey shows that 45% of landlords own a single rental property and a further 38% own between two and four. That means over 4/5 of landlords operate on a very small-scale.

Far from the image of institutional landlords with deep financial reserves, these are financial reserves, these are individuals and couples, often retirees who rely on rental income for their own stability and they may form the backbone, they do, in fact, from the backbone of our rental sector. And with that in mind I turn to the limits in the group under the proposals of the bill landlords would be prevented from initiating possession proceedings. Weeks of arrears in the case of weekly or fortnightly rent or three months where the rent is paid monthly.

That is a significant extension from the current thresholds of eight weeks or two months, respectively. Amendments 18 and 19 in my name are not about undermining the protections. Far from it. They are about maintaining the status quo which, for many years, has struck a workable balance between supporting tenants through temporary losses and allowing landlords to respond promptly when rent is not being paid. When landlords are prevented from acting until arrears have been built up to such a degree that financial consequences can be severe.

Not only for landlords themselves, but for tenants also, who may find the ultimate possession proceedings more inevitable and traumatic as a result. Early intervention can help avoid escalation. Amendment 20 in the name of Lord Carter is fundamental in principle. Landlords who provide a private service in an open market in exchange for a fee should not be penalised for Government failure. If the Government fails to make payments, that is not the fault of the landlord, and they should not be made to suffer as a result.

Therefore, if the Noble Lord was to test the opinion of the House on this issue we would support it. These amendments speak to a broader principle that must end up this bill. Balance. Yes, we must protect rental from unjust eviction, but we must also enable landlords to operate viably, to maintain confidence in the sector and to continue providing the homes that so many people depend on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, schedule one page 193 line 40, leave out
18:37
Lord Carter of Haslemere Portrait Lord Carter of Haslemere (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

subparagraph a. The amendment in this group, amendment 20, and I should declare amendment 20, and I should declare an interest as a format landlord. Amendment 20 tabled in committee and Amendment 20 tabled in committee and I read tabled because I do not feel I read tabled because I do not feel I have had an adequate answer from the Government. The amendment would continue to permit rent arrears continue to permit rent arrears which arise from non-payment of Universal Credit to be taken into account as ground for possession.

Not to do so is unworkable and Not to do so is unworkable and unfair. And taking unworkable first unfair. And taking unworkable first since this is the point that must surely concern the Minister, it is unworkable because unlike in the social sector, private landlords are social sector, private landlords are not allowed to know under data protection rules that the tenant is protection rules that the tenant is in receipt of universal credit, the in receipt of universal credit, the Department for Work and Pensions is not allowed to tell them.

As such, the landlord will have no idea if rent arrears are due to a non- rent arrears are due to a non- payment of Universal Credit and, unbeknownst to them, they will be unbeknownst to them, they will be legally prevented from taking action. The landlord might only discover that rent arrears were due to a delayed Universal Credit payment and were therefore unenforceable once the case reaches court. Thereby piling further and unnecessary pressure on the justice system. This creates significant uncertainty in the face of irresponsible landlord, particularly small landlords, disregarding non- payment is therefore completely unworkable.

It will lead to unnecessary enforcement action, which is surely the last end the new system needs. Turning to why it is unfair, why should the landlord be penalised for the non-payment of Universal Credit if it is the fault of the Universal Credit system breaking down in some way? This is especially problematic for landlords renting out just one or two properties who rely on timely payments to meet their own financial obligations. If the Government is serious about sustaining tenancies and addressing the root causes of delayed benefit payments, in other words, protecting tenants from administrative delays should be the job of the welfare system, not landlords.

The upshot could well be that landlords are much more cautious about taking on tenants on Universal Credit. Is that with the Ministers really want? In response to this amendment at committee stage, the noble Baroness the Minister told the House on 24 April, it is important for tenancies that are otherwise financially stable to continue with tenants protected from one of financial shocks. For example, it is feasible that a tenant that lost their jobs and had to apply for Universal Credit could reach the arrears threshold while waiting for their first payment.

If acting the tenant and potentially making them homeless would not help the situation. Whereas giving them chances to resolve the arrears would ensure the tenancy could continue benefiting both them and the landlord and ensuring that landlord was able to claim the arrears once the payments were made. That is what the noble Baroness told the House on 24 April. With great respect to the Minister, I can't help but feel this is slightly naive. Would it really have benefited the landlord to ensure the tenancy continues when a tenant has accrued three months worth of arrears and, in the process may have seriously damaged the landlord's financial position? For example, being unable to support their family or unable to pay the mortgage and being forced to take enforcement action and why should landlords be penalised for the state's failure to pay Universal Credit promptly and schedule should be omitted.

It is unworkable and unfair. If, however, the noble Baroness, the Minister, continues to think that paragraph 20 4D is fair not on landlord country at least give some assurance that landlords notwithstanding the data protection laws will have some way of finding out whether rent arrears are due to delays in payment of universal credit, so as to avoid clogging up the tribunal with unenforceable claims. And I can help the noble Baroness here because there is a section 16 of the data protection act, the Henry VIII power, in fact, which enables the Data Protection Act to be amended, so that the list of exemptions in schedule two of that act is expanded, and it could be amended in that way by regulations to enable the landlord to know if rent arrears are due to delays in Universal Credit.

This would not deal with the fairness points I have made, but it would deal with the unwelcome ability points I have made. And if the noble Baroness the Minister were able to give that assurance that the tribunal system would not be clogged up unenforceable claims then I would prepared to withdraw my amendment. prepared to withdraw my amendment.
18:43
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, much of what we have been debating is about balance. We have heard that word used a lot today and I guess it is fairly obvious to noble Lords by now that when it comes to balance we do come down in favour of the tenant because we believe that the balance has been very much tilted the other way, for time immemorial, due to what we refer to earlier which is a complete lack of supply, lack of social housing, and the beauty parade whereby landlords can choose who they want to let their properties too.

We feel that the bill intentionally aims to give tenants more time to address their financial difficulties, and therefore avoid this and we believe that is the right and the moral thing to do, but because of the additional cost in society of more homeless and more effective people, more costs on local authorities and that really nasty and vicious circle, but we have not totally got rose coloured spectacles on. We do seek reassurances from the Minister that landlords have got robust grants for possession when necessary when it comes to arrears, because we all know that arrears are painful for landlords.

Especially if they still have a mortgage. At the good news is that most of them do not. Almost half of landlords in the situation that the Noble Lady outlined the couple having one or two houses for their pension, generally properties that were inherited and left by their parents and they decided to rent them out, so a lot of the landlords do not have a mortgage, and a further 20 something % actually only have small mortgages, so 70% of our landlords are not in a dire financial situation, where somebody rather flamboyantly said feeding their families.

I do not see feeding their families. I do not see Universal credit. You will not be surprised that we disagree that tenants should be subject to eviction due to circumstances beyond their control. They talk about government inefficiency but it has gone through several governments. Nobody is on the right side of this one. It can often be many weeks before tenants get universal credit sorted. Several years ago it was actually months which is why the exemption was introduced and why we believed it should be kept because we believe it is unjust to be evicting tenants on those grounds.

The good news is the proportion of universal credit tenancy arrears is actually reducing and landlords acknowledge and recognise the process for addressing areas is improving and an increasing number of cases are resolved with an eight week period. It is about improving administrative efficiency of universal credit, not putting people out on the streets due to eviction or homelessness. That is out of their control. Especially given once the universal credit is sorted, reliable. reliable.
18:47
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I thank Lady Scott and Lord Carter for their amendments and Baroness Thornhill. Amendment 18 and 19 seek to decrease the threshold for mandatory if fiction from ground arrears where it is paid weekly. Believe this is the right approach. We restore it to the level originally set by the party opposite in the Housing act 1988 before they were reduced in the 1990s. Three months we believe is the right balance. Landlords facing significant arrears and uncertainty of possession but allows tenancies facing one-off financial shocks time to get their financial affairs in order to ensure that their tenancy is sustainable.

I reassure Baroness is sustainable. I reassure Baroness Thornhill that ground a is not a mandatory ground but it is not the only route to possession. Landlords facing frequent arrears like Lake facing frequent arrears like Lake payment of rent can also pursue eviction by the discretionary grounds 10 and 11 and for these reasons I ask Baroness Scott to withdraw these amendments. Turning to amendment 20, this seeks to remove a key protection for vulnerable tenants from the bill. It allows tenants to face mandatory eviction when they have breached the three month rent arrears due to not receiving a universal credit payment to which they are entitled.

This would not be right. We want to protect vulnerable tenants who have faced Rhondda -- redundancy by helping them stay in their home. It would not help to face another and stabilising event being evicted and then becoming homeless as they wait for universal credit. Not being able to pay rent on time because you have not received universal credit does not mean you are a bad tenant. It is right they are given time, but also important that tenancies otherwise financially sustainable should continue.

This will benefit the tenant and the landlord. We've heard the concerns of landlords who face uncertainty in pursuing possession claims if they do not realise arrears are caused by an outstanding benefit payment. This is subsequently used as a defence in ceilings. Of course we strongly encourage tenants and landlords to communicate. It is in their interest to explain the situation before it reaches court. This requirement is not unusual in that regard. I will take it back to the department.

I hope the noble Lord agrees they are justified in the approach and the men will will be withdrawn. men will will be withdrawn.
18:50
18:52
18:53
18:53
18:54
19:05
19:06
19:16
19:16
Lord True Portrait Lord True (Conservative)
-
-
NATO Summit's.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I apologise to the House as I did not realise the statement was going to be read so I thought I would get to be read so I thought I would get to my place in case you had to adjourn the House during pleasure. I apologise. Apart from seeing the Leader of the Opposition arriving late, it can be illuminating when a late, it can be illuminating when a statement repeat is delayed. I statement repeat is delayed. I better go on because the clock has better go on because the clock has started.

The Prime Minister began his statement with grand claims about fixing Social Security. We all about fixing Social Security. We all know what has happened since. Can know what has happened since. Can the noble Baroness tell the House where the savings lost in this fix where the savings lost in this fix of Social Security since the statement will come from? I think we all know it will be taxed and taxed and taxed again on the owners and savers of Britain. Homeowners, farmers, small businesses and the dividends that pay our pensions.

As we heard this week potentially more we heard this week potentially more controls on ISAs. Gordon Brown created Cash ISA the and Rachel Reeves is after it. It is the UK's boast that they have always been for working people. Thanks to the Chega steel, it is the working people of Mauritius who are quids in, not the working people in Britain whose real disposable income is down 1% this year and would have to stump up 30 billion in taxes.

They use what they already own. Amazingly, Diego Garcia wasn't even mentioned in a big statement on defence. The statement was on rhetoric on the botched welfare of. The central truth laid bear in the last two weeks is abroad and increasingly sidelined on the world stage. On the gene the 17th after sitting next to president Trump at the G7 dinner, the Prime Minister declared there is nothing the president said that suggest he could get involved in this conflict.

The Foreign Secretary to Washington and then Geneva and then called the US and five years later they struck US and five years later they struck the nuclear sites. The British Government response was not to congratulate the US on executing this brilliant action. They had the 30 billion base was not used and that did not sound like leadership to me. It wasn't even followership. I do wonder if the government made the advice of the Attorney-General saying it would be illegal.

I'm not sure if he did and if the president would pin that in the Oval Office to reap in the past of Winston Churchill. In the Attorney-General injunction. It is surely indicative that in this late stage the Prime Minister did not once mention the UK US strike that resounded around the world these last week. The only mention is the US-UK to deal signed on what they look like, a conspicuously windy day in Canada. This is what we welcome as the first step.

It still leaves carmakers admitting facing a tariff on exports. Can the noble Baroness say anything about how the government intends to build on the trade deal with the US that I hope was discussed at the G7. The statement spoke about stepping out, but where were we as major arrangements were unfolding. Britain was out of the loop. It was unsurprising when two men were sanctioned in the Israeli cabinet. The government has seemed equivocal at times. I do thank the Prime Minister for his action against anti-Semitism.

I associate this with the strong condemnation of the BBC for its shameful broadcaster that called for the killing Israeli soldiers. The government was absolutely right there. The statement says that the UK is using every diplomatic lever to keep written and the Middle East save, and we support them on that. We all pray for a just and lasting peace. But where are those levers and what are they? Can the noble Baroness tell us what progress we will be making in addressing the humanitarian situation in Gaza? Also ousting Hamas.

This does concern members across the House. Will the urge sanctions on Syria? What of Iran? We agree they should not have a nuclear-weapons, but had they had recent discussions with the regime. We welcome the commitment to defence spending and the British new deterrent. We welcome the decision to buy 12 F-35 aircraft with new capabilities, but can she confirm exchanges earlier that this will cut the defence budget rather than increase it because they are less expensive planes. If that is incorrect, I withdraw it because I misunderstood the question in Hansard.

We continue to back the Prime Minister's strong commitment on Ukraine which is rightly underlined in the statement. Can the noble Baroness explain why the NATO communique was weak on the condemnation of Russia? On defence, could they say why they spent 5% on GDP and what that actually means. The only solid commitment is to spend 2.6 on defence by 2027. The 4.1% target is adding 1.5% spending of the resilience and security already stated in the 2.6% target. What does it mean? The Italian government said it might include a bridge.

The Prime Minister spoke of energy networks. Would it include spending on pylons to enable green energy? Will the spending on the Chega steel amount towards this expenditure? Will the noble Baroness tell us when this promised to the House last night and stirred Lord Purvis tweed as he pledged to the Chagos Islands to be made. The Prime Minister has done much we support in foreign and defence and we will continue to support that. Over the last two weeks, we have looked unsure and a little behind the game.
19:24
Lord Newby Portrait Lord Newby (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
The statement begins by discussing the words on Social Security. Absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter of Israel with the subject matter of Israel and we welcome the statement because I'm afraid I cannot keep up. I'm afraid this measured agreement that the UK faces greater and more diverse security threats and we are greatly indebted to the Armed Forces and other government agencies working so hard in affecting to combat them. The headline outcome of the NATO's was the commitment to spend 5% on national security.

In the statement, this is referred to as a defence investment pledge. But it clearly includes expenditure on many non-defence items -- Nato summit.. In the National Security Strategy, the definition of national security concludes the health of the economy, food prices, supply chains, safety on the streets, and the online world. This definition seems so wide as to be virtually meaningless. Can the noble lady explained within the definition? The Prime Minister says we will reach 4.1 spending in 2027 so we must know how they reach that figure.

Will the government speak of the 4.1% breakdown and then explain how it gets to the 5% by 2035? One obvious item to include in the definition of expenditure amounting national security is Overseas Development Assistance particularly in areas like conflict prevention. Can the noble lady explain to what extent ODA is included in the new definition of national security and whether the government has any intention to increases at it increases the other aspects of security expenditure. The statement goes on but UK foreign policy answers directly to concerns of working people.

Can the noble lady explain what specific concerns of working people are meant by that phrase and to what extent are working people affected by foreign policy in different ways to the rest of the population? One of the biggest challenges ahead is not just to increase expenditure on national security, but also ensure the money is spent as effectively as possible. In that context, can the noble lady explain why we are prioritising the purchase of 12 F35 jets capable of carrying nuclear-weapons? These planes are extraordinarily expensive even if they are not quite as expensive as the F35 b and the decades we did not consider it necessary to have this capability.

As Lord Best said earlier today, this change means presumably that at the very least we need to update our nuclear doctrine. Does the government plan to do so and will it publish any new doctrine when it has been adopted? On Ukraine we welcome the commitment to keep the commitment -- under on expenditure and also air defence missiles. These are to be funded from frozen Russian assets. Can the noble lady confirm this funding has been from the interest of those assets and that no progress has been made on freeing up capital which could be transformative in Ukraine's success.

In the Commons, the Prime Minister said it was difficult to access capital because not all countries were in agreement with how to proceed. Estonia has proposed a way forward on this and can we commit to looking at those proposals as a matter of urgency? We stress the need to build up the Armed Forces. Does the noble Lady accept there is a crisis of recruitment in the army? Will the government therefore sympathetically look at the LibDem proposal to pay £10,000 signing on bonus for new recruits as a way of rapidly boosting recruitment.

On Iraq, we welcome the current ceasefire but it needs to be made permanent. The Foreign Secretary recently met the Iranian Foreign Minister with EU counterparts to promote a ceasefire. Does HMG see any future roles for the UK in securing a longer term solution? Finally, on Gaza we agree on the need for a quick ceasefire, but there is absolutely no sign of this and in the meantime deaths and starvation continue. Our ability to affect Gaza is limited, but we could at the very least recognise the State of Palestine which is a necessary precursor to a two-state solution.

The Prime Minister says the government is waiting for the right time to do this. The fear is in the government's view there will never be a right time and we should act now.
19:30
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments and I say that the noble Lord made an elegant entrance. He's enjoying himself to much as he focuses on what we are looking for in the statement as we look at the G7 and NATO. I do not think we have seen such a complex and difficult international situation in a lifetime here and it is not an easy time. Across the world we have existing conflicts, new conflicts, and they seem to escalate quite quickly and they change quickly and the focus on those on what we can do nationally and internationally to help win peace trumps any other issue we may want to discuss and I will focus on I have to say to the Noble Lord it was uncharacteristic that the Minister has played that on the international stage.

I can recall very early on on the days of the Government facing criticism from the party opposite about the Prime Minister going to the international conferences, building relations with other countries and leaders of other countries and I said at the time and it still holds true and has proved to be true it is only by building relations and building up a good relationship that you can have the difficult discussions when they are needed. And I think that myself and my party have played a role that our Prime Minister has played on the international stage and can think that they would be less proud about the premise doesn't Foreign Secretary's role on the international stage, so I make no apologies for that role he has played and I and grateful to him for doing so.

The issue of I think the transformative and generational increase in defence spending by the NATO summit was really important. 0.5% for many years and I am surprised that they queried this, I think the Noble Lord raised this as well, it really is almost impossible to divorce national security from resilience. They are both our security and our safety in the country are dependent on both and the idea that we could spend national resilience money on pilots for green energy is, frankly, a ridiculous point to make but what we do have to do is ensure that we have supplies and energy throughout the country for business, for domestic cover for military use.

We have seen what has happened in other countries where there has been a failure of supply of energy and it is absolutely vital that we maintain that and I think to try and maintain a political point about green energy and the environment is what this is about and I hope the Noble Lord will understand how important these issues of supply chains of energy, all of these, play into the role of national security, and I hope he understands and if he does not we can find more information that he might find useful to look at.

He asked specifically about finance and I think we went through this last week but we will have fully funded plans to increase defence in this Parliament from 2.6% from April 2027 and 4.1% of GDP collective defence and security by 2027. That target, I said before, is 5% encore spending said before, is 5% encore spending and 1.2% or 5% on security. I also I have no apology for the Chagos deal. I have said this before. The idea that a country would spend a lot of money, and it is a lot of money, if it did not consider it absolutely vital and essential to national security is, quite frankly, a ludicrous argument to make because it is so essential the Government has to be prepared to spend the money and I think that we should recognise that and recognise the importance of it.

As we talk about cost of living I do not think I take any lessons with the party that gave us the Liz Truss budget and did more damage to people in the country and the cost of living, noble Lords count motor away but it is actually something that really affected this country and working people up and down the country who see their bills and their mortgages rise quite dramatically. He also asked about the trade deal with the US.

And yes, I think the tariffs were an enormous concern and we should get them down to the levels that they are, that is something that has been achieved by negotiation and would not have happened otherwise. The Noble Lord has also made a rather strange point about the F-35A, and I think that part of the noble Lords comments earlier, he did say that yes, they are less expensive than the F-35B. That means that the money is available for other defence spending and I think he made that point earlier today, so I think indeed they are cheaper that is an asset rather than something to complain about.

Can I thank the noble Lords for their comments about the government's comments on the BBC. I think that those that watched were quite shocked at the comments that were made by one particular group, and I think they do have questions to answer for why they did not act more quickly and lessons should be learned on that. Just trying to read my own handwriting which can sometimes be difficult. The Noble Lord I think you be asked about the crisis that has been a really serious issue and I can remember days where you would go down to the high street and to schools and colleges looking to recruit the Armed Forces, we have not picked up his suggestion for the golden handshake as it were, but I sure my Noble Friend there working on this issue and recognising it is something that the numbers that felt to such a dangerous level under the last Government I also think I have addressed most of the questions, so if I have missed anything, I am sure we welcome back to it, but I do think that these summits are just so important in working together, countries working together, and what is clear is that some of the most dangerous places in the world, the conflict, the only wafer would is going to be the negotiating arrangements and settlements and just working towards them at pace.
19:37
19:38
None Portrait
-

I am grateful to that Noble Lord and certainly his impressions of the leadership terms what I have heard from other people at similar conferences. In fact, if you recall our support for Ukraine the Prime Minister was able to bring European leaders and others into London in support of Zelinsky immediately after the NATO statement came to London and the Prime Minister and the speakers of both houses since and the leadership that is shown and also how close our relationship is with Ukraine.

And firstly he will be aware of the transport that has been spent and that Noble Lord Newby said for the assets I will come back to that point and it has been used to provide more weapons and missiles for Ukraine which is really important that we do that and I will just come back it is for the assets but we are still working at pace, we are looking at anyway to do that, the Government has not ruled out legal action and to ensure we can get access to Ukraine where it is needed.

He raised the point about sanctions and I think it is an important point, the UK has now introduced new sanctions that target Russia's shadow fleet, 20 additional vessels, as well as 10 individuals. And, again, we have seen other partners also taking decisive action with 200 vessels and the EU has moved forward with I think it is the sanctions package at some page as well, so sanctions are important as a tool in the armoury of tackling what has happened in supporting Ukraine against Russia, we must never forget the danger that is posed to the Ukrainian people and that Ukrainian people are at the forefront of the fight for freedom and all of us have to respect that we can also be at danger like Ukraine.
19:40
19:41
19:43
19:44
19:45
19:46
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
I fundamentally disagree with the point he made. Every time the government makes a commitment to defence spending, it keeps to it. That is the commitment now. He wants to tighten up welfare. What is really important to understand, I have not heard anybody say that the situation this government inherited on Social Security or welfare spending is not one that needs to change. Within that bill today there are so many measures that practically everybody in the other supported.

The idea that somebody who gets PIP and is disabled and wants to try to work, if it fails they should go to the back of the queue and try again. They want to see if it is suitable to do so. The system inherited is one that needs to change and that change will continue. The bill has passed, people agreed on the issue, and what they want to do is look at the detail and that is the purpose of legislation. He knows how the process works.

He lost that himself and recognises how difficult it can be. What can never be accepted is you write people off in the system and say even though they want to work we will not help them to do so and that is the measure we will put in place. To link it to economic and national and social security, all of these things make up what is good about life, the importance of life, the resilience we all need. If we think about safety, resilience and how we treat the nation, these things in it together and that is how you have a healthy society and one that supports each other.

one that supports each other.
19:48
19:49
19:50
19:51
19:53
19:54
Lord Harris of Haringey Portrait Lord Harris of Haringey (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to the Leader of the House for bringing forward this statement. What strikes me is some of the carping we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition here today rather misses the point of what has been happening in the last few weeks. We've had a series of strategies and statements issued by the government in a number of different areas. Following on from the defence review and the industrial strategy, the National Security Strategy, all of these are beginning to form a cohesive whole which demonstrates that what we are trying to do as a nation is bring all of those policies together in the interest of protecting our country and its people.

Is that not a very positive element and something we should read in the way the government is able to operate on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the world stage in these areas? He makes an important point of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He makes an important point of how these strategies full together. how these strategies full together. The changes across the world in the The changes across the world in the strategic defence of how we respond to that is important, but looking at the industrial strategy and National the industrial strategy and National Security Strategy which I spoke on last week, you can see the linkages of how they work together. I do of how they work together. I do think the Spending Review, defence Spending Review, is something we should be really proud of as we can take that, use that, don that, use take that, use that, don that, use our strategy to deliver it and as they link together you say a
19:56
19:56
19:57
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
it. We now come to Amendment 24 in clause 6, Baroness Scott of Bybrook,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Jamieson. I would like to thank the Minister for taking the time to meet Minister for taking the time to meet with Baroness Scott and I to discuss the context of these government the context of these government amendments. -- Content. We are grateful she returned to the House grateful she returned to the House with what has been referred to as a break glass provision, finally break glass provision, finally acknowledging the government policy may indeed lead to a significant backlog in the tribunal system.

However, from these benches, we struggle to understand why the government having recognised the government having recognised the problem has not decided to take proactive steps to prevent a backlog in the first place. Waiting until in the first place. Waiting until the system is overwhelmed is not the system is overwhelmed is not good policy. It also cannot be right that rent determination can only that rent determination can only result in rent being revised downward creating a clear adverse incentive. There is no risk to bringing a case if the rent cannot bringing a case if the rent cannot go up and can only go down.

Why not try your luck? You may as well. It encourages unnecessary speculative tribunal pains and that is why I want to thank Lord Carrington and Lord Howard of Rising for their consistent work on this issue and for the thoughtful amendments they tabled today. Both noble Lords highlighted the problem with clarity. The current system gives tenants an incentive to challenge rent knowing they've nothing to lose. We are therefore here to support amendment 31 should my noble friend decide to press it to a vote.

It corrects the imbalance to allow for rent to be revised upwards and downwards restoring fairness to the process. Amendment 32 stands in my name and requires the Secretary of State to conduct a review on the system responsible for rent determinations. We look at the tribunal backlog that the break glass amendment is supposed to address, but we don't believe that that will be the case and we believe it is necessary to help us understand the true pressure placed on the system and how best to mitigate it.

I am grateful to Baroness Wolf of Dulwich to recognise how it is working. This adding an additional filtering step rather than seeking to induce the incentive to go in the first place, especially when there is no downside to doing so we think would be the more appropriate way of addressing the issue. Finally, a word on amendment 24 which concerns preventing the Secretary of State from expanding the definition... Excuse me, of a relevant low-cost tenancy by regulation. This is important.

Such a power affects us without scrutiny can it significant broaden the scope in unintended ways. It is vital that any change to this definition comes before Parliament not simply through ministerial discretion. From these benches, we look forward to hearing from noble Lords across the House on these issues. I beg to move.
20:00
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich Portrait Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I shall speak to amendment 29 in the name of Baroness Thornhill stop before doing so, I would like to say thank you to the Minister for the courteous way in which she has discussed this issue. My amendment seeks to provide for the pre-appeal assessment process to filter out those that have no prospect of success, and thus avoid overburdening the tribunal's. In specific, and I would suggest a highly practical suggestion is that the Government should take advantage of the technical expertise through the valuation of this agency.

They should regress through the courts if the valuation of the agency considers that they have a chance for success, and if not, not. It seems appropriate to be making this suggestion on what is the 100th anniversary of that 1925 evaluation act. A measure which ensured property ratings across the country and the use of professional evaluation offices. I would like to commend this act to noble Lords. It is quite possibly because it is a piece of legislation that is relatively reef and in language that normal people can understand, but the main reason that I have commended it is that what it did was it set out the decentralised but uniform system that give people across the country consistent decisions on irregular predictable timescale, and clarity on who was making those decisions and how they can be contacted.

Now, this sort of clarity of consistency issue of what we would like for all tenants. But I have to say the current drafting of the bill which loads more work onto tribunal system that we know is needed is really not in a position to deliver this. As I explained at Committee stage, my proposal was prompted by current Scottish practice. It does not, in anyway, reduce the right of tenants to appeal against rent increase and I unnatural it increases the incentive to appeal on the off chance, but it does reduce likelihood that the courts will be overwhelmed very soon by appeals and, in particular, by appeals that do not succeed and which swamp the courts, to the detriment of those cases.

Now, onto the government's current proposals, tenants will enjoy a number of new and important rights. It cannot be increased as often. Most importantly, in the context of this group of amendments, tenants who wish to challenge what they see as the successive rent increase have access to a tribunal. The tribunal cannot propose an increase that is any higher than the one initially proposed by the landlord as the Noble Lord has already pointed out. It can endorse the landlord's proposal as already charged.

Now, obviously, these charges were with great assistance when proposing major increases in line with the protection of the market, but, equally, they have maybe that they have a large number on the off chance and I do not think that there is any doubt that this would be disastrous. In The Other Place through the public committee, the Minister observed there is no dispute in the Government and the Government side of the committee that the court system is on its knees.

He also, of course, added after the last 14 has, but the relevant point is the court system is on its knees. So, as first introduced, the bill provided that the tenant against rent increase in the tribunal was allowed. The increase only from the date of the tribunal decision which could be many months on. And this clearly hugely increased the percentage appeal and I think it would also have been seen as massively unfair by any tenant who accepted an increase without it and then saw a fellow tenant getting it at a lower rate, so I was very pleased to recognise this risk and look forward to the Minister explaining how the Government amendments will actually work in practice, but I do not think that this is enough to head of the tribunal, which is why I have re- tabled my amendment.

And while still for many people who have nothing to lose if I want officer in a student union fixable and asked my opinion I would have to say it would be something of a no-brainer. I would have to say the same if I was on a radio program, why wouldn't you and I think I therefore remain convinced that in the absence of some prior screening that is I suggest that the courts will be overwhelmed. Now, in Scotland, the first stage in any goes to Scotland and apparently on average that takes just five days to respond, and most things stop there, very few things go further.

No, obviously, the Scottish situation is very different from ours, but it is also obvious that on this particular point providing tenants and landlords with quick feedback rather than months in limbo it is very effective, and it is also obvious given the volumes that rent services Scotland deals with that without this prior system there would be a very large number of cases that are effectively a waste of time. It would be very easy for us to introduce similar first stage processes.

There is a large amount of expertise on that outside the tribunal's and the courts, the Valuation Office Agency already gives the office valuations and property advice but it needs to support taxation and benefits. Social Housing Act and tightly to, registered riders must comply with regulatory social housing standards or rent settlement which is effectively set by Government and its annual increases would be an obvious and simple yardstick to use when a fully waiting with that appeal should go on. Rent offices also still set rents for the remaining tenants, so the basic infrastructure is there.

And in order to see what we are facing, I do think, as I thought at committee, that a little bit of info is in order. The Government does not think that there will be a huge growth in appeal. Well, if appeals in the private sector tenants track the numbers going to run services Scotland and the all proceeded to the tribunal and we would end up with another 40,000 cases per yer. And that compares with 909 cases heard by the tribunal's under current legislation in England, so current legislation in England, so that would be a 40 fold increase, but suppose it was only 1/4 of that level.

Still, a tenfold increase, 10,000 extra cases per yer hitting First-tier Tribunal's under enormous strain. We hear a lot about pressures and backlogs in criminal court, but if you look at the statistics for the tribunal's, the statistics are the least. In the year 2040 25, the open case total, excluding immigration, rose to 745,000, which was an increase of 14,000 over the course of a single year, 14% it is single year. The Minister was kind enough to discuss my amendment following Committee stage and to recognise that initial streaming could be very help if tribunals were, indeed, overwhelmed.

In the absence of any Government amendment to that effect, I look forward to hearing from her about the government's current thinking, and I also would like to highlight the enormous importance of reviewing the impact on the judicial system which we will be returning to later. which we will be returning to later.
20:09
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendment in my name. And I take the noble Ladies point that it is going to be easy to read. I would say that this is very easy to read because it immensely Housing Act of 1988 so that the tribunal's most this regard and improvements funded by Government grants for a two-year period. Now, the amendment, which I feel quite strongly about, is designed to help renters and to help Government.

It aims to improve the food policy that creates warmer homes and cheaper bills. The climate benefits from a warmer home with grants, as do the landlords, so why not guarantee that tenants get cheaper bills without a rent rise for a couple of years. I met with the Noble Lady that Minister and she is very, very generous with her time. And I was grateful for her comments, but I am still not seeing the problem with passing this amendment. There are complexities, and the tribunal's would have to sort out any details if the property owner added some of their own money along with the taxpayer.

The tribunal's make for a more difficult calculations every week. I have also heard from several people privately just how difficult it is with tribunal's, but I do think that is the sort of thing that must be fixed. It really cannot be allowed fixed. It really cannot be allowed to wallow and not be the tribunal start they need to be. The important thing for me in this amendment is the taxpayer funded improvements are not used as an excuse to raise rent.

And we need force of law backing this up. While the guidance is slightly more explicit, it will be ignored, and that will discredit the policy. Generation of rent recently did a poll of renters, asking them about their support for the Government policies in this area. This support increase from +40% +55% went renters were presented with the scenario that the Government would protect them for rent increases. Now, I do not want to suggest that the Government should be run by opinion polls, but it is a wonderful thing when you can do something that is right and it does not cost any extra money and it leads to a 40% jump in popularity of that policy and also the popularity of the Government.

And we hope that the Government will put this forward in some form or another. I have been told privately it is not new interest enough. That is also a fault of my nature but I do think it is a good amendment and I would hope that the Government treated with due attention. attention.
20:12
Lord Howard of Rising Portrait Lord Howard of Rising (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak to amendment 31, 32, and 33 in my name, and I declare an interest as a landlord of rented property. When I pointed out to committee that is drafted the bill will create a conservative one million applicants for rent tribunal's. The Noble Lord the Minister commented this was unlikely to say the least. In a recent letter from the noble Baroness, recognition was given that there is an inherent uncertainty on the volume of rent charities.

The proposed new elite delegated power to backdate rent increases acknowledges the potential difficulties. Welcome as this proposal is, it does not start to address the fundamental problem. At best, it provides some temporary window dressing. If the Government recognises the system may be overwhelmed, the noble Baroness Wolf has pointed this out very cogently, and indeed promotes appeals to the and indeed promotes appeals to the tribunal in the first place, this is the crux of the problem.

The bill still provides that the tribunal can only confirm or reduce the rent, not raise it. That creates a no lose situation in front of us. Amendment 31 addresses the most fundamental of the structural flaws. It removes the restriction that the tribunal may only reduce or uphold imposed rent, but not increase it. If a tribunal can only confirm or lower a rent, never raise it, that is a one-way. As my Noble Friend Lord Jamieson pointed out, if things can only get better, what possible reason is the better, what possible reason is the not to try at all? No loss and until that Secretary of State regulates the rent increases, how speedy that will be with two Government partners having to consult, there will be a decent delay in any increase, it becomes a virtual necessity for a tenant to challenge.

Amendment 32 ensures that in the event that the tribunal determines that the rent initially agreed was too high, landlords are not retrospectively liable for backdating payments to tenants of an agreed rent. This is simply a matter of fairness, and legal certainty. If a tenant has agreed rent at the outset of a tenancy, it should not be open to the tribunal to rewrite an agreement in the imposed retrospective liability on the landlord. It would Amendment 33 ensures any rent increase upheld by the tribunal may take effect from the date originally set out in the landlords notice.

Not merely from the date of the tribunal's determination. Unless to do so would cause undue hardship to the tenant. This retains protection from vulnerable tenants by removing the automatic procedural advantage currently afforded to any tenant who appeals. As drafted, the bill all but guarantees delay as a consequence of referral and again reinforcing the incentive to appeal every rent increase as a matter of course. This group of amendments form a coherent and necessary package of reforms.

They do not undermine the right of tenants to challenge increases. That right is reserved in full. What these amendments do is avoid a situation where there is an incentive for tenants to challenge increases regardless of the likelihood of success. At Committee I made the point to the Minister that rent tribunal's do not allow rents to go above current market rate. Cap This would mean market rates are never able to rise.

Nothing in our reform stops or prevents a landlord from charging a market rate. If the rent tribunal on day one caps any rent increase to the market rate, the market rate can never go up above that rate which will have been decided on day one. Any proposed increase would be capped at this level, ie, the market rate. Fine initially but given time and inflation and unreal situation, to say a landlord can charge the market rent is going round in circles.

I would be grateful if the Minister would be grateful if the Minister could help me with this. could help me with this.
20:18
Lord Carrington Portrait Lord Carrington (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise to speak to amendment 34 and associated amendments 35, 36 and 40 in my name and kindly supported by Lord Hacking. I would like to thank the Minister Baroness Taylor for her ongoing engagement with me and other noble Lords and Baronesses throughout the steps of this important bill as it has gone so far. My amendment concerns a vital part of the bill, the right of renters to challenge the annual rent increases. There remains strong consensus across this House and in the other place that stands with the government in ensuring unreasonable and exploitative rent increases are avoided.

Such increases in this way should not be used across the private rented sector as a means of eviction through the back door. However, despite the government's own recent amendments which I will turn to in due course, I remain strongly of the opinion that the government is current drafting of the law will not work even with the new failed mechanism added in the name of Baroness Taylor. It remains the case that under the current wording of the bill renters would have the universal right to challenge any and every rent increase they receive in all circumstances and without qualification.

Moreover, increases that the first-tier Tribunal agrees will only come into effect once the tribunal has given its ruling. This wording continues to have the very real and dangerous potential to undermine the supply of new rental homes in England and at the same time overwhelm the courts. The government believes that renters will only apply to the tribunal if they believe a rent increase is above market rent. I'm afraid like others that will not be the result of this legislation.

The legal text of this bill still sets out that a rent increase could not come into force until after the tribunal rules. The result of this drafting is to create an artificial incentive for all renters, all 4.5 million of them, to submit a challenge to proposed increase in rent from their landlord however legitimate because this would prevent the increase coming into force until the tribunal decides. There is no risk to the renter in this as it provides a guaranteed delay.

Once this is widely understood, as I think has been pointed out by Baroness Wolf, renters will exercise their right as a matter of course. Indeed, I expect a celebrity like Martin Lewis would immediately go for the opportunity to delay rent increases as a money- saving tack for renters. This incentive risks the efficacy of the first-tier Tribunal by burdening a struggling court with thousands of cases and would result with those in real need waiting potentially months longer for access to justice from exploitative landlords.

The government rightly once renters in genuine redress have access to the courts, but the current injustice will be too long to prove realistic. My proposed amendments seek to ensure if a rent increases challenged but the increase is upheld by the tribunal, the rent increase becomes effective from the original date of the section 13 notice. This important detail removes the incentive of spurious challenges and is only used as a delaying tactic by challenging a rent increase because they simply want to delay payment.

By removing this incentive, only those renters with real cause are being exploited and are more likely to get the support of the tribunal decision and will challenge rent increases. These are the very people who should be at the front of the queue when it comes to these challenges. Let me now turn to the question of the amount of money we are looking at when it comes to rent increases. I want to explain how my amendments while deterring spurious challenges also support renters who do challenge rent but with whom the tribunal is not in agreement.

The office of statistics notes the average rent per month in the United Kingdom in the 12 months to April 2025 was £1339. The average rent increase across the UK in the same 12 month period was 7%. Therefore, if you take 7% as a marker for the rent increase in the next 12 months, we will be looking at the average rent across the UK increasing by around £93 per month. £93 can be a good deal of money to many across the country, particularly as the cost of living crisis continues.

This pressure on household finances has not been overlooked. The amendments cover the concerns of the Minister and others that renters may be put under undue financial pressure if they are unsuccessful in their wrench challenges and are required to pay back a large lump sums and backdated rent at once. Under the bill as it stands, every rent from the time the bill is implemented would have the ability to challenge the £93 per month increase without the need to provide the reason, financial or otherwise.

However, if the tribunal when it eventually gets to each and every challenge judges in the landlords favour, my amendments would ensure that instead of that renter needing to pay that landlord a backdated amount of rent immediately, a 12 month payment plan would be put in place. This means that if it took six months for the challenge to be reviewed by the court, and a decision made, the renter would not need to find the extra rent immediately but would only need to find the extra £46.50 each month over the next 12 months to pay their landlord in backdated rent.

This seems entirely reasonable and I hope the inclusion of this amendment has been carefully considered. Let's turn to the government assessment that renters will only apply for the tribunal if they believe the rent increase is above market rent. The government is placing a great deal of faith and has commissioned a new burden assessment adjusted impact test which is referred to many times throughout this bill. The impact assessment from November last year. However, we have not been able to review or scrutinise these two important documents as they have not been published.

Were we able to see these documents and scrutinise them ourselves in this place, many of us may be reassured by the government's commitment or levels of renters who will challenge their rent, but while the government restricts access to these documents, we must rely on what the bill says and our understanding of renters and the PRS as it stands in a time where household finances are tight and there is every incentive to delay a rent increase. The government has tabled a failsafe amendment in clause 7, but there is a lack of detail here.

In amendment 37 in the name of the Baroness Taylor, we were not given clarity of when the power would be used and what triggered this would be. What level of caseload with the tribunal need to face before the government stepped in and introduced backdating? Therefore, while I applaud the government of including clause 7 of the bill I fear it will do nothing to reassure the sector. It is interesting to note that in the event of the introduction of failsafe mechanisms, rent will be charged from the date of the section 13 notice.

Quite a reversal of policy from the tribunal decision date. If we had the detail around when such a Statutory Instrument would be enacted, we might be able to agree with the government on this, but as it stands I sadly cannot. To sum up, taken together I believe amendment 35, 36, and 40 in my name will deliver a fair result. They are technical changes that keep the vital rights of renters to challenge from being exploited while reducing artificial jeopardy free incentives to take any and all landlords to court for reasonable increases in line with the market.

The amendment giving protection to those renters who lose their challenge with a 12 month payment plan should also be strongly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

considered by the government. I put my name down to amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I put my name down to amendments of Lord Carrington, 34 and 35. The
20:29
20:30
Lord Carter of Haslemere Portrait Lord Carter of Haslemere (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise... I'd like to rise to support strongly Lord Carrington's amendments supported by Lord Hacking. That is not just obviously fair that the tribunal should be required to backdate rent, but it also removes the incentive for tenants to challenge every rent increase come what may. Landlords who increase rent to market value should not be penalised by being unable to backdate that rent to the date of increase where there is an unsuccessful challenge. Otherwise it makes a mockery of the tribunal process which is there to determine the legal right of the landlord to increase the rent to the amount proposed.

If that right is upheld by the tribunal, then like other legal rights that are litigated successfully in civil court, it should be upheld from when it arose with the remedy backdated accordingly. It is how our civil accordingly. It is how our civil For example, if I successfully make a claim against the defendant for negligence, nuisance or breach of contract, the damages will generally be assessed from the date the claim arose, that is how justice is meant to work.

It should be no different here. The correct market rent, upheld by the tribunal, should be backdated to the date of the original increase. The noble Baroness's amendment 37, which gives the Secretary of State the power to enable a tribunal to backdate the rent, does not achieve this. In the words of her letter to all peers on 24 June, the power to backdate rent will be used only if the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State consider it " Absolutely necessary to avoid lengthy delays for genuine cases to be heard." So, landlords will get a just outcome only if it is absolutely necessary.

My Lords, this is not likely to sustain tenancies. That is really the tenancies. That is really the
20:32
Baroness Eaton Portrait Baroness Eaton (Conservative)
-
-
I will declare my interest as vice president of the Local Governance Association and also a part owner of a small number of rented properties in West Yorkshire. I rise to speak in support of Amendment 29, 34, 35 and 36. In the names of the noble Baroness, Baroness Wyld and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. Noble Lords may recall at second reading, that I am deeply concerned about the impact of the on -- Of this bill on rented housing supply.

I remain concerned about this issue, however, the amendments of Baroness and Lord Carrington's in their name, do provide me with reassurance that I know that the rental market is also looking for amendments 29, 35, 34 and 36. They are technical but sensible and clearly thought through. If the government is to get anywhere near reaching its ambitious 1.5 million new homes target, then we need to be supporting and giving clarity to the responsible institution built to rent landlord sector, who are building thousands of new high quality rented homes each year.

This part of the rental market I know is supportive of the government's aim to raise standards across the private rented sector. But with the uncertainty they face around how much rent they might reasonably receive and how many rent increase challenges they may receive, I worry that the development pipelines will slow or at worst completely hold. Whilst they assess this new landscape, where any renter can challenge any increase without any jeopardy. The amendments 29, 34, 35 and 36 allow for those providing a new high quality rental homes to the market to continue to do so without undue impact from section 13 rent increase challenges.

The amendments allow the institutional landlord sector to continue delivering the net additional rental homes we need without uncertainty. But crucially, these amendments, in my view, will deter spurious rent increase challenges and allow vulnerable renters the access to Justice they rightly deserve to. I acknowledge the government's amendments on section 13 notices in the amendment papers. But they also leave me concerned that in this place, and indeed in the rental market, we in this sector are being asked to place a significant amount of faith in the government, and the data it has, but will not publish, on how many renters may challenge their rent increases.

If a renter can save themselves months of rent increase for free and without any jeopardy, why wouldn't they? And therefore, strongly of the opinion that the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness and Lord Carrington provide the requisite amount of clarity to the sector whilst ensuring renters' rights are improved and I/O is the government to take them abroad to give everyone clarity while improving renters' rights and access to justice for vulnerable renters.
20:36
20:38
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I don't know which end to start with really, let's start with the least contentious. We absolutely agree with 42, that a review is imperative and should definitely happen. Baroness Jones' amendment 30, it seems absolutely right to us that at least the tenant that is in the House when the taxpayer funds lovely significant improvements, that will raise the value of the landlord's assets should at least be protected from a rent rise, at least during that tendency.

-- Tenancy. It only seems right and fair. The Baroness' amendment 29 which I supported at committee and have co-signed is an absolutely sensible amendment. Several noble Lords have also said they would support it and I think she has explained it at length and with clarity. So I need say no more. But anything that acts as a triage system in this process should be looked at seriously. So, to the controversial bits. Well, the rent tribunal is clearly causing concern.

In fact, I think that there was an invitation in the last speech to actually revisit this and look at it again, minister. Yes, there will be third reading. It seems to me that a lot of work has gone into these amendments, and justify perhaps a little bit more time and effort than we have actually got now. Minister, you do have a lot to justify in order to gain support from the House. But we are minded to support the government but clearly dances to the very detailed and very sensible proposals that have been put forward today.

Let's look at 31, 31 risks allowing a tribunal to actually determine the level of rent increase. That actually could be very unaffordable. I think the idea that a rent tribunal can just say, well, I think the rent should be such and such, is fuelling a market that is already 'rents are rising!' rents are rising exponentially more than they have at another time, yet we want to seem to fuel that. We certainly do not agree with rent -- We believe some breaks could be put on this, that would seem eminently sensible.

Perhaps we are looking at this through the wrong lens but I thought that the rent tribunal would be if a tenant is expecting an annual rent rise, I'm in my rented apartment, I know the landlord is going to put up the rent in a year, I am kind of expecting that, I know what's going on in the area around me and I kind of sort out how much it might be. Look at it the other way, if all the other things noble Lords have said about everybody is going to apply, Martin Lewis is going to say applied, the Chancellor, the students union are going to be on it.

Well, why would a landlord, knowing all that, put a stupid rent rise in? If he knows his tenant could actually appeal against it, that should put an instinctive break on unjustified, unrealistic rises. The system should work in the natural sort of tensions, the tensions of this way. So, we are kind of not happy, minister, but have had conversations and thoughts about this and would ask the government to look again at some of the details, and perhaps with some assurances from the Dispatch Box, we could avoid a load of votes now and at third reading, because I think certainly, we would want to be looking in more detail at this, then I personally admit that we haven't already.

If that is fair to say. already. If that is fair to say.
20:43
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I thank the noble Baronesss and the noble Lords, and Lord Hacking, Lord Carter, and Renesse Eaton and Baroness Thornhill, for their contribution to the debate if I can turn to the government amendments first of all. Grid amendment 37 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to change the date from which tenants are required to make -- Pay a new rent, following a challenge to the impose rent increase, and government amendments 38 and 39 are consequential to this. My Lords, our government was elected on a clear manifesto promise to empower tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases.

It is unreasonable rent increases. It is essential that we deliver on this commitment, not only to protect tenants from undue financial pressure, but also to prevent rent hikes from being used as a form of backdoor eviction, since section 21 notices have been abolished. During the bill's passage, as we all know, the house has debated at length the capacity of the justice system to enable the smooth implementation of reforms in the bill. This is particularly the case on the subject of rent increase challenges.

In relation to which noble Lords have expressed very serious concerns that struggling tenants rights may lead to the First-tier Tribunal being overwhelmed by sharp increase in challenges. Set against that concern, we have heard powerful testimony from many tenant groups that private renters, many of whom are struggling to juggle family life, multiple jobs, and financial challenges, are unlikely to spend what little time they have navigating the justice system, unless they have got a really compelling reason to do so.

Given cost and effort that challenging a rent increase at tribunal would require, as well as the risk it poses to a tenant landlord relationship, there is good reason to doubt a significant number of tenants will bring rent increase challenges, which have little prospect of success. Who knows what will happen if Martin Lewis gets involved, but we will wait and see. We also know the majority of landlords act responsibly and don't expect many would see to serve The likelihood of tenants challenges at tribunal.

If landlords don't impose rent increases, they will not get taken to tribunal for supper recognise however there is an inherent uncertainty as to the volume of rent increase challenges that will be brought when a new tenancy system comes into force. As the Baroness Pidgeon, the system in Scotland, she will know, the system, there were very different changes in Scotland than the ones we are proposing. We are working closely with the Minister for Justice, it is well prepared for our reforms come in a poppy chamber, work is progressing to increase capacity, as well as reviewing resource and working practices and readiness for any increase in demand.

However, we have listened very carefully to the concerns expressed by a number of your Lordships, the government has decided to put in place a proportionate safeguard for use in circumstances, where it has become clear that the tribunal system is on course to be overwhelmed. This safeguard helps the creation of a new power that would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations to change the date from which terms are required to pay a new rent, in instances where the First-tier Tribunal has set one following a challenge to the proposed rent increase.

In other words, it would enable the backdating of rent increases following determinations by the tribunal, in respect of new rent amounts. The Secretary of State by regulation will specify the date by which the new rent should be paid, providing this is no earlier than the date first proposed by the landlord in section 13 notice, the notice by the landlord. I want to make it clear the government's... That it is the government's intention not to make use of this power unless or until the First-tier Tribunal was at risk of being overwhelmed, by the sharp increase in challenges.

And it became necessary to avoid lengthy delays necessary to avoid lengthy delays I heard the points about what the numbers concerned are about. I think it would be determined by continual monitoring to see how the process is working. This change will be subject to the affirmative procedure, to allow appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. On amendment 29, fundamentally, the government has given considerable thought during the passage of the bill to whether the tribunal is the appropriate body to determine all rent increase challenges.

I am particularly grateful to Lady Bull for her constructive engagement on this matter. After careful consideration of the points made by noble Lords, and after reviewing the experience of similar reforms in Scotland, we have concluded that there is a compelling case for the use of an alternative body or mechanism to make initial rent determinations. This will ensure the long-term sustainable of the of the system, relieving pressure on the tribunal, and has the potential to deliver longer term savings.

Contributing to more efficient states delivery. Within such a system we know that some judicial function continue to be necessary in relation to the small proportion of challenges, and to ensure that Landlord and Tenant Act have appropriate access to justice they always must have. We therefore in tends to establish such an alternative body or mechanism as quickly as possible subject to competing a full viability assessment of this. We will confirm final details of this in due course. In exploring this we will carefully consider the arguments put forward by the House.

I am sympathetic to the intent of amendment 29 tabled by the noble Baroness. I'm concerned the amendment in its current format would not achieve the desired result. It would require the VOA to take up the function immediately alongside their existing responsibilities without fully assessing the viability of this proposal or how it would work in practice. That risks creating an inoperable system, one which does not achieve a fair result for landlords or tenants. I'm sure noble Lords will agree this is too important a matter to take a risk given the potentially damaging effects on access to justice for tenants and landlords.

With this in mind I would ask the noble Lady to withdraw her amendment. We are minded to create a mechanism but not the VOA that she spoke about.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

$$CAPITALISE... I would like to thank the Minister for constructive thank the Minister for constructive engagement and I will withdraw amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. I am grateful for that. Now I turn to the other amendments in this group. Regarding amendment 24, group. Regarding amendment 24, present private registered providers of social housing can grant secure or assured tenancies and the or assured tenancies and the majority of these are let social rents. They are regulated by the rents. They are regulated by the regulator. The definition and the bill reflects these arrangements. If the government or social housing sector were to change the way in which rent is determined are regulated in the future, power would regulated in the future, power would enable the Secretary of State to make technical amendments to reflect this or other changing circumstances.

As the power relates circumstances. As the power relates only to the definition of relevant low-cost tenancies, I want to low-cost tenancies, I want to reassure your Lordships that the Secretary of State would not be able to use that power to change the legislation to affect market rates legislation to affect market rates tenancies. Based on this I would ask Lady Scott to withdraw the amendment. Turning to amendment 30, amendment. Turning to amendment 30, I thank Lady Jones for her engagement on this issue. The engagement on this issue.

The government fully support the cause for efforts to improve energy efficiency of homes in the private rented sector particularly where tenants are proactive in accessing support to government backed schemes. The amendment as drafted would mean that any increase in value arising from these improvements will be disregarded even if it were partly funded by public money. Therefore if the landlords have made sizeable investments themselves in improving energy efficiency of their property, without government grants, under this amendment they would not be able to increase rents to reflect the improvements.

The tribunal has experts who will assess what the landlord can expect to receive if re-letting the property on the open re-letting the property on the open market. Both landlords and tenants would have the opportunity to submit evidence as to why they think the rent increase is either justified or not justified, and the tribunal already ignores any improvements to the property made by the tenant to avoid inflating the rent. However it is likely to be more challenging in practice for the tribunal to differentiate rent levels based on whether energy efficiency upgrades were funded through specific grant schemes, to clearly where the tenant was not directly responsible for the work.

We recognise it is very important that means-tested energy efficiency grant schemes are used to benefit tenants. That is why for that Warm Homes Local Grant which was launched in April, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero have set a clear expectation that landlords should declare they do not intend to raise rents as a direct result of the updates being made. During the committee debate, Lady Jones rightly highlighted the importance of ensuring that landlords do not unduly profit from government funded improvements. That the value of improvements.

That the value of these schemes should flow primarily to tenants given the impact on many people living in poverty. And the threat of eviction. We have carefully considered these points and believe the measures already being introduced strike the right balance. In conclusion, the landlord's declaration introduced and overseen through the Warm Homes Local Grant will include a commitment for landlords not to increase rents as a result of improvements made using the grant funding. I hope this offers the noble Baroness Lady Jones reassurance the government is taking this issue seriously.

And for those reasons I respectfully ask her to withdraw her amendment. The noble Lords Lord Howard has proposed two amendments to the process for challenging rents within the first six months of the tenancy Tribunal. On amendment 31, the ability to challenge rent in the first six months of the tenancy is a vital safety valve and ensuring tenant cannot continue to be ripped off if they have been pressured into unfair rents. Landlords who have agreed a fair market price have nothing to fear from this mechanism.

This amendment would exacerbate the worry of tenant already facing about going to a tribunal to enforce their rights. Tenants will not challenge rent they risk being worse off following tribunal ruling. The bill encourages tenants to engage with the tribunal they have legitimate concerns, by reinforcing the rights of tenants to do so, we are dis- incentivising the minority of landlords from pressurising tenants into unfair rents at the beginning of the tenancy. On the way for landlords to avoid this clearly is to make sure their rent affair at the start of the tenancy.

Turning to amendment 32, the government is clear that tenants should only submit an application to the tribunal in the first six months of their tenancy, where the rent is above market rates, or if they believe they have been pressured into an unjustified initial rent. In the first instance we strongly encourage Landlord and Tenant Act to communicate about what adjustments to rent might be reasonable. I would like to answer the noble Lords question about how tribunal determined a fair rent. In order to determine the market rates, the Tribunal considers a wide range of evidence such as the price of similar properties being advertised online, and evidence omitted from both parties justifying or arguing against the rent increase.

The First Tier Tribunal has experts who are experienced in understanding the different factors which result in the market rates. In determining whether the rent is reflective of this. And the First Tier Tribunal is best placed to do this in the tenancy system. It is also worth noting that the tribunal has power to adjudicate rent levels in line with market rate and has had this since the 1988 Housing Act. Since then, the market rate has continued to increase. However if the rent is challenged and the tribunal determined that the rent exceeds the open market rate, it is right that the tribunal be able to backdate the lower rent to the date it was challenged, and the landlord repaid a difference to the tenant.

I therefore ask Lord Howard to withdraws amendment. Turning now to amendment 33, 34, 35, 36, and 40, government recognises that some tenant avoid challenging and reasonable rent increases out of fear they may be saddled with significant amounts of backdated which they will be unable to afford. By removing the ability of the tribunal to backdate a rent increase, tenants, particularly vulnerable tenants, will be empowered to challenge what they believe to be an above market rate rent increase. This reduces the risk of an unreasonable rent increase causing a tenant financial hardship or even being used to force someone out of their home.

I think this is a really important measure to encourage people to challenge and reasonable rent increases. Amendment 34, 35, 36, and 40, particular may only heighten the risk of vulnerable tenants being able to challenge an increase. We know tenant and landlords are eager to maintain a positive relationship and won't bring the other to court or tribunal without good reason. As such, I would ask the noble Lords to withdraw these amendments. Turning finally to amendment 42, the tribunal has over 30 years experience of making determinations of unfair rent increases, having carried out this function since the 1988 Housing Act.

We have full confidence in the tribunal's ability to carry out this function in a fair way. I appreciate the need for the justice system to be ready for our reforms if landlords and tenants want to access justice in a timely way. We are working in partnership with the Ministry for justice to assess the impact of the reforms of the tribunal, and to lesson these were ever possible. This close collaboration has been ongoing for a number of years and had a great amount of detail.

The amendments we have tabled to a rent increase measures shows were listening to the concerns of the sector and this house about tribunal workloads. Put in place to safeguard in case it was needed. We will be already collecting extensive data to assess the impact of these reforms. As set out, the impact assessment for the bill and in debate we have committed to monitor and evaluate our reform to monitor and evaluate our reform program. We use a range of sources to support this will stop existing datasets will be used and new data will be collected.

As I said earlier we are committed to publishing the evaluation findings at the two and five year points after the build implementation. Can I respond to Lord Carrington's request about the justice impact test. We are undertaking this with the Minister of this will identify additional burdens on the justice system. They are internal government documents and are not published. The test is ongoing and regularly reviewed to make sure reflect any changes to legislation as the bill continues its journey through Parliament.

We are fully focused on making sure the justice system is prepared for changes to court's caseload. In procedures which will be required for our reforms and we are working with the Ministry of Justice and HM Courts and Tribunal Service to that effect including investing additional court and tribunal capacity to handle any extra hearings generated. In this context, I don't believe, and the context of the review that I have already outlined both in the course of discussing these amendments and earlier on today, I don't it is necessary to commit to undertake any further review.

On that basis I hope the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw her amendment. I would like to move the government amendments.
20:59
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Minister for her reply. And for setting out the government amendments. However, we remain disappointed that the so-called disappointed that the so-called break glass power is reactive in nature, and fails to address the underlying incentives that drive unnecessary cases. Noble Lords across the house have raised the risk of the tribunal system being overwhelmed. While I listen carefully to the Minister's comments on a mechanism there are no firm proposals.

Therefore, on that basis, we will support my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising on amendment 31 if he is minded to push this to the vote. As Lord Carrington has raised, and we requested that Committee stage, the government has failed to publish the justice impact test. I had the comments that the Minister made, but I again ask the Minister to publish this before we reach report stage. Given the importance and concern across the house of the impact of the justice system of this bill.

Amendment 42 six review of the impact on the tribunal system. As we have another amendment later on reviewing the impact on the justice system in its entirety, we will not system in its entirety, we will not system in its entirety, we will not Serious concerns remain regarding the definition of low-cost tenancies. I urge the government to reflect carefully on the breath of the powers they are granting. That said, I will withdraw this amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships pleasure that amendment 24 be withdrawn?
21:01
Lord Best Portrait Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
-
Amendment is by leave withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 25, Lord Best. I rise to move amendments 25, with the related amendments 26, 27 with the related amendments 26, 27 Lord, Lord Kirkham, noble Lady, Baroness Grender, I declare my Baroness Grender, I declare my interest as vice president of the Local Government Association Charters Trading Standards Institute, Town And Country Planning Act Association, past Chair of the Affordable Housing Commission and my wife owns rented property in Dorset. I fear the bill still retains a fundamental flaw in its provisions fundamental flaw in its provisions for rent increases.

Quite properly, for rent increases. Quite properly, the bill seeks to ensure tenants are not subject to huge rent rises, which can have the effect as the renters reform coalition and shelter renters reform coalition and shelter made so clear. Of evicting them from the property. The bills way of the property. The bills way of solving the problem creates hazards for tenants and landlords alike, to prevent exorbitant rent increases, prevent exorbitant rent increases, the bill relies on the renter taking the bill relies on the renter taking their case to the First-tier Tribunal, which will determine a market rent that cannot be exceeded.

My Lords, this arrangement is fraught with difficulty. The first problem with a system dependent on the tribunal's judgement is that deciding on a market rent is not a science. The outcome of tribunal hearings can be unpredictable but sometimes appear arbitrary. The second drawback is that renters must take on a daunting task. They are likely to fall out with their landlord on whom they depend on a continuing service, to appear in person, they may need to give up a day of work, incur travel expenses and endure intimidating process.

Third, the tribunal's decision on what is the market rent may still involve a big rent hike, well ahead of rises in incomes, and can thereby present an impossible affordability obstacle for the tenant, the very problem the process was intended to avoid. From the perspective of the landlord, many of your Lordships have been concerned that the tribunal will get clogged up with thousands of time-consuming appeals. I was pleased to hear the noble Baroness, the minister, is looking at an amendment to make use of the Valuation Office Agency, to weed out appeals that are likely to fail.

The noble Baroness the Minister is also introducing an amendment that reduces incentives for renters to appeal, by enabling the Secretary of State at a later date, to allow backdating of the rent increase, that is determined by the tribunal. By making the appeal process more risky, this new measure could deter renters that do have a good case for pursuing an appeal. In any case, it is a fallback, a long stop, that may not be introduced for some time. If at all. More helpfully, I believe, amendments 25, 26 and 27 would provide clarity and security for the renter and the landlord, and give confidence to responsible investors.

The amendments would mean rent increases being capped on an index basis, using either CPI or the rise in earnings averaged over the previous three years. The indexation would be limited to three annual increases, after which the landlord could charge a market rent, if necessary determined by the use of process to appeal to the necessary tribunal. This presents a fair solution for the need for moderation and rent increases, without reliance on appeals to the FTT and all the problems that brings.

My Lords, in returning to this matter at report stage, I have added a new amendment, 28, which addresses a criticism of the indexation approach. This amendment tackles the valid objection that there may be exceptional circumstances in which an indexed increase would not be fair to the landlord, for example, the landlord may have spent substantial funds to improve the property, and could justify a rent increase that contributes towards the cost. The new amendment enables the landlord, not the tenant, the landlord, to ask the tribunal to improve the setting of a rent in excess of the otherwise automatic indexation.

My Lords, the amendments cut out the need for renters to take matters to the tribunal and therefore to enter into a battle with their landlord. Most tenancies do not last more than four years, so for most tenants, the arrangement would be in the uncertainty of indexation of rent increases. Whereas, the fickle market might have meant much greater rent increases. I believe this is a far better way of limiting increases than currently in the bill. And it cannot be described as rent control.

It is time-limited. And not comparable for failed rent control measures in other countries. It is fair to landlords and entirely preferable to the hassle and uncertainties of them being taken to the tribunal. It avoids the clogging up problem that may mean the tribunal system is going to be overwhelmed. My Lords, here is a package that has real benefit for landlord and tenant alike. With thanks to my co-sponsors for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment, I beg to move. Amendment proposed, clause six,
21:07
Lord Young of Cookham Portrait Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, clause six, page 8, line 18, at end insert the words as printed on the Marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

list. I have added my name to that of Lord Best, a footnote to what he has Lord Best, a footnote to what he has just said. There has been considerable concern about the capacity of the courts to handle the volume of appeals that will go to the tribunal's, when the bill becomes an act. The backlog has actually been going up at the moment, and in the first quarter of 2025, the average time of landlords submitting a claim and getting possession was over seven months.

32.5 weeks, up from 29.8 weeks a year ago. The Minister uses a different figure, eight weeks, but that only covers getting a possession order, not actually getting the property back. In earlier debate, the minister implied it was quite difficult for a tenants to challenge an increase in rent. I would respectfully disagree with that, there are a whole range of organisations that will give tenants advice on how to challenge an advice on how to challenge an increase from the landlord.

Now, this government have made it clear that unlike the previous administration, they are not prepared to wait for the necessary reforms to the core processes are in place. Before they activate the bill. That is a position entitled to take, and welcomed by tenants. However, there should be a process to minimise the chance for the courts being overwhelmed. In the interest of another tenant or landlord, that is what amendment 25 does. The likelihood of rent, of course, a market rent when it was fixed, diverging significantly from CPI or RPI over four years is actually quite small.

At the certainty that goes with that guarantee will be welcomed, I think, by tenant and landlord. And if after four years, there is a divergence, or best to just explain, the rent can then catch up. Now, someone who actually voted for the Housing act 1918, which abolished rent control, I see no problem with this measure simply smooth increases over a four-year period, and again, speaking personally, if at the end of the four or five years the courts have shown themselves to be up to speed and there is no backlog, I would be happy to see this provision laps, but in the meantime, I hope the government will smile on it.

the government will smile on it.
21:10
21:10
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, we support the amendments in this group, concerning rent affordability, and after the strikes to the heart of millions of tenants. As Shelter, in a release, only this week rightly says for every day the government doesn't pass the spell, another 70 households will be threatened with homelessness because no-fault eviction is being kept on life support for no reason. I hope you later part of the report stage, we will get some reassurances about when this key measure will begin. To overcome some of the rumours of late, in the media, about it being delayed.

We also welcome all of the work to fix the issue of supply of decent homes, across all tenures. But private renting is persistently outpacing both wage growth and general inflation. According to the latest data, and we heard some of it from the noble Lord Carrington earlier, average rent prices in England increased by 21%, meanwhile, wages continue to grow slower than rents. With the most recent data showing annual growth of 5.2%, rents have outstripped wages every month for nearly 2 years now, since September 2023.

Over the past three years, the average annual rent has increased Over the past three years, the average annual rent has increased by 2,000 x 2006 and 50, rising to 15,450, 21% increase, compared with, for all those occupiers here, a growth in house prices over the same period, this relentless rise is not just a statistical anomaly. It is a driver of poverty, hardship, and in some cases, way too many, homelessness. Amendment 25, tabled by Lord Best, supported by myself and Lord Young of Cookham proposes a mechanism to smooth in tenancy rent increases by limiting them to the lower wage inflation, it restricts rent increases to once per year would allow tenants to challenge above market rents at the First-tier Tribunal, as we have heard a previous set of amendments.

However, the so-called term market rent is often calculated based on arbitrary information. Such as advertise rents for new tenancies, figures that will inevitably and typically be inflated, and do not reflect the actual rent paid by sitting tenants. This methodology leaves tenants exposed to rent hike evictions. Section 21 in all but name into -- Undermining the civility this purports to deliver. For the Merry renters -- Many renters who have no alternative, the cheapest place they can find, market rents are already, by definition, unaffordable.

The tribunal process itself will help put not fix this problem, and certainly not soon. Generation rent's analysis found that while 73% of tenants who challenge the increase through the tribunal succeed in reducing the proposed rent, the average increase awarded it is still 14%. And only a small minority of cases result in increases below wage or rent inflation. The processes are also own arrest and complex. -- Are also complex. Deterring many tenants from proceeding at all.

It is therefore not just a technical fix, it is a vital safeguard during this period of transition. It will provide tenants with the predictability and stability needed the budget and remain in their homes, free from the constant threat of an affordable rent hikes. For landlords, it offers an index yield, without the administrative burden and uncertainty of the tribunal proceedings. I would ask in particular, that the opposition front bench at the government front bench resisted the temptation and allure to comment on these proposals as rent controls.

That would suggest, my Lords, that the years of knowledge and experience of the noble Lord Young and the noble Lord Best have rented them somehow incapable of being able to understand the difference between rent control and something else. This proposal is fundamentally different. It is time-limited. It different. It is time-limited. It does not set market wide Caps, not to stall the market or stifle investment. Beyond these immediate protections, we must look to the immediate term, whilst we wait for the much-needed and the long-awaited additional supply of homes.

That is why I have tabled amendment number 114. Requiring the Secretary of State to conduct a comprehensive review of rent affordability, with the express aim of establishing a national rental affordability commission. And I thank the noble Lady Lister for her support and the Renters' Rights Publisher for their work on this issue. That same coalition found that nearly 1/3 of private renters, an estimated 3.8 million people, always or often struggle to afford essential slight struggle to afford essential slight groceries, due to the amount they spend on rent, and nearly one in 10 have sold personal items in order to afford rent.

The current builder welcome in its focus on security of tenure and housing quality, does not address the fundamental issue of cost. The number one issue for most private renters when surveyed, incremental tweaks to the tribunal system will not resolve the scale of affordability crisis that we have today. A national commission would be quick to analyse the full convexity of the crisis. The interplay of supply and command. -- And demand. The shortage of social housing, the effects of different rent measures, in comparative nations, and the impact of fiscal policy on the sector.

While increasing the supply of affordable home. This is all essential. The reality is that such measures will take years to affect rents. We need urgent evidence-based interventions The evidence is compelling. Research from the Mayor of London shows a 1% increase in housing affordability in London alone could generate an additional £7.3 million in economic output in the next decade. The Chancellor of the exchequer love that right now? Enhanced affordability, not only improves housing well-being but also boosts productivity, support job creation, and reduces the financial strain on public services, at a time when one in 50 Londoners is experiencing homelessness.

The amendments before us today, that proposal for the comprehensive affordability review, they are essential to ensuring that the Renter's Rights Bill delivers on its promise of security, fairness, and genuine affordability. Without them we risk replacing one set of insecurities with another. In failing the very people this bill is meant to protect.
21:18
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Portrait Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
-
I draw attention to the role played by high housing costs in driving poverty. I was pleased to add my name to amendment 114 tabled by the noble Baroness. I supported also the other amendment in this group and hope that what I have to say will add to the case for them also. Evidence from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation illustrates the extent to which high rents in the private sector are associated with poverty. Shockingly they point out that around half of the private renters are only in poverty of their housing costs are factored in.

Two more reports about child poverty published this year reinforced the point. The first by IPPR argues that housing costs are called to understanding child poverty. The notes number of children counted at in poverty is about one third higher when housing costs are factored into the measure. And though the private rented sector has become increasingly significant in the lives of children. The second is also published by IPPR together with CPG of which I am the honorary president and changing realities which involves lived experience of people in poverty.

It notes that rent increases are stressful to families to manage, and that the Renter's Rights Bill will continue to enable large increases in rent provided they are reflecting market rents. This risks exposing tenants to unaffordable hikes in housing costs undermining Bill's day-to-day, and fairness for renters. They quote one tenant, " I'm getting really worried about my rents going up this year. Keeps rising every year at the Local Housing Allowance is frozen for this year. It is frightening. " The reports underline how the situation is aggravated by freezes in the Local Housing Allowance about the operation of the benefits cap which affects larger families and those paying higher rents in particular.

The amendment states, any review of rent affordability must include its remit the effectiveness of policy interventions to improve affordability relative to incomes. I would argue this would need to include promises on the income side making it impossible for some families to meet their rent commitments alongside other essentials. It seems to me a very modest amendment that would complement the government's welcome commitment to an ambitious child poverty strategy. I know that that Child Poverty Taskforce is very aware of the importance of housing to the strategy.

But it is unrealistic to expect it to carry out the thorough review of rent affordability post in this amendment. I hope therefore that my noble friend will be able to give a more positive response from that which he gave in committee which I have to say I found rather disappointing. What is needed is something more robust and holistic than the regular monitoring to which he referred, as important as that might be. A review of this kind would be very much in the spirit of the bill and would help ensure its impact is not hunted by the continued damage created by excessively high rents in the private sector.
21:21
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
I rise briefly just to try and understand what the different definition of rent is if we are to tell the increases. Because there are certain things, the base rent, which you can see just by googling one of the property website. It is probably a good idea to get a feel for the basic low-cost unfurnished property in the worst part of town. But of course that is not necessarily the marketplace. The market price is determined by a number of factors.

Serviced accommodation, furnished, there may be other benefits, I'm not going to go as far as people in gyms but I know they are available in some circumstances. And parking would be another one. All of these different elements have different cost pressures and inflationary increases which may be determined by factors outside the landlord's control. A property that has inclusive parking, it may somehow become significant in more valuable if the local council applies permits on the streets around.

So I can anticipate here that when one looks at the rents, and I'm very tempted to support amendment 25, but I'm reluctant to do so because at the moment, when rents are sorted out, all these extras are rolled into the single price. I think the logical conclusion of where this debate is going is that we are going to get menu pricing, rather as we see other low-cost airlines. Where there is an attractive flight, £5.99 to fly to Spain whatever, by the time you've got the baggage of the booking fee and anything else, it rolls up to a significantly higher value.

Of course in that example, the £5.99, the risk of that going up maybe somewhat extenuating. But it is those other extras, the what I would call that landed price, the total cost which is something that could vary accordingly. The other points we need to take into account, a significant point, maybe section 20 repairs, there may be improvements particularly in the case of furnished accommodation, where the landlord is prepared to improve and upgrade either the fixed furnishings like tables and chairs or possibly soft furnishings as well.

So all of these complicate what is at the moment a rolled up finger. I think we have to suggest to ourselves that the logical conclusion of all this is that all those extras are going to be disaggregated and obfuscated, and it will be harder to compare. But it is going to be hard to compare for the potential tenant, but it will be essential for the landlord to obfuscate in this way. In the circumstance that we go to the First Tier Tribunal, which is really concerned with the underlying rent, the £5.99 figure, so I think it is difficult and I have huge Amata simply with Lord Best for his amendment.

I can't support it because I think the logical conclusion of it is that we will get a fragmentation of those elements of rent, the landed rent, so that if you like the tail wags the dog. The landlord is so focused on restricting the base rent that the other things get lost. other things get lost.
21:25
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, we have concerns on a number of amendments in this group. On the basis that they are in our view unduly prescriptive and risk the introduction of what could be regarded as ineffective a form of rent controls. The amendments in the name of the noble Lord Lord Best seek to protect the tribunal from being overloaded due to this bill. While we agree that there is a significant risk of overloads, we have concerns about how the arrangements would function.

Particularly, we do not feel able to support systematised rental increases to CPI. CPI is a generalised index, reflects the price of bread, fuel, clothing, but not rental market dynamics. What happens in areas where market rents have fallen but inflation is high, when incomes are stagnant CPI rises. This approach is a national economic measure to benchmark against the highly localised rental markets. The result would almost certainly be a distorted rental market. That said we do share Lord Best's concerns about the impact of this bill on tribunal's backlogs which we discussed at length at Committee stage.

Amendment 114 in the name of the noble Baroness raises some important points which I shall briefly speak to. There is no doubt that rent affordability is a serious issue. This amendment rightly draws attention to a range of important factors, regional disparities in rental costs, the strain of high rents placed on household finances, the need to understand how effectively the First Tier Tribunal is working in practice. However, I must also sound a note of realism, we do not need another report for its own sake.

What we need is actual change. Change that improves the lives of renters and restores fairness to a housing system that too often feels stacked against ordinary people. If this review is to go ahead, it must not become just another document left to gather dust on the shelves of the Department. It must lead to action. So I would urge the Minister to use the opportunity to outline how the government will respond to the concerns raised by the noble Lady in her amendment, which we all agree are all points which matter in this debate.

which matter in this debate.
21:28
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I thank Lord Best and the noble Baroness Lady Grender for their amendments relating to rent affordability and rent controls, and the noble Lords young, Baroness Lister and Lord Fuller for speaking in this discussion. Can I say, I do have that deepest respect for Lord Bester, Lord Young, and for Baroness who also has experience in this area. I don't intend to visit the detailed discussions we had at Committee stage, they had informed deliberations and I know how strongly some noble Lords and groups feel about helping those who struggle to pay high rents.

I have sticky understand the pressure that rents put on the budgets of individuals and families, and to come back to the earlier point made in the debate, that the solution to this is to create a lot more social and affordable how for people. But I realise that is not going to happen overnight. I must start by reiterating the government's concern that rent controls as proposed would risk reducing housing supply, discouraging investment and ultimately lowering property standards. The case of this amendment, amendment 25, the most relevant international comparator is that of Ontario, an example which I cited that committee.

The Ontario model, whereby rent increases are According to a measure of inflation I'm afraid has not led to desirable outcomes. In fact analysis suggests has been higher rents for new tenants. In respect to expenses in Scotland, a recent nationwide foundation report found that rent control measures in Scotland had not protected the majority of private rented sector tenants against excessive rent increases. Or against higher advertise market rents. Considering average advertiser enters the system as a whole. But the measures in Scotland don't appear to have impacted rental price growth in Scotland has consistently been one of the top regions in the UK in terms of the highest growth in asking rents.

According to Superlano, in the year to January 2024, when the renting increase was in place, Scotland was the only UK region with a double digit annual rent growth of 11.6%. I'm also aware of inadvertently incentivising landlords to raise rents each year to the level of a cap when they otherwise may not have done so. The most recent data from the English private landlords survey which was published in December last year tells us 44% of landlords renewed and extended the tenancy did not increase the rent when they extended the tenancy.

There is a risk that in setting a cap, we may, albeit inadvertently, be setting a target for this group of landlords and making things harder for renters. If the House will allow weird like to introduce an example. In the year to May 2025, rents in the city of Bristol fell by 1.1% of the CPI rate for the UK was 3.4%. And the percentage increase in the median national earnings calculate of a three-year period, was 6.7%. This means that CPI or earnings linked increase could inflate rents beyond local market conditions.

Increasing affordability pressures for tenant not studying them. This example highlights the risk of applying strict one-size-fits-all rent controls, regional disparities in both housing and labour markets demand more flexible and locally responsive approach. That is why the bill allows landlords to adjust rents annually in line with current market conditions. In doing so it delivers a strengthening of rent regulation, the broader context of the system as a whole, putting security of tenure, enforcement and quality standards. In the second the amendments, 26, this would create an unequal system where tenants are treated differently based on the length of time of the property.

Those with longer tenancies would face an unfair choice, except the increase will move. Such an outcome represents a limitation in rights and the government cannot endorse I will turn out of the third amendment, as I have made clear, the government cannot support proposals that would encourage tenants from challenging rent increases, however, , we have talked about that this evening. I assure noble Lords our work will continue in that regard, in addition, I hope the noble Lord is reassured by the amendment we have tabled, which I have already explained in detail.

Turning to amendment 28, I must express concern regarding this amendment, this could result in tenants securing an Of proposed amendment under the Lord Best's name, to counter increases over a four-year period, only to find it rendered unaffordable due to subsequent enhancements. Moreover, it must be noted this amendment leaves it up to the tribunal to determine whether exceptional circumstances apply in each case. This, rather than reducing the burden on our system, would, we fear, create a significant additional work for the system.

It must be stressed that the amendment would afford the landlords the right to challenge the tribunal's decisions while denying tenants the same opportunity for recourse. This is not an acceptable outcome and I hope on the basis of these points, the noble Lord Best will consider not pressing these amendments to a vote. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for amendment 114, recognising this as a development on the amendment she brought forward a committee forced I will not repeat the details set out in committee on the government's commitment to thoroughly monitoring, as I've explained again today, however, I think it will be helpful to just reiterate that the extent to which the government will be monitoring and evaluating this process.

We will publish our evaluation reports on GOG.uk, in line with the policy we have set out in our evaluation strategy. And we will publish those to Parliament. They will be deposited, copies will Of both Houses of Parliament, as soon as they are published and we are committed to carrying out a robust evaluation and disseminating its findings widely, furthermore, we will continue to tracker elements across the rental sector, using a broad set of data sources and work closely with colleagues in other departments, to monitor the pressures on low income renters.

This ongoing analysis allows us to identify and address unintended consequences or emerging challenges in a timely manner. Therefore, I wholeheartedly share the noble Lady's and -- Determination to review how the legislation is working and to support the struggling tenants we are all concerned about. I don't believe a separate review mandated by law is necessary or proportionate and I asked she withdraw her amendment.
21:35
Lord Best Portrait Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords for their support for my set of amendments. Grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for his support. He makes the point that the First-tier Tribunal already faces a backlog and there is the danger that it gets a lot worse in the future. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for his inside knowledge that in the business world, indexation is relatively common, as a way of stabilising increases over a period of time.

Of course, the market rate of time. Of course, the market rate may go down when it regimes. -- When it resumes, in comparison to what happens on an index basis, so rent could go down at the end of a four- year period. Grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, who makes the point that renters are still exposed after this Bill is passed to much greater insecurity and uncertainty from potential rent increases, we are seeing increases at the moment of 14%, which is miles above inflation.

This is very unsettling for tenants and I think the stability of index system would be infinitely preferable. I support the noble Baroness's own amendment 114 for a government commission on affordable housing. This would match the voluntary sector supported commission, which I have the honour of sharing a couple of years ago, ready for a review. That was supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who points out how housing costs increase exponentially almost, the number of children and families in poverty.

It is housing costs what done it very often in creating poverty. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, was yet to be convinced of the merits of my case. And it is true that there could be complications but I think any other system is more complicated than the one we are proposing. Lord Jamieson, I am sad to say, compared this to rent control. Not again. We thought we were at pains to point out something that hits the market level on a regular basis cannot be called rent control.

Control of the marketplace. But I thank him for his contribution. The noble Baroness, the Minister, I am afraid I have not convinced, despite her great generosity in having meetings outside of the chamber. I am grateful to her for listening intensively for the case I make, it has not been sufficient to win her over. I can only say that there is now, on the record, an alternative to the government's formula, the bill's formula, and if that proves as unsatisfactory as I suspect it will be, maybe this amendment's time

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will come. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Is it your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Amendments 26, 27 and 28, Lord Best? Amendments 26, 27 and 28, Lord Best? Not moved? Lord Best? Not moved.
21:39
21:40
Lord Carrington Portrait Lord Carrington (Crossbench)
-
-
Amendment 31, Lord Howell, not moved, and amendments 32 and 33? Not moved. Lord Carrington, amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

34. ... The noble Baroness of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

... The noble Baroness of the Minister, for answers to my various questions. However, I also would questions. However, I also would like to point out that I think her agreement to work on Baroness Wolf's amendment is extremely positive step and I look forward to the results of and I look forward to the results of that. However, with considerable that. However, with considerable that. However, with considerable sadness, I'm very disappointed by the lack of clarity on amendment 37.

The drafting of that amendment is so vague, with the judgements being called only when absolutely necessary and when significant et cetera, there being no data to back cetera, there being no data to back this up, I want to pursue my amendment because my amendment 34, together with the associated together with the associated amendments 35, 36 and 40, all provide great clarity to this provide great clarity to this particular issue. As they are, in a sense, technical amendments.

They are not in any other way political. are not in any other way political. They also point out in amendment 36, I propose this delayed payment for any rent increases the tribunal any rent increases the tribunal comes up with. A 12 month delay. These financial pressures I recognise, and we have done something to try and ameliorate them. On that basis, I would like to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

test the opinion of the House. Should amendment 34 be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion, say, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not
21:42
None Portrait Division: Renter's Rights Bill: Amdt: 34
-

"Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". I think the not contents have it. The question will be decided by a division, I will advise the House when voting is open.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that amendment The question is that amendment 30 4B agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content". Of the opinion say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents will go to the right by the contents will go to the right by the throne. The not contents to the left

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that amendment The question is that amendment 34 The question is that amendment 30 4B

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. My Lords. They My Lords. They have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. They have voted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. They have voted Contents 45, not contents 126. The Contents 45, not contents 126. The Contents 45, not contents 126. The 35 and 36. Lord Carrington not 35 and 36. Lord Carrington not moved. Thank you very much. moved. Thank you very much. Amendment 37 Baroness Taylor, and 38 and 39. Move formally. The question and 39. Move formally. The question is that amendment 37 The question is that amendment 3737 38 and 39 38 and that amendment 3737 38 and 39 38 and 30 9B agreed to en bloc.

The content 30 9B agreed to en bloc. The content habit. Amendment 40 Lord Carrington habit. Amendment 40 Lord Carrington not move. After clause 7 amendment 41.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will explain how this amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will explain how this amendment came about. In committee, I should came about. In committee, I should be more definitive, this amendment
21:54
Lord Hacking Portrait Lord Hacking (Labour)
-
-
be more definitive, this amendment relates to the proposal in the bill, I think it is in clause 7, that when a landlord has obtained possession principally on the grounds of a proposed sale of the dwelling, and that the landlord then withdraws from the sale of the property that wants to put the property straight onto the market. Then he is prevented from doing so for a period of 12 months. The noble Lord supported by Lord Pannick, that moved an amendment in committee to reduce that period from 12 months down to six months.

I will leave him to produce the arguments again because he has tabled amendment 58 and this comes part of the group. I will leave him to develop the argument. But basically Lord Cromwell and Lord Pannick argued that that 12 months was oppressive, far too long, and also that there would be a sufficient deterrent against the rogue landlords seeking to put the property on the market for the purpose of raising the rent. I did not move an amendment in committee on the subject but I thought about it and I decided to write a letter to the Minister which I did on 19 May.

My proposal was a much simpler proposal, there should be a prohibition on all landlords raising rent at all during the immediate period following the putting of the property onto the sale, and when that did not go forward, seeking to let it out again. I never thought that was a very sensible amendment. I had hoped my noble friend would congratulate the and say what a good solution I was providing, that the immediate advantages of my proposal was one that it dealt directly with the problem of the rogue landlords raising the rent.

That is going to be forbidden. It would also have the advantage that the landlord was not penalised for a long period, he could immediately put the property on the letting market and then collect rent. The other great advantage was that the property itself would be on the market and there wouldn't be the absence of properties on the market which is always regrettable, and it would therefore help the housing of people who needed rented property. Unfortunately, my noble friend did not congratulate me on this proposal as I made it in the letter, and she as I made it in the letter, and she expressed caution.

The caution she expressed was there were other tenant landlord situations like a landlord getting fed up with the tenant constantly asking for repairs to the property, or another which she gave which was a simpler example, and that is the landlord had come to a point that it did not like the tenant, and therefore that he could use. Remember, in either of those situations, the landlord has got to enter into a ruse, a ruse pretending he wants to sell the property or possibly a ruse of finding a phantom member of his family that did not exist so he could get possession under the alternative of placing a member of his family in that house.

And therefore I suggest, and this is what I'm asking the House to do, is to measure up the difference. The difference between the advantage of just imposing a ban on any rent increase, and the advantages I just outlined of having the property on the market, and the landlord thereto collect his rent as soon as the property is rented. And how to balance that. Because the measure as contained in the act is a measure affecting every landlord.

The good landlords and the bad landlords. It seems to me that you should have a balance between that, and the extraordinary circumstances, after all when a landlord dislikes attendance, can't successfully evict them simply because it is not like the tenant. And equally well, when he is fed up with the tenant who is constantly asking for repairs, he can't bring an action because the tenant is pestering him about repairs. So in both of the situations they have to enter into a ruse.

I am suggesting the proper balance is to look at the market as a whole, and everybody in the market is affected by these measures. Therefore, to release everybody else on the market from the measure proposed, that serves it so it is a balance and I suggest the balance goes to the market and not to the particular circumstances of a landlord disliking his tenant or getting fed up with the number of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

requests for repairs. I beg to move Article 7 insert the clause, restrictions on rent increase as
22:00
Lord Cromwell Portrait Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

restrictions on rent increase as I rise to speak to amendment 58

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 58 in my name and would like to express my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord Pannick you apologises, learned Lord Pannick you apologises, he is not able to be with us today but has added his name to the but has added his name to the amendment, and of course, the noble Lord Hacking, and the noble Lady, the Minister command her officials the Minister command her officials for the time taken to discuss this with me. This amendment is, at with me.

This amendment is, at heart, a simple but technical one. The bill says if you ask a tenant to leave on the grounds you are selling the property, but then the property the property, but then the property fails to sell, as happens in about one third of cases, then you are not allowed to rent the property out for allowed to rent the property out for a period of 12 months, it simply has to stand empty and impossible to rent out for a period of a year. rent out for a period of a year.

That means that numerous properties would, for the crime of not selling, be punished by standing empty and be punished by standing empty and non-rentable. My amendment does not seek to change the principle of any other element or clause of the bill, other element or clause of the bill, it simply introduces a rational and it simply introduces a rational and balanced obligation to stand empty in this way for six months, rather than 12. That is all about it does. I will now set out the reasons why.

Financial logic. When I and others have suggested 12 months is too long, the answer given was 12 months lost rent would prevent evil landlords from claiming they were selling, simply as a means to reject a tenant and then re- let the property at a higher rent. The theory was after the tenant had left, the landlord will jack up the rent to a high level, both to recoup their interim losses and make profits. My Lords, let's look at that proposition rationally. First, if the landlord has a valid claim to increase the rent, then the bill already provides for that.

The landlord would simply seek a normal rent increase, rather than going to the dramatic and expensive process at risk of acquiring a tenant to leave, and then hoping to relet at a leave, and then hoping to relet at a much higher rent. Second, my Lords, at committee stage, I set out the mathematical calculation behind the six-month void period, and you will be relieved to know I do not propose to repeat the numerical details here tonight. All those that are provided subsequently in a meeting with the noble Lady, the Minister, and her officials.

However, the numbers are demonstrated clearly, the landlord, even having the property empty for six months, as proposed, rather than 12, would have to put the rent up by a substantial amount, in excess of 200 or even 300%, to recoup their rental losses and I say nothing of the other costs, including council tax surcharge bills at the risks of leaving a building empty. Such a huge rate hike would be impossible. The rent asked would be completely uncompetitive against other properties not carrying such an inflated rent level.

In short, being obliged to leave a property empty for six months is more than enough of a financial burden and a barrier to make the strategy so feared by the noble Lady, the Minister, simply untenable. Third, it was suggested that those nasty landlords might lie about selling a property or put it on the market at an absurdly high price, inclusion, presumably, with a disreputable superstate agent. There are some, I believe. -- Estate agent. I draw the noble Lords attention to the second part of the amendment.

This requires the landlord to provide, if necessary to the local authority, hard evidence of pricing, office, et cetera. Landlord flighting these requirements would be breaking the law and punishable accordingly. I understand that an agent colluding with them would also be acting contrary to the law. I remind noble Lords that any landlord taking this approach would face not only the legal risk of a false sales process, but also ending up with the property back on the rental market, at an absurd and uncompetitive level of rent, and on top of that, losing six months rent.

Turning to other reasons, having, if I may say so, made the argument on the rental conspiracy theory advanced in defence of the 12 months standing empty, I then heard the landlord might have other reasons for wanting to get rid of the tenant, such as those the noble Lord Hacking has touched upon. My Lords, let us also examine this argument. Whatever these other reasons might be, the bill at the noble Lady, the minister, has confirmed this, it makes perfectly clear, the landlord has four and only four grounds for requiring a tenant to leave, sale, antisocial, moving in a relative, or persistent failure to pay rent.

If the landlord cannot demonstrate that one or more of these cases applies, for example through not providing conclusive evidence of a genuine sales process, then that landlord would be in breach of the law, as well as financial penalty of the months lost rent. My Lords, it's a fundamental of this bill to block any attempts to get around section 21 by other means and I entirely agree with that. But my Lords, this amendment is, as I hope I have demonstrated, simply no such thing.

They know renting out mechanism for preventing abuse remains, but the amendment makes it proportionate, rather than excessive, and heavy- handed. So, my Lords, standing back from the detail, we are frequently issued that most landlords are good landlords. Perhaps some in this House even have friends who are landlords. Perhaps even some members of this House let out property themselves. My Lords, this provision to leave a property unless it -- Not let, would not just apply to a subset of bad landlords, it would apply to anyone who rents out a property who genuinely wants or indeed needs to sell the property that doesn't manage to do so.

It also, for the same 12 months, deprives the market of rental properties. That is a market already bedevilled by a lack of property available to rent. That does not help tenants. This is not unnecessary, it is not only unnecessary, it is manifestly unfair. And will harm the sale of a rental property. The noble Lady has said, landlords will lose out, but it will be in a small number of circumstances, whereas the evidence for that? The six-month penalty is not enough.

In closing, my Lords, I would like to underline that I am no lobbyist for landlords. I have spoken repeatedly in this House about the need to protect the most vulnerable tenants abused and evicted by genuinely unscrupulous landlords and I have another amendment in this bill about preventing illegal evictions that is specifically on that theme. But, as the noble Lady, the minister, has stressed this, successful rental sector is about a balance of rights. The amendment I am addressing now does not do away with the relevant part of the bill, it simply moves the punishment, and it is a punishment, for not managing to sell a property from 12 months to six months.

That is six months of cost and no income. It is, as I demonstrated previously, more than sufficient punishment to make unworkable the avoidance strategies that so vexed at the noble Lady, the minister, and meet the objectives of the bill. To be frank, a prohibition on renting out for 12 months is an impractical and disproportionate sledgehammer level of overkill that does not belong in a bill creating a set of checks and balances to produce a new fairer environment for property rental. It also works against its objective, by artificially restricting the artificially restricting the artificially restricting the For rent, and I feel strongly this amendment is proportionate and needed.

I will listen carefully to what any others at the noble Lady what any others at the noble Lady the Minister have to say but I may need to test the opinion of the House in due course.
22:09
Lord Young of Cookham Portrait Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I want to speak to amendment 59 in my name, and I'm grateful to the Minister for the time she has spent with me, as a representative of the shared owners network after committee stage, when we discussed, in further detail, the problems facing shared ownership in blocks that have been blighted by the cladding disaster. Now, my Lords, this amendment is needed to protect shared owners who are accidental landlords from their financial problems that they will face if they are not able to finalise a sale after pursuing a groundwater letter a notice.

Many shared owners of course continue to live within the property that they half brought from the registered social landlord. Many shared owners have simply had to move to get on with their life, they have been unable to sell the property in the meantime, and have sublet. Shared owners are allowed to sublet. They have to get permission from RSL to do this, but the rent they receive from the subletting may not be enough to cover costs, with a mortgage, the rent, the service charge, the insurance charges, on a block affected by the cladding disaster.

And those costs may well exceed the local market rent. Many shared owners who have been subletting for a number of years have seen their financial situation considerably weakened. With many effectively losing hundreds of pounds every month as a result of subletting. These are people who employed all professional people that they should have employed when they bought the property, owned by a registered social landlord. They took every precaution available to them and bear no responsibility at all for the problem that has engulfed them.

When we met, while expressing sympathy with this group, the Minister could not offer any mitigation for the unsustainable costs, which a 12 month ban on re- electing would -- Re-electing would create for these share owners. This is not the outcome for a cohort who qualify for an affordable home, because their income was not high enough to buy in at the open market. This was a first step on the ladder. The Minister argued the proposed ban would protect tenants, but it failed to protect shared owners who are actually also tenants.

Shared owners face a much riskier sales process with this bill. They have to give four months notice to their tenants and that means they have no certainty at all that the offer to buy the flat will actually result in exchange or indeed a completion. And shared owners actually have to give the first option to buy their flat back to the registered social landlord, so they can find another shared ownership owner, under strict qualifications. So they are fishing qualifications.

So they are fishing in a relatively small pool. Prospective buyers need to meet the criteria for shared ownership. And that means the risk of a failed sale, even at a late stage, is actually much higher for a shared owner, particularly high if you are selling your flat in a block with unsafe cladding. Now, should a full through, as is frequent, particularly for these type of properties, then shared owners, like other landlords under the bill, face the prospect of a 12 month void, when they will be banned from relating their property and.

To cover its costs without any rental income. These people never plan to become landlords. It was not part of their vision at all. They would have no ability to plan for this outcome. Or make provision for extended void periods. And this will become completely unaffordable for the first majority of shared owners. Who, as I have said, are not as financially resilient as other leaseholders, otherwise they would not have bought a property on the open market. And they will have to pay for the property they now live in.

As well as the property they have been unable to sell. Of course, they will continue to market their property for sale, after the first sale has fallen through. It facing the mounting unwed consequence of a rented property, that will put their homes at risk of repossession. They will fall into arrears, as is very likely. But also, worse, it was incredible pressure on them to accept any offer from a buyer as soon as possible. Even if this was an offer below the RICS presale evaluation.

And if they do that, due to the rules of the scheme, they will have to compensate the registered social landlord for the loss of value on their share, as well as losing out on their own share. So the unintended consequence of the 12 month ban unrelenting, it was shared owners selling a property on the back foot, unable to wait for a suitable offer at a market value. My Lords, it is unacceptable to punish shared owners, who have had to become accidental landlords.

Including, as a result of the building safety crisis, and have already suffered central financial harm. But in correspondence, the Minister explained shared owners would have the option to ask the provider whether a buyback would be possible, rather than leaving the property empty. This could provide a solution, but it will need the Minister to make some changes. As the Minister knows, buybacks are currently very much at the discretion of the registered provider. At the moment, they only have limited access to funding to do this, other using their own funds or recycle funding? Now, if the Minister is unable to accept my amendment, will the government ring fence some of the dedicated funding to registered providers in its Affordable Homes Programme? So they can swiftly buyback properties from those shared owners who fail to sell after pursuing a grant one notice.

This would enable housing notifications to add to the stock of affordable property rent, and below the cost of new build, and avoid leaving the property empty. If the Minister can either accept the amendment or a guarantee, I am minded to test the opinion of the House at the appropriate time. Probably next Monday. I briefly raised a subsidiary issue. Shared owners also need clarity on how the bill will affect the current licence to sublet regime. Unlike other landlords, shared owners only have a time-limited licence to sublet, and such a licence usually names their tenant.

If there is a requirement for them to get a new licence every time there is a new tenant and the shared owners network says the typical cost of a new licence to sublet is approximately £1000, a high turnover of tenants would lead to further unacceptable cost for shared owners. The Minister helpfully clarified that fixed term licences to sublet that are in place when the bill is commenced will become open-ended and all fixed term tenancies will become periodic, however, the Minister has not said that.

What type of licence will be offered to a shared owners in the future, and at what cost. Can the Minister clarify, if not now, then Minister clarify, if not now, then
22:17
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, an interesting three amendments here. The noble Lady is well aware that we share the same concerns as Lord Young of Cookham regarding shared owners. I have to do admit that it was eye-opening for me. I was obviously aware of the issues around shared ownership, but what shocked me was the actual costs incurred and the amount of money lost, which the member has amplified superbly. And so I do hope the noble Lady can give us some way forward on this and other issues that seriously affect shared owners, both accidental landlords who are trapped into situations as the noble Lord has accurately described, and they see no way out.

What I came across is the kind of "What can I do? ". It was quite revealing. So it is no surprise that people support amendment 59. We know that the not able to sell situation applies to thousands of shared owners. Far greater numbers than I suspect will apply to Lord Cromwell's amendment. Amendment 58. I think this is yet another area within the bill that we don't actually know the numbers. We don't actually know how many homes will actually be affected.

But I have to pay credit to the noble Lord because amendment 58 has been patiently worked on and lobbied for by Lord Cromwell. And I completely understand where he's coming from. But perhaps don't agree that the detriment of the relatively few landlords who find they cannot sell the property is worth the abuses that might occur if prohibition on re-letting is reduced to six months rather than 12 as in the bill. So perhaps this is an area, minister, for some compromise.

I have a simple question and I'm sure someone will tell me I'm wrong, if I wanted to sell my property, I generally wanted to sell my property and realise my capital for whatever reason, given the amount of time to evict, I would probably not serve notice to my tenant until I had sold my property. And therefore I can serve the notice, the process of selling and conveyancing and everything else carries on. The tenant leaves at the appropriate time and the buyers exchange contracts and say you can't move in until that time.

I don't see how that would be unachievable but I'm sure somebody will tell me why that would not be the case. I certainly would not evict them before I put it on the market or have some sense of the market or some sense of the idea of how things were. And I certainly feel and this is definitely from talking to estate agents, as I quoted in Committee stage, a letting agent saying to me, all houses will sell it just depends on the price.

With regards to amendment 41, it is clearly designed to act as a disincentive to landlords trying to abuse this ground. But maybe if this is genuine from the landlords, it is just a little bit too Draconian. We broadly agree that the bill has got this right as far as we can tell now. right as far as we can tell now.
22:21
22:22
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords for their amendments and for the engagement on these issues, and the noble Baroness. I will start with amendment 58. We want to strengthen tenant security and prevent abuse of ground 1A. A 12 month no relet period will be a problem. If tenants are asking for repairs the landlord does not want to do. We understand this is a strict measure and it is meant to be, it is intended to ensure that only landlords who genuinely wish to sell the property, will wish to use that ground and deters those landlords who are looking to evict a tenant in order to rent out to a higher rent or get a different tenant in.

Not only will landlords have to do not have rent for 12 months after this, but they could be fined £40,000. It is right that we have strong tenant protections in place will stop the amendment would bring significant complexity to the system and I struggle to see how it will work in practice. Would allow the courts to require evidence that the dwelling has been on the open market for six months, and no suitable offers have been received. It is unclear how the courts would become involved.

In addition it could place undue burdens on courts who may have to follow up on any ground -- 1A evictions. The court will have to determine what a suitable offer was, another undue burden. The no relet rule is a clear and simple rule that would not benefit from further complexity. I believe this amendment would open the no relet period to abuse using tenant security and contradicting the aims of this bill. As the noble Baronesses indicated, if the landlord is generally planning to sell the property, you can market it to gauge interest before upending the tenant's life by evicting them.

This would be more effective for all parties then evicting as soon as they decide to sell. And only then putting it on the market and waiting for suitable offers. And for all these reasons I would ask Lord Cromwell to withdraw this amendment. Turning now to amendment 41, I understand from a helpful discussions with my noble friends, it is to remove the period during which the landlord cannot relet the property after using ground 1 and 1A. And prevents the rents being increased in the new tenancy was the one this.

It does not address the key reason to prevent abuse. Even if an unscripted landlord could not profit from abusing the grounds, they can still use these grounds with no intention of moving or selling to pursue retaliatory eviction. This means abusing the grounds to get the tenant has done nothing wrong but for example a simple do not like who they considered raises too many issues with the property. The abuses of the system are exactly what the 12 month no relet period aims to prevent.

The current system under Section 21, we often hear of tenants afraid to ask for repairs because the landlord has made it clear that we evict them if they do. Under the proposals, this could still happen. The opening up of the grounds to abuse must be resisted. The 12 month no relet period is a strong disincentive for landlords to abuse the grounds and I believe it strikes the right balance. I would ask my noble friends not push the amendment to the division.

I turned to amendment 59. I'm grateful to the noble Lord for the engagement on this issue and for introducing me to the shared owners network. These clauses implement critical protections for tenants. The landlord is using the ground they cannot relet or market the property for 12 months. It starts from the date of possession as specified in the notice to the tenant. These sections include other important landlord behaviours. The government is very aware that some shared owners with building safety issues facing difficult circumstances through no fault of their own.

The shared owners network has provided invaluable insight into this issue. We are continuing to engage with them, to determine how best to support these shared owners. We will have a dialogue with the registered providers as well I'm grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestion in that regard. Can I also respond to him and I will clarify the licence points in writing as well. I don't agree that by helping in one area, other blameless tenants should have reduced security of tenure will be exposed to the risk of wrongful eviction just because of who the landlord is.

We have to get the balance right somehow to support those who find themselves in the awful position but not at the expense of other tenants. We will continue to work on that. Because all assured tenants must benefit from the new system. I would therefore ask Lord Young to withdraw the amendment.
22:27
22:28
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

clause 8, amendment 43. My Lords, the payment of rent in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the payment of rent in advance can provide significant benefits to tenants that go beyond simply avoiding late fees or demonstrating financial security. Many tenants choose to pay rent in advance for financial planning, to ease the stress of monthly payments, or to manage up-and-coming financial burdens. Amendment 43 in this group recognise and affirm this choice. Firmly rooted in mutual agreement between tenant and landlord. My Lords, we did consider introducing a 12 month period at Committee stage.

But in the spirit of compromise and having listened carefully to the views expressed in committee, we instead brought forward a six-month proposal. We hope the government will recognise this is a reasonable and constructive step, and we hope noble Lords can support it. If a tenant does not wish to pay rent in advance, they are under no obligation to do so. However there are particular groups who will benefit from this flexibility, including overseas students, and those with poor or limited credit histories.

Many tenants with lower credit ratings face barriers to securing housing that are often no fault of their own but by paying rent in advance, these individuals can demonstrate responsibility and financial reliability improving their chances of obtaining a tenancy. Similarly, overseas student often lack the UK credit history, and therefore require UK-based guarantors. This is something that is not always possible. For the students, paying rent upfront for a term or even an entire academic year, this is a practicality and a common solution.

I asked the minister to clarify what impact these amendment might have on the overseas students ability to secure accommodation, and whether the landlord will maintain incentives to rent to these tenant despite the limited credit history. Moving on to amendment 45 which seeks to limit the Secretary of State's powers under clause 8 to expand rather than narrow the definition of permissible rent payments. This safeguard is crucial to preventing future regulations that might unduly restrict tenants or landlords restrict tenants or landlords By restricting the Secretary of State cause manpower in this way, amendment 45 promotes security in the market, giving all parties confidence of mutually agreed rent payment agreements, such as paying rent in advance, will remain lawful and accessible.

This is a proportionate and pragmatic measure, that respects the diversity of the rental sector, where one size rarely fits all. And where flexibility is often essential to securing and maintaining tenancies. It also supports innovation in the rent payment options, which can benefit both tenants seeking to manage their finances and landlords aiming to maintain steady rental income. In closing, these amendments promote a balanced approach that recognises the diverse needs of tenants and landlords alike. Mutual agreement on rent in advance can foster stability and greater security in tenancies.

Especially, my Lords, for vulnerable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

groups. Amendment proposed, clause eight,
22:32
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, clause eight, page 12, line 23, after four, insert

**** Possible New Speaker ****

'more than six months'. I rise briefly once again and it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise briefly once again and it feels like I am going back to amendment one at the start of this debate. Back to that essential freedom to contract, between freedom to contract, between consenting parties. It's a theme that has, on both sides of the House, support of Lord Hacking and others. It is a practical solution and it provides a route, whereby an otherwise non-rentable tenant can find a path to tenancy. It provides an expression of good faith.

We have had some examples of whether freedom to offer, that is a freedom, not an obligation, up to six months rent in advance can be helpful. My noble friend from the good bench Baroness Scott, mentioned the case of students, especially foreign students. Foreign students often want secure accommodation before they get on the plane to come to this country. At that point, they may not even have a UK bank account. They certainly won't have references. And they haven't got a track record either.

The only practical way in which they can secure tenancy, with that impaired record, is to pay in advance. Earlier in this debate, earlier today, we spoke about the case of the potential abuses in any holiday hotspots in the West somebody may contract and say, I'm going to stay the whole year, then contract in June and immediately go before the August bank holiday. The noble Lord, who isn't in his place, told the House that the differential between the Airbnb rate and the year-round rate, is about 49%.

So, a way for someone who is sincere about entering into a long-term, say, six month, but wouldn't have to be exactly six-month, arrangement with a potential landlord to demonstrate they weren't just the carpetbagging holiday hotspot, trying to think of an alliteration, but can't, you know I am coming from on this one, people who can pay in advance. That would be helpful there. My noble friend has mentioned about those with an impaired record, and it would be possible to have a guarantor who could stump up for those people with a week covenant strength.

And of course, those who have cash, and I appreciate not everybody who does, but those that do, sometimes coming to an accommodation with the landlord, paying upfront results in considerably less rent, and in those cases, both landlord and tenant benefit considerably. This amendment 43 would help both the landlord and tenant. And come to an arrangement to their mutual advantage. I know it is not for everybody but without this provision, the non-rentables will remain non-rented. The bill's objective as we have heard from the noble Baroness and the Minister is to get people into safe, secure, good accommodation.

I for a small number of people, this clause provides the otherwise provided, -- Non-provided ball.
22:36
Lord Hacking Portrait Lord Hacking (Labour)
-
-
If I may support amendment 43 and amendments 45, moved by the noble Baroness Lady Scott, supported by Lord Jamieson I could give actually a practical example of this very nice couple from Chile wanted to rent one of our flats. They had no credit record at all here in England, so there was no way to check that. There was no efficient way to check the previous landlord, which was that the other step that the landlord normally takes to ascertain whether these are suitable tenants to go into the property.

And therefore, the offer and they have the money there, they were coming for academic reasons, both of them to work in London for a year for academic purposes, and therefore it was very sensible, enabling them to put some money in advance. I have forgotten whether it was six months, or further money in advance, but that was a sensible compromise. They turned out to be delightful tenants. I'm highly reliable. And we were delighted to have them as tenants in our house.

My Lords, I also want to speak to amendment 46, in this group. This is an amendment to better protect landlords when a tenant has signed up to take the property on a certain date, but has failed to pay either the first month's rent in advance or failed to pay the deposit. It would be entirely wrong, I would suggest, that the landlord was then applied, because the tenancy agreement had been signed and so forth, was obliged to take that tenant into the property.

Do remember that a landlord cannot chase unpaid rent for three months, then of course, it is getting a hearing in the County is getting a hearing in the County Court. And it is onerous for the landlord to deal with and if the tenant hasn't paid in advance either the first months rent or deposit, hasn't got the money available, and the hypermobility is the landlord will have to suffer that tenant in his property, for three or four months without any payment at all.

And therefore, I thought it would be sensible to... My amendment starts with four avoidance of doubt, to make it quite plain that the landlord does not have to give the tenant keys to the property to another tenant to get into the property when the tenant hasn't paid either the first months rent. And I also had a further bit of this amendment to enable the landlord, if the tenant for a further 28 days failed to pay for the first months rent or the deposit, then the landlord can take the next step to landlord can take the next step to have the lease an -- And old.

-- An old. To make it quite plain in this bill, what is the position of the landlord, having entered into an agreement with the tenant, a tenant then not paying either first months rent or deposit.
22:40
22:41
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
In view of the time, I am going to speak briefly to amendment 43. I could just simply say the first sentence, we are strongly opposed to rent in advance because it is discriminatory. This amendment is being framed as a cosy option where tenants and landlords can reach mutual agreement as to whether they will do this or not. No, I do not believe that. If allowed, it will actually become, as now, a requirement. In effect, it will become a bidding war by any other name.

So that landlords with their pick of tenants, and supra have just reported that there are between 20 and 25 pointers for each property, at least 20 requests and to view each property, so they can pick, it is a beauty parade. And so they can choose to tenants that have got the money to give them six months rent upfront, against those who just have not got those advantages. But those same people can still forwarding to pay the rent, would still make good tenants.

-- Can still afford to pay the rent. We are against anything that prices out poor rent is it what rental market areas. We will refute the argument being discussed by landlord groups that this is an option for nation circumstances. The -- For nation circumstances that allows people to access housing, e.g., as has been said, people might struggle with credit checks. But if you are struggling with credit checks, it is highly unlikely you will be able to pay six months rent in advance.

In a very modest property in Watford, six months in advance is between 6,000 and £8000, that's a lot of money. We know the landlords and letting agents often use it as a barrier to reject tenants, relying on Universal Credit or Housing Benefit, rejecting them from accepting the tenancy, which means that only those with savings of family support will comply. Which those on lower incomes are less likely to have. Shelter tell us that six in 10 renters have been asked for it, and over 800,000 is in one of their surveys said they were not able to secure a property because of the demand for rent in advance.

The bill aims to prevent discrimination against renters on benefits. This amendment would allow it by the back door.
22:44
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for their amendments on rent in advance as a noble Lord Carrington and Baroness Thornhill for speaking. My Lords, the government has been very clear in its view that the charging of rent in advance is unfair, I haven't heard anything this evening that has changed my mind on that. Therefore, we cannot accept amendment 43, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, six months rent is a significant amount of money.

For some renters, this would be their entire savings, perhaps carefully built up with the ambition of being put towards a deposit on a first home. For many others, it would be an amount of savings which is simply unreachable. My Lords, I recognise it is the noble Baroness's intention for it only to be possible to request large amount of rent in advance when it has been previously agreed by the tenant and landlord, however we must consider what this means in practice. This would allow a landlord at a pre-letting stage to insist upon a tenancy agreement that would permit them to require up to six months rent in advance.

In hot rental markets, we could expect such clauses to simply become an effect of renting. This could leave tenants with a choice. Stretching their finances to the limit or facing homelessness. It would not be right to create a scenario, however inadvertently, whereby tenants have no option but to push their finances to breaking point in order to secure tenancy. Instead, the measures currently in the bill, tenants would be free to pay their rent prior to the agreed due date, once a tenancy has begun, should they wish to do so.

Although, landlords will be unable to require this. My Lords, the strike the optimal balance of protecting tenants, while maintaining their fix ability, to -- Flexibility to pay in advance, should it suit their personal circumstances. For this reason, I would ask the noble Lady to withdraw her amendment. Turning to amendment 45, I would like to reassure the House the government has no plans to alter the rent in advance measures, contained within this bill. This power, however, allows the government to respond to any future changes within the private rented sector.

That may make it necessary to do so. Such changes may include changes in future certain types of tenure, possible anticipated introduction of new types of tenancy. Similarly, changes to supply and demand balance may impact the extent to which affordability is a barrier to entering the private rented sector. In these and any other unanticipated changes to the sector, the full use of this power would enable the Secretary of State to mature the general probation of rent in advance would continue to apply is intended for the bike and reassure the House that regulations made under this power will be subject to the affirmative procedure, this will make sure there is appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of any changes.

However, restricting the use of this power, allowing it only to expand rather than tighten descriptions of rent in advance, to which the general prohibition does not apply, risks limiting the government ability to protect tenants from unfair rent in advance requirements. And I would therefore ask the noble Baroness to therefore ask the noble Baroness to Lord Hacking has spoken to his amendment gives raises concerns that tenants that failed to publish and pay the initial rent or tenancy deposit is agreed.

In relation to the deposit landlords and letting agents will continue to be able to require payment before the signing of the tenancy agreement. It is therefore necessary to place in law the ability of the landlord not to grant a tenancy occupation before the tenancy deposit is received. Landlords will remain free to delay the signing of the tenancy until such time as the tenancy deposit has been paid. The amendment also raises an issue in relation to the risk of tenant entering into a tenancy subsequently failing to pay their first month of rent is agreed.

Were a tenant not to pay the initial rent and continue to accrue arrears once occupying the property, they risk potential eviction. This could have an impact on their future ability to provide references needed to obtain future housing. In addition, for a tenant to have reached the stage of entering the tenancy agreement, they will likely have already paid a holding deposit of up to one week of rent. Tenancy deposit of five or six weeks rent, and if the initial rent were not to be paid, landlord would retain the deposit.

They provide both the risk mitigation for the landlord facing unpaid rent and are a strong indicator that the tenant, having already made these payments, is willing and able to pay the monthly rent. The government is of the view that the reforms of rent in advance strike the right balance. Give the landlord confidence necessary while protecting tenants for requests from large amounts of rent in advance was not once a tenancy has been entered into, the landlord is free to request up to the first month of rent before the tenancy start date.

The tenant will also be free to pay any amount of rent from this point should it suit the circumstances. And for those reasons we feel the amendment is unnecessary and I would urge my honourable friend to withdraw his amendment. I will turn to government amendment 44. This amendment introduces a small technical clarification to the drafting of clause 8 and as such I don't need to take up much of the time of that House. It provide any terms in a tenancy agreement that require repayment of rent before it is you are of no effect.

This amendment clarifies that this provision only
22:51
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
to six months is an important option for many particularly those who may face barriers such as poor credit histories, overseas students that UK histories, overseas students that UK credit records or those who simply wish to manage their finances proactively. This choice should be respected and preserved, not respected and preserved, not restricted by over prescriptive restricted by over prescriptive regulations. Housing is a personal and often complex matter and we acknowledge the complexity of acknowledge the complexity of balancing landlord protections with tenants rights, particularly regarding initial payments like regarding initial payments like deposits and the first month of rent.

But it demands legislation that is flexible enough to that is flexible enough to accommodate different circumstances without sacrificing fairness or without sacrificing fairness or stability. I know the lateness of stability. I know the lateness of the hour. But we believe this is an important amendment for the freedom and flexibility is that tenants require in this sector. And require in this sector. And therefore, I would like to test the therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House on my amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

43. The question is that amendment 43 be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content". Of the opinion say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The not content have it. The question will
22:51
None Portrait Division: Renter's Rights Bills, Amdt 43
-

content have it. The question will be decided by division. I will notify the House when voting is open. Voting is now open. Clear the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that The question is that amendment The question is that amendment 43 be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content". Of the opinion say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents will go to the right by the throne. The not contents to the left

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that amendment The question is that amendment 43

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment 43

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They They have They have voted. They have voted. Contents They have voted. Contents 23, They have voted. Contents 23, not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They have voted. Contents 23, not contents 103, the not contents have contents 103, the not contents have Move formally? The question Move formally? The question is Move formally? The question is that amendment 44 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". An intense habit. Amendment 45, Baroness Scott, not move, and 46, Lord Hacking, not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moved. My Lords, I beg to move that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on report be adjourned. The question is that further

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that further consideration on report now be adjourned. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it.
23:02
None Portrait Orders and regulations: Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025 - motion to approve Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it. Adjournment debate on the marking of retail goods regulations 2025.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Hayman of Ullock. My Lords, I have already spoken to this motion and therefore I beg to move formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is this motion be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to. I hope I didn't provoke mass might, I was reminiscing about Northern Ireland members about those
23:02
00:01
None Portrait Oral questions: Standard of hotel accommodation provided to migrants who have entered the UK in small boats from France
-

This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page