Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

3: Clause 2, page 2, line 30, leave out paragraph (a)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would retain social landlords’ ability to demote tenancies for anti-social behaviour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. Anti-social behaviour is a scourge on our communities, but it is particularly devastating from a housing perspective. It undermines community spirit, leaving tenants feeling trapped and helpless. It strips away the very essence of what makes a house a home. Too often we overlook the consequences. It is not just the cost of repairs, increased security and time-consuming administration of complaints, placing an unsustainable burden on housing associations and local authorities, but the misery and social breakdown it can cause in communities. As currently drafted, the Bill weakens the powers available to local authorities and social landlords to tackle anti-social behaviour. That is why we have sought to bring back Amendment 3 today to preserve the ability of social landlords to demote tenancies in response to such behaviour.

Demotion is not about punishment for its own sake. It is a vital tool—a proportionate deterrent that enables landlords to uphold community stability. Whether it is loud noise, vandalism or intimidation of tenants, those engaging in persistent anti-social behaviour must know there are consequences. Without the option to demote, how are landlords expected to maintain safety and harmony in their communities? Those with experience in local government will know that when a tenant causes disruption, it is often the landlord who receives the enforcement pressure from the council. If landlords are to be held to account, they must also be empowered to act. Amendment 3 would ensure that social landlords retain this power. It is not a radical departure but a practical necessity to deal with real-world situations where one tenant’s behaviour causes misery to many others.

This is about protecting the quiet minority—the families, the elderly and the vulnerable who rely on their home being a place of safety. It is about ensuring that social landlords are not left powerless in the face of persistent disruption. I urge the Government to reflect on the value of demotion as a tool of last resort and the message it sends that anti-social behaviour has consequences and that community cohesion matters. In conclusion, if we are serious about supporting tenants and local authorities, we must ensure they have the tools to act decisively and fairly. I beg to move.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, we say ditto to every single thing that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said about anti-social behaviour. We all know it blights people’s lives and how difficult it is to stem it. We have arrangements where councils work with their local strategic partnerships to deal with it. Nobody is disputing that.

The reason we have come to the conclusion that demoted tenancies are not needed is really very simple. I contacted the National Housing Federation, whose members are social housing providers. It genuinely does not see a need. It is comfortable enough with the Bill and how it deals with anti-social behaviour. It wants to know that it has effective tools to deal with anti-social behaviour and is concerned about the capacity of the courts to deal with evictions based on anti-social behaviour.

My instinct straightaway was to support the amendment on demoted tenancies, but the National Housing Federation said it did not see the point of it but did want to know that it was going to get the tools to deal with things. Many providers, ones I know personally, feel that they deal effectively with anti-social behaviour, including my own council and I suspect the Minister’s. They were concerned about having those tools and the capacity of the courts to deal with that ground when they choose to use it.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for this amendment. It seeks to reintroduce social landlords’ ability to apply for a demotion order in response to the anti-social behaviour of a tenant. I can honestly say that one of the most frustrating things I dealt with in 27 years as a councillor was anti-social behaviour. While we all agree with the need for tackling the blight of anti-social behaviour on individuals and communities as a priority, I cannot accept the amendment as a way of dealing with that. It would fundamentally go against one of the core principles of the Renters’ Rights Bill—to improve security of tenure for renters. There is also a technical reason, which I shall come to shortly.

The amendment would seemingly enable landlords to demote social tenants to a less secure form of tenancy. As I said in Committee, as drafted, the amendment would not work: the Renters’ Rights Bill will move tenants to a simpler tenancy structure whereby assured shorthold tenancies and the ability to evict a shorthold tenant via Section 21 are abolished. There will, therefore, no longer be a tenancy with lower security to which one can demote tenants. For the amendment to work, a reversal of measures in the Bill to remove demoted tenancies and assured shorthold tenancies would be required.

Tackling anti-social behaviour is a top priority for our Government and a key part of our safer streets mission. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, many councils and housing associations already do a great job in tackling this in partnership with each other, but I accept that it can still be an issue.

The Bill will shorten the notice period for the existing mandatory eviction ground, with landlords being able to make a claim to the court immediately in cases of anti-social behaviour. The Bill also amends the matters that judges must consider when deciding whether to award possession under that discretionary ground. This will ensure that judges give particular regard to whether tenants have engaged with efforts to resolve their behaviour and the impact on other tenants within HMOs.

For all those reasons, we feel that the amendment is unworkable and unnecessary, and ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her comments, and I am grateful for the wide recognition of anti-social behaviour and the problems it causes. While we will not press the amendment today, I hope the Government have truly heard the problems that this causes. Evicting someone and going to court is very draconian, and this proposal would provide the opportunity of an interim step without the need for eviction. That is a useful tool, but I recognise the Minister’s comments. I hope that the Government will reflect and consider how the Bill can more robustly support those affected by persistent anti-social behaviour. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

4: Schedule 1, page 173, line 13, leave out from beginning to end of line 26 and insert—
“(a) the landlord;(b) the spouse, civil partner or co-habitee of the landlord;(c) a person who is—(i) a child,(ii) a grandchild,(iii) a parent,(iv) a grandparent,(v) a sibling,(vi) a niece or nephew,(vii) an aunt or uncle, or(viii) a cousin,of the landlord or of the spouse, civil partner or co-habitee of the landlord;(d) a person who is the spouse, civil partner or co-habitee of a person falling within paragraph (c).For the purposes of this Schedule—(a) one person (C) is the “co-habitee” of another person (P) if P lives with C as if they were married or in a civil partnership;(b) a “niece or nephew” of a person (P) is a child—(i) of a sibling of P, or(ii) of a person who is the spouse, civil partner or co-habitee of a sibling of P;(c) an “aunt or uncle” of a person (P) is a sibling of a parent of P;(d) a “cousin” of a person (P) is a child—(i) of an aunt or uncle of P, or(ii) of a person who is the spouse, civil partner or co-habitee of an aunt or uncle of P;(e) “sibling” includes a sibling of the half-blood and a step-sibling.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to apply the same definition of family member which is used in clause 20 of the Act in Schedule 1 to ensure the internal consistency of this Act.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, we return to the issue of equalising definitions across the Bill, not just for consistency but for fairness, and ensuring that the definition of “family” is the same when it comes to guarantors and grounds for possession. It is not about expanding the law, but about clarity and equity. We want to place on record and state clearly that we believe the Government are making a mistake in resisting this change.

Amendment 21 is sensible and necessary; possession, for the purpose of housing a carer, is an issue of growing importance. Many families are already making plans for future care needs. With social care under increasing pressure, we believe that this amendment is timely and proportionate. We must allow older or less able people to stay in their own home if that is what they choose. Having a carer close by or even in the annexe next door would enable them to do so. I hope that the Minister understands the value of this ground.

Finally, Amendments 22 and 23, the first in the name of my noble friend Lord Leicester and the second in my own name, speak to the need for a clearer message around redevelopment, not only for commercial purposes but for private regeneration as well. Really good regeneration in urban areas requires a certain scale. When a large site is available, something truly transformational can be achieved, as we have seen with the King’s Cross redevelopment. But large sites like King’s Cross are the exception: they just do not exist. Many forward-thinking investors and developers seek to build up a site of sufficient scale through piecemeal acquisition over many years, continuing to let the housing and commercial properties in the meantime.

We believe that we should support and encourage those seeking to do these high-quality regeneration projects. Are the Government seriously suggesting that the tenancy should be terminated on change of ownership and the home left vacant, potentially for many years, thereby not only reducing the rental housing stock but undermining the viability of such large-scale regeneration projects and blighting the neighbourhood? Would it not be far better to allow property owners to continue to rent their homes until such time as the property is needed for redevelopment? I beg to move.

[Lord de Clifford (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak on Amendment 21 in my name; I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted and Lady Neville-Rolfe, for their support. This amendment makes a very small change to the Bill, but it could make a significant difference to the lives of individuals who need long-term full-time care due to their age or disability.

I also thank the Minister for her time in meeting with us to discuss the amendment. We have listened, but still feel strongly that our amendment is important to those who need care. We do not see that it would create a loophole, which was one of the Government’s concerns, or that it treats tenants unfairly when trying to ensure that they have security of tenure and are not moved on unnecessarily from a home that they enjoy and are settled in.

For a loophole to be abused, there must be opportunities in the wording or function of the clause for this happen. We believe we have addressed this, as the property needs to be in close proximity to the landlord’s residence—for example, an annexe or a flat within the same block, or in the same street or village—so that daily and emergency care can be provided to the person who needs care.

Due to the proximity, the tenant would be aware of where the landlord lives. If there were a caring requirement for the landlord or a member of their family and notice was given on the grounds of the need for a carer, they could investigate, ask neighbours or visit the landlord for confirmation. If they were not satisfied that the requirement was met, they could use the provisions in the Bill to challenge the notice.

One of the principles of the Bill is to provide more security of tenure. This amendment would change the Bill in only a very small way as it would apply only to a small number of properties, but for a very important and valued reason for a family.

We have spoken to several national care organisations, which support our amendment. There are many benefits if a long-term carer lives close by, and these were pointed out to me by the National Care Association.

Continuity of care is so important. Carers have private lives, and this separate property would give the carer the opportunity to live their own life in their own space, thereby improving retention and their own mental and physical health. It would also give private space to the family in their own home, which can only help with all the family’s health needs.

During Covid, a lot of live-in carers suffered from loneliness when living in the same property as the person they were caring for. Allowing them their own housing would be a big advantage. Caring is a professional and skilled job, and therefore, when care is provided, it should be done by the most appropriate skilled person. Surely, this could be a professional carer.

If the individual being cared for has a family member living with them who could be the carer, would it not be more appropriate if that individual went out to work and did an appropriate job with the skills they have, rather than doing the job of the carer, when a professional carer might provide better care? Is not one of the Government’s primary objectives to get people into work? Surely, this must involve doing roles that they are most productive in.

Many people of different ages require full-time care, and this can be for many reasons and can come unexpectedly due to age, significant health reasons or sometimes, sadly, an accident. If there is a need for long-term care then surely, if you have a property in proximity, you should be able to gain possession. Is it not reasonable and fair to extend the grounds to allow a professional carer to live at the property, rather than a reluctant family member providing care services?

In terms of care, surely keeping an individual in their own home rather than in a care home or another institution, would benefit not only them but society in general. This amendment achieves this without adding pressure on the already stretched social care sector. We acknowledge that some tenants will suffer disruption by having to leave their property. This is the same as if the landlord wishes to sell the property or move a family member in, but this is for a very specific reason and most tenants would understand why notice has been given.

The amendment is all about family and landlords gaining possession for the use of a property for the family. That is what ground 8 lists. All we seek is to extend the provision for what is an essential service for a family in a time of need. We hope that the Government consider this amendment and make this small change for the benefit of those in care. If they are reluctant to do so, I may need to test the opinion of the House on this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, the noble Lords, Lord de Clifford and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for their amendments, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Carrington, for their contributions to the debate.

Amendment 4 seeks to expand the definition of “family member” for the purpose of the moving-in ground, ground 1, to a much wider range of relations. This mandatory possession ground is available if the landlord or their close family member wishes to move into a property. This amendment would allow landlords to evict their tenants in order to house nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles or cousins. It would enable the ground to be used to house the equivalent relatives of their spouse, civil partner or cohabitee. The family members we have chosen who can move in under ground 1 aim to reflect the diversity of modern families, but this is balanced with security of tenure for the existing tenant, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, indicated.

I appreciate that this draws the line short of where some might hope, but to go too far would open up tenants to evictions for a wide range of people, potentially very significant numbers of cousins, nieces and nephews, where families are large. I know that this depends on families—it would certainly be a large number in my family. This would provide more opportunities for ill-intentioned landlords to abuse the system. It is right that the definition used here is narrower than the definition in Clause 20, which removes guarantor liability for rent after a family member in a joint tenancy dies. That is because this is a possession ground, so it results in people losing their homes; whereas Clause 20 protects bereaved families, where the net should be cast more widely.

Amendment 21 aims to introduce a new ground for possession that would permit the landlord to seek possession of their property for the purpose of housing a carer for them or a member of their family who lives with them. This is qualified by the requirement that the property is within sufficient proximity to the landlord’s residence to facilitate emergency callouts. I thank all noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for their considered and passionate engagement on this proposed ground in Committee and when I met Peers to discuss the proposal in the run-up to Report. I recognise the difficulties they highlighted that may be faced by landlords who wish to evict their tenant in order to house a carer. We are all aware of the importance of carers and the remarkable work they do in supporting individuals and families in difficult circumstances. These amendments clearly come from a good place, and I am sympathetic to noble Lords’ concerns.

However, there are some practical considerations that weaken the rationale for this intervention. Adding more possession grounds increases opportunities for abuse by those unscrupulous landlords who, sadly, exist in the market. We are committed to giving renters much greater security and stability so that they can stay in their homes for longer. That is why we have developed very specific grounds. We also think that there are very few landlords who would be in the position of both needing a carer and owning a second property close to their home to accommodate that carer. I appreciate the examples that both noble Baronesses gave. Given the potential risk of abuse and the very narrow group of people who might benefit from this ground, we do not think the additional ground is warranted. Our view is that it is not fair that a tenant should lose their home, with all the disruption that entails, in order for another person to be housed in those circumstances.

The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, talked about supporting people into work, but this amendment might involve another local worker being evicted to house that carer. Indeed, if the evicted tenant were also a carer, it would be likely to deprive one of the very organisations that have been contacting noble Lords of a key member of their staff, so we have to be careful that we do not cause those kinds of circumstances.

Amendment 22 seeks to create a new ground for possession to enable landlords to convert a residential property to non-residential use. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, that I too visited the King’s Cross development when I was looking at the development of the central part of Stevenage. The work that has been done there is fantastic.

As I stated in Committee, in response to a similar amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I do not believe that the proposal in Amendment 22 is the right approach. The Government have thought carefully about where landlords should be able to take possession of their properties, particularly where it would lead to a tenant losing their home through no fault of their own.

Encouraging residential lets to be converted to other uses, at a time of such chronic pressure on housing supply, would not be right. It is for the same reason that the Bill abolishes ground 3, which enables landlords to evict long-term tenants in order to turn the dwelling into a holiday let. Where landlords wish to convert their property to non-residential use, it is right that they should do this as tenants move out, rather than by evicting a tenant who has done nothing wrong.

It is also worth noting—as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to—that the existing redevelopment ground, ground 6, could potentially be used in some circumstances. This is the right approach, not the approach put forward in the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Leicester.

I turn to Amendment 23. This well-intentioned amendment would create a new mandatory possession ground to allow landlords to evict tenants in order to redevelop their property, if they have received planning permission for the works and these works cannot be carried out with the tenant in situ. I am pleased to be able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, that landlords will already be able to evict in these circumstances. They can do this by using the existing, broader mandatory redevelopment ground, ground 6. This also does not require the landlord to prove that they have planning permission, which may not be necessary in all circumstances. In effect, this proposed new ground would merely duplicate ground 6, but with additional constraints. For the reasons I have set out, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, can she be categorical that anybody seeking to redevelop their property would be able to terminate a tenancy to do so?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

You can use the existing, broader mandatory redevelopment ground, ground 6, when you are redeveloping property.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions. Turning to my first amendment, I recognise that the Minister has given some serious consideration to the definition of family and is satisfied with the Government’s position. We respectfully disagree, but I will not press Amendment 4 and will therefore withdraw it.

We have had an excellent debate on Amendment 21. I thank the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for introducing it and the many noble Lords who raised issues on it. They have spoken with clarity and conviction. We believe that allowing a property to be used to house a carer in a time of need not only is reasonable but can be vital to the well-being and living standards of the property owner, and on these Benches we are pleased to support this amendment.

Finally, turning to the issue of redevelopment and regeneration, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for his amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his contribution. Revitalising areas is key to improving living standards and supporting the long-term well-being and development of communities, delivering the growth that this Government have said is their number one priority. It is also crucial to delivering the homes that are so vital, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the Minister said earlier in the debate. I appreciate the Minister’s comment that this may already be covered, but we are not satisfied that it is. The Minister’s comments were not conclusive when I sought clarification. I will therefore test the opinion of the House on Amendment 23.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

23: Schedule 1, page 194, line 7, at end insert—
“Possession for redevelopment and regeneration of private rented homes
24A After Ground 8 insert—“Ground 8A
The following conditions are met—(a) the private landlord intends to redevelop the dwelling-house for the purpose of regeneration, and the proposed works cannot reasonably be carried out while the property is occupied; (b) the private landlord has complied with all relevant tenancy obligations up to the date of possession;(c) the private landlord has given six months’ notice; (d) a planning application has been made.In this Ground—“Redevelopment” means—(a) demolition or reconstruction of all or a substantial part of the dwelling-house, or(b) substantial works to the dwelling-house or any building of which it forms part;“Regeneration” means the process of improving an area through coordinated measures that either—(a) secure the redevelopment, refurbishment, or enhancement of land, buildings, or infrastructure,(b) promote economic growth, including through the creation of employment opportunities and support for local enterprise, or(c) advance social wellbeing by improving housing, public services, community facilities, and the overall quality of life for residents;“Private landlord” means a landlord who is not a registered provider of social housing.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment creates a new group for possession where a landlord has made a planning application, and the proposed works cannot reasonably be carried out while the property is occupied.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, we should be supporting regeneration, enabling more housing and employment, and the renting of property in the meantime. While I appreciate the comment from the Minister, I am not reassured. Therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

24: Clause 6, page 8, leave out lines 11 and 12
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment prevents the Secretary of State from expanding the definition of “relevant low-cost tenancy” by regulations.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking the time to meet my noble friend Lady Scott and me to discuss the contents of the government amendments in this group. We are grateful that she has returned to the House with what has been referred to as a “break glass” provision, finally acknowledging that the Government’s policy may indeed lead to a significant backlog in the tribunal system.

However, on these Benches we struggle to understand why the Government, having recognised the problem, have not sought to take proactive steps to prevent such a backlog in the first place. Waiting until the system is overwhelmed before acting is not good policy. It also cannot be right that rent determinations made by tribunals can result only in the rent being revised downward. This creates a clear and perverse incentive. There is no risk to bringing a case if the rent cannot go up and can only go down. Why not try your luck? You may as well. It encourages unnecessary and speculative tribunal claims.

That is why I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising for their consistent work on this issue and for the thoughtful amendments they have tabled. Both noble Lords have highlighted the problem with clarity. The current system gives tenants an incentive to challenge rent, knowing that they have nothing to lose. We would therefore support Amendment 31 should my noble friend decide to press it to a vote. It would correct the imbalance by allowing for rent to be revised upwards as well as downwards, restoring fairness to the process.

Amendment 42, which stands in my name, would require the Secretary of State to conduct a formal review of the tribunal system responsible for rent determinations. We on these Benches recognise the potential for tribunal backlogs that the “break glass” amendment is supposed to address, but we do not believe that will be the case. Hence, we believe that a comprehensive review is necessary to help us understand the true pressure being placed on the system and how best to mitigate it.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich, for recognising the overburdening of the tribunal system with Amendment 29, but it would add an additional filtering step rather than seek to reduce the incentive to go in the first place, especially when there is no downside to doing so, which we think would be the more appropriate way of addressing the issue.

Finally, I will say a word on Amendment 24, which concerns preventing the Secretary of State expanding the definition of a relevant low-cost tenancy by regulation. This is important because such a power, if exercised without scrutiny, could significantly broaden the Bill’s scope in unintended ways. It is vital that any change to this definition comes before Parliament not simply through ministerial discretion. From these Benches we look forward to hearing from noble Lords across the House on these issues. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness.

Regarding Amendment 24, at present private registered providers of social housing can grant secure or assured tenancies. The majority of these are let at social rents. Social rents are regulated by the social housing regulator. The definition of “relevant low-cost tenancy” in the Bill reflects these arrangements. If the Government or the social housing sector were to change how rent is determined or regulated, this power would enable the Secretary of State to make technical amendments to reflect this or other changing circumstances. As the power relates only to the definition of relevant low-cost tenancies, I assure your Lordships that the Secretary of State will not be able to use this power to change the legislation to affect market-rate tenancies. Based on this, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to withdraw this amendment.

Turning to Amendment 30, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for her engagement on this issue. The Government fully support efforts to improve the energy efficiency of homes in the private rented sector, particularly where tenants are proactive in accessing support through government-backed schemes. The amendment as drafted would mean that any increase in value arising from these improvements would be disregarded, even if it was funded partly by public money. Therefore, if landlords have made sizeable investments themselves in improving the energy efficiency of their properties without government grants, under this amendment they would not be able to increase rent to reflect those improvements.

The tribunal has experts, such as surveyors, who will assess what the landlord could expect to receive if re-letting the property on the open market. Both landlords and tenants will have the opportunity to submit evidence on whether or not they think that the rent increase is justified. The tribunal already ignores any improvements to the property made by the tenant, to avoid inflating the rent. However, it is likely to be more challenging in practice for the tribunal to differentiate rent levels based on whether energy-efficiency upgrades were funded through specific grant schemes—particularly where the tenant was not directly responsible for the work. This may complicate the tribunal process.

We recognise that it is very important that means-tested energy-efficiency grant schemes are used to benefit tenants. That is why, for the warm homes local grant, which was launched in April, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has set a clear expectation that landlords should declare that they do not intend to raise rents as a direct result of the upgrades being made. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, rightly highlighted the importance of ensuring that landlords do not profit unduly from government-funded improvements and that the value of these schemes should flow primarily to tenants, given the impact on many people living in poverty, and the threat of eviction. We have carefully considered these points and believe that the measures already being introduced strike the right balance.

In conclusion, the landlord declaration, introduced and overseen by DESNZ through the warm homes local grant, will include a commitment from landlords not to increase rents as a result of improvements made using the grant funding. I hope that this offers the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, reassurance that the Government are taking this issue seriously. For those reasons, I respectfully ask her not to move her amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord Howard, has proposed two amendments to the process for challenging rents at the tribunal within the first six months of the tenancy. On Amendment 31, the ability to challenge rent in the first six months of the tenancy is a vital safety valve, ensuring that tenants cannot continue to be ripped off if they have been pressured into an unfair rent. Landlords who have agreed a fair market price have nothing to fear from this mechanism. This amendment would exacerbate the worry that tenants already face about going to a tribunal to enforce their rights. Tenants will not challenge rents if they risk being worse off following a tribunal ruling. The Bill encourages tenants to engage the tribunal when they have legitimate concerns. By reinforcing the rights of tenants to do so, we are disincentivising the minority of landlords from pressurising tenants into unfair rents at the beginning of a tenancy. The way for landlords to avoid this is to make sure that their rents are fair at the start of the tenancy.

On Amendment 32, the Government are clear that tenants should submit an application to the tribunal during the first six months of their tenancy only where they believe that their rent is above market rates or that they have been pressured into an unjustified initial rent. In the first instance, we strongly encourage landlords and tenants to communicate about what adjustments to rent might be reasonable. The noble Lord asked how a tribunal determines a fair rent. To determine the market rate, the First-tier Tribunal considers a wide range of evidence, such as the price of similar properties being advertised online and evidence submitted from both parties justifying or arguing against the rent increase.

The First-tier Tribunal has experts who are experienced in understanding the different factors that result in the market rate and determining whether the rent is reflective of this. The First-tier Tribunal is best placed to do this in the new tenancy system. It is also worth noting that tribunals have had the power to adjudicate rent levels in line with the market rent since the Housing Act 1988, and since then the market rate has continued to increase. However, if the rent is challenged and the tribunal determines that a rent exceeds the open market rate, it is right that the tribunal can backdate the lower rent to the date of the tenant’s challenge and that the landlord repay the difference to the tenant. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Howard, not to press his amendments.

I turn now to Amendments 33 to 36 and 40. The Government recognise that some tenants may avoid challenging unreasonable rent increases out of fear that they will be saddled with significant amounts of backdating, which they will be unable to afford. By removing the ability of the tribunals to backdate a rent increase, tenants, particularly vulnerable tenants, will be empowered to challenge what they believe to be an above market rate rent increase. This reduces the risk of an unreasonable rent increase causing a tenant financial hardship, or even being used to force someone out of their home. This is a really important measure to encourage people to challenge unreasonable rent increases.

Amendments 34 to 36 and 40 in particular may only heighten the risk of vulnerable tenants feeling unable to challenge an above market rent increase. We know that tenants and landlords are usually eager to maintain a positive relationship and will not bring the other to court or tribunal without good reason. As such, I ask the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Howard, not to press these amendments.

I turn finally to Amendment 42. The tribunal has over 30 years’ experience in making determinations of unfair rent increases, having carried out this function since the Housing Act 1988. We have full confidence in the tribunal’s ability to carry out this function in a fair way. I appreciate the need for the justice system to be ready for our reforms and for landlords and tenants to access justice in a timely way. We are working in partnership with the Ministry of Justice to assess the impact of our reforms on the tribunal and to lessen these wherever possible. This close collaboration has been ongoing for a number of years and in a great amount of detail.

The amendment we have tabled to our rent increase measures shows that we are listening to the concerns of the sector and this House about tribunal workloads. It puts in place a safeguard in case it is needed. We will already be collecting extensive data to assess the impact of these reforms. As set out in the impact assessment for the Bill, and in debate, we have committed to monitor and evaluate our reform programme. We will use a range of sources to support this. Existing datasets will be used, and new data will be collected. We are committed to publishing the evaluation findings at the two and five-year points after the Bill’s implementation.

I will respond to the request from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about the justice impact test. The justice impact test we are undertaking with the Ministry of Justice will identify additional burdens on the justice system, but they are internal government documents and are not published. The test is ongoing and regularly reviewed to ensure that it reflects any changes to legislation as the Bill continues its journey through Parliament. We are fully focused on making sure the justice system is prepared for changes to court case load and procedures that will be required for our reforms. We are working with the Ministry of Justice and HM Courts & Tribunals Service to that effect, including investing additional court and tribunal capacity to handle any extra hearings generated.

In this context and in the context of the review that I have already outlined, both in the course of discussing these amendments and earlier today, I do not think it is necessary to commit to undertake any further review. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and for setting out the Government’s amendments. However, we remain disappointed that the so-called “break glass” power is reactive in nature and fails to address the underlying incentives that drive unnecessary cases. Noble Lords across the House have raised the risk of the tribunal system being overwhelmed. Although I listened carefully to the Minister’s comments on mechanisms, there are no firm proposals. Therefore, on that basis, we will support my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising on Amendment 31 if he is minded to push it to the vote.

As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has raised, and we requested in Committee, the Government have failed to publish the justice impact test. I heard the Minister’s comments, but I asked her to publish it before Report given its importance and the concern across the House about the impact of the Bill on the justice system.

Amendment 42 seeks a review of the impact on the tribunal system. As we have another amendment later, reviewing the impact on the justice system in its entirety, we will not press this amendment now.

Serious concerns remain about the Secretary of State’s discretion to expand the definition of low-cost tenancies. I urge the Government to reflect carefully on the breadth of the powers they are granting. That said, I will withdraw this amendment.

Amendment 24 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to try to understand what the definition of rent is if we are going to control rents or somehow curtail them or attenuate the increases.

One can see the base rate just by googling property websites. It is a good idea to get a feel for the cost of a basic, low-cost, unfurnished property in the worst part of town, but that is not necessarily the market price, which is determined by a number of factors: the property may be furnished; it may be serviced accommodation; there may be porterage; there may be other benefits— I am not going to go as far as swimming pools and gyms, but I know they are available in some circumstances. Parking would be another one. All these different elements have different cost pressures and inflationary increases, which may be determined by factors outside the landlord’s control. A property that has inclusive parking may become significantly more valuable, one could anticipate, if the local council applies permits on the streets around it.

I am tempted to support Amendment 25, but I am reluctant to do so because at the moment all these extras are rolled into the single price. The logical conclusion of where this debate is going is that we will get menu pricing, rather as we see on low-cost airlines. There may be an attractive flight—£5.99 to fly to Spain or whatever—but by the time you add in the baggage, the booking fee and everything else, it rolls up to a significantly higher value. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham made the point that the risk of the price going up over the four-year period may be somewhat attenuated, but those extras amounting to what I would call the landed price, or total cost of ownership, could vary accordingly.

Another significant point that we need to take into account is that there may be Section 20 repairs or improvements, particularly in the case of furnished accommodation where the landlord is prepared to improve and upgrade the fixed furnishings, such as tables and chairs and possibly soft furnishings as well. All of this complicates what is a rolled-up figure at the moment. The logical conclusion is that all those extras are going to be disaggregated and obfuscated, so it is going be harder to compare for the potential tenant. But it is going to be essential for the landlord to obfuscate in this way in the circumstance of a First-tier Tribunal appeal, which is really concerned with the underlying rent—that £5.99 figure. It is very difficult.

I have a huge amount of sympathy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best, but I cannot support it because I think the logical conclusion of it will be that we will get a fragmentation of the landed rent so that the tail wags the dog. The landlord will be so focused on restricting the base rate that those other things will get lost.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, we have concerns about a number of amendments in this group on the basis that they are unduly prescriptive and risk the introduction of what could be regarded as, in effect, a form of rent control.

The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, seek to protect the tribunal from being overloaded due to the Bill. While we agree that there is significant risk of overload, we have concerns about how the arrangements would function. In particular, we do not feel able to support a system that ties rental increases to CPI. CPI is a generalised index that reflects the prices of bread, fuel, clothing and so forth, but not rental market dynamics. What happens in areas where market rents are falling but inflation is high, or where incomes are stagnant while CPI rises? This approach uses a national economic measure to benchmark against a highly localised rental market, and the result would almost certainly be a distorted rental market. That said, we share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Best, about the impact of the Bill on tribunals’ backlogs, which we discussed at length in Committee.

Amendment 114 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, raises some important points. There is no doubt that rent affordability is a serious issue, and the amendment rightly draws attention to a range of important factors: the regional disparities in rental costs, the strain of high rents placed on household finances and the need to understand how effectively the First-tier Tribunal is working in practice. However, I must also sound a note of realism. We do not need another report for its own sake. We need actual change that improves the lives of renters and restores fairness to a housing system that too often feels stacked against ordinary people. If this review is to go ahead, it must not become just another document left to gather dust on the shelves of the department—it must lead to action. I urge the Minister to use this opportunity to outline how the Government will respond to the concerns raised by the noble Baroness in her amendment, which we agree are all points which matter in this debate.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for their amendments relating to rent affordability and rent controls, and the noble Lords, Lord Young, Lord Fuller and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for speaking in this discussion. I have the deepest respect for the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Young, and their experience, and for the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, who has vast experience in this area too. I am grateful for their contributions.

I do not intend to revisit the detailed discussions we had in Committee. They were detailed and informed deliberations, and I know how strongly some noble Lords and tenant groups feel about helping those who struggle to pay high rents. I absolutely understand the pressure that rents put on the budgets of individuals and families. To come back to the points that we made earlier in the debate, obviously the solution to this is to create a lot more social and affordable housing, but I realise that is not going to happen overnight.

However, I must reiterate the Government’s concern that rent controls, as proposed, would risk reducing housing supply, discouraging investment and ultimately lowering property standards. In the case of Amendment 25, the most relevant international comparator is Ontario, an example that I also cited in Committee. I am afraid that the Ontario model, whereby rent increases are capped according to a measure of inflation, has not led to desirable outcomes. In fact, analysis suggests that the result has been higher rents for new tenants.

In respect of the experience in Scotland, a recent Nationwide Foundation report by the Indigo House Group found that rent control measures had not protected the majority of private rented sector tenants against excessive rent increases or against high advertised market rents, considering average advertised rents in the system as a whole. The measures in Scotland do not appear to have impacted rental price growth, because Scotland has consistently been one of the regions in the UK with the highest growth in asking rents. For example, according to Zoopla, in the year to January 2024, when the rent freeze was in place, Scotland was the only UK region with a double-digit annual rent growth, at 11.6%.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, the three amendments here are interesting. The noble Baroness is well aware that we share the same concerns as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, regarding shared owners. I was allowed to gatecrash their meeting. I admit that it was eye-opening for me. I was aware of the issues around shared ownership, but I was shocked at the costs incurred and the amounts of money lost, which the noble Lord has amplified superbly. I hope the noble Baroness can give us some way forward on this and other issues that seriously affect shared owners—accidental landlords who are trapped in the situations the noble Lord has accurately described and see no way out. The “What can I do?” was quite revealing. It is no surprise that we will support Amendment 59.

We know that the not-able-to-sell situation applies to thousands of shared owners—far greater numbers than, I suspect, Amendment 58 from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, applies to. This is yet another area in the Bill where we do not know the numbers. We do not know how many homes will be affected. I have to pay credit to the noble Lord because Amendment 58 has been patiently worked on and lobbied for by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. I completely understand where he is coming from but perhaps do not agree that the detriment to the relatively few landlords who find they cannot sell their property is worth the abuses that might occur if prohibition on re-letting is reduced to six months rather than 12 as in the Bill. Perhaps this is an area for some compromise.

I have a simple question, and I am sure somebody will tell me I am wrong. If I genuinely wanted to sell my property and realise my capital for whatever reason, given the amount of time to evict, I would probably not serve notice to my tenant until I had sold my property. I can serve the notice; the process of selling, conveyancing and everything else carries on; the tenant leaves at the appropriate time; the buyers exchange contracts and we say, “You can’t move in until that time”. I do not see how that would be unachievable. I am sure somebody will tell me why that would not be the case. I certainly would not evict them before I put it on the market or had some sense of the market or of how things were. As I said in Committee, a letting agent said to me, “All houses will sell, Dorothy. It just depends on the price”.

Amendment 41, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, is clearly designed to act as a disincentive to landlords trying to abuse this ground, but maybe if the landlord is genuine, it is just a little too draconian. We broadly agree that the Bill has got this right, as far as we can tell.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to this group of amendments and to offer my full support to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. Amendment 59 addresses a significant gap in the Bill by providing a vital exemption for shared ownership leaseholders from certain provisions within Clause 14. Shared ownership is an important tenure model that enables many people to take their first step on to the housing ladder, yet it is not without its challenges, particularly when sales fall through, as my noble friend has highlighted. Amendment 59 is a sensible and necessary provision that recognises the realities faced by shared ownership landlords. Protecting this group helps to maintain confidence in shared ownership and prevents unintended consequences that could undermine the Bill’s original intent. If my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham is minded to test the opinion of the House, the Opposition will support him without hesitation.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hacking and the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Young, for their amendments and their engagement on these issues. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson.

On Amendment 58, we want to strengthen tenant security and prevent abuse of ground 1A. A 12-month no re-let period will act as a deterrent to unscrupulous landlords who want to evict tenants so that they can let to a new tenant for more rent or because the tenants are asking for repairs that the landlord does not want to do. We understand this is a strict measure, and it is meant to be. It is intended to ensure that only landlords who genuinely wish to sell their property will wish to use that ground and to deter from using it landlords looking to evict a tenant in order to re-let at a higher rent or to a different tenant. Not only will landlords have to forgo rental income for 12 months after using ground 1A but should they be found to be misusing the ground, they could be fined up to £40,000. It is right that we have these strong tenant protections in place.

This amendment would also bring significant complexity to the system, and I struggle to see how it would work in practice. It would allow the courts to require evidence that the dwelling had been on the open market for six months and that no suitable offers had been received, but it is unclear how the courts would become involved. Additionally, it could place undue burdens on courts which may have to follow up on any ground 1A evictions to check whether the landlord had tried to sell for six months and whether they had received any suitable offers. The court would also have to determine what a suitable offer was, which would be another undue burden. The no re-let rule is a clear and simple rule that would not benefit from further complexity. I believe this amendment would open the no re-let period to abuse, reducing tenant security and contradicting the aims of this Bill.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, indicated, if a landlord is genuinely planning to sell a property, they can market it to gauge interest before upending the tenant’s life by evicting them. This would be more effective for all parties than evicting as soon as they decide to sell and only then putting it on the market and waiting for suitable offers. For all these reasons, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, not to press this amendment.

On Amendment 41, I understand from our helpful discussions that my noble friend Lord Hacking’s intent here is to remove the period during which a landlord cannot re-let the property after using grounds 1 and 1A and instead prevent the rent being increased in the new tenancy. While this amendment addresses one of the goals of the no re-let period by making it unprofitable for landlords to abuse the moving and selling grounds, it does not address the other key reason to prevent abuse. Even if an unscrupulous landlord could not profit from abusing the grounds, they could still, under my noble friend’s proposals, use these grounds with no intention of moving in or selling to pursue retaliatory evictions. This means abusing the grounds to get rid of a tenant who had done nothing wrong but whom, for example, the landlord simply did not like or who they considered raised too many issues with the property.

These abuses of the system are exactly what the 12-month no re-let period aims to prevent. In the current system, under Section 21, we hear all too often of tenants afraid to ask for repairs because the landlord has made it clear that they will evict them if they do. Under my noble friend’s proposal, this could still happen. The opening up of the grounds to abuse must be resisted. The 12-month no re-let period is a strong disincentive for landlords to abuse the grounds, and I believe that it strikes the right balance. As such, I ask my noble friend not to push his amendment to a Division.

I turn now to Amendment 59. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young, for his engagement on this issue and for introducing me to the Shared Owners’ Network. These clauses implement critical protections for tenants. If a landlord has used the selling or moving-in ground, they will not be able to re-let or market a property for 12 months. That period starts from the date of possession proceedings, as specified in their Section 8 notice to the tenant. These clauses also include other important prohibited landlord behaviours.

The Government are aware that some shared owners with building safety issues are facing very difficult circumstances through no fault of their own. The Shared Owners’ Network has provided invaluable insight into this issue. We are continuing to engage with it to determine how best to support these shared owners. We will have a dialogue with the registered providers as well. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestion in that regard. To respond to another of his comments, I will clarify the licence points to him in writing.

However, I do not agree that, by helping in one area, other blameless tenants should have reduced security of tenure or be exposed to the risk of wrongful eviction just because of who their landlord is. We have to get the balance right somehow, to support those who find themselves in this awful position but not at the expense of other tenants. We will continue to work on that. All assured tenants must benefit from the new system.

I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Young, not to press this amendment.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 25th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire.

It is widely recognised that we need a simpler, more consistent and faster planning system that delivers higher-quality outcomes at lower costs. As others have raised, there has been a failure to deliver infrastructure, housing and commercial premises, particularly in London, Oxford and Cambridge, as well as a failure to deliver good environmental outcomes. The last Government made some good progress, with over 1 million new homes in five years and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act—I ask whether this Government will seek to build on that rather than replace it.

Developers are equally frustrated, particularly with their inability to plan and invest for the long term due to the uncertainty of their most critical raw material: building land. We support many of the Government’s ambitions and there are some positive measures in the Bill, such as taking on board the recommendations of my noble friend Lord Banner on judicial review and reviewing the consultation process. However, it falls well short in many other areas, as many other noble Lords have pointed out earlier in this debate: the Bill takes a rather simplistic, overly centralised and blunt government-knows-best approach, rather than seeking to address the details, complexity and overlapping issues needed to improve the system, one that I believe the public would be more supportive of.

I have some questions. Strategic and local plans should be the fundamental base upon which to build development. However, the Government’s proposals are top-down. They are telling authorities what they need to achieve, with the threat of government intervention if they do not do it. Where are the tools to support authorities to achieve great outcomes for their areas and to make it easier to deliver these plans? If you give someone an impossible task, do not be surprised if they fail. Who determines the balance of achieving things such as environmental, infrastructure, affordable, commercial and housing numbers while seeking to meet the requirements of all those statutory bodies? How will these proposals make it easier to deliver a plan?

Local democratic accountability is crucial. Local residents should have a voice, as many have pointed out. There may be times when local councillors, under pressure from their electorate, are too willing to call something in, but there are far more times when it is important to have this option, particularly where developers seek to push the envelope. There are already measures in place to address this, and these need to be bolstered, not completely removed.

Environmental delivery plans are an interesting concept, but are the Government seriously giving this responsibility to an unaccountable quango that has no responsibility to deliver within a wider context, with tax-raising and CPO powers, and one that marks its own homework? Why not, for instance, through the strategic or local plans, work with a variety of providers? Why have the sensible proposals from the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act on CPO and development corporations not already been taken forward?

While there are some positives on delivering infrastructure, will these really move the dial? Will they stop the delays and costs that we have seen for critical infrastructure, such as the Lower Thames Crossing? Will they improve biodiversity? Will they create a better environment? Why does the Bill encourage more development on greenfield and green belts? Why have this Government not continued with a strong material presumption in favour of brownfield development? What is the Bill doing to make processes simpler and provide consistency; for instance, setting national policy frameworks and standardising templates and processes?

While I can agree with many of the aims of the Bill, and there are some positive measures, overall, it is a missed opportunity. It could have built on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. It could have supported councils and planning to move faster and be more consistent. It could have addressed many of the unintended consequences of the habitats directive and other nature and environmental legislation that is overlapping and in conflict. It could have done more to address the consequences of JRs. It could have turbocharged brownfield and urban generation. It could have addressed the roles of the many other public and quasi-public bodies needed to deliver. It could have a standardised process and paperwork, driving consistency. It could have set clearer priorities and ranking against which development is judged. As I said, it is a lost opportunity.

I hope the Government will engage positively on the Bill as it makes its way through the House of Lords, working with Peers across the House and the many good suggestions I have heard to address the issues in it and make it something that will deliver for our country and our communities.

Planning: Energy Efficiency and Fire Safety

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We are working very closely with leaseholder bodies to understand their issues. I understand the difficulties, and we are making sure that those responsible for the buildings are held to account and that they support leaseholders to get the work done. I am still talking to leaseholders, and we will bring forward more action on their general conditions in the leasehold Bill later this year. I know that this is a very difficult issue for them, and we continue to work with them on it.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. The building safety regulator has a critical role to play to ensure fire safety, particularly for high-rise buildings. However, it does not currently have the capacity to deliver its role, creating huge delays to many housing projects. Can the Minister give the House a date when the substantial delays of the building safety regulator will be addressed?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I do not know if the noble Lord was in the Chamber when I spoke about this last week, but we are aware of the building safety regulator’s difficulties. We have put in additional funding and are working with the regulator to improve performance, particularly on the gateway issues. It is very important that we get this balance right. We want our buildings to be safe, and the building safety regulator must be able to do its job properly. We also want to move things on for the development industry so that developers can get through the gateways as quickly as they can; both things are important. I will not give the noble Lord an exact date—I do not suppose he would have expected me to—but we are working with the building safety regulator to move this on as quickly as possible.

Political Parties and Elections Act 2009

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

Let me assure my noble friend that the Government remain steadfast in addressing the threat posed by disinformation and foreign interference in our democratic processes. Safeguarding the UK against such threats is and will always be an utmost priority.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister share my concerns that excessive regulation and red tape can lead to unintended adverse consequences, as we have seen with the politically exposed persons regulations? With that in mind, can he tell the House what is the status of the review of the PEP regulations by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Government, following legislation passed by this House?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I share the concern about making sure that our democracy is fit for purpose in the modern world. There is a huge challenge ahead, which is why we will address in the round the whole issue of electoral reform. I will write to the noble Lord on the specific example that he mentioned.

Planning Reforms: Energy and Housing Costs

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I have heard my noble friend speak on this issue many times, and he is quite right to point to the restrictions that the value of land places on the system. Of course, we are always looking at new methods of making sure that the houses we need are viable and will deliver the quantity of housing needed, and we continue to explore all avenues to deliver that properly. I hope my noble friend will look at the Planning and Infrastructure Bill: there is progress in there, and I hope he likes what he sees.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. The benefits to growth and innovation of densifying our cities are well recognised, yet the UK has some of the lowest-density cities in the G7, and this Government are now seeking to facilitate building on the green belt rather than driving densification and regeneration of our cities. Will the Minister confirm that this Government will move forward with the previous Conservative Government’s strong presumption in favour of brownfield development?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sorry, but the noble Lord is quite wrong in his assumption. We are prioritising building on brownfield sites. I know he has a particular bugbear about London; I was with the Mayor of London just last week and was very pleased to see his review of the use of the green belt in London as part of the work on the London Plan. I was interested to hear that, of the half a million hectares of green belt in London, just 13% is made up of parks and accessible green space. The mayor is making progress on this, and so are we. Brownfield will always be our first choice, but we are looking at grey-belt and green-belt development as well.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I wrote in my notes that this was “hopefully” the last day in Committee on the Bill, but I have now inserted “possibly”. Regrettably, it is my last day, because of an important appointment tomorrow that I cannot cancel.

It is appropriate for me to thank profusely all those who have helped me personally, and probably helped all of us, with their excellent briefings, as well as giving help with amendments—and, in my case, frantic email exchanges when I have not quite understood things. I refer to all those in the Renters’ Reform Coalition, the Local Government Association, the National Residential Landlords Association and Suzanne, the Independent Landlord, to name but a few.

This is a very important part of the Bill, and we largely support the first two amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, regarding having just the one scheme and changing “may” to “must”. However, I will speak to my Amendment 218, which is a simple probing amendment for what is a very complex issue. The Bill makes continuing or repeat breaches of the landlord redress scheme an offence, but not joining the scheme in the first place is merely a breach. That means that landlords can still be fined by the local authority for not joining but tenants cannot claim a rent repayment order as it is not an offence.

There is clearly an imbalance here; my amendment simply seeks to probe the Government’s reasoning for not making failure to join the scheme an offence in the first place, rather than waiting for landlords continually not to adhere to the new requirement. We want this failure to become an offence from the get-go because we believe that non-compliance with the redress scheme will have serious regulatory consequences, significantly impacting tenants’ ability to hold their landlord to account. That is the key matter on issues such as disrepair and the standard of the home. The rent repayment order gives tenants compensation for substandard accommodation and can incentivise them to report things in the first place. Interestingly, Generation Rent’s polling found that nearly one in three renters has had maintenance issues in their home, which they have reported, but their landlord has not dealt with—a simple but very telling snapshot.

In the Republic of Ireland, failure of a landlord to register a tenancy with the Residential Tenancies Board—the Irish equivalent to what we are proposing—is a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment of up to six months and a fine of €40,000, with €250 payable each day of non-registration. Perhaps they take a rather different approach.

We are concerned that, as councils are already overstretched and currently have very little resource for proactive enforcement, an undetermined number of landlords could avoid joining the redress scheme initially as they will think being discovered by the council is low risk. The risk of being reported by their tenants—who would not be eligible for a rent repayment order, so there is no incentive for them—is also very low. Both aspects are not what we want. Therefore, we feel that this imbalance does not treat seriously enough the impact that non-compliance in these matters will have in undermining and frustrating one of the fundamental tenets of the new regulatory regime. I hope that the noble Baroness will allay our concerns.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for introducing this group of amendments, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill.

The landlord redress scheme is a vital function of the Bill, and the onus is on all of us to ensure that the legislation is as effective and robust as it needs to be. I hope that the Minister will take the time to reflect on the constructive suggestions made by noble Lords and take them back to the department for further consideration. The fact that the Minister has tabled amendments is, I suggest, a recognition that the Bill is not perfect, even in the eyes of those charged with defending it.

Before I turn to the amendments tabled by the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, I shall speak to those amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook. Amendment 208 would require a residential landlord to be a member of the landlord redress scheme only if their tenant does not already have access to redress via a letting agent who is a member of another approved independent scheme. This would avoid duplication, unnecessary regulatory burden and the potential confusion between effectively being a member of two different schemes. This is vital, because clarity and efficiency in regulation are essential for compliance and enforcement.

Amendment 210A probes the Government’s proposed duration of the membership period for the redress scheme. This period is to be set by regulations, but as things stand there is no indication, or even a hint, of what that timeframe might be. Could the Minister provide some clarity on this point? Stakeholders need certainty to plan and prepare appropriately.

Amendment 210B seeks to require the Secretary of State to publish draft regulations establishing the landlord redress scheme within six months of the passage of the Bill. A clear, time-bound commitment is essential if the Government are serious about delivering this long-promised reform. Without a defined timeline, there is a risk that implementation will drift or be indefinitely delayed, to the detriment of all stakeholders—especially tenants. Could the Minister say what, in her view, constitutes meaningful progress and what timescale the department is working to?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I am entirely supportive of pretty well every amendment that has been put down on this—this blizzard of amendments about a database across four groups. I agree that there should be penalties for not participating in it. It has to be something that is not a nice-to-have add-on: it has to be core to everything. However, I will just give two notes of caution, the first of which goes back to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. If you are going to start recording disputes on the system, there could be many, many reasons why a dispute runs for a long time. It would not necessarily be the fault of evil landlords. It could be illness on the part of the tenant; it could be a multitude of things. You have to be very careful there.

The second point is to be careful what you wish for. No one has suggested this so far, but is this database going to be searchable by tenant? Because a landlord looking at a tenant might search the database and find that every previous tenancy has ended in a dispute. Is that going to be a fair use of this database? Because it is a logical suggestion, looking at this from a landlord’s point of view, to look out for rogue tenants as well as rogue landlords.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for opening this group. The question of what data is recorded on the database is an important one and the Government need to give the sector greater clarity on their plans. Noble Lords need only look at some of the briefings provided by lettings agencies to landlords over the past few months to grasp the level of uncertainty around this Bill. For the benefit of both renters and landlords, we need greater clarity as soon as possible. As my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook said earlier from these Benches, we believe the Government should be more ambitious. We are broadly content with the direction of travel on greater transparency, but taking this forward through regulations is leaving landlords and tenants in the dark.

We support the challenge from the noble Lord, Lord Best, to the Government on the inclusion of gas and electrical safety checks within the PRS database. Amendments 221, 224 and 227, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, all touch on this issue. The database makes use of official UPRNs and covers the full end-to-end process of property compliance, including the urgent need to mandate digital property safety certificates. This will certainly increase transparency for landlords and tenants. Including gas safety certificates and electrical installation reports would assist tenants who wish to confirm that their property is safe.

That said, we have some concerns about Amendment 227, which appears to place the burden of registering digital gas and electricity certificates on the certificate provider rather than the landlord. We do not think that responsibility should be placed on the providers without a proper impact assessment and a fuller understanding of how this would work in practical terms. Perhaps the Minister can commit to considering this proposal from the noble Lord between now and Report.

Amendment 222, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, proposes expanding the types of information or documents that are required for registration on the PRS database. I commend the noble Baroness on her thoughtful drafting. This amendment highlights further the uncertainty and lack of clarity that have arisen from the Government’s decision to place broadly drafted regulation-making powers rather than detailed provisions in the Bill to enable their plans.

Finally, on Amendments 229 and 230, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, it has already been noted that UPRNs are a universal means of identifying properties. They will be central to this system. The database should be as easy as possible to use for both renters and landlords. We accept that the noble Lord’s amendments are well intentioned and we will listen very carefully to the Minister’s response to them.

We have a separate concern. The Government do not have a strong track record on delivering large-scale IT projects. I make no political comment here. We share the concerns that have been raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, earlier, on the time that it will take to roll out this database. Can the Minister assure us that this project will be delivered—and delivered on time?

I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to these well-intentioned and constructive amendments.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Grender, for their amendments regarding which data should be recorded on the database. I also thank my noble friend Lady Kennedy, the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for their comments.

Amendment 222, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, seeks to expand Clause 76 and mandate the information that landlord and dwelling entries on the database must contain. I thank the noble Baroness for her very thoughtful amendment and for meeting with me to discuss the database in greater detail before Committee. We certainly both appreciate the potential of the database.

I reassure her that we expect to collect much of the information that is set out in Amendment 222 on the database. Detailed regulations about the making of landlord and dwelling entries in the database will be made under Clause 78(1) in due course. Our approach to data collection takes account of the balance of benefits and burdens for different users, to ensure that it remains proportionate. However, I stress that it is vital that the database is designed in such a way that it can evolve to incorporate technological innovation and changes in the sector. Although I very much understand the points made by my noble friend Lady Kennedy and the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, we do not think that, to accomplish this aim, the content of landlord and dwelling database entries should be mandated in the Bill. Rather, this detail should be set out in secondary legislation to ensure that the database can be more easily adapted to meet future circumstances.

Regarding points about when the database will be ready, we aim for the service to be operational as soon as possible following the passage of primary and secondary legislation. We are taking forward the digital development of the private rented sector database in line with the government service standard. We will conduct extensive testing of the new service ahead of implementation and continue to engage the sector on our proposals. We very much welcome the ongoing involvement of all those who have been helping us.

The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, highlighted the importance of why we must take our time on development, design and testing. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to the difficulty of IT systems. I have had them in past lives, so I know that this can be a tricky issue. However, we have been in government for only nine months, yet the noble Lord accused us of having a track record—or did he mean all Governments? I hope that he did.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

All Governments.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Okay, fair point. We need to make sure that we do the development and the testing of the system carefully. I therefore ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the discussion on the seventh group of amendments, which addresses important changes to the rent repayment orders. These amendments seek to strengthen the mechanism by which tenants and local authorities can hold landlords accountable when they breach laws and ensure that rent repayment orders are both fair and effective.

The proposals tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill, Lady Taylor of Stevenage and Lady Kennedy of Cradley, raise significant points that warrant our attention. Among them, we see the suggestion to register RROs on a public database, which would make the existence of these orders transparent, allowing tenants and others to be aware of landlords with a history of non-compliance. This could serve as a powerful deterrent against landlords who might otherwise continue to disregard their responsibilities.

In addition, we see proposals to change the amount to be repaid in an RRO, as well as to extend the ability of tribunals to issue RROs in the case of non-registration on the public database. We need to ensure that the consequences for landlords are proportionate to the harm caused and that tenants receive a fair outcome. Although it is appropriate to have rent repayment orders where a tenant has been impacted or suffered a loss, as outlined so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, where a landlord has inadvertently breached a regulation and received a fine, but no harm has been done to a tenant, should they also receive a rent repayment order?

These Benches accept that rent repayment orders are an important tool for holding landlords to account and we welcome the intention to make these processes more accessible and transparent for tenants. However, we note that there are complex issues surrounding the practicalities of RROs, as I mentioned earlier, particularly in relation to the standard of proof and their scope.

Therefore, I ask the Government to respond to the following points. How do they propose to ensure that these amendments, particularly those relating to the registration of RROs, do not place unnecessary burdens on tribunals or create unintended consequences for landlords, who may not be aware of the rules? How do the Government intend to address the issue of non-registration on the database and the potential impact on landlords who fail to comply?

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Kennedy of Cradley. These are important questions and I look forward to hearing the Government’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley for their amendments relating to rent repayment orders. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his contribution.

I will begin by responding to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Amendment 226 seeks to extend penalties for non-compliance with private rented sector database requirements. The Bill already includes a clear, proportionate and escalating approach to penalties against those who flout the rules. For initial or less serious non-compliance, local authorities can impose a civil penalty of up to £7,000— I think the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said she was beginning to sound like a stuck record; now I feel like that as well. In the case of the database, that applies, for example, to a first failure by a landlord to register.

For serious or repeat non-compliance, local authorities can prosecute or, alternatively, issue a civil penalty of up to £40,000. In the case of the database, that applies, for example, where a landlord knowingly or recklessly provides information to the database operator that is false or misleading in a material respect. We will, through the Bill, significantly strengthen rent repayment orders because we believe they are a powerful mechanism for tenant-led enforcement.

In relation to the database, rent repayment orders are available where a landlord knowingly or recklessly provides false or misleading information to the database operator. They are also available where a landlord continues to fail to register or provide the required information to the database following a first penalty. These, though, are criminal offences, and it would not be appropriate to extend rent repayment orders to non-criminal breaches of the database requirements. Rent repayment orders are intended to act as a punitive sanction against landlords who commit criminal offences. Extending them to conduct that does not amount to an offence would undermine this.

Similarly, Amendment 257 would make rent repayment orders available for initial failure to be a member of the PRS landlord ombudsman and initial failure to be registered with the PRS database. My view is, as before, that it may be inappropriate to extend rent repayment orders to these non-criminal breaches. The new ombudsman and database are fundamental parts of our reforms, and of a better private rented sector with greater accountability. It is vital that they are robustly enforced.

We think the routes of enforcement currently in the Bill represent an effective and proportionate approach. We will monitor the use and effectiveness of rent repayment orders under the new, strengthened regime and consider whether further changes are necessary. Therefore I ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, withdraws her amendment.

Amendment 244A, tabled by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley, seeks to lower the standard of proof to which the First-tier Tribunal must be satisfied before making a rent repayment order against a landlord for an offence of illegal eviction or harassment under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. She set out very clearly and concisely why she was putting that forward with a very convincing argument.

I am clear that illegal eviction and harassment are serious criminal offences and that offenders need to be robustly punished. I accept that this happens too rarely at the moment. We are seeking to address this through the Bill by extending civil penalties, as an alternative to prosecution, to illegal eviction and harassment offences under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.

My noble friend pointed out that the First-tier Tribunal is not a criminal court and asked why the criminal standard of proof should apply. The rent repayment order regime is predicated on an offence having been committed, and it is an established principle in law that offences are taken to have been committed when proved beyond reasonable doubt. Creating a lower standard of proof for the same offences for a finding of guilt in the tribunal compared with the criminal courts would be confusing, inconsistent and could be subject to a successful challenge.

We are also placing a duty on local housing authorities to enforce against specified landlord legislation, which includes illegal eviction and harassment under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, and we are looking hard at how best we can support them do so effectively. This Government are determined to bear down harder on illegal eviction and harassment. We are concerned, though, about what impact this amendment could have on the integrity of the rent repayment order regime as a whole.

Rent repayment orders are predicated on an offence being committed. As I said, they apply exclusively to criminal offences, and the penalty can be a very significant one. The changes that we are making through the Bill both double the maximum penalty to two years’ rent and extend the circumstances in which the tribunal must award that amount. I recognise that illegal eviction may be hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt, but that is not a principled reason for a civil standard of proof to apply to obtaining a rent repayment order in respect of a serious criminal offence.

The severity of the penalties that, quite properly, apply in the rent repayment order regime mean that there would be serious questions about procedural fairness should the criminal standard of proof not be required. The criminal standard of proof will of course be required when a local authority issues a civil penalty for illegal eviction or harassment under new Section 1A of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. All the other rent repayment offences would remain to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Making rent repayment orders for illegal eviction and harassment subject to the civil standard of proof would create an anomaly and be a departure from a well-established position, which we consider would be hard to justify. Of course, I would be very happy to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and Safer Renting but, for now, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, to withdraw her amendment.

I will end with a brief—I promise—explanation of the Government’s amendments in this area. This Government view rent repayment orders as a critical part of ensuring higher standards and better compliance in the private rented sector; that is why we have significantly expanded them through the Bill. Government Amendments 244 to 248 aim to ensure that they work as intended in their application to the offence of breaching the restricted period after relying on the moving and selling grounds of possession, and the amended licensing offences are described correctly.

--- Later in debate ---

I realise that I have spoken at some length on these matters. They are very important issues. I very much hope that the Minister, who I know has had discussions with the relevant bodies, may be able to give some comfort on these five amendments because they all reflect problems that it is within the capacity of the Bill to solve. I beg to move.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this group of amendments in this important debate concerning property licensing. This discussion touches on a particular practical part of the regulatory framework: how local authorities manage and enforce licensing regimes for rental properties and meet appropriate standards of safety and quality.

The amendments in this group, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Young of Cookham, address both the effectiveness of the licensing schemes and the administrative burdens that they impose on landlords, local authorities and tenants alike. Amendments 253 and 254 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, speak to the role of selective licensing in improving housing conditions and propose to extend the maximum duration of these schemes.

We already have selective licensing. UK government guidance is clear that local authorities can use this process to tackle poor housing conditions, as well as other issues. These are worthy proposals. We will listen carefully to these concerns and work with noble Lords across the House both to get the balance right and to ensure that the Bill plays its part in driving up the quality of housing, particularly in the areas where local authorities can clearly demonstrate poor housing conditions or evidence of anti-social behaviour.

However, we must also ask: are licensing schemes always the right lever for improving housing quality? In the right circumstances, licensing can help drive up standards, but, if it is poorly targeted or applied too broadly, it risks creating unnecessary bureaucracy and placing costs on good landlords while doing little to deter the worst offenders. We must guard against the risk of licensing becoming a tick-box exercise rather than a tool for real enforcement.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for introducing Amendments 267 to 269, tabled by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. They are pragmatic and draw on my noble friend’s extensive experience in both government and housing policy. They propose more proportionate licensing fees in large blocks, simplified procedures for name changes and facilitated bulk applications. All are practical measures designed to reduce red tape and bring common sense to what can sometimes be a cumbersome process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, we all want to see energy efficiency, better homes for tenants and reduced fuel poverty but, as we discussed earlier this evening, this needs to be done in an affordable and pragmatic way that does not force older, rural and heritage homes out of the rental market. Amendment 259 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, seeks to extend the powers of local housing authorities to use available data to enforce and exercise their functions under the Energy Act 2011. As the noble Baroness has established, that Act provided obligations on landlords to meet certain energy efficiency requirements for their properties before they are able to let their properties to tenants.

Clause 134 already enables local housing authorities to use the information they possess to enforce housing offences and other functions under a wider range of legislation than was previously permitted in the Housing Act 2004. This amendment would therefore extend the already expanded remit of Clause 134 to the domain of energy efficiency. We understand the intentions of the noble Baroness in this amendment and will be interested to hear the response from the Minister.

However, I question the necessity of the amendment. The Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015, made under the Energy Act 2011, already provide for the energy efficiency regulations to be enforced by local authorities in the case of domestic private rental properties and by trading standards in the case of non-domestic private rental properties. Those enforcement authorities are empowered by the 2011 Act to impose monetary penalties of up to £5,000 for any landlord who breaches the energy efficiency regulations. Given the powers that already exist and the highly significant changes to energy performance certificates that the Government plan to implement, this amendment appears unnecessary.

A review of energy efficiency improvements required and the methods for funding these improvements would be more appropriate, which is why we support Amendment 274 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, supported by my noble friend Lady Penn. This amendment would simply require the Secretary of State to publish a roadmap for using private finance initiatives to provide the funding for any required improvements to energy efficiency for the private rental sector. This is a sensible and measured approach to the issue at hand, as opposed to any prescriptive requirements. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Hayman, for their amendments relating to minimum energy efficiency standards, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett—who I think described herself as the Green night owl—the noble Baroness Lady Grender and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for contributing to the debate.

I turn first to Amendment 259 in the name of noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. This amendment would allow information given to local authorities by tenancy deposit scheme administrators to be used by local authorities for a purpose connected with their functions under the Energy Act 2011, including enforcement against breaches of minimum energy efficiency standards under the Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015. I reassure the Committee that local authorities are already equipped to enforce the private rented sector minimum energy efficiency standard of an EPC rating of E.

In February, a consultation was published to amend regulations and raise energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector, addressing fuel poverty and carbon emissions. The consultation proposes that local authorities will be empowered to issue fines of up to £30,000 for non-compliance with the new minimum energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector. To respond to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, officials from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero are exploring support for enforcement in collaboration with stakeholders, including local authorities.

Local authorities often identify non-compliance during other property engagements and can take appropriate action. A local authority may issue a compliance notice to a landlord suspected of breaching the energy standard. If the landlord fails to comply, the authority has the power to issue a penalty notice. Of course, I recognise the value that data plays in aiding enforcement, which is why we have widened access to information for other enforcement purposes through the Bill. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 274, from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, would require the Secretary of State to publish a road map for scaling up private finance initiatives to support the funding of energy-efficiency improvements in privately rented homes within six months of the passage of the Bill. I strongly support improvements to energy efficiency in privately rented homes. The Government have pledged to take action to stand with tenants and deliver the safety and security of warmer, cheaper homes. In February, we published our consultation on improving energy-efficiency standards in the private rented sector in England and Wales. The consultation closed on 2 May. We are analysing the responses and expect to publish a government response later this year.

I appreciate the intention behind the amendment, as we recognise the important role that private finance will play in supporting the private rented sector to meet the proposed energy-efficiency standards. We are currently considering the consultation feedback and options to further support landlords to make the necessary improvements to their property. I believe that the amendment is not necessary as the information on support, including private finance to fund energy-efficiency improvements in privately rented homes, will be available shortly.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

We have heard some compelling arguments from across the House on the very important issues here. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, for her cogent and careful explanation of the reasons for bringing forward her amendments.

The issue we are addressing today is of great importance, particularly given that the Bill removes the options for tenants to pay rent in advance. Furthermore, the Minister has declined to support our amendment, which would have allowed for an arrangement between two consenting adults to agree on such a payment structure. This is a missed opportunity. Although His Majesty’s Opposition have not tabled an amendment to this group, we share the serious concerns that have been raised and I will try not to repeat the many arguments that have already been made.

Unfortunately, the Government’s proposals, in their current form, appear to pay little more than lip service to fairness. In practice, they fail to provide meaningful protection to those most at risk of exclusion from the rental market. Let us be clear about the deficiency of Amendments 170 and 265: they specifically prevent landlords requiring a guarantor in a wide range of circumstances, yet there remains ambiguity as to whether the amendments would still allow landlords to accept a guarantor if offered. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, for being very clear that they could still accept it, but that does create some ambiguity.

While we recognise that requiring a guarantor can be a significant barrier for many prospective tenants, particularly those from vulnerable backgrounds, the guarantor system serves a legitimate function where it is used proportionately. It can provide a safety net for tenants with limited financial histories, such as students, individuals supported by local councils or those whose circumstances might not meet the traditional expectations of landlords. However, the Government’s approach to rent in advance is inconsistent with the rest of the Bill. If tenants are not allowed to offer rent in advance as an alternative to a guarantor, we must ask: how will the Government ensure that fair and proportionate mechanisms are put in place to assess risk?

The private rental market is not a one-size-fits-all model; it encompasses a diverse range of tenants, from students and graduates to care leavers and older renters. How do the Government plan to accommodate those who may not have access to a guarantor but are still financially reliable? Crucially, where does the space exist in this framework for discretion, mutual agreement and choice between two consenting adults—tenants and landlords?

Furthermore, the Secretary of State’s proposed power to allow insurance-based alternatives to guarantors raises significant concerns. Can the Minister say how accessible these insurance products are likely to be and what steps are being taken to ensure that they do not create another costly barrier for tenants? As it stands, the insurance model seems unlikely to provide a fair and proportionate solution to the challenges that tenants face. These are not abstract concerns: the provisions, as drafted, place undue strain on tenants and their families without achieving the balance that the Government claim to seek. Unless there are significant revisions, this issue will undoubtedly return with force on Report.

As has been mentioned, the Bill has generated substantial interest across the rental sector, with campaigns led by the National Union of Students being particularly striking. Students across the UK, especially those from marginalised and underrepresented backgrounds are sounding the alarm. Guarantor requirements have emerged as one of the most significant barriers to accessing stable, affordable housing.

As the NUS has clearly outlined, these requirements disproportionately affect working-class students, care-experienced young people, estranged youth and international students—groups already navigating considerable challenges in their pursuit of education. Many of these students face an additional hardship: they do not have a family member in the UK who can meet the often arbitrary financial thresholds demanded by landlords. As a result, they are forced either to pay up to a year’s rent in advance—an impossible ask for many—or to turn to expensive guarantor services. We now find ourselves in the deeply perverse situation where it costs more to rent a home if you are poor.

Guarantor requirements contribute to this divide, by insisting that students find someone, often someone who earns up to 80 times the monthly rent and is based in the UK, to guarantee their tenancy. We are systematically locking out those who cannot meet these criteria. No one should be denied the opportunity to pursue academic excellence simply because of who they know or, more importantly, who they do not know. This is why these amendments fail, why the NUS and student representatives worked so tirelessly to bring this reform forward in the other place, and why it is so vital that we do not let this opportunity slip through our fingers in this House.

I focused much of my speech on the barriers faced by students, but it is essential to remember that this issue also affects many other vulnerable groups, none more so than care leavers. I speak as an ex-leader of a council, where I spent much time trying to enhance the position of care leavers. Having already overcome considerable challenges in their lives, they should not face yet another hurdle in their pursuit of independence. How can we in good conscience expect care leavers to comply with a condition that they simply cannot meet on their own? This also demonstrates the complexity of the situation, as often, their local councils—including Central Bedfordshire while I was there—were often willing and keen to provide guarantors to ensure that care leavers were on an even playing field to those from better financial backgrounds.

As I have outlined, the restrictions on rent in advance and lack of objective criteria for when a guarantor is required will only entrench existing inequalities. Penalising individuals who may be financially reliable but lack family support or financial connections to meet the arbitrary thresholds demanded by landlords is unjust. This is not just an issue of housing, it is an issue of fairness, opportunity and basic dignity.

Housing is not merely a financial transaction, it is the foundation of stability, security and opportunity. When we deny people access to housing because they cannot meet arbitrary demands for a guarantor, we are closing doors not only to homes but to education, career advancement and future independence.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, raised a very valid issue regarding the right to rent and the fact that introducing what may seem quite a sensible rule leads to complications and places landlords in an awkward situation if they do not fully understand the legislation in front of them. Earlier today, we heard a number of noble Lords admit that they were not lawyers. It is also unreasonable to expect every landlord to be a lawyer. Where the law is complex, we need to make it simple and easy to comply with. This is one of our major concerns with this legislation.

In conclusion, I ask the Minister to listen to the voices of those most affected by these provisions—the students, care leavers and low-income tenants—and make the necessary changes to ensure that the Bill delivers fairness for all.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, before I respond directly to the amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, talked about denying people access to housing, including students, care leavers and people on low incomes. The fact that so little social and affordable housing has been provided over the last 14 years is a very strong reason why we are in the situation that we now are. That those people have not been able to find affordable housing is largely due to the housing policies of the previous Government. I want to put that on the record before giving my answers on my noble friend’s amendments.

I thank my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett for her amendments relating to guarantors and the right to rent. I add my thanks to Shelter, which has provided so much advice and support during the passage of this Bill, for which I am very grateful. I also thank my noble friend Lady Kennedy, the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord Jamieson, for their comments.

Amendment 170 seeks to restrict the circumstances in which a guarantor could be required by a landlord. I appreciate that underlying this amendment—tabled with characteristic clarity, commitment and compassion by my noble friend Lady Lister—is the concern that those who do not have access to a guarantor will find it more difficult to find a home in the private rented sector than those who can obtain a guarantor. I make clear to my noble friend and the Committee that our approach to this issue is underpinned by the need to provide tenants with the rights and protections that they deserve. At the same time, we wish to guard against any unintended consequences that may, for some tenants, make renting more challenging. I recognise that obtaining a guarantor can be difficult for many prospective tenants. The Government are clear that landlords should consider tenants’ individual circumstances when negotiating rental contracts.

The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, seemed to indicate that there was some sort of compulsion for landlords to find a guarantor. If they wish to come to an agreement without one, they are more than able to do that. What they cannot do under the Bill is require significant sums of rent in advance. That is what was really discriminating against people. Those incredibly high sums of rent required in advance were making it difficult for people to rent.

However, it is important to acknowledge that, in many circumstances, the use of guarantors can provide landlords with the confidence to let their properties to tenants who may otherwise find it difficult to secure a tenancy in the private rented sector. This includes tenants with a history of rent arrears, people with incomes that fluctuate from month to month and those with no previous rental history—for example, students or young people moving out of home for the first time. Prohibiting landlords from accepting large amounts of rent in advance will benefit all tenants by giving them the confidence that the maximum financial outlay needed to secure a tenancy will not exceed the cost of a tenancy deposit and the first month’s rent.

The Government recognise that providing a UK-based guarantor may be difficult for some prospective students, including international students. Under the Renters’ Rights Bill, landlords will continue to be able to offer tenants who cannot provide a UK-based guarantor with the alternative of purchasing rent guarantor insurance. The measures set out in my noble friend’s amendment would inadvertently risk blocking certain types of renter from accessing accommodation in the private rented sector altogether, despite the amendment’s honourable intentions.

Turning to my noble friend Lady Kennedy’s question on guarantors, the Government are clear that landlords should consider each prospective tenant’s circumstances individually, including when it is appropriate to require a guarantor. They should not apply blanket requirements for guarantors to all tenants. In response to her other question, the landlord’s database will act as a record of landlords and properties rather than of individual tenancies. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for landlords to record the risk-mitigation measures that they have put in place for a particular tenant on the database. She also made a point about guidance on guarantors. I will take that back to the department to consider further.

I assure the Committee that we have carefully considered the extent to which different practices act as barriers or enablers to accessing the private rented sector. That is why we are taking this action to limit rent in advance through the Bill. I am always happy to meet my noble friend to discuss this further but, for all these reasons, I hope she will withdraw her amendment.

I turn to Amendment 265, which would abolish the right-to-rent scheme that applies in England. Right to rent was introduced to ensure that only those lawfully in the United Kingdom can access the private rented sector and—this is important—to tackle unscrupulous landlords who exploit vulnerable migrants, sometimes by letting properties that are in very poor condition indeed. Some landlords who rent to those who are here illegally are criminal operators and we all have a shared objective to drive them from the market—I think everybody around the Chamber would agree with that.

We have been absolutely clear that discriminatory treatment on the part of anyone carrying out the right-to-rent checks is unlawful; the dreadful examples given by my noble friend illustrated that. The checks apply equally to everyone seeking accommodation in the private rental sector, including British citizens, and I will just elaborate a little further on that. The right-to-rent scheme is capable of being operated proportionally by landlords and letting agents in all cases. The very purpose of the statutory code of practice on avoiding unlawful discrimination when conducting checks recognises and seeks to address the risk of discrimination.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I am going to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Best, as I rise very briefly because I feel that this ties in quite neatly with his later amendments on letting agents becoming more professional and having better qualifications. Any means that will reduce the pressure on local authority enforcement teams are very much to be welcomed. The amendment is techy but simple, and I think it could be effective.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for moving this very sensible amendment, which is thoughtful and well-considered.

The integration of the Tenant Fees Act 2019 into the framework of the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, through Schedule 2, is not just a technical improvement but a step towards greater coherence and clarity in an already highly complex area of legislation. In a Bill of this scope and detail, ensuring that our legislative frameworks align and complement one another is not only sound law-making but essential for those responsible for implementation on the ground. Was that passionate enough?

The practical implications of this amendment deserve the Committee’s close attention. In essence, it would allow primary authorities to give assured, legally backed advice to letting agents on how to comply with the Tenant Fees Act 2019. Supporting letting agents through legislative transitions in this way will help avoid confusion and ensure compliance from day one—a key goal for any regulatory change.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, mentioned, the amendment would also relieve pressure on local enforcement teams, many of which operate with limited resources, in both finance and capacity. By reducing their workload where possible, we enable these teams to concentrate on the most serious breaches—rogue landlords, unsafe housing and the exploitation of vulnerable tenants—where intervention is most urgently needed.

This approach is not without precedent. Organisations such as the Lettings Industry Council have consistently called for greater clarity, guidance and consistency in how regulations are enforced across local authorities. Integrating the Tenant Fees Act into this structure directly supports those calls and shows that the Government are listening to those working on the front line of regulation and compliance.

We are, therefore, sympathetic to the spirit of this amendment. It offers practical benefits to tenants, agents and enforcement authorities alike. We believe that it would contribute to a more effective, fairer and more streamlined regulatory environment.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am not sure whether it is because of the late hour, but my Whip, sitting on the Front Bench with me, just sent me a dancing emoji, as if to show me how to show passion when responding to amendments. I will do my best.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his amendment, which would allow for the Tenant Fees Act 2019 to be included in the primary authority scheme. This would provide estate and letting agent businesses with the option to receive assured advice on complying with its regulations. The scheme allows the local authority nominated as a primary authority to provide assured advice to businesses that operate across multiple local authority areas, which helps those businesses comply with regulations. The scheme has the potential to streamline the interpretation of regulation for business. It can also be a more efficient approach to regulation for local government.

I welcome Members of the House sharing their views on this matter and we will undertake to consider this amendment further. For now, and for those reasons, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 185 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and signed by the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Truscott, and me. It has been explained very fully and in detail, so it needs no further repetition or expansion from me. Indeed, from our many and various discussions or Oral Questions during House business, we are all only too aware of the problem, both here and abroad. The loss of properties from the long-term private rented sector into the much more lucrative and less regulated short-term lettings is causing considerable problems in some parts of the country, as outlined in detail by the noble Lord, Lord Best.

It is a fact that some communities—I am sorry to keep stressing that, but I feel it is important to keep a balanced perspective on this—are being hollowed out as locals cannot find somewhere to rent for the longer term, nor can they find somewhere that they can actually afford to buy. They therefore feel that they cannot remain in their communities. Some areas where short-term lets proliferate can, as we have also heard, be the result of regular antisocial behaviour, which can be of various types, from the very obvious noise nuisance to the degradation of neighbourhoods. Any moves to incentivise landlords back into the long-term private rental market are therefore welcomed by us on these Benches and anything to deter landlords from flipping, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Young, will also be supported by us.

We recognise the willingness of both the previous Government and this Government and the difficulties of efforts to balance the needs of tourists, home owners and local residents. It is tricky, because balance is key and individual local plans should be able to reflect each local authority’s needs and circumstances.

To help local authorities, as we have already heard, there was the mandatory registration scheme proposed by the previous Government. That was very positive, as it would improve transparency and ensure compliance with local regulations. However, I note that, in parliamentary debates on the Bill, Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook stated that the previous Administration’s proposals to clamp down on holiday lets

“did not go far enough”.—[Official Report, Commons, Renters' Rights Bill Committee, 5/11/24; col. 238.]

and that his Government are considering what additional weight to give local authorities to enable them to better respond to the pressures that they face, as a result of what have been called “excessive” concentrations of short-term lets and holiday homes in some parts of the country.

To keep this brief and to sum up, it would be welcome to have, before Report, an update on the mandatory registration scheme and any other powers that have been taken forward on this Bill or in other legislation, including actions on companies that take no action, as was well outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Truscott. We could therefore judge whether this amendment is a helpful addition to take forward on Report or is completely unnecessary. I look forward to the noble Baroness’s response.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for proposing this amendment. It raises a serious solution to one of the most acute crises affecting the private rental sector: the supply of housing. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, my noble friends Lord Young and Lady Coffey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for their comments. There is a fair degree of support for this from all sides of the Committee.

Noble Lords will remember that this is one of the themes that these Benches have been most concerned about. My noble friend Lady Scott highlighted the reduction in housing supply on the first day of Committee. Savills reported seeing a 42% reduction in the number of rental properties available on its books in the first quarter of this year. Data compiled for the National Residential Landlords Association found that 41% of landlords say that they plan to cut the number of properties that they rent out in the next 12 months. This is highly concerning, given that the supply of available rental properties is already falling.

TwentyEA found that the supply of properties available to let has dropped by 1% compared to the first quarter of 2024 and has plummeted 22% below the 2019 pre-pandemic levels. Currently, only 284,000 rentable homes are available nationwide—a decline of 18% from last year and 23% from 2019. In the first quarter of 2025, 15.6% of new property listings for sale were previously rental homes. This is a sharp increase from 9.8% in the same period of 2024. Renting is no longer simply a transitional phase or fallback option for many people. It is a deliberate and legitimate long-term housing choice. Renting offers flexibility, mobility and freedom from the financial and practical burdens of home ownership, but tenants cannot benefit if there is simply not enough supply.

The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, raised, as did many others, the risks associated from the Bill accelerating this trend to short-term lets such as Airbnb and other types. This amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best, would contribute to the solution. Where there is not enough supply of available rental accommodation and many landlords are planning to sell up, working to reduce the amount of short-term lettings could protect the currently available supply and hopefully prevent further reductions.

Planning consent helps local authorities manage the shift and safeguard their rental supply, especially in high-demand areas. This is especially true given the highly regionalised disparities in supply deficits of private rental housing. As the Bill goes forward, we need to ensure that local authorities have sufficient capacity in their planning teams and, in this context, to consider whether licensing may also be an effective tool in this area.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his amendment, which seeks to restrict the conversion of assured private rental sector tenancies into short-term lets, and the noble Lords, Lord Truscott, Lord Young and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Thornhill, for taking part in this debate.

The Government recognise that while short-term lets can benefit the tourist economy, they can also impact on the availability and affordability of housing, including in the private rented sector. I understand noble Lords’ frustration that little has been done to assess the impact of this as its development has accelerated over recent years.

As we have discussed at earlier stages of the Bill, we share concerns that landlords may be leaving the private rented sector to instead provide short-term lets. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, gave some figures about reductions in the rental market, but statistics released on 28 April from Rightmove’s rental tracker told a very different story. Its property site found that the number of new properties coming to the market in March was 11% ahead of the same period last year, while the overall number of rental properties is 18% up on 2024, just months before the legislation is set to come into force this summer, so there are differing opinions about the impact.

To address the issues that noble Lords have raised, the Bill includes a provision to ensure landlords will not be able to evict tenants simply to return the property to a holiday let. As many noble Lord will be aware, we have also abolished the furnished holiday lets tax regime. As a result of that measure, landlords will no longer be incentivised by the tax system to make their properties available as short-term holiday lets rather than longer-term homes for people who want to live and work in the area.

The Government will also introduce the short-term lets registration scheme, as legislated for in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. The scheme will collect crucial data on the sector and ensure that all providers of short-term lets are aware of their legal responsibilities to ensure that health and safety standards are met in their property.

With regard to the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Best, Lord Truscott, Lord Young and Lord Jamieson, we are committed to robustly monitoring and evaluating the reform programme and have set out how we are developing our approach in the impact assessment for the Bill. Our approach builds on the department’s existing long-term housing sector monitoring work, and we will conduct our process impact and value-for-money evaluation in line with the department’s published evaluation strategy. We are not going to just drop the Bill and leave it; we will continue to monitor the situation.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, asked when the register will be operational. The Government are keen to introduce the registration scheme for short-term lets in England as soon as possible. The initial phase of digital development is now complete and public testing is planned to start in the next 12 months. During this next phase of work, we will test a working interface with a small number of users to make sure that the systems and processes are robust and effective before publicly launching a first version of the service. It is on its way; we have started working on it and will bring it forward as quickly as we can.

The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, asked a question about energy performance standards for the PRS and short-term lets. On 7 February this year, DESNZ launched a consultation on increasing minimum energy efficiency standards in the domestic private rented sector. The consultation includes proposals for rented homes to achieve an EPC C or equivalent by 2030. DESNZ is also seeking views on whether short-term lets should be included in the scope of these changes to help ensure a common standard across all private rented properties.

The proposed amendment seeks only to allow councils to place restrictions on the change of use from a private rental property to a short-term rental property and would not affect the change of use of owner-occupied properties. The amendment seeks to achieve this via a change to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. However, it would not have the intended effect, as the use classes order does not permit the change of use in the way proposed.

I assure noble Lords that we are carefully considering what additional powers we might give to local authorities to enable them to respond to the pressures created by short-term lets. However, I also recognise the complexities of introducing such restrictions, so I believe we need to explore the various potential levers that could help achieve that better balance that we all want between housing and the tourism economy before moving forward. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Best, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

May I seek a point of clarification before the Minister sits down? If I heard correctly, she said that the legislation would come into force this summer. Does that mean that everything will be in place, including things like the database, ensuring that there is court capacity and so forth?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The comment related to the finishing of the Bill. There may be subsequent work to be done on it after that.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Thank you very much.

[Lord Best (CB)]

I am grateful to noble Lords around the Committee for their support for the amendment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, who emphasised the urgency of the situation, and the position in many other places—Paris, Barcelona, Menorca, Santa Monica —where other countries are getting ahead of us in taking action that we should probably learn from. He mentioned, as did the noble Lord, Lord Young, the disruption to other residents that comes from short-term lettings, and the nuisance of parties, fly-tipping and security problems. That is not the main reason for the proposed amendment, but it is an important additional factor, which emphasises its importance.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, said that we must strike a balance between the interests of the tourism industry and the interests of those who are looking for somewhere to live—and the local authority is best placed to do that. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, was a bit worried about owner-occupiers being badly affected and not being able to let out their properties, when they were on holiday, for example. I think the amendment takes care of that; it certainly should. It is not the individual owner who lets out their spare room, or even the whole house, for a week or two that we are talking about here; it is the businesses that operate on some scale.

I am grateful to the CPRE, the Countryside Charity, for helping to formulate the amendment, and I give many thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, who made important points. We must protect the current supply of accommodation at a time when we are worried about the loss of any homes, which are badly needed. I will withdraw the amendment, but, as I do so, I thank the Minister for telling us about registration. I think that the timescale was that testing would take place for a new registration scheme for short-term lettings over the next 12 months, with a first version then being tried. It is all good stuff, but it sounds slightly slow—the “as soon as possible” bit was the best bit.

The Minister said that other solutions, alongside the possibility of introducing a use class that works—that must be part of it—were being considered. Pulling the right levers is obviously going to be important. Yes, the Government are prepared to do something, but they should take away the message that the speed at which it is done will be important too. We cannot let this fester much longer. With those comments, I beg leave—

--- Later in debate ---

This amendment probes how landlords would recover their homes from abandonment without a court order.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, which rightly brings the issue of abandonment to the attention of the House tonight.

I wish to be brief, but I will take the opportunity to pose several questions, so that the Minister can set out the Government’s position. The Government are correct to note, in their Explanatory Notes, that Part 3 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which sought to address the recovery of abandoned properties, has never been brought into force. However, in light of the significant changes now proposed to the grounds for possession, I ask the Minister: have the Government sought to revisit this? With the departure of Section 21 and the insistence that landlords must rely on specific grounds for possession, as outlined in Schedule 1, what options are available to a landlord if a tenant abandons their property?

I would welcome clarity on several practical matters. For example, is there a requirement for specific types of evidence of abandonment, in terms of format, scope or detail? How many attempts must a landlord make to contact the tenant? I understand that this may appear later, but, as the Government have refused to implement these changes gradually, these really are burning questions.

Next, with no distinct legal ground for abandonment, how does the Minister propose to ensure that landlords understand how to use grounds 8, 10 or 12, which appear to be the only potential avenues in such cases? Additionally, I would be grateful if the Minister could outline the current average wait time for a court order in such circumstances. What, if anything, is being done to address the underlying causes of tenant abandonment?

I fully recognise that this issue extends beyond housing policy alone. However, ensuring that tenants are able to remain in their homes, and feel secure in doing so, is not only beneficial to them but vital to the health of our wider society and economy. In connection with this, I also ask: from the landlord’s perspective, how is one expected to assess the risk of a tenant returning after a property is believed to have been abandoned?

It appears there is currently no specific legal ground for possession on the basis of abandonment. While the Minister may point out that the incidence of abandonment is low, this is not a justification for leaving the issue unaddressed, particularly now, when the framework for possession is being overhauled. Getting abandoned properties back into the rental market will allow others to benefit from that tenancy and a tenant who has abandoned a property to not accumulate further unpaid rent.

I ask whether the Government gave any consideration to amending Part 3 of the Housing and Planning Act, especially in light of the proposed removal of assured shorthold tenancies, which Part 3 originally referenced.

I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to provide clarity and, where necessary, commit to reviewing this area further. I look forward to her response.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, before the Minister stands up to respond, I just make the point that it has gone midnight. We did not start consideration of Committee until 8.30 pm. That has meant that people have gone home without putting forward their amendments, and there has not been proper scrutiny on the last few groups. The Committee has done amazingly well to get as far as it has, but it has now gone midnight. I do not know if the Whip intends to resume the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the central aim of the Renters’ Rights Bill is to give tenants more security in their homes. Landlords must not be able to evict tenants without a ground for possession, as defined in Section 8 of the Housing Act 1988, which we are expanding and refining to ensure that landlords can gain possession where proportionate.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, has stated that they do not support Clause 61 standing part of the Bill. This clause will repeal Part 3 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which, if brought into force, would have allowed landlords to take possession of premises they believed to be abandoned without a court order. However, Part 3 of the 2016 Act was never brought into force. It also wholly pertained to assured shorthold tenancies. Those tenancies will cease to exist in the private rented sector after the implementation of the Bill. The repeal of Part 3, therefore, is necessary to maintain a coherent statute book.

As I mentioned, Part 3 of the 2016 Act would have enabled landlords to reclaim possession of properties under an assured shorthold tenancy that had been abandoned without a court order, provided they had issued three warning notices without response and the tenant was in rent arrears. While we acknowledge that genuine abandonment can present challenges—I dealt with a case that had gone on for years and years in Stevenage—not only for landlords but also for the wider community, these provisions were not the appropriate solution. At the time, they were criticised as a rogue landlord’s charter, and it is appropriate that they were never implemented.

Where abandonment has occurred, landlords will need to establish a ground for possession. It is likely that, in abandonment scenarios, tenants will also be in rent arrears, making those grounds for possession applicable. Landlords may also rely on breaches of tenancy agreements, such as clauses prohibiting prolonged unoccupancy or on grounds relating to deterioration of the property. In clear-cut situations, implied surrender may also apply—for example, where tenants have returned the keys and the landlord has accepted them even if no formal notice was given.

It is vital that tenants have access to justice when facing the loss of their home. Landlords must not be enabled to take possession without a valid ground. Clause 61 ensures the removal of these redundant provisions from the statute book. I commend this clause to the Committee.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I will not do a full closing speech. The purpose of this was for the Minister to give us some thoughts on how you might deal with abandonment rather than going through a lengthy court case when clearly the property has been abandoned. I would be very grateful if, before Report, the Minister could give this some thought. None of us wants abandoned properties; we want them back in use and available for rent. We do not want people accumulating rental deficits that have to be chased through the court. There clearly is a special case here that needs to be considered. I look forward to the Minister giving us a thoughtful response before Report on how we address the issue of abandoned properties. None one on either side of the Committee wants abandoned properties.

Clause 61 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, talk about save the Best until last—well, until the penultimate. The breadth, depth, knowledge, understanding and experience of the names backing these amendments is fascinating and extraordinary. I thank all noble Lords. I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lady Thornhill who also put her name to both amendments. She signed these amendments and we backed them because it is so astonishing that property agents still, today, have none of these qualifications and that anyone can be set up and become a lettings agency. It is staggering given the amount of expertise that they need in order to advise landlords and tenants on these significant complex legal issues in exchange for the not insignificant amounts of money they get for doing that very job.

Propertymark and others are pressing for this. They know that there are people out there who are not doing a good job, as the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, described, and that they are letting the side down and giving good lettings agents a terrible reputation. It is in everyone’s interest that this aspect of the private rented sector is regulated, precisely because the UK property market is very heavily regulated already, with strict laws governing tenants’ rights and landlords’ obligations across many different Acts. Knowledge, understanding and training around that is absolutely critical.

Qualified property agents should possess the knowledge and expertise to navigate this minefield. Legal compliance and risk management are essential. The list of what they have to do already is long and complex and the Bill will add to it, which is why a transition timeline is essential, with thorough, clear guidance as to what is expected, when and by whom. Landlords are rightly worried about this, and I hope that the Minister can reassure the sector on that particular issue of timeline.

It is worth stressing that without proper qualifications, agents risk costly legal battles, fines and damage to their own professional reputation. We have heard that there are already qualifications out there. The sector is keen to get going and roll them out, but they need that push; that degree of compulsion. Amendments 203 and 204 would provide that. Qualifications demonstrate that the agent is knowledgeable about market trends, property evaluations, but also, importantly, ethical practices and transparency itself. All these things are needed. This would create a virtuous circle, boost tenants’ confidence and make landlords more likely to trust their investments with a qualified agent who would also be able to conduct property inspections, manage maintenance, repairs and rent collection and handle financial management. Surely this has to be done with real professional skill, reducing the risk of disputes and maintaining property value. Those agents who get ahead of the curve and get qualified now will become the best. They will stand out from the crowd in a competitive marketplace.

If the Bill is about raising the standard in the private rented sector, rooting out the bad guys and making a once-in-a-generation shift in private renting, this is such an important part of the equation. The Government must grasp it, grasp it soon and get on with it. At the end of the day, it is not just about bricks and mortar, but people’s homes and livelihoods. I ask the Minister: if not this Bill, where and when?

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for bringing Amendments 203 and 204 before your Lordships’ House today. They propose the insertion of new clauses after Clause 63 and rightly focus on training property agents and the enforcement of agent qualifications. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, who raised the important aspect of parity with the social rented sector, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, who said that, actually, this is very complex, that people need to understand it and that inadvertent mistakes and omissions are frequently made. The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, gave us some statistics—I could not write them down quickly enough, but I am sure I will get hold of them sooner or later. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, made a good point, which I will come back to, about proportionality and the risk of overregulation—something that noble Lords may have heard once or twice from this side of the Chamber. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, whose comments I will also come back to.

Your Lordships’ House is correct to consider the value of proper training and qualifications, and the benefits this knowledge can bring to the property market. I shall focus my contribution on the impact that training can have in reducing the risk of regulatory breaches, thereby benefiting tenants. Not only will well-trained agents develop a broader and more cohesive understanding of the law but their ignorance, and the potential for breaches arising from a simple lack of understanding, will be greatly diminished. With this, significant benefits will also be felt by local authorities, as fewer cases of regulatory breaches will be brought to their attention for resolution.

Such a reduction in caseload is particularly important at a time when local authorities are tasked with implementing the Secretary of State’s reorganisation plans as outlined in the devolution White Paper. As your Lordships’ House will be well aware, local authorities are currently operating under immense pressure—facing financial constraints, staffing shortages and increasing responsibilities. It is not just a case of money; I know from my experience with local authorities and their housing teams that it is a lack of enough trained people. We need to seek to minimise the pressure that we put on them.

We must explore proactive measures such as ensuring that property agents are properly trained and qualified from the outset. By doing so, we not only improve standards across the sector but allow local authorities to focus their limited resources on strategic priorities rather than enforcement. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, said, there is an issue of proportionality. We must ensure that any powers we pass to the Secretary of State are proportionate and can be implemented. While ministerial oversight is, of course, necessary in certain respects, we must be cautious about top-down regulation of key aspects of training and enforcement.

If we are truly committed to getting this right, we must resist the temptation to defer action or consign this matter to the “deal with it later” category. This argument has been, and will no doubt continue to be, clearly articulated across this House. Not placing provisions in the Bill is not only inadequate but raises more questions than it answers. We must understand the Minister’s intentions fully before we consider granting such significant powers to the Secretary of State. Nevertheless, the intention behind these amendments is well placed. Educating letting agents is vital, as they occupy a central role in the rental housing market and have a direct impact on whether tenants are treated both fairly and lawfully.

Exploring ways to enhance tenant protection without compromising housing supply should be at the front and centre of the Government’s thinking. It is vital that we establish clear, accessible means to ensure that landlords understand their rights and responsibilities, and the regulatory framework in which they operate. Property agents must be at the heart of this ambition.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his amendments relating to the regulation of property agents. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Young, Lord Truscott and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Coffey, who have all spoken in this debate, as well as my noble friends Lady Warwick and Lady Hayter.

Amendment 203 would enable the Secretary of State, through subsequent secondary legislation, to introduce professional qualifications for property agents who manage assured tenancies. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his continued engagement on such an important topic—I do regard it as such. He is an ardent campaigner for driving up standards across all property agents, not just letting agents, who are the focus of this amendment.

The Housing Minister and I have had a number of conversations with the noble Lord on how best to raise levels of professionalism. We recognise the challenges that tenants and landlords can face when using letting agents. Many agents provide a good service, but some do not.

The Government are committed to ensuring that landlords and those living in the rented and leasehold sectors are protected from abuse and poor service at the hands of unscrupulous agents. On the point from the noble Lord, Lord Young, about parity with the social housing sector, we want to ensure consistency with our work to drive up management standards in the social housing sector. We are aware that in some blocks, including those managed by social landlords, managing agents will be providing services for both leaseholders and social housing tenants. It is important to ensure that any measures we bring forward on managing agent regulation take full account of other legal requirements, including qualifications proposed for the social housing sector.

Protections are already in place to make sure that both tenants and landlords are treated fairly by letting agents and can hold them to account. This includes the Tenant Fees Act 2019, which bans most letting fees and caps tenancy deposits paid by tenants in the private rented sector in England, and the requirement for all property agents, including letting agents, to be members of a government-approved redress scheme.

The Housing Minister made a Written Ministerial Statement on 21 November 2024 which set out the Government’s intention to revisit the 2019 report from the noble Lord, Lord Best, on regulating the property agent sector. We continue to engage across the sector to improve standards among property agents. We welcome the ongoing work being undertaken by the industry itself, as well as by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my noble friend Lady Hayter.

We are continuing to consider this issue carefully and have already announced our intention to introduce minimum qualifications for property managing agents of leasehold properties and estate managers of freehold estates, and to consult on this issue this year. We will set out our full position on the regulation of letting, managing and estate agents in due course. I thank my noble friend Lady Warwick for the strong evidence she provided about why that is necessary.

Amendment 204 would have the effect that a property agent who manages assured tenancies may be part of a mandatory redress scheme only if they meet the relevant qualification requirements. In practice, this amendment would place responsibility for ensuring the appropriate property agent has the relevant qualifications on the Property Ombudsman and Property Redress. It would also give these redress schemes the power to award a financial penalty for non-compliance.

The main role of redress schemes is to deal with individual complaints by tenants against their agent. The existing redress schemes have a number of levers at their disposal, including the ability to award compensation to a tenant or a landlord where things have gone wrong. They may also expel members from their scheme. However, redress schemes are not designed to be enforcement bodies, so it would not be appropriate to give them powers to issue a financial penalty. Such measures should be reserved for enforcement authorities, such as local authorities. Furthermore, expulsion from or failure to join a redress scheme will not expressly prevent an agent from trading, although it does mean that the agent is in breach of regulations and liable for enforcement action by the local authority.

The question of who is best placed to enforce qualification measures is important and is certainly something the Government are taking into account as part of their consideration of the regulation of managing, letting and estate agents. As I have mentioned before, we will set out our position on this in due course. I am happy to meet the noble Lord, Lord Best, and any other noble Lord to discuss this issue further. However, with these assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.