Renters’ Rights Bill
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(3 days, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jamieson
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on another amendment in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook seek to limit the financial penalties by local authorities and probe the process on which non-judicial process is sought. Although it is right that those who deliberately flout the rules face financial penalties, it is also right that these financial penalties should be proportionate and applied fairly. Are fines of up to £40,000 reasonable? In many cases, they could be the equivalent of several years of rental income. We need a system that is balanced and just for both the tenant and the landlord.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for moving those amendments. I send my get-well wishes to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, as well, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for moving the noble and learned Lord’s amendments. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for taking part in the debate.
It might help if I start with a brief bit of context. We are taking a clear escalatory approach to civil penalties here. Across the Bill, less serious, one-off breaches will be subject only to the maximum penalty of £7,000. Only if landlords persist in not signing up to the database or the ombudsman will they become liable for a civil penalty of up to £40,000—and that is the maximum. Where landlords continue to fail to remedy unacceptable conditions in a property, they may be faced with a civil penalty of up to £40,000 or indeed criminal prosecution. Where there is evidence that landlords and letting agents continue to discriminate in the letting process, they can face multiple fines. But as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, good landlords—there are many of them—will not be subject to any of these fines because they do not commit the offences that would lead to those fines. The answer is to follow the outlines in the Bill and then there will not be any need for landlords to be fined.
Amendment 144 would remove the ability of local authorities to impose financial penalties for non-compliance with the tenancy requirements where this is not a criminal offence. Effective enforcement against landlords who flout the rules is a key part of ensuring that our reforms deliver their full benefits. Across the provisions in the Bill, as I said, we have taken a consistent, proportionate and escalating approach to penalties. The civil penalties of up to £7,000 for less serious or first-time non-compliance is an important part of that approach. Removing the ability of local authorities to impose civil penalties for non-criminal breaches of the tenancy requirement would create a gap. How would landlords who, for example, failed to issue tenants with a written tenancy agreement or ended a tenancy illegally be held to account? Transferring responsibility for determining fines for these breaches to the courts would be a poor alternative and, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, it would unnecessarily increase pressures on the courts. We have had many debates about that in this House in response to other areas in the Bill. In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about the capacity of local authorities to deal with this, local authorities have significant experience of imposing civil penalties. I do not see a good reason for excluding breaches of the tenancy requirements from this well-established practice.
Amendments 137, 141, 149 to 151, 156, 158 to 164, 293 and 294 are consequential on Amendment 144 and remove references to new Section 16I of the Housing Act 1988, which Amendment 144 would delete. Amendment 146 would reduce the maximum penalty for a breach of the tenancy requirements from £7,000 to £5,000. Amendment 147 would, in the alternative, set the maximum penalty for a breach of the tenancy requirements at two months’ rent. Amendment 154 would reduce the maximum financial penalty for tenancy offences from £40,000 to £30,000. Amendment 155 would set the maximum penalty for tenancy offences at 12 months’ rent. Amendments 153, 201, 217 and 241 would reduce the maximum civil penalties for offences in relation to tenancy reform, illegal eviction, the database and the ombudsman from £40,000 to £7,000.
Civil penalties need to be set at a level that provides an appropriate punishment and acts as an effective deterrent to future non-compliance. To respond to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about the level of the fines, we have set the maximum civil penalty for offences across the Bill at £40,000. This mirrors existing maximum civil penalties for offences under the Housing Act 2004, which are currently £30,000, but this takes account of inflation since those came into force. We intend also to increase the Housing Act 2004 maximum penalties to £40,000, via regulations, to reflect those changes in the value of money. The £7,000 maximum penalty for breaches represents a similar percentage uprating to reflect inflation, compared with a maximum fine level of £5,000 for less serious non-compliance in other housing legislation; for example, the Tenant Fees Act 2019.
Increasing maximum fine levels to reflect inflation ensures that the deterrent effect of the penalties is maintained. However, I emphasise that these are maximum levels: they will not be the normal penalty level. Local authorities will need to look at the particular circumstances of each instance of non-compliance. They will need to take account of aggravating or mitigating factors and arrive at the final penalty in line with their policy. When considering whether to issue a civil penalty, local authorities are required to issue a notice of intent, allowing time for landlords to make representations. The local authority will need to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the landlord has committed an offence. If the landlord disagrees with the imposition or amount of the penalty, they will of course be able to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
On a point of clarification, if I may, the Minister has made it very clear that there will be a range of fines that a local authority will be able to impose, and, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, pointed out earlier, with the 2016 Act, there was—I am not sure that I would say very clear, but let us call it very extensive—guidance on what would constitute a fine, with what burdens of proof, and whether it was knowingly reckless or unintentional. Is it the intention of the Government to provide very clear guidance to councils as to what level of fines they should impose related to what level of offence and so forth?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. Of course, local authorities will need to have a clear rationale for why they have set a civil penalty at a particular level and apply aggravating and mitigating factors to that, but local authorities need to be able to pursue penalties that are high enough to deter landlords from committing offences, but not so high that they are unfair. I take his point about guidance, and I will come back to him on that point, if that is okay.
Setting maximum penalty levels by reference to rent received on a property introduces unnecessary complexity and runs counter to well established practice. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, asked whether it could be set at levels of rent. Local authorities may take account of local rent levels when arriving at the final penalty. It is clearer and simpler, though, for the maximum to be prescribed and be the same wherever in England the same breach or offence is committed.
Amendment 157 would require the Secretary of State to make an annual statement to Parliament of the funding provided to local housing authorities to support their enforcement of the tenancy requirements. To respond to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about the cost to local authorities, we recognise that the enforcement duties we are placing on local housing authorities in the Bill represent an additional net cost. In accordance with the new burdens doctrine, we will ensure that additional burdens created by the new system are funded. We will set out the funding we are making available to meet those new burdens in due course.
We expect enforcing the new tenancy requirements to be a significant part of the additional costs on local authorities. Local authorities will, though, have flexibility on how they use the funding provided—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill—and we do not intend to specify the detail of what it should be used for.
For the reasons I have set out, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this group. I owe a particular debt of gratitude to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for bringing amendments to this House. I also wish him all the best for his recovery. These amendments, while similar in spirit to ours, would go even further in addressing the limits placed on local housing authorities. The noble and learned Lord is right to highlight both the challenges faced by local authorities and the significant scale of the proposed fines.
As there appeared to be a little bit of confusion, let us be absolutely clear: we need powers to hold to account rogue landlords who deliberately and maliciously break the rules to the detriment of tenants. That is something we can all agree on. However, we need a system that is fair and proportionate and does not ensnare essentially innocent landlords who inadvertently —or not maliciously—fall foul of the rules. They need to be encouraged to stay in the rental game.
As my noble friend Lord Hunt said, we need more rental homes, we need people to stay in the rental market and we need more people to come into it. We need to be very wary of coming up with systems where they fear very significant fines that they may perceive as arbitrary. Hence, I was very keen to get clear guidance from the Minister about how these fines would be placed and at what levels. I look forward to hearing further from her on this. I also appreciated what the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said around the 2016 Act and the importance of guidance on that.
I thank the Minister for her reply and the commitment to share some reasoning for the figures that the Government have arrived at and some guidance— it appeared she would, anyway. Without insight into the rationale for the figures selected and the thresholds imposed, we are left to critique in the dark. For scrutiny to be effective and informed, the Government must provide not just partial explanations but a full and transparent account of how these conclusions were reached. Only then can Parliament properly fulfil its role in holding the Executive to account. I hope that the Minister will enable us to do this by sharing some of the Government’s reasoning and further guidance on how those fines will be brought forward.
Getting penalties right is not a technical detail; it is fundamental to the fairness and effectiveness of a system designed to remedy an offence. Significant fines and penalties for rogue landlords are appropriate and proportionate. However, as I said earlier, significant fines for someone who unintentionally falls foul of the law would be inappropriate. We need to be careful and calibrated to ensure that they deter offences but do not distort the functionality of the housing market. Although we want to address rogue landlords, we also want a thriving rental market and to avoid deterring good landlords who might perceive a significant risk of large, arbitrary fines.
I will finish with this message: a well-designed penalty framework should uphold the law, encourage compliance and support the functioning of housing authorities. The success of this legislation depends not just on good intentions but on practical deliverability, balanced implementation and trust from those who must operate within it.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
Before the noble Lord sits down, can I just ask him: did he really feel, in his time as chair of the Local Government Association and leader of a reputable authority, that local authorities were dishing out fines willy-nilly or were disproportionate in their measures when they were considering things? I found the opposite—there were times when I wished we would be a bit tougher and stronger and go a bit further. I do not recognise this picture that the noble Lord is painting: that landlords might perceive that it is terrible and feel bad about it. I genuinely believe that most good landlords have nowt to fear—it is not those that the Bill is gunning for. We have a duty to convey that message and not to make good landlords feel threatened by the fact that there is an escalation in fees.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness very much. She is absolutely right: most councils in this country are very good and proportionate and do not levy fines—or whatever—willy-nilly. I absolutely agree with that. However, it is very much in the eye of the beholder, and we need to do everything we can to encourage a successful and thriving rental market with good landlords. Within that, one needs to think what that single-, two- or three-home landlord will look at. They will see the potential risk of £40,000, and it is perception. I absolutely concur that councils act appropriately in many instances, but if a landlord feels that there is a risk, and particularly when that risk can be two, three, or, in some cases in the north of England, four years’ rent, they may just say, “I do not want to take that risk, I will sell my property”. That is one less house for somebody to rent and one more person on a council’s housing waiting list.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I am sorry, but I have to challenge that because the opposite to that is true. I think most good landlords are actually waiting for this to come into place because it damages their reputation when we have rogue landlords who cause their tenants the sorts of problems we are talking about. You will not come across the penalty regime unless you are the sort of landlord that causes your tenant problems. It is those landlords we want the Bill to impact.
Just to clarify the point on guidance, we will be issuing revised guidance on setting financial penalties to provide a national framework for local housing authorities. That will help to ensure the consistent approach which takes account of the seriousness of the offence and harm caused to the tenant and will help reduce the likelihood of reductions on appeal.
I want to be absolutely clear that this whole enforcement regime is aimed at those bad landlords we have heard too much about. Landlords want us to do this: they want to see that those people who do not do the job properly get an appropriate penalty for it.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
Can I just ask a point of clarification? The Minister talked about publishing guidance. Will that be available before Report so that we can consider the Bill in that context?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will come back to the noble Lord on that point.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(3 days, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I will say a few words, particularly in response to the comments of my noble friend Lord Cromwell about loading costs on to the landlords. The problem is that, if you are in the countryside, they want to charge a huge amount to get it to you. We have one or two cottages and, to get a fibre cable out to us, we were being quoted £15,000 at one point. We would be connecting about five properties at the end of it—rented properties and another house. The other complication is that, if one of them is a business, for example, there are different rules on what they are allowed to charge. A lot of this is in the original regulations telling BT and the other networks what they had to do, particularly when BT was trying to block other people having access to the houses. There are a lot of unfairnesses in the legislation, which Ofcom never dealt with properly. I am not sure where it has got to now, but there are lots of little wars going on.
It can be very expensive: it is not just a matter of connecting something to a roadside, as it is in the city. If you are going to be running it half a mile or so, you will find that you can be loaded with enormous costs, and that they want five-year leases and so on. Sometimes, you can tell that the price will be slashed soon, because they suddenly make a big sales pitch, trying to get you to take on a five-year commitment to five grand a year; that is the best sign that they are about to roll it out in a couple of years’ time. So things are not quite as simple as they seem.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, for bringing Amendments 134 and 135 to the attention of the Committee today. These rightly highlight the growing importance of fibre-to-premises broadband and the many benefits that come with high-speed internet connectivity.
In today’s world, where remote working has become increasingly common and where online applications are used to complete everyday tasks such as banking, a fast, reliable internet connection is essential. Applications that require real-time communication, such as Zoom and Microsoft Teams, not to mention watching the odd video, depend on high-speed connectivity to function effectively. For the working day to run smoothly, a strong and stable connection is essential.
We are all familiar with the dreadful “buffer face”, that puzzled expression we adopt as we wait for our devices to respond. What should be a simple task can become an exercise in frustration, all because of poor internet infrastructure. As many noble Lords have mentioned, a large group of people are excluded because of a lack of fast fibre.
Fibre to the premises is a significant step forward. It is far less susceptible to weather-related interference, and it offers future-proof capabilities. We are supportive of ensuring everyone has access to such high-speed broadband, and it is essential if we are to have a successful, dynamic and modern economy.
However, there is a need to consider some of the complications, as the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Cromwell, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, have pointed out. As the noble Earl said, rural broadband is a big issue: while many broadband providers offer contracts with no upfront installation fees, the reality is that some properties require additional work, such as laying new ducts or trenching. For some home owners, this may lead to excess construction charges, which can range from a few hundred to several thousand pounds. How will this be addressed?
While installing in a stand-alone dwelling may be relatively simple, there is the issue of multi-dwelling units such as blocks of flats, which a number of noble Lords have raised. There are significant additional complexities there, such as the potential logistics if every single flat tenant could claim to have their own separate installation; ensuring that the building’s integrity and things such as fire safety are maintained in that building; and the impact on other flat owners and so forth. For multi-dwelling units, this needs to be done on a system basis, working with the owners and the tenants. There is a need to make the process simpler and to ensure landlord engagement.
It is essential that the Government look to address these issues, ensuring that unaffordable costs do not fall unfairly on landlords or tenants and that the complexities of installation in multi-dwelling units are addressed. The Government should actively promote awareness of initiatives that may help to offset these costs and find solutions to complexities. Clear communication and guidance can also help property owners better understand their existing infrastructure and anticipate potential expenses.
The Government should consider how best to promote fast-fibre internet with affordable, practical solutions, looking to address potential costs and to deliver those practical solutions to the more complex multi-dwelling units.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jamieson
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and another to this Clause in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook, probes the Government’s reasons for increasing the notice period for rent increases from one month to two months.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, before I turn to the amendments, I will respond to the Minister’s comment. On this side of the House, we want to see a successful, thriving private rental market which gives everyone the opportunity to have a stable and secure home. However, as we have seen in Scotland, rental reform can have a deleterious impact on the availability of rental homes, and increase pricing. It is our concern that some of the reforms being proposed may harm tenants and the market. It is perfectly reasonable for us to have different views on what the potential reforms may or may not do, but let us be absolutely clear that, on this side of the House, we want successful tenanted private rentals. The Committee should have no doubt about that.
I turn to Amendments 72, 73, 74 and 81 in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook. The group addresses the matter of notice periods. Amendments 72, 73 and 74 are all probing amendments and seek to question the purpose of increasing the notice periods for rent increases and why the retention of one month is not kept. The Government have failed to sufficiently explain why the Bill looks to change the minimum period for notice of a rent increase from one month for assured periodic tenancies, particularly as landlords will now be able to increase rent only once a year, which we support.
In that case, a rent increase could reasonably be anticipated by the tenant. It should also reflect the current market conditions and economic factors such as interest rates, particularly with the increased powers to challenge by the tribunal. Increasing the notice period means that those data points are more out of date. Surely the Government would wish for rent increases that reflect current market and economic conditions, and to reduce the likelihood of tribunals. This change will undoubtedly have significant implications for landlords and the rental market more broadly. On a personal level, many landlords rely on the funds they intend to retrieve from an increase in rent payments to meet loan repayments and other financial obligations.
It is important that all noble Lords consider this change in the wider context of this Bill and the other factors which landlords will have to tackle. Changing notice periods for rent increases is just one obstacle that landlords will have to address. Others include the annual rent increase, which tenants will be able to challenge through First-tier Tribunals, which will subject landlords to greater risk of court backlogs. These changes may result in increased administrative burdens for landlords, brought about by the use of Section 13 notices for rent increases and the two-month notice period.
The ultimate issue with the rental market is one of supply. There are simply not enough homes to meet the demand. We must look not only to incentivise landlords to stay in the market but to encourage new entrants. It is vital that the Government avoid introducing unnecessary measures that create a hostile market.
The proposed changes to the notice period will, with many other new measures, cumulatively create significant consequences for landlords across the country. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government have consulted with landlords on the impact of these measures, and will they publish the findings from this consultation? If not, do they intend to do so? Similarly, will the Minister confirm whether the Government have conducted, or intend to conduct, an impact assessment on the changes to the notice period for rent increases?
Amendment 81, also in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, seeks to question the Government’s reasons for having one-month notice periods for rent increases in the low-cost tenancy sector, despite the fact that those who are not in those tenancies are entitled to two. For clarity, we are not decreeing that it should not be one month; we are asking why there is the difference and seeking to understand the logic behind it. I look to the Minister to explain exactly why someone in a low-cost tenancy would get less notice of a rent increase compared with someone renting in the open market, such as those on assured periodic tenancies. Should not those who are the poorest in our society require greater notice, particularly given the importance of financial planning?
I look forward to the contributions of all noble Lords on this group of amendments and to the Minister providing clarification on the concerns I have raised. I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I rise to conclude our discussion on this group of amendments, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for their comments. The Bill is a complex and far-reaching piece of legislation, and this group has sought to address the issue of notice period for rent increases. I still question in my own mind why low-rent tenants should be treated differently from those in the private rented sector. I appreciate that the Minister has said she will write to us on the various consultations, which addresses some of the issues I have raised. In particular, the point for us is an understanding of the need to go to two months. I also raise the clear understanding of how the whole sector functions and the practical consequences of operating in it, which are some of the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, raised.
Savills, a leading authority in the sector, has warned that these reforms may deter investment in the private rented sector. It raises concerns about increased administrative overhead, reduced flexibility and potential delays to rent adjustments. Similarly, the National Residential Landlords Association has been vocal about the unintended consequences of these measures, warning that more regulation without proportional support risks undermining the viability of the sector. To address the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, raised, it is not an issue of whether a landlord may or may not be able to afford the impact of this. It may be that they decide their investment is better placed elsewhere and they sell the property or do something else with it, therefore making it no longer available to the private rental sector. The issue that we face is whether this will harm the private rental sector.
These are not fringe voices that talk about this. They represent the heart of the industry, the landlords who provide the homes that tenants live in, so I ask the Minister again: what consultation has been undertaken? I appreciate that she will come back to us on this, but will the Government publish those findings? If that consultation has not yet taken place, will the Minister confirm when it will happen and whether it will inform the final shape of the Bill? Furthermore, have the Government conducted a formal impact assessment on the changes to rent notice periods? If so, when will it be made available to the House? If not, how can we legislate in good conscience without seeing the projected outcomes of these?
I return to the broader context, which we must not lose sight of. The fundamental issue facing the rental housing market is one of supply. There are simply not enough homes to meet demand. If we make it more difficult for landlords, particularly smaller ones who make up a significant share of the sector, we risk worsening the very crisis we are trying to address—a situation we have already seen demonstrated in Scotland. We support measures that improve fairness and predictability for tenants. If the outcome of the Bill is a smaller, more risk-averse rental market with fewer homes available at higher rents, we will have failed in our aims.
In closing, I reiterate the importance of these probing amendments. They are not about resisting reform; they are about getting it right. We have asked responsible questions and the Committee deserves answers. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, not only to clarify the Government’s thinking but to offer assurance that these concerns are taken seriously, that evidence will guide policy and that fairness will be applied consistently across the sector. The success of the legislation depends not just on good intentions but on practical deliverability, balanced implementation and trust from those who must operate within it. With that, I withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, this has been a good debate. Rental costs are a serious problem, and we know that the high cost of housing, coupled with other pressures, poses real challenges for hard-working families across the UK. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s English Housing Survey 2022-23 found approximately 1.2 million private rented households reporting it difficult to pay their rent. That represented 29% of private rented households when the survey was conducted. When nearly a third of tenants find it difficult to pay their rent, there is clearly a problem. When we were in government, we took decisive action on the cost pressures faced by hard-working families across the country, and we zeroed in on the most important issue of all for households: inflation. By the time this Government took office, inflation was back below target. However, following the Chancellor’s Budget last year, inflation is, concerningly, now above target.
It is against that backdrop of cost pressures that these amendments have been tabled, and while we do not agree that rent controls are the solution to the problem, we do, however, share the concerns many noble Lords have raised about the cost of renting. As the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, raised in the debate, supply is a fundamental part of the issue. We believe an adequate supply of rented accommodation is the way to address the cost of renting but, as we have warned in previous debates, the Bill risks driving landlords out of the sector and not attracting some of those institutional investors that could make a real difference if the quanta were increased. Decreasing the supply of rented accommodation at a time when demand is already high and rising will lead only to higher rents.
We also know that where rent controls have been tried, they have failed; and even the Minister has previously raised in Committee the impact of rent controls in Scotland, although, to be clear, we believe that rent controls are just part of the problem in Scotland. The SNP’s failed experiment with unbalanced renters’ reforms and rent controls in Scotland is a case worth dwelling on; there we have seen stifled supply and higher rents. That said, the Government must address the serious concerns raised by noble Lords across the Committee and listen to those tenants who are struggling with the cost of renting.
Last month, the Lord Chancellor warned that despite further court sitting days being announced by the Ministry of Justice, the sad reality is that the backlog of cases will still go up. It is right that we ask questions about the additional burdens that Clause 8 will place on our already overloaded courts and tribunal system. Can the Minister confirm what additional resources will be provided to the appropriate tribunals, so they have the means to cope with the increased number of cases brought before them under Clause 8?
Amendments 76 and 77 seek to introduce a cap on the increases in rent that can be brought forward by landlords, and we will listen carefully to the Minister’s response to those proposals. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, has put her opposition to rent controls on the record, saying that they
“restrict housing supply, which does not help anyone”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/10/24; col. 335.]
We agree with the Government that restricting housing supply does not help anyone. Ministers should listen carefully to the concerns we have raised throughout the debates on the Bill.
Amendment 275, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, would deliver an entirely separate body to set rules for rent increases. Leaving aside the fact that the noble Baroness’s amendment fails to provide parliamentary oversight, or that there are no clear objectives for the set of rules set by the independent living rent body which she is seeking to establish, and the lack of clarity on the governance of the proposed body, we do not feel that establishing what is, in effect, an additional regulator is the right approach. Our rental sector is already subject to heavy regulation and the Bill places additional burdens on the sector. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, we do not wish to strangle the market. For that reason, I am afraid we cannot support this even more onerous measure which the noble Baroness is proposing.
Amendments 79, 84 and 85, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, are perhaps the most pragmatic of the amendments in this group, and I understand why he has tabled them. We will listen carefully to the Government’s response to his amendments and continue to work on this part of the Bill before we proceed to Report. It seems clear to us that now is not the time to impose additional burdens on our tribunals—when, by the Government’s own admission, backlogs are already rising. Ministers need to take a long, hard look at this part of the Bill, if we are to deliver a Bill that strikes the right balance on the rights of tenants and landlords without adding to the growing backlog and without discouraging investment in the sector. There are serious questions for Ministers to answer in all these areas, and we look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply to this group.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am very grateful to all noble Lords. I agree that this is a very important group, and I was sorry to see other noble Lords leaving the Chamber, because this was a very important discussion.
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Janke and Lady Jones, and the noble Lords, Lord Hacking and Lord Best, for their amendments, and thank all noble Lords who have spoken: the noble Lords, Lord Thurlow, Lord Marlesford, Lord Jamieson and Lord Young, the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, to whose letter I have replied. It is in the post, so I have signed it off, and the noble Earl should receive it shortly.
As I have stated previously, and I am going to restate it, and the Deputy Prime Minister, as the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said, has been very clear about this, our Government do not support rent controls. We have considered rent regulation within the broader context of the private rented sector, and we do not believe that limiting rents in this way leads to positive outcomes. Evidence suggests that so-called first- and second-generation rent controls may disadvantage tenants as well as landlords. They can have a long-term negative impact on housing supply and discourage investment in the sector, leading to declining property standards. Subtler forms of rent control—second- or third-generation rent controls—have differential impacts on different groups, typically benefiting settled and better-off tenants more than those looking for a home or needing to move.
Academic studies from countries such as Sweden and Germany, and from places such as San Francisco and Ontario, show that rent controls can limit supply, discourage investment and lead to declining property standards. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to early attempts at rent controls and their impact on supply. We simply think that the answer to this is supply generally, and supply of social and affordable housing in particular, rather than putting controls on rents.
The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, was right to say that my interactions with the financial sector indicate that institutional finance is available for rental property. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has spoken about build to rent very powerfully; the finance is there for that. That has the potential to drive the supply that will stabilise rents over time. That is why we do not want to introduce rent controls.
I will start with my noble friend Lord Hacking’s amendments—perhaps he could ask the two tenants to whom he referred to come up with a solution to the Arctic temperature in your Lordships’ Chamber this afternoon. The weather forecasts of a heatwave have been grossly exaggerated in this part of London. On Amendment 76, the Bill as presented to the Committee today seeks to remove the ability of landlords to place rent review clauses in tenancy agreements. The effect of the amendment tabled by my noble friend would be to reintroduce into the Bill a measure allowing landlords to make use of such a clause. To be specific, Amendment 76 would amend Clause 7 to allow for rent review clauses linking rent increases to inflation to be included in tenancy agreements so long as such an increase fell between 3% and 8%. Rent increases made under a rent review clause cannot be challenged at the tribunal. As such, the approach put forward by my noble friend Lord Hacking risks a significant reduction in the protection for tenants, who may not understand the effects of the rent review clause and could have limited power to negotiate these even if clearly articulated. It is likely that the use of such clauses would become standard, in effect taking us back to the status quo, where the protection the tribunal offers is available only to a small number of tenancies.
Furthermore, if the use of standardised rent review clauses became commonplace, there is a risk that this would, in effect, result in a system of de facto rent control. I will not repeat again our position on rent control, but it is worth while, if the Committee will allow me, to elaborate further on why any attempt to use a single metric for calculating rent increases risks unintended consequences. The danger of such an approach is that arbitrary increases prescribed in tenancy agreements could artificially inflate the rent for some locations. For example, in Leeds, rents increased by 2% between January 2024 and January 2025, whereas in Oxford, rents increased by 12% in the same period. CPI for this 12-month period was 3%. The measures contained within the amendment would therefore likely have led to rent increases in Leeds above the market rate, to the detriment of tenants there, and the controlling of rents in Oxford, with all the associated wider issues which we have already discussed. Therefore, I am sure my noble friend can understand why the Government cannot accept an amendment which would remove the right of tenants to appeal rent increases above market rate, risk some tenants being trapped in above-market-rate rent rises, and risk the implementation of de facto rent controls.
Turning to Amendments 79, 84 and 85, I join others in commending the noble Lord, Lord Best, for the clarity of his explanation and for all the work he has done as chair of the Affordable Housing Commission. This is vital work, and I sincerely understand the motivation behind his amendments: that these would limit annual rent increases during the first four years of a tenancy to a percentage calculated by reference to CPI or median national earnings over a three-year period—the noble Lord articulated his amendments much clearly than I could. If either of those things happened, a challenge to the tribunal by the tenant would not be possible.
The first of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Best, Amendment 79, would introduce measures into Clause 7 of the Bill which, as I have just set out, would separate the setting of rents from the market rate. As such, the amendment would introduce a form of rent control, and I have already explained our position in the Government towards rent control. The regulation of rents in the form proposed by the noble Lord could have a long-term negative impact on housing supply, discourage investment and lead to declining property standards.
In fact, the introduction of an in-tenancy rent control would create the risk of tenants in this country experiencing what has been seen in Ontario in Canada, where a similar form of regulation has limited the amount by which rents could increase each year for existing tenancies. For example, rental price growth in 2023 was capped at 2.5%, based on the Ontario consumer price index. Analysis suggests that the result of this measure has been higher rents for new tenants, with the impact felt by more mobile groups such as younger people, who are often new arrivals to the rental market. There is also evidence from Ontario that landlords have sought to evict tenants so that controlled rents can be reset at the market level. The risk, therefore, of causing unintended harm to tenants as well as landlords is too large for our Government to accept, even in an amendment as well-intentioned, as I know it is, as that put forward today by the noble Lord, Lord Best. Instead, as the Committee is already aware, our approach is to allow landlords to increase rents annually to the market rate, which represents a strengthening of rent regulation in the broader context of the entire system, including security of tenure, better enforcement and quality standards.
Lord Jamieson
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow a person to mutually agree a tenancy with a landlord which requires them to pay up to six months of rent in advance.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the group of amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott, relating to payments of rent in advance. The payment of rent in advance can provide a number of significant benefits to tenants. These go beyond avoiding late fees and the demonstration of financial security. Tenants may wish to pay rent in advance for financial planning or even to avoid the worry of monthly payments. Amendments 108, 109, 110, 112, 113 and 114 recognise and affirm the legitimate choice of a tenant to pay rent in advance. I emphasise that this is rooted firmly in mutual agreement. If a tenant does not wish to pay in advance, they are under no obligation to do so, but if a tenant chooses to take this step, if they believe it is in their personal best interest, why should we stand in their way? If a tenant makes a judgment on the basis of their financial circumstances that this is in their best interest, why should it be for the Minister to say, “No, the Government know best”? If a tenant believes their ability to pay may be inhibited by a financial burden coming down the track, they could legitimately plan for the payment now. But, regardless of the reason or even the need, if there is mutual agreement, what is the problem?
I turn to the impact of this on two groups who will be particularly impacted by this change: overseas students and those with poor credit ratings. Tenants with a poor credit rating history will inevitably appear risky—this may be through no fault of their own; they may just not have a rating history—and often this risk is too insurmountable to ignore. By paying up front, tenants can demonstrate responsibility and ultimately improve their chances of securing a rental agreement and the security of a home. In many cases, this proactive step, choosing to pay in advance, is the only practical means by which tenants can build trust, enhance their credibility and demonstrate financial reliability. Will the Minister please set out the impact of this change on those with a less than optimal credit history?
Next, I wish to address the issue of overseas students with no local credit history. The Committee will know that the UK credit rating agencies do not hold information about a person’s financial affairs outside the country, or any foreign credit reports. Therefore, overseas students often require a UK-based guarantor to cover potential property damage or unpaid bills. Where this is not possible, payment in advance can be a solution, and payments are often made for the entire term, or even the entire academic year. Will the Minister set out the expected impact of this change on overseas students, and the number we anticipate losing due to difficulties in securing student accommodation? Alternatively, does she believe that landlords will still have a sufficient incentive to house overseas students, despite their limited credit history? Will she outline what steps the Government are taking to strengthen the enforcement around credit arrears where overseas students are unable to pay? Current mechanisms are often weak, but it is an issue that is far less prevalent when payment is made up front.
I also want to highlight the plight of some of the most vulnerable, where councils have a duty of homelessness prevention. Councils often work with landlords and tenants, offering advanced rental payments, larger deposits and guarantees, which would be hampered by these proposals. Are councils to be banned from paying rent in advance to support some of the most vulnerable in our society? As has been raised earlier, the Home Office plans to offer landlords five-year tenancies to house asylum seekers. Will this involve rent being paid more than one month in advance? I invite the Minister to explain and I appreciate that she has offered to write to noble Lords regarding this. I look forward to that, and to any additional information that she is able to provide.
Finally, I draw the Committee’s attention to Amendment 117 in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott. This amendment requires Ministers to ensure that changes being made to the Tenant Fees Act 2019 are clearly communicated to tenants, letting agents and landlords. These changes involve fines of up to £5,000 for new offences and it is essential that landlords and letting agencies are aware of their new responsibilities. We regard this as a technical but important amendment and I hope that the Minister will see it as a practical and necessary change that can be accepted. This group will consider whether mutually agreed or tenant-requested payment of rent in advance should be permitted to continue. On these Benches, we are clear that it should. Mutual agreement can foster a more stable housing situation, one that recognises the unique benefits that rent in advance may offer certain groups of tenants in securing a home. I hope that the Minister will take note.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I entirely support the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, in his submissions just now. My Amendments 115 and 116 deal with the same problem but from a different perspective.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson, Lord Truscott and Lord Hacking, for their amendments in relation to rent in advance, and the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for commenting on these amendments.
Taken together, Amendments 108 to 110 and 112 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would allow landlords or agents to charge rent in advance when this has been mutually agreed with the tenants in a tenancy agreement. This Government are clear that the practice of landlords or agents charging rent in advance is unfair. Many of us will have heard the stories, many of them of requests for large amounts of rent in advance that have pushed families into financial hardship or locked some out of the sector completely. In other cases, unscrupulous landlords use rent in advance to pit prospective tenants against each other and create these dreadful bidding wars to help people secure a property. That is why the Bill will prohibit a landlord or letting agent requiring or accepting any payment of rent before a tenancy has been entered into. In addition, a landlord will be able to require only up to one month’s rent in advance in the window between a tenancy being entered into and that tenancy beginning.
I want to be crystal clear on this point: once a tenancy has begun, tenants will remain free to pay their rent prior to the agreed due date should they wish to do so, although landlords will not be able to require this and any attempt to require it will be challengeable by the tenant.
Amendment 108 would allow landlords to include terms in a tenancy agreement that require rent in advance to be paid up to six months before it is due. It is the view of the Government that this amendment would fail to protect tenants from exploitative rent in advance practices. Landlords, being able to require up to six months’ rent in advance when this is agreed in a tenancy agreement, could, in a market where properties are hotly contested, push tenants into agreements that stretch their finances to breaking point to secure a tenancy.
Amendment 109 would limit rent in advance to four months when agreed in a tenancy agreement. This has the same effect, with the potential for tenants in hotly contested markets to feel compelled to agree to terms that require significant financial outlay. Even the limit of two months, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, proposes in Amendment 110, in our view does not go far enough to protect tenants. In a scenario where a landlord can request two months’ rent in advance, this is still a significant financial expectation of a tenant. Given that the tenant will also likely be required to pay a five-week tenancy deposit, they could face being asked to stump up more than three months’ rent to access a property.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I would just like clarification for my understanding. It has been made clear by a number of noble Lords that our concern is that some of the most vulnerable would be able to even up the playing field by providing rent in advance. I understand what the Minister is saying, but that competition, in a competitive market where there is a shortage of supply, risks excluding some of the most vulnerable. I am keen to hear how the Minister will address that.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am coming on to the impact on vulnerable tenants, but it makes tenants far more vulnerable where they are being pushed to take on financial commitments well beyond their means just to get access to a tenancy in the first place.
In effect, Amendment 112 would enable some unscrupulous landlords to continue to pit tenants against each other in de facto bidding wars. In this circumstance, tenants under pressure to secure a property could face being required to offer in writing even greater sums of rent in advance.
Any one of these amendments could allow landlords at the pre-letting stage to insist upon a term in the tenancy agreement which permits rent in advance. This would leave tenants with a potentially impossible choice of stretching their finances to the limit or facing homelessness.
I would like to address the concerns of some in the Committee that those landlords who rely on rent in advance could find themselves left out of the market. We are clear that landlords are free to undertake the referencing and affordability checks necessary to give both the landlord and the tenant the confidence that a tenancy is sustainable.
The noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord de Clifford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, mentioned foreign students. If landlords are not satisfied with the outcome of pre-tenancy checks, there remain a number of options available, including requiring a tenant to provide a guarantor or the use of professional guarantor products. If the tenant is unable to provide a UK-basedguarantor—I accept that that may be the case for international students—alternative options could be available, such as professional guarantor services.
We are committed to robustly monitoring and evaluating the impact of our reforms. We retain powers to amend these measures should the evidence arise that they are having a significant impact on a particular group. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, mentioned self-employed people and those on limited-income pensions. We maintain the powers to amend, should we need to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, raised a point about local authorities. Some local authorities are very proactive. The reason they take on this role is to prevent homelessness, and they recognise the benefit to families and individuals of not having to go into temporary and emergency accommodation. In addition, it can reduce the cost to the local authority if it does not have to find that family temporary and emergency accommodation, so it will take on that role.
The power gives the Secretary of State the flexibility to adapt the constraints on rent in advance to respond to a changing private rented sector. Changes in the balance of supply and demand within the private rented sector—driven, for example, by our commitment to building 1.5 million homes over this Parliament—may change the extent to which affordability is a barrier for prospective tenants entering the sector. In this scenario, the Government may consider it appropriate to make changes to the constraints on rent in advance. Equally, changes in the market could be driven by currently unanticipated future legislative changes, such as the introduction of new types of tenancies. In this scenario, the power would allow the Secretary of State to maintain the application of these measures to the intended cohorts of landlords and tenants.
The introduction of the power therefore provides the Government, or any future Government, with the ability to make sure rent in advance measures continue to apply as intended in the face of any changes within the private rented sector. However, I reassure the Committee that regulations made under the power will be subject to the affirmative procedure, which will ensure that there is appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of any changes.
Amendment 117, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would introduce the legal requirement for the Secretary of State to communicate to tenants, letting agents and landlords the changes made by the Renters’ Rights Bill to the Tenant Fees Act 2019, which prohibits certain payments of rent in advance. I know the Committee will share my view that the successful implementation of the Renter’ Rights Bill is firmly rooted in how widely its provisions are known and understood. I reassure the Committee that the Government are committed to raising awareness of the full range of Renters’ Rights Bill reforms across the private rented sector.
This amendment would require the Government to make stakeholders aware of one aspect of our rent in advance policy, which is given effect by amendments to the Tenant Fees Act—namely, the prohibition on landlords inviting, encouraging or accepting a payment of rent in advance before the tenancy agreement is signed by both the landlord and the tenant. However, it would not oblige the Government to communicate the details of the rest of the rent in advance policy.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I would just reiterate the comments I made to my noble friend that, having undertaken a tenancy, gone through the process of vetting and paid the deposit and the holding deposit, it will be a very rare case where the tenant proceeds not to pay their first month’s rent.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, I just want to follow up on the question I raised regarding the Home Office’s plans to offer landlords five-year tenancies and ask whether the Minister can confirm whether there will or will not be more than one month’s rent in advance?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I did respond earlier to the points in relation to the Home Office position. Because it is the work of another department, it would be best, as I said earlier, if I clarify the situation in relation to the Home Office’s proposals and come back to noble Lords on that. It involves the contract between the Home Office and Serco and I do not want to comment on it without knowing the facts from the Home Office. So, I will come back to the noble Lord on that point.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I rise to close this group of amendments. It has been an excellent debate and I thank all noble Lords who have provided contributions to this debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has demonstrated the case for his amendments. I thank him for the support he has given to our amendments, and I certainly support the intention of his amendments. We also share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, that the Bill will potentially exclude thousands of tenants from the rental market. The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, raised the issue of the difficulties of getting guarantors, particularly if you are an overseas student.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and others who raised the issue that there are 20 people seeking every tenancy and you cannot blame the landlord for seeking the most stable and secure tenant for their property, with the risk, as I said earlier, that the most vulnerable will lose out. We believe that this will have a negative impact on tenants who might otherwise struggle to find a tenancy. Amendments 108, 109 and 110 provide three options for how much rent could be paid in advance with the mutual agreement of the renter and the landlord. Amendment 114 would allow rent in advance at the discretion of the tenant.
The Minister has raised the prospect of guarantors and, for those people who are not able to provide a personal guarantor, using guarantor services. Many people who have used these services will well know that these can be substantially expensive, and frequently far more expensive and onerous than paying rent in advance. Therefore, it seems only logical that one should offer that option.
The Minister has rejected all three options and has not proposed an alternative. It is disappointing to see such a lack of engagement with these amendments when they are likely to have a negative impact on both international students and those with poor credit scores. This clause reduces their ability to prove their financial responsibility and, as such, reduces their likelihood of finding suitable rental property—and, as I highlighted earlier, reduces the ability of councils to secure accommodation for some of the most vulnerable in their communities.
We raised the issue of the five-year tenancies that the Home Office is using, and I am glad the Minister will come back to us. I look forward to being assured that there is no differential treatment of landlords and tenants depending on which part of government is dealing with them.
This clause removes a tenant’s ability to prove their financial responsibility. If a tenant and landlord agree to pay rent in advance, why are the Government standing in the way? I urge the Minister to consider these amendments. Noble Lords across the House have raised genuine and real concerns with this clause. Although we all want to see a better deal for tenants, removing their autonomy to pay in advance is not the best way to go about this. I hope that the Minister will consider this before the next stages of the Bill.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I do not want to delay proceedings, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, might not agree with me, but I did fully answer the question of why we consider that payment of rent in advance, even when agreed between two parties, can have a serious effect on other tenants in the rental market who are not able to make those very large payments in advance. He may not agree with me on that, but I did respond to the point.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who made a powerful case and highlighted the unique circumstances of shared ownership owners. These amendments address the specific and pressing concerns faced by shared ownership leaseholders under this Bill, and we believe that they would help ensure that this group is treated with fairness and clarity.
Shared ownership has proved to be a valuable tenure, enabling many individuals and families to take their first step on the housing ladder. However, as has been highlighted, there are circumstances where shared ownership owners find themselves trapped, and we do not want them to be disadvantaged by this Bill and face unforeseen consequences. They are subletting not out of a desire but out of necessity
To avoid repetition, I will speak to the amendments together in a way that highlights their collective aim of protecting shared ownership leaseholders, who often have limited means. Clearly, they speak to the potential unintended consequences of the Bill and the repercussions of fire safety.
Amendments 19 and 20 focus on the impact that Clauses 1 and 2 will have on shared ownership leaseholders, particularly those who rent out their properties under licences. The amendments seek to provide clarity on how these leaseholders will be affected by the proposed regulations, ensuring that their unique circumstances are properly considered. In particular, Amendment 20, which defines “shared ownership lease” by reference to Section 13 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, would be an important step towards eliminating any ambiguity in the application of the legislation to this group.
Amendment 107 addresses a significant practical issue: many shared ownership leaseholders face restrictions in their lease agreements that prevent them profiting from subletting. In some cases, they are not even permitted to increase rent during a subletting arrangement, regardless of market conditions. This amendment seeks to ensure that leaseholders in these circumstances are not unfairly burdened by rules that were never designed with their situation in mind.
Birmingham: Waste Collection
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a Central Bedfordshire councillor. It is quite extraordinary that this issue that is blighting the lives of so many in Birmingham continues. Residents have been suffering with piles of rubbish and legions of rats. Birmingham’s own risk assessment highlights the potential health risks. Yet still the Government and the local Labour council have failed to sort out the problem.
We must look not just at this but at the future and ask what is being done to prevent this recurring. With reorganisation under way and councils across England now beginning to merge, there is a very real risk that duplication of roles and inconsistencies of pay for similar work will result in tension, resentment and industrial unrest. That scenario could easily become another Birmingham.
What specific plans are the Government putting in place to ensure that these local government changes do not give rise to further damaging disputes? In light of this, will the Government now commit to retaining the strikes minimum service levels from the 2023 Act rather than enhancing union powers?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, Members across the House will be aware of the continuing disruption caused by this industrial action in Birmingham. The people of Birmingham sit at the heart of our determination to see this strike resolved as quickly as possible. I thank Councillor Cotton for speaking with me last week and for providing me with an up-to-date briefing this morning. The work has already begun on clearing up the backlog of street waste, and the council confirmed yesterday that that backlog has now been cleared. It continues to monitor and keep on top of it, and all households are now getting at least one bin collection a week.
Birmingham faces a specific set of circumstances, and no evidence has been put forward that this issue will spread to other cities. According to the National Audit Office, Birmingham saw a 53% decrease in government-funded spending power between 2010 and 2020. We ought to see some sign of recognition of the party opposite’s role in causing the problems that Birmingham has been facing.
The bureaucratic hurdles of the Trade Union Act do not and have not prevented strikes. Our Employment Rights Bill looks to Britain’s future. It is a pro-worker, pro-business and pro-growth Bill and will create an industrial relations framework fit for a modern economy.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I was expecting a slightly longer debate this time, as we have been proceeding slightly more slowly than the other day. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for bringing this debate on notice periods for intermediate landlords. Intermediate landlords make the rental market more flexible and accessible, precisely the kind of benefits we should be seeking to expand, yet the Bill now risks removing them. These landlords play a vital role in our housing system. They unlock additional housing options by turning single lets into shared accommodation. They offer more affordable arrangements and provide the flexibility that is so essential in urban and rural areas closely tied to the job market. It is therefore vital that any legislation we pass recognises their contribution and protects the value they bring to the sector. In the previous debate, many noble Lords talked about the red-hot market and the lack of housing. I genuinely worry about the risk of reducing the amount of housing.
On that note, I turn specifically to the amendments before us in this group and thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for giving us such an erudite summation of a rather technical area, which I could not and do not wish to replicate, and therefore I shall move on swiftly. These amendments will certainly assist the Committee in considering how best to address this issue. Protecting small-scale renters should be the priority for us all. I hope to work constructively across the Committee to ensure that we get this right. From housing associations to charities and small local businesses providing accommodation, intermediate landlords are vital to the supply on which a secure, reasonably priced and decent rental sector depends.
Amendments 37 and 38 apply explicitly to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 and the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1985. These tenancies by their nature can be very long indeed, even multigenerational. The tenanted property can include farmhouses and cottages, which could be occupied either by agricultural employees or open market tenants, depending on the terms of the superior tenancy. While in some cases they may have fixed termination dates, in other cases these tenancies could be brought to an end unexpectedly with a short timescale. It is right that these intermediate landlords should have the power to terminate subsidiary tenancies in a shorter timeframe in order to deliver the property back to the superior landlord in compliance with the superior tenancy agreement. Otherwise, the risk is that they may choose not to let such properties. There are many such tenancies already in place that will not and could not have anticipated this Renters’ Rights Bill. Intermediate tenants could well be put in a position of being in breach of their own tenancies, with negative financial implications.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for the amendments and for the meeting we had yesterday, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his comments on this set of amendments. Amendment 28 works together with Amendments 29, 37 and 38 to insert a new ground for possession, numbered 2ZZA. This proposed ground for possession is well intentioned but, in the Government’s view, unnecessary. It seeks to replicate ground 2ZA with a notice period of two months rather than four in the limited circumstances where agricultural landlords have been given short notice to vacate of three months or less by their superior landlord. Ground 2ZA already covers these circumstances and allows superior landlords and courts to treat a notice given under ground 2ZA as valid even after the intermediate landlord is no longer legally involved once their lease has ended, thus providing the affected tenant with the same protection.
Amendment 28 specifically seeks to ensure that the proposed ground has two months’ notice. This goes against the general principle of the Bill that tenants should generally be given four months’ notice to uproot their lives in circumstances where they have not committed any wrongdoing. We do not believe that a tenant’s security of tenure should be undermined due to the actions of a superior landlord and encourage communication between all parties, where a superior landlord’s notice to the intermediate landlord is shorter. By creating ground 2ZZA with a shorter notice period for circumstances where the intermediate agricultural landlord has themself been given short notice by their superior landlord, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is seeking to ensure that the superior landlord is not left managing the subtenancy.
Amendment 29 adds ground 2ZZA to the list, in subsection 4(3)(f) of the Bill, in which a notice given by an intermediate landlord can be treated as a notice given by a superior landlord once the intermediate tenancy has ended. As superior landlords will already be able to evict tenants under a notice given by an intermediate landlord, we do not think the noble Lord’s proposed ground 2ZZA is required.
Amendment 37 is an amendment specifically to ground 2ZA, disapplying it in the circumstances in which the noble Lord wishes ground 2ZZA to apply. Further to what I have already said, this highlights the redundancy of the proposed ground 2ZZA. Clearly, ground 2ZA would apply already, to the point that it needs to be disapplied to make proposed ground 2ZZA work. I am sorry—I hope everyone is following this.
Amendment 38 inserts the proposed ground into Schedule 1 to the Bill. For all the reasons I have already highlighted, in our view the amendment is not required. As such, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for speaking prematurely. I speak as someone—I should declare this interest—who has a small farm, as I said earlier, which is very small in comparison with those of some of the noble Lords who have spoken. However, I have seen at first hand some of the problems that have been described. In particular, I remember one old lady who carried on in a house where she simply was not able to manage the property and its upkeep. What I think the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Lord opposite are suggesting would help to avoid very painful, costly legal cases where people have to try and get somebody out, which causes enormous bad feeling and cost.
I am in favour of this amendment and would have been in favour of previous ones because I think in farming at the moment the difficulties that landlords face are so immense—I will not go through them all now—that the ability to keep a farm going, which is the interests of tenants and future tenants, is prejudiced if they cannot get back suitable accommodation. I completely understand the desire, which I am sure the Government have, to offer security to tenants. In fact, that is an extremely important part of the fabric of our society, but we have moved on in some ways and what has happened in farming and what I have observed around me in mid-Wales is that there is a need to be able to get back certain properties to bring in younger people to farm.
I broadly support these amendments and suggest to the Government, with great respect, that if there is any way that they can move to accommodate them, I would very much support them.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for moving this amendment and again he has given an excellent technical explanation of the need for it. I shall not try and repeat it, in the certain knowledge that I would not give as good an explanation. It recognises the enduring statutory duties placed on certain landlords to house former employees. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, who have further explained and emphasised the issues and why this amendment is necessary.
Many of these tenants are retired agricultural workers who have given years, sometimes decades, of service and who now occupy homes with lifetime security of tenure. As such, landlords—often small family-run farming businesses—continue to shoulder a statutory duty to provide housing, even after the employment relationship has finished. This is not merely a moral obligation; it is a legal one that increasingly runs into practical difficulty.
The housing needs of retired employees can evolve over time. A once necessary dwelling may no longer be suitable, as has been mentioned, due to age, health, or changes in family circumstances and numbers. At the same time, that same property may now be needed to house a current employee whose work is essential to the functioning of the farm. Yet under the current drafting of the renters reform Bill, landlords cannot regain possession of that alternative accommodation in order to fulfil their continuing statutory duty. Amendment 65 corrects that oversight. It provides for a narrow, targeted new ground for possession applicable only when the landlord is required to rehouse a protected tenant or their successor, and only when suitable alternative accommodation is required for that purpose.
This is not about weakening tenant protections or finding a loophole—far from it. This is about balance, ensuring that landlords who remain bound by statutory obligations are able to meet them in practice. Without this amendment we risk trapping landlords in a legal Catch-22, where they are legally required to provide suitable housing but legally prevented from doing so. Importantly, they will be able to provide accommodation to retired employees who may have given many years of service and who deserve secure accommodation in their retirement, without the risk of breaking the law or leaving accommodation empty in expectation of its use later.
This amendment does not open a back door to wider evictions; it simply ensures the fair and functional operation of existing, long-established housing duties. It is balanced, proportionate and essential to upholding the very laws that protect these tenants.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, once again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his amendment which would create a new ground for possession, and thank the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, and the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley of Knighton and Lord Jamieson, for their contributions to this debate. This ground would enable a landlord to seek possession of a tenanted property in order to re-let the property to a person to whom they have a lifetime duty under the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 or the Housing Act 1988.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his collaborative engagement on this matter and for helping me through his reasoning for the amendment, both in our meeting and his clear explanation in this Chamber. However, our position towards this amendment remains the same. It would go against the general principle of increasing security of tenure for assured tenants that is consistent throughout the Bill.
We do not agree that there is a compelling reason that this particular group of agricultural tenants need to be housed in specific dwellings at the expense of existing assured tenants. Where a landlord has a statutory duty to house an agricultural tenant or their successor, in many cases landlords will be able to move tenants as and when suitable properties become available. Landlords can also use the existing discretionary suitable alternative accommodation ground 9, which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, mentioned, to move an assured tenant to another property if needed.
The noble Earl, Lord Leicester, referred to the issue of underoccupation, which all landlords face. I certainly faced it as a social landlord when I was a council leader; it is not unique to farming. The idea that mandatory eviction is the answer to this, rather than incentivising people to move on from underoccupied properties, would be a completely new area of legislation to be considered and would be out of scope of this Bill.
The new ground would mean that an existing assured tenant could be evicted through no fault of their own, simply moving the problem around and creating insecurity for tenants. As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, this is similar to the issue we discussed on Tuesday in relation to retired clergy. I understand the distinction that the noble Lord made in relation to the statutory duty, but it is not for a specific property. The issue of just moving the problem around is the same. As such, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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 Jamieson
(1A) During a fixed term tenancy agreed under subsection (1), the landlord shall not be entitled to increase the rent as provided for by section 15.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow fixed term tenancies to continue if both the landlord and the tenant agree.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 9, in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott, I will speak also to Amendment 13, in my name and that of my noble friend. These amendments are grounded in a very simple but important principle: when landlords and tenants reach mutual agreement they should be trusted to make arrangements that reflect their individual needs and circumstances. This debate is not about fixed-term tenancies for their own sake; it is about preserving the ability of landlords and tenants to enter into legitimate, mutually agreed contracts that reflect flexibility and choice. If both parties are in agreement, there should be a legal mechanism to support such tenancies.
Amendments 9 and 13 introduce a degree of flexibility into the framework of the Bill, without in any way undermining its core objectives to enhance tenant security and stability in the rental market. Without these amendments the Bill risks reducing the security of tenants. Amendment 9, tabled by my noble friend and supported by noble Lords across the House, would allow fixed-term tenancies to continue, but only where both the landlord and tenant have freely and mutually agreed to such an arrangement.
The Renters’ Rights Bill seeks to strengthen the position of tenants in the rental market. I support these aims but, in our efforts to provide stronger protections, we must also ensure that we do not inadvertently remove tools and options that serve tenants well, particularly where those arrangements are entered into voluntarily and in good faith. Under this proposal the landlord would agree to suspend certain grounds for possession and refrain from rent increases during the fixed term. It strikes a careful and fair balance, giving tenants greater security and predictability while allowing landlords to plan ahead with confidence.
Amendment 13 in my name would ensure that landlords and tenants retain the ability to vary terms of the tenancy by agreement. This is a modest but important provision ensuring that necessary flexibility is not lost under what would otherwise become a rigid and inflexible structure. We cannot predict the future and need to allow scope to enable a tenant and a landlord to mutually agree changes to their agreement to reflect this; for instance, where they both wish to see modifications to the property or to enable a temporary subletting where a tenant is going to be away for a time.
Beyond the immediate relationship between landlord and tenant, this also speaks to something bigger. A modern, dynamic workforce depends on geographic mobility. Working-age adults must be able to move for the opportunity, whether it is a job, an academic course or to support a family. Scrapping the option of a mutually agreed fixed-term tenancy risks restricting that movement and, in turn, limits potential.
We believe that flexibility drives productivity. The economy cannot flourish if people are locked out of areas of opportunity simply because the housing arrangements no longer accommodate short-term needs. This is not just about following a job, it is about making it possible to succeed, wherever life takes you. When we support mobility through flexible, fair rental agreements, we open the door to a future where success is not defined by the postcode of your birth but by your ambition, determination and ability to seize opportunity.
These amendments do not seek to weaken tenant protections—quite the opposite. They create opportunities for tenants to request greater security and encourage landlords to provide it willingly and transparently. In a rental market as diverse and complex as ours, this kind of voluntary flexibility is not just welcome, it is essential. If the Bill is to be a true Renters’ Rights Bill, it must include the right to choose through mutual agreement the housing arrangements that best work for each individual and their family. That is what these amendments seek to enable, and I hope the Minister will give them careful and serious consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my direct interest in the private rented sector with lettings in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire. I am pleased to support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lords, Lord Truscott and Lord Jackson, and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, on her damascene conversion following the previous Renters (Reform) Bill. I hope we will achieve the same with the current Minister. I will not repeat their well-argued points in favour of the amendment but will make the following additional points and reiterations.
I approach the PRS from a rural background, where the average length of a tenancy is around seven years. There is little churn, in view of the long-term nature of the accommodation in rural areas. As a result, assured shorthold and fixed-term tenancies are popular. This is somewhat different from the urban PRS to which this Bill is largely directed. I cannot understand why the Government would object to the continuation of the freedom to contract for a fixed term if both parties agree, particularly as it provides flexibility and certainty to both. The landlord gets his guaranteed rent and the tenant can negotiate additional conditions such no rent reviews for a certain period, improvements and security for the term.
In Germany there are two types of tenancy: indefinite and fixed-term. Fixed-term tenancies have move-in and move-out clauses and neither party is obliged to renew. Minimum rental periods in Germany, whether indefinite or fixed, can be up to two years. The German system shows that the assured and fixed-term tenancies can work well together. The ability to contract for a fixed term also has the effect of reducing rental pressure in the overall market as longer-term tenancies act as a natural brake on rising rental costs as there are fewer opportunities to increase the rent.
Another major advantage of retaining fixed-term tenancies is that it gives confidence to buy-to-let lenders and to institutional investors, because mortgage payments are more secure, as is the financial return to the institutional investor. These are the types of landlord we should now be encouraging if the PRS is to grow and the problems of bad individual landlords are to be minimised, because they tend to employ professional management and to produce a better product. I urge the Government to look again at this matter.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for moving the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and I thank the noble Lords, Lord Carrington, Lord Jackson and Lord Truscott, for their thoughtful interventions in this debate.
Amendment 9 would retain fixed terms in the future assured tenancy system. Landlords and tenants would be able to agree to include a fixed term in tenancy agreements under which the landlord could not use the grounds for selling, occupation or redevelopment or increase the rent during the fixed period. Amendment 13 would remove the restriction on varying or adding new tenancy terms covering fixed terms or rent periods. I have already set out today why the Government will not accept amendments that would reintroduce fixed terms. I hate to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on the Damascene conversion front, but that is not for me today. Allowing the option of fixed terms only creates the illusion of choice for tenants. In an oversubscribed market, tenants often feel they must sign what is required of them by landlords.
The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, referred to groupthink, with reference to fixed-term tenancies and the purpose of the Bill. I prefer to refer to democracy. We set out an intention in relation to renters’ rights and received a strong electoral mandate for that, which we are now putting in place. So it is not groupthink; it is a democratic mandate that we have to deliver what we have set out in the Bill.
Fixed terms do not place equal requirements on both parties. In reality, landlords retain the ability to end the tenancy when the tenant is at fault, but tenants cannot leave the tenancy for any reason, even if the property is not safe to live in.
The amendments would also create a legal ambiguity about what new contractual terms could cover. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, raised the issues of rural tenancies—I know we will return to that in future groups—and investors, on which I have already commented so I will not repeat my comments around that. For the reasons that I have set out here and in previous debates, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the thoughtful contributions made by my noble friend Lord Jackson and the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Truscott, and for the response from the Minister.
What has emerged from this discussion is a shared recognition that flexibility and tenant protection need not be opposing forces. That is a view held not just within this Chamber; across the housing sector, there is broad concern that eliminating the ability for landlords and tenants to enter fixed-term agreements by mutual consent risks overlooking the real-world complexities of today’s rental market. Propertymark has warned that fixed-term tenancies—when agreed freely—offer tenants a sense of security and help landlords to plan with certainty. It notes that these arrangements are particularly valued by renters with lower incomes, as they offer both predictability and peace of mind.
However, we must not overlook that predictability is just as important for landlords. When there is a clear start and end date, both parties benefit from a secure timeline. For tenants, that means a guaranteed period of stability. For landlords, it means reliable income and the ability to plan financially without the fear of an abrupt vacancy. By contrast, rolling tenancies without the option of a mutually agreed fixed term introduce a level of uncertainty. Tenants may leave with just two months’ notice, potentially leaving landlords with no income and limited time to find a new occupant. This kind of unpredictability is not just inconvenient; it undermines the landlord’s confidence and may discourage future investment in the sector, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, mentioned, given the difficulty of getting buy-to-let mortgages.
These concerns are not hypothetical. In a recent survey of more than 900 landlords, nearly two-thirds said they planned to leave the sector, reduce their portfolio or shift towards short-term or holiday lets, citing this Bill as a central reason. A key concern on this side of the House is the availability of rental property. We remain concerned, and we have not received assurances from the Minister on that score. Many feel that their voices have not been heard during this process and their legitimate concerns have been too easily dismissed.
Of course we must listen to those who raise valid concerns about the historical misuse of certain tenancy models, but these amendments are not about reinstating the past. They are about creating a future where arrangements are respected and supported. This is not about rebalancing the system in favour of landlords but about recognising that trust and stability can emerge where both parties are empowered to agree terms that reflect their own needs.
We cannot afford to ignore the very real concern that excessive rigidity will push landlords out of the market and make it more difficult for tenants, leaving behind a smaller, less responsive and more expensive private rented sector. If a student, contract worker or family navigating a temporary relocation agree on a fixed term that suits both parties, should we really prevent that flexibility? That is precisely what Amendments 9 and 13 in my name seek to preserve. The ability to fix a term by agreement, or to vary the terms of a tenancy, where both parties consent, reflects the real needs of the modern, mobile and diverse rental landscape. It ensures that, where there is mutual understanding, the law does not become an unnecessary barrier.
I say again that this is not about exceptions to the Bill’s purpose but about contributions to it. The right to housing includes the right to enter into fair agreements that are mutual, transparent and freely chosen. That is also why I have included a probing amendment on why the Government are seeking to end certain types of assured tenancy. I hope the Minister will give these proposals the careful consideration that they deserve. There will still be time for a Damascene conversion as the Bill proceeds. I thank all noble Lords for the richness of today’s debate. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Local Authorities: Temporary Accommodation Costs
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I do not have the exact figure for the right reverend Prelate, but I will write to him with it if it is available.
I mentioned earlier the huge pressures we inherited in the asylum system. We are working hard to make sure that asylum seekers get a decision quickly and that we help local authorities plan more effectively as we reduce the number of asylum seekers waiting for the decision. Support is available through Migrant Help and its partner organisation, including advice on how to access universal credit and the labour market and signposting to local authorities for assistance with housing.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that having a broad, dynamic and successful private rented housing market is crucial to providing much needed housing that reduces homelessness pressure and, as such, that the Government should ensure that the ability of renters in the private rented sector to obtain secure, fairly priced and decent-quality housing is not negatively impacted by changes to legislation?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord, as I assume he will do with the Bill that we are bringing forward today, because it is similar to the Bill that his own party put forward. However, it is not right that renters should be subject to no-fault evictions at no notice or that they should not have access to the secure tenancies which we all know make for safe, secure families, communities and individuals. That is what the Renters’ Rights Bill will do. I am sure we will have plenty of debate on that in the next couple of weeks.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, this is my first speech today, so I will take the opportunity to thank the Minister and her team for all the discussions so far. I support the fundamental principles underpinning this legislation, in particular the long-overdue abolition of Section 21 no-fault evictions—a change that, as we have heard, cannot come soon enough for countless renters across the country.
However, as we work to create a much fairer and more secure private rented sector, we on these Benches are also hugely aware of the pressing need to increase the supply of high-quality rental homes. For that reason, we have tabled Amendment 15, which aims to provide a very specific and targeted temporary exemption to the abolition of ASTs—assured shorthold tenancies. Specifically, the provision would allow assured shorthold tenancies for a period of six months for premises whose current tenants are the first tenants since the construction of the premises. This is a carefully considered proposal, designed to support the laudable aims of the Bill by incentivising the creation of much-needed new rental stock.
My honourable friend in the House of Commons, Gideon Amos, and noble Lords on these Benches have consistently championed the cause of increasing housing supply, particularly through new innovative models such as build-to-rent accommodation. This highlights the urgent need to restore hope to millions aspiring to a decent home after decades of decline in social housing provision. Indeed, ours was the only manifesto with a direct target of 150,000 new social homes to rent—a vital underpinning building block to change the lack of balance in tenures to match and accommodate the desperate need that has reached a crisis level today.
My colleague tabled an amendment in the House of Commons that would have specifically incentivised more build-to-rent accommodation by offering a degree of initial security for developers. Although that original amendment proposed a longer initial term of about two years, the underlying principle remains the same. New developments, particularly in the build-to-rent sector, require a degree of certainty.
We have heard directly from the British Property Federation, which is the representative body for the build-to-rent sector. It has expressed its support for measures that increase the certainty of rental income for institutional investors developing these new homes. It has engaged with us and our colleagues in the Commons on a similar amendment and explicitly stated support for its general thrust. The British Property Federation supports the new supply of rental housing and has said that six months would be an adequate period to incentivise investment in new construction and build to rent. I thank the British Property Federation for its engagement and advice, specifically on this issue.
In the previous group, I explained why I think ASTs are not very secure. This proposed six-month assured shorthold is a one-off exemption that would genuinely offer a limited period of certainty for developers to encourage them to build. That is what we are aiming for. It is a narrowly defined exemption that would apply only to properties being let for the very first time after their construction. It would not affect existing tenancies or undermine the core principles of abolishing no-fault evictions for the vast majority of renters, which we strongly support.
Indeed, by encouraging the creation of new rental homes, we believe the amendment would be a small, modest but useful way of ultimately expanding the options available to renters and contributing to a better balance in the market. The proposal is so modest, unlike other amendments that we have heard today, with build to rent currently estimated to be around 0.1% of the overall housing stock. We believe it would have minimal impact on the much broader move towards periodic tenancies. It may be appropriate at this point to say that we would not support removing Clause 2 from the Bill as we agree with its broad principles, but this approach would recognise the practical realities of bringing new developments to market.
In conclusion, while we rightly focus on enhancing security and rights for existing renters, we must not lose sight of the fundamental need to find ways to increase the supply of decent homes. That is what we are attempting to do with this amendment. We believe that it will act as a catalyst for increased investment in new rental properties, ultimately benefiting renters by providing more choice and contributing to a more sustainable and responsive housing market.
I urge the Minister and noble Lords to give this proposal careful consideration. We will be more than happy to do further work if it is not exactly to order. We believe that there is an opportunity to try to at least encourage a bit more supply in the market sector, even if we do not entirely agree with the suggestions that the whole market will suddenly disappear in the wake of this Bill. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for introducing an amendment that would allow short-term tenancies to continue for six months after a premises is constructed. The noble Baroness has highlighted the fundamental importance of increasing the supply of rented properties. Her case is compelling. This amendment would allow support for newly constructed properties by providing greater certainty for investors in that property. Additionally, it is often true that new properties have periods of vacancy while long-term lets are secured. We must consider, evaluate and listen to all solutions to ensure that liveable accommodation is not left empty and to help develop a stable and thriving community. I am thankful that the noble Baroness has brought this discussion to the attention of the Committee.
However, I wish to probe more widely why the Government are seeking to abolish assured shorthold tenancies, and therefore will speak to my opposition to Clause 2 standing part of the Bill. The short-term rental market supports job mobility, especially industries which require relocation or even temporary positions. Enabling the mobility of working-age adults to reach the depth and breadth of the United Kingdom is vital for economic growth. The modern workforce requires flexibility—the ability to move and adapt, and to pursue opportunities wherever they may arise. By discouraging the ebb and flow of economic activity, we discourage the labour market flexibility required for an expanding economy. Jobs must follow demand, not be restrained by the state removing the option of a short-term tenancy.
While the economic argument is compelling, so is the practical one. For individuals undertaking a home renovation or experiencing family breakdown, short tenancies provide not only a practical solution but an important reprieve, allowing people to escape the chaos of building works or to rebuild a new life without haste. Have the Government considered the benefits of shorthold tenancies for the tenant? Has the Minister considered both the economic and practical benefits of their existence?
With this Bill, the Government are overseeing a huge change to the rental market. Can the Minister please set out the impact on long-term housing pressures as a result of this ban? In markets with soaring demand and low capacity, is it not the case that short-term tenancies can alleviate some of the pressures that tenants face?
The Government have been consistent in highlighting the perceived drawbacks of short-term tenancies. Of course, as with any housing arrangement, there will inevitably be aspects that are less than desirable, depending on one’s individual circumstances. However, in identifying these challenges, it is only right that the Government also acknowledge and weigh the very real, tangible benefits that short-term tenancies offer to many others. As other noble Lords have mentioned, such tenancies expand the availability of housing which might otherwise remain empty. The decision to impose an outright ban is, in effect, the most extreme course of action—the so-called nuclear option. From these Benches, we cannot help but wonder whether sufficient consideration was given to alternative, more balanced solutions that might have addressed the concerns identified while preserving the flexibility and choice that short-term tenancies provide for so many.
I hope the Minister will carefully reflect on these benefits and acknowledge the convenience of shorthold tenancies, as well as the key role they play in enabling economic mobility and the use of homes which might otherwise remain empty.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for her amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for speaking to the opposition that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill on behalf of himself and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.
The assured shorthold tenancy regime and Section 21 mean that millions of tenants live with the knowledge that they could be uprooted from their homes with little notice. Some of them end up living in substandard properties for fear of retaliatory action and eviction should they complain.
This has embedded chronic insecurity in the private rented sector. It affects both tenants who want a stable home and the many good landlords who operate professionally but are undercut by rogue landlords. It is a drain on aspiration and prevents tenants having the chance to achieve their potential. Removing Section 21 is critical to giving renters greater security and stability. They will be able to stay in their homes for longer and avoid the risk of homelessness. They will also have the confidence to challenge poor practice and unjust rent increases. Clause 2 therefore removes the assured shorthold tenancy regime and in doing so abolishes Section 21 as well.
Birmingham City Council
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, until my right honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State tabled his Urgent Question yesterday, we had heard nothing from this Government on Birmingham City Council’s bin fiasco. Birmingham, the UK’s second city, the pride of industrial Britain, is now reduced to piles of rotting waste and rats. We are seeing scenes akin to those I remember as a child in the strike-plagued 1970s.
Almost every area is suffering from overflowing bins, with 17,000 tonnes of waste said to be clogging up pavements across the city. Depots have been blocked by picket lines, delaying contingency collection vehicles from reaching the streets and, all the while, uncollected waste is increasing at nearly 900 tonnes a day. The threat of a public health emergency hangs over the city, a threat that demands urgent and decisive action. What are the Government doing to address this terrible situation? For 20 long days, nothing. When the residents of Birmingham needed a solution, the Government stayed silent.
This is a problem of the council’s own making; for too long, waste services have been a problem in the city. My son was at Birmingham University eight years ago and the recycling waste was not collected on his street for several months despite numerous calls to the council, and it has got worse. The flawed deal with Unite back in 2017, which then led to legal action over pay, built the foundation on which Birmingham’s mountain of rubbish sits today. Despite the Labour-run council knowing about this since then, it has failed to address the issue. That is why Birmingham residents find themselves with piles of waste in the streets.
What are this Government going to do to address these failings? On these Benches we are calling for a COBRA-led response—a co-ordinated effort across local and national government, harnessing the experience of emergency services and public health officials, where every resource is summoned to resolve this nightmare. Will the Minister confirm what discussions the Government have had within the department to resolve this emergency?
On these Benches, we are calling on the Government to engage with the private sector service providers to help clear up the mess and save residents from a disruptive bin strike with no end in sight. We need action today. I urge Ministers to pick up the phone to those complicit in holding Birmingham hostage to end this strike and restore cleanliness to their streets.
Unite has called on central government to make hundreds of millions of pounds available to the council. If that something the Minister is considering? What is more, is a council tax increase of 7.8% a clear breach of the Prime Minister’s pledge to freeze council tax? Does asking the residents of Birmingham to pay more while getting less show that Birmingham council has failed?
Now that Birmingham has declared a major incident, leading to the availability of new mechanisms, can the Minister confirm that she will meet with the council to ensure that those mechanisms are considered? We understand that the declaration should mean that the council will increase the availability of street cleansing and fly-tipping removal, but can the Minister confirm how many additional vehicles will be deployed in the coming days and what the department is doing to ensure that bin lorries can safely enter and exit the council’s waste depots? It is shameful, and a national embarrassment, that one of our nation’s great cities finds itself in such a bleak situation.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, 17,000 tonnes of uncollected household waste creating mountainous heaps of stinking rubbish on the streets of Birmingham is simply unacceptable—particularly in terms of the public health hazard that is created. As a result, and after three weeks of a strike by bin workers, the city has declared a major incident. It is expected that this will allow the council to implement a contingency plan to clear the waste mountain from the streets. So my first question to the Minister is: how confident are the Government that the waste will be cleared before the Easter holidays? Given that this emergency action has been taken because of the growing public health risk, how sure are the Government that diseases caused by a combination of rotting rubbish and rats can be prevented? My third question is: what are the public health risks faced by residents living in those parts of Birmingham where the rubbish mountains are worst?
The very challenging financial strictures facing the city council are of course one cause of this dire situation. The apparent failure to tackle the long-standing equal pay claims from women employed by the council is another contributory factor. Equal pay claims have been a challenge for councils across the country. Some resolve the problem by outsourcing: others, including my own council, resolved the absolutely unfair pay systems over 20 years ago by working with unions to agree a single pay spine and settling women’s claims for lost pay. |If that was 20 years ago, can the Minister explain how it is that, in Birmingham, equal pay claims were allowed to fester for so long?
I raise the significance of equal pay as the council cites it as a fundamental reason for not being able to settle the current dispute. Can the Minister comment on whether Birmingham City Council has finally resolved historic equal pay claims and whether existing pay for all employees is on a fair footing?
It is of course right to acknowledge that Birmingham has had a reduction in its core funding of 40% or more, which has left the spending level per person 19% lower than 14 years ago. In more deprived areas, the loss per person is nearer to 26%, according to a report from the IFS. Clearly, the huge loss of funding has put the council into very difficult circumstances. Eleventh-hour additional funding from the previous Government helped forestall the financial collapse of the city council. As a consequence, very difficult decisions have had to be made. Can the Minister confirm that major change to support council finances is needed and will come?
Finally, it has to be asked whether Birmingham City Council is too large. It serves 1.2 million people, which makes it the largest local government authority in Europe—double the size of the next largest in this country. With just 101 councillors, each one serves over 12,000 people. Can the Minister explain how community representation can occur under these circumstances? The reason for the question is that the different needs and aspirations in a council of that size are hard to meet when elected representation is on that scale. It seems likely to have contributed to the problems now being faced. Does the Minister agree?
Birmingham is a great city. It needs the support of the Government and Opposition in aiding a recovery. I look forward to the questions asked being answered, either now or in writing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
I thank both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their questions. I will elaborate on the Statement a little but, before I do, the tone taken by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, showed no acceptance of the 14 years of funding withdrawal from local government. That is at the heart of this problem.
I would like to update the House on the statutory intervention at Birmingham City Council, which was part of the reason for this Statement in the other place, and on issues affecting the waste service, following the Statement made by my honourable friend the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution in the other place yesterday. This Government were elected on a manifesto that pledged to fix the foundations of local government and we have set about doing that with some energy. The public rightly expect and deserve well-functioning local councils that provide the essential statutory services that residents rely on.
Local councils must be fit, they must be legal and they must be decent. Commissioners have been working with Birmingham City Council for the last 18 months to support the council in its recovery. Their latest report on that progress was published by the Government yesterday and lands at a point of acute difficulty for residents in Birmingham. As we know, the ongoing waste dispute is resulting in rubbish piling up in the streets, so I will also take this opportunity to give the latest update on the status of that dispute.
The council has taken important initial steps forward on its improvement journey and is working constructively with commissioners. It has made significant progress in addressing historic equal pay issues and fixing the foundations of its governance. The leader, Councillor Cotton, and his group are taking difficult decisions to get the council back on track. The commissioners have recognised that, and that his calm leadership through stormy waters is definitely moving the council forward. The new managing director, Joanne Roney CBE, has brought a steady hand and is beginning to make permanent senior appointments that will contribute to that much-needed stabilisation. The council has also achieved a breakthrough by achieving an agreement to settle the outstanding claims to end the ongoing equal pay saga. It has also set a reimplementation strategy for the Oracle system, which was part of the issue there.
That improvement is encouraging, but deep challenges remain. In the short term, commissioner oversight and close supervision will still be required to maintain the momentum that has started to build. There is a difficult road ahead on the key aspects of the best value regime—governance and culture, financial management and service delivery—because substantial risks threaten the journey to reform and recovery.
As we all know, there is a live industrial action in waste services involving one of the three unions recognised at the council. The Government will support the leader and his team at Birmingham, directly and through the commissioners, to move the council on from these historic issues. That includes an increase in core spending power of up to 9.8%, or £131 million, for 2025-26, including £39.3 million of new one-off recovery grant, illustrating the Government’s commitment to correcting the unfairness in the funding system; and an “in principle” agreement to the exceptional financial support, totalling £1.24 billion.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, raised the issue of council tax, but actually it was his Government who signed off a 10% council tax increase in Birmingham last year. That was more than the council put up its council tax by this year.
Councils deliver more than 800 services and make a huge difference, but it is accepted that for many, the most visible and universal service is the collection and disposal of household waste. Many noble Lords know that the current industrial action in the city is causing misery and disruption to local residents. I am not going to make light of that; I know how difficult it is for them.
From the outset, we want to be clear that statutory intervention is led by commissioners and Ministers, who cannot legally intervene in the industrial action. The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution has been in regular contact with the leadership of the council throughout as it has sought to find a resolution which, importantly, maintains the reforms needed to build a sustainable council and which also returns waste collection to a normal functioning service. This is causing public health risks to the city’s most vulnerable and deprived and, as a result, yesterday Birmingham declared a major incident to give it the mechanisms to better manage the impact on residents. I support that decision, and this Government will back local leaders to bring the situation back under control in the weeks to come.
The Government will not hesitate to provide support in any way that Birmingham’s leaders need and, as Parliament would expect, a meeting with the leadership of the council, the commissioners and other key local partners is taking place to make sure that we are doing everything we can to protect public health. I spoke to Councillor Cotton myself this afternoon to ask him if there is anything further he wants us to do.
It is in the interests of all parties—and, most importantly, the people at the heart of this, the residents of Birmingham—that the industrial action is brought to a close in a meaningful and sustainable way as soon as possible, and we encourage all parties to redouble their efforts, get round the table and find that resolution. Councillor Cotton confirmed that live negotiations are ongoing; that work is still continuing. To do this, any deal to end industrial action must maintain value for money and ensure a fit-for-purpose waste service, without creating or storing up liabilities for the future. All parties recognise that Birmingham’s waste service has been in urgent need of modernisation for years. Any deal reached must not repeat the mistakes of the past.
Practices in the waste service have been the source of one of the largest equal pay crises in modern UK history, resulting in costs of over £1 billion. This situation simply cannot continue, and that is what needs resolving, and resolving urgently. Our Government will support the council in its journey to creating the sustainable, fair and reliable waste service that the residents of Birmingham deserve. We will support the council to resolve historic issues and to continue to establish the leadership, governance and culture that will transform the services and deliver good-quality public services for the people of Birmingham.
On the noble Lord’s specific questions and his comment about failing to address the issue, there have been consistent meetings and discussions with Birmingham throughout this situation to make sure that we give it any support it needs, but it is right that it should be Birmingham City Council’s decision to enable co-ordination between public sector partners on the ground in Birmingham. That is why it has declared this major incident—to ensure that public safety and health is restored. While the situation in Birmingham is clearly very serious and deteriorating, the declaration of a major incident is a well-established mechanism for ensuring that public sector partners can co-ordinate locally to deliver a resolution.
The noble Lord asked whether COBRA would be convened. COBRA is used for significant crises which require a collective government response, co-ordinated at the centre by the Cabinet Office. We are in regular contact with Birmingham City Council, and local leaders are confident at the moment that they can manage the situation. Should this change, we stand ready to respond to any ask for support.
The noble Lord asked how many bin lorries are active. He will be aware that one of the issues was the blocking, as part of the strike action, of bin lorries’ entrance to and exit from the depot. We are hoping that that can be resolved as the negotiations go forward. I cannot tell him off the top of my head exactly how many bin lorries are able to operate, but I shall come back to him in writing on that.
The noble Baroness asked how confident we are that waste will be cleared before Easter. We all want to see this situation resolved as quickly as possible. I hope that, with the good will of all parties, and given that they are still in negotiations with each other, we will be able to resolve this dispute sooner rather than later.
The noble Lord asked about sending in staff or giving extra money to help clear up the rubbish, and whether we would send in private contractors to do that job. As you all know, I am a firm believer in devolution and in letting local people sort the issues out locally. It is right that the response is led by the area’s key public sector partners. We are in regular contact with those local leaders, and negotiations are still open.
On the issues relating to public health, the director for public health at Birmingham City Council is part of the response, and the impact assessment of the strike is closely monitoring the situation on the ground and will continue to do so. The UK Health Security Agency met with the director for public health yesterday and will remain in close contact to ensure that all parties are well informed.
Issues were raised about equal pay, and of course, the noble Baroness is right to say that we needed to resolve those. They were entrenched and affected some of the female workers in Birmingham enormously. We have to give credit to Birmingham for working its way through what has been a very long and hard process. I have gone through one of these equal pay settlements myself. The trade unions have been involved in resolving most of the issues; this is that last part of that process, and the matter is still outstanding. As I say, we urge everyone concerned to get round the table and resolve this now.
I hope that that has answered all the questions. The noble Baroness asked about the size of the council. We are going through a process with all councils of discussing how we take things forward, but it is important that, at the moment, we leave the commissioners and local leadership in Birmingham to do the work they need to do to turn the council around. That work is progressing well; there is still a lot more to do but a lot has been done already, so I hope we will get to where we need to be.
The noble Baroness also referred, rightly, to funding cuts. Birmingham City Council received the sharpest cuts of any council in the country. Because it is the biggest council in the country, the ripple effect that we all felt in local government from the horrendous hollowing out under the last Government hit Birmingham like a tsunami, so I do not think the Benches opposite have much right to criticise what went on there.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I apologise: I failed to declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire.