Renters’ Rights Bill
Lord Cromwell Excerpts(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, has again spoken so much sense that it leaves me little to add. I should warn him that in our previous day’s debate I was described as “irritatingly persuasive”, so I hope not to damage his case by supporting it.
There is a real issue here and it does need some serious probing. I am not suggesting that we retain Section 21, but noble Lords have raised at Second Reading and today in Committee, as I am sure others will raise again, the courts simply not being ready to take on the burden that is coming to them. There is no credible timescale to transform the clogged courts and tribunals system. However, my main reason for speaking is to put on record and advise the House that I attended a meeting—with the Minister and other noble Lords, some of whom are present today—with those responsible for the court digitisation, which has been held out as the kind of techno magic that will transform the speed of court processes.
This was illuminating, but it left attendees, a good number of whom have very considerable experience of our legal system, very doubtful about this still-evolving IT system. The view from the people I spoke to was that it would take at least five years to bed in.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, Amendments 279 and 280 stand in the name of my friend, the noble and learned friend, Lord Etherton. I signed those amendments as well, not with a legal hat on but more with the hat of someone who has been there for the development of a large number of complex IT systems over the years, and has probably contributed to almost every mistake it is possible to make in doing that.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, unfortunately cannot be here today, so I am going to make some observations that follow on nicely from what the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, has just said. I refer the Committee to my register of interests. I am, in my own capacity and to a small extent, a landlord, but in Scotland. I am also trustee of a couple of trusts in Scotland that are renting properties out.
The problem was set out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, at Second Reading. I am afraid that, because he is not here, I will use his words very briefly. He said:
“We all know that there will be many more contested possession proceedings by landlords following the enactment of the Bill and the abolition of Section 21 no-fault evictions. It would not be right to abolish no-fault evictions without adequate speed and resources for dealing with the increase in contested proceedings … The Government need to demonstrate that measures have been or will be put in place which will help to secure that court claims by landlords for possession of residential properties will be disposed of in a timely and efficient way”.—[Official Report, 4/2/25; cols. 623-24.]
The meeting to which the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, has just referred took place on 11 March. There were half a dozen Cross-Bench people there. I am holding the 30-page presentation that was handed out. There were officials there from the Ministry of Justice, in particular from HM Courts & Tribunals Service, and from MHCLG; the Minister was there as well. It was an extremely interesting presentation, and there were two things that came out that I feel I should speak to the Committee about today. The first was about the size of the problem. There is a slide that scopes out the size of the IT system that is involved. This IT system exists today. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, is very familiar with the IT systems that support the court services, as he was responsible for a large number of them for some years, and he was very much the driver for the half a dozen of us who were there.
That IT system has separate subsystems for case management, hearings management, work allocation, user registration and fee payment—there are others as well. Noble Lords can see just how complex this IT system is. In each of the things I have just mentioned, there would of course be major changes required to the IT system that would need to go through development and be dealt with in a proper way.
After considering the size of the problem, which I certainly assess as pretty big, we went on to discuss their approach to the design and build of the new system. This was in a slide that was extremely clear, and they were pleased to report that the prototype stage had arrived. The prototype stage sounds very hopeful, but in fact this comes before the fifth of the six stages, which is “prepare for build”; the sixth stage is “build and test”. The prototype is literally that—something which comes at a pretty early stage in the development of the IT system. All that comes, of course, before user acceptance testing and actually training up people involved in the court system to use this complex system in an efficient manner. The acid question that was put to the people advising us on this was how long they thought it would take to get to the end of the “build and test” stage. The answer on 11 March was two years.
The people who were briefing us universally gave a very good impression indeed. I have met a lot of IT people, but they seemed to me very steady in every way and have clearly been through this a lot before, so I have no reason to doubt their two-year estimate for getting to the end of the IT build. In speaking to colleagues afterwards, I think they also felt that the people who were presenting it—who were, after all, the people who were actually doing the programming—were of a very high quality.
With no IT system, the presentation explains that there are 110,000 cases a year, and this is without any uplift in the number of cases that one would expect. The uplift referred to earlier in this debate, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, in his Second Reading contribution, was 110,000 cases a year. Let us say that we had only a year and a half of it because things went on, but that would be 165,000 cases clogging up a system that is already under strain, producing delay and, because it is going into the county court system, affecting access to justice for the rest of the county court system as well, one assumes. The amendments that the noble and learned Lord prepared—and I was very much in consultation with him while he was doing it—were aimed at trying to prevent undesirable outcomes.
Can the Minister update us on the progress of the IT system that was presented to us on 11 March? Will she agree to meet further to discuss this issue after Committee?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As I said, we are working very closely with our colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and the courts service. The digitisation process is already under way and is already costed, and we are looking at other impacts. If the noble Lord’s view is that they are not clearly set out in the impact statement, I will come back to noble Lords on what they may be.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I just want to come back to the estimated five-year implementation period that the Minister responded to. That arose from conversations with people who have had a lifetime of professional involvement in legal processes, so I would not brush it aside too early. I have been on the sharp end of a number of these sorts of IT projects that get built. If you build anything, you always double the budget and double the time you are told it is going to take; anybody who has built anything knows that—I will not touch on R&R.
The Minister has told us a number of times that the Government are fully focused—a phrase that has been used a number of times. I do not wish to be discourteous, but it sounds like the Government are being fully optimistic, almost to the point of naivety, on this. These are probing amendments. There is a general agreement, including from the Government, that there really is a problem here that needs to be solved. There is no dispute about it being a problem. I urge that, before we get to Report, we need a crisp, specific, clear and credible statement about what exactly will be done to resource this properly, because our current court system is not a model of swiftness and efficiency, and it is hard to see how this will be magically transformed.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I will follow on from that so the Minister can reply to both. I retain a certain fondness for my former department, and I know that the budget of the Ministry of Justice is extremely tight. I have not seen any scope in that budget for the expected increase in the courts’ workload that the Bill will generate. The Minister said she will work very closely with the MoJ, and I know that, when I was an MoJ Minister, that meant that people would work closely with me by telling me that I needed to spend money from my budget on what they wanted. Can I therefore take it that, when she says she will work very closely with the MoJ, what she actually means is that, if the MoJ needs money to do what the Bill requires, it will come from her budget?
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests in the private rented sector, with residential lettings in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire.
I have tabled Amendments 96, 98, 99, 103 and 104 to Clause 8, in which the Government seek to create a new right for renters to challenge their annual rent increases. I am most grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Howard of Rising, in this group.
I believe there is a strong consensus across your Lordships’ Committee that stands alongside the Government in wishing to prevent unreasonable rent increases being used as a means of eviction through the backdoor. However, I also believe there is a strong consensus that the Government’s drafting of Clause 8 will not work. Indeed, I am deeply concerned that providing a universal right for all renters to challenge all rent increases, in all circumstances and without qualification, will undermine the supply of rental homes and overwhelm our courts.
The Bill seeks to provide renters with mechanisms to ensure redress where their landlord behaves inappropriately, irresponsibly or exploitatively—yet I fear that the current drafting will undermine that intention in practice. At Second Reading we heard examples of poor behaviour by a small minority of landlords, but the response delivered by the Government will impact the whole private rental market, including the great majority of responsible landlords.
The effect of Clause 8 will be to create a right for all 4.5 million of England’s private rental households to challenge their rent increases annually, via the Section 13 process, at no cost and at zero risk. Every single renter will have a right to take their landlord to the First-tier Tribunal if they perceive their rent increase to be “disproportionate” or unreasonably above market rates.
The Government believe that tenants should apply to the tribunal only if they believe a rent increase is above market rents, but I am afraid that will not be the result of this legislation. The legal text of the Bill sets out that a rent increase could not come into force until after the tribunal rules, and explicitly prohibits the court from determining real market rent to be higher than the landlord’s proposal, even if that is a judge’s evidenced assessment.
The result of this drafting is to create an artificial incentive for all 4.5 million renters to submit a challenge to their rent rise, however legitimate, because this would prevent the increase coming into force until the tribunal decides. There is no risk to the tenant in this and it provides a guaranteed delay in when the increase comes into force. Once this is widely understood, renters will exercise their right as a matter of course.
This incentive risks overwhelming our First-tier Tribunal, burdening an already struggling court with hundreds of thousands of cases. This has already been referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, who has come up with a sensible solution. The Government want renters in genuine need of redress to have access to the courts, but the queue for justice will be too long for this to prove possible.
Moreover, the risk of this backlog in cases is causing serious concern among professional and responsible landlords in the sector. The prospect of extended delays to increasing rent would make it more difficult for investment institutions and build-to-rent developers to invest in new, high-quality rental homes, undermining the rental housing supply that we want to see. The reality of this backlog would be upward pressure on rents—the opposite of what the Government want to achieve.
The Government themselves have acknowledged their desire to ensure that responsible landlords can increase their rents in line with the market annually, and the Government have rightly ruled out rent controls. However, the system proposed under this Bill will in practice undermine landlords’ ability to secure market rents annually.
The Guardian newspaper recently revealed that a King’s Counsel has assessed the Bill to determine the likelihood of a legal challenge in the European Court of Human Rights. Subsequently, the newspaper City AM published an article outlining this legal opinion, which determined that the Government stand a greater than 50% chance of losing in the ECHR on this aspect of the Bill. I implore the Government to look into this further as a matter of urgency.
My amendments would mitigate the very serious legal risk with the current proposals on rent challenges. It is all very well for the Minister to repeat, as she has in the past, that the Bill is compatible with the ECHR, but that judgment was made before our amendments were tabled and discussions ensued. As a matter of grave responsibility, the Government should consult again with their lawyers now that these issues have been raised.
The amendments to Clause 8 in my name offer a common-sense solution that should reassure all parties. In my amendments, I propose that if a renter’s challenge is unsuccessful, rents should take effect from the date of the Section 13 notice rather than the tribunal’s determination date. I further propose that the court should be able to follow the evidence, empowering the tribunal to raise rents to what it deems to be market rates, even if this is potentially higher than what a landlord originally proposed.
I believe that, taken together, the amendments would deliver a fair result—technical changes that would keep the right to challenge while reducing the artificial jeopardy-free incentive to take landlords to court. These reasonable amendments would also give institutional investors and build-to-rent landlords the confidence to invest in the high-quality new rental homes that our country needs. To address concerns raised by a number of noble Lords at Second Reading about unsuccessful challenges leaving renters with a large bill, my amendment is drafted to mandate landlords to spread any backdating over a 12-month period.
The number of amendments proposed to Clause 8 speak to the widespread concern in this House about the risks of the Government’s current drafting. Whether colleagues support my amendments or those of my colleagues, I believe the Government’s position is unsustainable. A credible plan is needed to address the artificial incentive for every renter to challenge their rent. Otherwise, I fear for serious investment in new rental homes and the functioning of our courts system.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I have some sympathy with Amendment 99, concerning the rent rise challenges under Section 13 of the Bill. It is essential that tenants can properly challenge excessive rent increases—but, once again, a fair balance is what we seek.
I slightly take the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to task for her reference to “consenting adults”. The reason for the Bill arises precisely because of the power differential between landlords and tenants. Some adults are more consenting than others, if I may use that phrase. I am not quite sure that works, but noble Lords will know what I mean.
I support the proposal in Amendment 99 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that the rental increase—only, of course, if agreed by the tribunal—should take effect from the date of a Section 13 notice rather than the date of the tribunal decision. I also agree that, where this creates a rent backlog, you would need a payment plan to set it off over time. I note, however, that there would still be a risk to the landlord in those circumstances: if a tenant uses the tribunal as a speculative delaying tactic, and then if the rent increase is finally approved by the tribunal but the tenant does a flit with the rent arrears unpaid, this will leave the landlord with the unenviable prospect of trying to recover the money due to them from the departed tenant.
In short, the Bill enables—perhaps even invites—speculative challenges to any rent increase requests. I think the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, slightly overeggs it when he says that everyone in the entire country will do that, but perhaps he is doing that to illustrate his point. Either way, as my grandfather used to say, “Don’t complain if people fall for a temptation that you have created”. For the tenant it would make rational, self-interested economic sense to automatically challenge any rent increase, and this abuse of the tribunal process would add to its existing overload of cases and therefore discourage supply. I therefore support the amendment containing provisions in this regard.
There has also been a suggestion, I think in Amendment 98, that the tribunal might set a rent above what was requested by the landlord. I do not support that, for two reasons. First, if a landlord proposes a rent increase, it must be assumed that they consider it to be a satisfactory increase. Secondly, the danger of having the rent set higher than the landlord has requested is often mentioned by tenant groups that I have spoken to as a significant cause for tenants to feel intimidated, thereby preventing challenges to rent increases. The Bill does a lot to rebalance the power in the landlord/tenant relationship, but the issue needs to be re-examined. Making a revised rent payable from the notice date, if necessary with a payment plan for arrears, while at the same time not allowing rent to be increased beyond the landlord’s requested level, would achieve a better balance of rights between landlord and tenant and would prevent abuse of the tribunal system. I therefore hope the Minister will pay heed to this proposal and I look forward to hearing what she has to say.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Very briefly, if I may, I rather like this idea—it is great. In the Government’s consideration, will they include where the grant covers only part of the cost and how that can be treated?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, makes a very relevant point—we will have a look at both things.
Although I appreciate the intention behind Amendment 90, I have concerns about whether it would be practical to attribute a portion of the market rent to energy improvements. We need to think about how we might do this. I hope that the alternative approaches I have outlined and the steps we have taken to allow tenants to challenge egregious rents, for whatever reason the increase has been put on, provide some reassurance. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, not to press the amendment.
Amendments 91, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 101 and 104 all deal with the backdating of rent increases. I do not agree that tenants should be forced to pay backdated rent. To ensure that tenants are not unexpectedly thrown into debt that could cause further difficulty, the Bill provides that the new rent will apply from the date the tribunal directs, not earlier than the date of determination. We are clear that tenants should submit an application to the tribunal only where they believe that a rent increase is above market rates, and all parties should communicate about the level of rent increases that would be sustainable.
One noble Lord mentioned 1.6 million tenants taking landlords to court. I find that unlikely, to say the least, but we would quickly know. I have already undertaken to noble Lords that we will monitor this very carefully. If that did start to happen, we would certainly know that it was happening and would deal with it immediately. Allowing the backdating of rents risks disadvantaging the most vulnerable tenants—those who may forego challenging a rent increase that is designed purely to force them out of their home.
I turn briefly to each amendment in turn. My noble friend Lord Hacking has spoken to his Amendments 91, 94, and 97. Amendment 91 aims to backdate a rent increase to the date specified in the Section 13 notice. Amendment 94 seeks to backdate a rent increase where the tenant has challenged the relevant notice at tribunal. Amendment 97 is a consequential amendment linked to Amendment 94, which aims to ensure that, where a tenant challenges a rent increase notice at tribunal, any rent increase determined by the tribunal will be backdated to the date on the Section 13 notice. I have already set out why the Government do not agree that tenants should be forced to pay backdated rent. I therefore ask my noble friend not to press these three amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, set out the process as it is now. If it really is as straightforward and simple as he said—I am not arguing with him, and I am sure he has been as diligent as he always is in looking up the facts—surely we would already be swamped with tenants appealing their rent increases, and that is not the case.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I accept that it is a dramatic departure, but it is done for a good purpose. We put the provision in the Bill to prevent tenants being penalised for challenging their rent at tribunal by having a backdated increase.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Is the Minister saying that a tribunal that sets a rent at a level which it considers to be right is setting a penal level of rent? She is saying that tenants would be penalised if rent is backdated to the date when it should have occurred. The implication, therefore, is that the tribunal is setting a penal rent. I cannot think that that is what is intended.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Lord Cromwell Excerpts(5 days, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I again note my interest in the register as the owner of a single rented property. The Minister has asserted, as Ministers are required to do, that, in her view,
“the provisions of the Renters’ Rights Bill are compatible with the Convention rights”.
I am just wondering, because it does tend to be a bit of a routine that those of us who have ever done this sign these things: can she tell the Committee whether there was a very specific examination of the circumstances in the Bill?
I must also say that the tour de force by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, was impressive. We all felt that his Latin was very good—we will give him marks for that, I think—and he raises a very significant point. It is not unique to have retrospective legislation, but it is certainly frowned upon, bearing in mind the number of people who could be directly affected—their financial welfare, their own welfare, their concerns and the worries that can be generated by having something done, in effect, long after they had agreed and thought they had a deal. I am sure that President Trump will be listening to this debate, because he might be learning lessons; we might be teaching him things to do.
Can the Minister assure the Committee that when she signed that, or gave her views on the convention rights, that it was actually properly assessed, and legal advice was provided, rather than it simply being a piece of routine that departments do when they bring legislation to Parliament? Having listened to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, I think there could very well be people who will feel aggrieved if something happens subsequent to an agreement that they entered into freely and, all of a sudden, things have changed. I think we do need an explanation.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Can I just add that I was disappointed that we did not have any phraseology in ancient Greek? We will have to put up with that for today, I suppose. I echo my noble friend Lord Carter’s point: I think it would be really helpful, whatever one thinks of the rights and wrongs of retrospective legislation, that a proper list is set out as to which rights are going to be affected. I think everybody outside this Chamber is going to need that, in practice, in the rental sector. It would be very helpful if something could be published that literally specifies which bits are going to be affected retrospectively and how.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough for bringing Amendments 16 to 18 to the Committee today. The question of the retroactivity of the Bill is not just a question of how it will be applied, it is a question as to whether it is fair at all. It is easy for Governments armed with executive powers to apply the law retrospectively, but it should be the duty of every Minister to ask: is this the right way? Is it the fair way?
I invite noble Lords to imagine that they signed a tenancy agreement under a clear set of rules in January 2025; they followed all the rules; then, in June 2025, Parliament passes a law saying that their tenancy is now invalid. Well, many will have to imagine no longer, because once the Bill gets Royal Assent, tenants and landlords may find that their agreements are no longer valid.
The predecessor of the Bill adopted a model of prospective lawmaking by setting out a two-pronged approach to implementation. It would have assured that substantial changes were introduced at a suitable pace, one that brought the sector along with it, giving it time to understand the new requirements and adapt accordingly. In their haste to publish the Bill, the Government appear willing to abandon the principle of prospective lawmaking, placing an immediate and heavy burden on landlords. The Committee will be well aware that 45% of landlords own just a single property. These are not professional landlords with teams behind them. They lack the infrastructure to absorb complex regulatory change. They are not poring over the details of legislation, nor do they have time to follow days of Committee proceedings. How do the Government expect these individuals to implement such sweeping reforms all at once and without a serious and structured implementation period?
At this Dispatch Box on Tuesday, I quoted some statistics from Paragon. In the same survey, it noted that 39% of landlords had not even heard of the Bill. Will the Minister please explain how the Government will communicate these changes? The department must begin explaining in clear and simple terms what is coming down the track. Landlords need to know that change is coming. Regardless of the Bill’s specific contents or intentions, its retroactive nature will pose challenges. It will not only bring an abrupt end to agreements freely entered into by two consenting adults, it will unleash a wave of challenges upon landlords through its immediate implementation.
I turn to the litany of amendments put down by the Government. We welcome the right to sublet and want to ensure people do not lose that right, but we want it to be implemented with clarity. On these Benches, we would prefer those specific tenancy types which underlie the right to sublet—such as fixed-term assured tenancies or assured shorthold tenancies—to remain. We set out our clear case yesterday and we will continue to stand up for a sector that delivers choice and variety and provides the homes we need. Will the Minister explain the Government’s adjustments to the context of Clause 3? It is clear that they intend to restructure the legislation, so on these Benches we wish to ensure that the effects of superior leases are appropriately addressed within the updated framework. Can the Minister set out how the Government will ensure that tenants in sublet arrangements are not left in legal limbo?
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly because, as always, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, has set out his case so coherently and in such detail that I need raise just a couple of points. Before I do, I declare an interest: I do not let out any residential property, but I have a couple of family members who let out one each.
I support all four of the amendments in this group, because there is considerable uncertainty about how the Bill will affect shared owners who become the so-called accidental landlords that have been referred to. They often sublet as a survival strategy, to deal with exceptionally difficult financial circumstances, which the noble Lord set out. Where co-owners try but, as is common, fail to sell, the proposed 12-month letting period ban—the lack of a letting period—risks punishing the very people who simply do not have the financial resilience to cope with a 12-month void in their ability to sublet. This applies acutely to the poorer and more vulnerable end of the market, so I trust that it will be of particular interest to this Government.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I too support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham.
If many of the amendments to this Bill are designed to make us look at unintended consequences for certain groups of people, these amendments concern one group of people who wholeheartedly deserve and need us to look at how the Bill will impact their situation as shared owners who cannot sell their flats and are subletting due to a variety of legitimate reasons. The specific conditions of their model of part ownership were so cogently outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Young, that, noble Lords will be pleased to know, I will not even attempt to repeat them. That has led to their campaign to plead with us—“plead” is almost not a strong enough word—to look at ways to ameliorate the devastating situation in which they find themselves.
The key element of concern is the stranglehold that the registered providers have on the property—no doubt deemed to be a good thing in normal times, but this situation is far from normal. Due to that stranglehold and the restrictive rules that shared owners must abide by, for the majority of shared owners subletting is a loss-making operation by design. I am not given to hyperbole, but I cannot think of anything worse than being in the situation that they are trapped in.
The term “accidental landlord” was a new one to me, but when I heard first hand from the shared ownership owners, I felt their pain—it is a really messy issue. Let us not forget that, if you have gone into shared ownership in the first place, it is highly likely that your finances are going to be stretched anyway—no high salary, no inheritance, and no bank of mum and dad—or you would have bought outright. As has already been said, the 2025 survey of the Shared Owners’ Network found that 90% of subletters were created because of the building safety crisis.
Another shocking statistic was that, in November 2024, the National Audit Office stated that the Government will not reach their 2023 target for the remediation of high-rise buildings with dangerous cladding. This building safety crisis is set to continue for over a decade or more, so it is not a big stretch to say that the problem of accidental landlords will increase. That is why I too was disappointed that this was not picked up by the impact assessment—perhaps the Minister can explain why.
The issue is certainly complex, and I am absolutely certain that the Minister is fully knowledgeable about it and sympathetic to it. The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young, are trying to find out whether there is a way forward through this Bill to help this group of people. Alternatively, perhaps the Minister will take it upon herself to follow this up by other means.
I will end with a few words from one of the many emails from the aforementioned Stephanie, but I will pick up on a slightly different point. She says that
“we are not bad people … we’re trying to cope with an impossible situation … we don’t need to be punished for failing to sell the unsellable flats that are already ruining us”.
Between the noble Lord, Lord Young, and Stephanie, they say it all—and they have our full support.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Lord Cromwell Excerpts(5 days, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, my Amendments 35 and 71 both aim to help people who rent. I declare an interest as someone who rents a two-bedroom flat.
I have tabled Amendment 35 because I am worried that the Government’s good policy will actually end up penalising the very people that it is aiming to help. I hope the Minister will go away from here thinking, “The Green Party had quite a good idea on that, and how nice it is to have them on our side for once”.
The Government are doing the right thing for the climate and for people in putting in higher energy efficiency standards—that is a given—and doing the right thing for landlords with grants to help them meet those standards. However, the only people who do not get a guaranteed better life are the poor tenants who have to put up with the work, dust, noise and inconvenience of the energy improvements being done, with the possibility that their rent will be going up as their energy costs go down. Amendment 35 is an attempt to give tenants a guarantee that they will also get some direct benefit from the drive for net zero with two years of lower energy bills, without that saving being cancelled out by a landlord focusing on profiting from a government grant. I think this is a sensible amendment and I hope it will find favour with the Minister.
Amendment 71 aims to shift the debate firmly on to the needs of the tenant and to discourage landlords from constantly changing their minds about letting out their properties. It builds on the Government’s welcome attempt to get rid of no-fault evictions by adding a new clause to the eviction process that gives the tenant a one-month financial head start. With all the costs involved with moving—the deposit and moving costs—it can be a long, drawn-out process, and, for many tenants who are self-employed or on zero-hours contracts, time is literally money and moving is a time-consuming business.
I hope that passing this legislation will create a new era of stability for those in the private rental market. A whole generation of young people has had to suffer from an overheated rental market, which was firmly loaded in favour of investors and those with the money to buy properties. This legislation does not actually solve that problem, because only the Government building hundreds of thousands of social homes could probably do that, but I welcome the start the Bill is making and I hope the Minister will consider the needs of tenants even more in this way.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I rather like the look of Amendments 26 and 27 from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and look forward to hearing her describe them. They also relate to my Amendment 142, which I will now speak to.
The Bill restricts a landlord to four instances where they can recover their property and require a tenant to leave. One of these is if the landlord is selling the property. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that, where a landlord seeks to sell a property under the new ground 1A but fails to do so, the property is made available again on the rental market without unnecessary delay.
The Bill requires that the property is on the market for sale for at least 12 months before, if no sale is forthcoming, it can be re-let. Market statistics show that typically about 20% of rental properties taken off the rental market do not sell and come back to the rental market. Savills puts the figure higher, at 33%. According to Hamptons, on average properties come back as available to rent after about 90 days, or three months. Where properties do sell, Zoopla figures indicate that the period between first marketing and completion is typically six months. This amendment responds to these facts and reduces to six months the period when the property is required to be unavailable to rent.
I move from the market facts to the Government’s approach. I am very grateful to the Minister for the opportunity that we had to discuss this and the understanding I obtained of the Government’s thinking. I understand that the Government’s concern is that landlords seeking to increase the rent might claim the property is on the market as a means to obtain vacant possession, apparently expecting much higher rent thereafter. They would leave it standing empty for, say, six months with no rental income, and then re-let it not just at a higher rent but at one that would both recover the rent lost in that six-month period and obtain a higher ongoing rent. The assertion is that making the required period 12 months would make such assumed motivation and behaviour unworkable economically.
I have struggled without success to find a period as long as 12 months credible for this purpose. So I ask the Minister: if the current rent on a property is for some reason set below the market rate, would it not be possible for the landlord simply to seek an increase to the market level in the normal way, rather than going through the convoluted processes and expense involved in removing the tenant, putting the property on the market and then re-letting it? If the rent is close to the market rate, it is surely unrealistic to expect that a landlord would be able to leave the property empty for six months, with ongoing costs but full loss of income, and then rent it out again at an uncompetitive rate, well above the market rate, in order, as the Government’s thinking seems to be, to recover six months of losses and then settle at what would be, I repeat, by definition, an uncompetitively high rent. I just do not see how that would have a chance of working.
To give a quick numerical example, a landlord receiving £2,500 a month in rent who puts the property on the market and receives no rent for just six months would, after leaving aside any other costs incurred in departing the tenant and marketing the property, lose at least £15,000 of rental income. To recover this over the subsequent six months and raise a base rental amount to, say, £3,000 per month compared with the £2,500, which for our evil, rapacious landlord is a pretty modest increase of £500, would mean seeking to rent out the property at £5,500 a month—a 220% rent increase over just a six-month period. If Mr Rapacious wanted to recover his losses faster, say in one quarter—three months—the rent would have to go up to £8,000 a month, a 320% increase in rent over just six months.
I must therefore say to the Minister that just six months off the market is easily more than enough to make evicting a tenant simply to achieve a rent increase a highly implausible strategy. Requiring it to be off the market for a full 12 months is not only unnecessary but a distorted intervention that simply reduces the availability of rental accommodation.
Finally, I draw to noble Lords’ attention the two provisions included in the amendment. First, the property would have to have been demonstrably available to purchase on the open market at a fair market price with no suitable offers received and, importantly, the tenant and the courts could require evidence of these points and would be able to decide whether the landlord had made genuine attempts to sell. Amendments 26 and 27, which are coming up shortly, I believe, are also very helpful in this area.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Perhaps I may be allowed another very brief speech, since I was commented on earlier. I am always grateful for any compliments I receive, no matter how backhanded, about my persuasiveness, so I thank the noble Baroness for those. I will just comment that the idea that you would put your house, flat or property on at a silly price is immediately contested by my amendment and beefed up by her amendment as having to produce evidence to that fact, so I do not think that really holds water. I encourage her to be convinced: not, as she suggested, to give in to her instincts, but to look at the economics, the logic and the maths, which simply demonstrate that six months is more than adequate, and 12 months is excessive.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for those further comments. I am of course always happy to have a further meeting with her and the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, on this subject. A core principle of the Bill is to increase the security of tenure that tenants enjoy. We want to keep our focus on that, but I understand the point the noble Baroness is making and the reason for putting forward the amendment. I think the words I used were that there was likely to be very limited use of this ground and a risk of abuse and that, where a family member would act as carer, there is another possession ground that can be used, but, of course, I am happy to meet and discuss it with her before Report.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
It is always helpful to remember that we judge a democracy on how it treats its minorities.
The Minister referred to my appearing to be interested in rent. I was interested in discussing the issue in the shape of rent because that was the reason I was given for a 12-month barrier to reselling the house: that the rapacious landlord would seek to make profit from doing so. I hope that the example I have given and the explanation and logic I provided demonstrated fairly compellingly that 12 months is simply excessive. I am sorry that I have not convinced the Minister of that. Perhaps we can have a further discussion, because I think the evidence will demonstrate that six months is more than adequate to put off a landlord from taking the risk of having no income for six months, and possibly costs in addition, and then trying to recover that over time.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for his further clarification. I considered that we had a very useful meeting earlier on this and I have thought about it very carefully. I think the current 12-month restriction on re-letting is the right one to prevent abuse of those possession grounds, but of course I am happy to meet him and discuss it further.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am happy to get further written advice for the noble Lords.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I do not wish to detain the Minister with yet another question, but I will perhaps ask a little cheeky one. She referred a number of times to useful meetings with tenant representative bodies, which I have also had quite a number of meetings with. Can she tell us how many meetings she has had with landlord representative bodies?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have had meetings with landlord representative bodies, but I cannot tell the noble Lord the number off the top of my head. I will write to him with that.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Lord Cromwell Excerpts(1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, before I speak to these amendments, I should have, at the beginning of the debate, thanked all noble Lords for their engagement in the work that we did before we got to Committee. I have been very grateful for the attendance at drop-in sessions and for the one-to-one meetings that we have had with different Members from across the House. The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, referred to the value of scrutiny in this House; I truly value that scrutiny and engagement, which have been a great help in the early stages of the Bill. The comments that I make are made with due and careful consideration of what noble Lords say in the Committee today and what they have said to me in our meetings prior to that.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lords, Lord Truscott, Lord Cromwell and Lord Shipley, for the amendments, and the noble Lords, Lord Marlesford and Lord Carrington, for their comments on them. These amendments all seek to introduce fixed terms into the Renters’ Rights Bill.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
The Minister namechecked me. I did not have an amendment in this group. My amendments are in the next group and are not about fixed-term tenancies.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
That is my mistake, and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell.
Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, would allow landlords to create fixed-term assured tenancies of 12 months or less. As I set out during the debate at Second Reading, our Government are clear that there is no place for fixed terms in the future tenancy system. Landlords and tenants all want the same thing in the private rented sector: long-term tenancies, well-maintained properties and the rent paid —on time, we hope. That is the balance that we seek to strike.
A core principle of the future assured tenancy regime is that all tenancies will be periodic. As the previous Government also advocated, the removal of fixed terms is fundamental to improving tenants’ rights and ensuring that they can hold their landlord to account. Fixed terms just do not offer the best outcome for renters. They can oblige tenants to pay rent for substandard properties and restrict them from moving house if they need to. All the examples that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, gave are of those who need secure tenancies—they need them for themselves and their families, and for the communities that they live in.
The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, mentioned that I have been a local government leader. My experience with social housing tenants who have long-term secure tenancies makes it clear to me that they help them to stabilise life for their families and to develop the communities we know that people prefer to live in.
I was not going to mention domestic abuse, but I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, and his dismissal of it has provoked me into doing so. Domestic abuse is just one reason to not have this type of tenancy, and I may come back to that later. Just this lunchtime, I met the person I set up the Stevenage domestic abuse service with, and that situation is getting worse, not better. We do not want people to be trapped in properties that they do not want to stay in.
I do not believe that this amendment would offer tenants more choice. In reality, initial fixed terms would become just another way that tenants would be forced to compete in a difficult market. I understand that there are concerns from landlords about the impact of removing fixed terms. However, the move to periodic tenancies does not pose a threat to good landlords—in fact, it will make it easier and simpler for them to operate by preventing them being locked into a fixed term.
Amendments 4, 5 and 6, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would allow for short fixed-term assured tenancies. The amendments would allow assured tenancies to contain a two-month, three-month or six-month fixed term. As I have set out, the Government do not believe such changes are necessary. Where a tenant wishes to live somewhere for a short period of time, the Bill allows them to serve notice at any point as long as they provide two-months’ notice. If one of these amendments were accepted, it is likely that short fixed-term tenancies would become the market norm, forcing fixed terms on to tenants who may not be looking for a short-term let and reducing flexibility for all tenants. In addition, tenants already need to give two months’ notice to landlords. Having two-month or three-month fixed terms would not add anything meaningful to this position, and would be contrary to our aims to simplify an overcomplicated system.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, referred to the issue of rent up front, which I am sure we will debate under future amendments. The point is that it cannot be required as a condition of taking on the tenancy. If, once the tenancy is in place, the tenant chooses to pay rent in advance—and it is their choice—they will be able to do so.
Amendment 173, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, would prevent tenants serving notice to end the tenancy within the first four months of a new tenancy. This, coupled with the two-month notice period, would effectively lock renters into tenancies for six months. I have been clear today that the Government will not support any amendment that seeks to lock tenants in for any period of time. Tenants must have the flexibility to end tenancies when they need to. The noble Baroness referred to people whose jobs change; that might be the case, and to be locked into a fixed term would prevent them doing that. The Bill still requires tenants to provide two months’ notice when ending an assured tenancy, which will give landlords time to find new tenants.
I heard the points from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about build to rent. I do not think there is a case for treating that differently, but no doubt we will return to this in future debates. I look forward to meeting with the noble Lord tomorrow to discuss his concerns in more detail.
It is very unlikely that tenants will move unless they absolutely have to. Moving house is costly and comes with significant upheaval. In practice, tenants will usually be asked to complete a series of steps in order to enter into an assured tenancy, and that will include referencing checks, committing for two months and paying up to five or six weeks’ deposit, none of which they are likely to do if they are looking for a very short-term tenancy.
Finally, I turn to the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to oppose the Question that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill. Clause 1 will prevent the creation of tenancies with a fixed term under the future assured tenancy regime. As I have already set out, the Government do not support the retention of fixed-term assured tenancies under any circumstances. The move to fully periodic tenancies is critical to strengthening tenants’ rights and enabling them to hold landlords to account.
To be clear, fixed terms force renters to pay rent regardless of the property’s condition. This disincentivises landlords from resolving repairs and can force tenants to remain in poor-quality housing. They also reduce flexibility for tenants to move when they need to—for example, if they have had a relationship breakdown or because they need to take up a new job. I am sorry to the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, for coming back to it, but they can prevent tenants leaving potentially dangerous situations such as domestic abuse.
Clause 1 will therefore ensure that all assured tenancies are periodic in future. The tenancy will roll from period to period until either party ends it. It will be prohibited to include a contract term that tries to create a fixed term, and any such term would be legally unenforceable.
As I have already explained, good landlords have nothing to be concerned about with these changes. They will not have to wait until the end of a fixed term to access some of the possession grounds, and a simpler set of rights and responsibilities will also make it easier for them to understand and follow the rules. The removal of fixed terms was the policy position of the previous Government, in which the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, served, and it is the policy position of this Government.
Clause 1 is essential to delivering a strengthened and more secure tenancy system. It will improve the ability of tenants to move house and challenge poor practice. For all the reasons I have set out, I kindly ask that noble Lords do not press their amendments.
Lord Cromwell
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and another in the name of Lord Cromwell seeks to ensure on the face of the Bill that the tenant is able to request (after four months of occupancy) a voluntary extension agreement with a specified term. The tenant would retain the ability to leave on two months’ notice, and the landlord would voluntarily limit rights of recovery to the anti-social behaviour and not paying rent grounds, thereby incentivising an uninterrupted occupancy.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, if I may coin a phrase, now for something a bit different. My Amendments 3 and 12 act together. They initially caused some bafflement—even suspicion—among other noble Lords, the Minister, and tenant groups with which I have discussed them. I am grateful to all of them for the opportunities this provided to look at my amendments for hidden or unintended consequences. I will therefore take a few minutes to explain what Amendment 3 is not, and then what it would achieve.
The amendment is not about creating a fixed-term tenancy, which some initially seemed to suspect. I know that several amendments in the previous group were put down with that intention or effect, but this is not one of them. It would not create a fixed-term tenancy as the tenant would not be required to stay for a fixed term. This would be in harmony with the Bill, one pronounced—one might say red line—objective of which, as we heard just now, is to prevent tenants being trapped in a fixed term. Nothing in the amendment would diminish that. In fact, it explicitly states that the two- month notice period by the tenant would apply.
That explains what the amendment is not. So, what would it achieve? When this Bill becomes an Act, where landlords and tenants have good relationships, as many do, and wish these to continue in the form of longer-term agreements, that will no longer be possible to achieve with a fixed-term tenancy. This amendment therefore starts from the perspective of a tenant who wishes to increase their security of tenure over a longer period while retaining their right to leave on two months’ notice.
The amendment would work as follows: a tenant in occupation for, say, four months—by which time they should have had the opportunity to assess the property, the landlord and any other arrangements—could propose to the landlord an extension of the tenancy for a period that the tenant suggests. However, and this is crucial, the tenant would retain the right to leave on two months’ notice, thereby avoiding being “trapped” and remaining compliant with the Bill. As I hope is now clear, this is therefore not a fixed-term tenancy in disguise.
Under such an agreement—and this is the greater security that the tenant would obtain—it is the landlord who would limit their right to take back their property only to cases of non-payment of rent or anti-social behaviour, not to cases where the property is being sold or the accommodation is required for a family member. The landlord would thus forgo two of the four grounds for recovery set out in the Bill. The landlord could decide to agree to this request from the tenant and, if so, it would be put in writing.
Colleagues have asked me why any landlord would sign up to such a tenant-favourable agreement. That is why I would like to clarify the benefits of this extension arrangement. As mentioned, the tenant would not only benefit from the greater security of tenure but would retain their right to depart after two months—a double benefit. The landlord would be giving the tenant an incentive to remain for the extension period they have requested. Why would the landlord want this? It is because a change of tenant almost inevitably involves a period without rent and a range of associated costs, including fees for letting and inventory agents, possible disputes about damage, deposits, redecoration, et cetera. In short, landlords hate voids and disputes, all the more so as the Bill now means that they are likely to have to go to the overburdened courts system in order to obtain their property, with all the antagonism, delay and expense that that involves.
To be clear, an extension agreement as per this amendment would not guarantee the landlord an income stream over time—that would get us back into trapping—but it would increase the probability of a tenant remaining and, therefore, a regular flow of income from a long-term tenant. While both could benefit, crucially, the power would remain in the tenant’s hands rather than in the landlord’s.
I invite noble Lords to stand back and recognise that this Bill creates a new landscape, one in which the rights and options available to landlords and tenants are rebalanced in favour of tenants. In that context, this amendment would enable in the specific—and indeed common—circumstances where landlord and tenant objectives were aligned the landlord to incentivise a tenant to remain as in the interest of both parties. I underline again that such arrangements would be at the tenant’s initiative and that neither tenant nor landlord could apply any compulsion on the other party.
As I mentioned at the start, this amendment caused some initial suspicion. Representatives of landlords, who like fixed-term tenancies and initially thought that I was seeking to retain them, soon backed away when they saw that the amendment would retain the two-month notice period for tenants. Tenant representatives —and, I have to say, the Government—have had the reverse reaction: initially suspicious that this might be some kind of loophole to create a fixed tenancy. I am sorry to labour the point, but I hope that it is now clear that it is no such thing. It would reflect the new balance of power that this Bill introduces to residential lettings. It would be a win-win opportunity, mainly for tenants but also for landlords seeking to retain tenants. I am much encouraged by tenant groups who have written to me on reflection to confirm that they think this amendment has the potential to help tenants gain greater security in the context that I have described.
In conclusion, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the arrangement I have outlined is made possible without interfering with any other aspects of this Bill. It would apply only in some positive landlord-tenant circumstances, but the Bill needs to make such agreements possible. It has no reason to block them. If it does—and this is important to note—informal or verbal agreements will develop outside the regulations, and these tend to end in tears.
Landlord and tenant bodies alike understand the new landscape being introduced by this Bill and recognise the benefit of this amendment. Further, I have been encouraged by legal advice that it should be included in the Bill so that it is confirmed as an available and legal option for relevant landlords and tenants.
I apologise for this quite lengthy exposition of the amendment, but I hope it has been helpful both in explaining the mechanics and in allaying misapprehensions about what should be a valuable addition to the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I have to confess to the noble Lord that I had written down exactly what he said—that these are not two nice amendments to bring in fixed tenancies by the back door—but then I thought, “He’s actually just creating a new ground for repossession”. What I am concerned about from the previous debate and this one—and I urge the Minister to clarify this—is that there seems to be an idea that rolling tenancies are unstable. I have several friends who are landladies, and we have had discussions about this over one or two glasses of wine and—believe it or not—they are not fazed by this. They have not reacted hysterically, because their attitude is, “My tenants like to stay long term; I’m a good landlady”; they do not see that that is a problem. But clearly there is a problem because we have had the reaction. I say to the Minister that the messaging has somehow got lost that this is not a less secure tenancy and that, in fact, the expectation is that the tenancy will roll on, and I believe the Government have tried to make the paperwork and things easier for that to happen.
If that messaging was correct, I do not see why a tenant would need incentivising to stay if everything was going okay. So forgive me if I sound perplexed: I thought I had a clear view about this, but the noble Lord has kind of knocked me there. I think it is because of the messaging that we have had about the instability of rolling tenancies, whereas I believe that that is not the case. I would be very interested in what the Minister has to say on that. I appreciate that the noble Lord’s speech was not long; it was engaging oratory and got the little grey cells going.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Perhaps the noble Baroness and I should discuss this over a few glasses of wine also, although I do not drink—but she can have the wine. I do not think the amendment creates a new ground for repossession; it gives the tenant greater security of tenure by removing half the causes for which a landlord could serve notice—I think that is what we will have to discuss over the glass of wine. It applies in special circumstances, where a landlord does not anticipate the need to sell or the wish to move in a family member but wishes to incentivise their tenant, who could leave at any moment on two months’ notice, to stay longer. So they say, “I’m prepared to give you greater security of tenure as an incentive to remain and continue paying the rent”. It is not more complicated than that, but I am glad that I managed to lift the bafflement and look forward to a chat afterwards perhaps.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, before I start, I ask the Committee to note that I am a councillor in central Bedfordshire and therefore have an interest. I welcome the opportunity to speak to this group and to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for raising this amendment and explaining it so carefully. I am quite grateful that I understood all along that the tenant was still eligible for the two-month notice period.
These amendments offer a clear and practical framework for tenants to request a voluntary extension agreement after four months of occupancy with terms that, as the noble Lord said, provide greater certainty and predictability for both parties. This would allow people the freedom to make a mutual agreement and choice that benefited both sides. As Conservatives, we believe that the Government’s role is not to overregulate or restrict but to create the conditions for stability, co-operation and choice. The amendments do exactly that: agreements built on mutual respect rather than compulsion.
Under the proposals from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, tenants would enjoy security of tenure for an agreed period. Landlords in turn gain the reassurance of occupancy, with their right to recover their property during the term limited to cases of anti-social behaviour or non-payment of rent. These are reasonable safeguards that encourage constructive relationships and stability in the rental market and will benefit both tenants and landlords.
This approach complements the amendments in my name and the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, which we will discuss in due course. Together, they reflect a shared principle that flexibility, where it is entered into freely and transparently, strengthens rather than undermines tenant protections. We often speak in this Chamber about empowering tenants, but that empowerment must include the ability to make informed choices and enter into arrangements that suit tenants’ lives, reducing the risk that they will be forced to move. Voluntary extension agreements offer a proportionate and sensible way of achieving that aim without diluting the core purpose of the Bill. I hope the Minister will give these proposals the thoughtful consideration they deserve as we continue to shape a Bill that is fair, flexible and fit for the realities of today’s rental market. We look forward to working constructively with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, as he considers his approach ahead of Report.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for his amendments relating to mutually agreed voluntary extension agreement in tenancies and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for their contributions as well. Amendments 3 and 12 would allow a form of agreement where tenants can leave the tenancy by providing two months’ notice and landlords could gain possession only for rent arrears or anti-social behaviour. Tenants would be able to request this after four months of the assured tenancy and the landlord would have to agree in writing.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for meeting me to discuss his proposals. No wine was involved, but other beverages are available. I have considered his amendments carefully and the points he made about their potential efficacy. One of the reasons the Government do not want to reintroduce fixed terms or anything like them is that they add complexity into the system. Having a simple, single system of periodic tenancies will make it easier for both parties to better understand their rights and responsibilities.
Having looked at the noble Lord’s proposal, I say that it is not clear that it will be of much benefit to either party. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, rightly referred to the nature of assured tenancies, and I think there has sometimes been a misunderstanding—perhaps concocted—of what an assured tenancy is. It is a permanent tenancy unless the landlord uses the grounds included in the Bill or the tenant gives two months’ notice. It is not a two-month tenancy; it is a permanent tenancy with two months’ notice on the part of the tenant. If both parties wish the tenancy to sustain for a certain period of time, nothing in the Bill prevents this. The Bill already prevents landlords using the key possession grounds for moving and selling within the first 12 months of a new tenancy. This provides tenants with additional protections for a period of time. Landlords can also communicate their plans to tenants if the tenants need that additional reassurance. It is also unclear what this model would offer to landlords, given that the tenant could still leave at any point, so it is very unlikely landlords would agree to it. For the reasons I have set out here and in previous debates, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I thank the Minister for her comments and for the very helpful meeting we had about this amendment. I have tried to strike a balance in my amendment between not going near a fixed-term tenancy and producing something that is of benefit to landlords. I can only tell her that, from my experience of talking to people, they are often keen to find incentives for a tenant to stay, because it is a costly and time-consuming business to change them. Therefore, I do not think one should dismiss too lightly the idea that landlords might forgo some rights in order to encourage a tenant to stay on: in fact, I have seen that in practice.
One should never drink alone, so if the noble Baroness opposite is going to have a glass of wine, perhaps the Minister would like to join in and the three of us could have a useful chat about this. I think there is something here that does not undermine the tenant’s ability to get out in two months but gives an incentive in that marketplace for the landlord to encourage a tenant to remain for the long term. The tenant will decide how long that term is, because they will be the one requesting an extension. It could be 10 months or two years: that is entirely a matter for them. So, I do not want to give up on this at this point. I will withdraw the amendment, but I suggest that we have a further chat to see whether there is something that can be worked up from this particular nugget.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Lord Cromwell Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the Minister for the way she introduced the Bill. I also congratulate our two maiden speakers on their highly relevant, interesting and insightful maiden speeches. Finally, I declare that some of my family members let three residential properties, although I do not.
There are many elements to the Bill, and perhaps the most referenced tonight is the removal of Section 21 notices and the objective of providing tenants with greater security of tenure. These notices certainly encouraged supply of rental accommodation but have been abused by some landlords in so-called no-fault evictions of tenants. The pendulum of legal rights is now swinging towards tenants. Some landlords may not like it, but it is the Government’s policy and, with their substantial House of Commons majority, it will become law. I believe that most have now accepted that inevitability.
That said, there is evidence that this impending change is already leading to a reduction in the supply of property to rent while, at the same time, demand remains high and increasing. I will not delay the House further with figures today, but even the most enthusiastic advocates of ending Section 21 can claim that, at best, the supply of rented accommodation is flat. I therefore ask the Minister to clarify specifically whether the Government’s view is that ending Section 21 notices is expected to increase the supply of rented accommodation.
A related area of concern is the reversion to landlords having henceforth to go via the courts in Section 8 processes to regain possession of their property. Logically, this means that courts will have more cases than currently, as was confirmed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, along with his other concerns, and was also raised by the noble Earls, Lord Kinnoull and Lord Leicester, and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow.
While new tenant rights will take almost immediate effect, there is very little confidence that the already clogged court and tribunal systems will somehow be simultaneously transformed, apparently by using the magic of digital and AI, into swift and effective delivery mechanisms. I therefore ask the Minister to bear down, in the interests of both landlords and tenants, on the specifics and, in particular, the timetable for this seemingly miraculous transformation.
On a more positive note, and contrary to the tone around the Bill, there are many occasions when landlords and tenants have positive relationships. Consequently, both want to establish longer-term arrangements. This runs immediately into the difficulty that fixed-term tenancies have sometimes been used to trap tenants, but it does not have to be that way, as the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, touched on.
I plan to table a positive amendment that would enable tenants and landlords, if requested by the tenant after four months of occupancy—when they should have been able to size up their landlord and the property; of course, the reverse also applies—to go forward to mutual benefit on a longer-term basis, crucially without removing the tenant’s ability to depart on two months’ notice. This, like other aspects of the Bill, will apply only to some landlord-tenant circumstances, but the Bill needs to make such agreements at least possible. If it does not, informal or verbal agreements will develop outside the legislation, and these tend to end in tears. Tenant groups with which I have discussed the draft amendment have written to me to confirm that they think it has the potential to help tenants have greater security in the context that I have described.
I may also table amendments in two other areas that we might consider in order to maintain a better balance between landlords and tenants. The first is the case of rent arrears: the Bill requires three months’ arrears, plus four weeks’ notice, plus—according to the Ministry of Justice—some seven months for court processes. This will make rental properties unrentable and unavailable for almost 12 months, which is too long.
Secondly, where the landlord seeks to sell a property under the new ground 1A, the evidence shows that the period of 12 months to prove the property has been marketed is twice the length necessary. With suitable evidential safeguards—again, crucial—the property should be made available to rent after just six months. Both these amendments address the need to sustain rather than contract the supply of suitable rental accommodation.
I have two final points. First, as we seek to make these adjustments to the landlord-tenant relationship, the fundamental—on which many have touched—is a mismatch between supply and demand. As long as the housing stock available to rent is so out of kilter with demand, systemic problems of non-availability and methods of rationing—overt or unspoken—will remain. In particular, landlords will be even more selective than they are now about who they choose to rent to—and they still have a choice.
Secondly—and I have raised this before—while the Government assure us, in exactly the same way as the last Government did, that most landlords are good, the real target for improvements in standards of accommodation and tenant rights should be, as we were reminded by the noble Lords, Lord Shipley, Lord Thurlow and Lord Carter, the minority of bad ones. These individuals, and in some cases gangs, do not care for written agreements, the decent homes standard or legal niceties; their activities are based on force, extortion and neglect.
The Bill risks—do I dare say this?—helping mainly middle-class renters to gain and assert their rights. Unless we get much more serious about enforcement, which means properly resourcing it against truly exploitative landlords, life for those at the bottom of the housing ladder, where the direst needs and worst poverty coexist, will remain untouched despite this well-intentioned Bill—as it presently stands.
European Union
Lord Cromwell Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I hope the noble Lord does not think that we are fussing about. Culturally and geographically, this country is clearly part of Europe. I think the Question specified the EU, which is why my responses have related to that.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Does the Minister share my concern that the divergence between the product standard requirements in the UK and the EU is of increasing concern to UK businesses, as it escalates the cost and the bureaucracy involved in compliance?
King’s Speech
Lord Cromwell Excerpts(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General on his appointment and to the noble Lord, Lord Khan. I think I speak for all of us when I say that we enjoyed both the maiden speeches today, which made us realise how lucky we are to have these people join us.
I have worked as a Cross-Bench so-called hereditary Peer for all my 10 years here, but time moves on and, as the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General reminded us, we need to reflect and move on as things move on around us. The Prime Minister said last week in relation to the King’s Speech that his Government were not going to do things that were easy and populist. But booting out the so-called hereditaries as a group would be exactly that—easy, crude and populist—and flies in the face of the participation requirement trailed in the Labour manifesto.
Before I turn to a solution, I will remind the House of five brief points about so-called hereditaries. First, they do not, as is often wrongly suggested, have an inherited right to sit in this House. They may stand for election, but competition and our interview process, at least on the Cross Benches, is fierce. Imperfect? Certainly. But it is better than party leaders just appointing their mates.
Secondly, much is made of the ancient patronage in return for personal loyalty or treasure, but a good number of today’s life Peers—and their loyalties—are here for exactly those reasons.
Thirdly, the so-called hereditaries are the only Peers to whom reform has already come, with numbers capped and selection formalised. If they are to be sent down the plughole, nothing will have been done, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, reminded us, to close the patronage taps open at the other end. It is this modern patronage that is the really pernicious anachronism. It is a seemingly irresistible temptation for leaders to influence or reward their friends.
Fourthly, the pantomime stereotype of Cross-Bench hereditaries as Conservative-voting hoorays is simply not accurate. They are a diverse bunch of professional people who more often than not in this House have supported Labour and Lib Dem positions. Indeed, we have been pilloried by some Conservatives for doing just that.
Finally, it is widely acknowledged across this House that many hereditaries work well above the proportion their numbers would suggest. In fact, in the House of Lords in our daily practice the “H” tag is very quickly forgotten, as others have mentioned. What matters is that all Peers are equal public servants. I therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to service—a slightly old-fashioned word, perhaps, but it is certainly the reason that I work here.
I very much support the overdue strengthening of HOLAC, albeit in the dread phrase “in due course”, but, alongside the focus on how people get here, there is far too little on how they contribute when they do. Even in such a courteous place as the House of Lords, we need a proper participation-based appraisal system for Members rather than blanket dismissals on a single criterion such as heritage or indeed age—or, if that is something we cannot stomach in this place, a 15-year term, which I supported when giving evidence to the excellent committee of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, some time back. If this is not dealt with now, the reputation of this House and this reforming Government will be tarnished.
I am also worried to hear from several sources that, in throwing out the so-called hereditaries, the Government are principally seeking to remove some 40 Conservative hereditary Members in order to reduce the numbers on those Benches and to create in their place a swathe of new Labour Peers. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Khan, to clarify in winding up from the Front Bench whether this is indeed the case. If it is true, it would be manifestly unjust to visit such a party-politically driven strategy on the independent Cross Benchers.
While on the subject of size, sacking the hereditaries would get rid of 92 Members, but removing Members across the House of any type who turn up and participate no more than 10% of the time would reduce numbers by well over 100. Would it not be not only more effective numerically but more logical and, indeed, more just to address the numbers not on the basis of an individual’s family but on the basis of their work?
There is a simple solution to make the hereditary element and issue simply disappear, and I believe it is one that would not be obstructed. Labour has used it for its own hereditary on the Front Bench, and the noble Lord, Lord Grocott—credit where it is due—has made several attempts, with wide support across the House, to bring this solution into play. It is to convert those hereditaries who are committed to the service of this House into life Peers and at the same time end the by-elections.
At a stroke, this would mean that all Peers would henceforth be life Peers, thereby removing a divisive distraction, and no new hereditary Peers would come in. The remaining, by then former, hereditaries, like me, would simply die out over time. This would be a landmark change indeed, and a manifesto commitment achieved and a transition completed. Despite the temptation of party-political manoeuvrings, I hope that the Government will consider this rather than a populist purge.
I add one final, personal note. While it may perhaps be well intentioned, describing as a “sweetener”—as it has been repeatedly—the idea that we might, after being sacked, be allowed to wander the corridors like impotent ghosts, read the newspapers or use the facilities is a total misunderstanding of why I have served here for a decade.
The noble Lord, Lord Reid, and others referred last week to the words of John Smith MP, who said:
“The opportunity to serve … is all we ask”.
I hope that those of us who have followed that mantra will continue to serve this House as life Peers.