Renters’ Rights Bill
Lord Cromwell Excerpts(9 months, 3 weeks 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(9 months, 3 weeks 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(1 year 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(1 year, 4 months 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(1 year, 6 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.