Renters’ Rights Bill

Debate between Lord Carrington and Lord Hacking

Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

I am now getting congratulations from my noble friend, which are very warmly felt. We cannot, however, leave the Bill without giving profound thanks to my noble friend the Minister for her pioneering of the Bill through all stages of its passage through this House. I think I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in that regard.

Throughout, the Minister has been a paragon of patience and courtesy. She has also been enormously conscientious, holding meetings right up to the third day on Report and sending letters—even though the letter to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was somehow in transit on the third day of debate. Not wishing to leave anybody out, she recently thanked and congratulated a Peer on a speech he had not made, but nobody was left out as a result.

A special reason to thank and congratulate the Minister is the sheer length and complexity of the Bill. I also congratulate the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Thornhill, on dealing with the length and complexity of the Bill, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson—I am sorry that I did not bring his name to the fore until now. The Bill itself—this is somewhat alarming—stretches over 258 pages but still has to be spliced into earlier statutes, most particularly the Housing Act 1988.

I have in my hand the annotated current edition of the Housing Act 1988. It stretches over 383 pages but, by the time the provisions of this Bill have been spliced into it, it will be 600 or 700 pages long. I do not wish to introduce this debate now, but I believe the length of these Bills is a subject that should have attention on another occasion. For example, the Housing Act 1988 can be read in its completion. It tells you the state of landlord and tenant law in 1988. When I first came to the House 54 years ago, legislation was not run in this direction. As I said, this is a matter for another debate on another occasion.

I will just end on a personal note. I am aware that it must have been difficult for my noble friend the Minister to have me sitting right behind her and muttering from time to time, but I ask her forgiveness. I am very lame. I always used to sit at the back, but I am afraid my lameness has taken me to immediately behind the Minister. I apologise, but I hope that she will accept that my many interventions were made in a genuine attempt to improve the Bill: to focus more clearly on the rogue landlord and to protect the honest landlord.

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

I give my very personal thanks to the Minister for her work on this Bill and the enormous amount of follow-up she achieved. Her final letter arrived, as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, just mentioned, on Friday.

I have two reservations. All my amendments were about two matters. The first was the difference of the private rental sector in rural areas and the second was the effect of the Bill on institutional investment in the sector. I will be watching these in the remainder of my stay in the House of Lords. In the meantime, I would like to thank everybody who has been involved and not waste any more of your Lordships’ time.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Debate between Lord Carrington and Lord Hacking

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for her engagement with me, although the letter has not arrived yet. I am in a position of enormous power now, in the sense that this is the very last amendment and I am keeping noble Lords from their drinks and everything else. I am very pleased that the Minister has now reassured me that the cliff edge will not happen just like that as far as financial institutions are concerned, and that there will be time for preparation.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for his support and his emphasis on the fact that this was not a political amendment but a practical one. I wish him great success in the work he does with his tenants. Happily, I have someone to help me.

Having thanked everybody for their kind engagement and sometime support, I have pleasure in withdrawing the amendment.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—

Renters’ Rights Bill

Debate between Lord Carrington and Lord Hacking

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much support Amendments 43 and 45, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. I can give a practical example of this. A very nice couple from Chile wanted to rent one of our flats. They had no credit record at all here in England so there was no way to check that. There was no efficient way to check the previous landlord, which is the other step that a landlord normally takes to ascertain whether these are suitable tenants to go into the property. They had the money. Both of them were coming to work in London for a year for an academic purpose. Enabling them to pay some money in advance—I have forgotten whether it was six months or more—was therefore a sensible compromise. They turned out to be delightful tenants and highly reliable, and we were delighted to have them in our house.

I also want to speak to Amendment 46. It is to protect landlords when a tenant has signed up to take the property on a certain date but has failed to pay either the first month’s rent in advance or the deposit. I suggest that it would be entirely wrong, because the tenancy agreement had been signed and so forth, if the landlord were then obliged to take that tenant into the property. Remember that a landlord cannot chase unpaid rent for three months, and then there is the delay in getting a hearing in the county court, so that would be onerous for the landlord to deal with. Moreover, if the tenant has not paid either the first month’s rent or the deposit in advance, he probably does not have the money available, and the high probability is that the landlord will have to suffer that tenant in his property for three or four months without any payment at all.

I therefore thought it would be sensible to make it quite plain—my amendment starts:

“For the avoidance of doubt”—


that the landlord does not have to give the tenant keys to the property or allow them to get into it when the tenant has not paid. I added a further bit to the amendment to enable the landlord, if the tenant fails to pay the first month’s rent or the deposit for a further 28 days, to take the next step of having the lease annulled. That is to make it plain in the Bill what the position of the landlord is after having entered into an agreement with a tenant who then does not pay either the first month’s rent or the deposit.

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

I support the indefatigable and noble Lord, Lord Hacking, in his Amendment 46. I find it plainly obvious that rent needs to be paid before occupation. I can find preciously few examples of anyone paying for goods and services after they are contracted or consumed. An obvious example is a railway ticket or an air ticket. No one goes to the cinema and pays after the performance or takes a litre of milk at Tesco and then pays after drinking it: it is just not acceptable.

Participating in the private rented sector, as either landlord or tenant, is a serious business. The landlord has made a major investment and may have a mortgage to service, among other costs. A tenant is looking for a safe and secure tenancy which incorporates decent home standards: he is well aware of the financial obligation. Without this amendment, the landlord would be laid open to the possibility of four months with no rent and a longer eviction process under Section 8, possibly taking seven months or so. The position of a landlord is a commercial business, not a public service. I urge the Minister to accept this rather obvious amendment.