Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I rise briefly on this group, which concerns commencement. I particularly thank the noble Lords, Lord Hacking and Lord Bird, for ensuring that this debate took place, and the noble Lord, Lord Deben, for his wisdom and experience in implementation. I know that my noble friend Lady Thornhill will regret not being here for day 7 of the Committee but, as she explained to the House last night, she had an appointment that she could not change, because this day was unexpected. I add my words of thanks to everyone who has been here all the way through these seven days of Committee. I feel that it has been a quality experience and debate. In particular, I thank the Minister.

There is no doubt that the central aim of this Bill, the long-overdue abolition of Section 21, must be delivered swiftly. This abolition will ensure that renters no longer live under the threat of no-fault evictions. This was a promise that the last Government failed to deliver over a shocking six-year period. Indeed, we have already heard the devastating consequence of that broken promise, with over 120,000 households served with no-fault eviction notices since it was first made in 2019, when the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, was Prime Minister.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. This should be directed also to the noble Lord, Lord Bird. As I read in Clause 1 of the Bill that all existing tenancies are made periodic tenancies, that must involve the ceasing of the use of Section 21.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

That is what the noble Baroness is saying.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying: this will bring about the abolition of Section 21.

That failure has rightly eroded trust. It now falls to this Government to deliver what was promised without further delay. Renters should not be asked to wait any longer for the basic security that this legislation is intended to provide. At the same time, we on these Benches recognise that proper implementation matters. Noble Lords would not find that surprising, given that every other member of this Bill team is a former or current councillor, with the exception of me.

The changes this Bill brings are significant and must be supported by clear guidance, well-prepared systems and proper resourcing, not least for the courts and local authorities. Yes, we need preparation time, but that preparation must not become an excuse for indefinite delay. There is a question of balance. Where regulation or consultation is needed, that work must of course be done, but it should be carried out with urgency and to a clear and published timetable. Renters deserve certainty about when these protections will come into force, but so too do landlords. Those operating in good faith need to understand the new framework that they will be working within and to have time to prepare for it, but they should not be left in limbo. The entire sector needs clarity and consistency. Delays would only undermine confidence in this long-awaited reform.

I have only one central question for the Minister. The Government publicly stated that Section 21 would be abolished “immediately” in their 2024 manifesto. However, Clause 145(5)(a) indicates that the abolition will take effect two months after the Bill is passed. The Bill also says that this is a decision for the Secretary of State. Can she please use this opportunity to clarify—my apologies if she has already explained this endlessly, but I am still slightly confused on this question—which timeframe is correct? It would be helpful, for instance, to understand the time lapse between the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and the commencement date of the abolition of Section 21.

Finally, many of us were here until 1 am on Tuesday and until midnight last night, and this is now our seventh day. I am certain that there are many Peers who would do that again and again to get to the abolition of Section 21—to get to, at pace, that long-promised, much-needed change in the law. I look forward now to hearing when.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 221, 224, 227, 229 and 230. These amendments are in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Kennedy of Cradley. The noble Lord, Lord Young, apologises for his unavoidable absence but underlines his support for the amendments. I thank all those noble colleagues for supporting these amendments.

The amendments relate to the content of the new database, a property portal. They add key items to the information to be provided. Amendments 221, 224 and 227 would add landlord records of gas and electrical safety checks, with definitions of what these comprise. Currently, there is a national digital register of all energy performance certificates, and these EPCs will be brought together with details of the letting. However, there is no register for the critical landlord gas safety or electrical checks. These are frequently lost or neglected, and tenants may be unaware of them. The PRS database provides an opportunity to have these vital safety certifications brought into the digital age and made available widely, to ensure the safety of rented property. Building safety is now a national concern, and details of these checks represent important content for prospective tenants as well as for local authorities.

Am I right in thinking that the Government intend to consult on further items to be covered by the database and that, as part of the consultation, there will be the opportunity to add items to go into this new portal? I would include many of the extra items listed in Amendments 222 and 228, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Grender. For example, listing rent levels would provide invaluable data for the First-tier Tribunals, which will be taking decisions on market rent levels. A further addition it would be good to see would be a categorisation of properties suitable for people using wheelchairs or with mobility problems. To have this information readily available via the database would be helpful not just to renters seeking accessible accommodation, but to the landlord with an adapted property who is looking for tenants who can make use of the adaptations.

Finally, Amendments 229 and 230 would require the PRS database to make use of the unique property reference number, to which the Minister has already referred, as the identifier for every property on the database. This valuable and reliable tool already exists as a means of identifying any specific property. Noble Lords may not be aware that all their homes already have such a number—a UPRN, which can dramatically speed up the search for a particular house or flat. The Bill provides the perfect opportunity to put this excellent facility to good use. A pilot scheme utilising UPRNs in Nottingham has demonstrated that councils get a sixfold return from investing in this approach and streamlining the property data for collection for their area. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, jumped the gun in welcoming Amendment 230. I will save her having to do so again and thank her now.

In conclusion, and in relation to all the amendments in my name and those of colleagues, to whom I offer my thanks, I believe them to be acceptable and agreeable to the organisations representing renters, landlords and property agents. I hope that the Minister can support them and I look forward to her response. I beg to move.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, my Amendment 228 seeks to enhance transparency and oversight in the private rented sector by requiring the database to include information on tenancy disputes. This would cover a range of issues, including disputes about rent levels. It would also record the outcome of each case and how long it took to reach a resolution.

This is, at its heart, a proposal for greater clarity. It is not intended to be punitive, nor to cast all landlords in a negative light—quite the opposite. It is an opportunity to reward good landlords. Those who respond quickly to issues, resolve disputes fairly and demonstrate a commitment to their tenants should have that record reflected and recognised. Too often, the private sector operates in the shadows, with tenants unsure of their rights and little visibility of how disputes are handled behind closed doors. This amendment would bring to light that process by recording the nature of a dispute, the parties involved, the outcome and the time taken to resolve it. We would therefore create a more informed and accountable system.

For tenants, this information is empowering. It helps them to make better decisions about where and with whom they rent. For landlords, it provides an incentive to act responsibly and promptly, knowing that their actions contribute to a public record. For policymakers and regulators, it offers a valuable source of data to identify patterns, spot areas of concern and improve enforcement.

The inclusion of rent level disputes is especially important for improving transparency. At a time when affordability is a growing concern, making this information available would provide clear insight into how disagreements over rent are handled and resolved. It would help build a more accurate and evidence-based picture of where pressure points exist in the system. It would also help tenants and policymakers understand how rent issues are being addressed in practice.

In short, this amendment would help foster a culture of fairness, responsiveness and trust. These qualities are essential if we are to improve standards across this sector, and I hope the Minister will look favourably on it.

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 222 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and all the amendments in this group, including Amendment 228 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, to which I have added my name. I declare my interest as a Nationwide Foundation trustee—I think I declared this last time I spoke, but I cannot remember, so better twice than never.

I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, will set out in great detail why the list of criteria is needed in the Bill. However, put simply, more detail on what the PRS database will contain needs to be in the Bill, which needs to set out core functions and minimum standards. Leaving the detail to be filled in later by regulation at the whim of a future Secretary of State is not acceptable. It will make the Bill less stable and requirements less easily understood. Landlords need clarity about what the law requires of them and tenants need clarity on what they can expect in terms of their rights.

I hope my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage will bring back on Report an amendment that sets out minimum requirements for the PRS database that can sit in the Bill, to give clarity and direction akin to Amendment 222 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

I thought that my amendment was never going to come. Amendment 249 stands in my name, and I am glad to support Amendment 252, to which I have added my name, and Amendments 250 and 251 in this group. I declare my interest as co-owner, with my wife, of one rather modest apartment in the West Midlands, which we let out.

As someone who has chaired a wide range of housing associations, including a large local authority transfer and an arm’s-length management company, I have seen the huge positive impact that the decent homes standard has had since one was first applied to social housing. Not least, it has forced landlords to pay proper attention to their existing stock, rather than focusing all their energies and resources on new developments. Hence, I am delighted that this Bill will, for the first time, extend the standard to much of the private rented stock; it is a sector desperately plagued by underinvestment in repairs, maintenance and stock improvement. One in five privately rented homes does not currently meet the decent homes standard compared to 10% for social housing. More than one in 10 has a category 1 hazard, which is two and a half times the figure for social housing.

My amendment, along with those in the names of other noble Lords that I wish to support in this group, seeks to test whether there is appetite in your Lordships’ House to extend the application of the standard to others whose homes will not be covered as the Bill stands. Amendment 249 would make the decent homes standard apply to all homeless temporary accommodation provided under the Housing Act 1996. Record numbers of individuals, families and children are currently housed in temporary accommodation. Some 117,450 households were in temporary accommodation in March 2024, which was a rise of 12.3%, almost an extra one in eight, from the previous year. Extending the decent homes standard to this large group of people would enable those living in temporary accommodation to expect basic standards from their accommodation.

The very phrase temporary accommodation is something of a misnomer. Many of those who live in such properties are housed there for years at a time. Moreover, the same property may then be used for further so-called temporary tenancies. While I understand that sometimes it may appear better to allow a family to live for a short while in a property that is awaiting imminent major refurbishment or even demolition rather than leave the building empty, this is not what is happening in the vast majority of cases.

I have previously raised in your Lordships’ House the particular plight of children in temporary accommodation. I remember a very good conversation with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, a year or two ago. The figure was then more than 130,000, and it is still rising. They are often housed many miles away from their schools and play friends. Managing an education in such a context is desperately difficult. Some schools in Manchester are already having to put on special provision for children living in temporary accommodation, so imagine what it means to have to do that in a home that does not meet a basic standard of decency. We are failing such children utterly. Alongside families with children, many residents in temporary accommodation have particular vulnerabilities in terms of health and are often not well equipped to advocate for themselves. A national standard will make a huge difference.

My amendment would close a glaring loophole in the current Bill whereby private landlords could escape the decent homes standard by switching to providing temporary accommodation. Allowing the poorest quality homes in our nation simply to move to another form of tenure without doing anything to tackle their condition defeats the whole object of extending the standard at all.

I shall not steal the thunder of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, whose Amendment 250 would extend the standard to accommodation used by HM Armed Forces families, save to remind us that these households, containing those on whom we rely for our nation’s defence, deserve the very best from us.

Amendment 251 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister of Burtersett and Lady Janke, and my right reverend friend the Bishop of Chelmsford, who cannot be in her place tonight, would extend the standard to accommodation provided for those who have fled war, terror and persecution and are now seeking, lawfully, to rebuild their lives here.

Amendment 252 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Whitaker and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, to which I have added my name, would extend the application of the decent homes standard to mobile homes that are rented for residential purposes. I have been a long-term advocate for the rights of Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller households, which often experience levels of prejudice beyond that of almost any other ethnic group in our society. They simply seek live a way of life that they have followed for centuries and have long been a vital part of the workforce, especially in rural areas where short-term temporary agricultural workers with high mobility are required at particular points in the seasonal cycle.

These amendments seek to extend to some of our most vulnerable or deserving households a standard that the Bill already agrees is the proper one for most of our citizens. I hope that in responding to the debate the Minister will be able to indicate some movement or at least offer scope for further discussions with us on these important issues ahead of Report.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group. In particular, I draw to your attention Amendment 250 in my name which would extend the decent homes standard to accommodation used by service families.

Our service personnel and their families make extraordinary sacrifices for our safety and security. The very least we owe them is decent housing. The current state of service accommodation is, in many cases, unacceptable. Satisfaction levels with both service family accommodation, SFA, and single living accommodation, SLA, fell to their lowest reported levels in 2023 impacting recruitment and retention. The Defence Select Committee reports that one-third of SLA and two-thirds of SFA are in such poor condition that they are essentially no longer fit for purpose. We hear persistent reports of damp and mould, inadequate maintenance and repairs and poor communication.

We cannot discuss the state of military housing without acknowledging the damaging legacy of some past decisions. The sale of 57,400 military homes to Annington Property Ltd in 1996 under the Conservative Government was described as a disastrous fire sale. The deal left the Government trapped paying rent and maintenance costs with no power to plan or make major upgrades. Indeed, the Public Accounts Committee concluded that service families were,

“badly let down for many years”

under the previous housing contracts. The taxpayer was left nearly £8 billion worse off due to that original deal, with money that should have been spent on maintaining homes lost.

The current Labour Government have taken welcome steps. They repurchased 36,000 homes from Annington in January, a deal that is expected to save £230 million a year in rent. A defence housing review was launched in February. A new consumer charter promises measures such as higher move-in standards, more reliable repairs and a named housing officer for every family. It is welcome that the MoD has agreed with the conclusion that the current complaints process is inefficient and that a new, simpler, two-stage process is being devised.

I now come to the “however” bit, I am afraid. The scale of the problem is immense, a result of historic underinvestment over decades. Estimates suggest billions are needed, potentially £2 billion to £2.4 billion for SFA alone, and more than £1.5 billion for SLA. I reassure the Minister that we did our costings in our manifesto and definitely identified funding in some of these areas. While investment plans are being set out, questions remain about whether funding will be sufficient and sustained to address the condition of the entire estate.

Amendment 250 is crucial because it would continue the work of my colleague in the House of Commons, Helen Maguire MP, a former captain in the Royal Military Police who served in both Bosnia and Iraq; it would reinforce the work of the MoD; and it would honour the Kerslake commission. It would ensure that the decent homes standard, which provides a very clear benchmark for acceptable housing quality, was legally applied to service family accommodation.

The amendment goes beyond acknowledging the problem of setting targets. It would establish a right to a decent home for those who serve our nation and their families. They deserve homes fit for heroes, and the amendment would be a vital step towards making that a reality. It would ensure accountability. It would provide service families with the basic standards that they have every right to expect.

I urge the Committee to support the amendment. After all, it is only right that our service personnel and their families live in safe, clean homes that meet basic, dignified standards, especially when they risk their lives to keep us safe. Pride in our Armed Forces must mean pride in how we house them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a previous chair of Peers for the Planet and a director of that organisation. I will speak to my Amendment 274, which is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, who cannot be in the Chamber this evening. It continues the theme of energy efficiency that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has just spoken about on her Amendment 259. She dealt specifically with the issue of data on energy efficiency. I wish to contribute particularly on the issue of financing energy-efficiency measures. This is the first time that I have spoken in Committee on this Bill, mainly because of my interaction with the Minister and her officials in the run-up to it, during which several issues were clarified very helpfully.

The issue of improving energy efficiency in the private rented sector has been discussed at length and on multiple occasions in this House. I hope that the current consultation will go some way to address the lack of coherent and consistent long-term policy certainty in this area, because it has suffered from stop-go and from changes of administrations and forms of assistance that have been incoherent and stopped us making progress. Of course, one of the main issues preventing progress in this area is funding, so my amendment seeks to break through some of the barriers to progress by requiring the Government to publish a road map on how private finance initiatives could be scaled up to support the funding of energy-efficiency measures.

Other speakers in the Committee have pointed out the problems that exist because of the quality of the stock in the private rented sector. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester pointed out, nearly half the housing stock in the private rented sector has an EPC rating below C. Although fuel poverty has fallen 35% among owner-occupiers and 54% among council tenants since 2010, it has fallen only 4% for private renters. Their homes are still disproportionately damp and cold, causing both short- and long-term health issues, with higher bills adding insult to injury. Of course, this is an issue where we should take action not only because of the need to help people in this situation but because of the detrimental effects this has on our achievement of net zero and improving our energy security.

However, while there has been widespread agreement about the value of improving energy efficiency, finance has always been an obstacle to progress. The costs of improving the quality of housing will be substantial, as others have said, given where we are starting from, and it is not realistic to expect the Government to foot the bill in its entirety, nor to put intolerable burdens on landlords. We need to find a way to finance these improvements that will work for tenants, landlords and the public purse. I recognise that the Government are doing some work on this and looking at how barriers can be overcome. The green home finance accelerator fund, due to end in June, has a number of projects looking specifically at rented properties and a number of pilot schemes. I would like to hear from the Minister what steps the Government plan to take in response to what they are learning from the experience of the fund and to what timetable they will be working.

There is also a growing number of innovative private sector finance mechanisms that deserve serious attention. As the UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association recently reported, the high upfront costs of installing energy-efficient technologies remain the biggest challenge for landlords, and ensuring that there is private capital to support this process, and investment to help drive down the costs of energy efficiency, is paramount. To meet this challenge, a number of policy proposals have been made that my amendment would prompt the Government to consider. The UK Green Building Council, for example, has proposed a warm home stamp duty incentive, where stamp duty would be adjusted up or down depending on the EPC of a property and a rebate would be triggered within two years of purchase if the energy efficiency of the home had been improved.

The Local Government Association has recently recommended that the Government should incentivise landlords through tax rebates. France has added energy efficiency improvements to the list of deductible costs of managing a property, such as legal fees or insurance. Within the UK, Scotland has introduced low-interest loans for landlords. Such loans could be linked to the property, rather than the individual, for which there is the precedent of the interest-free loans that were available to install renewables.

Property-linked finance has been deployed in several other countries, and these are all measures that deserve serious consideration by the Government. They could cut through the Gordian knot of all agreeing that a great deal needs to be done but no one being able to see how it could be financed.

I hope that when the Minister responds, she will provide a little more detail on the Government’s thinking in this area, particularly on ways of incentivising landlords and how the Government intend to make progress in an area about which much has been said but too little has been done.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Bennett, for tabling these amendments and generating this debate. We on these Benches support both amendments. Every renter has the right to a warm and energy-efficient home as part of a decent standard of living. Improving energy performance in private rentals not only is vital for tenants’ comfort and reducing fuel poverty but contributes to the all-important climate target.

I thank the LGA for its briefing. It is concerned about how enforcement will be enhanced to ensure that minimum energy-efficiency standards in the PRS are upheld. As we know, the sad reality is that some landlords continue to let out inefficient, poorly insulated properties, leaving tenants with high energy bills and cold homes. Indeed, tenants in the private rented sector living in the least efficient homes are paying as much as an additional £1,000 a year on their energy bills, compared with someone living in a relatively energy-efficient home. As we heard in previous discussions, an expansion of the rent repayment orders to cover situations where a landlord lets a property that fails to meet the minimum energy-efficiency requirements would mean that if a landlord breached energy standards, for example by renting out a property below the legal EPC threshold, the tenant or council could apply for an order to reclaim up to 12 months’ rent, which we think will be a powerful deterrent against non-compliance.

Amendment 274, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is an extremely useful step towards the ultimate goal of making homes warmer and more sustainable. It proposes a clear government strategy to unlock private finance, for example with green loans or incentive schemes for landlords to retrofit insulation and efficient heating. It makes me a little nostalgic for something that we think was an excellent model, but it was on a wider infrastructural basis. I refer to the Green Investment Bank, which was introduced in the early days of the coalition Government. The National Audit Office praised it for having a clear rationale, mission and objectives, backed by sound oversight. The then Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the NAO and the Institute for Government all concluded that it had largely been successful in scaling up the UK’s green investment during its early years. It invested £3.4 billion into green projects, attracting £8.6 billion of private capital—a healthy £2.50 of private investment for every £1 of public money. Its portfolio was expected to deliver a 10% return by 2017. Sadly, in 2015, the Conservatives flogged it off and that 10% return was not realised. I would love to be able to tempt the Minister to look at that model as a really interesting way of pulling in investment.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for recalling the excellent Kirklees Council scheme. I think it was the local authority with the largest number of retrofitting and insulation projects. It was award winning. I would not want to miss the opportunity of mentioning that my noble friend Lady Pinnock was then leader of Kirklees. It drew on finance that it received for an infrastructure project; it decided to insulate across every tenure in the largest local authority area. I believe that it is still the largest local authority area, unless anyone wants to correct me.

These remain excellent examples of how facilitating investment in measures such as insulation, efficient boilers and double glazing, the Government can ensure that landlords have the means to comply with higher energy requirements rather than simply exiting the market or passing the costs on to their tenants. We therefore welcome this proposed roadmap and data collection and look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, having been extremely brief on everything, I beg noble Lords’ indulgence on this issue, which is extremely important. I sincerely hope we make a bit of progress on it. I want to thank the Renter’s Reform Coalition for their very hard work on this amendment, indeed, on the whole of the Bill. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, who strongly supports this amendment but is unable to be here tonight.

While this was debated on Report in the House of Commons in terms of its drafting, the original proposal was ruled out as not in scope of the legislation. Therefore, this is a new draft to reframe it as a review of the impact of the Bill on rents. The amendment has been redrafted in response to that feedback. To be clear, according to the Renter’s Reform Coalition, the likely projection of increase in rents as a direct result of the Bill is limited to the net core cost to landlords of £12 per home per year or 0.1% of mean annual rents. I will explain why rents continue to be a problem in spite of whatever the impact of the Bill is likely to be according to the coalition.

This amendment proposes that the Secretary of State must within 18 months of passing the Bill establish a body to report on the impact of the Act on rent levels in the private rented sector. A report published under this proposed new clause would include an analysis of any changes in average rent levels, an overview of the historic affordability of properties and consideration of proposals for improving the affordability of properties. The report should also include characteristics such as age, income and employment status.

Some of the context will be very clear to noble Lords. Private tenants have the highest weekly housing costs of any housing tenure, with lowest income tenants in particular often spending huge proportions of their income on rent. On average, renters spend 34% of their household income on housing, compared to 19% for mortgagors and 26% for social renters, and high rents hit poorer tenants hardest. One in three private renters spends at least half of their monthly household income on rent alone. Nearly 30% of private renters struggled to pay their rent in 2022.

England’s rent burden as a share of disposable income is among the highest in Europe. An analysis from Generation Rent has shown that not a single borough of inner London is affordable for roles across education, healthcare, social care, construction, retail, commerce and hospitality. Recent data released by Zoopla shows that renting a new home is on average £270 per month more expensive than in 2021, meaning that rents have increased by more than £3,000 annually in just three years. An increase in housing affordability would enhance the Government’s objective of driving growth. New research from the Mayor of London, London Councils, Trust for London and G15 shows that a 1% increase in housing affordability in this city could yield a boost of £7.3 billion in economic output over a decade. This research clearly showed that worsening housing affordability has a negative impact on productivity.

We welcome the fact that the Government are ending the bidding wars, but without also including something that acknowledges the issue of rent—and this is a very small version and modest in terms of what it does to the Bill—rents will remain too high across the board, and there will be no measures within the Bill to tackle that issue, or the current measures will be limited.

The amendment stipulates that any report made would need to include proposals for improving the affordability of rent levels in the private rented sector, but it does not prescribe what those policies should be. A report of this nature is an invaluable opportunity to consider the factors that make renting increasingly unaffordable and measures to address these factors in the round. Undertaking this thorough assessment of this complicated issue will take time, given the various intersecting factors that are contributing to the unaffordable nature of renting.

The report could consider: supply and demand in the private rented sector; the role and long-term future of the local housing allowance; the shortage of social housing; the effects of various kinds of rent control and stabilisation measures in comparator nations; an assessment of the potential impact of introducing any kind of rent measures—our preference would be for rent smoothing, as we have discussed several times, not rent controls; any impact on rent prices since the passing of the Act; and other relevant factors. In other words, this is not about being prescriptive but about studying all the impacts on rent. The impact report proposed in this amendment would provide an ongoing mechanism for acknowledging the scale of the affordability crisis. It would provide an opportunity for the Government thoroughly to assess the available evidence on unaffordability in England.

This amendment, as I have said, would not commit the Government to any one policy or approach but aims to gather evidence, data and information in a way that we do not believe is currently sufficiently gathered, and neither does the Renters’ Reform Coalition. It is also an opportunity for the Minister to commit publicly to further considering how to bring rents down in relation to incomes. I will draw my remarks to a conclusion, but this amendment is simply seeking to strengthen what the Government are already trying to do to improve the private rented sector. Without this piece, there is something very substantial missing. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, my Amendment 273 would require, within 12 months of implementation, a report on the impact of the Bill on BME and ethnic groups. I thank Race on the Agenda and Shelter for their briefings.

The private rented sector has the highest number of ethnic minorities relative to other tenures—23% compared with 19% among social renters, and 8% among owner-occupiers—yet black renters are disproportionately faced with barriers that prevent them securing a home in the sector compared with white renters. Generation Rent’s 2024 survey of private renters around the UK revealed that minority-ethnic renters were significantly more likely to face obstacles in accessing new tenancies. Racial minority respondents were almost twice as likely to have been refused a tenancy when they attempted to move home, with 12.5% reporting this experience compared with 6.3% of white British or Irish renters. Some 7% of England’s population are BME, yet in June 2024 20% of homeless households were BME; 8% of households living in poor conditions were BME compared with 3.5% identified as white households.

It is well-documented that black and minoritised groups experience both income and wealth inequality. This makes it much more difficult for these groups to cushion the shocks of rent increases or large deposits, pushing them deeper into problem debt with the associated mental health difficulties that that brings. Measures in the Bill, such as banning discrimination against people on benefits and families with children, should help reduce discrimination against BME groups, as will the ending of the bidding up of rents and the constraints on upfront payments. These are also positive measures.

I will end with a comment from Race on the Agenda.

“We note that although some provisions are made in the Bill to address housing discrimination in general terms, there is a problem as the Bill has not conducted a full racial impact assessment and does not sufficiently include robust measures to tackle racial discrimination in housing and homelessness”.


I hope that, in the light of this, the Minister will embrace the need for the review set out in this amendment.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments I have tabled in this group are to probe the Government’s decision to define a family in the way they have in Clause 21. The Explanatory Notes to this part of the Bill state:

“Subsection (4) provides that where there are two or more tenants and one of the tenants is a family member of the guarantor, if the family member dies then the guarantor will not be liable for rent on or after the date of their death”.


The Bill defines a family member in such a way that excludes anyone more distant than a first cousin. It is essential that the definition of a family in law reflects the family units we see in our day-to-day life. In many tightly knit communities across this country, families still live close together, with many cousins, both near and distant, having strong family ties to each other. In these communities, it seems very likely that a second cousin might step in to help as a rent guarantor, and surely that person falls within the intention of this part of the Bill.

It seems strange that the Government would seek to recognise the relationship between two first cousins but ignore the relationship between second cousins. The example I gave shows how a second cousin might, because of their close family ties, help a family member out as their guarantor, but the Bill would not include that person within the tightly defined family under the Bill. Will the Minister explain why the Government have defined the family in this way? Will she also explain why a second cousin who acts as a guarantor for their family member is treated as a second-class citizen compared with their other closer cousins? We are also interested in the case of smaller families, where perhaps an only child chooses to help a family member who is more distant on paper but who in reality is their nearest kin. There will have to be a definition of “family” in the Bill. We understand that, but we need an explanation about why this definition of the family is being proposed. I beg to move.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, while it is understandable that some individuals have close bonds with more distant relatives, extending the definition of “family member” to include removed or second cousins could complicate the interpretation and enforcement of these provisions, which currently offer a clear and practical framework. Broadening the definition further could introduce uncertainty for landlords and tenants alike, potentially leading to disputes over familial links and undermining the protective aims of the clause.

For those reasons, we do not support these amendments but look forward to getting on to the next group of amendments, where we believe that the issue of guarantors will become less important if a certain amendment is accepted, therefore diminishing the need for this debate.

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, but I want first to express great sympathy to the husband of Lord Etherton.

It seems entirely sensible to widen the definition of family within the Bill to include first and second cousins. I cannot see any reason for refusing that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment 170 in the name of my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett. I declare my interests as a trustee of the Nationwide Foundation.

There is a growing use of guarantors in the PRS. Generation Research last year found that 30% of renters who moved in 2023-24 had been asked to provide a guarantor. Requesting a guarantor is clearly being overused and is moving towards becoming standard practice. Moreover, a guarantor in many cases has proved to be unnecessary. Shelter found that only 2.9% of landlords attempted to pursue a guarantor for unpaid rent in the last two years, despite its estimate showing that 1.85 million renters had been asked to provide one. Guarantors are overused, unused and inherently discriminative, and make renting unnecessarily burdensome. Where a renter can prove through an affordability assessment that they can pay their rent, a guarantor should not be asked for.

Amendment 170, or one like it on Report, is a necessary addition to the Bill. Will my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage consider this amendment favourably or bring one very close to it back on Report? Will she also consider developing national guidance for fair and proportionate referencing? Although we may talk about this tomorrow, will she also consider adding information on guarantors to the private rented sector database?

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 170 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, to which I have put my name, along with Amendment 265 from my noble friend Lord Tope. As the two previous speeches have explained, the amendments attempt to ensure that the dangers of discrimination are not unintended consequences of the Bill. As we dismantle one source of insecurity—the abolition of Section 21—we must be vigilant that new discriminatory practices do not simply rise in its place.

Requiring a guarantor is often presented as a simple piece of standard referencing—a lifeline for vulnerable tenants—but in reality it is quite the opposite. It adds a significant and often insurmountable hurdle for many prospective tenants, typically imposed in addition to demanding a deposit, the first month’s rent in advance and passing an affordability assessment. Landlords already possess simple tools to assess a tenant’s ability to pay and to mitigate potential financial risk. Tenant referencing, rent guarantee insurance and deposit protection schemes provide those robust safeguards. When tenants can demonstrate they can afford the rent, requiring a guarantor becomes unnecessary and serves only to narrow the pool of renters.

The demand for guarantors is an unnecessary additional hurdle that disproportionately impacts those on low incomes, those from low-income backgrounds, those without family support networks, benefit recipients, women, single-parent households, black and Bangladeshi households in particular and, most shockingly, people with disabilities. A renter with a disability is 20% more likely to be asked for a guarantor, and a black renter 66% more likely. This is not a lifeline for the vulnerable; it is more like drowning. Independent Age tells us that this is a problem for older people, too. An older renter who can perfectly afford the rent, secure in their pension income, has recounted facing questions about their income and being asked for a guarantor.

A self-employed single mother who could pay six months in advance, topped up with universal credit, was asked for a guarantor with an income of £45,000 per annum. That is £15,000 above the UK median income. And there will be people, of course, who do not know someone with that level of income.

Throughout our debates, we have heard much about arrears, sometimes as if the problem is endemic. However, government statistics state that 2% of private rented sector tenants reported being in arrears in 2023-24; even the English Housing Survey put it at around 5%. While that is still too high, it does not reflect certain assumptions that all tenants are inevitably going to be in arrears and therefore need a guarantor.

Amendment 170 seeks to bring sense and proportionality to this practice. It does not ban the use of guarantors; it simply and reasonably restricts their use to circumstances where a prospective tenant cannot demonstrate that they can afford the rent. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, so ably put it, over the most recent two-year period, only 3% of landlords have attempted to claim lost rent from a tenant’s guarantor. When landlords have attempted this route, it has proved much harder than the standard insurance products to indemnify against non-payment.

The Government have rightly listened to calls to limit excessive upfront payments. If we tackle one form of financial barrier used to exclude tenants, we must tackle the other to prevent some landlords simply switching tactics—which I think is the greatest fear of noble Lords who support this amendment. Without this amendment, there is a significant risk that limiting rent in advance could inadvertently lead to an even wider reliance on guarantor requests, thus undermining the Bill's anti-discrimination provisions.

This amendment is a sensible, proportionate step that ensures landlords can still use guarantors when genuinely needed, while protecting vulnerable renters from being unfairly shut out of the market. I hope the Government will consider and adopt this amendment or agree to discuss a possible alternative.

[Lord Tope (LD)]

My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 265 and, in speaking briefly on it, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for the way she introduced both Amendment 265 and 170, which I also support, although I did not have the opportunity to add my name to that one as well.

First of all, I declare an interest a co-president of London Councils, which is the body that represents all 32 London boroughs and the City of London. I am also, inevitably, a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I think the point has been very well made, not least by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and I do not want to repeat the arguments at this time of night—although I would very much like to have done so. Instead, I shall ask the Minister one thing. I hope, in a minute, she is going to say that the Government are going to take this opportunity to repeal that part of the Act and, I hope, support these amendments. If she does not, however, I say that it is widely agreed, and indeed has been agreed by a High Court judge, that the right to rent is discriminatory. Therefore, can the Minister give us any evidence that it has had any effect in actually reducing illegal migration? Has it achieved its purpose in any way? If it has not, in its 10-year life, why on earth are a Labour Government keeping it in this Bill when they have the opportunity, in this legislation, to remove something that is both ineffective and discriminatory?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I want to say a few words about Amendment 182 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey—not, I am afraid, in support of it. Is it fair that tenants residing in rural properties should have different treatment from those in the rest of the country? I have been responsible for a number of rural housing schemes—indeed, I recently chaired the Devon Housing Commission, looking at the issues facing communities in Devon—and I suggest that there are a number of reasons why it is fair to treat tenants in rural areas rather differently from those in the rest of the country.

First, it is much more difficult if a property is sold and therefore does not come back for reletting. We now know, Right to Buy being a matter of history, that after a period you will not get the relets, the opportunity for more people to enter those properties, in the years ahead. It is more difficult to replace properties in a village than in a town. If we lose the six houses that we have built in that village, they are gone for ever. It often takes years to acquire a site, convince the parish council and deal with the landowners. It takes a very long time to get those six homes built and we do not want to lose them if we can possibly help it, because in the future we will regret that.

My second reason is that the amount of social housing—housing association and council housing—in rural areas is appreciably less than in the rest of the country. It is about 11% for areas classified as rural locations compared with 17% for the rest of the country, including the rural areas, so there are already signs of acute shortage of affordable social housing in many areas, and we cannot really afford to lose what we have.

The third reason is that most of the developments in rural areas, or village areas, are small developments, and there is therefore no requirement to do affordable housing—to have a proportion of the homes that are available at subsidised low rents—so most of the development that is going to happen in rural areas, being less than 10 homes, is not going to have any affordable housing attached to it. We have to hang on, if we possibly can, to the properties that we have and then relet them later on.

My fourth reason is that, as the noble Baroness said, prices are higher but wages are lower. It is much more difficult in rural areas for local people to find any housing other than social housing that they can genuinely afford. There are the retirees moving in—in the case of Devon, from the south-east very often into the south-west. There are more affluent commuters paying more than locals can afford on their salaries. There are second homes—we are going to be talking soon about short-term lets, Airbnb and holiday lets—so locals are priced out, and it becomes a precious commodity to retain those few rural social houses, so I am afraid that I am unable to support Amendment 182.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, these Benches recognise the vital importance of our rural and agricultural communities, who operate under the more specialised and long-standing tenancy agreements. Such tenancies often span many years, involve successive generations and reflect a connection between the land and those who work it, going well beyond the norms found in other areas of the rental sector. We fully appreciate the challenges that tenants and landlords may face under those arrangements, particularly when legislation risks creating ambiguity or disruption.

When I looked at these amendments, it struck me that discretionary rather than mandatory powers would be a very useful thing to have, so it is hugely ironic that the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, raised my own amendments on this issue. I would have thought that a discretionary approach for any decision in the courts may well be useful in this context. However, while we are sympathetic to the concerns raised, that sympathy does not translate into ready support for Amendments 176, 177 and 182. It is our understanding that the Bill will not apply to residential property let under a farm business tenancy or an Agricultural Holdings Act tenancy but will apply to any residential property on a holding that is subsequently sublet on what we now know as an assured shorthold tenancy, and it will in future have grounds for possession as set out in other parts of the Bill.

We also understand that a process will be in place for landlords to avoid inadvertently creating assured agricultural occupancies, and we fully back the words of the noble Lord, Lord Best, as ever, with regard to rural communities and retention of, in particular, social housing. We believe firmly that local authorities know best and should be given the powers to make decisions over those social homes, with the right level of localism and autonomy. With that said, we look forward with interest to hearing the Minister’s response but remain unconvinced by these three amendments as set out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, talk about save the Best until last—well, until the penultimate. The breadth, depth, knowledge, understanding and experience of the names backing these amendments is fascinating and extraordinary. I thank all noble Lords. I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lady Thornhill who also put her name to both amendments. She signed these amendments and we backed them because it is so astonishing that property agents still, today, have none of these qualifications and that anyone can be set up and become a lettings agency. It is staggering given the amount of expertise that they need in order to advise landlords and tenants on these significant complex legal issues in exchange for the not insignificant amounts of money they get for doing that very job.

Propertymark and others are pressing for this. They know that there are people out there who are not doing a good job, as the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, described, and that they are letting the side down and giving good lettings agents a terrible reputation. It is in everyone’s interest that this aspect of the private rented sector is regulated, precisely because the UK property market is very heavily regulated already, with strict laws governing tenants’ rights and landlords’ obligations across many different Acts. Knowledge, understanding and training around that is absolutely critical.

Qualified property agents should possess the knowledge and expertise to navigate this minefield. Legal compliance and risk management are essential. The list of what they have to do already is long and complex and the Bill will add to it, which is why a transition timeline is essential, with thorough, clear guidance as to what is expected, when and by whom. Landlords are rightly worried about this, and I hope that the Minister can reassure the sector on that particular issue of timeline.

It is worth stressing that without proper qualifications, agents risk costly legal battles, fines and damage to their own professional reputation. We have heard that there are already qualifications out there. The sector is keen to get going and roll them out, but they need that push; that degree of compulsion. Amendments 203 and 204 would provide that. Qualifications demonstrate that the agent is knowledgeable about market trends, property evaluations, but also, importantly, ethical practices and transparency itself. All these things are needed. This would create a virtuous circle, boost tenants’ confidence and make landlords more likely to trust their investments with a qualified agent who would also be able to conduct property inspections, manage maintenance, repairs and rent collection and handle financial management. Surely this has to be done with real professional skill, reducing the risk of disputes and maintaining property value. Those agents who get ahead of the curve and get qualified now will become the best. They will stand out from the crowd in a competitive marketplace.

If the Bill is about raising the standard in the private rented sector, rooting out the bad guys and making a once-in-a-generation shift in private renting, this is such an important part of the equation. The Government must grasp it, grasp it soon and get on with it. At the end of the day, it is not just about bricks and mortar, but people’s homes and livelihoods. I ask the Minister: if not this Bill, where and when?

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for bringing Amendments 203 and 204 before your Lordships’ House today. They propose the insertion of new clauses after Clause 63 and rightly focus on training property agents and the enforcement of agent qualifications. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, who raised the important aspect of parity with the social rented sector, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, who said that, actually, this is very complex, that people need to understand it and that inadvertent mistakes and omissions are frequently made. The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, gave us some statistics—I could not write them down quickly enough, but I am sure I will get hold of them sooner or later. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, made a good point, which I will come back to, about proportionality and the risk of overregulation—something that noble Lords may have heard once or twice from this side of the Chamber. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, whose comments I will also come back to.

Your Lordships’ House is correct to consider the value of proper training and qualifications, and the benefits this knowledge can bring to the property market. I shall focus my contribution on the impact that training can have in reducing the risk of regulatory breaches, thereby benefiting tenants. Not only will well-trained agents develop a broader and more cohesive understanding of the law but their ignorance, and the potential for breaches arising from a simple lack of understanding, will be greatly diminished. With this, significant benefits will also be felt by local authorities, as fewer cases of regulatory breaches will be brought to their attention for resolution.

Such a reduction in caseload is particularly important at a time when local authorities are tasked with implementing the Secretary of State’s reorganisation plans as outlined in the devolution White Paper. As your Lordships’ House will be well aware, local authorities are currently operating under immense pressure—facing financial constraints, staffing shortages and increasing responsibilities. It is not just a case of money; I know from my experience with local authorities and their housing teams that it is a lack of enough trained people. We need to seek to minimise the pressure that we put on them.

We must explore proactive measures such as ensuring that property agents are properly trained and qualified from the outset. By doing so, we not only improve standards across the sector but allow local authorities to focus their limited resources on strategic priorities rather than enforcement. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, said, there is an issue of proportionality. We must ensure that any powers we pass to the Secretary of State are proportionate and can be implemented. While ministerial oversight is, of course, necessary in certain respects, we must be cautious about top-down regulation of key aspects of training and enforcement.

If we are truly committed to getting this right, we must resist the temptation to defer action or consign this matter to the “deal with it later” category. This argument has been, and will no doubt continue to be, clearly articulated across this House. Not placing provisions in the Bill is not only inadequate but raises more questions than it answers. We must understand the Minister’s intentions fully before we consider granting such significant powers to the Secretary of State. Nevertheless, the intention behind these amendments is well placed. Educating letting agents is vital, as they occupy a central role in the rental housing market and have a direct impact on whether tenants are treated both fairly and lawfully.

Exploring ways to enhance tenant protection without compromising housing supply should be at the front and centre of the Government’s thinking. It is vital that we establish clear, accessible means to ensure that landlords understand their rights and responsibilities, and the regulatory framework in which they operate. Property agents must be at the heart of this ambition.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness D’Souza (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest, having a young grandson who had an affinity with snakes. When he was very young, living in central London, he had several, one of which was quite large and called Wilberforce. Wilberforce used to do what snakes do—rear up and sway when anyone came in the room, so he was quite intimidating. One day he—we think it was a he—disappeared and has never been found. I mention this as a cautionary tale, as he may one day turn up somewhere where he is not quite as welcome as he was originally.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, the provisions relating to tenants keeping pets may seem a small aspect to some, but their impact on the well-being and lives of millions of renters cannot be overstated. We on these Benches warmly welcome the Bill’s intention to make it an implied term in most assured tenancies that landlords cannot unreasonably refuse a tenant’s request to keep a pet.

We support many of the amendments in this group, with the exception of Amendments 120, 122 and 123. For too long, a blanket ban on pets has been a source of needless unhappiness and stress for renters, compounding the sense that this large and ever-growing group are often treated as second-class citizens. This includes social renters, and we commend the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on that issue. Indeed, research estimates that pet ownership contributes considerable savings to the NHS each year, as an example, potentially as much as £2.45 billion annually across the UK through reduced doctor visits. It is simply wrong that the joy and benefits that a pet brings should be restricted to those who are fortunate enough to own their own home.

We have heard compelling evidence illustrating the scale of this issue. Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, which I thank for its briefing on this issue, has highlighted that housing concerns are the second most common reason why dogs are relinquished to its care. Even though I am here in fear of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on this issue, I add my thanks to Battersea Dogs & Cats Home for the rescue cat that we got from Battersea, who brings us daily joy and, I reassure the noble Earl, kills a lot of rats. Despite 76% of UK private tenants owning or aspiring to own a pet, only 8% of landlords currently advertise properties as allowing pets. This creates immense difficulty for renters, forcing them into heartbreaking decisions, as we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford.

Clauses 10, 11, 12 and 13 introduce the right to request a pet and allow landlords to require insurance, but we feel that they still leave further questions about the practical implementation. Sources currently suggest that there are no readily available insurance products for tenants to cover potential pet damage. We welcome some of the probing amendments on this issue and look forward to hearing from the Minister about any clarification on that. Organisations such as Generation Rent argue that the existing tenancy deposit should be sufficient to cover those damages. We must ensure that the Bill does not disadvantage the most deprived renters, perhaps by exploring alternatives such as allowing for a higher deposit or different insurance mechanisms such as the Scottish model of an additional deposit. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on this issue.

Crucially, the Bill states that consent cannot be unreasonably refused. However, what constitutes unreasonably withholding consent is not yet clearly defined. We need the reasonable grounds for refusal to be set out with more clarity, ensuring fairness and consistency in decisions, especially if the proposed ombudsman service or the courts are involved.

A particularly troubling aspect is the exemption allowing superior landlords to override a landlord’s approval for pets. This risks undermining the spirit of the legislation, especially for tenants in blocks of flats or leasehold properties where management companies or freeholders might maintain blanket bans. We on these Benches support my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer in her Amendments 119 and 126 which seek greater clarity on this issue. This exemption should be removed to ensure that the right to keep a pet applies consistently across all types of rented homes. Other practicalities, such as the proposed timeframe for landlords to respond to pet requests, also may need some scrutiny or flexibility. Battersea Dogs & Cats Home has suggested that a shortening of this time might be an idea.

The intention behind these clauses is commendable, reflecting a much-needed shift towards acknowledging the important role pets play in many people’s lives. There is evidence that renting to tenants with pets can be commercially beneficial for landlords, with pet owners tending to have longer tenancies, averaging 24 months compared with 21 months for those without pets. Pet owners are also often willing to allow more regular inspections or consider covering additional costs. While concerns about damage are understandable, most evidence suggests that these fears can be exaggerated. In our view, and as other noble Lords and contributing organisations have highlighted, some refinement is needed. We must ensure that these provisions are not only well- intentioned but genuinely effective in practice, providing clear rights for tenants while addressing some of the legitimate concerns. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to these amendments.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a landlord of rental properties in Hampshire. I support all the amendments in this group. I fear that the Government may not support Amendment 283, even though it was in the original Bill that was presented when we were in Government.

I will focus on the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, which would require the Government to conduct a formal review of the Bill’s impact on the court system within two years of its enactment. This review, supported by the National Residential Landlords Association, would assess case volumes, the court’s ability to manage demand, the efficiency and timeliness of proceedings, and the administrative burden on the courts. It would require the Secretary of State to consult legal practitioners, court officials and other relevant experts to ensure that decisions are based on reliable evidence.

Crucially, this amendment does not seek to delay the abolition of Section 21. Instead, it would ensure that the Government monitor the impact of these changes and, if necessary, take action to address the extra pressures on the justice system.

With the abolition of Section 21 no-explanation repossessions, landlords will become more reliant on the courts when seeking to gain possession of a property using the legitimate grounds under the Section 8 process. However, as many other noble Lords have said, this shift raises serious concerns about the capacity of the justice system to handle the increased caseload. The Law Society notes:

“The bill in its current form, may lead to an increase in contested hearings in the short term, as landlords that would previously have used no-fault provisions will instead have to show good reason for eviction”.


The Housing Minister has said that the Government are working to ensure the courts are “ready” for the system replacing Section 21. As other noble Lords have said, they have given no indication on what this means in practice or how it will be achieved. The court system was already struggling. As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, has said, the Housing Minister told the Bill Committee in the Commons that

“the court system is on its knees”.—[Official Report, Commons, Renters’ Rights Bill Committee, 22/10/24; col. 9.]

Government data shows that the average time to process and enforce a Section 8 possession case—the grounds-based route to possession—is over seven months. That is seven months in which a responsible landlord might be left unable to recover their property in cases of serious rent arrears or anti-social behaviour; seven months where neighbours may have to endure disruption; and seven months in which tenants who are genuinely in need of housing will not have access to the market because homes that should be available are instead tied up in legal delays. It is only right and fair that responsible landlords have confidence that the system will not leave them in limbo when they have legitimate grounds for possession.

Tenants also face major barriers to justice. As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, has said, close to a majority of the population of England and Wales do not have a housing legal aid provider in their local authority area.

Given all this, Richard Atkinson, the president of the Law Society, has rightly concluded that

“the bill will not be effective without further investment in the justice system. We urge the government to provide greater funding and more clarity to the enforcement provisions so that justice is accessible to renters and landlords alike”.

No mention is made in the impact assessment of what the extra costs of improving the Courts & Tribunals Service will be, or of implementing the new IT system that other noble Lords have met with the Minister to hear about. Does that mean that nothing extra will be spent on improving systems in the Courts & Tribunals Service?

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to ensure that there is an awareness within the context of these amendments of the current state of play. According to a briefing from Generation Rent, which I thank for the information, only a tiny minority of tenancies ever get anywhere near a court—currently, about 0.3% end in repossession in the court. While the courts are indeed very overcrowded and have a lot of cases coming before them, it is important to understand where in the hierarchy tenancies currently are.

In addition, the vast majority of tenants, the minute they receive a notice—whatever the notice is—tend to see the writing on the wall and leave, because there is such a strong power imbalance, and therefore it never makes it to court. Although I recognise that we are hearing about the situation when something reaches court, the likelihood of anything actually reaching court is, as we will discuss in further amendments later today, often very remote, from both sides of the argument.

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

I am sorry to disagree with the noble Baroness but, sadly, from practical experience, I think what she is saying is not necessarily the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

I am delighted to be supporting the noble Lord, Lord Best, and I wholeheartedly agree with his perceptive analysis of this Bill. We on these Benches enthusiastically support the fundamental principles of the Bill and the Government’s commitment to redress the imbalance between landlords and tenants. I welcome the elegant bridge the noble Lord has built between landlords and tenants on the issue of rent.

I share the disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, that there was an emptying of the Chamber. I see this group of amendments as a critical part of the discussion about what can help—in particular, with the tribunals. I look forward to us welcoming back shortly the people who are very interested in pets.

As the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Hacking, and my noble friend Lady Janke have so clearly articulated, there is a fundamental challenge that the Bill in its current form does not adequately address: the profound and escalating crisis of rent affordability. While the Bill introduces welcome measures on security and standards, it risks falling short of its aims unless the issue of rent is resolved. Rent inflation continues to far outstrip both wage growth and inflation, and pushes millions of renters into precarious situations, as described by my noble friend Lady Thornhill, because the highest cause of homelessness is eviction from the PRS. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, more than a third of private renters are in poverty after housing costs, and according to Generation Rent, half of all private renters have no savings at all. We are talking about people who can ill-afford any shift, however small a percentage.

The Bill commendably aims to abolish Section 21 no-fault evictions. This is a crucial step towards greater security, but, as the Renters’ Reform Coalition—I thank it for its briefings—and others have rightly highlighted, without adequate protection against excessive rent increases, landlords can still force tenants out through eviction by price. This is effectively creating a Section 21 process by the back door. The amendments in this group are reasonable and measured in their aim to resolve this issue.

I am afraid that we do not go as far rent control on this—with apologies to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. It would be a shame if this is perceived as a shift in that direction and that becomes the focus of the debate right now, because I genuinely believe that, with the amendments in this group, we are moving towards a solution—whether it is the Bank of England base rate or by the CPI—by attaching some kind of mechanism that helps to ensure that rents go up proportionately but fairly for everyone. By all means, we can discuss the Scotland experience yet again, but I feel it is not necessarily relevant to what is trying to be achieved here.

The primary mechanism in the Bill for tenants to challenge what they perceive as unreasonable rent increases is through application to the First-tier Tribunal. While the intention behind this is sound, the approach places the onus squarely on the tenant. I recognise that the highly competent noble Lord, Lord Young, is able to fill in a form at speed and be extremely muscular and assertive in riding the waves of any opposition. However, for countless renters—I think of a friend who is a renter who is holding down three very low-income jobs, does not have a smartphone and is trying to maintain a rent to keep her two children at primary school—the very concept of them feeling that they can assert themselves thanks to the changes made by the noble Lord, Lord Maude, to what is on a website is for the birds. Navigating a tribunal process is, for many, a daunting prospect—not for the people here who have described it in the last group of amendments but for the people out there who are renting and who are on the lowest incomes and often at the lowest ebb in their lives. They may lack the necessary means, confidence, awareness of their rights or resilience to engage with what is potentially—and feels to them—a very complex and time-consuming legal mechanism, however speedy it was for the noble Lord, Lord Young.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, we welcome the Government’s commitment to rebalancing the relationship between landlords and tenants, and the abolition of Section 21, but we must ensure that the protections afforded to tenants are as robust as possible if the Bill is truly to deliver for the people who find themselves on the front line of this housing crisis. The Bill introduces new mandatory eviction grounds. Although we understand that the intention is to provide clear routes for landlords to regain property, making grounds mandatory removes the courts’ vital ability to act as a backstop and consider the individual circumstances of the tenant. It is important to test this issue in Committee, which is why we tabled Amendment 31.

Although most repossessions will be able to proceed without a hitch under the new Act, ensuring that exceptional cases have a discretionary element is critical—a discretionary element that the Labour Front Bench argued for with some vigour in the previous Parliament. Indeed, the Renters’ Reform Coalition argue that the lack of discretion is one of the most significant shortcomings in the Bill. The Renters’ Reform Coalition comprises some of the leading charities that work tirelessly on the issues of tenancy, homelessness and housing, including Shelter, which I used to work for. I thank the coalition for its work on this amendment and its support on this issue.

It is not difficult to imagine situations where compelling reasons for refusing immediate possession should exist. For instance, a tenant or a member of their family may have a serious terminal illness such as cancer, with a very limited life expectancy, a severe disability, or caring responsibilities for a disabled person, meaning they will necessarily need a longer period to find the most suitable accommodation. In the previous Parliament, the shadow Housing Minister, Matthew Pennycook, provided us with a useful hypothetical example, in which a terminally ill cancer patient could be evicted and at risk of homelessness because the landlord wishes to sell—a landlord, in this hypothetical scenario, with a portfolio of, say, eight houses and no compelling need to sell. In that scenario, he argued, a judge should have discretion.

Mandatory grounds, such as grounds 2ZB and 2ZC, which cover possession when a superior lease ends, prevent the court taking these profoundly human factors into account. Making all grounds discretionary would offer a vital layer of protection. It would allow the courts the potential to act as a backstop, consider all factors and potentially propose alternative courses of action to avoid a damaging eviction.

Obviously, some will argue that this cannot be done on the grounds of backlogs in the courts. Reforms in Scotland, where grounds for possession were made discretionary in October 2022, have shown little evidence of significantly worsening court backlogs. Indeed, if backlogs in courts, or in any institution right now, were applied to every piece of legislation that comes before us as a rationale for not proceeding or making a decision, we would be very hampered indeed as a legislative body.

We all know that the reality and likelihood of tenants taking up this course of action, just like the First-tier Tribunal, will be minimal, but the existence of the discretionary approach would ensure that an all-important safety net is in place for the worst possible cases. This amendment would remove “must” and insert “may” in the relevant heading of part 1 of Schedule 1, and omit the heading of part 2. This would provide the courts with the flexibility needed to consider the specific context of each case. I understand that the Housing Minister, Matthew Pennycook, in the House of Commons has countered that this is “a step too far” and would remove “certainty” for landlords, but we disagree—or rather, we agree with his original arguments, which are no different from mine today.

Should the Government remain resistant to making all grounds fully discretionary, can we please explore, between now and Report, robust mechanisms to prevent evictions that would cause severe hardship? As a fallback position, we advocate strongly for the introduction of a mandatory hardship test that courts must apply when considering possession orders under any mandatory grounds. This test would require the court to explicitly weigh the potential severity of the hardship caused to the tenant, considering factors such as health, disability, how many children there are, access to alternative accommodation and the impact on the ability to maintain employment or education, against the landlord’s stated reason for seeking possession. This hardship test would ensure that the most vulnerable tenants are not rendered homeless or forced into the inadequate temporary accommodation that we have heard described by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, simply because a mandatory ground is technically met without consideration of the dire circumstances in which the tenant finds themselves. It would provide a necessary safety net, ensuring that, while good landlords could regain their property for legitimate reasons, the system does not blindly facilitate deeply unfair and harmful evictions.

We must listen to the voices of those who live with the constant fear of losing their home. We owe it to future generations to get this bit right. This amendment would strengthen the Bill to ensure that security, fairness and compassion are at its heart by making grounds discretionary—or, at the very least, by introducing a mandatory hardship test.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, my Amendments 35 and 71 both aim to help people who rent. I declare an interest as someone who rents a two-bedroom flat.

I have tabled Amendment 35 because I am worried that the Government’s good policy will actually end up penalising the very people that it is aiming to help. I hope the Minister will go away from here thinking, “The Green Party had quite a good idea on that, and how nice it is to have them on our side for once”.

The Government are doing the right thing for the climate and for people in putting in higher energy efficiency standards—that is a given—and doing the right thing for landlords with grants to help them meet those standards. However, the only people who do not get a guaranteed better life are the poor tenants who have to put up with the work, dust, noise and inconvenience of the energy improvements being done, with the possibility that their rent will be going up as their energy costs go down. Amendment 35 is an attempt to give tenants a guarantee that they will also get some direct benefit from the drive for net zero with two years of lower energy bills, without that saving being cancelled out by a landlord focusing on profiting from a government grant. I think this is a sensible amendment and I hope it will find favour with the Minister.

Amendment 71 aims to shift the debate firmly on to the needs of the tenant and to discourage landlords from constantly changing their minds about letting out their properties. It builds on the Government’s welcome attempt to get rid of no-fault evictions by adding a new clause to the eviction process that gives the tenant a one-month financial head start. With all the costs involved with moving—the deposit and moving costs—it can be a long, drawn-out process, and, for many tenants who are self-employed or on zero-hours contracts, time is literally money and moving is a time-consuming business.

I hope that passing this legislation will create a new era of stability for those in the private rental market. A whole generation of young people has had to suffer from an overheated rental market, which was firmly loaded in favour of investors and those with the money to buy properties. This legislation does not actually solve that problem, because only the Government building hundreds of thousands of social homes could probably do that, but I welcome the start the Bill is making and I hope the Minister will consider the needs of tenants even more in this way.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 32, 33 and 34 would achieve equality and consistency. I recommend them to the Government, and I hope the Minister will take these arguments on board and see the merits of the case we are putting forward. I look forward to hearing from her and hope she will be able to accept these today—and if not today, then perhaps before Report. I beg to move.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly from these Benches to say that there is some nervousness on our part with regard to these amendments and the potential for loopholes to be created. If the discussion is that this is a meeting of equals between tenants and landlords, then I am not sure that this is entirely the case from all the experience and data that we have so far. Let me stress that one of the reasons why we are very excited about the data section, which we will come to later in the Bill, is that we have quite a strong belief that there is limited knowledge about who is out there and who is a landlord right now. All we know about are the responsible ones who register themselves and provide information.

A tenant by very definition is not an equal to someone who owns a property. There may be exceptions to that case, such as tenants who are in high-end properties, but on the whole the tenants we are talking about within the Bill are the ones who struggle on a weekly basis to pay their rent. Therefore, it is not a meeting of equals.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments. Amendments 32, 33 and 34 seek to expand the definition of a family member for the purposes of possession ground 1. This mandatory possession ground is available if the landlord or their close family member wishes to move into the property. These amendments widen the ground to allow a landlord to claim possession from an existing tenant to move in relatives of their spouse, partner or co-habitee, along with nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles or cousins.

In choosing which of the landlord’s family members can move in under ground 1, we have reflected the diversity of modern families while drawing a line short of where some might wish. But we are of the view that to expand the ground any further would diminish tenant protections too far. It would open tenants up to evictions from a wide range of people—potentially very significant numbers indeed where families are large—while providing more opportunity for ill-intentioned landlords to abuse the system.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked why “family member” is used in Clause 21 while close family member is used in the moving-in ground. The moving-in ground is designed for very specific circumstances where a landlord’s family member is in need of accommodation, so it is right that this definition is narrower, as tenants risk losing their home. New Section 16N of the Housing Act 1988, “Guarantor not liable for rent payable after the tenant’s death”, as inserted by Clause 21, is specifically targeted to stop those grieving being held liable after a tenancy should have been ended, and it is right that this is a broader protection. The use of guarantors is wide ranging and, as such, a wider definition is needed to encompass all relevant persons. However, that is not the case when a tenant is facing eviction from a property.

For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

I will leave it there. These are very sensible amendments and I would be very surprised and disappointed if the Minister did not take them on.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, we thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for raising a critical issue that is at crisis point: namely, housing in rural communities. We on these Benches understand the need to support those in the agricultural community, who are on unique tenancy arrangements for a variety of historical reasons. These tenancies often involve longer durations, inter- generational involvement and a closer relationship between the land and the livelihood than is typical elsewhere in the rental sector, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, described. As such, it is vital that any legislative change reflects the particular realities of agricultural life and does not introduce any unintended uncertainty or disruption.

Crucially, it is important to ensure that there is greater clarity for both landlords and tenants operating under agricultural tenancies. In a sector where long-term planning and security of tenure are essential, both parties require clear and consistent rules to navigate their rights and responsibilities with confidence. That said, we on these Benches are somewhat hesitant about the proposed amendments in this group to introduce a new repossession ground for these tenancies. We believe it is possible that there may be more effective ways to provide reassurance to those living under such arrangements. On that basis, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, as someone who farms, albeit not on the same scale as the noble Lords who have spoken thus far, or indeed anywhere near it, I am very sensitive to the requirement for security of tenants. On the other hand, I know that—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will be brief. Amendment 68 seeks to make a modest but sensible change to Clause 6 by replacing “may” with “must”. The intention here is clear: to ensure that the Secretary of State is under a duty—not merely a discretion—to publish the prescribed form for a notice of possession and to ensure that it is kept up to date. We simply do not understand why the Government believe that discretion is necessary in this case. If a form is to be relied on by landlords and tenants alike, and ultimately by the courts, it must be accessible and current. Anything less introduces the risk of confusion, inconsistency or even procedural unfairness.

Can the Government kindly explain the rationale behind retaining this discretion? In what circumstances does the Secretary of State envisage not publishing the form or not ensuring that the version in use is the most recent? This is a matter of basic clarity and procedural transparency, and I hope the Minister can provide some reassurance on this point.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I find myself in a strange position: having argued earlier on discretionary powers to change “must” to “may”, I now find myself in support of changing a “may” to a “must”. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that making this open, available and transparent would be a good thing. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, Amendment 62 in this group, in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, is also about a particular form of occupational housing. I need to declare an interest: I own one small apartment in the West Midlands which has been let out to a tenant for a long time, but, according to some of the media, that makes me a kind of Rachmanite landlord who is trying to destroy the Bill. I can assure your Lordships that that is the last thing I have in mind.

This is about people who live in tied accommodation. As a Church of England bishop, I live in what I suppose we should call a tied palace rather than a tied cottage, but it is accommodation that I inhabit only for as long as I exercise my current office. That is the situation for the vast majority of stipendiary Church of England clergy, many other ministers of religion, and also for farm workers and estate workers who are required, for the better performance of their duties, to live where they actually work. It is a category that is accepted by HMRC, in terms of taxation legislation, as a special form of tenure. A large proportion of those who live in tied accommodation do not have the capacity during their working lives to save up and be able to provide for themselves in retirement, when they eventually have to move out of their tied dwelling.

I will not benefit from the amendment I am proposing to your Lordships today, because I will be able to accommodate myself by other means, but the Church of England Pensions Board lets out 50 or so properties each year—that is the average over the last few years—to retiring clergy, or sometimes to the spouse or surviving civil partner of a member of the clergy who has died in office, usually at about 60% of what the market rent would normally be in those circumstances. These properties are made available for clergy to look at any time up to about five years before they retire. The importance of that is we know that when people retire and move out of tied accommodation, they need time to think about where they are going to live, what sort of community they will want to settle in and put down roots in, because it is probably where they will stay for the rest of their lives.

At the moment, what the pensions board is able to do, and what other landlords who are used to accommodating people in tied accommodation can do, is to reserve a property for some period of time in advance and let it out in the meantime, but that will not be possible if the Bill passes in its present form. All that my amendment seeks to do is to make a small change that will allow an extra ground for granting possession where it is to accommodate somebody who is moving out of tied accommodation and the person who is providing their accommodation in retirement is somebody who is closely connected with who they were working for. It may be a former employer. In the case of clergy, who are officeholders rather than employees —a bit like police officers, we are officeholders—it will be an appropriate charity that provides accommodation in retirement.

This would make very little difference to the availability of rented housing overall—it would not make it impossible for other people to find properties to rent—but, as we have already heard several times today, there are people who wish to rent for a shorter period of time. It would be known that these properties will be subject to that clawback when the person who has earmarked them retires. If this amendment is not accepted, I fear that what will happen is that properties will simply lie empty for several years until the member of the clergy or the farm worker is ready to retire into them, and thus take properties away from the rented market, which I do not think is the aim of the Bill at all. I think this is a rather modest, quite niche measure, which would affect only particular categories of labourer, but for them it would make a huge difference to be able to identify where they are going to live when they retire a few years ahead of retirement and to know that that property will be available for them on the day of their retirement.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly from these Benches, in part to spare my noble friend’s voice—I assure noble Lords that no wine has been taken this evening.

I will stress something that is beginning to cause confusion on these Benches: the suggestion that an assured shorthold tenancy is in some way secure. It has been well documented over many years that huge insecurity is attached to an assured shorthold tenancy. Everything that we have learned about the huge turnover has for so many tenants been attached to the fact that ASTs are sometimes down to six months. A periodic tenancy—which has no end—is surely more secure than these fragile assured shorthold tenancies, which are often for only six months and cause huge insecurity for so many tenants. For that reason, these Benches are extremely concerned about the current direction of travel.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. Indeed, it follows on very neatly from our earlier debate on fixed-term tenancies. My noble friends Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Moynihan made compelling arguments for why we should permit fixed-term tenancies for both professional athletes and police officers. The benefits were set out with conviction and clarity, and I hope the Government Benches have listened. Of course, I would prefer that fixed-term tenancies continued to be available for everyone.

I will not rehearse the arguments made earlier, but does not the growing list of amendments seeking exemptions highlight the real value that fixed-term tenancies offer, supporting people from all walks of life, from athletes to police officers and everyone in between? Nurses, doctors, students, military personnel and even performers can all benefit from a fixed-term tenancy. The Government should consider these benefits. In removing fixed terms altogether, the Bill risks taking away short-term lets that serve as a real benefit for many thousands of people.

I turn to the Minister’s Amendment 59, which expands ground 5C to account for police officers. These Benches understand the importance of an employer’s need to regain possession of rented property if the tenancy is linked to a tenant’s employment. I thank the Minister for setting out details of the amendment.

Finally, I wish to note Amendment 62, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I thank him for the chat we had about it, because I had no idea that this happened within the Church of England. Enabling a debate on possession for the purposes of housing a person leaving tied accommodation is most welcome. This is an important issue, as it ensures that a landlord, who is often also the employer, can regain possession of a property when it is needed to house a new employee, but also—as in the case of the Church of England—allows the Church to regain a property that is required for the retiring employee. We must recognise the value of maintaining the availability of essential employment-linked housing, and consider how best to safeguard it in practice. Additionally, we must not discourage landlords from helping tenants by giving them extra time to move out, providing references or offering alternative housing, especially in sectors such as education or farming—or, indeed, in the Church.

This debate has encapsulated the depth and breadth of the Bill, and the numerous areas that it covers. A modern, dynamic workforce needs the freedom to move, adapt and pursue opportunities wherever they arise. We must have a laser focus on occupational needs when considering any changes to the rental market.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Grender]

15: Leave out Clause 2 and insert the following new Clause—
“Assured tenancy exemption: new build propertiesAssured shorthold tenancies are abolished except in relation to premises whose current tenants are the first tenants since the construction of the premises, and only for the period of six months beginning with the day on which the tenancy began.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow an assured short-term tenancy for six months after a premises is constructed.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, this is my first speech today, so I will take the opportunity to thank the Minister and her team for all the discussions so far. I support the fundamental principles underpinning this legislation, in particular the long-overdue abolition of Section 21 no-fault evictions—a change that, as we have heard, cannot come soon enough for countless renters across the country.

However, as we work to create a much fairer and more secure private rented sector, we on these Benches are also hugely aware of the pressing need to increase the supply of high-quality rental homes. For that reason, we have tabled Amendment 15, which aims to provide a very specific and targeted temporary exemption to the abolition of ASTs—assured shorthold tenancies. Specifically, the provision would allow assured shorthold tenancies for a period of six months for premises whose current tenants are the first tenants since the construction of the premises. This is a carefully considered proposal, designed to support the laudable aims of the Bill by incentivising the creation of much-needed new rental stock.

My honourable friend in the House of Commons, Gideon Amos, and noble Lords on these Benches have consistently championed the cause of increasing housing supply, particularly through new innovative models such as build-to-rent accommodation. This highlights the urgent need to restore hope to millions aspiring to a decent home after decades of decline in social housing provision. Indeed, ours was the only manifesto with a direct target of 150,000 new social homes to rent—a vital underpinning building block to change the lack of balance in tenures to match and accommodate the desperate need that has reached a crisis level today.

My colleague tabled an amendment in the House of Commons that would have specifically incentivised more build-to-rent accommodation by offering a degree of initial security for developers. Although that original amendment proposed a longer initial term of about two years, the underlying principle remains the same. New developments, particularly in the build-to-rent sector, require a degree of certainty.

We have heard directly from the British Property Federation, which is the representative body for the build-to-rent sector. It has expressed its support for measures that increase the certainty of rental income for institutional investors developing these new homes. It has engaged with us and our colleagues in the Commons on a similar amendment and explicitly stated support for its general thrust. The British Property Federation supports the new supply of rental housing and has said that six months would be an adequate period to incentivise investment in new construction and build to rent. I thank the British Property Federation for its engagement and advice, specifically on this issue.

In the previous group, I explained why I think ASTs are not very secure. This proposed six-month assured shorthold is a one-off exemption that would genuinely offer a limited period of certainty for developers to encourage them to build. That is what we are aiming for. It is a narrowly defined exemption that would apply only to properties being let for the very first time after their construction. It would not affect existing tenancies or undermine the core principles of abolishing no-fault evictions for the vast majority of renters, which we strongly support.

Indeed, by encouraging the creation of new rental homes, we believe the amendment would be a small, modest but useful way of ultimately expanding the options available to renters and contributing to a better balance in the market. The proposal is so modest, unlike other amendments that we have heard today, with build to rent currently estimated to be around 0.1% of the overall housing stock. We believe it would have minimal impact on the much broader move towards periodic tenancies. It may be appropriate at this point to say that we would not support removing Clause 2 from the Bill as we agree with its broad principles, but this approach would recognise the practical realities of bringing new developments to market.

In conclusion, while we rightly focus on enhancing security and rights for existing renters, we must not lose sight of the fundamental need to find ways to increase the supply of decent homes. That is what we are attempting to do with this amendment. We believe that it will act as a catalyst for increased investment in new rental properties, ultimately benefiting renters by providing more choice and contributing to a more sustainable and responsive housing market.

I urge the Minister and noble Lords to give this proposal careful consideration. We will be more than happy to do further work if it is not exactly to order. We believe that there is an opportunity to try to at least encourage a bit more supply in the market sector, even if we do not entirely agree with the suggestions that the whole market will suddenly disappear in the wake of this Bill. With that, I beg to move.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for introducing an amendment that would allow short-term tenancies to continue for six months after a premises is constructed. The noble Baroness has highlighted the fundamental importance of increasing the supply of rented properties. Her case is compelling. This amendment would allow support for newly constructed properties by providing greater certainty for investors in that property. Additionally, it is often true that new properties have periods of vacancy while long-term lets are secured. We must consider, evaluate and listen to all solutions to ensure that liveable accommodation is not left empty and to help develop a stable and thriving community. I am thankful that the noble Baroness has brought this discussion to the attention of the Committee.

However, I wish to probe more widely why the Government are seeking to abolish assured shorthold tenancies, and therefore will speak to my opposition to Clause 2 standing part of the Bill. The short-term rental market supports job mobility, especially industries which require relocation or even temporary positions. Enabling the mobility of working-age adults to reach the depth and breadth of the United Kingdom is vital for economic growth. The modern workforce requires flexibility—the ability to move and adapt, and to pursue opportunities wherever they may arise. By discouraging the ebb and flow of economic activity, we discourage the labour market flexibility required for an expanding economy. Jobs must follow demand, not be restrained by the state removing the option of a short-term tenancy.

While the economic argument is compelling, so is the practical one. For individuals undertaking a home renovation or experiencing family breakdown, short tenancies provide not only a practical solution but an important reprieve, allowing people to escape the chaos of building works or to rebuild a new life without haste. Have the Government considered the benefits of shorthold tenancies for the tenant? Has the Minister considered both the economic and practical benefits of their existence?

With this Bill, the Government are overseeing a huge change to the rental market. Can the Minister please set out the impact on long-term housing pressures as a result of this ban? In markets with soaring demand and low capacity, is it not the case that short-term tenancies can alleviate some of the pressures that tenants face?

The Government have been consistent in highlighting the perceived drawbacks of short-term tenancies. Of course, as with any housing arrangement, there will inevitably be aspects that are less than desirable, depending on one’s individual circumstances. However, in identifying these challenges, it is only right that the Government also acknowledge and weigh the very real, tangible benefits that short-term tenancies offer to many others. As other noble Lords have mentioned, such tenancies expand the availability of housing which might otherwise remain empty. The decision to impose an outright ban is, in effect, the most extreme course of action—the so-called nuclear option. From these Benches, we cannot help but wonder whether sufficient consideration was given to alternative, more balanced solutions that might have addressed the concerns identified while preserving the flexibility and choice that short-term tenancies provide for so many.

I hope the Minister will carefully reflect on these benefits and acknowledge the convenience of shorthold tenancies, as well as the key role they play in enabling economic mobility and the use of homes which might otherwise remain empty.

--- Later in debate ---

I agree with the noble Baroness that the growth of build to rent is very important for the future of the private rented sector. It boosts housing supply and increases choice for renters in cities and towns across England. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington—who is not in his place—has raised this issue with me as well. We are working with the build-to-rent sector to increase supply through more appropriate and, I would suggest, fairer routes than those outlined in this amendment. While we understand the laudable aim of the amendment, I would, with respect, ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

What we are trying to achieve with this amendment is a guaranteed fixed period for a developer. Authoritative bodies in this sector have suggested that some kind of guaranteed period does not necessarily mean that Section 21 has to remain. Or is it the Minister’s firm belief that you cannot give a fixed period to a developer in order to encourage construction without an element of Section 21 being there?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We do not want to see Section 21 in place for this. We are talking to the build-to-rent sector about the issues it believes it faces, but I genuinely believe that if somebody is going to be evicted from a property, there must be a reason why they are being evicted. We have provided in the Bill the grounds for why people can be evicted. When I come back to the House on this, I will update noble Lords on the work we are doing with the build-to-rent sector to increase supply. There are fairer ways of doing that than continuing to impose Section 21 evictions on people, just because they happen to have moved into a new-build property.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

I thank the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for participating in this short but quality debate. We will go back to our drawing board on this because we think that it is a way of delivering construction. We believe that we can get to a point where this is done without Section 21 being part of it. That was the intention behind the amendment; if it would not achieve that then we will go back and look at it again, because we believe that there must be a way to provide some kind of incentive to increase supply. This is a very modest approach and not about wrecking the Bill or taking 85% of landlords out of the equation, so we will take another look at it. We believe that it can proceed without Section 21 being imposed; clearly the Minister does not, so we will go back to the drawing board. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 15 withdrawn.

Private Rented Sector: Affordable Rents

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Grender]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure that rents in the private rented sector are affordable.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, the Government entirely understand concerns about the affordability of rents. We have inherited a private rented sector that is failing many low-income renters. The Renters’ Rights Bill will empower tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases, as well as taking practical steps to end the practice of rental bidding and prohibiting landlords from demanding large amounts of upfront rent. In addition, the Government are committed to building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England over this Parliament. This boost to supply is critical to improving housing affordability.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her response, but current rents remain unaffordable for the 34% of renters in poverty—a figure likely to rise with the freeze of local housing allowance. Private rents increased by more than 8% last year and market rates are already out of reach for so many. The First-tier Tribunal will not resolve any of these issues. Are the Government considering any form of rent stabilisation?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. We have discussed this in the Chamber before, and the Government have been clear: we do not support rent controls. Heavy-handed rent controls tend to mean higher rents at the start of a tenancy, and they can make it much harder for prospective tenants to find a home. They also encourage the growth of unregulated sub-letting, which can leave the most vulnerable tenants very exposed to higher costs and minimal protections. Those rent controls always come at a cost, often in reduced investment in housing supply and quality standards. We prefer to use this mechanism to strengthen tenants’ rights.