Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Grender]

294: Clause 62, page 96, line 37, at end insert—
“(2A) An EDP may not be amended if the amendment would reduce the amount, extent or impact of conservation measures that are to be taken to protect the identified environmental features.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that the Secretary of State could not amend an environmental delivery plan so as to reduce the measures to be taken to mitigate the negative environmental impact of a development.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 294 would prohibit any changes to an environmental delivery plan that would reduce the amount, extent or impact of conservation measures designed to protect identified environmental features. In effect, the Secretary of State would be unable to alter an EDP if such an amendment would weaken established environmental protections.

The aim here is to safeguard against the watering down of environmental commitments once they have been set out in an EDP. Years and years of planning history have too often shown that protections established at the outset erode over time, whether under pressure in the name of economic growth, or because of shifts in ministerial priorities or as new developments are proposed nearby. For example, more than a third of England’s rivers remain classified as in poor ecological health, frequently because enforcement and standards around protections weaken as circumstances change. It is therefore vital that commitments to mitigate the negative impacts of development are not easily reversed or diminished.

This amendment is rooted in the environmental non-regression principle. This asserts that environmental law and standards should not go backwards but instead serve as a stable and reliable foundation for ongoing improvement. Once conservation measures are agreed and an EDP is made, the protections and enhancements should be seen as a baseline from which further progress can be made, not as a temporary line which can be negotiated away. Local communities, environment groups and stakeholders need assurance that commitments to, for instance, river restoration or species recovery will not be diluted at a later date. The amendment aligns with the Government’s own Environmental Principles Policy Statement, under which all departments are obliged to prevent, reduce and rectify environmental harm, not simply react to it after the fact.

This amendment enhances long-term investment in environmental improvement. Developers and landowners will know that measures agreed at the outset must be maintained, promoting higher standards of stewardship and accountability. Policymakers will be able to set conservation targets with assurance that they are durable, not fleeting or subject to administrative whim.

This amendment is the chance to break the never-ending cycle of much-promised and not delivered. I note that it is in the same group as several other amendments, which I suspect will have a very fair wind behind them, and I just hope it slips in along with them. It would be excellent if this joined them or if there was any possibility of that. I hope the Minister will consider the merits of this amendment, I look forward to hearing her response and I beg to move.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 294, submitted by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. I apologise that I was not in the Chamber this morning to participate: I had to attend my Select Committee, especially as it was on a subject that I demanded that we investigate. Way back last June, we fixed the meeting for this morning at my convenience, so I had to be there.

The amendment from the noble Baroness would prohibit the Secretary of State from having the power to amend an EDP in a way that would reduce the measures taken to mitigate the negative environmental impact of development. This amendment touches on important points of principle, including environmental conservation and the remit of the Minister’s power. I would be interested in hearing the Government’s response.

I will also address the government amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, which would require Natural England to consult on the EDP when certain amendments to it are proposed. The circumstances in which the consultation will be necessary are when the proposed amendment would increase the maximum amount of development covered by the EDP, include new places in the development area or add new types of conservation measures not currently included in the EDP. It seems an important principle that amendments which would change an EDP in this way are subject to consultation. I agree entirely. Such consultations should aim to allow for relevant expertise and the voices of a variety of stake- holders to be heard. I look forward to hearing the noble Minister’s response to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, this grouping includes further amendments that the Government have tabled to address matters raised in advance of Committee. As part of this package, the Government’s Amendment 295B clarifies the consultation requirements when amending an EDP, where the intent had always been to ensure that consultation was taken forward where it was proportionate to do so. This will ensure that, where an EDP makes a significant amendment, measured by its meeting certain criteria, there will now always be a requirement to consult on that amendment, so that the public and expert stakeholders are able to contribute to and comment on the proposals.

Government Amendments 295C, 295D and 295E contain minor legislative fixes and a consequential amendment necessary for the correct operation of the legislation following the substantive government amendments. I hope that the Committee agrees to accept these amendments, and I commend them.

I turn briefly to the non-government amendment, Amendment 294, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, which would make it impossible to amend an EDP when that amendment would in any way reduce or weaken the conservation measures it contains. While I absolutely appreciate the concerns that she has rightly raised, the amendment would substantially restrict Natural England’s flexibility to make crucial amendments to EDPs, which may include reducing both the amount of development and the conservation measures contained in an EDP. For example, we would want to ensure that, if an expected development was not actually going to come forward, an EDP could be amended to reflect this and reduce the scale of conservation measures, in line with the reduction of impact from the development.

I also note that all significant amendments will now need to be consulted on. All EDPs will continue to need to pass the overall improvement test following any amendment. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness agrees to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her response. She will understand that we are attempting to prevent what happens over custom and time, which is always the weakening of something such as an EDP. We will examine her words carefully and meet with her between now and Report to make a bit of progress on this. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 294 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

In terms of removing unnecessary red tape, that would fit the Bill. In terms of thinking through some of the other concerns, apart from the one raised by the Freshwater Habitats Trust about commercial fishing lakes or fish farms, I am sure we could consider how they could be dealt with. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government will look at this carefully, because we need to try to make it as straightforward as possible for nature-friendly farming and for nature to thrive and survive in the future. I beg to move.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, Amendments 339 and 345 are in my name; each provides critical innovations for the protection of nature and heritage trees in England.

The new clause proposed by Amendment 339 would introduce wild belt as a legal category in planning considerations and require the Secretary of State to establish protections within six months of the Bill’s passage. The purpose is clear: wild-belt designation would permanently safeguard nature-rich areas and their associated ecosystems, extending well beyond the traditional boundaries of green belts or isolated wildlife reserves.

The UK faces a biodiversity crisis, with only around 3% of England’s land effectively managed for nature, an insufficient figure compared with the country’s 30% by 2030 target for habitat restoration. Current planning policy has lacked a tool for protecting sites in recovery, or those being actively restored to higher ecological value. Amendment 339 would fill this legislative gap, empowering local planning authorities and strategic bodies with guidance for identifying, protecting and reporting on wild-belt sites, and promoting public access to nature-rich spaces.

Wild belt would operate alongside existing designations, such as green belt and sites of special scientific interest, creating new, joined-up areas that enhance ecosystem connectivity. Crucially, wild-belt designation encourages the restoration and protection of not only land but water bodies and wetlands, and I am delighted to be in the same group as the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Bennett, standing up for both ponds and trees. In the long term, it will help address habitat fragmentation, support climate resilience and benefit public health. Natural England estimates that green spaces such as wild belt can save the NHS approximately £2.1 billion annually, through improvements to mental and physical health—a testament to their broad social, as well as ecological, value.

The new clause proposed by Amendment 345 would establish heritage tree preservation orders, responding to a major gap in current tree preservation order law. Existing TPOs focus on amenity, but heritage trees—those of significant historic, ecological or cultural importance—require elevated protection and clear statutory recognition. I thank my noble friend Lady Tyler, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for supporting this amendment.

The scale and significance of England’s heritage tree resource are striking. The Ancient Tree Inventory records over 233,000 ancient or veteran trees. Academic modelling suggests that there may be 1.7 million to 2.1 million across the country, indicating underreporting, and therefore associated risks. A single heritage oak tree can support roughly 2,300 species, so the harm or loss of such trees has outsized impacts on biodiversity. Amendment 345 gives planning authorities new powers to issue dedicated preservation orders and sets higher penalties for any damage. The shocking loss of the Sycamore Gap tree underlines the need for this—along with the Whitewebbs oak in Enfield, which has been mentioned by my noble friend Lady Tyler. It would also require advertising of heritage status and associated legal obligations, and develop partnership agreements for long-term management.

Crucially, Amendment 345 would create a statutory register for heritage trees, giving Natural England responsibility for identifying, publishing and maintaining the list. This would promote transparency, consistent protection nationwide and proactive stewardship, not reactive enforcement after harm has occurred. Owners and occupiers would be compelled to take reasonable care of heritage trees and would be liable for costs if the state must intervene, setting a clear expectation for shared custodianship.

This tiny amendment is like an acorn. If it could be planted in this Bill, it might grow into a mighty oak, spreading its branches throughout the nation, and protecting our heritage trees. I hope that the Minister agrees.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, on Amendment 345 on heritage trees, to which I put my name. This amendment echoes the key provisions of my heritage tree Private Member’s Bill, which, alas, ran out of road at the last ballot. It remains in my heart, and I shall continue to re-ballot it on every possible occasion.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, has ably made the case that heritage trees are really important for history, culture and biodiversity, but they have remarkably little protection and are threatened by development, by deliberate damage—as with the Sycamore Gap tree—by inappropriate management or by sheer neglect and lack of management. The provisions of this amendment would bring protection to these important trees, and there is already the beginnings of a register, as proposed by the amendment, in the Ancient Tree Inventory. The Government have shown signs of interest in this in the past and asked the Tree Council to investigate and report on the issue. The Tree Council submitted its report in spring 2025, and concluded that trees of high social, cultural and environmental value are only indirectly protected, with significant legal gaps, and recommended the development of a “robust and effective system” to ensure that they are safeguarded. Other countries, such as Poland and Italy, have very effective protections.

Examples of socially, culturally and environmentally important trees lost in the last few years include the 300 year-old Hunningham oak near Leamington, which was felled to make way for infrastructure projects in 2020. There was a tree in Hackney called the Happy Man tree, which was the named tree of the year in 2020, but was felled in 2021 to make way for a housing development. There were 60 wonderful ancient lime trees in Wellingborough which were felled in favour of a dual carriageway in 2023. There are lots of examples of historic and culturally important trees, as well as their biodiversity significance, simply failing to be protected. I think that the outpouring of grief and rage that arose from the felling of the Sycamore Gap tree shows just how much the public value these trees, and, indeed, that was reflected in the sentencing.

I asked the Government in a Written Question on 17 July what progress they had made in implementing the recommendations of the Tree Council. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, replied:

“We are carefully considering expert recommendations laid out in the Tree Council and Forest Research report. It will be important”—


note the weasel words here—

“to balance our approach with existing priorities and our statutory obligations. We recognise the value of our most important trees and consider all ancient and veteran trees to be irreplaceable habitats”.

I ask just three questions of the Minister. First, am I right in summarising her response to my Written Question as, “Push off: they are irreplaceable habitats already. We aren’t going to do anything more to proceed with this report and protect them”? Secondly, if that is not the case, when and if will the Government come forward with an action plan following the Tree Council and Forest Research report? Thirdly, if they are not going to respond to the Tree Council report with an action plan, will she accept this amendment? I look forward to her response.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Grender]

157: After Clause 52, insert the following new Clause—
“Identification and protection of green belt(1) Within two years of the passing of this Act, a local planning authority must identify land within its area which it is necessary to protect from development.(2) It is necessary to protect land from development under subsection (1) if such protection would—(a) limit the expansion of large built-up areas;(b) prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;(c) preserve the setting and special character of historic towns;(d) encourage the development of previously-developed land in urban areas. (3) A local planning authority may designate as green belt any land identified under subsection (1) as necessary to protect, including undeveloped land within, and green wedges of land that extend into, built up areas.(4) A local planning authority must prevent any development of land designated as green belt under this section for a minimum period of 20 years starting on the day on which it is so designated.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would ensure that a local planning authority can identify land which it deems necessary to protect from development.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for putting her name to my Amendment 157. This amendment seeks to provide local planning authorities with a clear duty and power to protect land that plays a vital role in both shaping our environment and defining our communities. It would require councils to identify within two years the land most in need of protection and, crucially, would offer long-term certainty through its designation as green belt for the next 20 years. We on these Benches recognise that the Government have set out their plans for the green belt in the NPPF, but where we differ is on the freedom of local authorities to release green-belt land.

The character of our towns, villages and countryside is at stake. The green belt has long served as a safeguard against the unrestrained spread of our cities. Without it, the pressure for housing demand and speculative development risks turning neighbouring towns into single sprawling conurbations. Local distinctiveness would be lost, with cherished historic towns increasingly subsumed by continuous development. I welcome Amendment 215 in this group, from the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, which sets out a similar objective. Preserving the gaps between towns helps maintain not only their character but their identity and community. The Minister—who is not in her place—fully understands this, given the protections around her own new town of Stevenage.

This amendment tries to set out a quid pro quo, in effect, for green-belt release, identifying new areas and protecting them over a long period. The amendment is pragmatic rather than dogmatic; it does not seek to prevent all new housing development—far from it—but would firmly direct growth to the right places by requiring authorities to prioritise the redevelopment of previously used urban land, as set out in proposed new subsection 2(d). It would strengthen the case for making full use of the extensive brownfield sites that lie dormant, particularly across our cities. Research from planning bodies such as the CPRE already shows that enough brownfield land exists right now for 1.2 million homes to be built. These sites are often in locations with existing infrastructure and transport. This promotes a principle of “brownfield first”, which we will continue to pursue throughout the progress of the Bill.

Moreover, the new clause proposed in this amendment would provide local communities with a degree of confidence and stability. One of the greatest frustrations, which we all experience when we knock on doors in communities, is the total uncertainty over whether some new development will take up valued local green spaces that will suddenly be lost to it, and that the infrastructure will be stretched beyond its means. By guaranteeing that the newly designated green belt is protected for at least two decades, people will know that, when their council takes action to protect land, the decision is secure over the long term and not subject to immediate challenge or reversal.

Finally, we must recognise that the objectives of housing delivery and environmental stewardship are not in conflict but entirely complementary. Directing resources towards brownfield regeneration helps us in that all-important effort to revitalise high streets, make better use of existing public transport and breathe new life into underused urban spaces, all while protecting the green lungs of our towns and cities. For all these reasons, this is a balanced and necessary amendment that would strengthen local control, ensure sustainable development and safeguard the green belt for today and tomorrow. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 215 is in my name, but I also support Amendment 157 and echo many of the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. Amendment 215 would insert a new clause after Clause 106 that would provide existing villages with protection equivalent to that currently provided to towns under the National Planning Policy Framework. We have already discussed the importance of design and the impact that the built environment can have on health, productivity and sense of community cohesion, and that we need to put the right house in the right place. This clause is, in part, an extension of these arguments, in that it also looks to preserve the special character of individual villages, and of historic villages in particular. Be it medieval cottages or Victorian buildings, historic architecture reflects an era and the influences that shaped a village.

The UK is known for being a green and pleasant land, with villages and communities that are embedded in the landscape, hewn over centuries of rural life and livelihoods. Many people prefer to live and work in smaller communities closer to nature, often with a strong sense of being rooted in a community. Yet you need only read the debate in the other place to see many Members sharing examples of where some of their villages are no longer recognisable, having grown exponentially, often with housing insensitively tacked on. Members spoke of fields with as many houses as a developer can cram in, with no reference to local styles or consideration of infrastructure, rather than villages being developed organically in a way that existing residents feel comfortable with. Too often, this challenges the rural identity of an area and sounds a death knell for the green belt.

There are key elements that contribute to a village’s identity: architecture; cultural traditions and community narratives; and local pride, with traditions and festivals often reinforcing historical awareness as well as supporting heritage tourism. According to a report by the National Lottery Heritage Fund, heritage-led regeneration projects in UK villages have led to a 20% increase in local business activity, demonstrating the economic benefits of maintaining historical identity. Meanwhile, Historic England argues:

“Understanding the significance of places is vital”.


The risk that the Bill poses is of opening up development so much that we lose these gems or, in the worst-case scenario, that they become swallowed up in a styleless, depressing urban sprawl.

There is a significant threat to the authenticity and continuity of historical narratives that define UK villages and their identity. The Government have reported that between 2000 and 2017, more than 1,000 listed buildings were lost due to redevelopment. How could that have happened? It seems to happen all too easily. I argue that we should afford villages the same protection as towns under the NPPF, to ensure that they can retain their character and charm. This amendment would enable that and I hope it will gain the support of the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

From what I understand, the new regulations were to provide clarity on the green belt. As we have said, they are concerned with preventing urban sprawl, but they do not remove villages from the green belt or prevent land near villages being protected from development through green belt designation. Land around villages that makes a strong contribution to these purposes should not be identified as grey belt, for example. We think that we now have consistency with these regulations and that villages and their historic value and character are already protected in the planning process.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I thank Ministers for spending a great deal of time with us, especially the lengthy meeting this morning after the week we have all had. It is very much appreciated. The characterisation of this as a straitjacket on local authorities is a misreading of the wording of the amendment. It is entirely up to local authorities to identify these areas, and it would provide a level of certainty and trust for local people that they currently do not have, as they believe that future developments will lead to them losing beautiful areas of green belt.

We will want to revisit this issue when we come to Report and work behind the scenes with Ministers and civil servants to see whether we can find a better way make progress. We think it is incredibly important, and we have strong concerns about forcing local authorities to release green-belt land. That, in a way, is the critical issue here. That said, I thank all noble Peers for participating in this group, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 157 withdrawn.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I am gravely concerned. Normally, of course, I agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend Lady Coffey, and perhaps I have misread her amendment, in which case I apologise, and she will correct me in the winding. In the evidence that the chief executive of Natural England gave to your Lordships’ Built Environment Committee 18 months ago, she said that it had no regard whatever for economic growth in determining its position on development proposals; it was purely, solely and entirely for environmental purposes. Of course, if growth is the principal and number one objective of this Government, these things need to be balanced. So the amendment puts a touching faith in the professionalism of Natural England, which, as I think we will discover next week, may be misplaced.

Natural England, in its provision of EDPs, as I read in the Bill, will be given monopoly powers to be a monopoly regulator, a monopoly provider and a monopoly price-maker of environmental schemes in this country. These EDPs, as I see it, could conceptually be 100 different EDPs on a national basis for 100 different species, each of which may be in a less favourable condition, or so forth.

If the experience of nutrient neutrality is anything to go by, it will take Natural England years to come up with mitigating programmes. That is what it has done, and in some parts of the country we are still waiting. So I have no faith that Natural England, vested as it will be in Part 3 of the Bill, will be prompt and complete in its provision of EDPs.

As I read this amendment, I see that it will be an excuse for local authorities not to grant an otherwise appropriate permission, which would in normal cases sail through because every other obligation and stipulation has been met. So I think we can contemplate that this could not only gum up and slow down the development, but there is a second problem. The risk is that the developer may have made his own inquiries and found his own local solution to a particular local requirement for an especially local problem, whether for species, environmental ecology, or whatever. I can see that the consequence of this amendment would be that he might have to pay three times: once for the delay, once for his own mitigation, which in so far as he or any reasonable person is concerned meets all the regulations, and another time to wait for the EDP, which may or may not be coming from Natural England in a prompt situation.

I am really concerned about this amendment. I do not believe that Natural England is the appropriate body to do this. If the Government take a different view, that is their prerogative. But we should not vest in Natural England monopoly powers that cut out private provision, private delivery, and especially local delivery, and sacrifice them on the altar of some national scheme at hugely inflated values.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for ensuring that one person is watching tonight—it is much appreciated—and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for raising interesting debates regarding Amendments 135A, 135F and 253A in the context of biodiversity protections through environmental delivery plans, or EDPs, and the capture and use of that data.

EDPs must do more than simply mitigate harm. They must require the active protection and enhancement of biodiversity, with clear enforceable timetables and measurable outcomes. Our concern is that EDPs risk becoming instruments of offsetting impact rather than delivering real local environmental recovery. We need a strong legal framework that prevents development-related damage to irreplaceable habitats, such as ancient woodlands and chalk streams, and makes sure these habitats receive the highest protection in planning decisions.

We welcome these amendments and look forward to some level of timetabling and monitoring in EDPs and the introduction of an overall improvement test seeking to ensure that conservation gains significantly outweigh harm. However, for us, questions remain about whether the provisions are sufficient in practice to guarantee meaningful biodiversity outcomes. The reliance on compensation rather than upfront prevention remains a concern, as does the limited timeframe for public scrutiny of EDPs. We all in this Committee note that Part 3 includes new measures on EDPs, including, as discussed, powers for Natural England to oversee and design conservation strategies, but it is still unclear how these changes will translate into on the ground improvements or prevent the loss of vulnerable habitats.

The hour is late, but it would be useful if the Minister could tell us to what extent these recent changes to Part 3 address the deep concerns about EDPs being used as a compromise rather than a solution. Will we see stronger enforcement, longer public consultations and better integration of biodiversity data into our planning decisions?

EDPs that guarantee biodiversity need to ensure that our natural heritage is a foundation, not a casualty, of sustainable development. I welcome this debate, therefore, and look forward to clarification—if not tonight then certainly when we debate Part 3 next week—to ensure that the Bill delivers the nature protections that we all believe this country urgently needs.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, it seems to me that we are getting ahead of ourselves. We are yet to reach Part 3, but these seem to be mostly considerations relating to the content of Part 3 and how the environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration levy are intended to work.

I understood my noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendment to be grouped where it is and say what it does because nowhere in Part 3 is there something that otherwise tells us how the making of an environmental delivery plan affects a local planning authority in making its decisions. It seemed to me that she had tabled a rather useful amendment that did precisely that.

I do not think it is relevant whether a developer has to pay the levy or not. It can request to pay the levy, or, as we can see in Clause 66 and Schedule 4, Natural England can make it mandatory that it pays the levy. Either way, it does not really matter. The point is that, if the environmental delivery plan is made, a local authority should clearly take it into account in determining any planning permission, in the same way as it would be required to have regard to all the legislation relating to protected sites and protected species. Schedule 4 simply tells us that when the local authority makes planning decisions it may disregard them because there is an environmental delivery plan in place. What my noble friend Lady Coffey is saying would be at least a useful addition, in a technical sense, to the Bill.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lucas, who has just spoken, is absolutely right that starting with perhaps good intentions but firm foundations is absolutely critical to make sure that we have nature at the heart of every community as we develop the 1.5 million new homes that the Government intend to deliver before the end of this Parliament.

I particularly commend the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown. There has rightly been a reference to blue space. I actually came up with the concept in the Environmental Improvement Plan 2023. There are a few factors behind that, relevant to what other noble Lords have mentioned today. Perhaps it is about rivers; it is certainly about sustainable drainage and thinking about how the ponds in new estates can be truly made into environmental oases.

One of the big inspirations was when I visited the Canal & River Trust, where we discussed its activities in Birmingham. As we know, there are more canals in Birmingham than there are in the entirety of Venice, yet the interaction between residents there and their canals was minimal. People would often be living in pretty high blocks, without any exposure to nature. There was an opportunity to think about how we develop what you have, and about the fact that, in certain cities—Birmingham not being the best example—there is a complete desert of parks, while there are plenty of other cities that have designed parks in over the years. Instead of relying on an NPPF that can literally be changed at the stroke of a pen by a Minister from one reshuffle to the next, it is vital to make sure this is set firmly in legislative considerations.

Proposed new subsection (b) in Amendment 121, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, would make sure that green spaces are maintained. There is nothing worse than such places not being properly looked after. We see it already with areas not being watered, and so things end up dying, which is not inspiring for anybody.

The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, referred to social prescribing. I intended to speak to that in later groups, but what he said was right. As has already been pointed out eloquently, the science is there. The noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, has set this out comprehensively. I first met the noble Baroness when she was director of science at Kew gardens, and we had some wonderful back and forth exchanges.

There are a couple of things worth considering. My noble friend Lady Fookes is right to talk about regulation, but I am worried we end up overregulating and almost missing the point—literally not seeing the wood for the trees. I intend to speak more on that in group 6.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, branched out into considering trees. It would be very helpful to have that paper from the Woodland Trust shared. Communities are about setting roots, but we do not want tree roots literally uprooting homes. That is an important factor for councils to consider. I commend the long-standing policy of Liverpool City Council, which plants lots of trees in planters underground. Then, when the trees mature, the council lifts them out of the ground, takes them off to a park and replants them there, so they are not damaging the infrastructure that has been designed to facilitate the rest of the neighbourhood. It is also vital that trees do not block light or interfere with telecommunications and the like.

Having heard this in both Houses, it is really important that the Government proactively consider how this matter comes back on Report. I know that if it does not go through this time, we will come back again when we get to the next local government Bill about community empowerment. We know from all the protests, rightly, that communities value this sort of infrastructure and want it to be developed. It is about the one thing that most communities agree on around development, which is why it is important that we get amendments appropriately tabled by the Government at the next stage.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I speak to my own Amendment 194 in this group, at the end—or heading towards the end—of what has been an incredibly impassioned debate with very little disagreement about the broad principles in every one of these amendments. It is an extremely good group of amendments. I thank particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, for their support for my Amendment 194.

This new clause would ensure that development corporations include provision for green spaces in all new developments. As we have heard so much in this discussion, green spaces are not just an optional extra, they are an essential part of infrastructure. They are an essential part of delivering healthy, sustainable, happy, fulfilled communities. This amendment was originally tabled by my colleague in the House of Commons, Gideon Amos, the MP for Taunton and Wellington. It requires that green infrastructure is planned alongside traditional facilities that we think about, such as GPs, transport, and water connections. Development corporations must ensure that green spaces are included and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has just referenced, properly maintained. From private gardens and balconies to community gardens, this is not just about planting trees. This is about creating lasting accessible space for everyone and making sure that our communities do not have to fight for every single square inch of that greenery.

We have already heard much about the findings from Natural England, that we can reduce the need for GP appointments by 28%. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, gave an impassioned and convincing speech, and I can confirm to her that it was the National Institutes of Health which identified that acute hospital patients feel better and leave sooner if they have greenery just outside their window, let alone a hospital garden. So there is direct evidence and we heard much of it from the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and I thank her for that.

Given how much we have heard, I will cut out quite a lot of the speech I prepared on this amendment. I strongly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, suggested. There is a huge amount of consensus in this group of amendments. It seems that there is potential for us to work together and possibly—and I am looking at whichever Minister is summating for us—getting together with the relevant Ministers and seeing whether we can find some way of ensuring that this is not merely a nice to have but an essential, integral part of infrastructure.

Finally, I refer back to the lovely ducks that were so supportive outside the window of the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, when she was very ill. Let us get our ducks in a row. Let us get together and see whether we can drive this forward as a united Chamber.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments, in different ways, all concern the provision of green and blue spaces. Amendment 121, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, raises the vital issue of whether minimum requirements for green space should be set in new housing developments. I ask the Minister whether the Government are considering such a standard and, if so, whether it would vary between urban and rural contexts.

Amendment 138 in the name of my noble friend Lord Gascoigne invites us to consider whether the current breadth of strategic provision under the spatial development strategies is sufficient in respect of green spaces and allotments. Do the Government accept that the definition may be too narrow, and if so, are they minded to expand it to give strategic planning authorities more flexibility to deliver for their residents?

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 4th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as noted in the register, as chair for Peers for the Planet. I am delighted to add my name in support of Amendments 108 and 109, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I also support the other amendments in this group, all of which come together on a core purpose to strengthen our resilience to flooding through the planning system. I particularly support Amendment 135B, which seems really sensible.

It is hard to believe we are having this discussion as we have just come through a summer of heatwaves. However, as we all know, and as we have already heard from the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Bennett, flooding is becoming increasingly common and all the predictions on it are very scary when you look at them. We see this year in and year out, and it is increasingly costly to the UK. We have heard about the cost involved, but it is not only housing that is impacted. The increased flood risk has an impact on all aspects of urban infrastructure. Some 38% of all roads in England are currently at risk of flooding, as are 37% of all railways, 34% of all water pumping stations and sewage treatment plants, and 59% of grade 1 agricultural land. This is not just a housebuilding issue; it is an issue for the whole urban infrastructure.

To flag up another issue that has not been mentioned, it has not only economic risks and risks to lives and livelihoods, but risks to health. There is now a lot of research that shows that flooding can cause long-lasting mental health conditions such as anxiety, depression and PTSD, and all these add a burden to the health budget, as well as everything else.

We have heard from many—and we have even heard from the Climate Change Committee—that it is critical that we build mitigation strategies into our land management policies. This is where the issue comes in. We have natural capital assets in this country that are perfectly adapted for fulfilling this role, and it is in the name: flood plains—they have been here for hundreds, if not thousands, of years to do this role. It was highlighted in the Government’s own 2024 State Of Natural Capital Report, in which they made the point that they recognize them as crucial natural capital assets for flood management by storing and slowing water flows. The Office for National Statistics natural capital accounts in 2024 also recognised their value. For example, the total asset value of natural capital in England was estimated at £1.4 trillion. It did not disaggregate the flood plains, but it explicitly noted that wetlands and flood plains are a significant part of these natural capital assets, contributing to this cost through regulating services and risk reduction. Not only does housebuilding impact hugely on the people whose houses are flooded, but by building on the flood plains we are taking away our one natural way of maintaining and enhancing our resilience to flooding.

What is wrong with the planning system? I keep hearing about the National Planning Policy Framework, and I keep being told, “It’s all right, it’s covered in the NPPF”. This time, I went back through it in detail to see what it is in the NPPF that is going to allow us to stop building on flood plains. Of course, the problem is that it is guidance; it is not mandatory. It does not stop people from going ahead and building. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the report by Localis showed in 2024 that over 7,000 dwellings are currently in the planning pipeline for areas with an existing very high risk of flooding—that is over 7,000 houses. When they flood, should we be surprised? Over 1,600 dwellings have already been given planning permission in the first half of 2024.

Despite the precautions and people saying, “It’s fine, they’re covered in the NPPF”, there is no existing law against granting planning permission for and the construction of homes on the flood plain. Even the Environment Agency advice has been ignored in the building of these houses.

There is a big problem here. I do not think the legislation or guidance we currently have is being adhered to, and the problem is going to get only worse. If we are going to build on the flood plain, we absolutely have to put in some of these mitigation measures so eloquently described in this amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I support these amendments wholeheartedly.

As one last point, I welcome—as I am sure we all do—the increased government investment of £2.65 billion to protect communities from flooding, which was announced earlier this year. That is fantastic, but it does not make sense to have that being pulled in the opposite direction of the legislation we have for housebuilding on flood plains.

To conclude, we need much firmer legislation to prevent the building of houses on flood plains. If there really are no alternatives, we also must have legislation which means that the houses built are able to withstand the flooding that will happen. Let us be honest about it—it is not if, it is when.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, the three amendments in my name in this group are particularly focused on the pressing issue of flood risk. I thank other noble Lords who have tabled amendments in this group raising this all-important issue. This is not an abstract problem but one that devastates families, undermines communities and is set to worsen dramatically as our climate continues to change.

These amendments were originally raised in the House of Commons by Helen Morgan MP, Member for North Shropshire, one of England’s most rural and flood-hit constituencies. She has taken the initiative, along with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, of setting up a new All-Party Group on Flooding and Flooded Communities. She has rightly recognised that flood risk demands urgent solutions. Her determination to give voice to people living in constant fear of floods and repeat flooding is bringing national attention to a critical issue affecting homes and livelihoods and blighting communities.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for her support on Amendment 135B. It seeks to solve a problem raised by the noble Baroness by bringing paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework, advice that currently stands only as guidance, on to the statute book. Under this amendment, when considering an application for development consent, a local planning authority would be obliged to assess whether that development might increase flood risk or reduce flood mitigation for neighbouring properties or land.

This amendment would help prevent the frankly indefensible practices we have already heard about of building on flood plains, and it would ensure that drainage systems be properly accounted for in new developments. Too often, these systems—whether attenuation ponds or so-called sustainable drainage systems, or SUDS—are left unadopted and therefore unmaintained, or are simply inadequate to begin with. Of course, we all understand and recognise that local authorities, under extraordinary financial pressure, are rarely in a position to enforce standards strongly, especially when the NPPF is merely guidance, as we have already heard, rather than enforceable law. This would help protect communities from situations where drainage systems are not up to standard and are left unadopted, including by water companies. In north Shropshire, for example, there have been multiple new developments which, despite having SUDS in place and, usually, as I have mentioned before, an attenuation pond, have in turn caused flooding to the existing neighbouring properties.

This amendment also links directly to an excellent proposal in the House of Commons by Gideon Amos MP, Member for Taunton and Wellington, which would bring into force Schedule 4 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. This would make water companies statutory consultees in the planning system, ensuring their expertise and infrastructure responsibilities are considered when future developments are approved.

If we want to protect new home owners, this is common sense. We know that water companies have often struggled with capacity, so excluding them from the table during the planning process is a recipe for yet more flooded homes. This approach protects these new home buyers from the risk of facing flooded homes and inadequate sewage systems, including raw sewage backing up in gardens and downstairs toilets.

Amendment 227A turns to the resilience of new homes. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for her excellent historical example. Changes to the climate will result in more intense and regular flooding throughout the country. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, about surface flooding, a new and dangerous phenomenon that already affects at least 3.4 million properties, making it one of the most significant growing threats to our communities. We have also heard the Environment Agency’s warnings about that.

Amendment 227A proposes that, within six months of the Bill becoming law, the Secretary of State would make regulations under the Building Act 1984 requiring property flood resilience measures in all new builds. These measures are not futuristic; they are simple, practical and already well known to the development sector. They include raised electrical sockets, non-return valves, resilient wall plaster and flood-adapted air bricks. These can make the difference between needing a full year of rebuilding and the home being liveable again in literally a matter of weeks—it is that much of a difference.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Lords Chamber

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

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

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

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

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

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

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

including

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Grender]

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

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

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

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Grender]

56: After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause—
“Permission for home adaptations(1) The Housing Act 1988 is amended as follows.(2) After section 16 insert—“16A Home adaptations(1) It is an implied term of every assured tenancy that a landlord must give permission for adaptations where a local council has carried out a Home Assessment and recommends adaptations which constitute reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.(2) A tenant may appeal a landlord’s refusal to give permission for such adaptations.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would ensure that landlords of private and social tenancies provide permission for home adaptations for people who have disabilities where a Home Assessment has been carried out.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 56 on behalf of my noble friend Lord Tope, who, regrettably, is unable to be with us today. This amendment would require landlords to grant permission for home adaptations that qualify as reasonable adjustments, provided that a local authority assessment has been completed. The challenges faced by disabled tenants are many and their needs are often complex. Without clear provisions allowing disabled tenants to make the necessary adaptations following a proper assessment, they risk being unable to remain in their homes long term. Far too often, disabled tenants are forced to move frequently, encountering unpredictable and inadequate modifications that undermine their ability to live independently.

This is not a marginal issue. The 2023-24 English Housing Survey found that 37% of households included someone with a long-term illness or disability, with that figure rising to a striking 59% in the socially rented sector. According to a 2024 report by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee, one in three people living with disability in the private rented sector lives in unsuitable accommodation—the highest rate of any tenure type. Meanwhile, a survey by Generation Rent found that more than eight in 10—86%—of disabled private renters reported that their disability or mental health condition had been negatively impacted by renting privately.

Following the Committee debate, I am grateful to the Minister for highlighting the additional funding for the disabled facilities grant and for her comments on the review of the allocation formula, which is a welcome step. I also appreciate the Minister’s remarks regarding the ongoing review of the upper limit for the disabled facilities grant. However, I highlight that this upper limit has not been revised since 2008, meaning that it has not kept pace with rising costs and the increasing complexity of adaptations needed. While I agree that any review must be thorough, to ensure fairness and sustainability, it is equally important that it is carried out with a sense of urgency. Delays in updating the upper limit risk leaving many disabled people without the full support they need to make their home safe and accessible. A timely review and adjustment are essential to reflect the current realities and provide adequate assistance for those who rely on this vital funding. I also gently urge the Government to prioritise timely and efficient local authority home assessments. For many disabled people, delays in these assessments mean living for months or even longer in unsuitable or unsafe conditions.

The challenges facing disabled people in the housing sector were highlighted in deeply concerning evidence from, again, the local government Select Committee. Some individuals waited 22 weeks to complete just the first stage of their disabled facilities grant application, leaving them without access to an adapted kitchen or bathroom during that time. While I understand the concerns about creating a two-tier system, the central aim of this amendment is to ensure that, once a professional assessment has confirmed a need, there is a clear pathway to delivering those adaptations. I hope that Ministers will continue to engage with the spirit of this proposal and explore practical ways to reduce unnecessary barriers to independent living.

I also express my support for Amendments 72 and 86, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. Amendment 72 proposes a new clause to establish a right to minor home adaptations for accommodating a disability. This is an important and practical step that would enable disabled tenants to live more independently, without unnecessary delays or obstacles. Amendment 86 seeks to prevent discrimination against prospective tenants who may require adaptations for accessibility. This is a vital protection to ensure that disabled people are not unfairly excluded from the rental market because of their needs. Both amendments reflect a fair and proportionate approach to improving accessibility and inclusion in the private rented sector. I hope the Government will give them serious consideration.

While I do not intend to divide the House at present, I hope that the Government will listen carefully and reflect on the proposals contained in these amendments. The aim is not to impose undue burdens but to support disabled people in living independently and with dignity in homes that meet their needs. I urge the Government to continue engaging constructively on this issue and to consider how we can work together to improve the system so that it is more responsive, more equitable and more attuned to the realities faced by disabled tenants across the country. I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 72 and 86. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for giving such a good explanation of them. I wish I had lobbied the Minister more, as all three amendments in this group are very good and very sensible.

Turning first to Amendment 72, I was talking last night to a friend who has very severe disabilities. He said he had noticed that, while landlords are very slow at making improvements or adaptations and allowing their tenants to do so, business, retail business in particular, is moving ahead. He talked about a new retail development in Yeovil where everything is accessible. It is roll-in, roll-out, and people with disabilities in wheelchairs, for example, have full access.

It seems that businesses are taking this seriously, so why are the Government and landlords not doing so? Renters of all ages face challenges—it is not only the older ones among us—but older renters are particularly vulnerable, for several reasons. They are more likely to have health issues or disabilities, which means they are more at risk of becoming ill because of poor housing. They are also more likely to live in poor quality homes. In view of our ageing population, this is not just a good thing to do but entirely necessary.

I welcome the support of the LGA for Amendment 86, as promoting equitable housing access and preventing discrimination is fundamental to our society. It is essential that tenants are protected from unfair discrimination when seeking housing. I do hope that Labour listens. We have seen with its welfare reforms what happens when Labour does not listen to the needs of disabled people. These are simple changes, but they are important. They would change the lives of our ageing population for the better, now and in the future—and that is what a progressive Government should do.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Baroness’s Amendment 86 would extend the rental discrimination measures to those who require home adaptations. Although we recognise the important issue she raises and believe that disabled people should absolutely not face discrimination when accessing the PRS, we still consider that the amendment is not the right way to meet its aim, although we understand the aim that she intends. Disabled people are already afforded full protections from discrimination by the Equality Act 2010, under which landlords are forbidden from discriminating against a person based on disability. Adding this cohort to our measures in the Bill would unnecessarily increase complexity and cause confusion, for little benefit, and would muddle the responsibilities of local authorities, which are responsible for enforcing the rental discrimination protections, and the courts, which have jurisdiction for Equality Act measures. For that reason, I kindly ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendments.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for participating in this short but sweet debate on a very important issue.

I particularly welcome the reiteration of the application of the Equality Act, particularly for people with disabilities who simply wish to have reasonable adjustments to live their lives with independence and dignity. That is the most important point that we are trying to achieve with this amendment.

I am sure that my noble friend Lord Tope would wish me to say that he would love to continue to work with the Minister on this issue to try to ensure that we can achieve some of the changes that are required. That said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 56 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the Bill brings forward significant changes to the way our housing market functions and to the Government’s role within the private rented sector. It introduces new controls, grants new powers to the Secretary of State, imposes new fines and restricts what landlords and tenants can do. These are not minor or technical adjustments; they are fundamental shifts in how the private rented sector will operate.

A Bill of this scale and consequence will require a clear, well-planned implementation strategy. It cannot promise change at some undefined point in the future, with no clear road map for how landlords and tenants will be taken along that journey. Effective communication and timely guidance will be essential to ensure that the sector is not left in a state of uncertainty.

Beyond implementation, the Bill will alter the underlying dynamics of the market. The Government’s active involvement will inevitably shift the balance of supply and demand, change price signals, affect future capacity, influence rational expectations and alter incentives for both landlords and tenants. These are not unintended side-effects; they are the direct consequences of the choices made in this legislation. That is why we have to be so passionate about the need for proper accountability and monitoring. It is why we tabled Amendment 118, which would require an impact report on the effects of this Bill as a whole, covering the housing market, rent levels, house prices and availability.

It is clear to us that the Bill will not enhance the availability of homes; indeed, it risks diminishing it. It will not ease the pressure of unaffordable rents, but may exacerbate it. Nor will it drive improvements in the quality of rented accommodation; quite the reverse, it threatens to hasten its deterioration. The Government should therefore be required to return to both Houses with a report on the impact of this legislation, not merely a review. A review can be vague, take time and be inconclusive, lacking in accountability and expensive. A report, by contrast, must provide evidence, analysis and a clear assessment of outcomes against the stated aims of the Bill. If we are to legislate with such ambition, we must also commit to transparency about the consequences of this Government’s Bills.

Finally, I wish to draw the House’s attention to Amendment 60, which would require the Secretary of State to provide an annual report on financial assistance to local housing authorities. This is about transparency and accountability. When public finances are under strain and the fiscal outlook is bleak, taxpayers deserve to know where their hard-earned money is going. I hope the Minister will consider how we can strengthen oversight when significant sums of financial assistance are involved.

On the broader principle of scrutinising the Bill’s intentions and implications, I am pleased that we have found common ground with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. The Minister and the Government may find this group frustrating, but the onus is on us to ensure that predictions are tested and instincts are aligned with reality. I beg to move.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 90 and 93 in the name of my noble friend Lady Thornhill, who, unfortunately, cannot be here. These are thoughtful and constructive proposals that seek to strengthen the effectiveness and accountability of the Bill.

Amendment 90 would require a review of the impact of Part 1 within three years, specifically addressing its effect on renter security and stability. Given the significance of the reforms introduced by the Bill, it is entirely reasonable to build in a mechanism to evaluate whether these changes are achieving their intended outcomes and put it before Parliament. I am aware that the department conducts its own review processes for legislation of this kind, but I would welcome assurances from the Minister that these reviews will be thorough and fully account for the various impacts of the Act across the private rented sector.

Amendment 93, also tabled by my noble friend Lady Thornhill, proposes a review of how well tenants understand their rights and obligations under the Bill and where they are most likely to seek that information. This speaks to a critical issue. The Bill makes a number of positive reforms, particularly in strengthening the rights of renters to challenge unfair practices such as unlawful rent increases, poor property standards or breaches of their tenancy agreements through accessible routes such as the First-tier Tribunal. However, as we have discussed again and again in Committee and at Second Reading, far too many tenants either are unaware of these rights or lack the practical information and support needed to exercise them. Without clear and accessible communication, even the most well-intentioned reforms risk falling short. This amendment would ensure that the Government are proactive in identifying how renters seek advice and whether current methods of communication are effective at reaching them. It is only through this kind of follow-up that the Bill’s protections can be meaningfully realised in practice.

Amendment 60, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on financial assistance provided to local housing authorities. As drafted, in our view, the amendment does not clarify the contents of the review and the information it suggests is already available. We are much more supportive of Amendment 118, which would require a broader review of the impact of the Bill on the housing market. We attempted to introduce this on day 1 of Report; we argued then that, given the scale of the reforms to the private rented sector, a review of this kind would provide a useful opportunity to assess the Bill’s wider consequences.

We hope the Minister will take these considerations into account. These amendments do not seek to undermine the Bill but rather to ensure that its implementation is informed, effective and fair. A commitment to review the impact on renters’ stability and to assess how well tenants understand and can access their rights would demonstrate that the Government are serious about delivering lasting change in the private rented sector. It would also offer a valuable opportunity to identify where further support or clarification may be needed, helping ensure that the reforms achieve, as we all hope, their full potential.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Thornhill, for their amendments, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for again ably speaking to them.

Amendment 60 would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement of the financial assistance provided to local authorities in connection with their powers to impose civil penalties for breaches and offences relating to assured tenancies. The statement would need to be laid before Parliament within 12 months of Clause 16 coming into force, and then annually for an indefinite period. It is clearly important that local authorities are prepared to fulfil the duties placed on them by the Bill. However, requiring the Government to produce an annual statement of the nature outlined in this amendment would create a significant administrative burden for little benefit.

We know that the enforcement duties created by the Bill will present an additional net cost for local authorities. That is why we will ensure that the additional burdens created by the new system are funded in line with the new burdens doctrine. We will continue to work closely with local authority stakeholders as the Bill is implemented to ensure a smooth transition to the new system. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to withdraw her amendment.

Amendment 90 from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, seeks to prescribe the groups with which the department would be required to consult as part of this process. I know there is a large amount of interest in this House on the impact of this legislation, and I have previously set out to the House the approach we will be taking to monitoring and evaluating the impact of the Bill.

The use of a broad range of data is at the heart of our approach. As well as existing data, we will use data from stakeholders such as local authorities, and data generated from the reforms themselves. I agree that it is important that our evaluation makes use of interviews, surveys and focus groups, and we have committed to conduct these with a range of stakeholders. This amendment would require the Government to speak to renters, landlords and local authorities as part of our evaluation. We have already committed to speaking to these groups. In fact, we plan to go further and draw on the experience of letting agents, third-sector organisations, delivery partners, the courts and tribunals service and government officials. The information we collect from speaking to these stakeholders will be used as a key part of our evaluation of the programme.

I also recognise that this amendment places a particular focus on the impact of the Bill on levels of homelessness and the use of temporary accommodation. We already collect robust data through the Homelessness Case Level Collection. Local authorities provide quarterly data returns on their actions under the homelessness legislation. This allows us to effectively monitor homelessness, including temporary accommodation breakdowns.

No approach to tackling homelessness can rely on a single action. Instead, we are determined to address the homelessness crisis we inherited and deliver long-term solutions. That is why we have already made a £1 billion investment in homelessness and rough sleeping services this year—2025/26—a £233 million increase on the previous year. In addition, we are developing a cross-government strategy to get us back on track to ending homelessness. We are committed to moving away from a system focused on crisis response, taking a holistic approach to preventing homelessness in the first place and driving better-value-for-money interventions.

Amendment 93—also from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill—would introduce a legal requirement for the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the extent to which tenants in the private rented sector understand their rights and obligations. I know the House will share my view that the successful implementation of the Renters’ Rights Bill is firmly rooted in how widely its provisions are known and understood, and I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, in that respect. I therefore want to reassure the House that the Government are committed to raising awareness of the full range of Renters’ Rights Bill reforms across the private rented sector. This will be done through robust and extensive stakeholder engagement, providing the sector with a full suite of guidance on the reforms and an overarching communications campaign, along with partnership marketing. This extensive and targeted work will ensure each part of the sector fully understands its new rights and obligations.

The Government have already committed to a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation programme of the reforms, drawing on a wide range of data sources and stakeholder input. Including a requirement for a review of tenants’ understanding of the rights and responsibilities in the Bill therefore represents an unnecessary step. On the basis of these arguments and our clear commitments, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, not to press her amendments.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 118 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. I appreciate the concern that underpins Amendment 118, namely the potential impact of the Renters’ Rights Bill on the housing market in England and whether it might discourage landlords from remaining in the sector. As we consider this issue today, it is important to reflect on the evidence already available. The 2023-24 English Housing Survey shows that the size of the private rented sector has remained broadly stable since 2013-14. This suggests that, despite ongoing discussions about reform since 2019, landlords have not exited the market in significant numbers. The Government remain confident that the measures in the Bill will not destabilise the rental market. On the contrary, our proposals make sure that landlords have the confidence and support they need to continue to invest and operate in the sector.

I will not repeat the details I set out in Committee of this Government’s commitment to thoroughly monitoring and evaluating the private rented sector reform programme using a wide range of data sources and stakeholder input. However, for the benefit of the House, I will briefly set out our plans for publishing the findings from this evaluation, which I believe is what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, was asking me.

In accordance with the policy set out in our evaluation strategy, the department will publish its assessments of the Renters’ Rights Bill on GOV.UK at two key intervals: two years and five years after implementation. To ensure the reports are publicly accessible, copies will be formally lodged in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament at the time of publication.

I reassure the noble Baroness that we are committed to carrying out a robust evaluation of the Renters’ Rights Bill. We will disseminate its findings widely so that parliamentarians, tenants, landlords, local authorities and wider stakeholders will be able to see and scrutinise the impact of the reforms in a timely way. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Given the Bill’s strong anti-discrimination stance, which I am of course very supportive of, I am at a loss as to why my noble friend the Minister did not take this argument more seriously. Perhaps she could address it today and, ideally, accept the case made by my noble friend or commit to bring forward her own amendment to achieve the same end at Third Reading that will perhaps address the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, raised. At the very least, I hope she will be able to answer the questions my noble friend posed as a kind of fallback option.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, and am absolutely delighted to support it. We spoke about this in Committee, but I still feel that there is an opportunity here. This is not about banning all guarantors—if that needs clarifying—and that is made very clear in the wording of the amendment. This is about trying to stop the blanket use of guarantors, which, I am afraid, is occurring and is highly discriminatory.

The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, referenced student groups. But I am a little bit confused, because my understanding is that the student groups that have been in touch with me over the last few days about this amendment are in support of it—unless the noble Lord has any examples of student groups that have been in touch with him that are against this amendment, then I am happy to sit down to allow him to tell me.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I have not canvassed student groups, but I know the example of my own family—my daughters went to Oxford and Newcastle—and the strictures that were placed on them. So I am talking from my personal experience rather than that of the representatives of other organisations.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

It is my understanding that student groups are happy with this amendment and against the blanket use of guarantors. The current use of guarantors is, I am afraid, a proxy for discrimination against vulnerable groups. There is evidence that black renters are 66% more likely to be asked for a guarantor—I know that has already been said, but it is so profoundly shocking that it bears repetition. If you are on benefits, you are 60% more likely to be asked; if you have a disability, it is 20%. The great Equality Act 2010 is being driven over with the use of guarantors and I am delighted to support this amendment.

I read with a lot of care the Front-Bench speeches in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, suggested that guarantors can be a lifeline for those with poor credit or no rental history, but on these Benches we genuinely believe that nothing could be further from the truth. The harsh and stark reality is that 550,000 private renters were unable to secure a desired home in the last five years because they lacked a guarantor.

There is not a single organisation that I am aware of that campaigns and advocates on behalf of people who could be described as those who need that kind of lifeline, who are on no or a low income, which opposes this amendment. That includes working-class, international, estranged and care-experienced students who struggle to find suitable guarantors because they do not know anyone in those highest quartiles, which are the only guarantors that many landlords will accept. They just do not have those contacts or connections.

The noble Lord further suggested that tenants have market discretion or choice if a landlord is imposing a blanket guarantor policy. That defies the logic of the current marketplace, where the low-income tenant is never in the luxury position of shopping around. Again, that choice rests only with those whose income is in the higher quartiles.

On the Minister’s point in the same discussion about guarantors providing confidence, we must ask: at what cost to fairness? Landlords already have really robust tools: a five-week deposit, the first month’s rent up front, and affordability checks. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, guarantors are rarely invoked in practice. Like the noble Lord, I am currently a guarantor for my son, who is a student, so I completely understand that this is what we currently do. But in the past two years less than 3% of landlords have ever attempted to claim lost rent from a guarantor. When they did, it was 16 times more likely to be difficult than easy. Landlords have other, much more appropriate business risk management tools, such as rent guarantee insurance, rather than relying on a tenant’s family member, and so many of these tenants do not have a family member who is earning way above the median income, which is what is demanded.

Even before this legislation has come into effect, there is a worrying rise. A 2024 Generation Rent survey of its supporters found that 30% of private renters who had moved in 2023-24 had been asked for a guarantor—up from 22% of people who had moved in 2019. Always in this context, I fear that the debate is held on a presumption that renters lack responsibility somehow, unlike other tenures. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, only 2% of tenants were reported as in arrears in 2023-24. The vast majority of tenants are responsible individuals, who, by the way, often forgo other things, such as heating and eating, in order to pay rent, because they understand the severe consequences of not doing so and because the market is so limited for them.

This amendment is not a radical proposal. As Generation Rent and Shelter argue, it simply ensures that guarantors are used sparingly, appropriately and only when absolutely necessary, when a prospective tenant genuinely cannot demonstrate that they can afford the rent. This entirely aligns with the National Residential Landlords Association’s own current guidance.

When the Minister responds, if the Government are unable to stop this loophole for discriminatory practice, will she at least make it clear, either today or perhaps in a letter to follow, that guarantors should be used only as a last resort, that the Equality Act should be used if there is further evidence of discrimination, and that landlords already have the means to ensure that tenants pay through other mechanisms? I hope that her words today will ensure that the widespread use of guarantors is not the next version of no-fault evictions.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the many who have spoken in this debate, particularly the three noble Baronesses who have spoken very passionately to say that we need to support some of the most vulnerable in our society. I agree that we need to support them.

As my noble friend Lord Fuller pointed out, many councils use the fact that they can act as a guarantor to enable many of the most vulnerable to access a home which they would, in other circumstances, not be able to. There is clearly an appropriate role for the guarantee. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, just mentioned, there is a shortage of rental accommodation—I think the figure is something like 12 people chasing every available rented home. We need to think about this when we are discussing this Bill. How do we encourage more people to rent their home so that we have a more dynamic market, with more availability there?

It is widely recognised that we need more rental homes, as is the importance of small landlords, particularly in rural areas. We also need to recognise that many of these small landlords have only one or two homes. For many of them, it is a substitute pension, and many of them have mortgages on these homes. If that is the case, they need security that they will get the rental income; otherwise, it is just too high a risk. Some noble Lords have said that the risk is small, but if it is your only asset and you have got a mortgage on it, you may not feel able to take that risk. As we have discussed before, without this, many would have no choice but to exit the market, meaning fewer rental homes and fewer people able to access a home—more people on the street. That is a particular issue in rural areas with small landlords.

Guarantors play a crucial role in the rental market. They provide an essential layer of security, offering landlords the reassurance that the rent will be paid, even if the tenant experiences financial difficulties. As we have mentioned earlier, for tenants, particularly students and young people or those without a strong credit history, a guarantor can be key to securing a home which might otherwise be out of reach. This is partly why we are so passionate about enabling rent in advance. That provision is especially helpful for individuals facing barriers, such as overseas students without UK credit records, or those who simply have no one to act as a guarantor.

With that context, I understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, has brought forward this amendment. However, I regret to say that, on this side of the House, we cannot support it. First, it is overly prescriptive and would constrain landlords from making what is, in many cases, a reasonable response to financial risk. Secondly, preventing landlords requiring a guarantor in such circumstances could have the unintended consequence of discouraging them from renting to high-risk tenants altogether. Thirdly, it would undermine a market-led approach to risk mitigation. Finally, the amendment would afford a broad and, we believe, inappropriate delegation of power. Combined, this would, as I said earlier, reduce the supply of available homes, increase the cost to a tenant and mean fewer people are able to get their own home. For these reasons, we cannot support this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 74, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and, to my delight, the Minister, have added their names. I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute. Trading standards officers are going to be important in the enforcement of key provisions in this Bill, and Amendment 74 is intended to support their work.

I brought forward this amendment in Committee, and it is intended to extend the matters covered by the special primary authority scheme. This scheme enables certain local authorities to provide assured advice that property agents can rely on in seeking to fulfil their obligations. With this amendment, letting agents and those that advise them, such as Propertymark and the Property Ombudsman, would be able to obtain clear guidance on their responsibilities in meeting regulatory requirements under the Tenant Fees Act 2019, an important piece of legislation that has been left out of this advisory scheme to date. This amendment will help trading standards officers ensure compliance and is beneficial to all property agents wanting to do the right thing.

The amendment was promoted by the senior manager of the National Trading Standards estate agency team, James Munro, to whom I offer many thanks. I also thank noble Lords on the Opposition Benches for supporting this amendment in Committee. I am very pleased that the Government have also decided to back it, and I am grateful to the Minister for adding her name to it. It may not be the most exciting measure before us, but it represents a most welcome addition to the Bill and will reduce pressure on overburdened local authority enforcement teams. I beg to move.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 74 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, noting that it is signed by my noble friend Lady Thornhill. This is a characteristic amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best, who has become the technical amendment expert when it comes to housing, capable of spotting small but significant changes that can genuinely make a difference. We are delighted that the Minister has also signed the amendment.

We have long supported efforts to raise standards and professionalism among managing and property agents. We fully agree with the findings and recommendations of the 2019 report, Regulation of Property Agents, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Best. Is it really six years since its publication on the 18th of this month? How many of its recommendations have been implemented? Perhaps the Minister can tell us or the noble Lord in his summating. The noble Lord’s amendment goes some way to helping local authority trading standards officers work more effectively with good agents who want to raise standards for all and weed out the bad guys, knowing that the assured advice they receive will be clear and comprehensive in ensuring compliance in meeting their obligations under the Tenant Fees Act. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak also on Amendments 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17. I apologise that there are so many; I actually tabled only one but the Table Office divided it.

The amendments cover grounds for possession as they relate to self-employed agricultural workers. 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 evictions. I thoroughly support this policy, but reforms must be implemented carefully when it comes to the rural economy to take into account the particular circumstances of the agricultural sector in order to avoid negative impacts, such as the necessary housing of farm workers who are crucial to the nation’s food security, as well as to a thriving rural economy.

Accordingly, special protections specific to agriculture are required. That is already partly recognised in the Bill in ground 5A, but limited to direct employees. Agriculture is unique in terms of tenanted housing, as 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 lambing or harvest, or unsocial hours, such as early mornings and late evenings, in the case of dairy farming. There are also animal welfare considerations that require workers to be close at hand at all times.

Following Committee in the Lords, I withdrew the original amendments to address the Minister’s concerns. She said then that there were other arrangements that a landlord could use to help their contractors with accommodation when they are working away from their home, such as paying expenses, using licences to occupy or paying for them to be housed in an Airbnb. She is absolutely correct, as contractors can be somewhat different from employed or self-employed farm workers. I have therefore removed contractors from this amendment.

The Minister’s suggestion that 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 also point out that licence agreements are generally unsuitable for long-term occupation, and in some instances can actually be considered as a tenancy, especially when the occupant of a dwelling has exclusive occupation of all or part of the dwelling.

I know the Minister was worried that these amendments could open up an exemption for a wider group of workers, and I hope I have reassured her that this specifically covers only genuine full-time agricultural workers. The revised amendments, which add only self-employed agricultural workers to this category, also deem that the nature of the self-employment should be genuine and meaningfully full-time. Hence, reference is made to working a minimum 35-hour week. Furthermore, the revised amendments confirm that there is no intention to alter the security of tenure afforded to assured agricultural occupants. That is because the Bill states that grounds 5A and 5C do not apply to this type of worker.

We believe that the ground for possession should be available where there is a need to house self-employed agricultural workers—for example, a self-employed party to a share-farming arrangement on a farm or a self-employed shepherd. It is increasingly common in the agricultural industry for workers to be self-employed but, given the nature of their work, especially if it is with livestock, they need to live on site. Some examples of workers who might fall into this category are dairymen, sheep shearers, relief milkers or tractor drivers. Currently, ground 5A provides a means of getting possession where the dwelling is required to house someone who will be employed as an agricultural worker. However, it does not cover the situation where that worker is self-employed.

On the same theme of self-employed workers, ground 5C does not adequately provide for possession where a self-employed worker has been provided with a dwelling but the work contract has ended; it applies only where the tenant has been employed by the landlord. In summary, we would like to see extensions to both ground 5A and ground 5C to reflect modern farming employment practices and cover situations where the worker is self-employed as well as employed. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to accept this amendment, which purely reflects current employment practices in farming, is non-political and is not designed to cover non-agricultural workers.

My two other amendments in this group, Amendments 10 and 12, cover the status of service and key workers. Much of the debate, within 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: first, how we ensure that rural businesses can continue to function effectively and house employees; and, secondly, how to support the housing needs of key workers, in both urban and rural areas.

In many rural communities, landlords have typically also been a major employer in the area, and the convention is that they house employees of their businesses. Traditionally, the most common form of employment was in agriculture, and this is reflected in the specific legislation for agricultural worker tenancies. But, 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 meant that accommodation often needs to be offered as part of an employment package to attract and retain staff. Alongside this, more properties have been let to non-employees under assured shorthold 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 repossess 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 its equivalent of Section 21.

These amendments aim to ensure that rural businesses can continue to house the workers they need, while also supporting the broader functioning of rural and urban communities. In Committee, the Minister raised two objections to a similar amendment: first, that ground 5A already covers this issue; and, secondly, that we must protect tenants in critical local jobs. However, ground 5A, while welcome, does not go far enough. As the Minister acknowledged, the agricultural sector has unique needs, hence the inclusion of ground 5A, but 85% of rural businesses do not relate 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 logic behind ground 5A works for agriculture, it should also work for these other rural enterprises. These amendments would extend repossession rights to 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 diversified into hosting weddings to remain viable under changing agricultural policies and profitability. It now needs to hire a full-time wedding planner, someone who must be on site at short notice, work irregular hours and take on responsibilities for security and caretaking. However, the business cannot recruit because there is no housing available nearby. One of this rural business’s cottages is currently let to a non-employee. If the business were to seek repossession of this property to house this wedding planner, ground 5A would not apply and it would be unable to obtain possession. Amendments 10 and 12 would allow repossession of this property to protect the viability of the business.

I appreciate that the ambition of the Bill is to protect the security of tenure of more households. However, if we do not strike the right balance and make it more difficult for businesses to employ and house staff, they will simply hold properties vacant for potential future employees or sell them. This will further restrict the availability of private rented housing in rural areas.

I turn to the second point, which is the protection of tenants in vital local roles. The amendment is needed to address the efficient functioning of the rural economy, which includes housing those in vital local roles. The principle has been accepted for housing incoming agricultural workers; this is simply an extension of that. The Government are concerned about housing vital key workers in rural areas, so I have strengthened the amendment to include a provision allowing repossession where the property will be used to house an incoming key worker. Such workers are broadly defined as certain NHS employees; carers, who we have already talked about; teachers; and police and security staff, et cetera. In many rural areas, key workers face long commutes due to a lack of suitable housing. This undermines recruitment and 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, the benefits extend to urban landlords, such as NHS trusts or housing providers, and to key workers such as firefighters, on-call carers and others whose proximity to work is essential. In short, 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 tenant protection and operational necessity and I urge the Minister to support them. I beg to move.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for bringing what is a quite small technical issue, even if there are many amendments related to it, particularly regarding farmers and their tenants. We understand that, technically, Amendments 8, 9, 11 and 13 to 17 relate to one very small, specific, technical issue, which is that if a dairy farmer, say, is on a contract, or is a freelancer but needs to be moved in to the site, then that repossession should be able to happen. So it is about viable businesses and about ensuring that somebody who is highly relevant can live next door to where they are working.

We understand, or we thought we understood, that licence to occupy would cover this. We also worry about the hours relating to this, although we note that one of the amendments specifies a 35-hour week. Therefore, I want to know from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington— I am happy to sit down and make way for him to answer—whether it would be possible to apply a loophole so that someone could work for just one hour and then get through a loophole that has been applied by these amendments.

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

The answer is “No”. The whole reason for putting 35 hours a week in there is to make sure there is no loophole, and it is drafted as such.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord.

On Amendments 10 and 12, we on these Benches are concerned that they technically widen the scope beyond where we are comfortable. However, regarding Amendments 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 16, we hope that the Minister has heard the technical detail that is required for a very specific profession and will look favourably on taking this away and having another look.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

If I may add one note to what the noble Lord has just said, it is very common in commercial contracts to have CPI over a series of periods followed by a reset to market level, in part because CPI may take it up too high and it comes back down to market level. I think that needs to be part of this amendment.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, we support the amendments in this group concerning rent affordability, a matter that strikes at the heart of the lived reality of millions of tenants. We welcome the long-overdue commitment to abolishing Section 21 no-fault evictions but, as Shelter rightly said in a release only this week:

“For every day the government doesn’t pass this bill, another 70 households will be threatened with homelessness because no fault evictions are being kept on life support for no good reason”.


I hope that we will soon get some reassurances about when this key measure will begin, to overcome some of the rumours in the media of late about it being delayed.

We also welcome all the work to fix the issue of the supply of decent homes across all tenures, but private rent inflation is persistently outpacing both wage growth and general inflation. According to the latest data—we heard some of it from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, earlier—average rents in England rose by 7.1% in the 12 months to May 2025. Meanwhile, wages continue to grow more slowly than rents, with the most recent data showing annual growth of 5.2%. Rents have outstripped wages every month for nearly two years; that is, since September 2023. Over the past three years, the average annual rent has increased by £2,650, rising from £12,800 to £15,450, a 21% increase, compared with—for all the owner-occupiers here—just a 4% 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—way too many—cases, homelessness.

Amendment 25, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and supported by me and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, proposes a mechanism to smooth in-tenancy rent increases by limiting them to the lower of wage growth or inflation. The Bill currently restricts rent increases to once per year and allows tenants to challenge above-market rents at the First-tier Tribunal, as we heard in the previous group. However, “market rent” is often calculated based on arbitrary information, such as advertised rents for new tenancies, figures that will inevitably and typically be inflated and do not reflect the actual rents paid by sitting tenants. This methodology leaves tenants exposed to rent hike evictions—Section 21 in all but name—undermining the very security that the Bill purports to deliver.

Tenants on lower incomes will be particularly exposed. For the many renters who have no alternative but to rent, the cheapest places they can find at market rent are already, by definition, unaffordable. The tribunal process will help, but not fix, this problem, and certainly not soon. Generation Rent’s analysis found that while 73% of tenants who challenge a rent increase through the tribunal succeed in reducing the proposed rent, the average increase awarded is still 14%, and only a small minority of cases result in annualised increases below wage or rent inflation. The process is also onerous and complex, deterring many tenants from pursuing it at all.

Smoothing in-tenancy rent increases is therefore not just a technical fix but a vital safeguard during this period of transition. It will provide tenants with the predictability and stability needed to budget and to remain in their homes, free from the constant threat of unaffordable rent hikes. For landlords, it offers an indexed yield without the administrative burden and uncertainty of tribunal proceedings.

I ask in particular that the Opposition Front Bench and the Government Front Bench resist the temptation and lure to comment on these proposals as rent controls. That would suggest that the years of knowledge and experience of the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Best, have rendered 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 applies only to in-tenancy increases. It does not set market-wide caps. It is designed to stabilise rents for existing tenants, not to distort the market or stifle investment.

Beyond these immediate protections, we must look to the medium term while we wait for the much-needed and long-awaited additional supply of homes. That is why I have tabled Amendment 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. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for her support and the Renters’ Reform Coalition for their work on this issue. The coalition has found that nearly one-third of private renters—an estimated 3.8 million people—always or often struggle to afford essentials such as groceries due to the amount that they spend on rent, and nearly one in 10 have sold or pawned personal items to be able to afford to rent.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Grender Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 25th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, the Government’s ambition to build more homes and infrastructure for our country is welcome. It is indeed time to get Britain building again. However, there is a danger in this Bill of council blaming and nature blaming, which ignores recent history.

According to the CPRE, a staggering 1.2 million homes given planning permission since 2015 have not been built. This highlights that the problem is not always the blockers in communities but is often the developers, who are banking land and failing to build. Although we strongly support the aspiration of 1.5 million new homes in this Bill, regrettably, it does not include any explicit target for the building of 150,000 social homes per year—a vital commitment in our own manifesto. How can we truly tackle the housing emergency and get families out of the insecurity of temporary accommodation without addressing the dire lack of genuinely affordable homes that are tied to local incomes?

We are deeply concerned that this Bill continues with the overcentralised, developer-led approach that has demonstrably failed to deliver. It undermines the independence of local government and deprives communities of their stake in development. Local councils, as the backbone of our planning system, are not the blockers: they approve the vast majority—86%—of applications that come their way. Sweeping powers for the Secretary of State, such as on determining which planning functions are delegated and on reducing the objection period for transport projects, will shut communities out of decisions that have a profound impact on their lives. We must ensure that local councils, not Whitehall, decide which applications go to committee, maintaining the democratic right for communities to be heard and represented.

On Part 3 of the Bill, although the concepts of environmental development plans and a nature restoration levy are noted, their success is highly dependent on substantial up-front funding. We have very serious concerns, for Committee stage, about Natural England’s capacity and resources to monitor and enforce this fund effectively.

This is a missed opportunity for mandating nature-friendly development in all new housing, including minimum biodiversity measures such as swift boxes, bat boxes and green roofs, including solar. It also fails to adequately strengthen protection for irreplaceable habitats such as our precious chalk streams. We will seek to amend to improve farming business viability through better use of environmental land management. We owe it to future generations to ensure that our planning system is sustainable, genuinely affordable and democratically accountable, enabling our communities to thrive and to enjoy nature, not diminish it.