Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Geddes Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their rigorous, detailed and good-natured engagement on the matter of pet damage insurance. In particular, the extensive knowledge of the insurance industry of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has been of great assistance in ensuring that we get this policy right.

Following much debate in Committee and further discussions with sector stakeholders, including the Association of British Insurers and the British Insurance Brokers’ Association, we have reflected on our position and I will now speak to government Amendments 49, 54, 55, 57 and 73. I have listened carefully and recognised that, while the insurance market adapts to public policy, there is a risk that relevant insurance will not come on to the market sufficiently following implementation of the Bill. To avoid a situation in which landlords could essentially veto a tenant’s reasonable request to keep a pet, we are withdrawing the pet insurance provisions from the Bill. Tenants will still be able to request to have a pet in their home, but landlords will no longer be able to require insurance to cover property damage caused by a pet. Although our view was that a new market will develop for insurance products, following further engagement with the sector we now accept that this may not happen at the scale necessary. We are committed to supporting responsible pet ownership in the private rented sector and we do not want to leave tenants in a position where they are unable to comply with impractical conditions that a landlord may place on the tenant as part of their pet consent.

Noble Lords will rightly want to know what this means for landlords with concerns about potential property damage. I reassure the House that we are also now satisfied that landlords will be suitably protected from damage caused by pets, particularly after noble Lords shared evidence in Committee—for example, the University of Huddersfield report showing that three-quarters of pet-owning tenancies result in no claim against the deposit. As such, I am content that the existing five-week deposit for typical tenancies will cover any increased damages caused by pet ownership. We will, however, continue to monitor this closely after the implementation of the Bill. If tenants with pets are regularly causing more damage than deposits can cover, we have existing delegated powers to allow higher deposits for tenancies with pets under the Tenant Fees Act 2019. I hope the House recognises that we have listened and responded to the debate with pragmatism. Private renters should be treated fairly if they have reasonable requests for pets, and our legislative framework should support that. I am grateful to all colleagues who have helped us to get to the best position possible, and I beg to move government Amendment 49.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes) (Con)]

My Lords, before putting Amendment 49, I must advise the House that, if it is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendments 50 to 53 due to pre-emption.

[Lord de Clifford (CB)]

My Lords, I first wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and the Government for adding Amendment 49 to this Bill with regard to pet insurance. I know that the Minister and the Bill team, as well as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, have spent a lot of time on this matter, and the Minister listened and considered the noble Earl’s expert views and spoke to the insurance market before bringing this welcome change to the Bill.

I have submitted Amendment 53A. I originally supported Amendment 51 in the noble Earl’s name, with regards to the pet damage deposit, but it no longer worked within the Bill. As mentioned previously, I welcome the changes in this Bill regarding pets. The Government have acknowledged that pets can potentially cause damage or wear and tear to the property, so there was a need for a pet insurance product to cover potential costs, but that is now not part of the Bill.

The amendment seeks to provide an alternative protection to landlords and tenants from the possible additional costs that may be incurred by keeping a pet, to maintain the condition of a property. The additional three weeks’ rent as a deposit would provide an amount towards those costs. Some would say that the first five weeks would cover all forms of wear and tear; that amount is set aside for human wear and tear and damage.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 49 agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes) (Con)]

My Lords, as previously advised, Amendment 49 having been agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 50 to 53 due to pre-emption.

Amendment 53A

Moved by

Planning Reforms: Energy and Housing Costs

Lord Geddes Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Geddes (Con)]

My Lords, is it not mandatory for all new houses to have on their roofs solar panels or photovoltaics?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, we are developing the future homes strategy, which will point to all the net-zero measures that we want to see. We do not want new houses being built that have to be retrofitted, or that are technology-specific, because the technology is developing at pace and we want to make sure there is enough flexibility in the system for new technologies to be adopted. Things such as solar panels and air source heat pumps are great innovations that are really changing our homes, keeping them warmer and making them more carbon neutral.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Lord Geddes Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th February 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I stand to introduce the second group, in which, conveniently, there are three amendments, all in my name—

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)]

We are still on group 1. We will come to group 2 in the fullness of time.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My apologies.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)]

Amendment 3 leads a substantive group. I suggest that the Opposition might want to move it.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

It is not me.

Future Homes Standard

Lord Geddes Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I agree that we need to move on as quickly as possible with all of this, for three key reasons. We need to make sure that bills are kept as low as possible, particularly for those in fuel poverty who we are very conscious of, and the move to clean energy will help us with that. We also need to think about our energy security and we need to continue the drive towards net zero. I appreciate the frustration in delivering this, and when I say “later this year”, I want to reassure the noble Baroness that we are working with our colleagues in DESNZ as quickly as possible to deliver this, to set homes and buildings on a path away from the use of fossil fuels and to future-proof homes with low-carbon heating and high levels of building fabric standards, ensuring that they do not require any retrofitting to become zero carbon. We are working very hard on that and it is my mission to deliver that as quickly as possible.

[Lord Geddes (Con)]

My Lords, this is not the first time that I have asked this question: could the Minister advise why it is not mandatory for new-build homes to have at least solar or photovoltaic panels on their roofs?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I just want to say that we do understand the effectiveness of solar panels in providing a direct and sustainable way to harness renewable energy and to allow homes to generate their own electricity, as well as offering the significant savings that will help with fuel bills. It is my absolute intention that the new building regulation standards that will be introduced this year will encourage the use of rooftop solar panels. I am working very fast with my honourable friend Minister Fahnbulleh to drive this forward as quickly as possible. We need to confirm the technical detail of the standards and we will share more details of them as soon as we are able.

Traveller Site Fund

Lord Geddes Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No. That is a very recent decision. I do not know that there are any plans but, certainly as soon as we have them, I will let the noble Baroness know.

[Lord Geddes (Con)]

My Lords, I will hark back to a Question we had yesterday: is there any correlation between Traveller sites and fly-tipping?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I do not know of any research on that. I am sure my noble friend will have his views on it and others will as well. I do not think we have any definite evidence on that so I would rather not make any further comment.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Geddes Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th April 2023 Lords Chamber

Amendments 268 to 270 not moved.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)]

My Lords, as Amendment 270 has not been moved, I cannot call Amendments 270A or 270B, as they were amendments to the said Amendment 270.

Amendments 271 to 273 not moved.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)]

My Lords, as Amendment 273 has not been moved, Amendment 273A cannot be moved, as it was an amendment to it.

Social Mobility Commission

Lord Geddes Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am not aware of any plans to do that, but I will take the idea back. I have yet to meet my officials. I was officially put into this role only on Monday evening, so at my first meeting, I will certainly talk to officials about that and will talk further to the noble Baroness.

[Lord Geddes (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend consider it seemly that reference should be made to the most senior officer of a board as an inanimate object?

Elections: Multiple Voting

Lord Geddes Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

This is something of a Groundhog Day Question, as we look back in time. As part of the Elections Act, we have introduced voter identification as a means of reducing electoral fraud.

[Lord Geddes (Con)]

My Lords, the original Question just referred to the word “elections”. Would my noble friend concur that it is entirely legitimate to vote more than once at a local election?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

Of course; to make it absolutely clear, where you pay council tax on two properties, you can vote legally in their local elections. Approximately 495,000 households can legitimately do so.

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [HL]

Lord Geddes Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 7th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak on the amendment in my name, which refers to Amendment 6, to which the Minister has just spoken. I hope I am fully in order to do that.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes) (Con)]

If I could interrupt the noble Lord, the Question to the House was that we agree Amendments 1 to 5 en bloc. We will then come to Amendment 6.

Motion agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I am not sure whether we have moved all the amendments up to Amendment 9—because then I can wind up, so to speak. I can appreciate the—

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes) (Con)]

If I may interrupt the noble Lord for a moment—we have moved only Amendments 1 to 5. We are now discussing Amendment 6, and we will then come to Amendments 7, 8 and 9.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

Okay. I am just getting used to this process. On Amendment 6, it is really helpful that the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, raised the issue of timing. Of course, in order to start the gun, if you like, we need Royal Assent, and then there needs to be a commitment around commencement, which means having all the regulations in place. So let us get this Bill on the statute book as quickly as possible. I have already made a commitment—which perhaps goes beyond where I should have gone because I am, perhaps, a little naive—that, within six months of Royal Assent, we will have commencement. So we know what the window is, effectively, because I made that commitment at the Dispatch Box and I do not want to let anyone down. That is the timeframe: let us get Royal Assent and then, within six months, we will have commencement—and that is the period of time we should be concerned about.

We have very genuinely tried to respond to the issues that have been raised to ensure that the greatest number of people are aware of the dangers and the risks of carrying out a lease extension in that window in a way that would be detrimental to their interests. That is why we have that suite of communications measures. I hope, therefore, that with that and a better understanding of the timeframe, the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, will withdraw his amendment.

On the timing, I have now been in post and responsible for leasehold reform for nearly two years—I have survived one reshuffle—and it is fair to say that both Secretaries of State, particularly the right honourable gentleman in the other place, are absolutely committed to the second wave of leasehold reform, which will be far harder than this modest ground rents Bill. I cannot give a commitment about what will appear, but my expectations are that leasehold reform will be front and centre around his ambition for a wider reform of housing.