Holocaust Memorial Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sassoon (Con)]

My Lords, I was not going to speak to this amendment, but I believe that my noble friends Lady Harding of Winscombe, Lord Pickles and Lord Harper have misunderstood—I would not say misrepresented—what the amendment is all about. I declare my interests in coming from a family in which my mother’s German Jewish family lost members in the Holocaust, and in which my great uncle, who came to this country, founded the Jewish Refugees Committee, which organised the Kindertransport. I also speak as a former Treasury Minister; that is how I look at the numbers and what the amendment seeks to do.

As I understand it and read it, my noble friend Lords Eccles is as concerned as I am and many others are that we have had no up-to-date or credible figures from the Minister, throughout the various stages of the Bill, as to what the current costs are. The latest costs, I think, go back at least two years, and we have heard what has happened to the costs since then. As a House, we need to understand what the more recent estimates are.

As I read it, this amendment puts a cap on the public contribution to this, but does not, as my noble friends have just said, or implied, cap the total cost of the project—if my noble friend tells me I have got it wrong, I will sit down. Speaking as a former Treasury official and Minister, I say that we need a bit of discipline on this project. It is not going to cap the total cost of the project and, unless the Minister is able to give us more credible figures to explain the latest thinking about the split between the private and public sector contributions, I would be fully supportive of my noble friend Lord Eccles’s amendment, because it puts some necessary financial discipline on the project but will in no way—as my noble friends have said, and they can come back at me if they want to—cap the total expenditure that could be incurred on the project.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to be debating this important Bill once again. I will take a moment to just restate the position of the Official Opposition on this legislation: It has been a policy of successive Conservative Governments that we need a national Holocaust memorial and learning centre to ensure we never forget the unique suffering of the Jewish people during the Holocaust. This project was first conceived by my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton in 2013, when he established a commission to consider measures to preserve the memory of the Holocaust.

That commission, led ably by Sir Mick Davis, recommended the creation of a

“striking and prominent new National Memorial”,

which should be

“co-located with a world-class Learning Centre”.

The Conservative Government accepted the commission’s recommendations, taking forward the plans that are continued with this Bill. As part of that process, the then Conservative Government introduced the Holocaust Memorial Bill in 2023. This Bill is a continuation of that work, and we continue to support it.

My noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton summed up the Official Opposition’s view very well at the Second Reading of this Bill in September last year, when he said that

“this is the right idea, in the right place and at the right time”.—[Official Report, 4/9/24; col. 1169.]

I also pay tribute to the many organisations that have written to Peers to endorse the plans for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, including Holocaust Centre North, the National Holocaust Museum, University College London, the Jewish Leadership Council, the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, the Holocaust Educational Trust and the Chief Rabbi, Sir Ephraim.

We have considered the project in the round and at length: after 11 years we cannot be said to be rushing. Now is the time to press ahead with this bold national statement of our opposition to hatred and antisemitism. Now is the time to stand up for our British values and deliver a permanent memorial and learning centre as we recommit ourselves to our promise to never forget the unique horrors of the Holocaust.

Amendment 1, in the name of my noble friend Lord Eccles, would limit the level of taxpayers’ funding for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre to £75 million, requiring any spending above that level to be provided by grants from the Holocaust Memorial Charitable Trust. The updated Explanatory Notes, which were published on 18 July last year, stated that the updated costs of the project were now at £138.8 million. That is due to the fact that it is 10 or 11 years down the line, due to, as we have heard, the many planning issues that have come forward.

I have great respect for my noble friend but, on this occasion, I must respectfully disagree with his amendment, because it is the view of the Official Opposition that this amendment would place inappropriate constraints on the value and manner of funding for this project, potentially risking its viability.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, for his amendment. It has allowed us to reflect not simply on the need for careful control of public expenditure but on the core reason why this Bill is needed. I will deal first with matters directly relevant to costs and to the overall management of the programme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, I promise not to detain the House for long. I want to come back on the exchange between my noble friends Lord Pickles and Lord Robathan, because the insinuation was made that there is antisemitism in the governing party of Poland. We have been talking in this debate about the way in which the Holocaust is memorialised in Warsaw. There is a memorial on the site of the ghetto, which has been there since the late 1940s—the one that Willy Brandt famously dropped to his knees before. Then there is the POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews, opened in 2013, the ground-breaking having been commenced by President Lech Kaczynski of the Law and Justice Party. He was the first president to celebrate Hanukkah in the presidential palace and the first Polish president to attend a synagogue. Poland is an important ally. It was the only other country that was in the Second World War from the beginning to the end. It is still an important ally today, and it is important that we do not leave unchallenged that implication.

On the wider issue of this amendment, it is very difficult for any open-minded person not to have been convinced by the forensic speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham. I can only say that, if I am honest and put my motives under the microscope, I would have been in favour of the memorial simply because I imagine that the kind of people I do not like would have been on the other side. However, the more I have listened to the arguments, the harder it is to avoid the conclusion that if this were not a whipped vote, there is no way that it would get through this Chamber. As an unelected Chamber, able to be a check on the radicalism of the other House, we surely exist precisely because we can look beyond headlines and do the right thing, regardless of how it is summarised or misrepresented.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, as this is Report I will be brief in responding to Amendment 2, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. We are concerned that the amendment would undermine the current plan for the construction of the memorial and learning centre, prevent its timely delivery and risk the whole future of the project. The Official Opposition have been unequivocal in our support for this project. While specific concerns about the design of the project can and should be put forward during the planning process—which will follow the passage of the Bill—we do not feel it would be appropriate to place undue constraints on the project through statutory legislation. What we have been discussing today are planning issues, and they should be dealt with in the planning process. We therefore cannot support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Blackstone, for their amendment. This has been a lengthy but powerful debate, with much strength of feeling. Given that there were so many lengthy speeches, I am not sure if noble Lords got the memo from the noble Lord, Lord Russell, when he pontificated on having Report stage speeches.

I remind the House of the scope of the Bill: Clause 1 gives the Secretary of State the power to pay for the costs of the project and Clause 2 disapplies the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900 so that the project can be built in the designated area. I know that lots of points have been made in this debate; I am not going to address them now because I am sure they will come up in later amendments.

Elections: Political Party Spending

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord that this is a very important area. There are strict rules relating to unincorporated associations and the political contributions they make, including transparency requirements when making significant political donations. Currently, donations from unincorporated associations make up some 4.6% of the value of all reported permissible donations, but there is a risk there and it is very important that we take it seriously. As already stated, our department is developing policy proposals to meet manifesto commitments. As part of this, we are exploring recommendations from key stakeholders, including many that were made relating to unincorporated associations.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, during the passage of the National Security Bill, the last Conservative Government gave a commitment to this House to introduce voter information-sharing powers between relevant agencies and with political parties to help identify irregular sources of money. Why have the Labour Government done nothing to deliver on this sensible proposal? Is it not in the Labour Party’s best interests that it is given the heads-up, if it is taking money yet again from Chinese spies?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I do not think it at all helpful, when we are discussing an important issue concerning electoral law, to be throwing around political accusations about where the money has come from, because all parties have evidence of what other parties have done. We have to treat this issue with the seriousness it deserves, and we have to work on what our strategy is. Information-sharing is, of course, a very important part of what we are doing. I can assure the noble Baroness that, when we come to the strategy in the summer, information-sharing will play a key role in that.

Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I would not take quite such a harsh view as my noble friend. On how the Government respond to the industry, there is a big industry here and we know that, as a result of the national code having to be withdrawn, it produced an update to the industry code, so the industry is trying to do something towards regulating itself, which we should commend. We will take account of that industry code when we draw up the national code to deliver better protections for motorists. My noble friend is quite right that we must make sure that the worst practices are dealt with, and the code will aim to make sure that they are.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister outline the Government’s primary objectives for yet another consultation on private parking? What specific insights and further evidence do they hope to get from this? As she said, we have had two consultations on this already by the previous Government, and this seems to be another just waste of time, rather than getting this thing settled.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I understand Members’, motorists’ and the parking organisations’ frustrations, but the legal challenges that came forward in June 2022 relied heavily on the fact that there had not been proper consultation. That is why we need to make absolutely sure that we do it properly this time.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey raises an important and timely issue: the need to revisit and update the designation of rural areas for the purposes of the right to buy. The proposal is clear. It would require the Secretary of State, within six months of the Act passing, to revoke rural area designations for parishes where the population now exceeds 3,000 people, based on the 2021 census. The rationale is that, as we have heard, some areas that were once small villages have grown significantly and may no longer meet the criteria originally used to justify rural protections under the scheme.

We recognise the logic behind this approach. Designations made years ago may no longer reflect the current character of certain parishes, and it is only right that we review such classifications to ensure that they are based on accurate and up-to-date information. However, while we understand the intention behind the amendment, we believe that a more considered and locally informed approach is needed. First and foremost, this should be done in consultation with local authorities, which are best placed to assess not just the population figures but the broader housing context within their communities. A numerical threshold alone does not tell us whether a parish still functions as a rural settlement, nor whether it has the capacity to replace any lost social housing.

Indeed, we would argue that the conversation should be based not solely on population size but also on the number of homes in the settlement, specifically the number of affordable or social homes available, and the prospects for building more. In many villages, even those with more than 3,000 residents, the opportunity to build new homes, let alone new affordable ones, is extremely limited. Planning constraints, infrastructure challenges and community sensitivity all contribute to a situation where, once a home is sold under right to buy, it is unlikely to be replaced. That is why the protection of the existing social housing stock is so vital in these areas. Without it, we risk hollowing out rural communities, pricing out local families, draining the workforce and diminishing village life.

While we support the principle of ensuring that designations are kept up to date, we believe that any such change must be grounded in a wider understanding of rural housing dynamics. This means not just reviewing census data but supporting councils to update and verify housing data and allowing for flexibility where a parish may meet the population threshold but still faces acute rural housing pressures. This is not simply a technical matter of numbers; it goes to the heart of how we preserve the character and sustainability of rural communities. Let us ensure that any change to rural designation is made with care, with consultation and with full awareness of its consequences.

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

My Lords, before I make my comments on the noble Baroness’s amendment, I hope that the House will indulge me for a few brief moments as we start our final day in Committee on the Renters’ Rights Bill. First, let me say how noticeable it has been that, while we may have debated and occasionally had our differences on the detail of the Bill, there has been a great deal of consensus across the House on the need to improve the renting landscape for tenants and for the vast majority of good landlords. Those landlords who choose to exploit their tenants and game the system not only make their tenants’ life a misery but undercut and damage the reputation of others. It is time that we took the steps in this Bill to put that right.

The Bill has shown the best of our House, with noble Lords providing their expertise, knowledge, wisdom and thoughtful reflection to improve the legislation before us. I am most grateful for the engagement before and during the passage of the Bill. We have had some unusual and difficult sitting hours on the Bill, largely because of other business of the House and in no way because of unnecessary or lengthy contributions to our deliberations. I therefore thank all noble Lords for their patience and good humour during late sittings. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, on the Opposition Front Bench, the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Grender, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, not to mention noble friends on my own Benches for a deal of passion and enthusiasm.

I thank the Bill team, my private office and the doorkeepers and staff of the House, including the clerks and catering staff, who have stayed, sometimes into the early hours, to make sure we are all safe and looked after, and the Hansard team, of course, doing their brilliant work. I thank the usual channels, which have been negotiating to make sure we complete Committee in good time. Last, and by no means least, I thank my Whip, my noble friend Lord Wilson, who is not in his place today but who has sat patiently beside me, sometimes carrying out extreme editing of my speeches. I forgive him for that—he did not get his hands on this one—and I am very grateful to him.

There are millions of renters and landlords out there who are awaiting the passage of the Bill to ensure that the renting minefield is fairer, safer and more secure. As we move forward to Report in early June, I look forward to continuing to engage and work with your Lordships to make sure that this is the best Bill it can be. In the meantime, thank you for making my first time taking a Bill through the House such a collaborative and positive experience.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her Amendment 275B to revoke the designation of parishes as rural areas for the purposes of right to buy where the population exceeds 3,000 people. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to revoke the rural designation of any parish with over 3,000 inhabitants for the purposes of right to buy. It would not have any impact on the right to acquire housing association property in rural areas. I have to say that this amendment is a bit of a stretch for the scope of the Bill, but it is important that I should respond to the noble Baroness’s concerns.

Under Section 157 of the Housing Act 1985, the Secretary of State has the power to designate by order certain areas as rural—typically, settlements with populations under 3,000. A landlord in a rural area may impose restrictions on the buyer of a right to buy property, to prevent the property being sold again, without the former landlord’s consent, other than to a local person or back to the landlord. The noble Baroness’s amendment would remove the ability of landlords to include resale restrictions on properties sold under right to buy in those designated rural areas where the population was above 3,000, which currently helps preserve homes for local people in perpetuity. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, is quite right to say that, if we were going to make any changes to this, it would have to be done very carefully, and definitely in consultation with local people and local authorities.

These exemptions are in place to help retain affordable housing in communities where replacement can be unfeasible due to high build costs, planning limitations and land availability. We have heard much about that in the discussion on this and other Bills and the Government do not intend to remove these protections. On this basis, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 275C in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey. I apologise to noble Lords that this is the first time I have spoken on the Bill. I thank my noble friend for tabling this amendment, for a number of reasons: first, as someone who, as a result of injury, has had to be far more reliant on the mobility aid that is my wheelchair than is usual; secondly, because I recognise that one’s disability and resulting need to use a mobility aid, such as a wheelchair, does not change simply because one happens to be a tenant; thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, because it gives me the opportunity to bring to the House’s attention a real-life example which I hope will underline the amendment’s importance.

I should declare an interest. The example I give concerns a person I know—an eminent solicitor with an international law firm who has become severely disabled in adulthood as a result of a condition called Stickler syndrome. For those noble Lords not familiar with this condition—I confess that I was not—common symptoms include vision problems such as near-sightedness and retinal detachment, hearing loss and joint problems such as hypermobility and arthritis. In this individual’s case, it is extremely painful and debilitating and has required extensive surgery, including within the last six months. Remarkably, she is still holding down a demanding job.

However, her suffering is being unnecessarily and even gratuitously compounded by the concerted and blatant disability discrimination she is encountering from HAUS Block Management and the right-to-manage company covering the development in which she lives. This disability discrimination relates directly to her use, as a long-term tenant, of her mobility aids in her rented dwelling, which includes a courtyard garden that she shares with other residents. The amendment refers to a reasonable request from a tenant to install mobility aids in the dwelling. Her request is undoubtedly reasonable, but the irony is that she is not asking for an installation. All she is asking for is the right to use her mobility aids in a courtyard garden, which is part of the dwelling.

There are two aids on which she depends for her mobility to live independently and get to work. Recent deterioration in her condition has necessitated the increased use of a wheelchair and increased visual impairment has required the use of an affectionate, intelligent and furry mobility aid. I refer of course to her adorable, but ageing, canine companion, without which she would immobile and could not function: her guide dog.

The amendment is so important to this individual and other disabled people in her situation—perhaps to an even greater degree than my noble friend appreciated when she tabled it—because despite my friend being a lawyer and having engaged in writing with HAUS and the RTM to explain her legal rights in relation to step-free access to the garden for her guide dog and her wheelchair, all her appeals for kindness, help and basic human empathy have been met with disdain. I know this because I have here in the Chamber a copy of her email correspondence with HAUS and the directors of the RTM. It is a damning indictment of how the rights enshrined in disability discrimination and equality legislation—on which your Lordships’ House has done so much brilliant work over the years to pass—are being traduced by organisations such as HAUS and the RTM. What a sad reflection on society that this could happen in plain sight in 2025, the 30th anniversary of the Disability Discrimination Act. It is heartbreaking—quite literally, in the case of this individual. Her condition is by its very nature isolating. HAUS, her RTM directors and her neighbours know that, and yet they give the impression that they are waiting for her to die, and their callous indifference adds to that sense of isolation.

What is to be done? It would be so easy for the chief executive of HAUS, Gareth Martin, to facilitate the speedy resolution of this situation by ensuring that the RTM directors act in accordance with her rights and with compassion, and that a key was provided, on a permanent and unrestricted basis, to the courtyard garden—which happens to be next to my friend’s apartment—so that she could use her mobility aids in it. As Guide Dogs has explained to in an email to HAUS and the RTM directors, this is vital for the welfare of both her ageing service dog—her mobility aid—and the individual herself.

She is being undeniably persecuted for having the temerity to assert her rights, in a way that would be totally unacceptable were it to be carried out on the grounds of race, for example. Incredibly, as if to add insult to injury, the individual has also been told that a few flowerpots, which contain plants for sensory stimulation and provide her with the very few flashes of colour she can still just about discern, must be removed.

In conclusion, will the Minister meet me so that we can explore how we might persuade HAUS and the RTM to respect this individual’s rights with regard to her mobility aids, in line with the spirit of this amendment? Can directors of companies be struck off, for example, for engaging in what is obviously wilful disability discrimination? If not, how can we ensure that they are? Perhaps their appalling behaviour could be brought to the attention of the relevant regulators—I cannot imagine their clients would be impressed. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I reiterate my deep gratitude to my noble friend for tabling such an important amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for tabling this amendment. I also pay my heartfelt thanks to my noble friend Lord Shinkwin; he always brings enormous knowledge and so much personal experience to any debate, as he has done today.

We briefly discussed support for disabled tenants in an earlier group, and we on these Benches firmly support steps to help disabled tenants access the homes and services they need. With the appropriate support, disabled people can live more fulfilled lives and thrive. We have come so far in recent years on support for disabled people to live full and happy lives in their own homes, so I am grateful to my noble friend for moving this important amendment today.

Amendment 275C seeks to prevent landlords and agents declining reasonable requests by tenants who need mobility aids to have them installed. It is a limited amendment that applies only where a tenant can arrange for the payment and installation of the aids themselves. This is an excellent challenge to the Government and we hope that the Minister will seriously consider this proposal and work with my noble friend to deliver the protections we need for disabled tenants. Perhaps this is something that we could revisit on Report.

We also wish to work constructively with my noble friend on how we might consider broader plans to ensure that the removal of mobility adaptions is deliverable, affordable and—crucially—even possible in practice. This is a vital area that demands serious attention from the Government, and the onus is on everyone across the Committee to put forward practical and compassionate solutions that recognise the real-world challenges faced by landlords and tenants alike around adapted homes. We need to look further at who would be responsible for covering the costs of restoring the changes to the original condition of the property. There is some more work to do, but I am sure that we can all do it before Report, and I look forward to working with the other parties to see whether we can find a sensible solution to the issue. We must ensure that any policy in this area supports accessibility, while remaining realistic and fair to all parties concerned.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her Amendment 275C, which seeks to prevent landlords, or any other relevant person in relation to a tenancy, unreasonably refusing a tenant request to install a mobility aid in their home. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their contributions.

We debated in detail similar amendments on home disability adaptations last week. As I stated then, I absolutely agree that we should take steps to remove barriers that unreasonably prevent disabled renters getting the home adaptations they need—a need so powerfully described by the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin; I will write to him about the routes to redress in cases such as the one he raised.

However, I do not believe that this amendment is the right way to do this. The Equality Act 2010 already provides protections for disabled tenants, and that applies whether they are in social rented or private rented housing. This includes providing a procedure under which they can request permission in writing from their landlord to make adaptations, including additions to or alterations in the fittings and fixtures of the home, such as mobility aids.

Landlords cannot unreasonably refuse such requests. Creating a new specific obligation in relation to mobility aids in particular would increase the complexity of the system unnecessarily, making it more difficult for tenants to navigate. We also wish to avoid creating a two-tier system in which people with impaired mobility have different rights from people with other disabilities or impairments.

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for introducing this amendment, because it gives me an opportunity to update noble Lords. There was a lot of discussion about this in the other place during the passage of the Bill. There have been some further commitments, and these were set out in a recent letter from the Minister of State for Housing and Planning to the MPs who tabled amendments in the other place. The letter stated that the Government would take the following actions to address known barriers to disabled tenants accessing the home adaptations they require.

With the leave of the Committee, I will update Members on that now. As highlighted in research carried out by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the National Residential Landlords Association, a major challenge to the operation of the current system is the lack of knowledge among landlords, tenants and agents. The Renters’ Rights Bill includes the power to require landlords to provide a written statement of terms to new tenants. It is our intention, subject to drafting and scrutiny of the secondary legislation to mandate that this statement sets out the duty on landlords under the Equality Act 2010 to not unreasonably refuse disability adaptation requests from tenants. This will ensure that parties are aware of rights and obligations in relation to adaptations when they enter into a tenancy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

Perhaps I may offer the briefest of comments. At the risk of being struck by lightning: on the seventh day, the Lord rested. Let us hope we all get some rest soon.

I mention two words: equilibrium and scramble. Equilibrium is what we all seek, but it is a fact of life that one woman’s equilibrium may be different to another woman’s equilibrium. The perpetual life of politics is trying to find an equilibrium between different viewpoints. Regarding scramble, there will be a scramble whenever this comes in, and that is not a reason to put it off.

We touched on the database yesterday. There are bits of the Bill that will come in more slowly, but Section 21, to echo the point from the noble Lord, Lord Bird, will definitely go. If the Bill achieves nothing else, Section 21 will go.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, who, as always, so passionately opened this group. I thank him for all his knowledge and particularly the passion that he brings on anything to do with homes, homelessness and vulnerable people.

The noble Lord’s Amendments 278, 286 and 291, along with others in his name, would bring the majority of the Act into force on the day it receives Royal Assent, save for a few areas requiring further regulation or consultation. We on these Benches have consistently urged the Government to not take this approach. We have called on them to reaffirm their long-standing commitment to prospective lawmaking by providing clear commencement dates and reasonable transition periods for all new obligations. This is essential to protect both tenants and landlords from abrupt and potentially unfair changes.

A phased approach would allow landlords, tenants and letting agents time to understand and adapt to the new legal framework. Commencing the Act immediately upon passage does not provide sufficient time to do this. We simply cannot expect landlords to react and comply with significant new requirements on day 1. Indeed, the evidence bears this this out. In a recent survey conducted by Paragon, 57% of landlords said they had heard of the legislation but did not fully understand its implications, and a further 39% said they knew little about it. Those statistics point clearly to a knowledge gap in the market—one that we must not ignore. Therefore, we believe that a clear transition period is necessary.

Amendments 281, 287, 288 and 289, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, present a credible and constructive challenge to the Government’s current position. They propose a model that echoes the approach taken by the predecessor to the Bill—an approach grounded in prospective lawmaking. Phase 1 in that Bill would have applied the new rules only to new tenancies with at least six months’ notice, and phase 2 would extend the rules to existing tenancies no less than 12 months later. This two-phase model provides a reasonable and practical path forward, allowing time for proper education, preparation and implementation. I urge the Government to reflect carefully on these proposals and to recognise the importance of a fair and orderly transition.

We all agree that tenants deserve safe, secure and decent homes at a fair price, but to deliver that we need a functioning rental market with enough good-quality homes to meet growing demand. We need more homes in the right places. This Bill, regrettably, puts that in danger. Rather than boosting supply, it risks driving landlords out of the market, shrinking the number of available homes and pushing rents even higher. If we get this wrong, renters will pay the price. Balance is essential. At present, we believe this Bill does not strike that balance.

Before I sit down, I thank and congratulate the noble Baroness on how she has conducted the first Bill that she is taken through Committee, and all noble Lords who have taken part in excellent, well-informed debates over the past seven days. I look forward to Report.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and my noble friend Lord Hacking for their amendments relating to the commencement of measures in the Bill. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Cromwell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Scott, for participating in this group.

I turn to Amendments 278, 282, 286, and 291 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bird. I add my tribute for all the work he does to tackle homelessness. He is a great hero of mine, and it is a great privilege to work with him. The noble Lord rightly notes the importance of ending Section 21, which is a major contributor to homelessness levels in England and a major cost to councils, which now spend more than £2 billion a year on temporary accommodation. That was the last full year’s figure. I heard that £4 million a day is currently spent on homelessness in London. Much of that is driven by Section 21 evictions. As well as the misery created for individuals and families, these evictions put pressure on the public purse and costs that would be much better spent on other public services.

These amendments seek to bring most of the measures in the Renters’ Rights Bill forward to Royal Assent. The Government agree with the noble Lord that the measures in this Bill are urgently needed, which is why we moved swiftly to introduce it early in our first legislative programme for government. To end the scourge of Section 21 evictions as quickly as possible, we will introduce the new tenancy for the private rented sector in one stage. On that date, the new tenancy system will apply to all private tenancies. Existing tenancies will convert to the new system, and any new tenancies signed on or after that date will be governed by the new rules. There will be no dither or delay, and the abolition of Section 21, fixed-term contracts, and other vital measures in the Bill will happen as quickly as possible.

However, we must do this in a responsible manner, as noble Lords have mentioned. We are therefore also committed to making sure that implementation takes place smoothly. As such, it is essential that wider work around the Bill is allowed to conclude before implementation takes place. That includes the production of guidance, updating court forms and making secondary legislation. For example, the information that landlords are required to give tenants in the written statement of terms will be set out in secondary legislation. Work is already under way on these matters. We need to get it right. We will appoint the date of implementation via secondary legislation, which is typical when commencing complex primary legislation. This will allow us to give the sector certainty about when the system will come into force. Relying on Royal Assent would create significant uncertainty around the specific date, and it is important that we do not do that.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bird, that I was lucky enough to benefit from the post-war Labour Government’s drive to build social housing so, although I could have done, I did not grow up in the kind of housing that he described. Our social housing was built in new towns, and that was the last time that social housing was built at any scale in this country. We have promised that again, and have committed £2 billion to social and affordable housing. So the noble Lord has my personal commitment that we will move this forward as quickly as possible.

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, talked about the speed of legislation. I have been a Minister for only a few months but I am already learning the frustration of time lags. I thought that councils move a bit too slowly at times, but we certainly need to move things forward more quickly. Of course, this is not just about legislation; we are trying to move on housing at some speed. We have already provided funding to improve construction skills, funding for planning officers, a new National Planning Policy Framework, over £500 million for homelessness and the social housing funding that I have already mentioned. We understand that this needs to be moved forward quickly. We will work as quickly as we can on that. As such, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendments.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Gypsies and Travellers are an important part of Britain’s population, heritage and social fabric. Providing well-designed, good-quality, managed sites for these groups supports healthy and happy communities, and addresses wider determinants of health, education and employment. This is not solely the realm of housing. Other public services should care about this issue too, including public health, children’s services and others, because the symptoms flowing from a lack of quality accommodation end up presenting in schools, hospitals, welfare services and prisons. As a business case, the delivery of appropriate sites has been shown to save public money from being spent on endless evictions from unauthorised encampments.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed. This is what makes this House so good at these sorts of debates, because expertise from all parts of this debate has been shown today.

These amendments draw attention to the housing circumstances of non-traditional tenures, in particular residential boat dwellers, mobile home residents and members of the Travelling communities. These are individuals and families whose housing arrangements, as we have heard, do not always align neatly with the frameworks established for the private rented sector.

The amendments in this group, most notably those from the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, raise legitimate questions, from the proposal to classify mooring fees and site fees as rent, to calls for formal reviews on how this legislation impacts riverboat dwellers, mobile home residents, and Gypsy and Traveller communities. The amendments ask us to think carefully about the scope and reach of the Renters’ Rights Bill. We on these Benches recognise that individuals living in houseboats, in mobile homes and on Traveller sites often face unique vulnerabilities, and we must be cautious not to exclude them from appropriate protections.

At the same time, it is essential that we examine whether the legislative instruments proposed in the Bill are the right fit for these circumstances, or whether we risk introducing unintended consequences for landlords, licensing authorities, the Canal & River Trust, which manages our waterways, or even the residents themselves. One of the questions here is whether the current legal definitions, such as “dwelling house” and “rent”, are suitable for application to mobile structures or moorings, as we have heard. However, we must also consider the interests and views of different Traveller communities. Have the Government undertaken proper consultation with these communities? Do they, in fact, want to be brought into the scope of this legislation, and on what terms? We must avoid legislating for communities without engaging with them first.

As we have heard today, particularly from my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, these amendments do not seek sweeping or immediate change—rather, they propose reviews and clarifications—but even the suggestion of classifying moorings or site fees as rent could trigger significant changes to how the law treats these tenures. This could introduce unintended complexity for landlords, many of whom are small-scale, and lead to disputes where the legal framework is unclear or even inapplicable. More work needs to be done on this issue, in our opinion. As my noble friend said, that has already been promised by the Government. Finally, we must ask whether there is a clear and compelling case for bringing these non-traditional tenures within the scope of the legislation, or whether doing so risks creating unintended consequences for both the tenants and the landlords.

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

My Lords, I first express my appreciation for starting these debates at a reasonable time today. We have been getting later and later, so I am very pleased. I hope that we finish them at a reasonable time as well.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for their amendments relating to non-traditional tenures, and all who have contributed to this debate. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in saying that it shows the best of this House when you get expertise like that from across the Chamber, from the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller, Lady Bakewell and Lady Warwick, the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Best, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and, of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, herself.

I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness who have amendments in this group for their very helpful engagement on the issues they raised. Before I give my responses to the amendments, I say that I truly understand the frustrations felt by both of them, and those on whose behalf they speak, that these issues have not been addressed by successive Governments. Although I do not believe the Bill is the vehicle to address those issues, as I expect they will have anticipated from our meetings, I will continue to work with them to seek appropriate solutions to the issues they have raised.

I turn first to Amendments 206A, 262 and 271, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. I thank the noble Lord for raising concerns about difficulties faced by houseboat owners in general and the houseboat owners in Chelsea who he has talked to me about in the past. Amendment 206A would give those who own or rent a houseboat and use the boat as their main residence the same rights under Part 1 of the Bill as renters of residential buildings. Although occupants of residential boats may benefit from some protection under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 and some wider consumer protection legislation, the Government recognise that they do not enjoy the same level of tenure security as those in the private rented sector.

However, the Renters’ Rights Bill focuses on the law relating to rented homes, not owner-occupiers, and the tenancy reform measures in Part 1 focus on the assured tenancy regime, which applies to most private renters in England and relates to residential buildings. The assured tenancy regime does not apply to houseboats or other moveable property—an issue to which the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred in his intervention. Those in rented houseboats will have a licence to occupy the boat and will fall outside the assured tenancy regime that the Bill is concerned with.

Specifically on Amendment 262, as houseboats are predominantly owner-occupied—I understand that some are rented but they are mostly owner-occupied—and do not fall within the assured tenancy regime, it is therefore unlikely that a review of the impact of the Bill’s provisions would provide significant new insights into the issues affecting houseboat owners. Additionally, bringing houseboats within the scope of the assured tenancy regime, as proposed by Amendment 271, would raise fundamental and complex issues, about which I will explain a bit more in a moment, including what security of tenure means in relation to a chattel as opposed to land, and what the potential implications for moorings owners and navigation authorities might be.

The policy and legislative implications would be far-reaching and there would be a high chance of unintended consequences, as indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. The Government’s priority is to ensure the smooth and successful implementation of the measures in the Bill that are before the Committee today. On that basis, although I am very sympathetic to the noble Lord’s aims, I cannot support these amendments as they stand.

The Government will, however, continue to engage with parliamentarians and stakeholders on the complex issues about houseboats that the noble Lord has rightly and powerfully helped to highlight. The issues and history raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, illustrated some of the complications in resolving these issues. I will add that providing additional security of tenure to houseboat owners would require engagement with a range of stakeholders, including more than 20 navigation authorities and the owners of land adjoining waterways, and that is just part of the complication here.

I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said there was a working group 19 years ago in which my noble friend Lady Smith took part. I can say only that we have not been in government for the last 14 years so it has been difficult to move any of this forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to security of tenure. As I said, providing additional security of tenure to houseboat owners would require the engagement of those navigation authorities and owners of land, and other users of waterways will have different needs and requirements that would also need to be taken into account. Security of tenure under the Housing Act 1988 applies to tenancies of buildings and land, so would not be suitable for licences to occupy boats without significant amendment. To bring rented houseboats within the scope of the legislation would require a detailed assessment of the implications for the assured tenancy regime and the changes being introduced through the Renters’ Rights Bill and other legislation that refers to it, and, as I said before, a high chance of unintended consequences.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to unfair practice on mobile home sites. My email inbox indicates very much what some of those complications are, but I will talk about the mobile homes amendments now.

I thank my noble friend Lady Whitaker for her work to ensure that the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community has a safe and secure place to live. I have had a number of conversations with my noble friend since I joined this House, and she knows that I share her concerns about some of the issues that she raises. She and I have had many discussions about this, particularly about the standards of communal facilities provided on sites occupied by the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community. We understand the concerns and will continue to engage with parliamentarians and stakeholders on the complex issues about standards on those sites. For those sites owned and operated by local authorities, there is of course recourse both to the local authority’s complaints system and, if that is not successful, to the Local Government Ombudsman, although I appreciate that there are some unique difficulties for those communities in accessing those routes.

Amendment 206B would give those who own a caravan and use it as their main residence the same rights under Part 1 of the Bill as renters of residential buildings. That would include those who already have protections under the Mobile Homes Act 1983. For similar reasons to those that I have already set out in my response to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, while I am sympathetic to the difficulties faced by mobile home owners, a different approach to addressing those difficulties is necessary from that proposed by this amendment. There would be a high risk of unintended consequences if an attempt were made to extend rights under Part 1 of the Bill, which is about rented homes, to mobile home owners.

The noble Baroness mentioned that the Mobile Homes Act 1983 confers on mobile home pitch agreements the key characteristics of a tenancy, rather than merely a licence to occupy. While there may be some similarities between the terms implied by the 1983 Act and the terms of certain tenancy agreements, the fact remains that those occupying pitches on caravan sites only have a licence to occupy the pitch. They have no interest in the land, and there would still be no intention by the site owner to create a tenancy between the parties. Moreover, the pitch agreement does not relate to the occupation of the mobile home itself, just the pitch on which it stands. In that sense, a pitch agreement and a secure or assured tenancy are fundamentally different types of agreement. To bring those with Mobile Home Act 1983 agreements within the scope of the assured tenancy regime, as proposed by Amendment 206B, would raise fundamental and complex issues, including what “security of tenure” means in relation to a chattel as opposed to land, and what the potential implications for caravan site owners might be.

Amendment 275A would commit the Government to carrying out a review of the implications of not extending the provisions of the Act to the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community. Again, while I am most sympathetic to my noble friend’s aims, I cannot support the amendment as mobile homes are predominantly owner-occupied and do not fall within the assured tenancy regime, which the Renters’ Rights Bill is largely focused on. However, I understand and will further consider her points about the amenity blocks and how those issues may be addressed.

In addition, as the Renters’ Rights Bill is focused on the law relating to rented homes, it is unlikely that a review of the impact of the provisions in the Bill will provide significant new insights into the issues affecting mobile home owners. The Government’s priority is to ensure the smooth and successful implementation of the measures that are before the Committee today.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

206C: Clause 64, page 98, line 22, leave out subsection (4)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes why definitions which determine who is subject to housing laws, rights, and responsibilities can be amended by regulations.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this group contains just one amendment, Amendment 206C, which stands in my name. This amendment probes why definitions that determine who is subject to housing laws, rights and responsibilities can be amended by regulation. This is yet another part of the Bill that is subject to change at the discretion of the Secretary of State.

Definitions in law are important. In this instance, the ability to change the definition of “private landlord”, “relevant tenancy” and “dwelling” for the purposes of determining which tenancies fall within the scope of the landlord redress scheme and the PRS database is a significant and fundamental power. Will the Minister say why the Government have sought to grant themselves this power through the affirmative procedure rather than through primary legislation? If the intent of these regulations is merely to clarify the position of superior landlords in certain circumstances, surely such clarification is best achieved through a full parliamentary process, one in which your Lordships’ House and the other place can explore the specifics and nuances of niche tenures such as student accommodation or temporary lets.

The Government have committed to lay these regulations as soon as possible following Royal Assent. We are aware that there are to be no transitional arrangements included in the Bill. In previous debates, we urged the Government to reconsider this approach and affirm their long-standing commitment to prospective lawmaking by providing clear commencement dates and reasonable transition periods for all new obligations. This would help protect both tenants and landlords from the risks associated with abrupt and unfair change. However, the Government were clear that they did not share this view. Despite that, can the Minister confirm when these regulations might come into force? Importantly, how are they going to be communicated to the affected parties given the absence of transitional arrangements? Like many aspects of this Bill, this provision is concerning, particularly given the lack of detail in the Bill. This is part of a growing trend from this Government, a pattern in not just this Bill but across others too. I hope we are not going into this, “We will commit now, but do later”. I beg to move.

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend very strongly. I declare my interest, as I have done before, as a Suffolk farmer who has converted redundant agricultural buildings into dwellings. It is all still part of the farming operation.

I have already warned the Government that they are in danger of relying on statutory instruments, Henry VIII clauses and subsidiary legislation for what will be primary legislation. The purpose of the Parliament is to legislate, in the first instance, primary legislation. The House of Lords, with its careful scrutiny of statutory instruments, has a particular role and record in doing this. So, this particular Bill is going, in any case, to have a lot of unanswered questions. We are going to try to ask most of those questions and get the Government to face up and give us the answers because it is a very bad principle of legislation for a Government to say, “Oh, we’ll leave that to the courts”, or something like that. That is not what legislating is about. It is important that we do not unnecessarily add into potential secondary legislation what should be primary legislation.

The Government have got to take this very seriously because this is a long and difficult Bill which has many dangers in it and ahead of it, not least—and I shall probably say this again—because the private rented sector plays an important part in the provision of housing. The provision of housing was one of the objectives of the previous Government and of this Government. It is also part of generating economic growth, which the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have repeatedly told us is their priority. I beg the Government to be more rigid and dissective in their thinking before rushing ahead with this legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

In response to the questions about timing from both the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, I can say that, following Royal Assent, we will allow time for a smooth transition to the new system. We will support tenants, landlords and agents to understand and adjust to the new rules. In line with this commitment, we will provide the sector with enough time to prepare for the introduction of the new PRS landlord ombudsman. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, to withdraw the amendment at this stage.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I particularly thank my noble friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Marlesford for their support on what we consider a very important amendment. I also thank the Minister, although I am surprised at her response on having a period of time to get communications in place. I will look back in Hansard but I think that, on a previous group, it was suggested that the implementation would come quite quickly after Royal Assent. If that is the case, I would quite like to know what the timings would be—whether it would be weeks or months—as and when those things are known.

On these Benches, we of course recognise that the Secretary of State should be afforded certain powers to deliver the content of legislation. However, the Government possibly have not fully considered the scale and scope of these regulatory powers, nor the level of trust that landlords, tenants and legislators must place in the Secretary of State on this issue. This is not about questioning the intentions of the Minister or others; rather, it is to suggest that significant changes should be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny, and that both your Lordships’ House and the other place should be given the opportunity to fulfil their constitutional role—quite honestly, that is the reason we are here.

I believe that what the Minister was saying is that these powers are necessary, but I did not hear compelling justification for why that is the case. Perhaps at a later stage we might, as I said, have more information on this and the Minister might be able to give a better explanation and I would be very happy to have that in writing. However, at this point, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 206C withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I will briefly comment on two amendments in this group: Amendment 233 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and Amendment 243 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, about databases. I feel that we are overlooking the need to ensure that the rogues in the system are identified and banned or punished for bad behaviour. They riddle the rented sector, I am afraid.

The database is a great attempt to give transparency and clarity to mortgagees, as in one of these amendments, to tenants and to potential tenants to check on their potential landlords. It is not responsible landlords who are the problem; it is the rogues. Rogues like to be invisible. They do not want to be detectable. They certainly do not want enforcement proceedings served against them. Enforcement must have teeth. Without real teeth, there is little point in trying to catch the rogues. The database would go a long way towards achieving that, but I fear that there is not enough determination in the Government to really punish those who are determined to cheat.

Rogues can hide their properties under the names of shelf companies. They can be registered abroad. They can have a tangled web of subsidiaries and further subsidiaries. They will make themselves as invisible and undetectable as possible. I close by simply saying that these are good amendments, but I would love to see sharper teeth in the enforceability.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for opening this group, as it marks the beginning of three vital debates on the database, which is an issue of great interest to stakeholders across the sector. There are 16 amendments in this group dealing with a range of quite complex issues relating to the database so, with the leave of the Committee, I will try to fully address the issues raised, but I might take a little extra time.

Before turning to our specific amendments and those in the wider group, I start by saying that the creation of a private rented sector database is a major change for landlords and tenants in this country. It is an opportunity to seriously improve transparency and outcomes for renters. We have expressed concerns on previous Bills about the overuse of regulation-making powers to deliver the statutory powers that the Government seek. Ministers should, we believe, set out clearly their plans in this Bill as far as is practically possible. Given the lack of detail in the clauses relating to the establishment of the database, we take this opportunity to ask the Minister to clarify the Government’s plans. If she cannot answer today, we will be very happy to have it in writing after today’s debate.

I start by addressing Amendment 228A, tabled in my name. This is a simple amendment that would ensure that the Secretary of State is required to make regulations to ensure that the database entries are regularly updated and maintained. It is essential that the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of the data be maintained if it is to be a useful resource for both tenants and for landlords. This is common sense, and this should be a requirement. I hope the Minister will agree to that. If the Government cannot accept this amendment today, will she please take this opportunity to explain why the Government feel that the Secretary of State should have discretion in this area?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hacking and Lord Best, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Thornhill, for their amendments on database operation and accessing the database, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, for their contributions. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, spoke to Amendment 230, which is in the next group, and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, spoke to Amendment 237, which is in group 6. I will respond to them when we get to those groups, if that is okay.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I apologise. I have two lists that have different numbers in them; I think they are one before the other.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

When we get to this stage of a Bill, especially when we have three or four groups on the same subject, I am not surprised that people get them mixed up.

I start by saying that I very much share the sentiments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy, Lady Thornhill and Lady Scott, about the potential of this database to support both landlords and tenants. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, clearly set out why this is important for responsible landlords as well as tenants. I am sure that landlords who do a very good job, which is the majority of them, get incredibly frustrated by the minority of rogue landlords who certainly do not and I hope that this will help them as well.

Amendment 219 from my noble friend Lord Hacking proposes that a duty be placed on the database operator to ensure that the database be established and operational within a year of the Renters’ Rights Bill coming into force. I know the database will be a vital tool in raising standards in the private rented sector. I assure my noble friend and other noble Lords who raised the issue that we are aiming for the database to be active as soon as possible.

The database is being designed as a bespoke product to ensure that it aligns with the operational and legal details set out in regulations. We are currently focusing on getting the basic functionality right, testing with the sector and local authorities and developing guidance for users. Setting a timeframe for a database in the Bill is unnecessary and could be counterproductive. We simply cannot risk it being brought in when the secondary legislation or technology is not ready. This would make life more difficult for tenants, landlords and local authorities. For this reason, I kindly ask that my noble friend considers withdrawing that amendment.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for Amendment 220, which would require the legislation to state that the database will benefit landlords, tenants, local authorities and other interested stakeholders. I assure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, who spoke to this amendment, that the database is being designed for the benefit of all potential users, including tenants, landlords and local authorities. I recognise the positive intent behind the noble Lord’s amendment. However, the Government are already working towards that and we are continuing to focus on those user groups as the database is designed. I therefore do not believe it is necessary to accept the amendment and for that reason I ask the noble Lord not to press it.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I reassure noble Lords, with regard to time, that the amendments in this group, in my name and those of other noble Lords —and there are a quite a lot of them—all work together and function as a pack. Therefore, my description of these amendments working together will actually be quite brief. The amendments look to strengthen the link between compliance with the private rented sector database and the lawful use of eviction powers. I appreciate that I am pushing the envelope a little bit and I will be genuinely interested in the Minister’s response.

These amendments are rooted in a very simple principle. If we expect landlords to meet minimum legal obligations—and we do, and we hope for more compliance: that is what the whole Bill is about—such as registering on the new database, which, following our previous discussions, is going to be the whizziest, wonderful game-changer, there really must be meaningful consequences when they do not. Currently, the Bill does not explicitly tie database compliance to a landlord’s ability to issue a Section 8 notice. These amendments aim to correct that, or at least to open up a discussion about it.

Amendment 223 would require landlords to register any Section 8 eviction notice on the database within seven days of issuing it. This would support greater transparency, help local landlords and tenants track patterns of use and ensure that there is a reliable record of how and when eviction powers are being exercised. Can the Minister say how we gather that data accurately, if not through this? It is important data and without it we lose very valuable oversight.

Amendments 235, 238, 239 and 240 would prevent a Section 8 eviction notice being considered valid if the landlord has failed to comply with Clause 83(3) of the Bill—namely, the obligation to register themselves and their dwelling on the database. These are not minor or excessive requirements; they are fundamental baseline requirements for responsible landlords. It is entirely reasonable to say that, if these duties are not met, a landlord should not be able to proceed with eviction.

Amendment 236 provides necessary clarification, ensuring that this requirement applies to the entirety of subsection (3) and not just selected parts. Taken together, this group helps to make the database a functioning gatekeeper for landlord compliance. It reinforces the idea that legal powers, especially those as significant as eviction, should be available only to those who follow the rules. That in turn builds confidence in the system and protects tenants from being displaced by landlords who are themselves acting unlawfully. I hope the Minister will look carefully at these proposals. They are proportionate and targeted and go to the heart of what this reform is meant to achieve: a fairer and more accountable rental sector. I beg to move.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for opening this group. The issues of database fees and possession restrictions are of real significance, and this group is therefore of considerable importance. Before turning to the wider contributions made today, I will speak to the amendments in this group that I have tabled. Amendment 228C seeks to probe the circumstances under which a landlord may be charged a fee under the regulations made under Clause 80. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some clarity on this point. Under what conditions do the Government foresee such charges being applied?

Amendment 228E, also in my name, would prevent the costs of enforcement action against non-compliant landlords being charged to those who have complied with the requirements of this chapter. This part of the Bill seems entirely unfair on law-abiding landlords. We want to understand why landlords who are compliant must bear the costs of enforcement taken against those landlords who fail to comply with the law. Could the Minister explain why compliant landlords must bear the costs of enforcement targeted at those who fail to meet their legal obligations?

Amendment 228F seeks to remove subsection (4)(d), which includes the costs of enforcement action imposed by the Bill in relation to the private rented sector. Our original understanding was that these fees were intended to relate to the database, but this paragraph seems to be a classic case of Ministers seeking additional and wider-ranging powers as a belt-and-braces approach. This is not an acceptable way forward. We understand completely that the database must be funded and we accept that a fee is reasonable, but we need to make sure that the fees charged under this clause remain reasonable. We know that this will increase the costs of business for landlords, so we need to ensure that the costs are both reasonable and proportionate. We are concerned that this wide definition of “relevant costs” may result in unreasonably high costs.

Perhaps I can press the Minister to give the Committee some sense of what the fees will be like, and how increases will be managed. Ultimately, we must bear in mind that it is usually the tenants who bear these costs through their rents in the future. Overall, what are the predicted costs of setting up and running the database, and what are the costs likely to be to the landlord?

Many landlords are small-scale and independent; they are not corporate landlords, with legal teams and financial reserves. They are ordinary individuals, often renting out one or two properties as a way to supplement their pension or to provide long-term family support. For the database to function as intended, it must be financially accessible.

On Amendment 228G, clear communication of the changes of fees is essential. It builds trust and helps people plan their finances, but it also avoids any confusion or frustration.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Scott, and my noble friend Lord Hacking, who I do not think is in his place anymore, for their amendments regarding database fees and possession restrictions.

I will start with the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Amendment 223 would mandate that the database operator establishes and operates the database so that it contains entries in respect of Section 8 possession notices, with such entries to be recorded on the database within seven days of the landlord serving them. I appreciate the intent behind this amendment. We are actively exploring collecting possession information on the database. We have identified various potential benefits to collecting this data—for example, it may support local authorities in identifying where possession grounds have been misused or where tenants are at risk of homelessness. It could also be useful to prospective tenants in making choices about where to rent, so I agree with her on that.

However, our research has also highlighted some challenges, particularly around accuracy and reliance on landlords self-reporting. We will need to consider carefully how these issues could be managed. I am also keen to impress upon the noble Baroness and the Committee that we do not think the information the database collects should be on in the Bill; we discussed that on the previous group. Our research has consistently demonstrated that it is imperative that the database can be adapted to meet future needs. Therefore, the data it collects should be set out in regulations. This is already possible through the regulation-making power in Clause 78, which the Government will use to outline registration requirements. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary.

Amendments 235, 236 and 238 to 240, taken together, propose changing the Bill’s provisions so that landlords cannot serve notice for possession under Section 8 nor be granted repossession by the courts if they are not compliant with database registration requirements. In addition, the amendments would mean not only that landlords would need to be registered but that their entries would need to be up to date in order for notices served to be valid. The amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would do this by adding a provision in the Bill for updating Section 7 of the Housing Act 1988, which refers to courts’ powers to order possession to be updated to effect compliance relating to the database.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, also proposes amendments to the wording of Clause 91 so that it refers to Section 83(3) as a whole. I understand that the noble Baroness is concerned with incentivising landlords to comply with regulation and therefore sees the value in replicating some of the safeguards that have been in place for serving Section 21 notices. I agree that landlords who have not met the basic obligation of registering on the database should not be able to gain possession of a property. This is an important incentive for landlords to register and supports the role of the database in driving up standards in the sector. However, the Bill will already update the Housing Act 1988 to prevent landlords being granted possession by the courts if they do not have an active database entry for themselves and the property. This is a proportionate approach to stop landlords being granted possession where they have failed to meet their obligations.

The Bill also clearly sets out our expectation for landlords to maintain active database entries and to ensure that these are up to date. I reassure noble Lords that landlords who do not have an up-to-date entry in the database will be subject to enforcement action by local authorities. Regulations will stipulate the requirements for active and up-to-date entries, and in the meantime the criteria for gaining possession as outlined in the Bill provides an appropriate level of protection for tenants against landlords who fail to register with the database without sanctioning landlords disproportionately. We do not want to risk creating a situation where landlords cannot use Section 8 grounds but have no alternative means of seeking possession. I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, to consider not pressing these amendments.

Amendments 228C, 228E, 228F, 228G and 237A were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. Amendment 228C would remove the ability to make regulations requiring the payment of a fee as part of renewals when database entries become inactive. I understand that the noble Baroness is seeking further information on the circumstances in which a landlord could be charged a fee under the regulations made under Clause 80. It is the intention that, in addition to an initial registration fee, there will be a fee at the point of renewal. An entry will become inactive if it expires at the end of a registration period and will become active again upon renewal. Landlords will not be charged for updates between renewal points. In cases where a landlord elects to make an entry inactive because they are no longer letting the property, they will not be charged. We will set out in detail when active entries become inactive, and vice versa, in secondary legislation. Timelines for registration and renewal will similarly be set out in secondary legislation.

Amendment 228E would place a requirement on Ministers to give two months’ notice of any fee changes to landlords with an active database entry. It raises a useful point to consider as we develop the database. We agree on the need for landlords to receive clear and timely communication about any changes in fees and to understand when a fee is required. As we develop the database, we are considering the required communications to landlords to help them understand their obligations, including payment of fees. We are also considering how we can design the database to facilitate this in a timely way. As we are already considering these points as we develop our proposals for implementation, we do not consider this amendment necessary.

Amendments 228F and 228G would remove the ability to set database fees with reference to costs of enforcing database requirements and to wider PRS enforcement costs respectively. This would mean that any fees could be calculated only by reference to operational costs and functions of the database. Effective enforcement is essential for the successful operation of the database. Without it, there will be no means to take action if landlords fail to sign up or provide the correct information. We have heard throughout the passage of this Bill the challenges with local housing authority resourcing and capacity for enforcement. Removing the option to factor in the costs of checking and taking action against any non-compliance would, in the long term, leave local housing authorities out of pocket and limit the database’s effectiveness.

As for wider enforcement costs, we believe that it is right that, as far as possible, the costs of enforcement should be met by those flouting the rules. Ultimately, all landlords, as well as the public and, most importantly, tenants, benefit from a well-regulated and enforced PRS. Clause 82 provides Ministers with the option of using a proportion of fee income to provide much-needed revenue to support enforcement activity. In answer to the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about fees, the fee level will not be set arbitrarily. The Bill provides that the relevant costs that can be recovered via the fee can be based on the cost of establishing and operating the database and the cost of performing the functions required under the database legislation and of enforcing the database and wider PRS legislation. We will ensure that decisions about fees take into account a range of factors, including of course the burden on landlords. Fees will be set out in secondary legislation. We are in the process of developing a calculation and structure for fees. The fee level will need to reflect the operating costs of the digital tool, which is currently in development, and may also be used to fund local authority enforcement. We are in the process of designing the database as a bespoke tool, so we are developing our understanding of what our expected costs will be. This has been set out in the impact assessment. The costs may be subject to change as our plans for delivery and implementation develop, so I am not able to give the noble Baroness an exact answer at the moment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Surely there is a budget, or even a proposed budget, that will go to the Treasury to deliver this scheme.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As with all future funding for our department and every other department, spending review bids have gone in. I will take her request back to the department to see whether we are able to be any clearer on that, but my understanding is that at the moment that we are not able to give an exact figure.

Noble Lords will be aware that these database fees will be set at a later point in regulations. I stress that in setting fees, we will ensure, and we have always been clear, that the fees will be fair and take into account the cost to landlords. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, also asked me about the accountability of the database operator. I will write to her on that point, if that is okay. For the reasons I have set out I do not think that it would be beneficial to the private rented sector database, or the reforms more widely, to place these additional limits on what relevant costs may be recoverable via the database fees.

The Bill will make it a legal requirement for residential landlords to ensure that they and their rental properties are registered on the database before a court can grant a possession order and they can gain possession of their property. Clause 91(1) amends Section 7 of the Housing Act 1988 so that a court can order possession only where there is an active entry in the database for both the landlord and the dwelling. Clause 91(1) also stipulates that possession orders made on grounds relating to anti-social behaviour are exempted from this requirement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Tope’s Amendment 251, which I have also signed. We have all spoken of the support we give this Bill because it offers the opportunity to address the problems and injustices suffered by renters in the PRS, which is the most insecure, most expensive and lowest quality of any tenure. However, the Bill fails to recognise that certain vulnerable groups of tenants suffer disproportionately, as we have heard, and need special measures to give them the level playing field they need to be able to live in suitable accommodation that is fair, reasonable and secure in the private rented sector.

Refugees and asylum seekers are just one such group, and their housing experience is in need of radical reform. My noble friend’s amendment, suggesting that the decent homes standard should apply to housing for refugees and asylum seekers, offers an opportunity to move forward.

However, the asylum housing system in the United Kingdom leaves tens of thousands of people in inadequate accommodation, where they often live for years in conditions that significantly undermine their physical and mental well-being. The current outsourcing of asylum housing to private companies has created a system that is marked by significant issues, including exorbitant costs, excessive profit making, substandard housing, and inadequate safeguarding and oversight. I read in the Sunday Times this week that the owner of one such company, Clearsprings Ready Homes, is now a member of the Sunday Times rich list as a result of rapidly expanding contracts from the Government at the taxpayer’s expense.

These providers need to be properly accountable. Refugee organisations report appalling conditions and many incidents of poor, unsafe and cold properties with infestations and mould. It should therefore form part of contracts with providers that the decent homes standard should apply to properties that are paid for by government. Taxpayers’ money is being used to fund substandard accommodation and providers are not being sanctioned. Many of those who are obliged to live in such misery are children, forced to live in virtual isolation and incarceration with housing conditions that are woefully inadequate for their needs. I therefore support my noble friend’s amendment and call on the Minister to reflect on this situation. If she is unwilling to amend the Bill, can she say what the Government are proposing to do to resolve the desperately pressing circumstances of refugees and asylum seekers and the housing crisis that they face?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate on the decent homes standard and its potential application across a broader range of accommodation types. As we have heard, the Bill introduces new powers for the Secretary of State to specify additional standards for qualifying residential premises, which offers the potential to raise housing quality and improve conditions for tenants across England. This is, in principle, a welcome ambition, particularly if it helps to extend protections to the most vulnerable in our housing system.

We must recognise the dignity of all residents, regardless of tenure. However, while the intention behind these amendments is laudable, it is vital to interrogate the practicalities and the legal impact of such proposals. For instance, how would the Government define “qualifying residential premises” in the context of asylum accommodation, where providers may be delivering services under a Home Office contract rather than under tenancy agreements? What enforcement mechanisms are appropriate in temporary or institutionally managed housing? Where would the burden of compliance ultimately fall?

We must also examine the legislative implications for landlords and housing providers, particularly those operating on constrained margins. Applying a uniform standard across such a diverse landscape of housing may sound straightforward in principle but in practice it could impose significant compliance costs, particularly in sectors such as mobile home parks or supported houses, where the business model and the regulatory framework already differ markedly from the private rented sector.

Stakeholders such as G15, representing London’s largest housing associations, have raised these very points, urging caution in implying one-size-fits-all approaches and stressing the importance of clarity, resourcing and consultation. Similarly, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has warned of the unintended market disruption that could follow from ambiguous or overly broad standards, particularly if applied unevenly or without sufficient support for implementation.

Amendment 252A, tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey, seeks to exempt certain buildings from the requirements to maintain specified energy efficiency criteria, specifically those in rural areas, those that are listed buildings or those that were constructed prior to 1900. This raises an equally critical set of questions. As we have heard, many older and listed buildings simply cannot meet modern EPC targets, such as EPC C, without intrusive and costly works that may fundamentally alter their structures or even their appearance. The amendment, therefore, is a measured and proportionate intervention designed not to weaken the decent homes standard but to ensure that it is applied with practicality and flexibility where needed.

Finally, we must ask whether there is a clear and coherent framework in place for assessing which tenures and building types should fall under the decent homes umbrella and whether, without such a framework, we risk creating legal uncertainty or burdens that will ultimately be passed on to tenants themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I want to scratch lots of bits out, since the noble Lord, Lord Best, was so succinct.

Amendment 258 is in the name of Lord Cromwell and has notable signatories, and the noble Lord sold this amendment well. In short, this is an amendment that should not be needed, if the police and local authorities did their jobs correctly, as per the law, as outlined in the Protection from Eviction Act. This amendment is rightly seeking to reinforce what should be happening but we know is not. The already mentioned organisation, Safer Renting, monitored data from its clients over a given period, which revealed that, when the clients were going through an illegal eviction, and while it was in progress they called the police for assistance, worryingly in only 9% of cases did the police actually go to the property and assist the tenants. Therefore, as the noble Lord said, in 91% of cases they either failed to turn up, or turned up and sided with the landlord.

Interestingly, so concerned was Safer Renting about these statistics that it decided to do something about it. To its credit, in partnership with the Metropolitan Police and the GLA, it developed a training course for officers. Approximately 8,000 officers took the training but, sadly, this did not mean it recorded any significant improvement when talking to its clients, which begs a lot more questions that are probably not answerable here.

As has already been said by several noble Lords, it is imperative that the police understand the harassment before and during an illegal eviction—or, indeed, what constitutes criminal offences—and, most importantly, that they co-operate with the local authorities charged with the role of prosecuting these rogues and criminal landlords. Shockingly, that is not always happening. Safer Rentings’ illegal eviction count for England and Wales in 2022-23 showed 8,748 illegal evictions—that is one every 67 minutes.

It is not necessary for the police to prosecute these offences unless they witness criminal actions taking place alongside the eviction, but it is crucial for them to understand the law both to refer them to the local authority and to co-operate with the authority’s investigations. We support this amendment, but we hope the Minister will reassure us that it is not needed.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 258, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, aims to provide greater clarity for local housing authorities and police forces in responding to cases of illegal eviction. Illegal eviction is a serious offence; it is not simply a housing matter but often a brazen abuse of power that leaves some of our most vulnerable renters without recourse. That said, we have reservations about the practicalities of this proposal, but I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, having asked the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, his views on it.

In essence, the amendment would place a statutory duty on police and councils to notify each other when a complaint of illegal eviction is received, to co-operate in investigating the offence and to take reasonable steps to assist the tenant. The intent here is understandable —tenants report illegal evictions and are, as we know, bounced between bodies, with the police saying it is a civil matter and councils struggling with limited capacity. Although the intent behind the amendment is undeniably well-meaning, we just have to pause and ask whether it might inadvertently entrench confusion within the statutory framework rather than resolving it.

Without clear definitions, the proposal to impose duties on local housing authorities and police forces to co-operate and assist opens the door to operational ambiguity. What exactly constitutes “reasonable steps to assist”, and what measurable outcomes are expected from this co-operation? Without these clarifications, there is a real risk of creating more confusion for the very tenants we want to protect.

We also want to be very careful about the practical burdens. As the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said, both councils and police forces are grappling the whole time with existing resource shortages. This amendment adds new responsibilities without addressing the underlying issue of capacity. Should we not first evaluate whether these agencies are equipped to handle their current workload before we impose further duties? What assessments have been made of the additional resource implications of this?

There is great merit in the principle behind the amendment—namely, the need for clearer co-operation and more decisive enforcement—but there are significant questions about whether, as drafted, it achieves that aim in a proportional, workable manner.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and I ask the Minister: is the guidance clear enough, particularly to police forces, that it is an illegal act and it is against the law? Is there enough guidance? Are they being told exactly what they have to do? Do local authorities have clear guidance about looking after the tenant, which is their responsibility if they have been evicted and they are homeless at the time? Can this not be done in a different way by insisting that the Home Office work with MHCLG to try to embed the guidance that is already there and insist that both organisations deliver what they should be delivering at the moment?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for his amendment and for meeting me to discuss it. The amendment would place a duty on local authorities and police forces to share information regarding alleged offences contrary to Section 1 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Scott. Local authorities and police forces would also have a duty to co-operate in the investigation of these offences and take steps to prevent offences from occurring or continuing, as well as assisting tenants to gain access to properties from which they have been illegally evicted. The Secretary of State would be required to produce statutory guidance outlining how these duties would be discharged.

The Government are clear that illegal eviction is unacceptable. Changes introduced in the Bill will further empower local authorities to penalise those who illegally evict, giving them the option to issue a financial penalty of up to £40,000 as an alternative to prosecution. Illegally evicted tenants are also entitled to receive a rent repayment order. Local authorities will be provided with new investigatory powers alongside the powers that police forces have to investigate and prosecute breaches of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.

However, I am concerned about the administrative burden that a reporting duty might place on police forces. The department is trialling approaches to improving multi-agency targeting and the disruption of rogue and criminal actors operating throughout the private rented sector. For example, Liverpool City Council’s private sector housing intelligence and enforcement taskforce—a snappy title, I know, but it does what it says on the tin—has successfully carried out joint operations with Merseyside Police and the Home Office. The Government will continue to explore how we can encourage more effective collaboration between the police and local authorities.

I am happy to add this topic to the agenda for the meeting that I have already agreed to with my noble friend Lady Kennedy and Safer Renting, and to take another look at the existing guidance to make sure that it does what it needs to do. With that said, I respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, in moving this amendment, I am grateful for the help of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, which has worked with local enforcement teams in my diocese to help us get to this amendment.

Local enforcement will be vital to making the intention of the Renters’ Rights Bill a reality, including the extension of the decent homes standard. However, an amendment to the power of entry that councils are going to use to enforce that standard is needed so that negligent or criminal landlords do not get a tip-off of inspections in advance, which would allow them to frustrate that process or to put pressure on the tenant. Enforcement officers would never tip off the proprietor of an off-licence in advance of an under-age mystery shopper trying to buy alcohol or cigarettes but, as currently drafted, this Bill will require enforcement officers to give landlords a 24-hour tip-off for any formal inspection of compliance with the decent homes standard.

The power of entry under the Bill comes from Section 239 of the Housing Act 2004. It is completely appropriate to give notice to the occupier—I mean, it is their home; they are probably the one who made the complaint that led to environmental health officers or enforcement officers wanting to come round to have a look at it—but why on earth do we give the landlord that 24 hours’ notice? Indeed, we know already from what enforcement officers tell us that, where there is a requirement to tip off landlords, it allows criminal landlords to take lawful countermeasures. These include things such as forcibly removing tenants from an overcrowded property, pressuring tenants not to let enforcement officers into their home or taking retaliatory action, which can dissuade tenants from pursuing complaints. They can also prompt them to withdraw complaints; indeed, there is every reason why a tenant may not want the landlord to know that they have made a complaint at this early stage of the process.

Finally, I would urge that focusing the notice requirement on the occupier is consistent with equivalent enforcement legislation. For example, council enforcement officers’ powers of entry under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 include no requirement to give notice to a property’s owner.

Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle—I see that she has just left us—I am not a night owl: should it get to midnight and I am still here, these fine ecclesiastical robes will, like Cinderella’s dress, turn to rags. I trust that we can have an effective but brief debate on what is, I think, a simple and clear proposal. I hope that the Minister will agree that this is a timely and sensible amendment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for this amendment on powers of entry into properties. Of course, there is a fine line here: we are trying to balance landlords’ rights to know what is going on in their properties, especially regarding enforcement, with the rights of the occupiers of the property to be informed when powers of entry are being exercised by enforcement authorities.

The amendment would remove the current requirement for a notice to be provided to both the owner and the occupier of the property before the authority can exercise any power of entry under Section 239 of the Housing Act 2004. This would mean landlords not having to be told that their property is going to be entered for survey or examination. I would argue that the owner of the property should have the right to be informed both that their property will be investigated by enforcement authorities and that the authority will exercise its power of entry into the property. This is the case as things stand now, and I believe that that is how it should remain.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for his Amendment 260 and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her comments. This amendment to Section 239 of the Housing Act 2004 seeks to enable local authorities to inspect PRS properties without the need to give 24 hours’ notice to property owners where the property is unoccupied, while retaining the notice requirement for tenants.

Section 239 currently requires local authorities to provide 24 hours’ notice to owners—if known—and occupiers before an inspection can take place. We are aware that the current requirement to provide property owners with 24 hours’ notice enables some unscrupulous landlords to hide evidence of breaches of PRS legislation, intimidate tenants and obstruct inspections. We recognise that the current notice requirement may, in some circumstances, hinder local authorities’ ability to address tenants’ unsafe or hazardous living conditions effectively.

While we are supportive of any efforts to improve local authorities’ ability to enforce against rogue landlords and appreciate that this amendment is in support of that objective, we must carefully consider its implications. We will continue to have conversations with the right reverend Prelate and with stakeholders, and we welcome noble Lords sharing their views on this matter so that the Government can take them into consideration. For these reasons, I ask the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester to consider withdrawing his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for opening this group and introducing her Amendment 263. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review and report on the impact of the Act on the private rented sector, including housing supply, rent levels, tenant security and regulatory burdens, within two years of its enactment.

We on these Benches do not support reviews for the sake of reviewing. They often consume time and public funds, and require precise delivery in order to answer the questions they set out to answer. However, this legislation poses a significant risk to the market. Noble Lords from across the Committee agree that we must protect tenants and ensure they have access to secure, stable and decent housing at a fair price. We have been clear this Bill does not deliver that.

The Government must review the efficacy of the Bill and be held accountable for the decisions they have taken and insisted on. To achieve this, we need a functioning market with an adequate supply of good-quality homes to meet a growing demand. Ensuring the availability of homes is key to making accommodation attainable and keeping rents affordable. Any legislation in this area must strike a difficult but essential balance between these competing interests. Only by getting that balance right can we hope to achieve an efficient and effective rental market. We, along with the many stakeholders we have consulted, believe that a review is necessary and that it should be brought before Parliament.

I am keen to know whether the Government are giving the amendments in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Janke, serious consideration. Can the Minister say how the success of this Bill will be judged? What does success look like in the eyes of the Government?

In our view, the fear and uncertainty surrounding this Bill is already having a negative impact. On the first day in Committee, I quoted figures from Savills and I will underline them once more. According to Savills, the number of rental properties available on their books in quarter 1 of 2025 is down 42% compared with the same period in 2024. That is 42% fewer homes for families, and 42% less choice for people searching for somewhere to live. If the Government are confident in the positive impact of this Bill, what reason does the Minister have for not reviewing its effects on the housing market, specifically its impact on the availability of rental homes, rent levels, house prices and the demand for social housing? If the Bill were to have a damaging effect on the rental market, surely Ministers would want to know.

Getting this balance right is paramount. It is the difference between a functioning, accessible rental market and one that is suffocated. It is the difference between tenants being able to find a secure and affordable home, and landlords leaving the sector altogether. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill, Lady Grender and Lady Janke, for their amendments, which propose several different types of reviews to the future Act, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her comments. I have to ask why we do not have a functioning effective rental market—we were not in government over the past 14 years.

Amendment 263, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would introduce a legal requirement for the Government to carry out a review of the Bill’s impact on the private rented sector. This review would be conducted, and subsequently reported to Parliament, within two years following the Bill’s receipt of Royal Assent. In particular, it would require the review to consider the Bill’s impact on supply, rent levels, security of tenure and the burdens on landlords. It also prescribes that the Government must consult with representatives of landlords, tenants and local authorities during the preparation of such a review.

I know the Committee shares my interest in the practical impact that this legislation will have on the private rented sector. I reassure the Committee that this interest is at the heart of the Government’s commitment to monitor and evaluate robustly the impact of our reforms. Our approach will build on the department’s existing monitoring of the housing sector. Our process, impact and value for money evaluation will be conducted in line with the department’s published evaluation strategy. Our monitoring work will make use of a range of data, including the results of the English Housing Survey, data from relevant stakeholders, including local authorities, and data generated from the reforms themselves. We will also deliver an evaluation involving extensive data collection through interviews, surveys and focus groups. These will be conducted with a range of stakeholders, such as tenants, landlords, letting agents, third sector organisations, delivery partners, the courts service and government officials. Monitoring data from existing surveys and new data produced by the reforms will supplement these findings.

I can also reassure the Committee that the conclusions of our evaluation will be published in a timely manner, in line with our broader policy on the publication of research. This includes an interim evaluation report on the processes, early impacts and intermediate outcomes, which we will produce in the early years after implementation. I hope this gives the Committee confidence that the Government’s proposed approach to monitoring and evaluation is the right one. Setting an arbitrary deadline for this process, as the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would do, we believe represents an unnecessary step. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Amendment 270, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, would mandate that the Secretary of State carry out a review of rent affordability in England, with a report to be laid before Parliament within 12 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. This amendment would require this review to be wide-ranging, encompassing the affordability of rents across both the private and social sectors, the impact on tenants, and regional differences. It would also require specific assessment of the effectiveness of measures to control excessive rent increases and the uptake and outcome of the tribunal.

As I already noted, the Government are committed to very robust monitoring and evaluation of the private rented sector reform programme. We will also continue to monitor trends across the industry as a whole, using a range of data sources, which include the Valuation Office Agency rental prices data, the Office for National Statistics rental price index, and data from the English Housing Survey and the English Private Landlord Survey. This will enable us to respond to unexpected impacts or unwelcome outcomes and initiate appropriate changes where these are needed.

Finally, Amendment 273, from the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, would introduce a legal requirement for the Government to produce a report on the impact of the Bill once it is an Act on different racial and ethnic groups in the private rented sector. I have already outlined at length our broader plans for assessing the impacts of the Bill. Regarding specific impacts on racial and ethnic groups in the sector, the department follows the Ethnic Group, National Identity and Religion guidance published by the Office for National Statistics. Ethnicity statistics are regularly collected and published by the department about tenants and landlords to understand the demography of the private rented sector through the English Housing Survey and the English Private Landlord Survey. This data supports our continued compliance with the requirements of the public sector equality duty and wider government responsibility by contributing to the race disparity audit.

It is also worth stressing that, in keeping with the public sector equality duty, once the Bill is an Act, Ministers will continue to have due regard to the equality impact of decisions on groups by reference to relevant protected characteristics. This includes the protected characteristic of race.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I understand the collection of the data, which I think is excellent so that we know what is going on, but how is that going to be scrutinised by Parliament? Will that come in a report? If it is, when will that first report come to Parliament for scrutiny?

High Streets (Built Environment Committee Report)

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interest on the register as vice-president of the Local Government Association.

The Built Environment Committee’s report makes wide-ranging and thoughtful recommendations to the Government on how best to support our high streets. These include improving bus networks and parking, supporting local markets, encouraging greater business involvement in high street management and simplifying business rates. I thank my noble friend Lord Moylan for chairing the committee and my noble friend Lord Gascoigne for presenting the report today.

Many of the funds and initiatives referenced in the Government’s response, such as the high street rental auction, high street accelerators, the city region sustainable transport settlement and the private parking code, were in fact introduced or legislated for by the previous Government, who had a strong record on supporting high streets. We supported businesses, particularly high street businesses, through the Covid 19 pandemic with a comprehensive £400 billion package. We supported towns through the long-term plan for towns, which the current Government have since withdrawn. That plan committed £1.1 billion to 55 towns across the UK, empowering local communities to develop locally led town plans shaped by community leaders, employers, local authorities and Members of Parliament. We supported high street generation through a suite of wider funds, including the £4.8 billion levelling up fund, the £3.2 billion towns fund, the high street task force and the £150 million community ownership fund.

I turn to the conclusions and the recommendations of the report. These were wide-ranging and covered several key areas relevant to the vitality of the high street. The first recommendation calls for improvements to public transport connectivity, particularly bus networks, and for more efficient and accessible car parking. I note that this was actively pursued by the previous Government, culminating in the launch of the private parking code, which was finalised in May 2024 and came into force in October that year, following significant work with the industry.

The committee also urged continued support for local market traders and recommended that the local authority-operated markets outside London be granted business rates relief. The Government claim that their new approach meets their manifesto commitments, but I must challenge that claim. The manifesto pledged to

“level the playing field between high streets and online giants”,

yet the policy in question levies additional taxes not on online giants alone but also on high street retailers, large department stores, supermarkets, football stadiums and others. These are not online giants. This approach risks further burdening those the Government claim to support. These are the things that keep our high streets thriving and surviving.

I turn to the section of the report concerning local businesses and regeneration. The Government’s first Budget left business confidence at its lowest point in two years. According to the British Chambers of Commerce, only 49% of companies surveyed in the first quarter of 2024 expected an increase in income over the coming year. This should be a concerning indicator. In light of this, the Government must consider how best to support, though not mandate, the development of business improvement districts. BIDs have shown that they can drive local growth and community involvement, but there is a lot of scope to do even more. The Government should explore whether the BID model could be strengthened by expanding participation to include community representatives, ensuring a broader, more inclusive voice in local regeneration.

The next recommendation rightly highlights the importance of public participation, saying that local authorities should ensure that residents are involved in the decision-making. This is essential if regeneration efforts are to reflect the real needs and priorities of local communities. The Conservative Party agrees with the committee’s view that the Government must embed accountability measures into any new regeneration programme. I therefore ask the Minister to set out how the department intends to build on this principle. Specifically, how will local voices be ensured a place at the table in the design and delivery of future regeneration schemes?

We recognise the value of the Government’s funding simplification doctrine. This principle should be expanded to apply to all local authorities receiving multiple funding streams aimed at high street regeneration.

The committee rightly supports the continuation of the long-term plan for towns, particularly as it includes vital resource funding, not just capital. Any future programmes must adopt a highly simplified bidding process, enabling local authorities to focus on delivery rather than navigating bureaucracy. Will the Minister commit to simplifying the funding landscape and providing much-needed clarity on the future of regeneration programmes? Additionally, will he introduce a significantly simplified bidding process for any future high street or town regeneration funding? This would help ensure that local authorities can focus more on the delivery and less on the administrative burden, as I said.

I turn briefly to the commentary from third parties on the committee’s report. In August 2024, the Federation of Small Businesses published its report, The Future of the High Street, calling for greater support and innovative thinking to improve conditions for small firms operating on UK high streets. Notably, the FSB found that good transport links are essential, with almost 43% of small businesses stating this as a key factor for their success. In the light of this, what plans do the Government have to ensure that transport links in our towns are available, frequent and reliable?

The FSB also reported that around 49% of high street small businesses believe that parking facilities are poorly managed in their area. Will the Minister commit to a review of parking provision, particularly in poorly performing areas, so that we can improve accessibility for those travelling to the high street by car?

Finally, I leave the Minister with two further questions that speak to some of the most pressing concerns raised by the committee. First, how do the Government intend to improve the return on investment for high street and town centre projects that are currently underperforming? Secondly, how will the department support local authorities in unlocking the latent resource, expertise and community passion that remain under- utilised in so many of our communities?

I again thank the committee for its diligent and thoughtful report and acknowledge the valuable contributions of all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate or on that committee. I hope that we can continue to draw on the considerable expertise of this House to ensure that we do all we can to both support and revitalise our high streets.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

145: Clause 17, page 26, line 24, leave out “beyond reasonable doubt” and insert “on the balance of probabilities”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and another in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook, seeks to apply the normal standard of proof for civil cases for these fines and probes the Government’s reasons for applying the criminal standard of proof.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I want to make it very clear that we will not have had six days in Committee. I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley.

I do not feel that I can open this group without paying tribute to the late noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. His amendments are why we are debating this important issue tonight. We will miss his insightful contribution to this Bill and to the House more broadly. We are a poorer place without him, and I send my heartfelt sympathies to his partner, his friends and his family for their loss. May his memory be a blessing.

This group follows on from a group on the previous day in Committee, but it focuses more specifically on the burden of proof applied in the determination of penalties. I will be brief, as on these Benches we simply have two questions for the Minister. I draw your Lordships’ attention to probing Amendments 145 and 152. We are concerned about the Government’s proposal to grant local housing authorities the power to determine whether a person is guilty of an offence under Section 16 without proper due process. Can the Minister kindly set out for the Committee how this provision is intended to operate in practice, and whether it will be subject to any appeal or review process?

I wish to draw attention to the principal reason for these probing amendments—the selected standard of proof. We are seeking to understand why there appears to be a lack of consistency in the standard of proof applied across different parts of the Bill. I have no doubt that many distinguished lawyers in your Lordships’ Committee will address this matter with far greater clarity and precision than I can. However, the question remains: why should different standards of proof apply within the same piece of legislation?

I appreciate that the Minister is herself not a lawyer and may wish to take some time to reflect and return to the Committee with a considered response, but can she kindly set out, either today or at a later stage, the rationale behind this apparent inconsistency? I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 148, 197, 200 and 242 on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.

First, I join my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook by expressing my sincere condolences to the family and friends of the late noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. His reputation as an exceptional legal mind represents the very best that this House has to offer.

Secondly, I remind noble Lords of my own interest as a practicing solicitor.

These four amendments seek to make two substantive changes to the Bill. First, the removal of “reckless” would ensure that a landlord is guilty of an offence only if it can be proven that they wrongly relied on a ground for possession with actual knowledge of the offence. Secondly, the replacement of

“on the balance of probabilities”

with “beyond reasonable doubt” raises the standard of proof for these offences when the local authority is determining a case.

I expect that the Minister will oppose these amendments on the grounds that they will make it less easy for a local authority to find a landlord guilty of an offence. But surely the crucial point is that they would put a proper check on the incorrect prosecution of landlords that may arise from the new system of penalties that will be imposed by local authorities.

There is also a legitimate question about how we can be certain that local authorities will have the resources they need fairly to assess cases in which landlords are accused of an offence. We need a system that ensures that landlords are held to high standards, but surely that system has to be seen to be fair. Any system that makes landlords feel that they are perennially at risk of being found guilty of an offence, even without their knowledge, will only add to the chilling effect of the Bill on our rental market.

I also agree that the standard of proof where a local authority is making a decision on a case without recourse to the courts should be high. Local authority officers should be absolutely sure when making these decisions.

I have two questions for the Minister. First, will she take this opportunity to explain how a landlord who has been found guilty of an offence by a local authority will be able to appeal that decision? Secondly, will she please answer the question about appropriate local authority resources to enable them to administer these offences?

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, may I say how sorry I am to have to deal with Lord Etherton’s amendments after his sad passing? I did not have a long time to get to know him, but during my time in this House, I truly appreciated both his engagement and his wisdom on this Bill and his courtesy and kindness. I know that he will be greatly missed by the House and I add to what other noble Lords have said in sending my condolences to his husband and his close friends and family. I understand that his wonderful legal brain will be a sad loss to this House, and we will all miss him. I am very sorry that he is not here today to complete the work that he started on the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, may his memory be a blessing to all those who knew him.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for speaking on behalf of Lord Etherton in this debate on the amendments on financial penalties, and also the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her comments on these. I will make the declaration up front that I am not a lawyer either, so I rely on others for legal advice on this part of the Bill.

Starting with the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, Amendment 145 would replace the criminal standard of proof with the civil standard of proof for breaches of the tenancy requirements which are not criminal offences. These breaches can, by virtue of continuing or being repeated, form part of a criminal offence. We consider that it is necessary, therefore, for the criminal standard of proof to apply.

Amendment 152 would reduce the standard of proof from “beyond reasonable doubt” to “on the balance of probabilities”, where local authorities are imposing civil penalties as an alternative to prosecution for tenancy offences. Where civil penalties are imposed as an alternative to criminal prosecution, it is necessary for the same criminal standard, “beyond reasonable doubt”, to apply. That is already the case, for example, for civil penalties imposed as an alternative to prosecution for offences under the Housing Act 2004, such as failure to comply with an improvement notice. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendments.

I now turn to the amendments tabled by Lord Etherton, and spoken to on his behalf today by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Amendments 197 and 200 would, conversely, require local authorities to meet the criminal, rather than civil, standard of proof when imposing civil penalties for rental discrimination and rental bidding breaches.

The standard of proof is lower than that which applies to the imposition of financial penalties for breaches of other requirements introduced by the Bill. This is because, unlike those other breaches, rental discrimination and rental bidding breaches cannot lead to a criminal offence if the conduct is repeated or continued. As such, rental discrimination and rental bidding cannot result in the landlord being prosecuted or given a £40,000 civil penalty, and are subject only to the lower £7,000 penalty. We therefore think it appropriate that local authorities need to prove these breaches to the civil standard, “on the balance of probabilities”, rather than the criminal standard, “beyond reasonable doubt”.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised the issue of resources, and I will answer that with two points. One is that the Government have committed to assess the financial impact of this on local authorities, and have committed to new burdens funding. Secondly, those fines will be available for local authority use for this purpose, or other purposes, if they wish to use them in that way.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about appeals. Local authorities can consider evidence and decide whether, for example, the individual concerned was aware that the information they provided might be false or misleading, and if so, whether it was reasonable for them to submit it, or if they took an unjustified risk in doing so; that is the point about recklessness.

The legislation also provides safeguards. In the case of prosecution it would be for the court, not the local authority, to decide whether the accused had been reckless. In the case of a financial penalty, the landlord has the right to make representations before a penalty is imposed, and a right of appeal against the imposition or the amount of the penalty.

Amendment 148 would narrow the offence of misusing a ground for possession to evict a tenant when possession would not be obtained on that ground. It would do so by removing the element of recklessness from the offence. Amendment 242 would narrow the offence of providing information to the database operator that is false or misleading in a material respect in the same way.

To commit the first of these offences, a landlord, or person acting or purporting to act on their behalf, would need to know that the landlord would not be able to obtain possession on that ground. If a landlord, or person acting or purporting to act on their behalf, was simply being reckless as to whether the landlord would be able to do so, it would not amount to an offence.

I do not think that limiting the offence in this way is necessary or helpful. Clearly, landlords should not be penalised for minor mistakes, but recklessness goes beyond making a mistake. It entails taking an unjustified risk, and landlords should not take an unjustified risk when their action may result in someone losing their home. It is, of course, the case that the offence is committed only if the tenant actually surrenders possession. Making enforcement in every case dependent on being satisfied to the criminal standard that the landlord, or those acting or purporting to act on their behalf, knew that the landlord would not be able to obtain possession using a ground for possession, would make it too easy for unscrupulous landlords and agents to escape enforcement.

Similar arguments apply in relation to the database offence. To require knowledge to be proved in every case would make it too easy for unscrupulous landlords to submit false or misleading information in purported compliance with database requirements.

It is well-established in legislation for offences relating to the provision of false or misleading information to include the mental element of recklessness, including in housing legislation. It is used, for example, in relation to the provision of false and misleading information to local authorities in connection with their functions under the Housing Act 2004—an offence that is prosecuted by local authorities.

In short, we consider that the mental state of recklessness is appropriate to apply to these serious offences, so I kindly ask that the noble Baroness considers withdrawing her amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, first, I am really disappointed because a number of noble Lords who have been involved in all these debates over the past four days in Committee are unable to be in their seats because of the later time of day. That will not help us scrutinise this Bill as we should.

I thank all those who have contributed on Amendments 148, 197, 200 and 242, which are now in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. Noble Lords are absolutely right to highlight the issue of consistency —an issue we on these Benches intended to raise today —but my noble friend Lord Hunt also introduced an important new concern: the threshold of proof required by local authorities before a financial penalty can be imposed. On matters such as these, it is vital that we draw on the expertise of the legal profession to improve the Bill’s drafting, and I hope the Minister will seek the wise counsel of noble Lords such as my noble friend as these matters are taken back to the department.

As noble Lords have rightly pointed out, the financial penalties under consideration are significant. Many landlords are small-scale or so-called accidental landlords, who may not be in a position to absorb such fines. It is therefore entirely appropriate that the Committee seeks clarity on the methodology, consultation process and factors, such as the ability to pay, used in determining these thresholds.

Given the scale of these penalties, the standard of evidence and the threshold for their imposition must be carefully examined, and my noble friend set out with clarity the issues that may arise without a sufficient burden of proof, and the legal argument underpinning these amendments. There is legitimate concern about penalties being applied without adequate legal scrutiny, potentially undermining due process. We therefore welcome these amendments and believe my noble friend Lord Hunt has made a compelling case. When large fines are at stake, a high level of rigour and certainty must be reflected in the legal standard applied. What is more, any concerns expressed on these matters should not be dismissed too readily and should be carefully considered, but at this point I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 145 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

167: Clause 21, page 39, line 33, after “child” insert “or grandchild”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe the Government’s willingness to recognise in law the close family ties many people have with their first cousins once removed and other removed cousins.

[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.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments relating to guarantors and family members, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, for contributing to the debate.

Amendments 167, 168 and 169 would expand the definition of “family member” used in Clause 21 to include the grandchildren of aunts and uncles as well as siblings of grandparents. This would absolve these individuals from liability for rent owed after a tenant had died when they acted as guarantor.

I understand the noble Baroness’s motivation in probing this definition of family. She sometimes accuses me of not listening, or of not thinking these things through, but I have carefully considered the balance of these provisions. They protect bereaved guarantors from financial hardship while allowing landlords to keep guarantors in place where it is reasonable to do so.

The definition of “family member” reflects the need to encompass more distant family members who might commonly be used as tenancy guarantors. While we understand that more distant relatives than those covered in the definition may rarely be used as guarantors, defining family members for the purposes of this legislation means that a line needs to be drawn somewhere. This definition does not seek to disregard or downplay any family links between relatives who are not included within that definition—some of my second cousins might have something to say if I tried to do that.

It is worth noting that landlords holding guarantors liable in these scenarios is already uncommon, and most landlords would already act compassionately towards a deceased tenant’s family. Furthermore, by removing fixed terms, a personal representative of the deceased tenant can end the tenancy by giving a landlord two months’ notice. We believe that this strikes a balance that is fair to tenants, guarantors and landlords alike. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, not to press her amendments.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for her response, but I do not think that we have quite got to a better understanding of the Government’s reasons for defining a family in this way; it is just that they are going to define a family in this way.

I point out once again that many families are of different shapes to the one described in the Bill. We feel strongly that it would be a strange outcome if slightly more distant cousins were not protected by the legislation, but close cousins were. We have set out clearly that many people have very close family ties with their slightly more distant cousins. We feel that the Government have failed to adequately explain why those individuals should not have the same rights based on their family ties as other members of the family.

We reserve the right to come back to this on Report, but we hope that Ministers will listen to the argument that we have made today and consider improving this part of the Bill to properly reflect the family relationships that many people have in in this country. At this point, I beg to leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 167 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I was intrigued by the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, today and it is interesting to hear that they have come from Citizens Advice. I am conscious that things have evolved over time, and he mentioned relationship breakdown. As somebody who used to rent with other people, I know there was always a certain risk when you took on a tenancy that somebody could walk out and you would be left liable.

I guess I am trying to understand—perhaps I was not listening quite closely enough—whether we will get to a point where, instead of people coming together, this will drive more accommodation into houses of multiple occupation.

I will give your Lordships my personal experience. I was working for a very large company when I moved to another city, which reflected the job situation that I needed. There is no doubt that I deliberately sought out situations that were not exactly HMOs but where individual contracts and tenancies were allowed with the landlord, so that it would not fall on my shoulders to think about these issues.

I suppose I am trying to understand how this amendment would address the situation of making sure that there are enough tenancies and enough accommodation available, without putting more risk on to the landlord. We are already seeing quite a substantial change. I understand why the Government set this out in their manifesto and similar. I appreciate that there may be some differences on some of the impact but, perhaps when the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, follows up—I am happy to discuss this outside—it would be useful to discuss how much of a genuine, as opposed to theoretical, problem this really is.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for bringing these amendments to the Committee. As we on this side have consistently said throughout, we support the Bill’s overarching aim to create a fairer and more secure private rental sector. However, if it is to deliver on that promise, it must engage with the way that people rent in reality, not in theory. Joint tenancies are a common and practical arrangement, as we have heard, whether between couples, friends or flatmates. However, as currently drafted, the Bill leaves considerable uncertainty as to how these tenancies will be treated, particularly when one party wishes to leave.

Amendments 171 and 175 rightly seek to bring joint tenancies fully and clearly within the scope of the Bill. Without this clarity, both tenants and landlords could be left navigating ambiguity, with little guidance in law and potentially significant consequences in practice.

Similarly, Amendments 172 and 174 focus on the mechanisms for ending a joint tenancy. This is a matter not just of legal process but of fairness and practicality. Tenants must be afforded flexibility, particularly in cases of relationship breakdown or changes in household arrangements, while landlords should not be left in legal or financial limbo.

In that context, it is right to raise the issue of subletting, which is closely tied to how joint tenancies evolve and adapt over time. When a tenant is not using all or even part of their space, subletting enables the more efficient use of underoccupied homes. This is particularly important in areas facing acute housing shortages, where every single room matters. Subletting arrangements can offer a pragmatic solution for tenants trying to manage their finances, respond to personal changes or simply avoid exiting a tenancy altogether. It can help maintain housing stability where one joint tenant moves out, by allowing a new occupier to contribute to rent without formalising a new tenancy agreement from scratch. Moreover, subletting can play a role in addressing the chronic supply issues affecting the rental sector. It offers access to more affordable rents, supports tenants’ incomes and introduces much-needed flexibility into an often rigid system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I do hope that the Minister will not agree to this. I have a flat that I live in part-time but sometimes rent, and I am allergic to animals. The idea that I would have to consider and take an application from someone with a pet, when I could not possibly have them living there because of my allergy, seems to me quite unfair. They would come to see the flat and waste their time when there is no chance in the world that I could let it to someone with a pet. I do hope that we will not go the way of forcing somebody like me to waste someone’s time in going to see a property. There is no way that I would be able to have an animal in the flat that I live in at other times.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood for his amendments. I also thank my noble friends Lord Lexden and Lady Coffey for their contributions, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who makes it very clear that we need to have a balance.

This group seeks to address the growing concern among renters, but we must also consider the valid and practical concerns of landlords. Although these proposals aim to prevent blanket bans on pets in rental properties, it is essential to recognise that there must be legitimate reasons for any restrictions. Many tenants may view their pets as family members, as we have heard, but we must also acknowledge the potential challenges and consequences of allowing pets in rental properties. These are challenges that can affect property maintenance, insurance costs and, as we have heard, the well-being of other tenants. A balanced approach is needed, one that considers the rights of tenants and the legitimate concerns of landlords and property owners.

Landlords are often responsible for the upkeep of the property and ensuring the safety and comfort of all tenants. Allowing pets may also complicate insurance policies, leading to higher premiums or even exclusions in certain cases. These concerns are not trivial and must not be dismissed lightly, but rather addressed in a way that is both fair and proportionate. The amendment in this group recognises the need for a balanced approach that takes into account the rights of those tenants and the legitimate interests of landlords.

We on these Benches have made our position clear on previous days in Committee. We continue to advocate for a balanced solution that respects the needs of both tenants and property owners. Ultimately, these amendments contribute to a more equitable housing market, where tenants with pets are not excluded from their right to live in a home that suits their needs. They also ensure that the landlord can continue to manage their properties responsibly with the appropriate protections in place.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, for his amendments relating to pets and rental discrimination, and the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Scott, and my noble friend Lady Hayter for their comments on these amendments.

Amendments 190, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196 and 198 would extend the core rental discrimination provisions of Chapter 3 to prospective renters with pets, protecting them from any unfavourable treatment in the letting process. We know that pets bring a huge amount of joy to their owners—even Wilberforce, the snake we heard about the other day—and we are committed to supporting responsible pet ownership in the private rented sector.

However, it is our view that extending our rental discrimination provisions in this manner would not be proportionate, nor is it necessary. The Bill already contains measures to ensure that landlords cannot unreasonably withhold consent when a tenant requests to have a pet in their home. Landlords must consider all requests and provide valid justification if consent is refused. This ensures that tenants are not unfairly prevented from keeping pets while still allowing landlords to consider legitimate concerns such as property suitability lease restrictions—the other day we discussed superior leases, which may have clauses about pets—or potential issues with other residents, as my noble friend Lady Hayter mentioned.

Tenants will be able to escalate unfair decisions to the PRS ombudsman, who will have strong powers to put things right, such as compelling a landlord to take a specific action, issue an apology and award financial compensation. Given that, I kindly ask that the noble Lord consider not pressing his amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

199A: Clause 58, page 88, line 5, leave out paragraph (a)
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment that would allow the landlord to invite any person to offer an amount of rent under the proposed letting value.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, my amendments in this group are intended to probe the Government’s decisions on rental bidding and to better understand the rationale behind this section of the Bill. I begin by drawing your Lordships’ attention to Amendment 199A tabled in my name. I wish to understand why, if a tenant or prospective tenant offers a lower rent than the proposed letting value, the landlord is prevented from accepting it. If a tenant is able to secure the property at a more affordable rate, this seems a fair and beneficial outcome. If the proposed letting value is set unrealistically high, allowing offers below that figure provides an important market correction, one which benefits tenants. This is particularly relevant in weaker rental markets where negotiating powers often lie disproportionately with the landlords. I simply ask the Minister: did she consider this before putting it forward?

On these Benches, we recognise the difficult balance the Government are attempting to strike between preventing unfair and unaffordable rent increases and ensuring that the proposed letting value reflects proposed market conditions. Market conditions are, of course, determined by the supply of homes and the market rent must still incentivise landlords to remain in the sector to provide the housing capacity that we urgently need. This brings me to our intention to oppose the question that Clause 58 stand part of the Bill. The rent-setting process must be transparent, and must be free to function. We should not pretend that we can fix prices without distorting the market signals that allow for an efficient and well-resourced housing market. We must be careful not to introduce policies that mask the simple fact that we need more homes of all types. We on these Benches are committed to working with the Minister to that end, but I first ask her: has she considered whether these measures may in fact obscure the true demand within the rental sector? Understanding that demand is key to delivering the right supply and the right homes built in the right places.

Further, has the Minister considered the impact on labour mobility? Tenants in rent control units may be discouraged from relocating for jobs or education, thus reducing workforce mobility. With over 800,000 vacancies, we should not be inadvertently curtailing the movement of our workers. Finally, I wish to probe whether the Government have fully considered the potential impact on new renters compared with existing tenants. No one on these Benches doubts the Minister’s intentions; we simply fear that the department has not paused to fully reflect on these key issues.

I turn to Amendment 199B, also in my name. I will cheekily anticipate that the Minister may say, in response to this probing question: “Yes”. The Bill attempts to define the term “relevant person” in Clause 58(6) but, before the Minister reaches that definition, I wish to question its adequacy and its clarity. Is there any formal process to designate someone as a relevant person or is this determined on a case-by-case basis? Further, how is the term “acting indirectly” to be interpreted? Does this include property agents or other advisory parties? Crucially, what is meant by “purporting to act”? I am sure that those with legal expertise in this House will argue that this is a loaded term that depends heavily on interpretation. I would be grateful if the Minister could offer her understanding of it and, importantly, explain how consistency in interpretation will be ensured.

Clause 58 represents a significant shift. With that must come clear answers. I hope the Minister will help your Lordships’ House to understand the Government’s thinking more fully. I beg to move.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend in these amendments. Two different things are going on here, one of which is not allowing the market to work. I am trying to understand what evidence there is to suggest that this is a real issue.

I will give a personal story. When at university, a group of us wanted to rent a house. Under the rules of the university, you could live only at a certain distance, and so on. Not wanting to take a 12-month tenancy, we were particularly attracted by and sought out houses that would require only a nine-month tenancy. The landlady we were involved with used to make considerably more rent in the summer through tourists and short-term lets, but also gave students the opportunity not to take on the liability of the year. That helped keep rents relatively low. I am sure that your Lordships can imagine that such a scenario, while it may seem niche, was still very important to students at that time, and so was the availability of houses reflecting that opportunity. In effect—this is nothing to be embarrassed about—we gazumped by being prepared to sacrifice a living room and turn it into an extra bedroom. It also gave a little more rent to the landlady, which was a factor when, I was led to believe, 46 groups went to see that house wanting to secure the tenancy.

While I completely understand some of the intentions of this clause about not getting into ridiculous bidding wars, I am surprised, given the real scarcity in certain parts of the country of private sector rentals, as to why we would want to unnecessarily put such handcuffs on the landlord to accept only the rent they advertise and not be creative about the situation in which prospective tenants may find themselves.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for tabling her amendments relating to rental bidding. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for contributing. I will respond to the two probing amendments in a moment. First, however, I will set out to the Committee why I consider her fundamental objection to Clause 58 —which will end the unfair practice of renters being pitted against each other in bidding wars—to be misplaced.

The measures in Clause 58 will require landlords and persons acting for them, for example letting agents, to state a proposed rent in any written advertisement for the property. Landlords and those acting for them will then be prohibited from asking for, encouraging or accepting bids above this price. To respond to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, these are not rent controls—the landlord may advertise the property at the rent they wish to achieve, but they cannot then increase that rent as other bidders come along. Currently, too many tenants suffer from a lack of transparency in the lettings process. I cannot imagine the heartbreak of thinking that you have found a property at a rent that you can afford only to discover that the landlord or letting agent has pushed other tenants to offer more. Their experience is not that of a viewing but of a kerbside auction. The impact on renters of the practice is clear and our measures will end it for good.

This is a specific problem that we are trying to target, and the majority of landlords do not engage in rental bidding. However, we are trying to stamp out the egregious practice of a minority of landlords who exploit the fact that, particularly in hot rental markets, there is a lack of supply relative to demand. Tenants can be pitted against each other in ways that ensure the rent of a tenancy escalates to a point beyond what many of them can afford, or which, if they can afford it, puts an incredible financial strain on them.

I visited a housing site in Greenwich this week and I heard that, in some parts of London, a house in the private rented sector will cost a public sector worker 94% of their salary just to pay the rent. These measures will improve the experiences of prospective tenants across England and provide clarity to all those involved in the lettings process.

Amendment 199A would remove the prohibition on landlords inviting or encouraging a tenant to offer to pay an amount of rent that exceeds the stated rent. If this amendment were taken forward, landlords would fall foul of the rental bidding provisions only if they accepted rent at a level above the stated rent, not if they invited or encouraged its payment. While I welcome the scrutiny—and I genuinely do—of our rental bidding measures, I am concerned that this amendment would risk allowing a form of rental bidding to continue to be practised. Under this—

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Sorry. While we are talking about this, does the Minister not think that what could happen—and what may happen—is that the level of rents will be above what they would normally be, because the landlord is going to go for the absolute maximum they can? Is that not a danger?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I think I answered this question under a previous group on a previous day. This is not intended to be rent cap; it is intended to stop the practice of changing the rent once the rent for that property is published. It will be up to landlords to advertise the property at a rent they think they can achieve for that property and, once they have advertised it at that price, they will not be able to increase that rent when things subsequently come along.

Under this amendment, a landlord could lawfully encourage bids above the advertised price, take the property off the market and then use any bids received to establish a higher price at which to relist it. I think that would start to have an inflationary effect on rents. I am not suggesting that this scenario would be commonplace, but it would be lawful and, if it were to occur, it would clearly be to the detriment of prospective tenants. I therefore consider that our belt-and-braces approach of prohibiting both the accepting and encouraging of bids to be the right one and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Finally, Amendment 199B seeks to remove

“by any other relevant person”

from the definition of “stated rent” in Clause 58(4)(b). As I have explained, the rental bidding clauses prevent a landlord, or person acting for them, inviting, encouraging or accepting an offer of rent higher than the “stated rent”. The term “stated rent” is defined as the rent originally proposed in the written advertisement, either by the person who is now doing the inviting, encouraging or accepting of higher offers or, as the case may be, any other relevant person.

A “relevant person” could be either

“the prospective landlord, or a person acting or purporting to act directly or indirectly on behalf of the prospective landlord”.

The latter would usually be a lettings agent, but it could also be a more informal relationship such as a friend of the landlord. It is necessary for us to avoid a loophole whereby, say, the landlord publishes the advertisement containing the stated rent and then asks his friend or letting agent to carry out the rental auction.

As such, the Bill is drafted deliberately to ensure that the prohibition applies in those circumstances, as well as the more straightforward scenario in which it is the landlord who publishes the advert and then proceeds to carry out the rental auction. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to not press this amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her reply, and for the insight into this issue from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. On these Benches, we recognise the challenging balance the Government are seeking to achieve: protecting tenants from unfair and unaffordable rent increases, while also ensuring that the proposed letting value remains aligned with the functioning market.

These market conditions are of course shaped by the availability of housing, and any rent-setting approach must still offer sufficient incentives for landlords to stay in the market and to continue providing the homes that our communities so urgently require. I thank the Minister for her answers, but I urge her to truly reflect on the points that we have raised, to carry them back to her department and, if necessary, to come back with her continued engagement with the House.

This group of amendments, like many others, is not overtly political; it consists of serious and practical probes into serious and practical issues. In our pursuit of stronger protections for tenants, we must be careful not to deter landlords or make it unfeasible for them to continue to provide the homes our communities so badly need. These are concerns that many landlords share, and we believe that they must be at the forefront of the Government’s thinking. We ask them to go back to reflect on what we have brought forward. I ask the Minister to step back and consider any unintended consequences of this part of the legislation—or, at the very least, to acknowledge the genuine concerns of those who oppose this part of the Bill. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 199A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, this in effect creates a formal escrow process. One of my proudest achievements was to organise a student rent strike, admittedly some time ago, as noble Lords may recognise. At the time, the university accommodation was due to be dismantled at the end of the year and as a consequence it felt like the university was not taking various matters very seriously.

I happened not to be a paying student at the time; I was a vice-warden in a hall of residence. So I did help them, but I insisted that, if I was to help them, they would have to pay over their rent to avoid being evicted. We did that by handing the money to the student union, to effectively act in escrow. As a consequence, repairs were made and everyone ended up happy—apart from the university, which did not like my role in that at all.

The reason I tell that story is that it matters that tenants should be able to withhold cash going directly to a landlord when the landlord is, frankly, taking the mickey. Awaab’s law has already been mentioned and Clause 63, which we did not specifically address, is already extending that to the private sector, and I welcome that. We need to work out a much easier way for people to effectively deploy this escrow approach. That is why I am supporting the amendment.

It is fair to say that we need to make sure that any such processes are easy to administer. Going a little bit further, there is a regularly read out statistic that something like 15% to 20% of housing benefit—or housing support, whether as direct housing benefit or through universal credit—is thought to go to properties not deemed fit for rent. I went into a reasonable amount of detail on this with officials.

The philosophy explained to me by the Permanent Secretary and other officials was that the state thus far should not determine on behalf of the renter where they are going to live; it is an important right for the renter to make that choice—even though it felt repulsive to me that taxpayers’ money was being spent in, frankly, some pretty ropey places. From my visits to some different housing, I have to say it was quite extraordinary what was going on. Sometimes, I am afraid, the dilapidation was the consequence of the tenant not allowing repairs to be undertaken—but that is a minor aside. The point is that—whether it is private money, your own money or the state’s money going to a private landlord—it matters that we have habitable accommodation. Therefore, I strongly support the amendment from the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments have raised the serious and emotive issue of the reality of tenants living in poor housing conditions and the remedies that are available when landlords fail to act. It is an area where frustration and vulnerability can understandably run high.

Amendment 206, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, proposes a system of mediated rent pauses. Under that model, tenants would be entitled to pay rent to an independent individual rather than their landlord when repairs are not carried out within the expected framework. However, we must be clear-eyed about this. How would it operate in practice? Who would this independent individual be in real terms? Would it be the redress scheme ombudsman? If so, is it appropriate or even realistic for them to be holding and distributing rent payments? Would they have the resources, legal authority or financial infrastructure to do so? It is overcomplicated.

There is also the question of safeguards. What mechanisms would ensure that the process was fair to both parties? What happens if a tenant withholds rent on the basis of a dispute that turns out to be unfounded? How long might rent be withheld, and what impact would that have on smaller landlords with limited financial resilience? It is entirely right that landlords should meet their obligations to maintain safe and decent homes, but we should be cautious about creating a system that effectively withholds rent before any formal adjudication. That could introduce significant uncertainty into the private rented sector. Would this approach encourage resolution or would it risk entrenching disputes? Might it push responsible landlords out of the market while rogue landlords simply continue to ignore the rules?

In short, while the amendment is well intentioned, and of course we sympathise with all individuals living in poor conditions and battling with irresponsible and careless landlords, it raises complex questions about implementation and unintended consequences. On balance, we are not persuaded that the provision as drafted would be workable in practice. However, there must be a better, more practical way to ensure that tenants are protected without creating further layers of bureaucracy and pushing good landlords out of the market.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for tabling Amendment 206, ably supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who moved it, and I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Scott, for taking part in the debate.

Amendment 206 would allow a tenant to pay rent to the ombudsman rather than their landlord if the landlord had failed to meet legal requirements on housing quality. I strongly agree with the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to ensure that landlords remedy hazards in good time—we all know the outcome when that does not happen—but I feel that the Bill’s existing provisions are the best way to achieve that. The Bill will allow private rented sector tenants to challenge their landlord through the courts if they fail to comply with the Awaab’s law requirements, such as timescales for remedying hazards. Alongside that, it will allow us to apply the decent homes standard to the private rented sector, which is an important move.

The PRS landlord ombudsman will provide a new route of redress for tenants and will be able to investigate complaints about standards and repairs. The Bill will also strengthen rent repayment orders, including by increasing from 12 months to two years the amount of rent that a tribunal will be able to award a tenant. Tenants can seek rent to be repaid where a relevant offence has been committed, including offences related to housing standards, such as failing to comply with an improvement notice.

The amendment has the potential to be administratively complex and risks unintended consequences that might lead inadvertently to worse outcomes for tenants. For example, rent being held by the ombudsman could delay repairs in some cases if it made it more difficult for landlords to fund the required works, a point that I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, referred to. Existing measures in the Bill place legal expectations on landlords about the quality of their properties and give tenants access to compensation if their landlords have not met obligations in relation to standards, as well as providing mechanisms through which landlords can be required to carry out repairs. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

Climate Change: Wildfire Strategy and Action Plan

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, my thoughts are with the people affected by the fire in Derbyshire. The noble Lord makes a strong argument, and I will take that away with me to reflect upon.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I think we are all aware of the devastating recent fires in Los Angeles. If we understand correctly, part of that was due to underinvestment and lack of planning locally. I do not think the Minister quite answered the Question from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, so I ask again: what are the Government going to do, particularly in rural areas, to make sure we have adequate equipment? That includes the availability of planes and helicopters for bringing water in, and training our firefighters to respond effectively to the risk of wildfires, which we are increasingly seeing.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government understand this issue. Officials have undertaken extensive consultation with stakeholders to consider current challenges and policy options, host workshops on prevention, preparedness, response and recovery, and produce a comprehensive policy scoping report to inform Ministers of the next steps on this important issue. Since the transfer of functions on 1 April, the Minister for Building Safety, Fire and Local Growth has been working hard to meet key partners and understand the challenges facing the fire sector, including wildfire. I know he is committed to leading this work and continues to support our fire and rescue services to provide the best possible service to help keep our communities safe.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I will very briefly intervene. I agree that people who like pets benefit from having them, and I guess that landlords who do not like pets are going to have to put up with it, which seems fair enough. But—no pun intended—what a legal can of worms we are opening here. What is a pet? I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Hacking: snakes are animals, as are alligators, rats, goats, snakes, and even fleas, which some people keep as pets. That is going to cause a great deal of stress and redefinition at some point.

Listening to the very interesting speech by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, we heard that we are also going to introduce a category called an anti-social pet. That is going to be very hard to define and prosecute, and I suspect the unreasonable grounds for refusal will, again, cause interesting legal conundrums. So this amendment will go through, and I am happy to support it, but I wonder what legal can of worms we are opening for the future.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this section of the Bill is set to introduce some significant changes affecting the rights of renters, the rights of landlords and the nature of the relationship between those two parties, and we need to consider these provisions and the amendments to them with particular care.

Amendments 118 and 119, tabled by my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, seek to prevent consent from being withdrawn by a landlord once it has been granted. This proposal presents some challenges, as far as we can see, and may benefit from a more considered approach. It poses a risk to landlords when taking on a new tenant, because it raises the prospect that they could be tying themselves into a contract whereby they would have no right to remove, in future, a dangerous, aggressive or damaging animal from their own property.

In our opinion, these amendments also suffer from the way that they have been drafted. If a tenant acquired a new pet, would they be obliged to seek consent again from their landlord, or would the one issuing of consent cover all future acquisitions? If a tenant was granted consent for a goldfish, does this amendment really seek to assume that the consent is also automatically granted if the same tenant decides to buy an Irish wolfhound?

Amendment 120, tabled by my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, seeks to address that fundamental question of proportionality, which I have referred to several times throughout my remarks on the Bill. This amendment rightly seeks to protect the landlord beyond the immediate term and ensures that they will still be able to make full use of their property after a tenant has left. If a landlord reasonably believes that a pet could limit their use of their property into the future and thus reduce its utility and value, it is surely reasonable to allow the landlord the discretion to protect their asset and the health of their family and future tenants.

My noble friend Lord Howard of Rising takes this responsible approach further in Amendments 121, 122 and 123, which would provide the landlord with the capacity to refuse consent if a pet was a dangerous wild animal, if a pet risked causing damage or disruption, or if a tenant wished to keep an inappropriate number of animals or an inappropriately sized animal in their property. These amendments would not only preserve the balance of the renter-landlord relationship but help to ensure the safety, protection from damage and the well-being of the landlord and tenant alike. As it stands, the Bill creates a huge risk for landlords: they could enter a contract with a tenant who could bring an unsuitable, untamed or even dangerous animal into their property without the capacity to refuse. These amendments are a sensible opportunity to redress this risk.

Amendments 124, 125 and 126, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, seek to clarify unreasonable circumstances for pet refusal, including in social housing —Amendment 124 is an extremely interesting amendment from that point of view. In our opinion, outlining these conditions could make the law clearer in application, although it is right that this should not come at the expense of the right of the landlord to safeguard and utilise their property. For instance, these amendments attempt to prevent a landlord refusing to consent to a pet on grounds of pre-emptive concerns. For this demand to balance out with respect for the rights of the landlord, it is surely reasonable to support a further amendment that would allow a landlord to withdraw consent once provided if their pre-emptive concerns turn out to be valid.

We also have some concerns about the vagueness of the language used throughout these amendments, for instance the references to

“a generalised fear of damage to the property”

and to “generalised” animal welfare concerns. The Committee would benefit from further clarification about the specific steps a landlord would need to take to move from “generalised” to what would be considered a valid concern under the text of this amendment.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 126A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Leicester and introduced by my noble friend Lord Caithness. This is a very sensible proposal that is designed to build consensus and clarify points of concern over the scope and definition of the terms used by the Government in the Bill.

I think that Amendment 124A is for national, if not international, debate. Although I understand my noble friend’s concern, I think that debate probably goes wider than this Bill.

We must always remember that this Bill will be used to govern a series of relationships that involve possibly millions of people throughout the country. We have a duty in this place to make sure that the law is as clear as possible and that the relationship we create between a tenant and a landlord is fair and mutually beneficial. We need to make sure that we create market conditions in the rented sector that ensure a steady supply. If landlords start to pull out because of vague and overburdensome regulation, prices will go up and the choice for renters will go down. This is not an outcome that the Government want, nor one that will promote and protect renters’ rights.

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

My Lords, I also thank all the animal charities and organisations that have helped us with this clause. I know that other noble Lords have really appreciated the briefings that those organisations have sent out. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Black of Brentwood and Lord Howard of Rising, the noble Earls, Lord Kinnoull and Lord Leicester —whose amendment was ably moved by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness—and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for their thoughtful amendments in relation to pets, and all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.

Before I go into the detail of the amendments, I reassure noble Lords how much I truly realise the incredible importance of pets to people’s lives, and I confirm that the Government have included provisions on pets in the Bill in recognition of that. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, just mentioned that balance: we have tried really hard to get the balance right between wanting tenants to have the right to have a pet and making sure that landlords can have their responsibilities and property recognised.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Black, the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and other noble Lords, for their recognition of the intent of pet provision in the Bill. No one wants people to have to give up precious pets just because of the tenure of their housing.

To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, I would not make it compulsory to keep pets, although I took on board the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Black, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, about the impact on people’s health. If you were allergic to pets, making them compulsory might be a different issue, but we have no intention of doing that.

Amendment 118, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, seeks to ensure that once a landlord has granted consent for a tenant to keep a pet, that consent cannot later be withdrawn. Noble Lords have mentioned my honourable friend Minister Pennycook’s advocacy of this issue. I reassure noble Lords that when a landlord gives permission for a tenant to have a pet, that consent is binding and cannot be revoked, with the exception of the very rare occasion when that becomes an anti-social behaviour issue, which it might. Apart from that, it cannot be revoked. That is because, once permission is given, it forms an implied term of the tenancy agreement. This is an unwritten contractual term that tenants can rely on, as it is legally binding. Any attempt by a landlord to withdraw consent once given would therefore be unenforceable. This principle will be clearly outlined in the accompanying guidance to ensure clarity for both landlords and tenants.

Given this, I do not believe it is necessary to add further provisions to the Bill, as doing so would introduce unnecessary complexity into legislation that is already clear on this point. The Bill is designed to create a fair and workable system for both landlords and tenants. Adding an explicit provision where the legal position is already established would have the potential to risk confusion and unintended consequences. In the light of that, I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for her Amendment 119, which seeks to ensure that a superior landlord “cannot unreasonably withhold” consent when a request is made to allow a tenant to keep a pet. Although I understand and sympathise with the intention behind this amendment, I have some concerns about it. If accepted, it could lead to significant legal uncertainty.

Many superior leases include absolute prohibitions on pets, and introducing a reasonableness test in those cases could create confusion and conflict with existing contractual terms, which are legally binding on both parties. I intend to look at any data that might be available on the extent to which this might have an impact, but it could place a considerable burden on immediate landlords who would be required to engage with those superior landlords—who are often based overseas or are difficult to contact—before responding to a tenant’s request. That could cause delays, additional legal costs and the kind of practical difficulties the noble Baroness outlined herself in her own case—I hope permission is forthcoming for her dog. For those reasons, the amendment is not proportionate or necessary, and I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord Black, will not press this amendment.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, for Amendments 120, 122 and 123. Amendment 120 seeks to allow landlords to refuse a pet request where they reasonably believe that the pet may have a negative impact due to allergens on a range of individuals, including themselves, their employees, agents, neighbours and even future tenants. Although I understand the intention behind the amendment, I must express concern that it would significantly broaden the scope on which landlords could refuse consent.

The Bill already allows landlords to refuse permission where there is a legitimate concern, and guidance will make it clear that health-related issues, such as severe allergies, can be taken into account where medical evidence supports this and there is a genuine and ongoing concern to health. However, this amendment would go much further. In particular, the inclusion of future tenants introduces a highly speculative element, allowing landlords to refuse a request based on hypothetical scenarios that may never arise. That would give landlords an effective veto, entirely undermining the legislation, which aims to strike a balance between landlords and tenants. For these reasons, the amendment is not necessary or proportionate, and I hope the noble Lord will consider not pressing it.

Amendment 122 seeks to allow landlords to

“reasonably withhold or withdraw consent”

for a pet introduced mid-tenancy, where it is deemed

“unsuitable for the property, … may cause a nuisance”,

or may risk property damage or unreasonable upkeep. While I understand the noble Lord’s intention to provide clarity, I respectfully say that this amendment is not required. The Bill already permits landlords to refuse their consent on reasonable grounds, which are best judged on a case-by-case basis.

The noble Lord, Lord Black, recommended some guiding principles around this and the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, called for a “highway code” of guidance. We will be providing guidance alongside the Bill to give examples of the types of situations in which it may be reasonable for a landlord to refuse or withdraw their consent to a tenant’s request to keep a pet. This will support both landlords and tenants without restricting flexibility in legislation. There is also a risk that listing specific reasons in the Bill may unintentionally narrow the interpretation of what counts as reasonable, excluding other valid concerns not explicitly named.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, was as entertaining as ever in speaking to his amendment. But none of us was here in 1990—here in your Lordships’ House, I mean; obviously, we were around. In 1990, this discussion took place on the definition of a pet under the Environmental Protection Act, which chose not to define a pet specifically. Instead, it focused on the nuisances and environmental harms, regardless of the type of animal. That approach was probably safer because, obviously, for some people a praying mantis could be a pet, and it is certainly a very ornamental creature when you look at it closely—as would be a butterfly.

I have a lot of sympathy with the Government, and I think that we should stick with the idea of companionship, which is in the Bill. But the Environmental Protection Act offers a lesson from that time, one concerned with the effects of an animal’s presence or behaviour and not with whether the animal is defined as a pet. I do not feel very strongly about this issue, but that lesson is there should the Government choose to take it.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who took part in this engaging debate. I thank particularly my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising for moving Amendment 121, and my noble friend Lord Dobbs—as always, he has such a wonderful way of speaking in this Chamber. I cannot add much more to what he said. He is absolutely right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 128 and declare my interests as a landlord and a former PRS tenant. I support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on pet deposits. First, I want to state that I am a dog lover and had dogs as pets in my youth. I was, however, horrified by the description by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, at Second Reading of the potential cost and sustained effort required to deal with flea infestation, and there is other damage that cats and dogs in particular can cause. Carpets, for example, may need to be wholly replaced after some pet tenancies, as I have experienced at considerable additional cost, which was not met by the deposit. As your Lordships have heard, insurance products are currently non-existent or very unsatisfactory, so it makes sense, in my view, to introduce a pet deposit scheme which would make the whole process a lot simpler.

The main point I wish to make is that where a lease bans pets, particularly dogs, this should be respected. As we also heard earlier, not all properties are suitable for dogs, especially large dogs. There has been an exponential rise in dog attacks in the country, especially since the pandemic. In total, there were 31,920 dog attacks in England and Wales over the last year alone— 87 a day. Since 2022, 31 people have been killed by dogs, and there were almost 11,000 hospital admissions for dog bites in England between 2023 and 2024. These figures are truly horrific and are growing. I do not claim to be an expert on this rise, but many have put it down to the surge in dog ownership since the pandemic, poor dog training and an inability of inexperienced owners to control their powerful dogs.

If you had been the victim of a dog attack, you would understand why some seek protection in their home environment, especially blocks of flats. My wife was attacked by a dog in our open gardens. Although dogs are banned under the lease, we made an exception to allow a family with a dog. At the time, my wife was wearing a back brace, having recently fractured her spine. I placed myself between the dog and my wife, while the neighbour took five minutes to come outside and struggled to restrain the aggressive dog. Incidentally, it was not a banned breed.

Those five minutes felt like a long time. Although our neighbour was red-faced and apologetic, it was a serious and frightening incident. For months afterwards, my wife had flashbacks, as it could have been a life-altering experience, like the ones you read about in the newspaper or see on television. In conclusion, where dogs are banned under leases, those leases should be upheld, and where dogs are allowed with discretion, that should also be upheld.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the matter of pet damage insurance is an extremely important one, as it directly addresses the responsibility of the tenant in conjunction with the increased rights that they may be granted under the Bill.

In all our discussions on this question, we have acknowledged that allowing pets into rented properties brings with it a series of risks. There are risks to health in questions around allergies and dangerous animals, risks of damage to the property and risks to the well-being of neighbours and other tenants.

Given this, we believe it is reasonable to grant the landlord the capacity to require the tenant wishing to bring a pet into their property to have pet damage insurance. I have listened very carefully to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and I thank him for all the work he has done on this—which I think is really important work—but I am disappointed that there does not yet seem to be a product in the market for this.

However, we have to continue down the insurance route as well as down the route of having deposits. It is important, as is in my amendments, that before this section of the Bill comes into effect, there is a final decision from the Secretary of State on an insurance product that is available. If that is not going to come forward, we will have to relook at the issues that have been brought up by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, in Amendments 127 and 128, which, as we have heard, provide an alternative avenue for redress should any damage be caused. This is a flexible addition to the Bill, and discretion is going to be important, but it is important to give people the option here, whether it be through a deposit or through an insurance product which is on the market in the future.

There is concern over the deposit, because it is there for very specific reasons, and when you add a further reason—damage by pets—the amount of deposit may have to be looked at again. The noble Lord opposite brings up the idea of a pet deposit along with the deposit. The principle behind this is that when you have a right to have a pet, you also have responsibilities for that pet. It is correct that landlords should be permitted the ability to claim redress when their properties are damaged, and tenants should be responsible when choosing to have pets.

It is important that we make sure that there is some form of redress for any damage caused, if the landlord wishes. Some landlords will welcome pets without any further insurance or deposit, but where the landlord wishes it, there must be some way for the tenant to have some form of redress at the beginning of the tenancy, in case there is any issue with their pet’s damage or anything else concerning that pet.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their amendments relating to pet insurance and deposits. The noble Lords, Lord Black, Lord Trees, Lord de Clifford and Lord Truscott, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, have all contributed to the debate.

Turning first to the amendments tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, I thank the noble Earl very much for his constructive engagement with me and my officials in the department in recent months. The benefit of the noble Earl’s expertise in this area has been very valuable and very much appreciated, so I am grateful to him.

Amendment 127 seeks to remove the requirement for tenants to obtain pet damage insurance. While I completely understand the concerns behind the amendment, respectfully, I disagree with its approach. One of the key barriers to renting with pets is landlords’ concerns over potential property damage, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, outlined. Requiring tenants to have pet damage insurance provides landlords with the reassurance they need and helps foster a more positive attitude towards pet ownership in rental properties—that is the balance between rights and responsibilities that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned. Removing this requirement risks undermining the balance of ensuring that tenants have a fair opportunity to rent with pets, while also protecting landlords from unnecessary financial risk.

It is also important to note that we are seeing some signs that insurance products designed specifically for pet-related damage are emerging in response to the Bill—not just from Anguilla, as I think the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said. As the noble Lord, Lord Black, said, these products will develop, meaning that tenants should have viable options available. This requirement is therefore both reasonable and practical, ensuring responsible pet ownership without placing an undue burden on either tenants or landlords. I emphasise in response to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull—

--- Later in debate ---

As I have already mentioned, my department is engaged in discussions with the insurance industry, and there are some signs that new products are in development in anticipation of the Bill’s passage. We remain open to further discussion with those who know these markets well. For these reasons, we do not support the amendment. I understand how well-intentioned it is, but it would create an unnecessary delay in enabling landlords to require tenants to obtain pet damage insurance, ultimately slowing one of the Bill’s key objectives, which is to ensure that pet ownership is no longer a barrier to renting.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am a little bit confused as to where we go on this. We are hearing that there is no product at the moment, and there are differing views as to whether there will be a product. The Government are not interested in looking at extra deposits, and I understand the reasoning for that. But if we do not have extra deposits and there is no product, where do we go with this? When does this come into effect if there is no protection for the landlord in the future? I am just confused about the timescale. How long are the Government going to wait for a product to be available?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I understand those concerns. As I have already mentioned, the department is talking to insurers all the time. We are looking at the messages from them that they are developing new products in anticipation of the Bill going through, and we will keep monitoring that during the passage of the Bill. We do not want to create a delay in one of the Bill’s key objectives, which is facilitating pet ownership. We do not want to put a block or barrier in the way of that, but we understand that we need to keep this dialogue going with the insurance industry to see where we are as the Bill progresses.

Amendment 285 seeks to ensure that tenants have access to specific insurance products to cover pet-related damage before landlords can require such coverage. This is a similar point: the amendment would similarly create an unnecessary delay in giving landlords the confidence to rent to tenants with pets. The insurance options tailored specifically for pet damage exist in limited numbers at the moment. That is because landlords have had the discretion to refuse pets, so they have used that as a way of getting around the insurance issue, and it has led to low demand for such products. We believe that the Bill will change that by providing tenants with a fairer opportunity to rent with pets and giving landlords the reassurance they need. We do not believe that a mandatory delay should be made law, as we hope those new products are coming forward with the Bill.

If Clause 13 is postponed, tenants’ struggle to secure homes just because they have a pet will continue. Once the law is in place and landlords begin accepting more tenants with pets, we think the insurance market will adapt to meet the demand, and delaying Clause 13 would only prolong the struggles of responsible pet owners. Given these reasons, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, will consider not pressing these amendments. We will continue to monitor this situation and carry on our dialogue with the insurance industry.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am sorry to ask the Minister further questions, but is the Minister saying that landlords will be required to take pets without insurance or any further deposits if there is no product available? If that is the case and a product comes in six months to a year later, will the Bill then allow landlords to ensure that tenants get that insurance product? I am not quite sure how that will work.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

We will be amending the Tenant Fees Act so that landlords will be able to require the tenant to obtain insurance to cover the risk of property damage caused by a pet. Landlords will be able to require tenants to have that insurance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I think the objective of the noble Baroness’s amendment is commendable. I worry, however, that if a property is altered, it will be limited by the assessment made by occupational health, within the limitations of local authority budgets and what the cost is estimated to be. In some properties, particularly older ones, these alterations can be very substantial.

The question arises: what happens if the tenant leaves the property and it has to be reinstated? That would be a relatively simple operation for a straight stairway, but not all properties are like that. Installing a lift would be a major structural operation. I wonder whether the noble Baroness could assess what the implications would be when someone left a property and how it would be reinstated. Reinstatement can often be more costly than the installation.

With regard to undertaking minor amendments, it depends on what we mean by minor. If building control consent is not required and people alter a property, they can undermine the structure very simply. It is not difficult—a lot of older properties may not have the same structural integrity as more modern ones. If people can say that a change is only minor, what is the boundary and what are the limitations if we have no definition of what a minor alteration is? If someone starts interfering with the structure of a property without the requirement of building control consent, there will be difficulties ahead, as there can be implications for the adjacent property. If various adaptations are needed in a terraced house, it can affect properties on either side.

Who would pay for the removal of the adaptations in the first place? Although the noble Baroness has tabled a very well-meaning amendment, I fear that, if given an inch, people would take a mile because they would not want to bother with getting the various consents. People could undertake quite substantial and perhaps even risky amendments to property without consent. Again, the question arises: how do we reinstate them afterwards?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Janke and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for their important amendments on disability adaptations. This is a crucial issue, and the Government have a duty to find the correct balance again between ensuring that disability adaptations are available to tenants and considering the significant impact that some provisions could have on our landlords.

Amendment 133, which proposes an obligation for landlords to grant permission for home adaptations following a local authority assessment under the Equality Act 2010, rightly highlights the importance of accessibility. However, we must also consider the practical and financial implications. Landlords, particularly those with smaller portfolios or those who operate on very tight margins, are already contending with a range of rising costs and regulatory pressures. Although the amendment’s intention is clear and commendable, the Government, we believe, must ensure that any new duty is accompanied by adequate support mechanisms so that landlords are not forced to absorb potentially substantial costs that could threaten the viability of their business or the quality of their housing stock.

Amendment 178 would allow tenants to undertake minor adaptations without seeking landlords’ consent. This is not merely a modest proposal—it raises some serious questions. Although “minor adaptation” may sound innocuous, this interpretation is highly subjective. One tenant’s minor change may in reality be a significant alteration that affects a property’s structure, aesthetics or marketability.

We must be clear that even small, cumulative changes can lead to a loss of value, future repair costs or regulatory complications for the landlord. Properties not designed or built to accommodate such modification may be especially vulnerable. This amendment risks creating confusion, undermining landlord confidence and ultimately reducing the availability of homes to rent, particularly in lower-cost segments of the market. Landlords must have clarity, and they must be protected from unintended consequences. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, what happens when the tenant leaves, and who pays for reinstating the property?

Amendment 191, which seeks to prohibit discrimination against prospective tenants requiring adaptations, addresses an issue of genuine concern. We support the principle of tackling discrimination wherever it occurs; however, we must also recognise that landlords will reasonably assess the suitability of their properties and the cost implications of meeting specific needs. To avoid placing landlords in an impossible position, any new obligations must be underpinned by clear guidance and, where necessary, financial support.

I urge the Minister to bring forward some proposals before Report that genuinely balance the rights of disabled tenants with the realities that landlords face. If we are to ensure that homes are both accessible and available for disabled people, we must avoid shifting the full cost burden on to landlords, particularly without due process, oversight or compensation. The aim should be a system that is fair, proportionate and sustainable for all the parties involved.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Janke and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for their amendments relating to home disability adaptations. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their comments.

Amendment 133 seeks to require landlords to permit home disability adaptations when these have been recommended in a local authority home assessment. The Equality Act 2010 already provides protections for disabled tenants, but I recognise that such rights are not always easy to enforce in practice. I therefore agree with the noble Baroness that we should take steps to remove barriers that unreasonably prevent disabled renters getting the home adaptations they need.

However, I do not consider this amendment to be the right way to achieve that. In particular, there are significant risks to introducing a new requirement linked to home assessments. These assessments are carried out by local authorities as part of the means-tested disabled facilities grant process. The amendment would therefore create a two-tier system and could make it harder for people who are not eligible for the disabled facilities grant to access adaptations.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that we recognise how important those home adaptations are to make sure that older and disabled people live as independently as possible in a safe and suitable environment. I have seen at first hand, as I know she has, the real difference that these adaptations can make. That is why the Government have awarded an £86 million in-year uplift to the disabled facilities grant for 2024-25, bringing the total funding to £711 million.

That increased funding will allow more eligible people to make vital improvements to their home, allowing them to live more independent lives and reducing hospitalisations. The Government have also confirmed that amount for 2025-26. To ensure that the disabled facilities grant is as effective as possible, we also continue to keep different aspects of the grant under review. For example, we are currently reviewing the suitability of the £30,000 upper limit. I have known cases where, because of the scale of the adaptations that are necessary and the impact of inflation on construction work, that needs to be reviewed. The Government are also reviewing the allocations formula for DFG to ensure that funding is aligned with local needs. We will consult during 2025 on a new approach, with a view to implementation as soon as possible after the consultation.

--- Later in debate ---

We also believe that there is a value in developing enhanced guidance. The Government will therefore engage with key organisations in the sector to update and strengthen guidance to help all parties navigate the current system effectively; for example, helping landlords and tenants to understand what constitutes “reasonable” for adaptation requests. Existing measures in the Bill, and these further commitments, will be a more appropriate and effective way of supporting disabled tenants. These avoid the significant risk of negative unintended consequences presented by this amendment. As a result, I ask that the noble Baroness withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

That is a very positive response. Can we have that in writing, please, to save us from going through Hansard, as to those further measures that the Government intend to take? Will they be in the Bill or in guidance?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will provide in writing all that I have just outlined.

Amendment 178 seeks to allow private rented sector tenants to carry out disability adaptations to their homes without first obtaining consent from their landlord if the cost of these adaptations is below a threshold set in regulation. I agree that the Government should seek to address barriers preventing disabled tenants getting the home adaptations that they require. However, this amendment is not the right way to achieve it. The amendment defines which disability adaptations are classed as minor solely by reference to cost. This would not capture a range of other factors—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott—that a responsible landlord would need to consider when deciding whether to permit alterations.

These factors could include interactions with building regulation requirements—a very important set of requirements on landlords—the need for consent from third parties and how easy it will be to return the property to its original condition. As many of these factors will be dependent on the features of each individual property, it would not be possible to define “minor adaptations” in a way that works effectively for all housing in a private rented sector as diverse as ours. Given the challenge in defining which adaptations are minor, it is likely that some disabled tenants would make genuine mistakes, for the best reasons, and carry out adaptations that were not in scope of the legislation. If successfully challenged by landlords in the courts, this could result in negative consequences, such as being ordered to pay damages to remove the adaptation. The risk of this happening could deter tenants from exercising such a right.

This amendment would also create a new right for tenants alongside the existing obligation on landlords under the Equality Act 2010 not to refuse consent for disability-related improvement. That could make the system more confusing and more difficult for tenants to navigate. Therefore, the amendment would not be an effective way of supporting disabled tenants and could even make things worse. The Government are already taking strong action on this through the existing measures in the Bill and the further commitments that I have set out.

Amendment 191 seeks to extend the rental discrimination measures in the Bill to persons requiring home adaptations. We recognise very much the important issue that this amendment raises and agree strongly that people with disabilities should not face discrimination when accessing the private rented sector; nor should they be unreasonably refused the adaptations that they require. We hope that the transformative reforms to the private rented sector delivered through the Bill will make a substantial difference to support disabled tenants. The abolition of Section 21 and the new PRS ombudsman address the two key barriers identified by the 2024 report of the former Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee: retaliatory eviction and access to redress.

Disabled people are, however, already afforded the full protection from discrimination by the Equality Act 2010. As part of this, landlords and agents are forbidden from victimising or discriminating against a person based on a disability in relation to the offer of a tenancy, the terms on which a tenancy is offered or their general treatment of that person. Expanding the Bill’s rental discrimination provisions in this manner would create an unnecessary dual system, increasing complexity and causing confusion, leading to an overlap of responsibilities between local authorities and the courts.